The notion that Kamala Harris is a weak candidate

[John Dule]

It is increasingly clear that Harris supporters are entirely disinterested in putting forward positive arguments for their candidate-of-choice, instead choosing to double down on accusations of racism and sexism whenever she is criticized. The strategy has remained unchanged since February of 2020, and they feel no need to change things up now.

"no charisma and not likable" ... the blatant sexism continues.

Some people only think that way because she's a Black woman/WOC.

But for the rest of us, perhaps it's time for a remedial lesson in political messaging. Firstly, while there are of course unfair biases in the public, candidates are largely personally responsible for the way they are perceived. Any candidate who receives criticism and chooses to blame external factors (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) rather than look inwards to see if those accusations have any merit is not the kind of person you want running for office. The same goes for their supporters-- when honest criticism is leveled, it is your responsibility to take that criticism into consideration. Take, for example, this comment:

To the DSA progressive left - she's an "evil cop" that wants to incarcerate every Black & Latino person in America and to the MAGA lunatic right - she's a radical socialist that has "slept her way to the top". Just disgusting.

This indignant rant has a nugget of truth to it-- Harris has indeed been criticized from both the left and the right, and for reasons that are (at least at face value) irreconcilable. However, the question that Harris supporters ask themselves when receiving criticism is never "What has my candidate done that has caused her to be perceived this way?"; rather, it is always "What innate biases and irrationalities are causing the public to view her this way?" This mentality may give solace to fellow Harris supporters, who will be able to tell themselves that they are right and others are wrong, but it will not win any converts to their cause. In this instance, the Harris supporter ignores some very real facts (and alienates others in the process).

Firstly, Harris actively pushed for harsher sentences for nonviolent drug offenses in a city where doing the opposite of this would have likely been praised and rewarded. Secondly, Harris has routinely flip-flopped on several progressive causes-- saying she would eliminate private insurance one week (an extremist stance that not even Bernie Sanders endorses) and then immediately walking that back the next. Is it any wonder that she has received criticism from both right and left? Is it any wonder that voters are unsure where she stands? No. To the Harris supporter, these reasonable criticisms are motivated by inherent biases and are therefore not worth addressing. This allows them to conveniently drown out all warning signs that their candidate is deeply flawed.

Another example: I am an Andrew Yang supporter, but you will never see me treat an attack on him as an attack on Asian-Americans (or men, for that matter). I admit that Yang has his flaws, and I often wish he would address those flaws more directly. His willingness to meme himself, while useful in certain contexts, is (I think) often harmful to his important message. He too frequently used UBI as a catch-all fix during his campaign, which turned him into a one-note candidate. I believe Yang has learned from his first campaign and is altering his strategy accordingly-- something he could not have done if he blamed external factors for all of his failings.

Perhaps the reason why I (and many others) are so fed up with Harris' supporters is because we have seen this behavior before in the Clinton 2016 campaign. Did Hillary deserve all the bile and hatred directed towards her? Of course not. But at some point, a candidate needs to take responsibility for the way they're perceived and adapt accordingly. To this day, Clinton supporters tell themselves that their candidate failed because of Sanders, or Comey, or Russia, or sexism, or racism, or a vast right-wing conspiracy. I'm sure that gives them some comfort-- but they still lost, and that is ultimately what matters.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

She wouldn't do as well as Biden in the Rust Belt, not because she is black, but because she's from San Fransico and Biden is from Scranton. I prefer Biden to Harris because he is more electable.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

*snip*

I never said that she couldn't be criticized. LOL, don't try that nonsense with me.

[John Dule]

*snip*

I never said that she couldn't be criticized. LOL, don't try that nonsense with me.

Well, then wouldn't this be a golden opportunity for you to engage with that criticism on a level playing field?

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

1) Her electoral performances have been anywhere from mediocre to absolutely terrible in every prominent race in which she has been the candidate. In 2010 and 2014, she underperformed the average CA statewide D margin by double-digits.

This was not remotely true in 2014. She performed significantly better than Yee and Padilla, as well as slightly better than Newsom; she only ran behind Brown and Chiang.

To be fair though, Yee and Padilla weren't incumbents.

I mean, even if we're assuming that incumbency is a huge advantage, she only ran slightly behind two incumbents and ran slightly ahead of another; that's pretty much a wash. Certainly not "underperforming by double-digits" among incumbent Democrats, let alone among all statewide Democrats (which was the initial statement).

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Well, then wouldn't this be a golden opportunity for you to engage with that criticism on a level playing field?

What?

[KYRockefeller]

Harris will pick Beshear as her running mate in 2028 and Beshear will win reelection and Biden won't be impeached by Rs in the H come 2022, D's are gonna be in the Majority

I heard on MSNBC that Biden Approvals aren't enough to hold H, yes it is

Unless the GOP in Kentucky nominate some QAnon nutcase or Matt Bevin again (not to be discounted), I think Beshear is not the odds on favorite for re-election in 2023.  I've noted that in a separate thread, but he's going to face strong headwinds in an off-year race.  All those people who didn't get unemployment aid during COVID aren't going to forget it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Harris will pick Beshear as her running mate in 2028 and Beshear will win reelection and Biden won't be impeached by Rs in the H come 2022, D's are gonna be in the Majority

I heard on MSNBC that Biden Approvals aren't enough to hold H, yes it is

Unless the GOP in Kentucky nominate some QAnon nutcase or Matt Bevin again (not to be discounted), I think Beshear is not the odds on favorite for re-election in 2023.  I've noted that in a separate thread, but he's going to face strong headwinds in an off-year race.  All those people who didn't get unemployment aid during COVID aren't going to forget it.

Beshear is at 53% Approvals, the Rs thought that Kelly in KS was vulnerable and she has a 53% approvals, Beshear can win, but Rs will win LA and MS.

Pundits are Predicting Beshear to win reelection due to fact he has kept Covid to a minimum

[AlterEgo]

It is increasingly clear that Harris supporters are entirely disinterested in putting forward positive arguments for their candidate-of-choice, instead choosing to double down on accusations of racism and sexism whenever she is criticized. The strategy has remained unchanged since February of 2020, and they feel no need to change things up now.

"no charisma and not likable" ... the blatant sexism continues.

Some people only think that way because she's a Black woman/WOC.

But for the rest of us, perhaps it's time for a remedial lesson in political messaging. Firstly, while there are of course unfair biases in the public, candidates are largely personally responsible for the way they are perceived. Any candidate who receives criticism and chooses to blame external factors (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) rather than look inwards to see if those accusations have any merit is not the kind of person you want running for office. The same goes for their supporters-- when honest criticism is leveled, it is your responsibility to take that criticism into consideration. Take, for example, this comment:

To the DSA progressive left - she's an "evil cop" that wants to incarcerate every Black & Latino person in America and to the MAGA lunatic right - she's a radical socialist that has "slept her way to the top". Just disgusting.

This indignant rant has a nugget of truth to it-- Harris has indeed been criticized from both the left and the right, and for reasons that are (at least at face value) irreconcilable. However, the question that Harris supporters ask themselves when receiving criticism is never "What has my candidate done that has caused her to be perceived this way?"; rather, it is always "What innate biases and irrationalities are causing the public to view her this way?" This mentality may give solace to fellow Harris supporters, who will be able to tell themselves that they are right and others are wrong, but it will not win any converts to their cause. In this instance, the Harris supporter ignores some very real facts (and alienates others in the process).

Firstly, Harris actively pushed for harsher sentences for nonviolent drug offenses in a city where doing the opposite of this would have likely been praised and rewarded. Secondly, Harris has routinely flip-flopped on several progressive causes-- saying she would eliminate private insurance one week (an extremist stance that not even Bernie Sanders endorses) and then immediately walking that back the next. Is it any wonder that she has received criticism from both right and left? Is it any wonder that voters are unsure where she stands? No. To the Harris supporter, these reasonable criticisms are motivated by inherent biases and are therefore not worth addressing. This allows them to conveniently drown out all warning signs that their candidate is deeply flawed.

Another example: I am an Andrew Yang supporter, but you will never see me treat an attack on him as an attack on Asian-Americans (or men, for that matter). I admit that Yang has his flaws, and I often wish he would address those flaws more directly. His willingness to meme himself, while useful in certain contexts, is (I think) often harmful to his important message. He too frequently used UBI as a catch-all fix during his campaign, which turned him into a one-note candidate. I believe Yang has learned from his first campaign and is altering his strategy accordingly-- something he could not have done if he blamed external factors for all of his failings.

Perhaps the reason why I (and many others) are so fed up with Harris' supporters is because we have seen this behavior before in the Clinton 2016 campaign. Did Hillary deserve all the bile and hatred directed towards her? Of course not. But at some point, a candidate needs to take responsibility for the way they're perceived and adapt accordingly. To this day, Clinton supporters tell themselves that their candidate failed because of Sanders, or Comey, or Russia, or sexism, or racism, or a vast right-wing conspiracy. I'm sure that gives them some comfort-- but they still lost, and that is ultimately what matters.

I don't think it's fair to describe Harris supporters as being overly biased/subjective/etc. there, though. None of the Harris detractors before you in the thread had anything objective to say against Harris. They simply mostly used the biased/subjective statements such as you quoted that she has "no charisma" and "isn't likable." Calling out one while lauding the other is laughable.

Now, I will say you do go on to make some very valid points in the latter two-thirds of the post. But...you're the first one to do so in the thread.

[John Dule]

I don't think it's fair to describe Harris supporters as being overly biased/subjective/etc. there, though. None of the Harris detractors before you in the thread had anything objective to say against Harris. They simply mostly used the biased/subjective statements such as you quoted that she has "no charisma" and "isn't likable." Calling out one while lauding the other is laughable.

Now, I will say you do go on to make some very valid points in the latter two-thirds of the post. But...you're the first one to do so in the thread.

Sure. Criticizing a candidate's demeanor/delivery, while somewhat relevant, isn't the most constructive form of criticism. However, it is also not automatically racist or sexist-- as Harris supporters love to pretend.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Oh boy, a Kamala Harris thread. For whatever reason, she seems to be Talk Elections' trigger. I've seen more respectful discussions of the Israel/Palestine issue on this forum.

Let's just take a step back and cover a few main points:

1. Is the 2019 primary indicative of Harris' political ineptitude?
2. Why did she underperform in California in the past?
3. What effects will the VP position have?
4. Finally, and this is just my personal opinion - does she have the personal qualities to win over the electorate? No mentions of "likability" or "charisma" because that takes the discussion nowhere.

Here's my take:

1. Not necessarily. The 2020 primary was a clown car, and ultimately it came down to familiarity, and the fact that the party was polarized between an Obama-esque vision and a Sanders revolution. Harris had a hard time positioning herself here, because Biden was obviously the most credible successor to Obama, and Harris was never going to be a Bernie-esque leftist. The best she could have done is gone for the professional class/yuppie crowd. But there was fierce competition there from longtime favourite Warren and shiny new toy Buttigieg. Yes Harris ran her campaign poorly, but those problems can be fixed if she has the introspection and humility to try to improve. Whether or not she does is hard to say, but we'll have to wait and see. But even with a better campaign, I think she would have had a very hard time winning the 2020 primaries.

2. Harris' margins in CA in the past look poor, but the problem here is that people think CA is a D+30 state. It is in national elections because the national GOP is pretty far to the right, but CA GOP candidates tend to be a bit more moderate. Jerry Brown never crossed the 20pt threshold, and Newsom got just above it in 2018. The only federal-level election she's ran in was 2016 Senate, and since her opponent was also a Democrat, it's not really helpful to look at.

3. We gon see. It means more exposure and an air of inevitability, but it also means the GOP is spending every day from now until November 4, 2024, throwing as much dirt on her as they can at her. I guess it comes down to whether she's seen as an irrelevant pencil-pushing VP, or a consequential one. Sure Biden wasn't a consequential VP, but he didn't run right after Obama, he let Obama nostalgia marinate for four years.

4. She's not an exceptional candidate, but not an awful one either. In that way she's a bit like her fellow female politician of Indian descent, Nikki Haley. She seems like a pretty generic Obama-era/post-Obama Democrat IMO, but a very high-profile and successful one. If I have one personal worry about Harris, I think she (and many other Democrats, unfortunately) are at their element when talking about Democratic pet projects rather than national priorities. This makes Democrats seem out of touch, elitist, and overly idealistic. A successful Democratic campaign, in my opinion, is one that focuses on simple soundbites on issues that democrats and undecideds care about.

Of course, in the end the most important factor is the economy, stupid.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I think the real concern for Democrats isn't that Harris is a weak candidate per se, but that she's, in fact, one of their stronger candidates. This was true in the 2020 primaries too, when she was one of the stronger of literally dozens of candidates in spite of her obvious weaknesses. Not good!

(To be fair, it's not like Republicans have many half-decent candidates either. This is a bipartisan malady.)

And of course it's "her turn" after Biden.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Oh boy, a Kamala Harris thread. For whatever reason, she seems to be Talk Elections' trigger. I've seen more respectful discussions of the Israel/Palestine issue on this forum.

Let's just take a step back and cover a few main points:

1. Is the 2019 primary indicative of Harris' political ineptitude?
2. Why did she underperform in California in the past?
3. What effects will the VP position have?
4. Finally, and this is just my personal opinion - does she have the personal qualities to win over the electorate? No mentions of "likability" or "charisma" because that takes the discussion nowhere.

Here's my take:

1. Not necessarily. The 2020 primary was a clown car, and ultimately it came down to familiarity, and the fact that the party was polarized between an Obama-esque vision and a Sanders revolution. Harris had a hard time positioning herself here, because Biden was obviously the most credible successor to Obama, and Harris was never going to be a Bernie-esque leftist. The best she could have done is gone for the professional class/yuppie crowd. But there was fierce competition there from longtime favourite Warren and shiny new toy Buttigieg. Yes Harris ran her campaign poorly, but those problems can be fixed if she has the introspection and humility to try to improve. Whether or not she does is hard to say, but we'll have to wait and see. But even with a better campaign, I think she would have had a very hard time winning the 2020 primaries.

2. Harris' margins in CA in the past look poor, but the problem here is that people think CA is a D+30 state. It is in national elections because the national GOP is pretty far to the right, but CA GOP candidates tend to be a bit more moderate. Jerry Brown never crossed the 20pt threshold, and Newsom got just above it in 2018. The only federal-level election she's ran in was 2016 Senate, and since her opponent was also a Democrat, it's not really helpful to look at.

3. We gon see. It means more exposure and an air of inevitability, but it also means the GOP is spending every day from now until November 4, 2024, throwing as much dirt on her as they can at her. I guess it comes down to whether she's seen as an irrelevant pencil-pushing VP, or a consequential one. Sure Biden wasn't a consequential VP, but he didn't run right after Obama, he let Obama nostalgia marinate for four years.

4. She's not an exceptional candidate, but not an awful one either. In that way she's a bit like her fellow female politician of Indian descent, Nikki Haley. She seems like a pretty generic Obama-era/post-Obama Democrat IMO, but a very high-profile and successful one. If I have one personal worry about Harris, I think she (and many other Democrats, unfortunately) are at their element when talking about Democratic pet projects rather than national priorities. This makes Democrats seem out of touch, elitist, and overly idealistic. A successful Democratic campaign, in my opinion, is one that focuses on simple soundbites on issues that democrats and undecideds care about.

Of course, in the end the most important factor is the economy, stupid.

This is a fairly accurate summary. I agree with pretty much everything you said.

[junior chįmp]

None of the points, polls, or data in this thread matter. If Kamala runs in 2028 and gets the nomination then the General Election is subject to election year fundamentals which will determine whether or not she wins. What people tell pollsters now is irrelevant. Look at what the polls said by both GOP primary voters and GE voters when Trump announced in 2015.