ADVERTISEMENT

Lets get this out of the way... What are the reasons you have the opinion of Harris that you do? Looking for specifics not generalizations

You could make the same argument when it comes to other politicians who "grew" as they became older/wiser. Hell, FDR and Winston Churchill could conceivably fit this paradigm (and no, I'm not saying Kamala Harris is FDR or Winston Churchill or will ever be half of what they were), just that FDR and Churchill were considered "empty suits" by many before they rose to the top.

Bill Clinton gave off this vibe in the years before the 92 campaign. Trying too hard, not comfortable in their own skin before the right time came along.

We'll see with Kamala. In any event, she's not-Trump, so that makes her good enough per the 24 election. Her Presidency will determine what happens in 28.
I am hopeful. She is not my preferred candidate but now we will at least have someone who can go after Trump. I also love how it’s thrown a wrench into MAGA’s plans.
 
Because Democrats didn’t want her either. Surely you’re aware that this is all a matter of recorded history.

In the first Democratic debates in June 2019, Harris went after Biden over his past opposition to school integration and told her “that little girl was me” story. Overnight she rocketed from about 8% in the polls to about 17% and donations started pouring in.

Then a month later at the second debate, Biden and Gabbard attacked her record as Attorney General of California, specifically her opposition to cash bail reform and jailing African-Americans for non-violent marijuana crimes.

Harris immediately sunk to about 3% and never recovered. She languished there for about four months until she ended her campaign in early December, before a single primary had been held.
Spot but you forgot to mention that she withheld evidence from a man on death row until courts forced her to release it and that she kept people imprisoned past their sentences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkedoff
I do think she's one of the worst candidates they could have.

However, there is no guarantee that Newsome or Shapiro or anyone else would agree to step in. If they do, they have to run against Trump on Biden's record, have an uncomfortable face-off with Kamala now.
I disagree here. To me this is the best part of an outsider getting the nomination. They can adopt whatever they want from the Biden term and distance themselves from the rest. They don't need to own anything they don’t want to.
 
She is isn't a good campaigner.

She started off doing fairly well in the Dem primaries. She wasn't at the top but she was near the top. She ended near the bottom.

If Biden had just said a year and a half ago he was only doing one term and there was a primary, I feel like Harris would not have even come close to winning that primary. She likely would have started at the top due to name recognition but she would quickly get outshined by candidates who are better at campaigning.

I mean you compare where Harris started in the 2020 primary with all her name recognition and where she ended vs. where Buttigieg started, completely unknown and unheard of outside of South Bend. And he went from pretty much zero name recognition to 3rd place.

She doesn't have a lot of Charisma to her either which is part of her problems with campaigning.

And ultimately I think some of this has to do with her only knowing how to win Dem primaries in California. The only election she won that wasn't in a super liberal area of the country was the VP election where she just hitched her ride to Biden.

I think she has a better chance than Biden and maybe her issues won't be as big of a deal when she can say that even if she was in office for 2 terms she would still finish the 2nd term and be under 80. If people were really serious about just really wanting someone younger for the job, she does provide that.
 
Last edited:
DA of a top 10 city
AG of California
Senator of California
Sitting VPOTUS
Under retirement age

Qualifications are there, seems fine.
I am not saying she isn’t qualified. I just don’t think she is even close to being the best candidate for president on the left. But as mentioned before, this is a weird situation in how someone can run on Biden’s record and such.
 
She is isn't a good campaigner.

She started off doing fairly well in the Dem primaries. She wasn't at the top but she was near the top. She ended near the bottom.

If Biden had just said a year and a half ago he was only doing one term and there was a primary, I feel like Harris would not have even come close to winning that primary. She likely would have started at the top due to name recognition but she would quickly get outshined by candidates who are better at campaigning.

I mean you compare where Harris started in the 2020 primary with all her name recognition and where she ended vs. where Buttigieg started, completely unknown and unheard of outside of South Bend. And he went from pretty much zero name recognition to 3rd place.

She doesn't have a lot of Charisma to her either which is part of her problems with campaigning.
I would vote for Pete B over her in a heartbeat
 
  • Like
Reactions: TennNole17
You could make the same argument when it comes to other politicians who "grew" as they became older/wiser. Hell, FDR and Winston Churchill could conceivably fit this paradigm (and no, I'm not saying Kamala Harris is FDR or Winston Churchill or will ever be half of what they were), just that FDR and Churchill were considered "empty suits" by many before they rose to the top.

Bill Clinton gave off this vibe in the years before the 92 campaign. Trying too hard, not comfortable in their own skin before the right time came along.

We'll see with Kamala. In any event, she's not-Trump, so that makes her good enough per the 24 election. Her Presidency will determine what happens in 28.

Um, sure she could turn into the greatest thing ever overnight. That's not the question. The question is why she sucks now.

That said, I think your comparison to Clinton is incredibly absurd. Clinton was always super comfortable in his own skin, and was an A+++ communicator from his first moment on the scene. He was unquestionably smart, and impressed everyone he came in contact with, and created intense personal loyalty with his empathy.

He had some competency issues, and a lot of missteps, and was absolutely ethically dubious at all times. But comparing the communication ability and intelligence and people skills of Kamala Harris to Bill Clinton is like comparing a high school bench warmer to Michael Jordan. Clinton is in a very small handful of national politicians in excelling in those areas, among the best that ever was.

Bill Clinton also very famously and deliberately ran from the middle in contrast to where Democrats had been in the previous cycles, which has nothing in common with Harris.

Comparing her to Churchill is laughable as well.

Churchill was elected as Conservative MP for Oldham in 1900, before defecting to the Liberal Party in 1904 and spending the next decade climbing the ranks of the Liberal government. He was First Lord of the Admiralty (the civil/political head of the Royal Navy) by the time of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign, which he created. Heavily criticised for this error, he resigned from this position and travelled to the Western Front to fight himself.

The interwar years saw Churchill again ‘cross the floor’ from the Liberals, back to the Conservative Party. He served as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1924, when he controversially opted for Britain to re-join the Gold Standard. Following the Tory electoral defeat in 1929, Churchill lost his seat and spent much of the next 11 years out of office, mainly writing and making speeches. Although he was alone in his firm opposition to Indian Independence, his warnings against the Appeasement of Nazi Germany were proven correct when the Second World War broke out in 1939.


Besides that he wrote like 10+ important history books.

He is a political comback story for sure, but to compare his pre-prime minister career to Harris?

Roosevelt is maybe a slightly closer comparison maybe, but he was still elected governor of New York. He also won the presidency, while Kamala's attempt at the presidency didn't even make to to the first primary.

There is nothing wrong with hoping or even believing she will turn out awesome. But telling people not to believe what they've already seen is going to be pretty fruitless.
 
I didn’t like her in the 2020 primaries because she seemed like an establishment candidate and I’m more of a Bernie type guy. Turns out she is totally an establishment candidate, but that’s the menu I get to order from. Better than Biden at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4 and millah_22
I am not saying she isn’t qualified. I just don’t think she is even close to being the best candidate for president on the left. But as mentioned before, this is a weird situation in how someone can run on Biden’s record and such.
For a long time I've really wanted someone younger with personality and a qualified record. She may not be the best, but she fits the bill for me. If someone better is chosen at the DNC, then great. According to what I saw on social media yesterday, she gained A LOT of momentum and people seem to be rallying behind her.

It's an excitement that people haven't really felt from the Dems in a long time.
 
I am not saying she isn’t qualified. I just don’t think she is even close to being the best candidate for president on the left. But as mentioned before, this is a weird situation in how someone can run on Biden’s record and such.

That's another problem. While she can take some credit for some of the successes of the Biden admin she also is gonna get attached to anything people feel went wrong during the Biden Admin. So inflation which I still don't believe is the fault of the Biden admin because the money supply started to balloon well before he was in office. But regardless the perception is there and she's still gonna be attached to it.
A fresh candidate could have steered clear of it. Even Buttigieg could have simply said. . . my job was transportation and that's what I was focused on.
 
For a long time I've really wanted someone younger with personality and a qualified record. She may not be the best, but she fits the bill for me. If someone better is chosen at the DNC, then great, but according to what I saw on social media yesterday, she gained A LOT of momentum and people seem to be rallying behind her.

That's because logistically it has be her. She can simply step in and take over Biden's campaign organization and it's money.

A different candidate would have to start from scratch. No money, no organization. 3 months til the election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lindemann
I disagree here. To me this is the best part of an outsider getting the nomination. They can adopt whatever they want from the Biden term and distance themselves from the rest. They don't need to own anything they don’t want to.

Well, you are right that they COULD to that. It's true.

But aside from like RFK, is there any Democrat potential that would? Is there any Democrat that would stake themselves out in a different place than Biden on student loans, inflation, spending, etc? I don't see any Democrat that is in a position to do that.

But I absolutely agree that theoretically that would work.
 
She is isn't a good campaigner.

She started off doing fairly well in the Dem primaries. She wasn't at the top but she was near the top. She ended near the bottom.

If Biden had just said a year and a half ago he was only doing one term and there was a primary, I feel like Harris would not have even come close to winning that primary. She likely would have started at the top due to name recognition but she would quickly get outshined by candidates who are better at campaigning.

I mean you compare where Harris started in the 2020 primary with all her name recognition and where she ended vs. where Buttigieg started, completely unknown and unheard of outside of South Bend. And he went from pretty much zero name recognition to 3rd place.

She doesn't have a lot of Charisma to her either which is part of her problems with campaigning.

And ultimately I think some of this has to do with her only knowing how to win Dem primaries in California. The only election she won that wasn't in a super liberal area of the country was the VP election where she just hitched her ride to Biden.

I think she has a better chance than Biden and maybe her issues won't be as big of a deal when she can say that even if she was in office for 2 terms she would still finish the 2nd term and be under 80. If people were really serious about just really wanting someone younger for the job, she does provide that.
Joe wasn't doing really well in 2020 either until Clyburn endorsed him and he won the South Carolina primary. This time Harris won't be running against Bernie, Pete, Joe, Amy, Elizabeth, etc. She's running against Trump. It's much easier to draw a distinction between her ideals and Trump's than it was to stand out in a large group of fellow Democrats.
 
Joe wasn't doing really well in 2020 either until Clyburn endorsed him and he won the South Carolina primary.

Actually it was everyone except Bernie dropping out and handing Joe the baton in front South Carolina,.. Clyburn has gotten way too much credit for Biden's win...
 
Actually it was everyone except Bernie dropping out to hand Joe the baton in front South Carolina,.. Clyburn has gotten way too much credit for Biden's win...
My point was Joe wasn't running away with the nomination until after SC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Underscore2
Actually it was everyone except Bernie dropping out and handing Joe the baton in front South Carolina,.. Clyburn has gotten way too much credit for Biden's win...

That was because the "moderate" wing of the Dem party was having it's vote split by multiple candidates but the "liberal" wing of the party only had one candidate though.

In the end the moderate wing won.
 
Because Democrats didn’t want her either. Surely you’re aware that this is all a matter of recorded history.

In the first Democratic debates in June 2019, Harris went after Biden over his past opposition to school integration and told her “that little girl was me” story. Overnight she rocketed from about 8% in the polls to about 17% and donations started pouring in.

Then a month later at the second debate, Biden and Gabbard attacked her record as Attorney General of California, specifically her opposition to cash bail reform and jailing African-Americans for non-violent marijuana crimes.

Harris immediately sunk to about 3% and never recovered. She languished there for about four months until she ended her campaign in early December, before a single primary had been held.
None of that is true. She was a great leader and the people in her party clearly don’t want her because of her skin color. That’s why Obama was such a hit, twice elected. Racist America only wants whitey!
 
That's another problem. While she can take some credit for some of the successes of the Biden admin she also is gonna get attached to anything people feel went wrong during the Biden Admin. So inflation which I still don't believe is the fault of the Biden admin because the money supply started to balloon well before he was in office. But regardless the perception is there and she's still gonna be attached to it.
A fresh candidate could have steered clear of it. Even Buttigieg could have simply said. . . my job was transportation and that's what I was focused on.

What's tricky about this is that there is a huge disconnect...Democratic enthusiasts, especially in the government or media, really truly think the Biden administration has been a great presidency. They think this is all an age problem leading to Biden's place in the polls. In which case Harris is a no brainer.

The American public disagrees dramatically, and have for a long time. They think the Biden administration sucks. Even more so than the economic fundamentals probably indicate they should. The public doesn't even buy that Biden has been ok or boringly competent. They think Biden has sucked.

Obviously, you're always going to have some bias for your team, but I'm not sure how you bridge that gap and sell Harris based on the success and greatness of the Biden administration. Even if you truly believe in this administration's awesomeness, you have to come to terms with the fact that the public has a total blind spot for it.
 
If you want to see the real Kamala Harris, go to Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. The more recent cackling, word-salad Kamala is not much of an improvement. But, I'm anxious to see the Presidential Kamala. Should be good fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Underscore2
What's tricky about this is that there is a huge disconnect...Democratic enthusiasts, especially in the government or media, really truly think the Biden administration has been a great presidency. They think this is all an age problem leading to Biden's place in the polls. In which case Harris is a no brainer.

The American public disagrees dramatically, and have for a long time. They think the Biden administration sucks. Even more so than the economic fundamentals probably indicate they should. The public doesn't even buy that Biden has been ok or boringly competent. They think Biden has sucked.

Obviously, you're always going to have some bias for your team, but I'm not sure how you bridge that gap and sell Harris based on the success and greatness of the Biden administration. Even if you truly believe in this administration's awesomeness, you have to come to terms with the fact that the public has a total blind spot for it.
Biden and Harris both enjoy horrific popularity numbers, but let’s not pretend like any of this matters. This comes down to a small subset of people living in a small subset of counties in a small subset of largely otherwise unimportant states. The President of the United States is elected by this cohort; the rest of us live in a world of pre-determined outcomes.
 
Because Democrats didn’t want her either. Surely you’re aware that this is all a matter of recorded history.

In the first Democratic debates in June 2019, Harris went after Biden over his past opposition to school integration and told her “that little girl was me” story. Overnight she rocketed from about 8% in the polls to about 17% and donations started pouring in.

Then a month later at the second debate, Biden and Gabbard attacked her record as Attorney General of California, specifically her opposition to cash bail reform and jailing African-Americans for non-violent marijuana crimes.

Harris immediately sunk to about 3% and never recovered. She languished there for about four months until she ended her campaign in early December, before a single primary had been held.

Small correction, she went after Biden for his opposition to busing (in service of integration). That's different than the idea that Biden opposed school integration, which I'm not aware of him doing at any point.

While that got her attention and a small bump, it was also a devastating miscue to me, which is why she had to walk it back right away. That moment, and the idea that Kamala supports busing, is going to come back to haunt her, as busing was one of the most divisive and unpopular (and complicated) social policies of the 20th century.

They are absolutely going to attack her for wanting to bus black kids an hour away from their neighborhoods, and bus rich white kids into inner city failing schools.

I don't know if it will stick, but they will try, and severely undercut the democrats with both moderate minorities (where Trump continues to make progress) and suburban white moms (who are vital to defeating Trump).
 
What's tricky about this is that there is a huge disconnect...Democratic enthusiasts, especially in the government or media, really truly think the Biden administration has been a great presidency. They think this is all an age problem leading to Biden's place in the polls. In which case Harris is a no brainer.

The American public disagrees dramatically, and have for a long time. They think the Biden administration sucks. Even more so than the economic fundamentals probably indicate they should. The public doesn't even buy that Biden has been ok or boringly competent. They think Biden has sucked.

Obviously, you're always going to have some bias for your team, but I'm not sure how you bridge that gap and sell Harris based on the success and greatness of the Biden administration. Even if you truly believe in this administration's awesomeness, you have to come to terms with the fact that the public has a total blind spot for it.

Inflation is the big issue that damaged the administration. That's really all it boils down to. Most people don't understand how little control the president has in that nor do they understand how the money supply started ballooning before Biden got into office.

Other than that they got an infrastructure bill passed. Something we where talking about the need for 30 years ago. That alone is a big success.

I don't think it's been a massive success or anything. I would say above average due to the infrastructure bill. But I don't hold inflation against him, most do.
 
Small correction, she went after Biden for his opposition to busing (in service of integration). That's different than the idea that Biden opposed school integration, which I'm not aware of him doing at any point.

While that got her attention and a small bump, it was also a devastating miscue to me, which is why she had to walk it back right away. That moment, and the idea that Kamala supports busing, is going to come back to haunt her, as busing was one of the most divisive and unpopular (and complicated) social policies of the 20th century.

They are absolutely going to attack her for wanting to bus black kids an hour away from their neighborhoods, and bus rich white kids into inner city failing schools.

I don't know if it will stick, but they will try, and severely undercut the democrats with both moderate minorities (where Trump continues to make progress) and suburban white moms (who are vital to defeating Trump).
They are going to crush her with being out of touch being from California and such. This election is going to be won in the Midwest swing states and Trump seems to have a pretty good lead. Not sure Kamala has enough juice to bite into that
 
  • Like
Reactions: TennNole17
Inflation is the big issue that damaged the administration. That's really all it boils down to. Most people don't understand how little control the president has in that nor do they understand how the money supply started ballooning before Biden got into office.

Other than that they got an infrastructure bill passed. Something we where talking about the need for 30 years ago. That alone is a big success.

You are ignoring the border as well. Or at least ignoring that people care about it.

I think you're going to have a hard time pointing to the things that have been built by that infrastructure bill. If they can really point to what has been built or improved, it might help, but they haven't been running on that yet.
 
You are ignoring the border as well. Or at least ignoring that people care about it.

I think you're going to have a hard time pointing to the things that have been built by that infrastructure bill. If they can really point to what has been built or improved, it might help, but they haven't been running on that yet.

The vast vast majority of people who care that much about the border were voting for Donald Trump anyway. I agree Biden should have acted sooner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TennNole17
Tulsi was rising through the democratic party ranks until they realized she wasn't going to be controlled by the top dems.

Dems don't want someone with a brain, they want a yes man/woman. This was not Tulsi.
Stop, stop! One can only take so much irony in one sentence.

My god
 
That's because logistically it has be her. She can simply step in and take over Biden's campaign organization and it's money.

A different candidate would have to start from scratch. No money, no organization. 3 months til the election.

This is the answer. No one else would be able to put an effective campaign in place before the election.

Also, Kamala is hawt. This is not being talked about enough.
 
This is the answer. No one else would be able to put an effective campaign in place before the election.

Also, Kamala is hawt. This is not being talked about enough.

tenor.gif
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Lindemann
She is isn't a good campaigner.

She started off doing fairly well in the Dem primaries. She wasn't at the top but she was near the top. She ended near the bottom.

If Biden had just said a year and a half ago he was only doing one term and there was a primary, I feel like Harris would not have even come close to winning that primary. She likely would have started at the top due to name recognition but she would quickly get outshined by candidates who are better at campaigning.

I mean you compare where Harris started in the 2020 primary with all her name recognition and where she ended vs. where Buttigieg started, completely unknown and unheard of outside of South Bend. And he went from pretty much zero name recognition to 3rd place.

She doesn't have a lot of Charisma to her either which is part of her problems with campaigning.

And ultimately I think some of this has to do with her only knowing how to win Dem primaries in California. The only election she won that wasn't in a super liberal area of the country was the VP election where she just hitched her ride to Biden.

I think she has a better chance than Biden and maybe her issues won't be as big of a deal when she can say that even if she was in office for 2 terms she would still finish the 2nd term and be under 80. If people were really serious about just really wanting someone younger for the job, she does provide that.
The thing about Tulsi damaging her was Kamala, understandably, didn’t see it coming. When you’re on stage with 19 other people and one suddenly fires at you it’s a lot less predictable than when you’re 1 v 1. Watching that clip you could almost see Harris thinking, “Where the hell is this coming from?”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mister Hawkeyes
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT