Why Kamala Harris?

[What Would Jesus Do?]

No it's not easy to just re-assign the funds because of campaign limit contributions.

The brits don't have a national election at all. They just have a large number of local elections that sum in total add up to a national election.

The French have a national election but this last one wasn't it.

All have much smaller countries geographically with much smaller populations.

Even if one could formulate a national campaign with 3 months til the election you still retain the problem that national campaign is going to be taking on a campaign that has been building for the last 2+ years.

The short length of national elections in those countries have in some part to do with the fact that they have snap elections and no one knows exactly when the election is going to happen except for the chief executive who calls it. Our elections are regularly scheduled and we have no snap elections.

Apologies, but those sound like excuses to yield to the "it's her turn" folks - not difficult problems.

At best those points might be an argument for making the pick through the already-scheduled virtual convention instead of the actual convention. Not my preference, but worth thinking about.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Apologies, but those sound like excuses to yield to the "it's her turn" folks - not difficult problems.

At best those points might be an argument for making the pick through the already-scheduled virtual convention instead of the actual convention. Not my preference, but worth thinking about.

No don't want Kamala, I would much rather have several of the Dem governors. It's not an excuse it's the reality of politics IN THIS COUNTRY.

Another issue I think you miss is that the parties in those nations have a much bigger influence on the campaigns and the parties are constantly building their own campaign machine. The individual candidates are actually not that in charge of their own campaigns. In the UK for example local MP candidates have to approve their messaging through the national party.

 

[hexumhawk]

To the OP- nothing is locked up for Kamala. This is a two week audition to see if she is able to move the needle significantly. She has moved it slightly from where Biden was but that would have been the case regardless of anyone they picked from. Watch the betting odds and that will tell you the real story. The Dems will now be going on their third cycle of not actually letting their people vote on a candidate!

 

[hawkjt]

She was the best candidate, period.
No other candidate expressed any interest in running.
As Peggy Noonan reluctantly conceded in today's column" I underestimated Harris...she can beat Trump...she is showing promise of being a talented political athlete"


Peggy has ripped her for 4+ years and in one week has changed her tune.
This is all about winning and kamala is the dems best shot.
She is rising to meet the moment...a clutch performer to this point.

She is kicking ass right now.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Another issue I think you miss is that the parties in those nations have a much bigger influence on the campaigns and the parties are constantly building their own campaign machine. The individual candidates are actually not that in charge of their own campaigns. In the UK for example local MP candidates have to approve their messaging through the national party.

Interesting point but I think that actually makes it easier here. If the top of the ticket changes, that doesn't require other Dem campaigns to change.

Besides, the national Dem campaign was and is pretty vague. Trump = disaster; Biden Harris = better than you think.

No matter who's on the ticket, the Dems have a lot of work to do. Waiting a couple of weeks to pick the ticket wouldn't hurt. In fact it might help - since candidates would (presumably) advance competing policy choices, thereby clarifying what the ticket would campaign on.

 

[83Hawk]

She is going to win easily. Join me on the Kamala Train or get left at the station!

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

No other candidate expressed any interest in running.

So it seems, but why?

A number of months ago it looked pretty clear that if Biden stepped aside, Gavin Newsom was eager to step in. Whitmer didn't look as eager, but certainly didn't discourage speculation.

Biden waiting so long changed things. But they still could have been our choices.

My guess is that these 2 factors made them withdraw:

1. They were told to by Dem power brokers; and/or

2. Trump looked too hard to beat and they wanted to keep their power dry - i.e., keep their 2028 chances alive - rather than go down in flames.

I haven't seen Whitmer campaign, but Newsom is very good. Kamala has yet to show good campaigning chops.

BTW, if you believe that the PTB told other contenders to back off, then the question becomes WHY? Cui bono?

 

[83Hawk]

So it seems, but why?

A number of months ago it looked pretty clear that if Biden stepped aside, Gavin Newsom was eager to step in. Whitmer didn't look as eager, but certainly didn't discourage speculation.

Biden waiting so long changed things. But they still could have been our choices.

My guess is that these 2 factors made them withdraw:

1. They were told to by Dem power brokers; and/or

2. Trump looked too hard to beat and they wanted to keep their power dry - i.e., keep their 2028 chances alive - rather than go down in flames.

I haven't seen Whitmer campaign, but Newsom is very good. Kamala has yet to show good campaigning chops.

BTW, if you believe that the PTB told other contenders to back off, then the question becomes WHY? Cui bono?

As much as I now support Harris, I still don’t like how all this went down. Something not right here.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Interesting point but I think that actually makes it easier here. If the top of the ticket changes, that doesn't require other Dem campaigns to change.

Besides, the national Dem campaign was and is pretty vague. Trump = disaster; Biden Harris = better than you think.

No matter who's on the ticket, the Dems have a lot of work to do. Waiting a couple of weeks to pick the ticket wouldn't hurt. In fact it might help - since candidates would (presumably) advance competing policy choices, thereby clarifying what the ticket would campaign on.

Each candidate has their own strengths they can put out and weaknesses they have to try to defend. For example Biden's age was an issue. Now that it's Harris age isn't an issue for her.

Now imagine trying to shift messages like that on a dime with no campaign structure.

Also what I'm pointing out with the parties in the UK is that candidates are able to piggy back off what the party has built up. You can't do that here. Parties are weak and powerless in comparison to those other countries. However the other issue is that we only offer 2 that have any chance.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

However the other issue is that we only offer 2 that have any chance.

Worth it's own thread (or several).

Another time.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Worth it's own thread (or several).

Another time.

I think it's pretty well hammered out. It's simply the fact that the way our elections work (first past the post) pushes everything and everyone in to 2 major grand coalitions.

This is why I'm adamant that we need proportional representation.

 

[hawkjt]

Biden's endorsement as he announced his withdrawal was the single biggest factor

To go against Joe's choice would have tarnished any challengers rep in Democratic circles.
Dems were so grateful to Joe they were not going to fight him on his last request.