54 ms·

What was wrong with Kamala Harris?

krapp 2y ago
Other than the very obvious fact that she wasn't an incumbent President with an established political record and bully pulpit, and thus was starting from a position of weakness late in the game, running against someone who managed to maintain a position as frontrunner despite having not been in public view for four years? She did very little to separate herself from Biden and alienated her base trying too hard to appeal to the right. She wouldn't even take a stance against genocide. One of the biggest dysfunctions (possibly intentional) in America's two party system is that the "left" isn't really leftist. Both parties are pro police, pro military, pro American imperialism, pro oligarchy and anti labor, and the politics of both drift to the right. The red team just happens to be far more right than the blue team. And Kamala Harris didn't prove an exception to the rule. Voters didn't want to vote for the status quo, no one really liked Biden, he was just the only option besides Trump. But that's all she represented. Just "not Trump."
- lern_too_spel 2y ago
  Taking a stance against genocide would have made her perform worse in the general election. As much as you or I don't want it to be true, Americans like Trump. Being less like Trump is a losing proposition. Bernie lost the popular vote within the Democratic party by a comfortable double digit margin. Consider that before stating without evidence that a more leftist candidate could win the general election.
  - krapp 2y ago
    >Consider that before stating without evidence that a more leftist candidate could win the general election. The evidence is in the margins. 49.8% to 48.32% does not demonstrate that "being less like Trump is a losing proposition." Millions more people voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 after all, and she still lost. Winning by about 1% of votes cast or winning despite losing the popular vote doesn't point to some general cultural bias for Trump, or repudiation of the Democrats except by the left, who tend to sit out the vote or vote third party more than the right.
    - ProcNetDev 2y ago
      The far left proves over and over again that they don't turn out to vote or have too many conflicting litmus tests. If the just move more left strat worked, I would expect to see an AOC style candidate in at least one red state. But the truth is that style of politics isn't popular outside of a few very blue districts. Dan Osborn gave of a glimpse of what a left populist campaign in a red state might look like but he still lost. And half of his positions would get you cancelled by the AOCs of the world. The reality is a 2012 Obama platform is about as far left as you can go and hope to win a nationwide general election in the current US political climate.
      - wrfrmers 2y ago
        That's incorrect - or, at least, not seriously tested with a true far-left candidate with the DNC'S full backing. Dan Osborn was decidedly not that. Bernie Sanders is, of course, the quintessential example, as he polled better against Trump than all 3 of Trump's eventual Democratic opponents. Katie Porter flipped a red district and was well known for taking corporate stooges to task; the DNC undermined her latest election, and now she's out of politics, IIRC. Then there's the case in Kentucky, where Charles Booker had a real chance to unseat Mitch McConnell in 2020; he was exceptionally charismatic and had poll numbers that were rising terrifically fast because he was home-grown and made a point of trying to unite people through shared interest. The DNC shoveled millions into primary opponent Amy McGrath's campaign, and even locked black Kentuckians out of their sole voting center in Louisville, suppressing the vote; right-of-center McGrath won, but it's hard to overstate by how narrowly. She was trounced in the general, and it's important to point out why: because she represented too little difference from McConnell. She was never going to peel voters off the real thing with a milquetoast knock-off. Booker growth in the polls before it was cut short was so pronounced becaus he offered a real choice to Kentuckians. But the problem, for the DNC, isn't that far-left policies aren't popular (they are, wildly, and particularly among the demos that stay home if not activated with a promise of positive change); it's that those policies are anathema to the elite within the party and party donors. That's the actual reality. Which is sobering, because it means that the left's best chance to make real progress would be when an economic reckoning robs that elite of the funding to buy their preferred candidates.

Other than the very obvious fact that she wasn't an incumbent President with an established political record and bully pulpit, and thus was starting from a position of weakness late in the game, running against someone who managed to maintain a position as frontrunner despite having not been in public view for four years? She did very little to separate herself from Biden and alienated her base trying too hard to appeal to the right. She wouldn't even take a stance against genocide. One of the biggest dysfunctions (possibly intentional) in America's two party system is that the "left" isn't really leftist. Both parties are pro police, pro military, pro American imperialism, pro oligarchy and anti labor, and the politics of both drift to the right. The red team just happens to be far more right than the blue team. And Kamala Harris didn't prove an exception to the rule. Voters didn't want to vote for the status quo, no one really liked Biden, he was just the only option besides Trump. But that's all she represented. Just "not Trump."

lern_too_spel 2y ago
Taking a stance against genocide would have made her perform worse in the general election. As much as you or I don't want it to be true, Americans like Trump. Being less like Trump is a losing proposition. Bernie lost the popular vote within the Democratic party by a comfortable double digit margin. Consider that before stating without evidence that a more leftist candidate could win the general election.
- krapp 2y ago
  >Consider that before stating without evidence that a more leftist candidate could win the general election. The evidence is in the margins. 49.8% to 48.32% does not demonstrate that "being less like Trump is a losing proposition." Millions more people voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 after all, and she still lost. Winning by about 1% of votes cast or winning despite losing the popular vote doesn't point to some general cultural bias for Trump, or repudiation of the Democrats except by the left, who tend to sit out the vote or vote third party more than the right.
  - ProcNetDev 2y ago
    The far left proves over and over again that they don't turn out to vote or have too many conflicting litmus tests. If the just move more left strat worked, I would expect to see an AOC style candidate in at least one red state. But the truth is that style of politics isn't popular outside of a few very blue districts. Dan Osborn gave of a glimpse of what a left populist campaign in a red state might look like but he still lost. And half of his positions would get you cancelled by the AOCs of the world. The reality is a 2012 Obama platform is about as far left as you can go and hope to win a nationwide general election in the current US political climate.
    - wrfrmers 2y ago
      That's incorrect - or, at least, not seriously tested with a true far-left candidate with the DNC'S full backing. Dan Osborn was decidedly not that. Bernie Sanders is, of course, the quintessential example, as he polled better against Trump than all 3 of Trump's eventual Democratic opponents. Katie Porter flipped a red district and was well known for taking corporate stooges to task; the DNC undermined her latest election, and now she's out of politics, IIRC. Then there's the case in Kentucky, where Charles Booker had a real chance to unseat Mitch McConnell in 2020; he was exceptionally charismatic and had poll numbers that were rising terrifically fast because he was home-grown and made a point of trying to unite people through shared interest. The DNC shoveled millions into primary opponent Amy McGrath's campaign, and even locked black Kentuckians out of their sole voting center in Louisville, suppressing the vote; right-of-center McGrath won, but it's hard to overstate by how narrowly. She was trounced in the general, and it's important to point out why: because she represented too little difference from McConnell. She was never going to peel voters off the real thing with a milquetoast knock-off. Booker growth in the polls before it was cut short was so pronounced becaus he offered a real choice to Kentuckians. But the problem, for the DNC, isn't that far-left policies aren't popular (they are, wildly, and particularly among the demos that stay home if not activated with a promise of positive change); it's that those policies are anathema to the elite within the party and party donors. That's the actual reality. Which is sobering, because it means that the left's best chance to make real progress would be when an economic reckoning robs that elite of the funding to buy their preferred candidates.