Harris is Hillary Clinton, circa 2008. The boring, default candidate the Democrats will put forward if nobody else steps up.
Hopefully, we find an Obama candidate at the convention, because Harris will bore the nation into a Trump victory.
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
73 points (86.9% liked)
politics
18863 readers
3940 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Senator Mark Kelly
Or Whitmer but I’m concerned about nominating a woman at this point. Country sure seems to want a white man. Kelly is the one I’d pick to win, though Whitmer would be my second choice.
I can’t discount Lichtman’s keys to victory because of that absurd rate of being correct. Right now, if the dems lose the incumbency key, the system predicts a loss. They’d need to pick up a widely charismatic candidate instead, and I think Kelly is about the only guy who could manage broad appeal. Demographically he’s near perfect
Can we please stop with the concern about nominating a woman to cater to sexists who are already largely under the Trump banner? This incessant comment gives me MLK Birmingham letter vibes where the biggest obstructionists are those claiming to protect blacks but still too scared to stand up for what they believe in.
I don't know how old you are but people said the same shit about getting a black man in the office, too.
I think a woman or even double woman ticket would be perfect considering the context of Roe reversal, and the fact that Democrats do not win without the women's vote. And considering there are millions more women than men, it's a bad gamble.
Despite being kind of unlikable, Hillary still won 3 million more votes than Trump. Right now Michelle Obama put-polls everyone and is 10 points ahead of Trump. So enough with this please.
Nah, it’s a valid concern. Securing more votes than Trump didn’t secure her victory because they didn’t come from the states that matter, and lowkey sexism is a genuine concern there.
I will say that Michelle Obama would be a good candidate too, since she’d check off “broadly charismatic” and is probably more than enough to overcome the loss of incumbency. I don’t think the number of people who wouldn’t vote for a woman is huge, so a popular woman candidate is obviously better than an unpopular man. Hence why I mentioned Whitmer to begin with. I think she’s popular enough to overcome sexism, but I also believe it’s a factor. Contrast that with Harris who is not popular and will still suffer that small percentage who simply won’t vote for a woman.
Democrats do not win without the women's vote
Yup, and they aren’t more focused on whether the candidate is a woman over the rest of the nonsense in the country. Male voters are more likely to be boneheaded and feel they want need to vote for a woman. Male voters don’t have their rights at stake and thus have less incentive to vote. The amount of women voters who won’t vote despite the significant threats to their rights but will vote because a woman is the candidate is not high. I’d be truly shocked if anyone disagreed with that. Comparatively, the amount of relatively disinterested-in-politics men that might be dissuaded by a woman candidate feels a lot higher.
And that’s the thing right— it feels that way to me. I can’t prove it. You could feasibly convince me that isn’t true, but I’d need evidence. I would genuinely, truly, painfully love to believe it, but I simply don’t have that much faith in the swing state voters. The moral choice is excessively clear and yet here we are. I posit that Michelle Obama is a popular person in general, and I don’t think it’s because she’s a woman.
Until that evidence arrives, it’s less about the quality of the candidate and more about democracy surviving. I would love President Whitmer. I would love President Michelle Obama. But 2016 came down to a relatively tiny amount of swing state voters, so every single vote counts. Sadly, I’d rather account for the casual sexists than let the vilest ones win.
(Please do provide evidence that sexism does not influence swing state voters though. I was serious when I said I’m open to the idea, and would prefer if it was true)
Edit: an extra thought:
sexists who are already largely under the Trump banner?
If we could replace largely with every, I obviously wouldn’t be worried about this. I’m not looking for the hardcore racists. Just the casual ones who don’t outright hate women and could be convinced to fight for democracy. I loathe to say it, but when things are this bad, it’s worth considering them.
I appreciate the well-reasoned response, thanks. We are both clearly on the same team and fighting the same fight. Such discussion are important and what separates us from the maga cult. In that respect, apologies for coming in hot on that last comment.
Ultimately I think you're right in the sense that we both need evidence that neither of us have, and I'm not entirely sure whose burden that honestly falls upon.
I'll have to weigh the notion that women will turn out for whoever is on the ballot given the stakes. Unfortunately I think we'd be surprised how many women fall in line with their husband, especially in conservative christian patriarchal households. I kind of wonder how many of those women might buck the norm simply because it would be a historical novelty to vote for a woman, even if they themselves are milquetoast conservative. Again, I have no idea. I wish I was a pollster.
This is pure anecdote so take with a massive grain of salt, but my uncle who lives in a battleground state and has the voting record of Obama->Trump->Biden->Undecided/leaning-not-voting has said to my dad that he likes Harris better than Biden. We were both honestly shocked by that. I don't know if that would pan out in the long-run but it's interesting. Ultimately more than anything I believe a younger candidate will be more impactful to turning out undecided low-info voters than anything based on the focus groups and polls I've seen thus far.
I think in the way the GOP doubled-down on appealing to the middle-aged white man with the JD Vance pick, the Democrats could make this about women's rights front-and-center. I say be bold; I say go for a 2-female ticket. Make it about women's rights. Make it about grab em by the pussy. Make Roe's reversal front-and-center. Project firm imagery of Lady Justice and Lady Liberty righting the wrongs in this nation. That's just me, though.
apologies for coming in hot on that last comment
No worries at all, there is a distinct frustration in having to worry about the sexists. I myself rather loathe to consider them. In a more rational society, we wouldn’t need to win or lose by a razor thin margin in a handful of states. I feel that sense of “why are we giving them anything?” too.
I kind of wonder how many of those women might buck the norm simply because it would be a historical novelty to vote for a woman
I fear we may have already had that in 2016. Per CAWP, a slightly smaller percent of women turned out in 2016, and a significantly greater amount turned out in 2020. I’m not sure how accurate that source is, but if it’s correct, women voters responded more to the threat of more Trump than the novelty of Clinton.
I believe a younger candidate will be more impactful to turning out undecided low-info voters than anything based on the focus groups and polls I've seen thus far
Agreed. Youth and charisma, I think, would win handily. From the 2020 primary and her polling, I don’t think Harris is enough. How badly I wish Whitmer was VP now.
Make it about women's rights
Without women’s rights, the campaign fails altogether, regardless of whoever is on the ticket. It must be focused on. I think steadfast focus on three points— women’s rights, Project 2025, and economic improvement— covers every rational American who can still be convinced. The other things are important too, but keeping those in the minds of voters should do the trick I feel.
Thanks for the rational and respectful commentary. I look forward to a future where we don’t need to think about racists, sexists, or other bigots.
If anyone can peel a few red state voters off of Trump, it would be Mark and/or Scott Kelly.
I have an awful feeling Harris will lose if she's chosen by the DNC for us. We need a brief open primary and a debate or two, people need to buy in and have a conversation about who has the best shot at beating the orange turd.
Which is why this whole scramble to force Biden out is fucking stupid. He won already, he can win again, nobody has any idea who would be better yet they're only focused on shoving him out.
I completely agree that it's a dick move to go back on his promise of only being one term, but that's just how it is. All this is showing to the independent voters right now is that the party is a massive chaotic mess.
Do you really think there are undecided voters? This has been the 2 candidates for 5 years. This election is about voter engagement and turnout. Biden and Harris both lose on that.
Yeah, this. I worry that just anointing Harris might result in even poorer results than Biden might have...the resentment against another person that is viewed as it just being "their turn" will be palpable.
If there is one thing that really annoyed people about Hillary, it was the narrative that she somehow deserved it, that it was just "time for a woman to lead" and all that. I don't know how much Hillary actually said this, but if she wasn't, others definitely were.
One way to get someone to just stay home or actively vote against you is to give the impression that you somehow are just owed that political seat. Donnie might be the one exception when it comes to his idiotic and delusional cult/base - the amount of butthurt that guy expresses even about having people oppose him during his term - he thinks he deserves a "third term" or some such nonsense. But he's definitely the exception, and I think the impression Hillary had around her rubbed even liberals the wrong way at times, most especially if they were not white women (I heard many white women just keep repeating that it's "her turn". That was cloying even for me, and I voted for her.).
I remember seeing a pundit on MSNBC shouting at the camera two years ago that if Biden doesn’t run again then it NEEDS to be Harris and voters had “better fall in line.” This was way before the 2024 primary was even on the radar.
As much as I would choose almost any of the other 2020 primary candidates and any of a handful of other known Democrats over Harris, she is probably the only justifiable choice in this scenario. She was on the ticket as the back-up president that people considered in the likely event that President oldasfuck died of old age during his term, and ultimately voted for her along with Biden. They knew she would again be the backup president when they voted for Biden in this primary too, when Biden was even more obviously close to being incapacitated or killed by his oldness.
I don’t think there will be any chance at rushing a new primary, and even if there were, a chunk of people will be left unsatisfied. Certainly a progressive wouldn’t be allowed to win such a primary anyway. It’s going to be Biden and Harris, or Harris and someone else. Come to peace with it now, before the news comes at you from a shouting head trying to shame you for feeling wrong about it.
If so much wasn't at stake, if someone told me I need to fall in line and support Harris as the heir apparent, part of me wants to just tell the party faithful to go fuck themselves with that kind of rhetoric.
The truth of the matter is....the Republicans are just so much worse. But telling people they need to line up behind a Biden (or a Harris) is just so cloying. Yes, maybe once it's time for the general, sure, because we don't have ranked choice and we only have one option, ultimately. Yeah, vote blue no matter who, because the alternative is a dumpster fire.
But this notion that it's someone's "turn" for reasons no one else cares about but these egotistical assholes when it comes to primaries - absurd. It's even WORSE when they hide behind identity politics to state these same things. Why should someone that wants the best candidate they think can WIN in the general give a good flying leap about DEI selection processes? What about policies? If it's an old cishet white guy (think Bernie) they can have some damn good policies in mind and that's what matters, not the amount of melanin they have or their gender. Why should anyone have to stand by and mindlessly repeat Harris is the best choice, simply by virtue of her being a woman of color? It's weirdly specific, too, because the same party machine seems to do everything to stab, say, AOC in the back, even though, imagine this - she's a female POC as well.
Harris will still suck, but she'll do a much better job at fighting fascists than Joe did
The polling so far gives me doubt.
I want someone who isn't Trump to win this fucking election, I don't personally care who it is as long as they can deliver. My concern is that Harris can't and, if so, she should step back as well.
This isn't a time for "Well I gave it my all". Have a plan to win or GTFO.
My concern is that Harris can’t
I think she'll get a huge bump when/if she's the named candidate.
Progressives are pretty experienced at holding our noses, especially if there's plausible deniability about the candidate.
I'm a lot more confident in her chances than Joe's, and I think she's the only other option the DNC will give us.
The youth don't traditionally vote for "Not Trump" - we need to actually excite the voters.
What happened in 2020?
Harris will be enough, just like Joe was last time.
Because it's easier to ignore potential disappointment than ignore an ongoing disappointment
What happened with Clinton?
Well what they said was that she had too much baggage from Bill. And wasn't likeable. And wasn't Bernie. And didn't look like a President. I dunno, I voted for her and so did everyone I know. Seemed like entrenched misogyny to me.
But Roe was the law of the land back then. Might make a difference.
Bill?
He was young, charismatic, and pretended to be very progressive when campaigning...
Worked.out great. Then we doubled down with Obama after that.
Then for some reason after that we've just been running elderly unpopular candidates that are more conservative than Dem voters...
Agreed with this 100%
Yes, this. Let's whip up some real competition and select someone that we can really get normies to rally behind.
I’m ambivalent to slightly negative on Harris (mostly because I still don’t know what her health care plan is) but at least she can express her thoughts coherently. If nothing else I feel confident in her ability to articulate the case against a felon given her background as a prosecutor.
Yeah, no one's saying she'll be great.
She just meets the incredibly low bar of looking great next to trump. Joe cant
she'll do a much better job at fighting fascists than Joe did
Why do you say this?
I don’t think Kamala would have fumbled the debate. I think she would have put Trump in his place and called him out on his bullshit lies. We would be having a different discussion and who knows, maybe a loaner kid would still be alive today.
Cops dont fight fascists, they protect them
Progress was never won with one candidate.
With one march.
With one speech.
It is a pursuit that we all take on together, one step in front of another. Harris is just one of many many steps to squashing fascism and bringing the treatment that every single American deserves. She’s not a perfectly square brick on our road, but she is a brick nonetheless.
Why have an heir apparent, FFS. How about some kind of actual selection process?