You’re on to something. Bad move here. Please not a candidate who will campaign on victimhood. It doesn’t win votes.
2 Likes
One of the strongest things that 2016 showed me is that not only is racism alive and well in this country (yes, even among the so-called progressives) but so is misogyny. Honest to God, I really thought when we had these fights back in the old days of the 1970’s (and yes, I even remember some of them), we pretty much cleared the way for modern thinking.
I was wrong; I stand corrected. Many Whites (not all) just don’t want to deal with issues of race and gender. And we have to confront it in our Party, much less the Rethugs.
12 Likes
I’m glad there are woman that would even consider running because most wouldn’t. I don’t envy any woman deciding to take this one, but applaud her courage if she does. I know it’s life changing and probably not in a positive way. I’ll be interested to see what she decides.
7 Likes
There are other options, say a Sherrod Brown-Kamala Harris ticket. Alternatively, USAG or Secretary of State. It is not the same window of opportunity that Obama enjoyed in 2007.
1 Like
I have no particular interest in going on about 2020 candidates seeing as we’re going to have a bumper crop of them. Having said that, I’d like to see a Hispanic man on the ticket in one of the positions.
1 Like
How is this victimhood? She’s pointing out the absolute obvious and what is a huge factor in her decision making process. Her race and gender certainly, also the fact that she’s married to a white guy, will have huge implications and it will be a nasty, dirty, slug fest. It’s not some form of feigned victimhood, she’s just being honest about the reality of the situation. And that’s not something she should back down from for fear of stupid white guys thinking she’s making herself out to be a victim. We, as Democrats and as people, cannot run around in constant fear of how the GOP will butcher and twist our every word. And we can’t ignore reality because it makes some people uncomfortable.
11 Likes
Even many Democratic men I know didn’t/don’t “like” Hillary (but voted for her) or Elizabeth Warren for some “vague” reason. Uh huh.
I think a Brown/Harris or Harris/Brown ticket sounds great.
1 Like
“victimhood” = female.
3 Likes
Yeah, i support her running and see where that goes.
4 Likes
I’m not talking about reality. She’s absolutely right about the reality of her situation. I’m talking about image making. You know, that thing that makes people vote for a candidate.
@carolson Yes indeed, victimhood = female. You just don’t run on that. You run on standing for something, even if you’re female. And I’m sure Harris does stand for something, and that’s the foot she should lead off with.
Take a look at Ocasio-Cortez and see the difference.
This is what she said:
“Let’s be honest. It’s going to be ugly,” Harris continued. “When you break things, it is painful. And you get cut. And you bleed.”
How in the world does this even slightly damage her image with anyone? And how does this one statement even remotely suggest she’s running on being a woman of color? She was asking a specific question about her candidacy and nowhere does she even mention her race or gender.
Ocasio-Cortez often talks about being a Latina and the hardships she’s faced.
8 Likes
Harris is my senator so I have very specific feelings about her, that is, I respect her enormously. I have posed the rhetorical question you did, and I think the answer is yes, much worse. I’d rather she didn’t run.
3 Likes
I would like to get into 2019 before I begin worrying about the election in November 2020. I am really tired of the permanent campaign.
7 Likes
We have a bunch of qualfied proto-candidates who would be fine presidents and would hold onto all the states won by Hillary. But 2020 makes a straightforward, weirdly reductive demand on any candidate:
Are you the best candidate to flip PA, MI, WI?
Because there is no way to win, in the electoral college, unless the Dem flips these states.That is the be-all and end-all. It is not a popularity test, in other words. It’s not about which candidate I, as a New Yorker, personally most like. It’s about which candidate I think will maximize D opportunities in these three decisive states.
In making that judgement, I bear in mind that negative iconicity will be the number one weapon for the GOP candidate (who may or may not be Trump). The GOP white guy (it will be a white guy) will have nothing of substance to offer. He will attack and denigrate in an attempt to polarize the Rust Belt voters on cultural lines.
I like Harris a lot. I like Warren even more. But bearing the above in mind, I can see that they would be the candidates most vulnerable to negative campaigning. Misogyny and racism (aka immigration) are the number one issues for the GOP. They will be praying for Harris to win the Democratic primary and storm to huge, fruitless victories in California and New York, but fall short in the Rust Belt as the white provincial voters swing to the party they most identify with.
If this were a functioning democracy, with two good-faith, competent parties contesting the election with shared basic values (on democracy, on climate change) I would very seriously consider voting for Harris and Warren. But not in 2020. No way.
5 Likes
If that’s going to be a trope, yes it will damage her image. And not with Democrats in the primaries. As @brooklyndweller said above, she could get through the primaries and wind up a Mondale.
But I don’t want to argue with you about it. Who knows what ground she’ll be standing on in a year, and who knows who’ll be opposing her? I just think she should be crafting a hard and fast message on what she stands for, not talking about how hard it will be for her to run. That disappoints me adnd I would have hoped she’d be smarter than that.
2 Likes
Fortunately for us, white women are not the only women.
3 Likes
Are you the best candidate to flip PA, MI, WI? That is the be-all and end-all. It is not a popularity test, in other words. It’s not about which candidate I, as a New Yorker, personally most like. It’s about which candidate I think will maximize D opportunities in these three decisive states.
You know, prior to 2016, I wouldn’t have given this much thought. Now, I agree completely. Given that we have to work with the reality of the Electoral College (wish we didn’t), these States are going to have to go to the front of our minds. I don’t have an answer for this right now because I think that Rump’s policies are going to impact these States greatly. The reaction to these detrimental policies can vary and I don’t want to appear to be “second guessing” places that I don’t have that much knowledge of. Especially since I think those States vary greatly from each other in terms of demographics and what they would be receptive to.
4 Likes
I thought it was Gillbrand who couldn’t run because of Franken. Or is it going to be any women who didn’t jump to his defense?
2 Likes
You may be tired of the permanent campaign, and I suspect most everybody is, but those who are in the permanent campaign business (pollsters, pundits, image gurus, mega donors with special interests, etc), will see to it they remain a permanent fixture of our political landscape.
1 Like
Can you just imagine Trump having to face off with a woman of color in debates? He’d utterly lose his shit.
I don’t know if she’d get my vote, but I hope she runs. I’m all for a robust and talented field for the primaries. I don’t think the lack of candidates in 2016 did anything to help us. Bernie was the only actual challenge to Clinton, and though I agree with him on most issues I don’t think he was that great of a candidate.
7 Likes