If Harris is the opponent of Trump she will lose. She will appeal to California and New York voters and that is about all. She will not be appealing to the vast majority of other voters. Her statements, positions, quotes will all be used by her opponent which I presume will be Trump. America is not going to elect a liberal from Kalifornia. Also Trump isn't going anywhere so all you armchair ersatz lawyers need to take a break.
This kind of analysis is about as shallow as it comes. Kamala Harris has a record to run on, and some of it was well before she got to Washington. Instead, this piece is about 2 things: 1) Her stances in Washington, and 2) her precise racial make up and which "historic" checkboxes it would check.
We will be saddled with junk like Donald Trump in this country unless and until the Press decides to treat elections like a decision being made by a democracy instead of like a spectacle, a bid for the Guinness book of records, or, as Frank Bruni put it, a pre-game sports event.
And that doesn't start with some nebulous 'they' out there, or the occasional soul-searching 'we' of an Op-Ed piece. It starts with each Lisa Lerer, each Michael Schmidt, each Max Fisher, all the people who churn through the news and offer titillating but vacuous "analysis".
Back when the League of Women Voters ran the debates, and one-shot junk statisticians like Nate Silverman were still infants, what mattered during an election was what the candidate's and their party's platform was and what they were promising to do in office.
Unfortunately, that isn't how the media makes its money so the media will sooner end this democracy than back down from its all demographics all horse race coverage.
The New York Times should be ashamed of itself for that.
5
Everything you listed as concerns about Kamala Harris, I see as strengths. As for California, any Democrat who runs is going to win California.
3
She was a power-hungry thug as a prosecutor.
Very few prosecutors care about anything but winning.
It’s all about advancing one’s career and it makes no difference how many bodies you have to step over to get ahead.
Giuliani was a prosecutor. He doesn’t exactly seem like a model of integrity in his role as attorney for president Trump.
Chris Christie was also a prosecutor. Christie was the most disliked governor in the country when he left office at the beginning of 2018.
When Christie finally left office, the title of “Most Despised Governor” transferred to Governor Dannel Malloy of Connecticut, also a former prosecutor.
Ms. Harris merely demonstrates that women and people of color can be as Machiavellian as boorish white men.
Just say no to prosecutors unless they have a documented record of acting with integrity and in the public interest.
1
"Tough on crime" is putting it mildly. There is a guy that she put away, doing 80 years for child molesting that everyone, including the apellate judge, thinks is innocent. A reverse-Wilie Horton add is in the making. There is also the unexplainable deal she gave to Steve Mnuchin. Her record as California AG is what one would expect from a republican in spite of her currently professed positions.
1
Well, I'm very excited that there are 3 formidable women who have announced they are running for President! Anyone of them could walk into the White House today,take over his job and be far superior to Trump
1
Harris is tainted. First she got her start as a "friend" of Willie Brown. If you are not from California or San Francisco, I suggest that you do a "search" for this history. Second is her use of the Prosecuter Office both in San Francisco and the State of California to promote herself. Third she is an opportunist of the first order and overly self seeking. On the otherhand, perhaps she is qualified for the Office of President of the United States/sarcasm.
1
I believe we could do well with Kamala Harris and either Beto or Sherrod Brown as VP.
1
I was not too thrilled with now Senator Harris when she was pushed down our throats in California by the Democratic Party. However, she had done a credible job in congress, especially her straight forward interview techniques until recently. Her and Senator Hirono ignorant questioning of a Roman Catholic candidate for a judgeship who is a membership in the Knights of Columbus turned me off completely. By her ignorant questioning, Senator Harris showed not only her ignorance, but bias. She failed to do her homework before making accusations that are completely untrue and unfounded. She will not get my vote, nor the vote of many Catholics.
Thanks for reminding me that Senator Harris graduated from Howard, (with a UC law degree). I am so sick of people with Ivy League degrees dominating the decision on our country's agenda, on both sides of the aisle.
2
Why is she making Dems nervous? Because she will ensure a Trump win!
1
Unfortunately for Kamala, her gender and race will be her biggest handicaps. Hillary lost partly because of her gender.
I do not know what Kamala Harris thinks she brings to the presidential race beyond her race and gender. Two years ago she was California attorney general, at which she accomplished what exactly? The one quality which she possesses in abundance is ambition. If the Democratic party does not find more to offer than race and gender politics and pie-in-the-sky ideas which they neither know how to fund nor have the votes to pass into law they will very deservedly lose the election against an unpopular president.
2
I can tell you that Californians have been cheering for Harris since she became AG here. She is even better than the rest of the country realizes and has been my first choice since November 2016.
1
Kamala Harris makes me nervous because of her namesake affiliation with 80s WWF star James Harris (aka Kamala). After reviewing the elder Kamala Harris's record it appears that he lost almost all of his high profile matches and complained frequently about being underpaid.
1
With the disadvantage of having observed politics, at home and abroad, for many, many years, I think the speech for $200,000 to a Michigan mostly Republican group, just reported by the times, is perhaps Biden's greatest liability.
I know that the immensely likable and experienced Biden is not a man of independent means but any prospective Democratic Presidential candidate who accepts that kind of money from a business group ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton's hoovering of so much money from Goldman Sachs was a major factor in driving numbers of young voters and independents away from Clinton and towards Jill Stein or staying away from the polls.
For many progressives. I suspect that Biden's refusal to accept big money from banks is, in the end, a distinction without a difference. Maybe renouncing his access to the corporate trough would make it OK,
2
I find Sen Harris to be wicked smart and to evidence a formidable sense of power. IMO she has a gravitas that I do not see in the other female candidates so far, though I think Senators Warren and Gillibrand are worthy of real consideration. Sen. Harris’ questioning of Kavanaugh and of Wm. Barr I found particularly revealing of her commitment to the rule of law, her persistence and a genuine investment in professional ethics. When it comes to character — she’s got it. When it comes to smarts — she’s got it. I will forever admire her for her question of Kavanaugh: “Can you name one law in this country that regulates a man’s body?”
5
Can we stop viewing political candidates as heritage pies?
As in, This candidate is the first to come from this continent, or the first whose skin is that color, or the first of a whole different sexual ordination. This story breaks Harris into small slices - a first-woman slice, a first-African-American slice, a first-of-Asian-heritage slice - until there's just fragments remaining of the one thing that matters, that says: Here is a serious presidential candidate of great substance and great potential.
The one thing that symbolizes our arrival at true tolerance and acceptance of our more superficial differences comes when the media, the strategists, and all the people who opine on politics, stop automatically boxing up candidates by their heritage and look instead at what's in their hearts.
5
Unfortunately, I don't think she is not Obamaesque enough to pull this off. Bias that Obama was able to overcome will be more difficult for her because she is a woman of color. Unlikely the establishment democrats will support her, similar to Bernie but at least she is a democrat and not an independent running as a democrat. Harris is qualified but not exceptional and unclear if she can beat Trump. Eric Holder is a more impressive candidate than all of these people and should be encouraged to run.
1
I don’t think the right response to a president who has no problem with white nationalism and irresponsibly using fear to ascend to the presidency is to elect someone *because* of race. It’s very early in the primary process, but it is very troubling to me that what I read about Sen. Harris focuses almost exclusively on her ethnic background and potential appeal to black and Latino voters in early primary states. This piece is not alone in this regard, but it condenses her policy platform into a couple throwaway lines. What are these people going to fight for for us? That’s what it’s really about. Obviously, almost any of the already declared field would be a giant improvement over the crude sack of meat occupying the Oval Office. Give the candidates some time to put official platforms together, but PLEASE don’t reduce an important election to race, or a qualified candidate to her gender and ethnicity.
5
Wonder why African-Americans would
support Ms Harris in large numbers.
She largely incarcerated them and latinos in California. It is a shame that race and gender become the main issue
rather than the experience, leadership
and character. I dread the democratic
primaries.
3
The historical weakness of the Democratic party (and the perception of women candidates in general) is that people believe they are soft on security and national defense.
One can be tough on crime and not believe in "locking them up and throwing away the keys." One can be strong on national security without threatening war against anyone and everyone we don't like.
There is nothing incompatible about progressive economics, racial and gender equality and promoting strong national defense and standing strong against crime.
Kamala Harris could be the one Democratic Woman who can overcome those historical (mis)perceptions.
14
Re: Kamala Harris.
The other Democrats should be worried! Harris is smart, ambitious and tough as nails.
We could do worse.
I'd like Amy Klobuchar to run. But if she doesn't I think I'm going to be okay with Kamala.
Re: Biden
You'd think if Biden wants to run, he'd announce right now instead of circulating cautious "talking points" explaining why his weaknesses aren't so bad. Shades of boring, conventional, overly-cautious Hillary! Biden should know better than to be so milquetoast-y with Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren already out there tearing things up....
10
Running and advocating for someone to win an election in order to "make history" is a disservice to the constituency.
It becomes divisive, as we saw in the Georgia governor's race last year.
We were exhorted to vote for the less experienced political outsider with connections to the black community and told that do otherwise was racist and sexist. We were told that we should embrace some very questionable policies in doing so, again because to do otherwise would be racist and sexist.
So, go ahead and promote someone who will "make history" - but be prepared to present a platform that confirms the actual needs of the country and not vague talking points under threat of racism and sexism.
We overcame the threats of sexism in the last presidential campaign - even with the extra threat of a special place in hell.
Voters are not all stupid.
10
Race and gender aside, Harris has two serious disadvantages in the general election. 1) She's from California. 2) She was a prosecutor.
California is an immediate foil for Republicans. Despite electing a wealthy New Yorker, Republicans will portray Harris as a liberal coastal elite. An argument Fox News and others have spent years falsely building. It doesn't matter whether the argument is true though. The narrative is going to resonate with the voters who matter. Californian voters, especially Californian Democrats, don't matter in a presidential election.
Meanwhile, prosecutors have a very bad track record for winning elections. Andrew Jackson is the only prosecutor in US history to win the White House. Either prosecutors run bad campaigns or the public thinks they make bad presidents. Either way, I'm not inclined to take the chance when Trump is the alternative.
Running a prosecutor is doubly bad because the conversation will get dominated by Trump's law and order routine. That's exactly where Trump wants the conversation to be. Anywhere away from from the real damage his administration has done to US households.
Democrats need to get over their obsession with "first" candidates. Personal narratives are important but they aren't THE most important thing. Democrats need to be thinking strategically. I'm certainly not convinced Harris is a strategic choice at this stage. Formidable, yes, but not necessarily in a good way.
10
Excellent comment! I agree!
I wanted to add that I caught a little chunk of Michael Savage’s program (AM radio) early December, and he was already after Sen. Harris over a case that he framed as letting a cop killer walk. I’m nervous about her in a general election. She seems likable, I’ll hear her out - but I think they will put together a dossier that attacks her prosecutorial record and paints her as someone who will make us less safe, weak on crime, Willie Horton II, etc. And it’ll play in the Rust Belt, and then the Supreme Court will tilt right for the next forty years instead of twenty.
I honestly don’t understand why Biden is considering a run. Name recognition drives polls this early and will overstate his chances. At the same time, so few of these candidates have real national exposure that maybe his presence would strengthen the eventual nominee.
1
I don't get the criticism by some Democrats that Ms. Harris was too "tough on crime." She needs to push back on this by reminding, or informing, her critics that she was a prosecutor. As a prosecutor, she was an attorney for the state and was charged with the duty to uphold the criminal laws of the state. The state was her client and it is a lawyer's ethical duty to zealously represent her client's interest within the bounds of the law. To not do so would be a violation of her oath. Like criminal defense lawyers who represent some of the most vial individuals on the planet and who must represent their clients to the best of their ability regardless of guilt, a prosecutor must represent her client, the state.
17
@Bill
As a Democratic prosecutor, one of the big issues the Republicans will rake up is that she was soft on crime. By bringing up that she was tough on crime this early, the Democrats have already defanged the issue. It is a delicate balancing act. She needs to be seen as a warm an fuzzy prosecutor to win the Democratic primaries while appearing tough as nails in the main elections, at least that is what her campaign hopes.
2
I have lived in the Bay Area for a long time. There is NO WAY anyone out of this area’s political establishment should be allowed anywhere near the White House.
The homelessness, petty crime, failed rent control...they have destroyed the Bay Area and it’s not a surprise that so many (including this reader) plan to leave.
23
@Sf
Speaker Pelosi is one of the most effective and powerful individuals in the country. Jerry Brown is a SF native. We would be blessed to have either one as our president. Gavin Newsom is the governor of California, a state with the world's sixth largest economy.
Maybe if so many people didn't want to move here it would be more affordable. I've lived here for decades and there is no place I'd rather live.
8
@Sf Would you stay if the Bay area was not a "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants? Just curious.
7
As a California Democrat I'm inclined to consider supporting Kamala Harris's campaign for the White House but I would like to see how she does in the primaries in appealing to a wide range of voters. Enough with candidates who only care about their "base."
34
Democrats could be nervous because she was one of the least electable candidates in a general election. She's embraced divisive identity politics that may play well with part of the activist base but will just alienate moderate whites in the Midwest. Ditto her attack on the Knights of Columbus, which may hew to conservative Catholic teachings, but is best known as a charitable civic organization. It's not an extremist group and portraying it as such won't play in Peoria or Green Bay. That episode seems mostly like a rookie mistake -- like Harris let her left-wing millennial staff members lead her astray. But more than anything it showed a lack of understanding of American life outside California, which will dog her.
49
@Chris Gray
The attack on Knights of Columbus was an odd mistake. Americans don't associate the group with religion and never have.
Some have claimed it's all part of the democrats' campaign against Catholics in anticipation of the next SCOTUS Catholic nominee. Nothing would surprise me.
6
After decades of deeply caring about one democratic candidate or another, in 2020 I care only that we win.
I am not, in a fair world, thrilled that a former prosecutor gets to be the hero, but if it works to rid of us President Trump, I am fine with it. On criminal justice issues, i can say confidently that 95+% of you are newcomers. Those of us (mostly those who were defense attorneys in the system or people whose relatives had been charged) who were saying 30 years ago what is popular today were looked at askance by all the rest. I suspect the same is true on other issues with which i have less familiarity. We need to win. Vote the Democratic candidate in November 2020. The purity arguments can come after. We can tear ourselves apart when we have stopped ourselves from being ripped apart.
157
It's way too early to start speculating about the possible strengths and weaknesses of the Democrats planning to run. At this point, however, in my opinion any of the Democrats who've declared they'll run and who are still thinking about running would be such a vast improvement over what we have that I'd gladly pull the lever for any of them.
4
Sen. Harris does check all the boxes for a candidate - sort of a younger Michelle Obama in talent, intelligence, articulation and likability. Would be a great VP under Biden for his one term
1
@irv wengrow I agree with one significant exception — Sen. Harris does not need to be number 2 before she can be number 1. Those days are over; she is a contender in her own right.
@irv wengrow Hi, Michelle Obama is 55 and Kamala Harris is 54.
1
Let's all br honest: we all want Kamala Harris to win because she's a black woman. It would annoy everyone who voted for Trump, to have to take instructions from a black woman for four years. It's a fun fantasy, but it's a terrible strategy for winning over the racist US heartland.
1
@Byrd: It's a terrible strategy for anywhere. We should elect candidates based on their qualifications and positions, but we're not there yet. As long as she's the un-white male candidate, that's how she'll have to run.
@Byrd Although I would be pleased to have a person of color, male or female, in the Oval Office, I support Kamala Harris because of her intelligence, her commitment to the rule of law and her ethical stance. I don’t see her as a way to ‘annoy’ Trump and his supporters, I see her as reflecting a way forward, into the 21st century. As an example, Sen Harris noted that she wants people to be able to see themselves in their government leaders. (All that said, I will confess to schandenfreud if she were to win the presidency as it relates to the current racist in the WH)
@Byrd Winning over racists should be of no concern to any nationally elected leader. They should, you know, lead. Racists rarely change their mind. If any POTUS could have done so through leading by example, it would have been 44.
I believe Kamala Harris would be a good candidate because she is intelligent and tough. She is a formidable Senator to come across during commitee hearings. Of course, we need to see and hear more from her before making any decisions, but to reduce her candidacy in that way is playing into what will inevitably be Trump's narrative.
To possibly have a federal prosecutor follow Trump’s criminal presidency seems fitting.
Can she apply her “tough on crime” attitudes toward Trump, and support prosecuting him for his many crimes against our beloved country?
4
@Annabelle Winne: I believe she worked for the state, not the fed. Still, she was a prosecutor, and that would seem fitting.
no concern about her years in a godless socialist country that's a mortal national security threat to the united states of hysteria?
she went to high school in montreal....she might be a manchurian candidate.
trump for the russians and harris for canada.
could be the end of the line for the usa......
2
I for one, would welcome our new Canadian overlord
1
Sorry no woman especially a multiracial one from California is going to win the Presidency. The rat brained populace will vote to the alpha male every time.
1
@philip
This is a valid concern, but Trump is no alpha male. Alpha males don't wait for a golf cart to carry them two blocks, like Trump on his first Europe trip. Kamala Harris is not only light years beyond Trump in intellect, she's probably physically stronger and tougher as well.
Granted, though, many people don't seem to see this when Trump plays dress-up with a hard hat and a shovel, even though he has probably never held a shovel outside a photo op.
2
A democratic Donald Duck could beat Donald Trump in California. Midwest, Midwest, Midwest..
3
Ms. Harris is controversial enough that half of the country will love her and the other half will hate her. She's competent and focused, but she's from California and liberal. The vote will be split 50/50 and the next president will be chosen by a few swing voters and whichever candidate games the electoral college best.
Nothing new there... Shades of 2016.
4
I may be missing something, but at this point I do not understand why Kamala Harris should be considered seriously for president. She does not have a record such as a governor does, which could give comfort to those concerned about the president's ability to carry out the office. She has not shown the vision or eloquence that characterized Barack Obama. She's a first-term senator and a former prosecutor--what makes her stand out from the pack, in terms of who would make the best president?
14
Trump destroyed conventional wisdom about required political pedigree. If the mayor of South Bend thinks he has the chops to run, it suggests these budding candidates sense something very disruptive among the voters.
3
Uh, Barack Obama had only a few more years experience as a Senator when he ran. Prior to that he was in the state legislature for one term. Before that, a Community Organizer.
Kamala Harris has at least as much experience as Obama.
Not that that is saying much, from a historical perspective. Trump was elected President and his only experience was being head of a NYC crime family.
6
@JJM
Because NYT wants her to be seriously considered for president obviously.
I mean she would make history is such a poor talking point. Every african american woman in the country would make history if they were elected, that doesn't mmake them formidable.
4
If we want a progressive & fresh candidate with minority background in the Democratic party, Ms. Harris is not the desirable candidate. On the other hand, Mr. Andrew Yang, an Asian American & entrepreneur, should be ideal. His policy includes Universal Income, Medicare for All, and a suite of other progressive policies are very refreshing and energizing. But if we want a proven veteran in the politics, then Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren would be ideal.
4
Ms Harris makes me nervous for one simple reason - can she win the votes in the mid western states needed to win the election?
Getting 80% of votes in NY and CA won’t win the election and will mean four more years of carnage
8
@Chicago Paul
While I admire Ms. Harris she hasn't the experience it takes on the national level. She will never win the flyover states nor win over any of those who voted for Bone Spurs. She is not the candidate to beat him in 2020. Should the Dems put her name as candidate she will lose and give us 4 more years of hell.
6
Harris appears to be a skilled fundraiser. That's what really matters. Sanders would not have had a chance without his fundraising skills, and he went a far distance with them. Clinton was the fundraising-ist juggernaut of them all.
It all the breathless commentary about this or that candidate, it's the fundraising that matters, regardless of party or positions on the issues.
3
I like Bernie Sanders, he has some good ideas. However, he promised a chicken in every pot and everyone knows that is impossible especially now will our 3 trillion national debt. I think he wants to run again, but he will only be a "spoiler" like he was the last time. We need all the votes we can get in order to get this "president" out of office.
1
If it was possible I would draft Nancy Pelosi. Nancy gets under Trump's skin like no other man or woman. Trump is accustomed to people who tell him the sun rises and sets on him. Trump has a problem with a woman he can't bully or buy off. Want to beat Trump in 2020 if he is not wearing a pinstripe suit you must stand toe to toe with him. Show Trump any weakness and he goes for the jugular.
10
If things go as they might, Pelosi might be the first woman president before 2020. Neither trump nor pence have clean hands.
10
@Steven McCain
That's actually one of Kamala Harris' greatest strengths against Trump: she will bring her skills as a former prosecutor to the debates. She will utterly destroy our incoherent man-child president in the debates. I'm not sure if she can win the presidency, but the debates will be must-see TV, that's for sure. Harris is not lacking in strength.
I find the problematizing language used in this article to be suggestive of bias against Ms. Harris, and I would caution the Times to get its tone right. 'Making Democrats nervous' in your lede suggests that she is not a Democrat and somehow different and dangerous. Why not just state that she is a formidable contender for the Democratic nomination, and why that is so? This juicing up of the rhetoric regarding political campaigns is annoying. Please stop.
26
Indeed. These tedious tropes about nervous and divided democrats appear too often in this paper’s commentary that poses as news. Getting more than a little offensive
You know that you're dealing with silly o'clock when the top of the resume refers to a person's race and their gender.
16
@SteveRR
Really? You mean being black and a woman wouldn't mean anything to those who voted for Trump? As opposed to a democrat who was white and male?
If you think race and gender don't matter in this country, you're wrong. Whether it should matter is another question.
LOL- it is the GOP that is worried about Kamala Harrids. hat can clearly be seen by the many Troll-like comments already posted here. One calls her “...a would-be totalitarian despot...”.
2
Just wondering: Why are Democrats always labeled "nervous" (or "unhappy" or "scared" or "apprehensive") and yet none of those labels ever apply to Trumpublicans?
"Believe me", the R's are as "nervous" as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
But you'd never know that from headlines in the NYTimes.
14
The rationale in this article meant to reflect Harris's formidability are spurious - and I'm cautiously optimistic about her. That she's female, Asian American, or African American seem immaterial as "qualifications" for her candidacy.
She clearly has some history as California's Attorney General that will come under fire and require explanation (rationalization?). Her limited tenure as a Senator is a valid concern, as is her ability to attract support beyond a perceived liberal "coastal elite."
However, I've been more impressed by what I've seen during the Kavanaugh and other hearings. Unlike Graham or even Booker, she's not a grandstander. She doesn't brook the obfuscating nonsense that Kavanaugh and Zuckerberg threw out there. She wasted no time in stopping them and calling them to account. She's direct and cuts to the chase.
So far her initial platform is broad and a bit vague. She needs refinement around several key issues and creation of specific plans to implement change. If she does so, and can stay on message despite the static of multiple candidates and Republican nay saying, I think she has a chance.
Restated then, her directness, coupled with resonant issues and actionable plans, as well as her relative youth, make her a much more relevant and formidable candidate than anything stated in this column.
She's much more fearful as a "kick butt and take names" candidate than just a female or ethnic "first."
19
I cannot, no matter my hope to see a woman as president before I turn up my aching toes, vote for someone with whisk brooms on her eyes.
Is there someone else out there?
4
@Rea Tarr Between men fearing female leadership and half the women nitpicking over the most non-political reasons...this right here is why women may not ascend to the presidency in this country any time soon.
Sista-girl, two other women have announced--have you checked them out, or are they using too much blush to suit you?
8
@Rea Tarr and so begins commentary on her appearance...
6
What does that have to do with how this person’s policies would affect the lives of you and every other American?
We got where we are today because this process just isn’t about policy, philosophy and effectiveness in making government work for the people again. That places me firmly in Sen. Warren’s camp. But it’s disgusting to me that we are going to hear people say all kinds of things about the three and counting female candidates, and we’ll probably do a lot of ethnic stereotyping too, and before you know it we aren’t figuring out what to do about a burning Rome at all.
That Video. The thing is - the first version was totally believable because First/Native Americans are still persecuted and discriminated against - often - by the Federal Government (Standing Rock, woman who called Police on 2 kids touring a college) - AND Trump (and his supporters) are known to be hostile to - well - just about everyone. However, the way the "story" played out seemed very similar to FBI revelations about Russian interference in our elections - the fanning of fabricated events to create a vitriolic environment. I hope this event 1) stops news outlets from publishing things that lack true journalistic integrity. 2) People pause for a moment and wonder what more can be done to advocate for First Americans and 3) People Stop believing what they read from unsubstantiated sources.
2
I have a problem with "Progressives" who became progressive basically last week. Please question their commitment to Medicare for All, free college, and every other issue now polling well with voters. Candidates depend upon voters not being able to think past their noses and upon voters eating up whatever a candidate happens to say this week. Give me a candidate who has decades of consistency.
8
Covington was a pure macho showdown with culture the red herring. If either the young man or the old man had turned away, theirs would have been the victory. But no, like the red-hot focus of a circling hawk their eyes locked in on the prey before them. The ultimate stare-down, the promise of all that is shallow, at close range. Quite a media event!
5
Joe Biden supporters, I have two words for you Michael Foote. A whole new generation will see you plagiarize the British Labour politician on TV. That will doom you with younger voters who only know you as Obama's Veep.
As to Ms Harris, she is certainly a capable and formidable presence not to be discounted in the nominating process. She would have a number of strong natural constituencies but her record as AG would throw a few red flags with some Democratic voters that could be problematic. In a general election campaign the heartland would see her marrying same sex couples which is a dog whistle among many evangelicals and socially conservative voters in swing states.
This video would be run day and night by soft money GOP groups in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina and any other state where there are lots of socially conservative voters and a close poll.
https://youtu.be/XwEja24RALA
She needs to inoculate herself against such attacks by early on claiming the issue or it might be used against her later.
2
She has built a great candidacy...for 2024. It's a mistake to jump into this next election. She should build off her record as AG with a very active Senate record. In my opinion, she is already off to a great start if her goal is to build a coalition of voters across the Democrats and Independents. The number of bi-partisan legislation and support she has received for her bills sticks out as a positive to me. And it's not a weak bi-partisnaship where she is selling out her values for votes. She has put legislation together that has resonated with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. I'd prefer to see her continue that and shape her public character and run in 2024.
3
Kamala Harris makes Democrats nervous because although she is a formidable contender for the Democratic nomination, she can’t win a general election, and they know it.
6
Opportunism reminds me of the current office holder: that makes me nervous.
5
Remember BARACK OBAMA when he was a freshman Senator from Illinois? Many people in the Democratic Party became enamored of him and urged him to seek the presidency in 2008.
While I liked him, I was, at the outset, doubtful that he would gain much traction as a candidate and survive the primaries. After all, the United States, for all its boasts, is a RACIST country and I doubted that many white Americans across the board would embrace him as a candidate.
Happily, I was proven wrong, the Democratic Party made Obama its candidate for President, and the United States showed its best self at that time by electing him President of the United States in November 2008, and for a second term 4 years later.
Two weeks ago, I went to see Senator Harris speak about her life and career at Lisner Auditorium on the campus of George Washington University.
Frankly, I am sick of conventional wisdom which tends to say that a candidate is who either leftist or a center-leftist cannot be elected President. Fifty-five years ago, no-one thought a right-wing or center-right candidate from a major political party could conceivably be elected President. We were then in the Kennedy/Johnson Era. Well, we got Richard Nixon in November 1968 and ever since, our Presidents have tended to be centrist, center-right, or right wing.
While I am impressed with Kamala Harris (a fellow Baby Boomer), I am for Elizabeth Warren.
3
Let's have 2 economists--a moderate Republican and a moderate Democrat--analyze her proposals, and those of every candidate including Trump, to see if they are workable re: adding to debt.
4
I'm an older white male who reluctantly voted for Clinton in the last election. I'm a veteran of the Vietnam war and the subsequent anti-war protests. I've voted a straight democratic ticket for my entire life. I find that I now support addressing the illegal immigration problem that will increase with climate change and the trade and intellectual properties issues that should have been addressed 25 years ago are important. I've tired of the identity politics of the Democratic party. I will never vote for Trump and I despise the way in which Republicans are addressing these issues and not addressing climate change. I'm among those many middle of America voters that the democrats are losing and I'm not really middle class working. Unless there is some change in the Democratic party I'll be among those who simply can no longer vote for either party.
11
@hd
You said a mouthful, representing many others, including me. HRC ignored the rust belt and insulted working people. Her Limousine Liberal campaign did a horrible job, and she lost.
I need more info on Harris and other Dem possibilities before I choose.
Right now, I'd say we need someone who is experienced but not "old news." Someone who actually cares about working-class Americans. Not an eyes-bulging screamer. Someone who reaches across the aisle rather than demonizing the opposition. Fairly progressive but also pragmatic.
How about Sherrod Brown and/or Amy Klobuchar?
3
Kamala Harris will be a formidable candidate in the future but I do not believe she will win now. She is very much needed in the Senate now.
Even though the Democrats want anyone but Trump, if they don't get their act together, we will have a GOP president, I am sad to say.
Since the progressives have already vowed to oust the moderates, we can be assured that the Democratic Party will disintegrate from within.
Identity politics works in the House, but this is a big country.
4
@Deb
"Since the progressives have already vowed to oust the moderates, we can be assured that the Democratic Party will disintegrate from within." or Since the moderates have already vowed to oust the Progressives. Way to go to divide the party.
2
@Deb
Sure, but just remember, Deb, that "identity politics" is right-wing-sneer, just as "politically incorrect" is.
"Identity politics" was made up to undermine and minimize persons who are not included within the law: Women, gays, etc. It was a sneer to shut them up. For instance, I am woman, atheist and old. "Identity politics", sneer the righties. I scream about not being legally equal within the Constitution: "Identity politics!" scream the Magas.
But it is simply pure jealousy, Deb.
The only thing that they can scream about is "TAX CUTS! WORK FOR MEDICAL CARE!"
Yeah... that just isn't the same.
Anything that they want to bring up is going to cost them votes: Slashing programs like WIC or SNAP, charter schools, getting rid of the EPA or making more private jails.
Well, they still have "Guns 'n God", right?
Oh, and the NRA.....
2
So the Dems plan to run a female contender, will you again describe those who don't support her policies as sexist, racist. And what if the next republican contender is Susan Collins? Wouldn't every feminist be obligated to vote for her?
I really thought that a persons race and gender should be irrelevant, why are they important considerations for this office? Why should those "identiy" issues be more important than the policies that affect the inclusive working class.
32
@R.B. Race and gender irrelevant in America? Maybe next century.
3
@R.B. Senator Harris is also very intelligent, a decent honest person.
5
@R.B.
Exactly. Voting by gender or race or age is always the wrong thing to do. It is foolish, unnecessarily limiting the possibilities for finding the best candidate who can also win, which is almost the only thing that counts in 2020.
4
She makes Democrats nervous because she'll lose to Trump. End of story.
24
...and just to darn old, sorry. End of end of story.
1
Get back to me next year.
So far, I do have a person I'm watching - but that is based on that person's LONG voting history.
Please check out any candidate's record before you start working for them.
If you check Harris' record for work in the Senate, then, frankly, there's not much there.
And, Full Disclosure: I did not vote for Harris as my Senator. I found her record as AG to be too thin and too puzzling for a supposed "progressive". In fact, she is a "centrist" at best and that's not my cuppa tea.
I'll wait for the voting record.... in several years.
16
I love democracy.
The primaries themselves are where the voters will listen and learn, and take the power into their hands. Each candidate will have many months to make their ideas known, and be forced to answer questions as to attitudes and past stupidities.
I am looking forward to this election season, assuming of course that Trump doesn't actually lead us off a nuclear cliff. Each candidate will bring ideas and constituencies to the final votes, and that is what counts.
I would love a President that is as capable as Kamala Harris, though Mitch McConnell would do what he did with President Obama, and from the first second do what he could to destroy her. Her Senate seat is safe, unlike Warren's, for if she were to win the White House, Massachusetts might elect a Republican Senator.
Bernie Sanders would have been President if the Democratic Party had left it to the voters and not put their thumb on the scales. I can only hope the will of the voters is free of that this time.
Hugh
13
@Hugh Massengill
In 2016, McConnell refused to join President Obama in a bi-partisan statement warning the American public that Russia was trying to interfere with our election. We have to wonder why. It's possible McConnell is as implicated in the Russia mess as Trump and will have to leave office before he has the chance to try to destroy another Democratic president.
McConnell took a lot of contributions from the N.R.A. - which now appears implicated in funneling Russian money into our political campaigns. Did McConnell know?
4
@Hugh Massengill Hopefully, if Senator Harris were to become President, the Senate will also have a Democratic majority.
2
I feel like we’re all missing something really big here, like the dynamics of large homogenous groups or something.
Consider the Trump primary. There were 15 carbon copies of free trade, open borders, invade the world Republicans...and then there was Trump. He beat them all, soundly, and then he beat our Democratic version of the same (excepting CA - where he lost big, and lost the popular vote as a result).
Anyone who looks at the sheer number of Democratic candidates and concludes that we’re going to produce something similar is probably mistaken. So far, the ideological uniformity among all who are running and expected to has been pretty constant. And the one potential outlier that we have, Tulsi Gabbard, will be vilified and lose big.
What does this mean then? It probably means a lot fighting over small differences, over ethnic and gender identity. Those who pay attention to such squabbles and who aren’t invested in them will think we’re crazy as a result. Secondly, it probably means a lot of ups and downs without a clear winner until the end, and that by a small margin. None really have an outrageous debate style, so with all of the debates and all of the contenders, these will probably be uninteresting affairs.
In other words, we’re operating at a huge disadvantage here, not because of our candidates and their ideas, but because of structural factors.
8
I think the question you have to ask yourself about any potential Dem POTUS candidate is, "Can this person beat Trump in the midwest?" If the answer is "No", then all other questions, such as the niceties of the candidates ideology, are strictly academic.
14
So far the only argument Senator Harris has made for her candidacy is that "the country needs a leader in whom it can see itself." If by that she means everyone should vote for a member of his or her own race, that wouldn't give her a very good chance of winning.
We need to nominate a candidate who can win in the general, not one who can win in the primary by sweeping all the solidly Republican, formerly confederate states.
11
Ah, the best thinking of the Democratic Establishment, once again guiding us out of the frying pan and into the fire. You'll recall that its seers brought unto us Hillary Clinton, who in turn begat Donald J. Trump, President of the United States.
The Democratic Establishment tries to rely, with ever diminishing success, on the hope/theory of "We're the lesser of two evils, so vote for us" and TINA ("There is no alternative.") In my opinion, where we are today (i.e., Trump and what the Republican Party has been allowed to evolve into) is but the culmination of decades of the Democratic Party's reliance on this failed, morally bankrupt strategy.
What those of us on the left learned and saw to our delight in 2016 with the Sander's candidacy is that we DO have an alternative, we DO have a choice of someone other than the “lesser evil.” We see this choice again today in AOC, which understandably frightens the pants off the Democratic Establishment.
And now, once again, the Democratic Establishment presents us Kamala Harris, the latest iteration from the lesser evil factory; yet another “I’m a [faux] progressive that gets things done,” ala Ms. Clinton. I don’t know about you, but I see NO learning curve here. Prepare for similar results.
19
@Greg Gerner Perhaps AOC might run for President someday. But there's no hint she is now, nor should she. I think people will be looking for candidates with political experience and life experience, and IMHO she doesn't have enough of either...yet.
7
@Greg Gerner
Democrats are to blame for Trump?
The majority of voters did not see Sanders as a viable candidate otherwise he would have been the victim of a corrupt election instead of Hillary.
1
@Holly Anderson How could AOC run for president? She isn't old enough. I do not believe that was the point of the comment.
5
The notion that Kamala Harris will consolidate the black vote presumably simply because she’s black, speaks to noxious assumptions and ignorance many white progressives and pundits have of blacks.
I actually think she’ll do middling among black voters. There will be other candidates that could easily make a dent with black voters such as Biden, Sanders or Booker.
17
Given Harris' track record on human rights, civil rights, and Constitutional rights I cannot see her as a viable candidate. I hear what she is saying now but it does not square with her actions of the past 20 years. I do agree with her that the justice system needs to be reformed but I don't like her idea that it is okay to violate a person's rights to get a conviction. I also know she was wrong as the CA attorney general to not grant access to evidence from her cases and others that would have freed wrongfully convicted people. Most of these were people of color. Some of these people have been proven innocent and released in spite of her actions. The Cali newspapers have this fully documented.
13
Someone like Harris will absolutely unite the right against her, and possibly much of the middle. A would be totalitarian despot whose best selling point is her identity politics is not suitable material for president! Then again perhaps Trump should hope for such a matchup?
16
@Andrew Mason
In a Trump vs Harris match up, which one is the totalitarian despot? Are you not paying attention?
5
Democrats have convinced themselves that going off the deep end of the political spectrum is the key to victory and I encourage them to keep thinking that way.
14
Hi God, I was just wondering what your thoughts are on detaining young children fleeing gang violence in countries with among the highest per capita murder rates in the world. How’s that fit into your master plan?
Kamala Harris does not seem to support criminal justice reform according to this article: nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html
I would love to see a woman POTUS, but right now, Cory Booker looks better to me.
4
The list in the article could be a set-up for similar 'why didn't Hillary win' shock:
--"When you ask 2020 candidates, likely candidates and members of their teams what possible opponent they worry about" This is a very insular bubble of people who have sworn fealty to the party positions. It does not reflect the thinking, wants or needs of the general populace
--"a first-term senator, with little experience" So, knowing what she's doing, having deeply considered issues and learned to negotiate and compromise with people different from herself is irrelevant to presidential qualifications?
--"the first African-American woman and the first person of Asian heritage to be a major party nominee" These are not qualifications, they are demographics. There is nothing inherent in race, sex or ancestry that qualifies one to be president.
--"As a graduate of Howard and a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha, the oldest black sorority" Weren't there howls against the argument that being a Yale graduate and member of Delta Kappa Epsilon were presidential bona fides
19
I'd love to see a Harris-Warren -or Warren-Harris - ticket.
4
@Dion My guess, sadly, is that in our current culture a 2-female ticket would be too much for many people to accept. But Biden leading a ticket with someone like Harris or Warren (or Klobuchar, or any well-qualified female governor) in the VP slot? That, I could really get behind. I'm looking for a candidate with proven leadership skills in an important executive-branch position (state or Federal) who can heal some of the real damage 45 has done to our institutions. So far, Biden is the only one I've heard of who has that kind of experience. We shall see who else joins the scrum.
So would most Republicans.
3
@Holly Anderson
Before advocating for a Biden run, please remember his treatment of Anita Hill, his plagiarism, and multiple gaffes.
She can’t win. No politician from sf will win the Presidency anytime soon. Not to mention that being from/apart of the corrupt political scene here, I’m sure there would be a lot of skeletons in the closet.
16
I support Harris: she's gives us a twofer. Were she elected, she would be both the first black woman, and the first Asian American, president. Or wait: is that a four-fer? First woman, first Asian American, and first Asian American woman, and first African American woman (though not the first African American).
In addition, she would be the first 56-year-old to assume the presidency, which would also make her the first 56-year-old woman, the first 56-year-old Asian American, the first 56-year-old Asian American woman, and the first 56-year-old African American woman.
Harris is the ultimate in intersectionality. She's got it all!
7
@David Crow Can we put qualifications and policy before identity politics? The Dems are going to blow it again.
22
@David Crow
None of what you said is a qualification for the office of president and none of that makes her a good candidate. In the same token none of that disqualifies her.
The US is suffering greatly from sex/gender/skin color identity politics. Things must change if the US is going to make progress towards becoming a 1st World country.
12
@skramsv
So it is identity politics only if not white male?
2
Watching the Dems who want to be President audition during The Kavanaugh confirmation hearing left me dumbfounded. The histrionics put on by The Judge and Senator Graham were never addressed or put in check by any of the 2020 hopefuls. When the judge asked one Senator does she drink beer she should have landed a counterpunch that would have put him on his rear end. Senator Graham's little temper tantrum was not countered by any calls of his lack of decorum. The go high, when they go low sounds really good in Sunday School but not in today's politics. I want a dignified candidate but I also want one who knows how to punch their way out when they are being attacked. I wished when Trump followed Hillary around the stage during the debate she had of turned around and stuck a finger in his face and told him to back up. We are not going to beat Trump in 2020 with a run of the mill staid bookish candidate. Trump won the adulation of White Men because he came across as one of the guys even though he was not. To beat Trump you are going to have to know how to counterpunch in real time not after being poll tested. I personally think a ticket with Harris and Biden would run the table. The only problem would be to find a room big enough for their oversized Ego's. Biden/Harris or Harris/Biden I really don't care. Impeach Trump or not whoever runs for The Right is going to use Trump's 2016 playbook. Leo Durocher said it best Nice Guys Finish Last. We need a Fighter unafraid to get dirty.
18
@Steven McCain Well, it's obvious you didn't see Biden's LA Times interview with Patt Morrison, where foot-in-mouth Biden insulted millennial voters, you know, the ones that came out in mass to put him and Obama in office in 2008. And second, you also seemed to miss the NYT article/op-ed pieces by Lara Bazelon laying out Kamala Harris's sadistic record on putting away, unjustly, blacks and latinos. Yes, these two deserve to be together but not on a presidential ticket. To beat Trump you are going to need people to go to the polls. Running a Hillary 2.0 type candidate just won't do it.
8
@FXQ Maybe you missed that I have no love for neither but I want to win. The perfect candidate is not perfect for everyone. If we go into 2020 with my way or the highway attitude we will lose again.
4
@FXQ
I predict a Bernie resurgence, one big enough to swamp all the pretenders.
I'm confident that there is enough time for the anger in our nation to grow and upset the plans of our corporate owned government masters.
5
I am a Democrat and Kamala Harris's candidacy makes me happy, not nervous. It probably makes some of the other Democratic candidates, like Kirsten Gillibrand for example, nervous though.
6
So someone who supports civil forfeiture and kept an innocent man locked up on a technicality is a “people’s” candidate? Are you going to call me racist and sexist because I would prefer a president who respects the 4th and 14th amendments?
I’ll vote for her if she’s the party’s nominee, but I really don’t want her to be, and I have a feeling that the swing voters who we need to win the Electoral College - the Obama/Trump voters - are not going to like her any more than they liked Hillary, no matter how much they may have soured on Trump by November 2020. They don’t like waffling political creatures like Clinton and Romney - they want their Republicans to be lying bullies who will go to the mat for America and their Democrats to be honest angels with integrity. They can accept progressive ideas if they trust the people talking about them and they can stomach fascism if it’s in response to a real threat and if they’re led to believe it will strengthen the country. What they won’t accept is someone who just does whatever helps their career at any given time without any motivation other than political expedience. That’s why I think we should turn away from people like Harris, Beto, Gillibrand and Booker and instead look at Amy Klobuchar, Sherrod Brown and Mitch Landrieu. Even Warren or Biden would be better. We want someone with consistent principles, someone for whom the heartland isn’t a foreign country, someone who can reach across the aisle while keeping their soul intact.
23
@James Jacobs Excellent comment. As a Progressive Harris has no appeal to me at all. I would like to explore candidates such as Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown who do not arrive with the baggage that Harris brings to the race. Many of us are saying any blue will do but hopefully one that sparks some enthusisam and knows the middle of the country.
2
When a corporation seeks a new CEO, it identifies the strengths it needs and considers those candidates who meet & exceed their requirements. Pre-hiring includes background checks, candidate character, education, and thorough scrutiny of candidate past performance.
In marked contrast, America picks its president based on their "gift of gab", their ability to obfuscate their lack of qualifications. Therefore, moral and business failures (best exemplified by Trump) rise to the top of the garbage heap. Aside from John Kasich, the 2016 R candidates were an abysmally unqualified bunch.
Fast fwd to 2020. Kamala may be eminently qualified, but until we establish some metrics & minimum requirements for our presidential candidates, we're doomed to repeat the hideous failure known as Trump and delusional Pence. In fact, we probably spend more time selecting our car mechanic than we critique president candidates.
At every level of American elections, this failed procedure is repeated over and over again. Ergo, American's inexorable loss to China is all but guaranteed.
7
Ms. Harris has not yet proven herself as a U.S. Senator. Her presidential run is premature. She should resign the Senate and let Californians select a successor who will work fulltime as a Senator. The bait and switch is off putting.
24
I'm seeing quite a few Democrats say they won't vote for Harris because she was a prosecutor and not 'progressive enough' on criminal reform
If Democrats seek to nominate a candidate who has 1,000 percent liberal bona fides across the board - on every single issue, throughout their entire life - they will lose.
15
@Luciano
Progressives are highly ideological, in my view. Lots of purity litmus tests. Always justified using morality. This is why no progressive will actually ever win the presidency. As President Trump said he wouldn't turn the border over to the left. I was grateful to her that. I don't support sanctuary cities.
2
@Luciano
As someone who wakes up every day wondering if my husband, child, family member or I will get arrested for living and working while black, I am keenly aware of Ms. Harris' actions as a prosecutor, DA, and Attorney General and I do not like what I see. I makes me even more fearful that our rights will be violated.
8
I see no depth and I'm still irritated by the high drama questioning she did at the Kavanaugh hearing that was all show and no substance. I hope we can do better.
18
Seems to me that our candidate ought to have as her/his top priority ending our ignition of self-reinforcing drivers of climate change that will devastate our human civilization and species. We're already almost past the point of doing so.
It appears to me that while a few of the 28 actual and potential candidates that the NYT has identified say "yes, green," there is almost total lack of sense of the magnitude of this threat. Maybe they don't read or hear what the scientists are saying, or don't realize that scientists' warnings have been diluted by politicians, or aren't aware of continuing reports that it's worsening faster than predicted. In some cases, maybe they don't care -- "it's a problem for the future, I want to win the nomination now."
To me, among the 28, Ms. Harris appears to be among those most wholly focused on other priorities, on which "progress" will amount to improving positions of deck chairs as our human civilization goes down.
7
As a Democrat I’m laser focused on one thing, and only one thing, dumping Trump in 2020. Kamala Harris may just be the right person to do that and save our country from Trump and his Republican enablers.
Senator Harris seems to have all the right stuff, she personable, articulate, knowledgeable and she’s tough, all things needed to beat Trump. She will appeal to costal voters, urban voters and Southern black voters. She is progressive but realistic and will also appeal to centrists and even Conservative Republicans who can’t bear to vote for Trump.
The next 18 months will be a political marathon and we will see where Senator Harris finishes in the primary races.
Right now, I’m rooting for Senator Harris!
4
Kamala Harris is intelligent, articulate, persuasive, inspiring, luminous, and compassionate. The current president possesses none of these qualities. Therefore she is uniquely qualified to be the next president of The United States.
She sees us, while Donald Trump only sees himself.
13
I don't feel that Kamala Harris has enough of a record to run on. Maybe she can learn a lot by surrounding herself with experienced hands.
I still think Elizabeth Warren is the best candidate. In 2016 I was one of many who signed a petition urging her to run.
Could Kamala beat Trump if he survives investigations and chaotic governing. Maybe..
7
The McGovern strategy; win one state and the District of Columbia.
14
new ideas, new voices
1
The way I see it, the GOP has trump..... and no one else.
The Democrats have a dozen anti trumps and it’s too early to decide which one takes the marbles
8
Hugo Chavez' socialist populist anti-capitalist agenda quickly destroyed the relatively prosperous free country of Venezuela. Now, human rights are gone and so is food, sadly. People are literally starving.
How is Ms.Harris' policies different than Chavez? Not much. Please study economic history.
9
Have you ever heard of Switzerland? Germany? Sweden? Most industrialized states have welfare benefits much more generous than ours. Comparing us to Venezuela is silly.
20
Please study Venezuelan history before making comparisons. Trump and his policies have more in common with Chavez and his path of destruction than anything Ms. Harris proposes.
16
@Joe Yoh
Seems to me you are totally out of touch with how so many countries operate using govt based programmes for all their populations (like healthcare in particular) and these are not corrupt countries either..(unlike the US).
You don't have to look very far to find these countries. Why folks like you focus on Venezuala is beyond me.
Why use a flawed example just because it suits your view?
10
"The school is in an overwhelmingly white, heavily Republican and Catholic area." The imediate area, yes, but an island in a black-majority. Does it have any black students? Seems like an obvious point to cover, especially for a school that started a large expansion right after Brown v. Board, puts the visage of a white-bearded "Colonel" beside its name rather than the image of the Virgin or a praying saint, and even calls its students "colonels." Were these students there as members of "Colonels for Life," the school's pro-life club? http://web.archive.org/web/20170531033749/http://www.covcath.org:80/campus-life/clubs
1
I’m excited by a Biden-Harris ticket, it could rollover the contenders ... instead fifteen or so mud wrestling, a landslide.. interesting .. then again, after 11/16 nothing surprises
4
Harris "doesn't fit into a neat ideological lane."
Is this a euphemism for she changes her positions based on what she is seeking like Gillibrand.
One of the things that differentiates Bernie Sanders from them and Biden is that he has been pretty consistent his whole political life as to what he believes.
Yes, people can evolve and change their positions. But when it appears to be simply a matter of convenience, it's not a sign of growth but rather of lack of clear principles and beliefs.
37
And how likely are they to “evolve” back again once they’ve gained office and the well-heeled lobbyists come to visit?
11
How about this: Trump is forced to leave office. Pence becomes president and is investigated by the House Democrats. His actions during the 2016 campaign and as VP tarnish him so badly that the GOP decide they need a different face. Meanwhile, after bruising primaries battle, Kamala Harris comes out on top. And we end up with ... Nicki Haley v Kamala Harris.
That would tie more than a few voters in knots.
5
I may agree with her, but I do not think she can win.
10
Dems think Harris can be attract that Obama lightening again. Harris would certainly ensconce the Make America White Again believers in Trump's camp. I am trying to find a reason to vote for Ms Harris besides the fact that she is half Black,half Indian and a woman. I fear once again my party will follow the shiny object without looking under the hood first. As for Biden I have grown tired of the will he or won't he run game Biden seems to relish. I wish Joe would either get into the fight or meet a few of the guys at the local pub for a brew. The Godilock's act he plays doen't need a second act. It worked in the book with the Three Bears but at 76 years of age Joe needs to get it a rest. Run or Stay at home,Joe.
17
Does anyone else hope as fervently as I do that trump won't be around in a few months after Cohen sings and Mr. Mueller delivers his report showing trump's many criminal actions.
If Pence survives (although as campaign chairman during all the Russian connections I think he is covered with dirt)
then he is the candidate to beat in 2020.
Unless there is a republican primary.
So the only discussion that should be going on now is-
Who is the best democratic candidate to rescue our democracy and bring sanity, compassion and rule of law back to US.
15
@joyce
If Trump gets impeached before 2020 there will definitely be a primary, as Pence won't be a viable candidate after having incurred the wrath of either Trump's base or the left through the pardon process. To say nothing of the stain of Trump and threat of theocracy.
The other possibility is that Trump decides to declare "mission accomplished" and resigns. I don't think it's far-fetched considering that the investigations are getting closer and his chances are getting slimmer. He might decide it's not worth facing 2 or 4 more years of investigations by Dems in the House and that's it's better to go out a winner. But if that were the case he'd have to decide by next fall, I guess.
5
"Nervous" isn't the word I'd use to describe my reaction to Kamala Harris entering the race.
My reaction can better be described as enthusiastic.
63
The rush of comments trying to take her down do indeed indicate that she is potentially a formidable candidate who is making some quite nervous.
28
@Ben Lieberman Yep.
There is only one real true blue candidate worth considering as our 46th President, and we all know him to be an honest to goodness genuine human being, and we all watched him, during the last election, scare the heck out of all of corporate America, the Bankers, the Insurance industry, and every entrenched politician in our corporate owned government; I like to to refer to him as The Gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Bernie Sanders, the only politician I've seen in my nearly 70 years alive, who truly cares about all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, and sexual orientation.
Americans need to wake from their nearly 50 year coma, get a grip, and become involved in deciding who "We The People", elect to serve "We The People".
And by the way, take note, the mainstream media is already working 24/7/365, on behalf of their handlers, corporate America, to deny Mr. Sanders this second opportunity to save our future for our children and grandchildren.
Remember that the Democrats, and the Republicans, the hard central core of both these self-serving parties, are one and the same, with nary a concern for the long-suffering poor and middle-class, and right upt to election day 2020, they will promise us all of creation, if only we vote for whomever they anoint, and once elected their chosen one will deny us.
Please don't let it happen again, Please.
39
@Mel Farrell. No. Sanders won’t win for us. And he already did the party the great favor of swinging it left of center, where it has always belonged. Time to pass the baton.
40
@Mel Farrell
Sanders let Hillary stomp him, even helped her along the way, game over for Sanders.
10
@Alice's Restaurant, it was DWS and the rest of the DNC, as documented by Donna Brazile and Tulsi Gabbard, not Bernie's unwillingness to fight, or some kind of conspiratorial capitulation. And Sanders was hardly "stomped" when he tied Hillary in Iowa. He needed more debate air time to get his message across, but was denied by the party apparatus.
10
She is an ideal candidate. My 22 year old daughter loves her, as do I and my middle-aged friends. She is tough in the right ways, and progressive without being too unrealistic. I’m all in for Harris.
74
I think she is the only one who can take on Trump and scare him. We need a candidate like that. You can’t talk sense to Trump. He needs his match when it comes to back and forth
28
@
She sure didn't back down in her questioning of Kavanaugh in either of his hearings; but especially the second one. She was steely...!
5
She is a strong, articulate, intelligent candidate who will not back down to trump.
She has my support!
54
From the article:
"The primary map favors a candidate who can win strong support from black voters — and California"
That's very nice but is anyone looking at the electoral map? Our current president has shortcomings, faults, and flaws too numerous to list in the space provided. But he is a formidable opponent and has proven himself a tough competitor, tougher still when he faces the possibility of losing his position and the protections that come with it.
Still, we have to vote him out, along with all of his mendacious radical right wing enablers. There is way too much at stake to favor a candidate who may score well with one constituency or another in the party, only to go on to lose the general election.
There's plenty of time to make history later. We have to make him go in 2020.
22
@DAL
When it's all said and done we tend to overlook that trump's voter base numbers involve no more than, at best 1/3 of the country. His poll numbers have also been consistently tied to his base. I seriously doubt he could win again with all we know about him now.
1
@DAL, Kamala's background as a federal prosecutor should go a long way toward impressing swing voters of her credibility and ability to lead the executive branch.
1
@DAL
Trump won support from middle Americans because he promised to jump start the economy, reduce unemployment and tackle immigration. Those are things his "mendacious radical rightwing enablers" voted for.
1
I find Harris' career as prosecutor problematic. But one thing you can be certain of: there won't be a Dean scream, or Rick Perry moment with a person trained to be prepared to speak publicly (i.e., in court). Which is good - this should be a political decision, not one based on media-driven character story lines.
9
Harris and the other Democratic contenders will have to find a way to finesse the sanctuary issue and maintain their credibility. How can they look the other way on illegal immigration and honor their oath to uphold the laws of the United States. Do they support legalizing seasonal and temporary workers? Is a national ID card along the lines of E-Verify the answer? It's not enough to ignore the laws and order one's subordinates to do the same. We already have one of those presidents.
10
@caveman007
National ID card? Surely you jest! Trump supporters would jump for joy at a chance to bring that right wing bit of violation of privacy to everyone's identity.
2
@TJ They can't have it both ways. If they want to get a grip on the chaos at the border they'll have to give a little.
On what basis is Senator Harris considered to be African-American by the media? Her mother, a physician, was an immigrant from India; her father, a Stanford professor, was an immigrant from Jamaica. After her parents divorced when she was seven, she lived with her mother in the US and Canada. If she had never defined herself as African-American before entering the political fray, and is now using her "African-American heritage" to appeal to black voters, I believe it is disingenuous. Also, I disagree with the Op-Ed that Senator Harris has "deep ties to the black community". Based on her privileged upbringing and her family background, I seriously doubt that she experienced the daily challenges, as well as the rich culture, of being a member of our US African-American community.
65
@Zara1234 If Elizabeth Warren can be native American then Harris can be whatever she wants.
13
@Zara1234. African Americans come from many kinds of circumstances and ancestries. There are middle class African Americans, upper class African Americans, as well as working class, working poor and under employed African Americans. And, of course, Jamaica is an important region of the African diaspora. Finally, Howard University is, as you should know, is HBCU.
56
@Zara1234, harsh. How is her background vastly different from Barack Obama’s? I’ve never heard one person question his bonafides as an African American. And there are plenty in the US African American community as privileged as she or more so. It’s just plain tiresome for all black Americans to be measured by your limited yardstick.
82
Why is Kamala Harris making Democrats nervous?
It seems to me that Senator Harris doesn't make Democrats half as nervous as she apparently makes corporate media outlets.
93
She makes me nervous because she would be another poor democratic candidate. I trust no one that was ever a prosecutor, they are nothing like the ones portrayed on TV, they'll do anything to win. Anything.
46
@Paulie "Anything to win." Exactly what is necessary to beat Trump!
9
Joe Biden is, in a sense, the perfect vice presidential candidate. Moderate enough to ground the ideology of the eventual winner, has a character that people like, has experience and relationships with institutions, comes from a state where his voting history can be easily replicated. But those qualities do not the perfect presidential candidate make. The Democratic candidate has to be energizing, bring new ideas, bridge divides, and make people excited to vote. There are many candidates who will do that better than Biden.
22
It would seem natural for a Democratic candidate to swing further to the left than they would normally as a reaction to Trump. But that would be impolitic. To win you not only have to hold on to your Democratic folks but you also have to acquire some moderate and centrist Republicans who are nauseated by Trump. On top of which you have to unite a divided country. Strategy is going to be the name of the game.
18
Where are the progressives to protest a now more than a month long partial shutdown of the federal government?
We need to strengthen the left wing; that will be a moderating force in the excesses of the right wing.
We cannot forever have our main strategy to win based on being a 'moderating force' for the extremism in the right wing. That got us trump.
5
@Camestegal
Democrats have to win back those Obama voters and convince independents. A vendetta against Trump is not going to do it. Yet, this is what progressives are demanding.
Speaker Pelosi is giving everyone a glimpse into what a progressive presidency would be like. Not a compelling picture.
1
Give me a break. She’s not making anyone nervous. She’s an also-ran and everyone knows it already. The left dislikes her the more they learn about her, and the only other claim to fame she has is the whole “first this, historic that” thing.
Stop wasting your ink and everyone’s time. Let’s focus on actual candidates.
39
Biden isn't too old because:
"He campaigned for nearly 70 candidates, across the ideological spectrum, “across 26 states in the last two years.”
That only suggests that he is not too old TODAY. By the time he finished his first term (if elected) he would be 81. I am about his age and I am certainly not confident that I shall be in the same shape in six years time that I am today
5
If this document from Biden's inner circle is any indication, he would have a very difficult hurdle to overcome: Biden is BORING. He talks too much, He parses every issue into pulp. He has experience in a place -- the Senate -- that is despised by millions of people. He is the consummate insider.
Biden has many qualities. He'd make a fine Secretary of State for the winning Democratic candidate. But President? Nope; a bridge too far.
4
@Paul Bernish I agree. He would be great as a transition President if you could pull Trump out and could drop him in place for two years. Buyt, alas. And I just don't think we should be electing someone who is 77-78 to be President.
1
A "formidable contender" but no experience?
7
It's far to early to jump on anyone, and like most here, I also want the candidate who can deliver a real knockout punch to Donald Trump.
So far, all we see are the declared candidates either one on one or in a few passionate addresses in conjunction with MLK holiday or other specific settings.
This is why we have primaries: to see how candidates sound, thrust and parry, and think on their feet. While how they battle each other doesn't always portend how they will deal with a Republican opponent, if we are as interested as we claim to be, we will watch every debate, even if they drag into mundane policy details.
I have to keep reminding myself that the best candidates aren't those who sound exciting but do the best job of exciting their audiences. After all, it's not so much me they have to convince, but the increasing numbers of independents who are key to any election day victory.
18
The best indicator for success in 2020 is rust-belt appeal, and Harris would do well to adopt other progressive positions in addition to Medicare for all, like the Green New Deal and livable wages, as Sanders did in 2016.
I’m sure a lot of commenters will write Harris off for being too inexperienced, too prosecutorial, too gendered, or too brown.
While those are valid points, in all of the elections of my lifetime the most authentic candidate has won the general, including the vile Mr. Trump, who wore his loathsomeness like a badge, and with the help of the MSM tarred his opponent with the stain of inauthenticity.
21
The headline [on the main page] was clickbait lacking support within the article. We are told Kamala Harris is making Democrats "nervous;" why could that be? Does the writer have revelations to offer or clever insight on her candidacy? No. Upon falling for the headline's trap, we're told the obvious: Kamala Harris is a decent candidate, but not a perfect one.
Besides the annoyance of deceptive headlines, the implications are troubling. The appeal of the headline only makes sense in the context of this largely invented narrative in which the Democratic Party is in a state of internal war. Within this entertaining but silly narrative, figures like Kamala Harris and other 2020 contenders are essentially warlords leading their faction in a coup to take over the party. Back in reality, there is if anything a surprising degree of agreement between the 2020 candidates on the major issues.
78
Biden-Harris 2020. This is a ticket that Democrats, reasonable Republicans, and wise independents can and should support.
19
There is nothing reasonable about her extremist left wing positions and ideas. We do not want California's open borders mentality in the presidency. We do not want significant increases in taxes for the middle class, particularly impacting our ability to save for retirement. We do not want virtually limitless guest worker permits for highly skilled professionals. The h-1b program is a disaster for citizens and immigrants. Single payer will cost 15 to 17% of gross payrolls, not the 8% a little in other taxes she mentions. Either way, those other taxes should be either avoided (capital gains on the middle class) or used for other necessities (higher rates for the 0.1% that need to go towards balancing the budget). We have no interest in Danish tax and spend liberal. The people who paid their way through school should not have to work harder to save for retirement to fund "free" education, as she is desiring. The education would be strictly income basis, with no regard for merit, and no penalty for not competing a program. It is questionable whether it would even fund vocational education, needed far more right now than four year degrees.
6
How about Harris-Biden?
8
@David Cohn You obviously know noting about Harris' positions. She favors tax cuts for the middle class. She is far from an extremist, clearly being more moderate than more progressive potential and declared candidates.
Who is "we" in your comment, the supporters of Trump?
15
As an admirer of Joe Biden who voted for him twice to be Vice President it pains me to have to say that he is now too old to be President.
95
@Mike Murray MD
I don't disagree, but he has other things that'll come up pretty strongly as negatives.
anita hill, plagiarism and a few very unsuccessful runs for potus.
American politics are the most disgusting in the western world.
trump would savage biden's recently deceased son with some nonsensical noise and god knows what he'd say about the horrible traffic accident that decimated biden's family those many years ago.
no such thing as going too low--and the 'folks' seem to be ok with it.
he'll lose his lustre once the republicans have finished with him.
1
I see a Super Bowl ad starring Nathan Phillips and Nick Sandmann.
True, we're politically and racially polarized, however, commerce marches on.
2
@Jung and Easily Freudened - "Jung and Easily Freudened" - Excellent - deserving of the rarely conveyed Double Nose Snort!
Sen. Harris is rejecting most corporate donations but making up for it with lots of small donations from individual workers? I agree that must seem like a concerning ideological lane change for the many Democrats.
11
@ErikW65, indeed.
If campaign funding is ever to be gotten under some kind of reasonable control, it won't be "corporate politicians" who will do it.
Trumpist and Republican enablers and donors used enormous sums over many years (starting in 1956, I reckon) to achieve astounding degrees of control, e.g. gerrymandering in many states, buying political candidates and selling same to voters, using elected officials to further their goals etc etc etc.
Follow the money. Stop the money. Now.
17
@Harold
You have it right. This is an emerging strength of Harris, as it was and is a strength of potentially repeat candidate Sanders and potential new candidate Steve Bullock of Montana. Marry this strength with rust belt appeal in the general and you have both “For the People” appeal and post-nomination electoral map strength to win in electoral college.
3