She could have been the first Asian female U.S. president.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Kamala-Harris-is-now-polling-at-just-1-percent-14826717.php

Authenticity problem

I guess the pro busing contingency was not as strong as she or the pundits thought

She thought a substantively strong grilling of Brett Kavanaugh--and nothing more--was sufficient to sell herself as a Presidential candidate to America.

BearForce2 said:

---

She could have been the first Asian female U.S. president.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Kamala-Harris-is-now-polling-at-just-1-percent-14826717.php

---

She doesn't actually believe in anything other than trying to get more power for the sake of power.

calbear93 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

She could have been the first Asian female U.S. president.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Kamala-Harris-is-now-polling-at-just-1-percent-14826717.php

---

She doesn't actually believe in anything other than trying to get more power for the sake of power.

---

I agree. She has so much potential but she does nothing with it. I am not sure a single bill of hers has even been put to vote. She is my state senator and yet I cannot really think of anything she has done as senator except campaign for President. I miss Barbara Boxer in comparison. Feinstein is old and senile but at least she loves California. Her California Desert Protection Act is a great piece of legislation as was her (ahead of its time) assault weapons ban. So far Harris will be a footnote.

kjkbear said:

---

She thought a substantively strong grilling of Brett Kavanaugh--and nothing more--was sufficient to sell herself as a Presidential candidate to America.

---

It certainly didn't hurt my opinion of her, but other than the prospect of watching her tear down Trump in a debate, I've never been clear on what she has to offer as a platform.

calbear93 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

She could have been the first Asian female U.S. president.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Kamala-Harris-is-now-polling-at-just-1-percent-14826717.php

---

She doesn't actually believe in anything other than trying to get more power for the sake of power.

---

You mean like HRC? Or the majority of politicians?

Her record doesn't have enough woke cred, it's not that she "doesn't believe in anything". What she 'believes' is her record. She thought the identity game would help her but every other Dem candidate is playing the same game.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

kjkbear said:

---

She thought a substantively strong grilling of Brett Kavanaugh--and nothing more--was sufficient to sell herself as a Presidential candidate to America.

---

It certainly didn't hurt my opinion of her, but other than the prospect of watching her tear down Trump in a debate, I've never been clear on what she has to offer as a platform.

---

That's really the issue, she's never had a clear rationale for her campaign. I get it, all politicians will change their positions and pander to certain voter groups. I expect that. But the most skilled ones are able to fashion that into a consistent narrative that people can easily understand. Kamala hasn't done it.

Bernie has socialism, Warren has her fight against corporate interests, Biden has the promise of a return to Obama normalcy, Mayor Pete has civility and moderation. I don't necessarily agree with all of those platforms, but I understand what those candidates say they stand for. I don't understand what Kamala Harris thinks she stands for.

dimitrig said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

She could have been the first Asian female U.S. president.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Kamala-Harris-is-now-polling-at-just-1-percent-14826717.php

---

She doesn't actually believe in anything other than trying to get more power for the sake of power.

---

I agree. She has so much potential but she does nothing with it. I am not sure a single bill of hers has even been put to vote.

---

Well, in fairness on that point, she's only been in Mitch McConnell's Senate, where nothing gets put to a vote except conservative judges.

When- in a Presidential debate- you think removing Trump's twitter account is an issue on which you plant a flag and challenge a front runner, you are laughably out of your league

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

She could have been the first Asian female U.S. president.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Kamala-Harris-is-now-polling-at-just-1-percent-14826717.php

---

She doesn't actually believe in anything other than trying to get more power for the sake of power.

---

I agree. She has so much potential but she does nothing with it. I am not sure a single bill of hers has even been put to vote.

---

Well, in fairness on that point, she's only been in Mitch McConnell's Senate, where nothing gets put to a vote except conservative judges.

---

Not exactly what I meant. She originally stood for M4A, even signing on to Sanders' bill and saying a singer-payor system is a done deal and we should all deal with it, until she realized it was not a winner for her. Then she abandoned it and said M4A is not the best plan and she is now against it.

Her views of criminalizing drug use is the same.

So, she is a typical politician who will conform her viewpoint to reflect what will get her the most votes.

So, why would anyone be excited about her? She just wants to get elected.

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

kjkbear said:

---

She thought a substantively strong grilling of Brett Kavanaugh--and nothing more--was sufficient to sell herself as a Presidential candidate to America.

---

It certainly didn't hurt my opinion of her, but other than the prospect of watching her tear down Trump in a debate, I've never been clear on what she has to offer as a platform.

---

That's really the issue, she's never had a clear rationale for her campaign. I get it, all politicians will change their positions and pander to certain voter groups. I expect that. But the most skilled ones are able to fashion that into a consistent narrative that people can easily understand. Kamala hasn't done it.

Bernie has socialism, Warren has her fight against corporate interests, Biden has the promise of a return to Obama normalcy, Mayor Pete has civility and moderation. I don't necessarily agree with all of those platforms, but I understand what those candidates say they stand for. I don't understand what Kamala Harris thinks she stands for.

---

Her campaign has not been good, but it is less that she stands for nothing and more that her lane is squeezed. The establishment likes her, but they like Biden better. Minorities like her, but they see Biden as their chance to pick a candidate. Liberals like her, but they like Warren more. Etc. She is well liked but is everyone's second choice. She tried to stake out the middle ground between Biden and Warren/Sanders, and there wasn't any.

Had Biden not run, I'd bet she'd be leading the pack right now because she'd have all of his constituents (establishment and minorities) and the success would pull some of the other constituents to her. The bottom line is that Biden sucking up all the minority vote kept her from being able to gain traction.

I also think that she paid a price for trying to take Biden down.

calbear93 said:

---

So, why would anyone be excited about her? She just wants to get elected.

---

Exactly. When you can't trust what a politician actually believes in, why would you give them your vote?

OaktownBear said:

---

Her campaign has not been good, but it is less that she stands for nothing and more that her lane is squeezed. The establishment likes her, but they like Biden better. Minorities like her, but they see Biden as their chance to pick a candidate. Liberals like her, but they like Warren more. Etc. She is well liked but is everyone's second choice. She tried to stake out the middle ground between Biden and Warren/Sanders, and there wasn't any.

Had Biden not run, I'd bet she'd be leading the pack right now because she'd have all of his constituents (establishment and minorities) and the success would pull some of the other constituents to her. The bottom line is that Biden sucking up all the minority vote kept her from being able to gain traction.

I also think that she paid a price for trying to take Biden down.

---

I disagree with that.

I don't even know that the establishment actually likes Biden. I think they are so convinced that he's the safe choice that whatever he actually would do doesn't matter because all that matters to them is Democrats back in power. Maybe old Democrats actively like him, but I think it's mostly just because all they care about is getting rid of Trump.

I don't think there's ever been a point where it's been established that minorities actually like Harris. I don't know why that is, but they just don't. Then again, I don't understand why they like Biden.

Had Biden not run, I suspect she'd be sharing the benefit of that with Booker, Klubuchar, Buttigieg, etc.

I don't think she paid a price for trying to take Biden down. In fact, I think she was very successful, though saying "I don't believe you're a racist" implied that anyone actually thought that before she said what she said. I think the problem is that she didn't score off of that like she thought she would.

I'd still like to see her debate Trump. I think she'd eat him alive.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Her campaign has not been good, but it is less that she stands for nothing and more that her lane is squeezed. The establishment likes her, but they like Biden better. Minorities like her, but they see Biden as their chance to pick a candidate. Liberals like her, but they like Warren more. Etc. She is well liked but is everyone's second choice. She tried to stake out the middle ground between Biden and Warren/Sanders, and there wasn't any.

Had Biden not run, I'd bet she'd be leading the pack right now because she'd have all of his constituents (establishment and minorities) and the success would pull some of the other constituents to her. The bottom line is that Biden sucking up all the minority vote kept her from being able to gain traction.

I also think that she paid a price for trying to take Biden down.

---

I disagree with that.

I don't even know that the establishment actually likes Biden. I think they are so convinced that he's the safe choice that whatever he actually would do doesn't matter because all that matters to them is Democrats back in power. Maybe old Democrats actively like him, but I think it's mostly just because all they care about is getting rid of Trump.

I don't think there's ever been a point where it's been established that minorities actually like Harris. I don't know why that is, but they just don't. Then again, I don't understand why they like Biden.

Had Biden not run, I suspect she'd be sharing the benefit of that with Booker, Klubuchar, Buttigieg, etc.

I don't think she paid a price for trying to take Biden down. In fact, I think she was very successful, though saying "I don't believe you're a racist" implied that anyone actually thought that before she said what she said. I think the problem is that she didn't score off of that like she thought she would.

I'd still like to see her debate Trump. I think she'd eat him alive.

---

I agree with your comments on the establishment and Biden, but all I meant by "like" is exactly what you are saying. They think/thought he is the best candidate to beat Trump

Regarding minorities, proof is in votes which likely won't happen, but Harris polled as Blacks second choice at a much higher rate than Booker. Blacks are a lot more little "c" conservative with their votes. They want to back a candidate that can win. Even Obama had to prove himself before they switched over and that is why Clinton early on tried to paint him as a latter day Jesse Jackson.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

So, why would anyone be excited about her? She just wants to get elected.

---

Exactly. When you can't trust what a politician actually believes in, why would you give them your vote?

---

MEATLOAF!

OaktownBear said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Her campaign has not been good, but it is less that she stands for nothing and more that her lane is squeezed. The establishment likes her, but they like Biden better. Minorities like her, but they see Biden as their chance to pick a candidate. Liberals like her, but they like Warren more. Etc. She is well liked but is everyone's second choice. She tried to stake out the middle ground between Biden and Warren/Sanders, and there wasn't any.

Had Biden not run, I'd bet she'd be leading the pack right now because she'd have all of his constituents (establishment and minorities) and the success would pull some of the other constituents to her. The bottom line is that Biden sucking up all the minority vote kept her from being able to gain traction.

I also think that she paid a price for trying to take Biden down.

---

I disagree with that.

I don't even know that the establishment actually likes Biden. I think they are so convinced that he's the safe choice that whatever he actually would do doesn't matter because all that matters to them is Democrats back in power. Maybe old Democrats actively like him, but I think it's mostly just because all they care about is getting rid of Trump.

I don't think there's ever been a point where it's been established that minorities actually like Harris. I don't know why that is, but they just don't. Then again, I don't understand why they like Biden.

Had Biden not run, I suspect she'd be sharing the benefit of that with Booker, Klubuchar, Buttigieg, etc.

I don't think she paid a price for trying to take Biden down. In fact, I think she was very successful, though saying "I don't believe you're a racist" implied that anyone actually thought that before she said what she said. I think the problem is that she didn't score off of that like she thought she would.

I'd still like to see her debate Trump. I think she'd eat him alive.

---

I agree with your comments on the establishment and Biden, but all I meant by "like" is exactly what you are saying. They think/thought he is the best candidate to beat Trump

Regarding minorities, proof is in votes which likely won't happen, but Harris polled as Blacks second choice at a much higher rate than Booker. Blacks are a lot more little "c" conservative with their votes. They want to back a candidate that can win. Even Obama had to prove himself before they switched over and that is why Clinton early on tried to paint him as a latter day Jesse Jackson.

---

Every poll I've seen has Harris third after Biden and Sanders with both black and Hispanic voters. I've seen very little that suggests she is popular with minorities.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-the-2020-candidates-break-down-in-the-polls-so-far/

Kamala has officially dropped out of the race.

Just heard that she dropped out and so I came here and read this thread for the first time. Rather remarkably, reading all the posts from various sides of the political spectrum, my feelings about her and her candidacy are validated...

She seems very calculating. I think she might be a highly advanced bot or borg. To compare her with the other leading woman candidate (Warren), Kamala Harris seemed like she was running as the next step in her career advancement, whereas Warren impresses me as almost a reluctant candidate who ended up getting into politics in order to advance some ideas to make the country better. Now, Warren might just be as full of political BS as Harris, but I'm talking about the impression they make.

Kamala Harris seems like somebody who thinks her people skills are so great that nobody would ever think that she thinks she's the smartest person in the room, even though she does.

She would probably make at least a decent President, but I don't like anything about her enough to vote for her in a primary field where several other candidates also seem like they would make at least decent Presidents.

So far I am not even convinced she is making a decent Senator.

She had a lot of help from the media. Her acclaimed launch, the fawning over her putting together a new Obama winning coalition of white professionals and people of color, the "game changing trouncing "of Biden in the debate.

It was all bull****. There never was a coherent narrative for her candidacy other than her narcissism

Anarchistbear said:

---

She had a lot of help from the media. Her acclaimed launch, the fawning over her putting together a new Obama winning coalition of white professionals and people of color, the "game changing trouncing "of Biden in the debate.

It was all bull****. There never was a coherent narrative for her candidacy other than her narcissism

---

I agree that she never had a coherent narrative, but her launch had a lot of people show up for it, so there was some support there initially that wasn't just media-driven.

Did she have any big rallies besides her launch party in Oakland? Could she have gotten 30,000 people to show up for her in Orlando or Milwaukee?

She had a major authenticity and leadership issue, she comes across as someone who was placed into power and feels entitled to getting the next promotion.

She got trounced by Tulsi in that debate and never really recovered.

Cal88 said:

---

Did she have any big rallies besides her launch party in Oakland? Could she have gotten 30,000 people to show up for her in Orlando or Milwaukee?

---

Could any candidate at that early stage? Not sure this is a meaningful measure.

Anyway, obviously her campaign didn't go well. I'm just disputing the idea that she only ever had media-generated support. Not really.

Bernie and Obama had large campaign rallies. Obama had 70k in Portland, Bernie filled arenas too. Kamala had a hard time filling high school gyms.

Cal88 said:

---

Bernie and Obama had large campaign rallies. Obama had 70k in Portland, Bernie filled arenas too. Kamala had a hard time filling high school gyms.

---

Yes, later in the campaign Bernie was drawing big crowds. Early on he drew nothing. None of this really has anything to do with my point. Obviously Harris' campaign did not do well as we went along. She did start with decent support for a newcomer.

Bernie was actively undermined and sabotaged by the DNC, he started out as an oddball socialist from Vermont, while Kamala got off the gates as a senator from California, and the West Coast establishment Democrat candidate that ticked all the boxes and got lots of adulation in the MSM. Obama filled arenas starting in late 2007, at the same campaign stage as now.

If the argument is that no one currently in the field is as talented as Obama, then no dispute from me.

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

She had a lot of help from the media. Her acclaimed launch, the fawning over her putting together a new Obama winning coalition of white professionals and people of color, the "game changing trouncing "of Biden in the debate.

It was all bull****. There never was a coherent narrative for her candidacy other than her narcissism

---

I agree that she never had a coherent narrative, but her launch had a lot of people show up for it, so there was some support there initially that wasn't just media-driven.

---

Sure, she had a big rally in her home town; she could organize and manage that. But, the media immediately started fanning flames and pumping her up with fatuous comparisons to Obama . Nate Silver declared she was the front runner in January. Really?

"She's probably the frontrunner at this point, folks." -- Nate Silver on Kamala Harris, January 29, 2019

In every primary campaign with a lot of candidates, the media will take an interest in someone, often many people, who don't win. So what? It doesn't mean they were only media-generated candidates, it could just mean they did well for a while and then they didn't. If a football team starts 5-0 and then crashes to 5-5 does that mean the praise for their hot start was just "media bulls***," or did their performance just change?

I think the sports analogy is more to pre-season. She was ranked top 3 by sportswriters before the season- projections more related to punditry than performance. She fit some aspirational model the media had of her candidacy- dynamic, young Obama like West Coast articulate woman of color that will appeal to all. She would certainly blow all of the old timers away.

But then the season began, and the tin horn authoritarian emerged.

Anarchistbear said:

---

I think the sports analogy is more to pre-season. She was ranked top 3 by sportswriters before the season- projections more related to punditry than performance. She fit some aspirational model the media had of her candidacy- dynamic, young Obama like West Coast articulate woman of color that will appeal to all. She would certainly blow all of the old timers away.

But then the season began, and the tin horn authoritarian emerged.

---

I would argue the first debate would count as part of the regular season, and was probably her strongest moment. She didn't keep it up, but I don't think her success there was just a media creation.