• Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Elections Kamala Harris says she will run for the Presidency in 2020

She gives off a real bitch vibe. Worse than Hillary even. The only chance she has is that the current president keeps riling up everyone against him.
 
Maybe then, she'll meet with the same perception problems Hildog did, in which 70% of women polled felt "no connection" to her.
 
Eagerly awaiting the CNN specials and 60 Minutes with Willie Brown talking about their past relationship when he was married and in his 60s. Since Stormy Daniels is worthy of such coverage, I'm sure they won't ignore her affair with California's top political boss at the time.
 
Last edited:
RIP in peace hookers
 
Jack V Savage said:
I don't buy the "threat to capital" angle, though, and I don't quite get the party machinery thing. If you're referring to donors, organizers, and advisers, I think that they're *more* left-leaning in principle than the typical Democratic voter (they're more pragmatic, though). And they'd be more likely to support her *because* they think she can deliver on goals like single payer and a higher MW. In fact, another objection I'd have to her is that I think she does pander to ideologues (saying that as someone on the fence on single payer and opposed to a large MW hike).
Click to expand...

I don't agree with any of this. I think it fails on the same basis as your complaints about the democratic-coloring of the recent left-wing insurgency and your related claim that centrist Democrats are more reflective of popular interests purely on the basis that they receive more votes than left-wing grassroots candidates: most voters are uninformed and candidate support does not reliably reflect policy preferences (behold: Republican voters who take issue with economic inequality, corporate greed, campaign finance, interventionism, etc.). Democratic voters who are particularly engaged certainly do not fall to the right of large donors on issues of regulation. Social issues? Sure.
 
zebby23 said:
Mark the words... Trump stands no chance to wim again: ya I know we’ve heard this before but people have seen how ineffective he is as a leader. He beat a terrible candidate in Clinton and he has been an absolute failure in almost every way.
Click to expand...
Clinton really was despicable, wasn't she. Time will tell, it's a fluid situation. If the election were held today, he'd be re-elected easily regardless of
the hyperbole and innuendo swirling around his Ronald McDonald hair.
 
Who is she going to suck off this time to advance her career? Is Willie Brown still alive? Maybe he can be her VP.
 
Trotsky said:
I don't agree with any of this. I think it fails on the same basis as your complaints about the democratic-coloring of the recent left-wing insurgency and your related claim that centrist Democrats are more reflective of popular interests purely on the basis that they receive more votes than left-wing grassroots candidates: most voters are uninformed and candidate support does not reliably reflect policy preferences (behold: Republican voters who take issue with economic inequality, corporate greed, campaign finance, interventionism, etc.). Democratic voters who are particularly engaged certainly do not fall to the right of large donors on issues of regulation. Social issues? Sure.
Click to expand...

Large donors *are* Democratic voters who are particularly engaged. Likewise with organizers. And most voters are not that deeply engaged, don't have a firm ideology or policy ideas. What you're saying in this post backs my point up. The push for the kinds of policies identified with the left comes from the same people that left-wing bloggers and commentators think are opposing those policies. And, yeah, the same dynamic holds to a much greater extent on the right (Majorities or pluralities of GOP voters are to the left of the party on almost all policy issues).
 
Graves said:
Maybe then, she'll meet with the same perception problems Hildog did, in which 70% of women polled felt "no connection" to her.
Click to expand...

KeepItRealist said:
Eagerly awaiting the CNN specials and 60 Minutes with Willie Brown talking about their past relationship when he was married and in his 60s. Since Stormy Daniels is worthy of such coverage, I'm sure they won't ignore her affair with California's top Democratic political power broker at the time.
Click to expand...
Wait. They'll figure out a way to spin that and feed a narrative to leftists that blames both on sexism and white men, and the spin will get lapped up.

Beto, Kamala, and Pocahontas are losses in this economy. The left needs to figure out it doesn't have to pander to the far left socialists buffoons. There isn't a universe where any of them would vote for Trump. They'd vote for a rock over Trump, and they will show up to vote. They need to pick someone like Tulsi to steer the moderates and centrists towards their inclinations. Trump is not popular, and has never been popular.

This is once again the Dem's election to lose, but they appear determined to lose it.
 
Madmick said:
Wait. They'll figure out a way to spin that and feed a narrative to leftists that blames both on sexism and white men, and the spin will get lapped up.

Beto, Kamala, and Pocahontas are losses in this economy. The left needs to figure out it doesn't have to pander to the far left socialists buffoons. There isn't a universe where any of them would vote for Trump. They'd vote for a rock over Trump, and they will show up to vote. They need to pick someone like Tulsi to steer the moderates and centrists towards their inclinations. Trump is not popular, and has never been popular.

This is once again the Dem's election to lose, but they appear determined to lose it.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing Harris's affair with Willie Brown will be avoided like the plague by the same people taking everything Stormy Daniels says at face value. But we're not partisan! Were don't have an agenda! The media is neutral! She was legendarily inept as AG of California and yet no one talks about that either. Dems have it so good.
 
Madmick said:
Wait. They'll figure out a way to spin that and feed a narrative to leftists that blames both on sexism and white men, and the spin will get lapped up.

Beto, Kamala, and Pocahontas are losses in this economy. The left needs to figure out it doesn't have to pander to the far left socialists buffoons. There isn't a universe where any of them would vote for Trump. They'd vote for a rock over Trump, and they will show up to vote. They need to pick someone like Tulsi to steer the moderates and centrists towards their inclinations. Trump is not popular, and has never been popular.

This is once again the Dem's election to lose, but they appear determined to lose it.
Click to expand...

It's weird how the far left sees Gabbard as one of them and Harris as the enemy, while people who don't read broadly see it the exact opposite way. Good illustration of why ideology isn't really that relevant to electoral politics.
 
Jack V Savage said:
I have some of the same concerns about her as I do about Gabbard with regard to readiness, though she's not as bad in that regard. Her policy understanding is also lacking, I think, though I have a very high regard for her intelligence. I don't buy the "threat to capital" angle, though, and I don't quite get the party machinery thing. If you're referring to donors, organizers, and advisers, I think that they're *more* left-leaning in principle than the typical Democratic voter (they're more pragmatic, though). And they'd be more likely to support her *because* they think she can deliver on goals like single payer and a higher MW. In fact, another objection I'd have to her is that I think she does pander to ideologues (saying that as someone on the fence on single payer and opposed to a large MW hike).

Anyway, I agree that she's upper tier in terms of likely winners (though I think her chances are being overstated by a lot of people) and lower-tier in terms of my personal support.
Click to expand...

All the lefty stances you take, and you aren't sure about single payer? The healthcare system is shattering, and has completely failed. My gawd..
 
Jack V Savage said:
Large donors *are* Democratic voters who are particularly engaged. Likewise with organizers. And most voters are not that deeply engaged, don't have a firm ideology or policy ideas. What you're saying in this post backs my point up. The push for the kinds of policies identified with the left comes from the same people that left-wing bloggers and commentators think are opposing those policies.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to respond to this. The idea that large donors, be they individual or corporate, are not only engaged independent of their economic/regulatory interests but are ideologically representative of engaged Democratic voters is just silly to me.

Jack V Savage said:
It's weird how the far left sees Gabbard as one of them and Harris as the enemy, while people who don't read broadly see it the exact opposite way. Good illustration of why ideology isn't really that relevant to electoral politics.
Click to expand...

Stop it. Your usage of "the far left" is once again inaccurate and insulting. The far left has been very critical of Gabbard, and the anti-establishment types who do fervently support Gabbard don't have much in the way of ideology.
 
Good for her and I like her a lot, I went to elementary school with her so she is my sentimental pick. Not sure who I support at this point but from what little I know about her she is right on the money on a lot of issues.
 
KeepItRealist said:
I'm guessing Harris's affair with Willie Brown will be avoided like the plague by the same people taking everything Stormy Daniels says at face value. But we're not partisan! Were don't have an agenda! The media is neutral! She was legendarily inept as AG of California and yet no one talks about that either. Dems have it so good.
Click to expand...

This is a subject I’m just looking into.It seems they didn’t do much to hide their relationship but he had separated from his wife in the 70’s but remained legally married. Did he help her career? Sounds like it but nobody wins a senate seat by accident. It’s a combination of talent, luck and connections.

Trump was given hundreds of millions from his father, was bailed out by him on numerous occasions and used all his fathers connections with banks to start a business that he still ended up bankrupting. He was born on third base and yet his followers believe he worked his way up from nothing.
 
Diamond Jim said:
This is a subject I’m just looking into.It seems they didn’t do much to hide their relationship but he had separated from his wife in the 70’s but remained legally married. Did he help her career? Sounds like it but nobody wins a senate seat by accident. It’s a combination of talent, luck and connections.

Trump was given hundreds of millions from his father, was bailed out by him on numerous occasions and used all his fathers connections with banks to start a business that he still ended up bankrupting. He was born on third base and yet his followers believe he worked his way up from nothing.
Click to expand...

All of this was a big issue in 2015-2016. But he didn't sleep his way into a political career. Harris did. And with a married man twice her age. And you will never see it discussed except attacking anyone who dares mention it.
 
KeepItRealist said:
All of this was a big issue in 2015-2016. But he didn't sleep his way into a political career. Harris did. And with a married man twice her age. And you will never see it discussed except attacking anyone who dares mention it.
Click to expand...

It’s 2019. I’m sure it’s going to come up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,240,506
Messages
55,697,215
Members
174,903
Latest member
romanych

Share this page

Back
Top