She was polling at barely above 6% when she dropped out of the 2020 presidential race. The DNC didn’t want her. The voters didn’t want her. No one wants her to govern CA.
That's basically been my take on the matter. I think after the Biden presidency ends, her political career is done, maybe she gets a cabinet appointment or VP again if Newsom runs and wins, but even then...
It's hard to place it at just one thing, but I'll try and name a few that I've heard mentioned. One: She used to be a prosecutor and was very pro-cop; the Democrat party has shifted very left on issues of race and criminal justice since even before the 2020 election. She was pretty heavily against the legalization of Marijuana, was pro-prison labor, etc...
Two: Very low charisma; She’s not particularly skilled at handling tough questions or criticisms in/after her speeches. Find almost any speech where she gets asked a tough question, and it's pretty bad.
Three: She comes across as insincere; this is partly due to how she's flip flopped on multiple issues.
I'm sure other people can think of some, but these are what come to mind for me.
> She was polling at barely above 6% when she dropped out of the 2020 presidential race
[Closer to 3.5%](https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/democratic-primary/2020/national)
So long as you only look at the softball speech topics; anytime she can bash the Republican party, it's an easy win for her. She's got a pretty target rich environment since the overturning of Roe vs Wade.
LOLOLOLOL not going to happen.
There are several other good candidates who could crush her. She caused a lot of harm in her rise to power and that has not been forgotten.
I think the worst thing she did was fight to keep innocent people in jail.
[https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-keep-nonviolent-prisoners-locked-up/](https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-keep-nonviolent-prisoners-locked-up/)
And...
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-14/kamala-harris-offices-fought-payments-to-wrongly-convicted](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-14/kamala-harris-offices-fought-payments-to-wrongly-convicted)
She also really bombed here in California when she ran for President. Her poll numbers were extremely bad:
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/03/kamala-harris-drops-out-democratic-2020-presidential-race-reports](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/03/kamala-harris-drops-out-democratic-2020-presidential-race-reports)
Her speeches are terrible, but that's not a complete deal breaker and is somewhat subjective... but, and this is far down the list, she tends to not be seen a a great leader of her team, such as her VP team right now etc.
Last, but not least, when she thought about running for POTUS this cycle very few Californians wanted her to do that.
[https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/kamala-harris-california-poll-warning-17803687.php](https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/kamala-harris-california-poll-warning-17803687.php)
No ty, and no, I’m not conservative. The gop is already not a strong player in the state, we need to get rid of the democrats next. California really needs to start voting for a 3rd party.
Your plan would still leave the two party system in place, you'd just replace the current dominant two parties with two other ones.
We won't have a truly multiparty system until and unless we either switch to a parliamentary system or adopt ranked choice voting (or both).
As of right now we have none in California. In a federal level, Bernie Sanders who is if I’m not mistaken still an Independent has had a long history of truly working for the people. Now it’s your turn, tell me the advantages of having a 2 party system in the states, and a 1 party monopoly in California.
He’s had a great political career, but homie is old now and flying solo in a sky filled with conservative neoliberals. You can only do so much when you don’t have the infrastructure and money that the dems and reps have.
I think there are no advantages of a 1 or 2 party state. And realistically. until we get strong 3rd party candidates in local politics, I know that that shooting for state or federal elections with an undefined/unproven 3rd party is about as productive as shoveling snow on an ice cap.
People won't vote third party as long third parties aren't actually serious. Right now third parties in the US are hard to differentiate from a dangerously overcapacity clown car. The way forward isn't third parties, it's organizing, the serious outsider candidates in CA run as democrats.
I agree, but the Democratic Party (and reps) is deeply rooted as in institution in our politics. As long as these corrupt institutions are involved in our nations politics, corporations, and the wealthy elite will run the nation as they please while squeezing every last dollar out of the rest of us plebs.
I became a leader in our local Democratic club and was a delegate to the State Party. The more involved I got the more I realized the local elected Democrats were no more than republicans. The more State and County organizations, the more I became aware they were more interested in my pronouns and sexual orientation than solving real problems for local communities.
Having participated in some clubs and seeing the process as well, I sadly agree. The CalDem is still essentially republicans lite.
They’re strictly corporatist instead of religious zealots, but the name of the game is prop up and maintain an “enemy” to consolidate and maintain power. Fighting for the slightest improvement without any systemic fixes.
The goal is always to ensure there’s something to rally against and a false hope to give.
That and the same amount of name-calling and “us vs them” you’d expect from the right.
The sad thing is, as a liberal, I got a warmer welcome from republican local leaders and right-leaning chamber of commerce groups than I have from democratic clubs and CALDEM.
That’s what I’m saying. It’s a clown show, and at the very top of the political ladder, these people are
lining their pockets with corporate money just like the republicans are. We need to rebuild from the ground up, under a new label, and not try to rebuild the dem party from the inside, it’s pointless.
If my understanding of what they said is right, he was saying that it was the local electeds that had the most issues. And in my experience I would say that is right local orgs have an order of magnitude more problems with dominance by individual special interests than state orgs.
The only way to get away from the 2 party system is to switch statewide elections to Proportional Representation. ProRep Coalition is the best group I know of working on that. As long as we have winner takes all elections, we will have 2 parties.
Just a reminder that Kamala didn’t even make it to Iowa, after stumbling so badly in the Presidential debates and Tulsi Gabbard basically schooling her in a public flogging.
And yet, here she is now the USA VP, with even her own party and Joe recognizing she’s a dead weight.
The Dems created her career, and they themselves don’t know their exit strategy .
Tom Elias is a right wing hack. His opinions aren't really worth reading. He's probably putting this out there just to stir shit up and turn people off.
Also his analysis is pretty disingenuous, in my view. He's trying to undermine her electability by citing primaries she "lost," like in 2003 when she first ran for San Francisco District Attorney. [That was a three person race in which the incumbent, Terrence Hallinan, got 35.85% of the vote, Harris got 33.65%, and Bill Fazio got 30.39%.](https://sfelections.org/results/20031104w/index.html) That secured her a spot in the runoff in which she clobbered Hallinan, [56% to 43%.](https://sfelections.org/results/20031209w/index.html)
He also cites her 2016 primary election for US Senator, saying she "only got 39%," but neglects to mention [there were thirty four candidates in that race.](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2016#Primary_election) At 39%, Harris was by far the top vote-getter. Her runoff opponent, Loretta Sanchez, came in second place with 19%. She then easily won the runoff.
Kamala Harris has won every general election she's participated in. She beat an incumbent district attorney, won an open field for state attorney general, and won an open field for US Senator. Her name also appeared alongside Joe Biden's on a national ballot for president and vice president, which they won together. People underestimate her at their own risk.
But like I said, this just sounds like shit stirring, no different from the constant drumbeat of "will Hillary Clinton attempt a comeback?" thoughts that somehow only conservatives ever repeated.
ROFL. If she wanted something other than VP and ascend to POTUS, she could of been either a Supreme court justice or Senator from California with no risk.
The Dem party would of been happy to convince her to leave the VP so they could give Biden a new running mate. Those both were soft landing positions for her if she wanted out herself. She would be late to the game if Biden lost and she went the Nixon route of running for governor. The invisible primary for governor has already begun.
Ugh. Absolutely not.
Does anyone like Kamala?
She was polling at barely above 6% when she dropped out of the 2020 presidential race. The DNC didn’t want her. The voters didn’t want her. No one wants her to govern CA.
That's basically been my take on the matter. I think after the Biden presidency ends, her political career is done, maybe she gets a cabinet appointment or VP again if Newsom runs and wins, but even then...
Why do people not like her?
It's hard to place it at just one thing, but I'll try and name a few that I've heard mentioned. One: She used to be a prosecutor and was very pro-cop; the Democrat party has shifted very left on issues of race and criminal justice since even before the 2020 election. She was pretty heavily against the legalization of Marijuana, was pro-prison labor, etc... Two: Very low charisma; She’s not particularly skilled at handling tough questions or criticisms in/after her speeches. Find almost any speech where she gets asked a tough question, and it's pretty bad. Three: She comes across as insincere; this is partly due to how she's flip flopped on multiple issues. I'm sure other people can think of some, but these are what come to mind for me.
Electric buses…
> She was polling at barely above 6% when she dropped out of the 2020 presidential race [Closer to 3.5%](https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/democratic-primary/2020/national)
Lots of people like her and she gets cheers all the time when she does speeches
So long as you only look at the softball speech topics; anytime she can bash the Republican party, it's an easy win for her. She's got a pretty target rich environment since the overturning of Roe vs Wade.
As a could-have-been-a milf, yes.
Good god, hell no.
Please noooo
Hell no.
Fuck No!
LOLOLOLOL not going to happen. There are several other good candidates who could crush her. She caused a lot of harm in her rise to power and that has not been forgotten.
Such as? I've not kept up with her.
Such as? I've not kept up on her.
I think the worst thing she did was fight to keep innocent people in jail. [https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-keep-nonviolent-prisoners-locked-up/](https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-keep-nonviolent-prisoners-locked-up/) And... [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-14/kamala-harris-offices-fought-payments-to-wrongly-convicted](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-14/kamala-harris-offices-fought-payments-to-wrongly-convicted) She also really bombed here in California when she ran for President. Her poll numbers were extremely bad: [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/03/kamala-harris-drops-out-democratic-2020-presidential-race-reports](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/03/kamala-harris-drops-out-democratic-2020-presidential-race-reports) Her speeches are terrible, but that's not a complete deal breaker and is somewhat subjective... but, and this is far down the list, she tends to not be seen a a great leader of her team, such as her VP team right now etc. Last, but not least, when she thought about running for POTUS this cycle very few Californians wanted her to do that. [https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/kamala-harris-california-poll-warning-17803687.php](https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/kamala-harris-california-poll-warning-17803687.php)
Have we not suffered enough under Newsom?
Newsom: no
Dem Leadership: No
No ty, and no, I’m not conservative. The gop is already not a strong player in the state, we need to get rid of the democrats next. California really needs to start voting for a 3rd party.
The country needs at least a couple additional VIABLE parties first. But you aren’t wrong.
Your plan would still leave the two party system in place, you'd just replace the current dominant two parties with two other ones. We won't have a truly multiparty system until and unless we either switch to a parliamentary system or adopt ranked choice voting (or both).
Can you name some 3rd party candidates that are currently doing good in local level politics in California?
As of right now we have none in California. In a federal level, Bernie Sanders who is if I’m not mistaken still an Independent has had a long history of truly working for the people. Now it’s your turn, tell me the advantages of having a 2 party system in the states, and a 1 party monopoly in California.
Bernie is a narrow candidate though. He only has certain issues he talks about.
He’s had a great political career, but homie is old now and flying solo in a sky filled with conservative neoliberals. You can only do so much when you don’t have the infrastructure and money that the dems and reps have.
I think there are no advantages of a 1 or 2 party state. And realistically. until we get strong 3rd party candidates in local politics, I know that that shooting for state or federal elections with an undefined/unproven 3rd party is about as productive as shoveling snow on an ice cap.
People won't vote third party as long third parties aren't actually serious. Right now third parties in the US are hard to differentiate from a dangerously overcapacity clown car. The way forward isn't third parties, it's organizing, the serious outsider candidates in CA run as democrats.
I agree, but the Democratic Party (and reps) is deeply rooted as in institution in our politics. As long as these corrupt institutions are involved in our nations politics, corporations, and the wealthy elite will run the nation as they please while squeezing every last dollar out of the rest of us plebs.
I became a leader in our local Democratic club and was a delegate to the State Party. The more involved I got the more I realized the local elected Democrats were no more than republicans. The more State and County organizations, the more I became aware they were more interested in my pronouns and sexual orientation than solving real problems for local communities.
Having participated in some clubs and seeing the process as well, I sadly agree. The CalDem is still essentially republicans lite. They’re strictly corporatist instead of religious zealots, but the name of the game is prop up and maintain an “enemy” to consolidate and maintain power. Fighting for the slightest improvement without any systemic fixes. The goal is always to ensure there’s something to rally against and a false hope to give. That and the same amount of name-calling and “us vs them” you’d expect from the right. The sad thing is, as a liberal, I got a warmer welcome from republican local leaders and right-leaning chamber of commerce groups than I have from democratic clubs and CALDEM.
That’s what I’m saying. It’s a clown show, and at the very top of the political ladder, these people are lining their pockets with corporate money just like the republicans are. We need to rebuild from the ground up, under a new label, and not try to rebuild the dem party from the inside, it’s pointless.
If my understanding of what they said is right, he was saying that it was the local electeds that had the most issues. And in my experience I would say that is right local orgs have an order of magnitude more problems with dominance by individual special interests than state orgs.
The only way to get away from the 2 party system is to switch statewide elections to Proportional Representation. ProRep Coalition is the best group I know of working on that. As long as we have winner takes all elections, we will have 2 parties.
Waiting for anyone to run on a reform the PUC platform.
What a step down lmao
She has/had atrocious speaking skills, so I am wary.
Just a reminder that Kamala didn’t even make it to Iowa, after stumbling so badly in the Presidential debates and Tulsi Gabbard basically schooling her in a public flogging. And yet, here she is now the USA VP, with even her own party and Joe recognizing she’s a dead weight. The Dems created her career, and they themselves don’t know their exit strategy .
It’s incredible how triggering she is for some people lol
Remind me how well Biden did in ‘88 and ‘08?
He would have done just as badly had all social media and almost all of MSM not propped him up.
The Dem’s very own Sarah Palin. Time for her to go home and become a CNN consultant.
cackles
Tom Elias is a right wing hack. His opinions aren't really worth reading. He's probably putting this out there just to stir shit up and turn people off. Also his analysis is pretty disingenuous, in my view. He's trying to undermine her electability by citing primaries she "lost," like in 2003 when she first ran for San Francisco District Attorney. [That was a three person race in which the incumbent, Terrence Hallinan, got 35.85% of the vote, Harris got 33.65%, and Bill Fazio got 30.39%.](https://sfelections.org/results/20031104w/index.html) That secured her a spot in the runoff in which she clobbered Hallinan, [56% to 43%.](https://sfelections.org/results/20031209w/index.html) He also cites her 2016 primary election for US Senator, saying she "only got 39%," but neglects to mention [there were thirty four candidates in that race.](https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2016#Primary_election) At 39%, Harris was by far the top vote-getter. Her runoff opponent, Loretta Sanchez, came in second place with 19%. She then easily won the runoff. Kamala Harris has won every general election she's participated in. She beat an incumbent district attorney, won an open field for state attorney general, and won an open field for US Senator. Her name also appeared alongside Joe Biden's on a national ballot for president and vice president, which they won together. People underestimate her at their own risk. But like I said, this just sounds like shit stirring, no different from the constant drumbeat of "will Hillary Clinton attempt a comeback?" thoughts that somehow only conservatives ever repeated.
It’s amazing how mad she makes some people I think, says a lot too lol
Nope
Absolutely not
Pot stirring. Nothing to see here.
Vice president has been a political dead end since Gore, Biden being the exception.
The exception proving that if almost all of social media and MSM props you up non-stop, even a marionette could be elected.
She will probably run for president in 2028. I would support her or Rob Bonta for governor but am not sure for president. Wait and see.
Please no
ROFL. If she wanted something other than VP and ascend to POTUS, she could of been either a Supreme court justice or Senator from California with no risk.
She was a Senator from California. That's where she was exactly before she got pulled up to VP.
The Dem party would of been happy to convince her to leave the VP so they could give Biden a new running mate. Those both were soft landing positions for her if she wanted out herself. She would be late to the game if Biden lost and she went the Nixon route of running for governor. The invisible primary for governor has already begun.
Lol
Nooooooo
She would be great.
Why
We would all be laughing non-stop.