All of your points are spot on, but one that should perhaps receive more emphasis is that Kamala is simply NOT Obama. Whereas Obama represented something unique and special...a powerful orator, authentic, demonstrably smart and capable, and with appeal across class and even party lines...Kamala comes across as your average political career opportunist. There's nothing special about her other than her immutable traits. Nothing that, to me at least, draws skeptical voters in. If anything, she has a tendency to put people off. And her inauthenticity drives the cringe meter to 11. A first question to her should be to list her accomplishments as VP, or even as a DA, AG, or Senator? What has she actually accomplished? I'd challenge even her supporters to name an accomplishment other than she represents another 'first' and isn't Trump.
Really curious to see if this engagement around VP Harris has any staying power, or whether it's just a rebound effect that's providing even a shred of hope vs. the ticket's prospects with Biden. I assume she'll come back down to earth given time and hopefully a legitimate interview or two (I don't believe she's done one yet), but with the partisan media, i don't know if that will happen.
Oh, goodness, Kamala Harris has lots of "accomplishments." They aren't really going to help her - she only released DNA evidence which freed an innocent man whom she salivated to kill when so ordered by a court, after a protracted battle to deny him.
She persecuted poor parents, fining and jailing them for the truancy of their children.
She persecuted medical marijuana caregivers.
She prosecuted people for crimes they themselves were innocent of - one was tormented to the point of committing suicide, another a court ordered her not to persecute - um, prosecute - further.
She stopped prosecutions of the powerful - at least, those favored by her adulterous mentor.
She has been a tremendous success at letting millions upon millions of illigal immigrants into this country - some of them terrorists, many of them drug and sex trafficking criminals, among the rapists and murderers. And of course legitimate asylum seekers are told to stay where they are and apply while remaining in danger.
She cannot utter a non-inane sentence.
She slept her way to power - with a married man. So she's a . . . well, I won't say it here.
Kamala Harris deserves in spades the shellacking I pray every day she will get.
She might, but then, she doesn't actually have the nomination yet. If she does get it - and I admit that is likely enough - she's going to have to debate. And so will her Vice Presidential choice. One never knows. Trump and Vance should take some guidance from Tulsi Gabbard, who blew Harris to tiny bits. Now, that's a "woman of color" I could accept - though I disagree with many of her policy prescriptions, I believe in her integrity.
Harris knows not the word, nor its meaning. Her policies are worse, by far.
That may well be true, but adultery is and has been variously defined in eras, different nations, different U.S. States, etc. In 2003 in New Hampshire, a married man sued his wife for divorce on grounds of adultery, but under that state's 1961 legal definition, two women having an erotic relationship could not be considered adultery, because of, to put it briefly in Noel Coward's terms, "no-one having anything to put anywhere."
My pleasure - I adore Noel Coward, and have since I was introduced to him at age 11, as a character in the film Star! He was played by the great Daniel Massey.
That quote is from his only full-length novel, Pomp and Circumstance, published in 1960.
It's the party, not the candidate. The Democratic Party is riddled with factions whose apparently non-negotiable demands can't be balanced. So Kamala has the same problem that Biden had. She can't govern the party without juggling the factions, but she can't govern the country if she does.
I agree. This is why I predict they'll keep her largely hidden. Whereas 2020 was a strategy of 'Hidin' Biden', 2024 will be 'Concealing Kamala'. She'll be on the stump regurgitating poll tested lines. It won't matter that her current positions completely contradict prior positions she's held. She won't be forced to take a position on the issues that currently divide the Democratic base (i.e. the non-negotiable demands you reference). Whereas every word Trump utters is dissected, clipped, and disseminated by the media with zero context, the press will ignore Kamala's deficiencies and trumpet her strengths...most notably as a biracial female. Trump should absolutely debate her. He should not be forced to do so on ABC, seeing as how he has a defamation suit against the network and likely moderator. He did CNN...Fox would be a more fair venue and would probably do a better job in illuminating the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates, but i won't hold my breath.
She's playing to the identity politics group but she's campaigning to govern for educated (sometimes rich) white people. Period. Unfortunately, my degree did not erase my common sense and I hate identity politics.
You really need (and everyone does!) to stop referring to the progressives as "liberal." The progressive movement has since its inception been, and remains, profoundly illiberal.
There is too much to this that rings true not to be worried. I didn’t join the “white dudes” zoom for precisely these reasons. No one in my past wore pointy hats and I’m not going to just let that description go,by. On the other hand, her Atlanta stump speech did not have these strands of identity politics. And the truth is that the big trends are not things she can change in 100 days. She has to play for a small percentage movement. I thought her Atlanta speech was getting her in the right place to do that.
Agree. These are fundraising calls, not campaign speeches being televised for all to see.
Her primary message to voters has to be centered on middle class, working class concerns. Pushing back too much in these fundraising calls anyway could cause infighting and bickering that the campaign can’t afford to have in such a short time. Be laser focused on winning the rust belt states primarily (which means winning back working class, especially white working class) voters while letting the side show enthusiasm go on, as long as it doesn’t overshadow her main messaging.
Check out that Nate Silver link Ruy referenced, too. In his update, he basically casts more uncertainty on the idea that Trump is favored because he doesn’t have enough polling to work with. Go figure…
There are less than 100 days left. Do you think Kamala Harris really has the clout and skills to convince the Americans she's spent a career denegrating that, despite her words and record, it's them she's working for? It begs the age old question, are American voters that stupid? To be honest, with the amount of media fawning and gaslighting of Kamala's record, we might very well be.
agree it's at the margins. I just wonder if Kamala has a lower ceiling than we're acknowledging. It's all gut feel to me, but it seems every time she opens her mouth, it re-affirms the support of white college educated women and men, which is baked in, but pushes working class voters, especially men, toward Trump. A lot of this is baked in as well, but a good percentage of this latter group are former Democrat voters and young voters...will there be a watershed moment when they say 'f-it' and vote for the other guy?
Could be…even with the wind at her back, I by no means think it is a given that she will win.
She simply can’t win without working to win over those voters with whom she has lost support that Ruy wrote about—working-class of all stripes, Hispanic voters, black voters to some extent (though I think the latter will be less of a problem—especially if Trump keeps turning in the type of performances he did yesterday in Chicago).
I see positive signs from her. I think Ruy is pushing back against fantasy narratives from the Democratic Party, and that is a good thing.
"She simply can’t win without working to win over those voters with whom she has lost support that Ruy wrote about—working-class of all stripes, Hispanic voters, black voters"...
I agree. And that's my point. I have seen nothing in Kamala over the last several years that gives me confidence she's capable of doing this. The donors, party power base, and MSM will need to carry her across the finish line. As gross as that feels, it's the only way.
Let's be honest, she is, at best, an average politician with a limited track record of accomplishments that she can actually tout on the campaign trail. She was deeply unpopular just 2 months ago. She didn't win a single delegate in her 2020 run for POTUS, even in her own state. At some point, this reality has to be reconciled with the messianic portrayal she's currently benefitting from. Their best strategy might be the same as 2020, to limit press availability and thereby opportunities for bad exposure. Let the media gaslight her record and maintain the new persona they've fabricated for her. Some may question how well that strategy served the American people over the last 4 years.
Clearly I am somewhat biased and this is all anecdotal...just where my mind is at at this particular moment.
I think a fair number of working-class voters can be won over by putting distance between Harris and the fringe left. Not only would picking Shapiro really help in Pennsylvania, but it would piss off the far left - and give Harris a reason to separate from and condemn them. There's more than one way to win Michigan, and there are more votes to be had by smacking down flag burners and graffiti sprayers than by coddling anti-Semites.
10 months ago, NYT Magazine ran a big article filled with "unnamed sources" about how disappointed Dems were with KH and whether they might need someone new to run with JRB in '24. The fact that the company paper of the "Brahmin Left" was talking openly this way indicated how much concern was there. This whole "switcheroo" feels like cotton candy or spinning plates. Having a short campaign period could make it work. But it feels very unstable. Greatly appreciate Ruy and his insights on how the Dem coalition has changed.
Great piece.
All of your points are spot on, but one that should perhaps receive more emphasis is that Kamala is simply NOT Obama. Whereas Obama represented something unique and special...a powerful orator, authentic, demonstrably smart and capable, and with appeal across class and even party lines...Kamala comes across as your average political career opportunist. There's nothing special about her other than her immutable traits. Nothing that, to me at least, draws skeptical voters in. If anything, she has a tendency to put people off. And her inauthenticity drives the cringe meter to 11. A first question to her should be to list her accomplishments as VP, or even as a DA, AG, or Senator? What has she actually accomplished? I'd challenge even her supporters to name an accomplishment other than she represents another 'first' and isn't Trump.
Really curious to see if this engagement around VP Harris has any staying power, or whether it's just a rebound effect that's providing even a shred of hope vs. the ticket's prospects with Biden. I assume she'll come back down to earth given time and hopefully a legitimate interview or two (I don't believe she's done one yet), but with the partisan media, i don't know if that will happen.
Oh, goodness, Kamala Harris has lots of "accomplishments." They aren't really going to help her - she only released DNA evidence which freed an innocent man whom she salivated to kill when so ordered by a court, after a protracted battle to deny him.
She persecuted poor parents, fining and jailing them for the truancy of their children.
She persecuted medical marijuana caregivers.
She prosecuted people for crimes they themselves were innocent of - one was tormented to the point of committing suicide, another a court ordered her not to persecute - um, prosecute - further.
She stopped prosecutions of the powerful - at least, those favored by her adulterous mentor.
She has been a tremendous success at letting millions upon millions of illigal immigrants into this country - some of them terrorists, many of them drug and sex trafficking criminals, among the rapists and murderers. And of course legitimate asylum seekers are told to stay where they are and apply while remaining in danger.
She cannot utter a non-inane sentence.
She slept her way to power - with a married man. So she's a . . . well, I won't say it here.
Kamala Harris deserves in spades the shellacking I pray every day she will get.
All very true but with the media going all out to lie for her she may get away with it. Shameful.
She might, but then, she doesn't actually have the nomination yet. If she does get it - and I admit that is likely enough - she's going to have to debate. And so will her Vice Presidential choice. One never knows. Trump and Vance should take some guidance from Tulsi Gabbard, who blew Harris to tiny bits. Now, that's a "woman of color" I could accept - though I disagree with many of her policy prescriptions, I believe in her integrity.
Harris knows not the word, nor its meaning. Her policies are worse, by far.
Originally, the Commandment on Adultery required both parties to be married, but not to each other.
That may well be true, but adultery is and has been variously defined in eras, different nations, different U.S. States, etc. In 2003 in New Hampshire, a married man sued his wife for divorce on grounds of adultery, but under that state's 1961 legal definition, two women having an erotic relationship could not be considered adultery, because of, to put it briefly in Noel Coward's terms, "no-one having anything to put anywhere."
Very tongue in cheek, but that was Noel Coward, thank you for the remembrance of him.
My pleasure - I adore Noel Coward, and have since I was introduced to him at age 11, as a character in the film Star! He was played by the great Daniel Massey.
That quote is from his only full-length novel, Pomp and Circumstance, published in 1960.
Read that in my twenties, and thoroughly enjoyed it. We have had nothing like him since, but how would that be possible?
It's the party, not the candidate. The Democratic Party is riddled with factions whose apparently non-negotiable demands can't be balanced. So Kamala has the same problem that Biden had. She can't govern the party without juggling the factions, but she can't govern the country if she does.
I agree. This is why I predict they'll keep her largely hidden. Whereas 2020 was a strategy of 'Hidin' Biden', 2024 will be 'Concealing Kamala'. She'll be on the stump regurgitating poll tested lines. It won't matter that her current positions completely contradict prior positions she's held. She won't be forced to take a position on the issues that currently divide the Democratic base (i.e. the non-negotiable demands you reference). Whereas every word Trump utters is dissected, clipped, and disseminated by the media with zero context, the press will ignore Kamala's deficiencies and trumpet her strengths...most notably as a biracial female. Trump should absolutely debate her. He should not be forced to do so on ABC, seeing as how he has a defamation suit against the network and likely moderator. He did CNN...Fox would be a more fair venue and would probably do a better job in illuminating the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates, but i won't hold my breath.
She's playing to the identity politics group but she's campaigning to govern for educated (sometimes rich) white people. Period. Unfortunately, my degree did not erase my common sense and I hate identity politics.
You really need (and everyone does!) to stop referring to the progressives as "liberal." The progressive movement has since its inception been, and remains, profoundly illiberal.
Currently the unabashed MSM cheerleading for Harris is reminiscent of the 2008 Obama campaign. Bring back Hope & Change....
they're talking about the chills up their legs and everything. Unreal.
There is too much to this that rings true not to be worried. I didn’t join the “white dudes” zoom for precisely these reasons. No one in my past wore pointy hats and I’m not going to just let that description go,by. On the other hand, her Atlanta stump speech did not have these strands of identity politics. And the truth is that the big trends are not things she can change in 100 days. She has to play for a small percentage movement. I thought her Atlanta speech was getting her in the right place to do that.
Agree. These are fundraising calls, not campaign speeches being televised for all to see.
Her primary message to voters has to be centered on middle class, working class concerns. Pushing back too much in these fundraising calls anyway could cause infighting and bickering that the campaign can’t afford to have in such a short time. Be laser focused on winning the rust belt states primarily (which means winning back working class, especially white working class) voters while letting the side show enthusiasm go on, as long as it doesn’t overshadow her main messaging.
Check out that Nate Silver link Ruy referenced, too. In his update, he basically casts more uncertainty on the idea that Trump is favored because he doesn’t have enough polling to work with. Go figure…
There are less than 100 days left. Do you think Kamala Harris really has the clout and skills to convince the Americans she's spent a career denegrating that, despite her words and record, it's them she's working for? It begs the age old question, are American voters that stupid? To be honest, with the amount of media fawning and gaslighting of Kamala's record, we might very well be.
Yeah, I do. At the margins, and that’s where elections are won these days.
agree it's at the margins. I just wonder if Kamala has a lower ceiling than we're acknowledging. It's all gut feel to me, but it seems every time she opens her mouth, it re-affirms the support of white college educated women and men, which is baked in, but pushes working class voters, especially men, toward Trump. A lot of this is baked in as well, but a good percentage of this latter group are former Democrat voters and young voters...will there be a watershed moment when they say 'f-it' and vote for the other guy?
Could be…even with the wind at her back, I by no means think it is a given that she will win.
She simply can’t win without working to win over those voters with whom she has lost support that Ruy wrote about—working-class of all stripes, Hispanic voters, black voters to some extent (though I think the latter will be less of a problem—especially if Trump keeps turning in the type of performances he did yesterday in Chicago).
I see positive signs from her. I think Ruy is pushing back against fantasy narratives from the Democratic Party, and that is a good thing.
"She simply can’t win without working to win over those voters with whom she has lost support that Ruy wrote about—working-class of all stripes, Hispanic voters, black voters"...
I agree. And that's my point. I have seen nothing in Kamala over the last several years that gives me confidence she's capable of doing this. The donors, party power base, and MSM will need to carry her across the finish line. As gross as that feels, it's the only way.
Let's be honest, she is, at best, an average politician with a limited track record of accomplishments that she can actually tout on the campaign trail. She was deeply unpopular just 2 months ago. She didn't win a single delegate in her 2020 run for POTUS, even in her own state. At some point, this reality has to be reconciled with the messianic portrayal she's currently benefitting from. Their best strategy might be the same as 2020, to limit press availability and thereby opportunities for bad exposure. Let the media gaslight her record and maintain the new persona they've fabricated for her. Some may question how well that strategy served the American people over the last 4 years.
Clearly I am somewhat biased and this is all anecdotal...just where my mind is at at this particular moment.
I think a fair number of working-class voters can be won over by putting distance between Harris and the fringe left. Not only would picking Shapiro really help in Pennsylvania, but it would piss off the far left - and give Harris a reason to separate from and condemn them. There's more than one way to win Michigan, and there are more votes to be had by smacking down flag burners and graffiti sprayers than by coddling anti-Semites.
10 months ago, NYT Magazine ran a big article filled with "unnamed sources" about how disappointed Dems were with KH and whether they might need someone new to run with JRB in '24. The fact that the company paper of the "Brahmin Left" was talking openly this way indicated how much concern was there. This whole "switcheroo" feels like cotton candy or spinning plates. Having a short campaign period could make it work. But it feels very unstable. Greatly appreciate Ruy and his insights on how the Dem coalition has changed.
Dennis Prager often says of a person that the person "couldn't be stupider if he'd gone to college."
Your fighting the good fight, but I don't think their listening.