luzribeiro (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
luzribeiro) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2019-12-05 10:50 am
luzribeiro) wrote in talkpolitics2019-12-05 10:50 am
So long, hard-puncher
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/472820-kamala-harris-drops-out-of-presidential-race-reports
Kamala Harris, the California senator has announced that she is suspending her presidential campaign after months of failing to lift her candidacy from the bottom of the field.
She did her best. She used her prosecutor's talent and instincts to go after some of the dominant candidates, particularly Joe Biden. Some of the hottest moments during those debates were inspired by her intervention. Yet, one could say she lacked much substance and multi-layered vision on policy beyond the obvious passionate accusor's flair that she exploited for most of her run.
It's one thing to take easy aim at the front-runner (hardly made a dent into Biden's standing in the polls in the long run, tbh) - it's quite another to actually appear presidential. Mind you, the Dem candidates don't even need to look "visionary" at this point, the way Obama did in his time - suffice to "not be crazy as Trump" and want to "bring things back to normal" after 4 years of chaos and insanity.
Kamala probably failed to resonate with that sentiment. She seemed sharp, aggressive, rude even. I'm not sure people want any more of that in the next years.
On a more conspiracy-prone note, one could argue she failed because she didn't side with billionaires, and it's become ever harder for non-billionaires to get elected US president. This sort of argument tends to maintain that US politics is fast heading toward plutocracy of a sort as the wealthy hold so much of the national wealth that they're the biggest deciders and also the most capable of campaigning themselves (see Trump, Bloomberg).
My take on her fate is more trivial, though. In this instance Ms Harris just wasn't popular enough in the expansive field of Democratic hopefuls to stay in the running any longer. There are a lot of ways for Dem donors to split their money right now, making it difficult for probably all candidates, Bloomberg aside.
As for policy, personally, her Medicare For All was too far to the left even for me, same with Warren and Sanders. Bloomberg is much better positioned in this respect, it would seem. Now it looks like we're going to have a bunch of septuagenarians duking it out for the presidency.
Kamala Harris, the California senator has announced that she is suspending her presidential campaign after months of failing to lift her candidacy from the bottom of the field.
She did her best. She used her prosecutor's talent and instincts to go after some of the dominant candidates, particularly Joe Biden. Some of the hottest moments during those debates were inspired by her intervention. Yet, one could say she lacked much substance and multi-layered vision on policy beyond the obvious passionate accusor's flair that she exploited for most of her run.
It's one thing to take easy aim at the front-runner (hardly made a dent into Biden's standing in the polls in the long run, tbh) - it's quite another to actually appear presidential. Mind you, the Dem candidates don't even need to look "visionary" at this point, the way Obama did in his time - suffice to "not be crazy as Trump" and want to "bring things back to normal" after 4 years of chaos and insanity.
Kamala probably failed to resonate with that sentiment. She seemed sharp, aggressive, rude even. I'm not sure people want any more of that in the next years.
On a more conspiracy-prone note, one could argue she failed because she didn't side with billionaires, and it's become ever harder for non-billionaires to get elected US president. This sort of argument tends to maintain that US politics is fast heading toward plutocracy of a sort as the wealthy hold so much of the national wealth that they're the biggest deciders and also the most capable of campaigning themselves (see Trump, Bloomberg).
My take on her fate is more trivial, though. In this instance Ms Harris just wasn't popular enough in the expansive field of Democratic hopefuls to stay in the running any longer. There are a lot of ways for Dem donors to split their money right now, making it difficult for probably all candidates, Bloomberg aside.
As for policy, personally, her Medicare For All was too far to the left even for me, same with Warren and Sanders. Bloomberg is much better positioned in this respect, it would seem. Now it looks like we're going to have a bunch of septuagenarians duking it out for the presidency.
no subject
I would hope that - if things go as well as they might - she could still end up US Attorney General.
no subject
no subject
I also thought checking two boxes would be irresistible to Democrats (not completely ruling this out until the last Dem standing picks a VP).
I still think she would have given Trump the 2nd-4th toughest challenge out of the field.
I don't understand why Dems are leaning Joe, and I'm guessing around 70% of Dems are just as baffled as I am.
no subject
Joe is a likable and experienced centrist who is closely associated with Obama, who is still the most popular living politician in the US. Maybe Warren beats Trump by a few extra percentage points in California or some other non-competitive state, but it's Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina that count. In those states, Biden is projected to win a majority while Warren and Sanders tie:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/trump-rivals-biden-warren-and-sanders-in-2020-election-swing-states.html
no subject
Obama is a plus for Biden, but unless he's going to give all the speeches - not being able to complete thoughts/sentences is going to seriously hurt his chances.
no subject
no subject
The left should be grateful that Trump says ridiculous shit - if he didnt, I dont think dems would have a chance. But he does, and so they do.
If you want Trump out, you dont want the ridiculous shit he says being overshadowed by the ridiculous shit your candidate says. Joe is going to say ridiculous shit. This is why I'm doubting he is 'most likely to beat Trump' out of this class.
no subject
It doesn't change other things, but it does bring health within the ægis of civil service/governmental departments, and that governance is therefore subject to voters, not shareholders. (I am making a distinction here which may not be obvious to everyone, even though you and others will assume this.) Structurally it assumes the health of the nation and its constituents are a vital part of the infrastructure of the nation. This is definitely true in wartime, why not in peacetime?
no subject
That said, this was also true in 2016 as well. The Brezhnevification of the capitalist superpower is becoming as total as it was in the Communist one.
no subject
https://news.yahoo.com/kamala-harris-suffers-blow-aide-165844171.html
You can't treat your employees like trash, and expect to be successful.
no subject
Jeff Bezos would beg to differ. As would 90's Bill Gates, when I worked for him and he was a bastard.
no subject