So long, hard-puncher
5/12/19 10:50![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttps://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)
Date: 6/12/19 09:22 (UTC)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)
Date: 6/12/19 10:56 (UTC)Jeff Bezos would beg to differ. As would 90's Bill Gates, when I worked for him and he was a bastard.
(no subject)
Date: 6/12/19 11:04 (UTC)