Harris / ??? 2024

[Suckrates]

 

 

"She's Worse than Hillary" ......

[Suckrates]

[Suckrates]

[Suckrates]

        

   

   

       

 

KAMALA HARRIS 2024

[RockyRoadTravel]

With the "double haters" (the era of American politics brought to you by the hater-in-chief Trump) Harris probably has more growth potential than the defeated former president.  Trump has a 54% disapproval rate amongst Americans according to the poll amalgamations on 538, while Harris has a disapproval rate of 50%.  In the before times (before Trump mainstreamed hate in American politics) neither would be good.  Now, who knows, a 4% advantage is a 4% advantage. 

[Suckrates]

3 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

With the "double haters" (the era of American politics brought to you by the hater-in-chief Trump) Harris probably has more growth potential than the defeated former president.  Trump has a 54% disapproval rate amongst Americans according to the poll amalgamations on 538, while Harris has a disapproval rate of 50%.  In the before times (before Trump mainstreamed hate in American politics) neither would be good.  Now, who knows, a 4% advantage is a 4% advantage. 

[stevenkesslar]

 

A few contradictory things.  One, a lot of people are saying that it is stupid for Democrats to focus on process.  People don't give a shit.  What they should instead focus on is defining Kamala Harris more clearly, before Republicans define her the way they do above.  I think that's true.  That said, I think a certain amount of what Republicans are doing above is very helpful to Kamala.  It's the don't throw me in the briar patch principle.

Meaning, "Please.  Don't make racist and sexist attacks on Kamala Harris.  Please don't do that.  Please, please, please!"

It really does amazes me how stupid and - yes, racist - so many Republicans can be.  And they just have no fucking clue.  They attacked Rev. Warnock as being an illegitimate pastor preaching illegitimate or dangerous messages. As far as I can tell, it did three things.  It offended Blacks and rallied them to make getting Warnock elected a crusade.  It made White swing voters who don't want to feel they are racist uncomfortable.  And it opened this huge door for Warnock to say, "See.  I like puppies.  I'm not a demon."

So I think they are are giving Kamala the same gift.  What they want America to know about Kamala is that she is a stupid Black woman who has low brain function, kind of like an ape.  And she iterates by cackling.  It is similar to an ape, really.  Cackle.  Cackle.  Cackle. Stupid Black ape!  Now, of course, as soon as you compare a Black woman to an ape you are a racist.  So they are not saying it that bluntly.  But they really are going right up to the line, even moreso than they did with Rev. Warnock.  And it will have the same consequences.

Tens of thousands of Black women across the country joined a virtual call last night to fundraise and strategize.

Quote

“We need to defend our sister everywhere,” read the meeting notes obtained by POLITICO. “It is a ‘thing’ to have MAGA world chasing you.”

So it's the same thing.  They are doing a good job organizing their opposition.  The flow of love and support to Kamala is organic, and would have happened anyway.  But these attacks will just electrify it more.  And by presenting Kamala as a Black ape who has low brain function and just cackles a lot and is too stupid to learn, they have set a low bar that she will clear very easily.  When she starts talking about how she threw rapists and criminals in jail, and defended home owners from predatory lenders, and stood up for children, America will see that she does more than cackle.

As a White man who doesn't know much about the Black community, this is going to be fascinating.  And healing, I think.  One of my tenants is a Black pastor, with a lovely wife and three beautiful children.  He's told me stories about how he is STILL discriminated against in liberal California, whether it is buying a car or getting a job, because of his race.  So if Kamala comes out tough on crime and talks about how she will throw your ass in jail if you rape or murder, whether your ass is Black or White, I am going to guess it will go down well with Black pastors.  And White moderates.  We'll see.  If she talks about how some women and especially kids are vulnerable and need someone tough to stand up for them, I'm going to guess that will go down well with Black pastors and White moderates, too.

This is not just energizing.  It is electrifying.

[Stable Genius]

My pick for Veep:

 

Senator Mike Kelly of AZ

[RockyRoadTravel]

To start, I'm not a big fan of identity politics. I think identity is important, and it's not something to unite a campaign around with an electorate of hundreds of identities. 

Say that, so far I've been happy with the coverage of Harris so far. It's less of the Clinton, I'm a woman running for president, than Harris is running for president and happens to be a woman.  It seems like less of a big deal or focus, naturally given that if she gets the nomination, she's the second and not the first. 

My first inkling of concern today was when I saw a Kamala sign.  No.  Run as Harris, not as Kamala. Just like Biden ran as Biden, and Trump is running as Trump, not as Hillary ran as Hillary. 

[stevenkesslar]

7 hours ago, Stable Genius said:

My pick for Veep:

 

Senator Mike Kelly of AZ

Absolutely!   I'm glad they seem to have already narrowed it down to a Tough White Guy Veep.  The sooner she picks one and they get out there and define themselves, before the MAGA Machine is allowed to define them, the better.  

I went Veep shopping.  If anyone is interested these are short recent videos of  Secretary Pete, Andy Beshear, Josh Shapiro, and Roy Cooper, either talking about whether they'd be Veep or in some other political context.  I think any of them would be great.

Three of them are, like Harris, former Attorney Generals.  I like the idea of building "the rule of law" into the heart of the campaign.  What I like even more is that Beshear and Shapiro talk about bipartisanship, lowering the volume, working together to get important things done.  All four of those guys are great on that point.  Although not necessarily when they are in rally mode like Cooper is, or on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow, like Pete is.

But I agree with what a lot of talking heads are saying.  Which is that Mark Kelly could add some special sauce that would help nationally, as well as in his own state.  (The speech starts at 4:00, and the policy part starts at 9:30 and lasts about five minutes.)

Harris will be attacked as the extremely liberal DEI Queen of identity politics who cackles.  That is her big personal vulnerability.  Put a White guy who flies in space and isn't the most eloquent on the ticket.  When I first listened to his speech I thought he is not loud mouthed and witty and quick like Buttigieg or Shapiro.  But I think I like it that he talks like a normal guy.  Immigration is Kamala's biggest liability.  And in the minds of some the reason she should not even be the nominee.  Kelly can own that issue for her.  And talk about why we need to come together and compromise and do sensible things we can agree on.  Oh, and we can do that on gun control, too.  Harris can now brandish her own tough on crime record, and a 20 % cut in murder and violent crime in the last few years, in a way she could not in 2020.  Mark Kelly grew up with a Mom and a Dad who were both cops.  You can not get more "rule of law" than that.

But the thing I think would add special sauce is the way he talks about finding common ground with Republicans to solve big problems.  Because he has the receipts.  Like on the immigration reform bill Trump killed. 

I hope this is not only how Harris campaigns.  I hope it's how she wants to govern.  It's unlikely Democrats can hold the Senate.  And the only way Tester and Brown will win is if they pound this message home, and people in Montana and Ohio believe it.  And if Democrats ever want to have more than 50 or so votes in the Senate, it's going to have to work in states like Indiana and Missouri and North Dakota again.  Unlikely under Kamala Harris, probably.  But if I wanted to get anything through a Senate with 51 or 52 Republicans, I'd want someone like Kelly on the team.  I think it makes a lot of sense as how Democrats want to brand what we want to do.  It is very different than what Trump is saying.  And it goes well beyond "Orange Bad Man" and "Felon".

I think identity politics is what got us to this point, in a good way.  I remember in 2008 having excited conversations with liberal friends.  Like, could we actually have the luxury of even being able to choose between a Black man and a woman for President?  Now it took 24 hours for Democrats to get their minds around the idea of a Black woman POTUS, and unity.  And less than that to think we probably want to have some Tough White Guy on the ballot next to her.  That's a lot of growth.

And sorry to rain on Trump's parade.  But I think after Trump loses they will regret the choice of JD Vance, and the over the top testosterone level of their MAGA party.  Kevin McCarthy was the one who said you can't have a Republican Party led by mostly White men.  I'm glad Trump did not pick Tim Scott as his Veep.  Since his message, that we need to have each other's back again, doesn't really belong in Trump's party.  It may belong in the Republican Party of 2028 or 2032.  Nikki Haley would have made a good first woman POTUS.  But she's now been forced to lick Trump's ass.  Trump is good at one thing:  trying to divide us, and conquer.  Which is why he and his MAGA candidates keep losing. And I think will lose again.

[Stable Genius]

https://libtees-2.creator-spring.com/listing/porc

[RockyRoadTravel]

This is thinking out loud speculation, so please chill with any responses. 

I'm wondering if Democratic polling nationally for president is reminiscent of the early Obamacare polling. Initially, Obamacare didn't poll as well as it does today. It wasn't as popular not only because of the GOP being opposed to the government assisting an expanding number of Americans getting health insurance coverage, but it was also unpopular with people who didn't think it went far enough and there should be a public option (like the rest of the developed world has).  

I'm speculating if part of the disapproval ratings of Biden/Harris was representative of unease from both sides of the political spectrum?  And will there be an unexpected bump up in approval rates now that enthusiasm seems to be moving to the Democrats? So far Harris is speaking more directly on campaign issues and what another term in office would work towards 

[stevenkesslar]

A good essay written by Nancy Pelosi's former Chief of Staff on why he supports Mark Kelly.  

The Case for Kelly

Lawrence worked for Pelosi while Gabby Giffords was an MOC, became a close friend of hers,  and is still close to both Giffords and her hubby.

[stevenkesslar]

22 minutes ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

This is thinking out loud speculation, so please chill with any responses. 

I'm wondering if Democratic polling nationally for president is reminiscent of the early Obamacare polling. Initially, Obamacare didn't poll as well as it does today. It wasn't as popular not only because of the GOP being opposed to the government assisting an expanding number of Americans getting health insurance coverage, but it was also unpopular with people who didn't think it went far enough and their should be a public option (like the rest of the developed world has).  

I'm speculating if part of the disapproval ratings of Biden/Harris was representative of unease from both sides of the political spectrum?  And will there be an unexpected bump up in approval rates now that enthusiasm seems to be moving to the Democrats?

If Obamacare is the example, that brings two things to mind.

First, it was unpopular because Republicans got to define it.  The famous bad line from Pelosi was we have to pass the bill to know what's in it. They were able to portray it as this sort of Ponzi scheme that no one understood and that didn't make sense.  The lesson is Kamala and her Veep better define themselves quickly or otherwise Republicans will define them as something bad for America.   Almost as bad as diet Mountain Dew.  😲

Second, people liked Obamacare when they understood specifically what it did that helped them.  Like not being denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions.  So to the degree that Kamala can be specific about things that help people in concrete ways, that will help her ratings.  Like, I am tough on crime.  Murder and violent crime dropped about 20 % in the past few years.  Murder spiked 30 % the last year of Trump's Presidency.  Which would you prefer?

Inflation and prices are the tough one.  That's just real, and denying it won't help.  As much as Biden was kind of viewed as President Empathy, I thought he came off as clueless when he's been asked about prices recently.  That might have been one more sign that as he aged his political instincts have dulled.  Kamala can bring back the talk about her Mom worrying at the kitchen table.  But I'd be talking about insulin prices. I'd be talking about how Republicans still want to kill Obamacare and cut taxes for corporations and billionaires.  I'd be talking about prosecuting corporations who fix prices.  I'd be talking about the child tax credits that helped 50 million American kids and lifted millions of them out of poverty, which the Republicans (and Manchin) killed.  For many working class Americans, those tax credits offset the sting of inflation.  Bringing them back now, when inflation is 3 %, would be a real boost for tens of millions of working class Americans. 

But more than anything, I'd be talking about jobs.  Trump actually killed jobs in his four years, including killing 40,000 factory jobs in 2019 alone - before COVID and after his fat cat tax cuts were supposed to magically create good jobs for everyone.  Biden and Harris brought back 1 million jobs.  Which would people rather have?  Why are we pretending things were great when Trump pandered to billionaires and killed factory jobs?

[Suckrates]

29 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

But more than anything, I'd be talking about jobs.  Trump actually killed jobs in his four years, including killing 40,000 factory jobs in 2019 alone - before COVID and after his fat cat tax cuts were supposed to magically create good jobs for everyone.  Biden and Harris brought back 1 million jobs.  Which would people rather have?  Why are we pretending things were great when Trump pandered to billionaires and killed factory jobs?

Obviously when you ask these rhetorical questions, you aim them at a particular segment of Americans, TRUMP SUPPORTERS ?  since they are the only ones pretending or dismissing, or avoiding .   Dems know the Truth about Trump , his downgrade of American economy as President, and his asslicking of the mega rich...   This in denial segment quotes cheaper eggs and gas as  their reasons for believing Trump was Great on the economy,  but really cannot say they were better off under Trump or arent really better off now, because of the high price of those damn eggs....   Who knew eggs was such a game changer ?   Trump supporters continue to close their eyes and minds to who Trump is and what he did or didnt do because they think he's badass and entertaining..... NOT because hes good at Anything....He speaks their hateful, vitriolic language and offers them approval. 

If theres one thing Trump is, its being the Greatest Showman,  glitz, glam and razz-matazz WITHOUT any substance.    Hes perfect for the limited brain capacity of his audience. 

[RockyRoadTravel]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

If Obamacare is the example, that brings two things to mind.

First, it was unpopular because Republicans got to define it.  The famous bad line from Pelosi was we have to pass the bill to know what's in it. They were able to portray it as this sort of Ponzi scheme that no one understood and that didn't make sense.  The lesson is Kamala and her Veep better define themselves quickly or otherwise Republicans will define them as something bad for America.   Almost as bad as diet Mountain Dew.  😲

Second, people liked Obamacare when they understood specifically what it did that helped them.  Like not being denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions.  So to the degree that Kamala can be specific about things that help people in concrete ways, that will help her ratings.  Like, I am tough on crime.  Murder and violent crime dropped about 20 % in the past few years.  Murder spiked 30 % the last year of Trump's Presidency.  Which would you prefer?

Inflation and prices are the tough one.  That's just real, and denying it won't help.  As much as Biden was kind of viewed as President Empathy, I thought he came off as clueless when he's been asked about prices recently.  That might have been one more sign that as he aged his political instincts have dulled.  Kamala can bring back the talk about her Mom worrying at the kitchen table.  But I'd be talking about insulin prices. I'd be talking about how Republicans still want to kill Obamacare and cut taxes for corporations and billionaires.  I'd be talking about prosecuting corporations who fix prices.  I'd be talking about the child tax credits that helped 50 million American kids and lifted millions of them out of poverty, which the Republicans (and Manchin) killed.  For many working class Americans, those tax credits offset the sting of inflation.  Bringing them back now, when inflation is 3 %, would be a real boost for tens of millions of working class Americans. 

But more than anything, I'd be talking about jobs.  Trump actually killed jobs in his four years, including killing 40,000 factory jobs in 2019 alone - before COVID and after his fat cat tax cuts were supposed to magically create good jobs for everyone.  Biden and Harris brought back 1 million jobs.  Which would people rather have?  Why are we pretending things were great when Trump pandered to billionaires and killed factory jobs?

Harris needs to define the race as:  Trump is a lying bully and I can stand up to him and protect America from him. 

[RockyRoadTravel]

42 minutes ago, Suckrates said:

 

If theres one thing Trump is, its being the Greatest Showman,  glitz, glam and razz-matazz WITHOUT any substance.    Hes perfect for the limited brain capacity of his audience. 

I disagree with you, somewhat. Trump treats his supporters as if they are ignorant fools, that doesn't mean they all are. Yes, there are some people (or person on here) who are willing fools of Trump's nonsense and lies.  I don't think that is true for most of his supporters. People are busy. Media comprehension is poor. There's a flood of misinformation shoveled out by FOX opinion talking heads. Endemic racism is something we grow up with in America. There is that American cultural trait to believe in nonsense (from Salem witch hunts, to snake oil salesmen, 9/11 conspiracy theories, to Trump's business acumen).  The list goes on.

I believe in hard work, fairness, equity and respect for other people. Even MAGA extremists - who I don't share values with - are, I think, just trying to do the best they can in what ever circumstances they find themselves in, just like everyone else is.  I won't dismiss them as ignorant, even if Trump treats them as if they were. 

[Suckrates]

28 minutes ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

I disagree with you, somewhat. Trump treats his supporters as if they are ignorant fools, that doesn't mean they all are. Yes, there are some people (or person on here) who are willing fools of Trump's nonsense and lies.  I don't think that is true for most of his supporters. People are busy. Media comprehension is poor. There's a flood of misinformation shoveled out by FOX opinion talking heads. Endemic racism is something we grow up with in America. There is that American cultural trait to believe in nonsense (from Salem witch hunts, to snake oil salesmen, 9/11 conspiracy theories, to Trump's business acumen).  The list goes on.

I believe in hard work, fairness, equity and respect for other people. Even MAGA extremists - who I don't share values with - are, I think, just trying to do the best they can in what ever circumstances they find themselves in, just like everyone else is.  I won't dismiss them as ignorant, even if Trump treats them as if they were. 

 

Whatever they are, they should be people that know right from wrong, but are making a conscious choice, with EVERYTHING they know about Trump, to choose him.  For that, IMO they are not worthy of any redemption, grace or respect.  Over 47 million people voted for the man, a huge portion of the Republican base.  Thats alot of stupid, low information people, who have influence on other like minded people who perhaps just didnt vote.   So by association, I consider them in the same category. .  

[stevenkesslar]

49 minutes ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

I won't dismiss them as ignorant, even if Trump treats them as if they were. 

I don't often run across data on some big political trend that surprises me.  This did:

I'm so used to reading that the working class is moving to Trump that sometimes I guess I believe the bullshit myself.  And I know the White working class is moving to Trump.  That's been true since Bill Clinton, who was good at getting the Bubba vote.  Since then there has been a gradual but steady decline in Democratic support among White working class voters.  That then gets you into a debate about whether every White working class voter is racist.  No, they're not.

Biden in 2020 actually did much better than Hillary in 2016 among people making under $50,000.  Biden won 55 % of voters who made under $50,000.  If $50,000 or less ain't working class, what is?

I can't find anything that crosstabulates.  But I am guessing one reason Democrats do better among lower-income working class voters is that they tend to be less White.  I'm also guessing one reason Democrats do less well among upper-income or upper-middle working class voters is they are more likely to be evangelicals who are pretty well off financially and are greatly concerned about the culture war.  And are the hotbed for remaining opposition to same sex marriage, and the renewed war to ban abortion.  I even wonder what "upper-middle" working class means, since I think of "working class" as NOT being particularly well off.  The working class people who are the least well off are the most Democratic.

Biden, Trump, and the 4 categories of white votes

I thought that article was helpful in terms of untangling these different labels:  White, working class, upper-middle class, evangelical.  Basically, the one group Democrats should probably view as their political opponents are evangelicals who are particularly turned on by waging culture war.  They ain't gonna like Kamala.  They will see her as the DEI dumb as rocks candidate.  When she is elected, somehow the dumb as rocks woman will turn into the tyrant, just like lazy and inept Obama somehow turned into a tyrannical autocrat in their minds.

As far as what Kamala (and Kelly?) should do, I like the article's conclusion:

Quote

And, if I were trying to get Biden Harris reelected, I would read Ruffini’s book; do more to activate voter empathies for Biden than to stir voter antipathies toward Trump; and concede not a single non-evangelical white working-class vote until all the votes for president are once again duly counted.

Exactly!

I'll add some Kamala caveats.  I think with 20/20 hindsight most Democrats agree those 2016 ads that went after Trump for being a bad White guy who said bad things about women didn't work.  I think it is different to go after Trump as a proven and convicted felon, fraudster, and sex abuser.  I don't think first time voters who get their politics off TikTok know that Trump was convicted of abusing women or had to pay back for defrauding male college students.  They need to know that.  And I don't know we need empathy for Biden or Harris.  I think we need empathy for their working class policies.  Every Democratic Senate candidate running in every swing state is ahead because they are pushing pro-working class and pro-middle class policies.

[RockyRoadTravel]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

I don't often run across data on some big political trend that surprises me.  This did:

I'm so used to reading that the working class is moving to Trump that sometimes I guess I believe the bullshit myself.  And I know the White working class is moving to Trump.  That's been true since Bill Clinton, who was good at getting the Bubba vote.  Since then there has been a gradual but steady decline in Democratic support among White working class voters.  That then gets you into a debate about whether every White working class voter is racist.  No, they're not.

Biden in 2020 actually did much better than Hillary in 2016 among people making under $50,000.  Biden won 55 % of voters who made under $50,000.  If $50,000 or less ain't working class, what is?

I can't find anything that crosstabulates.  But I am guessing one reason Democrats do better among lower-income working class voters is that they tend to be less White.  I'm also guessing one reason Democrats do less well among upper-income or upper-middle working class voters is they are more likely to be evangelicals who are pretty well off financially and are greatly concerned about the culture war.  And are the hotbed for remaining opposition to same sex marriage, and the renewed war to ban abortion.  I even wonder what "upper-middle" working class means, since I think of "working class" as NOT being particularly well off.  The working class people who are the least well off are the most Democratic.

Biden, Trump, and the 4 categories of white votes

I thought that article was helpful in terms of untangling these different labels:  White, working class, upper-middle class, evangelical.  Basically, the one group Democrats should probably view as their political opponents are evangelicals who are particularly turned on by waging culture war.  They ain't gonna like Kamala.  They will see her as the DEI dumb as rocks candidate.  When she is elected, somehow the dumb as rocks woman will turn into the tyrant, just like lazy and inept Obama somehow turned into a tyrannical autocrat in their minds.

As far as what Kamala (and Kelly?) should do, I like the article's conclusion:

Exactly!

I'll add some Kamala caveats.  I think with 20/20 hindsight most Democrats agree those 2016 ads that went after Trump for being a bad White guy who said bad things about women didn't work.  I think it is different to go after Trump as a proven and convicted felon, fraudster, and sex abuser.  I don't think first time voters who get their politics off TikTok know that Trump was convicted of abusing women or had to pay back for defrauding male college students.  They need to know that.  And I don't know we need empathy for Biden or Harris.  I think we need empathy for their working class policies.  Every Democratic Senate candidate running in every swing state is ahead because they are pushing pro-working class and pro-middle class policies.

Personal request.  You don't seem to call Obama, Barrack.  Or Trump, Donald. Or Biden, Joe.  Please stop calling Harris, Kamala. She's not your friend (I'm assuming).  She's running for President and, personally, I think referring to her by her first name diminishes the seriousness/intellect she brings to the campaign.  And it's so Hillary. You may disagree of course.  I really hope Harris doesn't campaign as 'Kamala'. She's a prosecutor for god's sake, and a prosecutor is what America needs. 

[Suckrates]

Getting Kamala as President actually gives us "2 President for the price of one".  

Electing Kamala gives us her AND Maya Rudolph ( her spot on doppelganger) ...  If Kamala cant make an event, Maya can show up.....🤣

LOVES IT !!!!!!!!!

                                                  

 

                                        MAYA                                                                                                                        KAMALA

[stevenkesslar]

15 minutes ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

Personal request.  You don't seem to call Obama, Barrack.  Or Trump, Donald. Or Biden, Joe.  Please stop calling Harris, Kamala. She's not your friend (I'm assuming).  She's running for President and, personally, I think referring to her by her first name diminishes the seriousness/intellect she brings to the campaign.  And it's so Hillary. You may disagree of course.  I really hope Harris doesn't campaign as 'Kamala'. She's a prosecutor for god's sake, and a prosecutor is what America needs. 

This is an interesting point, I think.

I'm aware of the fact that I usually call Hillary "Hillary".  Partly because that is how she labelled her campaign.  But part of it is also the fact that her husband was President.  So when I say Clinton, which one?  I'm guessing some part of her choice also had to do with Clinton fatigue.  So she may not have wanted to elevate the last name.

Halperin was nailed by MeToo for making unwanted sexual advances, and did go into exile for a while.  So it is interesting on his podcasts that he seems to be doing lots of subtle things to indicate "I'm not THAT guy."  One of them is he is being adamant that everyone has to pronounce Kamala's name right.  He got visibly frustrated at Sean Spicer this morning when Spicer pronounced it the "Republican" way:  Kam-a-la rather than Ka-ma-la.

Final point, just about me.  I think if I did a content search of my endless rants I use the word Barack sometimes, and often Joe or Old Joe rather than Biden.  I sometimes refer to Buttigieg by his last name but I think I usually call him Pete or Mayor Pete or Secretary Pete.  Again in part because he in particular encourages that kind of informality.  I never refer to Warren as "Elizabeth" in part because that first name is just awkward, I think.  I always call her Warren.  When I think of who I was really excited about in 2020, it was "Warren".  When I think about who I felt lukewarm about in 2016, it was "Hillary".  So I don't know that I have a clear gender bias.  But it is worth thinking about.  I am more excited about Harris than either Hillary or Warren.

All that said, I'll call her Harris.  The only problem is when I posted about how Harris does in the Harris poll. 😉

I do think she does invite the informality.  As you noted, some of the signs yesterday said "Kamala".  And I actually like the formulation Kick Ass Kamala.  But I can live with Hard Ass Harris.  I think "Kamala The Cop" has resonance.  And she may wear it as a badge of honor, whereas it was a putdown in more woke-ish 2020 times.  Whatever I call her, I like the idea that she projects joy, purpose, and toughness.

[stevenkesslar]

3 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

I really hope Harris doesn't campaign as 'Kamala'. She's a prosecutor for god's sake, and a prosecutor is what America needs.

Well, I have some good news and bad news.

Good news.  In a new NPR poll, almost every important pro-Harris constituency now says they are more likely to vote in November.  This is the percentage that say they are more likely to vote with Harris as the nominee.

Democrats:  48 % say they are more likely to vote

Blacks:  50 % say they are more likely to vote

Hispanics:  46 % say they are more likely to vote

18 to 29:  43 % say they are more likely to vote

In each of those groups, in which Harris beats Trump by a wide margin, only 5 to 10 % say they are now less likely to vote.

So this is great news.  Harris is lighting a fire under Democratic turnout among the groups where Biden was bleeding the most.

 

That said, on every party a little rain must fall.

I think you are going to find it impossible to control the joy and fun about "Kamala" on TikTok.  😃

 

 

 

 

[RockyRoadTravel]

24 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Well, I have some good news and bad news.

Good news.  In a new NPR poll, almost every important pro-Harris constituency now says they are more likely to vote in November.  This is the percentage that say they are more likely to vote with Harris as the nominee.

Democrats:  48 % say they are more likely to vote

Blacks:  50 % say they are more likely to vote

Hispanics:  46 % say they are more likely to vote

18 to 29:  43 % say they are more likely to vote

In each of those groups, in which Harris beats Trump by a wide margin, only 5 to 10 % say they are now less likely to vote.

So this is great news.  Harris is lighting a fire under Democratic turnout among the groups where Biden was bleeding the most.

 

That said, on every party a little rain must fall.

I think you are going to find it impossible to control the joy and fun about "Kamala" on TikTok.  😃

 

 

 

 

Finally, a candidate who can dance.  I'm going to call it The Harris Tweed. 

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

Finally, a candidate who can dance.  I'm going to call it The Harris Tweed. 

On The Bulwark yesterday they mentioned that if they pick the Senator from Arizona, Harris Kelly will sound very comforting.  Like the kind of Wall Street guy you want managing your investments.  😉

That may hurt the chances of the Guv of Kentucky.  I mean, he is a clean cut jock type.  But Harris Beshear sounds like a barber shop.

And this is getting worse by the minute.

How the fuck do you propose to keep the word "Kamalaphemenom" out of the dictionary?  I don't think even Mary Poppins and super whatever can help with that!