Now that she's the official nominee, is anyone else excited about Kamala Harris's chances?

This has been going on for a longer than this week. 😂

She is rather busy this week. She has said she will do an interview this month

What about all the damaged already inflicted by Democrats like Chesa Boudin.

Is Kamala still not doing press interviews? So much for Trump is scared to debate me. What a joke!

Trump will take him on—he has to and he plans on running a spoils based administration anyway so its basically his modus operandi. But the people who were RFK curious may, in the end, not vote. Or perhaps f his name is on the ballots still vote for him.

I see thar Kennedy wanted to throw his lot in with the Harris campaign, in exchange for a senior government position - then got rebuffed so is now courting Trump.

A man of great principle.

Thank you, @user556453 This article is interesting.

I don’t agree with 100% of what Kamala Harris has done in the past but she had also got an unfair rap on several things. And on Trump’s side, we haven’t recently mentioned the way he’s cosied up to Putin and the praise he’s showered on other dictators around the world.

Nor the way his supporters have been quietly changing election procedures in Republican-controlled states these past 4 years. The NY Times has a truly horrifying article by Rachel Maddow (sp?) of CNBC yesterday explaining the possible consequences of a law recently passed in Georgia. Trump and his supporters do not believe in democracy.

To return to my earlier point, it really is that simple. I am so glad I have a vote in this election and, frankly, that certain people on this thread do not

Yes! And many rules governing elections were instituted after the civil war specifically to prevent the rise of progressive politicians—at the time identified with the newly freed black slaves. So some states have off year elections to depress turn out, or weak governorships to prevent an alliance of ex slaves and white workers from advancing their goals.

You really have to understand that its freakishly hard to pass good legislation at a national level.

Even at state level where things are a bit fairer, you've got 2 houses and the governor all elected separately (for any Brits, state senates are by districts usually, a couple of states have unicameral legislatures), and they all have to dicker and horse trade. The parliamentary model is so much simpler for getting legislation passed. One house, the same party has control of the legislature and the executive, and the powers are not separated in the same way. Here, even when there's unified control, the legislature introduces bills independent of the executive, everyone horse trades to produce some kind of compromise, and hopefully the president/governor signs it.

Very good point about the complexity of getting anything done in the US. There are a number of choke points that produce regressive results: the EC, the Senate are both regressive institutions that elevate the power of rural white minorities over the more populated states and cities.

The reality is that politicians in office have to navigate very tricky waters. The most progressive of politicians can get mired down in trying to pass and implement programmes, especially in the American system that is designed to force compromise. People think, oh, California is blue, it's progressive, but Democrats fight like anything and there's still Republican parts of the state. You can't make everyone happy.

Everyone even thinks SF is just super duper lefty. But DA Chesa Boudin got recalled and the school board got a lashing for focusing on school names when Covid was happening. It's not simple. Leftists don't have enough support distributed in enough places to win.

Thanks for posting that. I am personally very opposed to the carceral state and work hard for its abolition. I dislike policies which intrude police and courts into community spaces. But these things are always complicated.

That being said as has been well observed upthread the choice is binary: we either choose Harris and the Democrats or we lose to Trump. His policies and his administration will be horrendous for women, children, the elderly, immigrants, hospitals, education, the climate, etc…etc..etc..There is no question about that.

So I will proudly cast my vote for any democrat to orevent that from happening. Luckily for me I sm very impressed by the campaign Harris and Walz are running and by its ability to pull new, young, people into politics. The more diverse and excited our voters the more our many communities will be heard in the political arena.

This is a really interesting and balanced, deeper look back at the truancy policy, for anyone interested (which @Stumped7 probably won't be as they seem to only want to regurgitate very facile talking points).

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/10/17/924766186/the-story-behind-kamala-harriss-truancy-program

Well you aren’t being asked to vote for her as you are not a US citizen. As you have no skin in the game your likes and dislikes are irrelevant.

But if we were to take your viewpoint seriously it sounds like you would like the American president to be family friendly and to be suspicious of the carceral state and the improper use of police power as well as the school to prison pipeline?

What luck for those of us voting for the Democratic party that these are core values and goals of the party—as teachers are a core constituency and as public school snd public investment in education are the key methods our party favors to help families and children thrive.

Even if I took your criticism of Harris seriously, which I do not as its shallow and puerile, the nature of US politics is that multiple stakeholders choose a party and then work together to get policies enacted. Our legislative history always includes horse trading snd politicking. As FDR is famously supposed to have said when a group of supporters csme to him with a rewuest “It sounds good: now go out and make me do it.” So there will always be an inside snd outside game.

The truancy thing is not a good idea but I must say the UK with its monetary fines for missed sessions and its two child cap on benefits is no standard bearer for children snd families.

Who do you want to win then?

Surely it's better if Harris does so that trump who, lets face it, is just a useful idiot for others, can finally be gone and Republicans can regroup and put forward a decent candidate for the Presidency in four years time?

That's fine if you personally think she is the better choice. I would say her track record has been pretty damning (to name just one example, her despicable efforts to imprison parents for truancy).
As an individual she seems likeable and upbeat, but I disagree with her basic principles of running a society (which I've explained above), so I could never in good conscience vote for someone like her.

Hi, @Stumped7

I don’t think there is a general assumption that disliking Harris means liking Trump. I don’t believe that.

But realistically American voters are faced with a binary choice. I happen to be fairly enthusiastic about Harris. But even if I were not, I would be asking myself whether someone with many years of experience in local and state government in California - which would count as a member of the G7 were it a country - as well as a strong reputation in the Senate and coming up to 4 years as VP in an Administration that has done well by Americans through very challenging times (though the maths of inflation make this difficult to see) is a better choice than a convicted felon. And worse if you consider the civil judgment against Trump in the E Jean Carroll case

It is that simple

I think the points he made here stand regardless of who RFK is. The fact that she's pro-war, pro-censorship, Big State, and so on and so forth are truths that don't depend on the moral character of one individual who pointed these things out.

And why is everyone assuming that disliking Harris means liking Trump?

Are you referring to Trump?

Where did I say that I liked Trump?

Is it not possible to think that Harris has serious deficiencies, and simultaneously not be enamoured with Trump?

Do you assume that criticisng Harris means I must love Trump?

What do you mean you don't see the point of anti-Harris posts? Are people not allowed to criticise Kamala Harris? Critiquing people in positions of power is both a democratic right and a necessity, lest they become complacent. It's how we hold people accountable. Do you think she's some kind of saint that she mustn't be criticised?

But to return to our muttons: I love Harris-Walz for their simple, unaffected, full throated support of democratic policies. The road is clear—we sll want to get to a fairer, safer, kinder US after Trump’s “American Carnage” version. I’m not fussed about the details dnd the negotiations. We won’t know how we move and how we need to compromise until we see what happens in the senate and house.

I don’t see the point of these anti Harris posts? I mean other than as a form of psyop. I really dislike the Republican party and I vote against its goals and policies. I won’t change my mind because random internet person offers me warmed over memes or observations that have no basis in history or fact.

Take these bizarre assertions that JFK and the original RFK were all about peace? Ir that RFK jr is “on the left.” Neither is true. There are many lefts in the US—I, myself, am related to some of the most storied from my great grandparents who were anarchists to my grandparents who were on the left and attacked as communists.

Whatever RFK is he is neither on the left in any political sense—though he sometimes spouts a white nationalist populist line—nor a man of peace or even humanity.

At any rate RFK has zero chance of getting into office vis election. He isn’t on the ballot in most states. Only someone (pretending) to know nothing about third parties in the US would be do naïve as to think he is other than a spoiler. Journalists have uncovered the obvious money trail between RFK and the Trump supporting billionaires. He was intended to siphon off democratic votes from Biden. Alas for the grift! It turns out because if his crazed anti vax stance and fluent q anon speech he actually draws more from Trump’s support.

I know! Politics is so hard!

In conclusion why don’t you anti Harris people start a pro Trump thread and describe all the policies that you like? I will start! Planning to deport millions of people violently on the basis of perceived foreignness. Legitimizing bounty hunting of women who seek abortions snd ending Roe v Wade. Taking 10 million dollars from the Egyptian government as s bribe right before the last election. Declaring there were “very fine people” among the rioting neo nazis at Charlotte. …

“ the way she speaks about such complex subjects is infantile and simplistic”

simplistic?!

just vote for the guy who says “Ukraine …. woulda neva happened!” 🤨

Oh, RFK's nothing more than a brain worm addled antivaccine grifter whose rhetoric killed hundreds of children in Samoa. So principled he offered to throw his support behind both Harris and Trump if they gave him a job.

And that's before we discuss the bear story. By the way, if you hunt, you dress the carcass immediately, you don't stick it in your car and then just freeze it. It might explain the brain worm.

Trump would just let Putin have Ukraine.