Will US Democrats support a WOC as their candidate or will they by pass Kamala Harris?

I'm still pretty unsure about Harris. Is she likely to appeal to the people she needs to win over?

I do think even many Dem voters are increasingly unhappy with the whole let criminals do crime thing, so that particular problem may not hurt her chances so much.

Getting the vote out will be so so important - I hope the excitement about Harris translates into a big push to get voters to the polls. Stacey Abrams was amazing last time

It's also not always deep. The hard core of Trump voters are very committed, and there are the ones who would vote for a ham sandwich if it were running as a Republican, but he has more voters who are considered less reliable. Turnout is massively important. I have a friend who worked with Stacey Abrams and Fair Fight in Georgia in 2020, and did they ever get those voters to the polls. They will be fired up this year with Harris on the ticket; they were worried they wouldn't get enough enthusiasm for a Biden rerun.

And the problem for Harris, is it only comes down to about 100,000 people across a few swing states to actually decide the election. There were only 10,000 votes in Michigan that cost Hillary Clinton the state and the election.

The problem for Trump is his support may be deep but not wide.

I'm happy to say that I might have to eat my words about the Dems losing if they run Harris. She is ahead of Trump in some of the polls and very close in others.

Apologies if anyone else has posted this link. I haven't read every post yet.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/07/25/trump-vs-harris-2024-polls-harris-leads-trump-in-latest-survey/

52%/71%/92% of what? Of those charged? Of reported crimes?

I meant perceived/represented as tough on crime, she talks about it in her book - i.e. felony conviction rates rose f. 52% to 71%, gun crime convictions rose to 92% in the first five years she was in office. That's not to say she wasn't progressive eg with the Back on Track initiative.

Ithink the perception was, at least for some, was that she was tough on crime, for example Articletps://www.reuters.com/world/us/prosecutor-harris-mixed-criminal-justice-reform-with-tough-on-crime-approach-2024-07-23/

Whether that's fair or not, for the anti-carceral types it was not on.

I wouldn't consider views on the death penalty to be definitive about someone being tough on crime.

One of the reasons that I don't think Kamala Harris was tough on crime as a prosecutor is that she opposed the death penalty, in part bc she thought that life imprisonment without parole is a better and more cost-effective punishment than the death penalty. She estimated that the cost savings could pay for a thousand additional police officers. Never seeking the death penalty was one of the things she ran on (along with tougher enforcement of domestic violence laws and more protection against gun violence). In 2004, a SF police officer was shot and killed. Harris refused to seek the death penalty, even though several powerful ppl pushed her to do so, including Sen Feinstein, Sen Boxer, former Governor Jerry Brown (then mayor of Oakland), and the SF Police Officers Association. For those unfamiliar w US politics, Sen Boxer was to the left of Bernie Sanders and Jerry Brown is also considered very progressive. She stood against powerful Dems to be true to her beliefs and keep her promise to voters even if some ppl called her soft on crime.

She also refused to enforce California's three strikes law unless the third offense was for a violent felony. (The law imposed a life sentence for almost any crime, no matter how minor, if the defendant had two prior convictions for crimes defined as serious or violent by the California Penal Code. In 2012, voters passed the Three Strikes Reform Act which eliminated life sentences for non-serious, non-violent crimes but that was 10 years after Harris refused to seek three strikes enhancement against defendants for a minor third crime.)

But she went after porn sites. sex trafficking, and domestic violence. That was unpopular with men on the left (as well as men on the right and some women). I think that led to a lot of woke bros trying to cancel her. She was an uppity b#tch trying to take away their toys and they weren't having it..

@TempestTost

I agree about the bad timing. I thought about mentioning that as another factor. 2020 is when George Floyd was killed and the movement to defund the police was at its strongest.

Why do you say she was "hard on crime"? One of the few crimes I remember he being tough on was sex trafficking. As someone who was trafficked as a child (and the police never GAF), I am very appreciative of that. (I honestly cannot tell you how much it meant to me that someone in power was finally standing up for trafficked kids instead of treating us like disposable garbage that is not worth ppls' time.) She was also tough on guns, Medicare fraud, environmental harm, and privacy violations by Apple, Google, FB, etc. I may have overlooked some other areas.

I know that as the District Attorney in San Francisco, she created Back on Track, a first-of-its-kind reentry program for first-time nonviolent offenders aged 18–30. She was big on diversion when she thought that was workable. She opposed the death penalty and supported SF being a sanctuary city. She rarely prosecuted low level marijuana offenses and had a policy of not seeking prison time for such offenses. Why do you think she is hard on crime? (Genuine question bc I may be forgetting some things.)

I think it was more about bad timing.

I suspect that being hard on crime may reflect something like her real viewpoint.

However, at the time she was seeking the presidential nomination, there was a huge group among Democrats who were on the bandwagon of defund the police, harm reduction, and supporting the withdrawal of policing from cities or around minor crimes.

And a lot of those people were among the Democrats most likely to vote for her on identity grounds.

She tried to pivot towards something more palatable to those people, but reasonably, they didn't really buy it, and it made her look like a panderer (because she was,) to everyone else.

Yes, I understand. But none of the constitutional lawyers I've seen commenting on this (after the Supreme Court case) think that the courts can rule a candidate ineligible bc of a coup attempt. For one thing, that would go against separation of powers. As the articles I linked said, the qualifications are set out in the US Constitution and nothing there precludes someone attempting a coup from being elected. Most think that any limitation on who can run must be set out in the Constitution and nothing I have seen gives a court that power. Do you have anything that says a court has that power? I have not seen anything.

Gov. Shapiro is well regarded, popular, and a rising star in the party. He could well be our first Jewish president in a few years. I don't think he will be the VP nominee choice because he can still help deliver the state by campaigning with Kamala Harris and remain as governor to build up his record and profile for a future run. My best guess is that it will be Mark Kelly. In choosing a senator, they have to pick one whose governor is a Dem because the governor appoints a replacement until an election is held. Arizona has a Democratic governor.

He's going to hate that she's getting so much attention as he's such an egomaniac. I think her speech yesterday was good - felt like 'showtime' and she's going to have to be entertaining to match him

no, they'll argue she was soft on crime and contributed to San Francisco being a hellhole. I mean, they're arguing already that we have caravans of migrants crossing the border to commit crimes, despite the statistics saying otherwise. Facts are irrelevant there.

This is it. He's gone for a total ideologue as VP indicating the gloves are off and he won't be held back by anyone if he gets in. Harris and the Dems can offer moderation and safety, not a white-knuckle ride like Trump. And if the Reps want to argue she was 'too' tough on crime 15 years ago, well let them.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in March that states could not keep Mr. Trump off their ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies people who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after taking an oath to support the Constitution. . . .

So the courts do have authority but ruled that he was not disqualified.

As for the felony, we were talking about an ‘attempted coup’ not false accounting that became a felony because it happened on a staged payment rather than a single payment which would not have been a felony. The case of false accounting is a well known public fact and votes will be cast with that in mind. It is also something that many many Americans think was a politically motivated prosecution. But really is this case of false accounting the worst there is to say about him? Hardly!

Good point. I know some people think Keir Starmer being Director of Public Prosecution means he was an agent of state repression. Not a widespread opinion judging by the UK election result. What are the Magas going to do : run ads saying ' bad Kamala! We hate law and order!' ?

On the age thing , I was tired watching these two ould fellas criss crossing the states in 2020 , shouting themselves hoarse in airports and stadiums. I couldn't do it and I was a mere stripling of 68. Trump is an incoherent mess but he does it with great energy . And he blathers incessantly, never pausing , like contestant on Just A Minute.

There is an argument that any other GOP candidate would have beaten Biden. But Trump was a hopeless president and made a mess of the Covid response. A president will usually get 2 terms even if they are just adequate , so that may be true. But if he couldn't beat Biden as the sitting president how have his chances v Harris improved? His last involvement in public life was instigating a coup against the clearly expressed wishes of his fellow Americans. And he hasn't got any younger or saner.

Newsom is a 12th amendment problem because they're both from California. Even without that rule, no one would choose two candidates from California.

Gretchen Whitmer says she doesn't want it. The top choices are reportedly Andy Beshear (KY), Josh Shapiro, and Mark Kelly. Cooper's age is an issue. Beshear can't deliver Kentucky, but could help down ballot races there, and help elsewhere. He's also term limited, I believe. Shapiro is the best bet for delivering a swing state, but he has only been in office for two years. I used to live in Pennsylvania and my friends there are not ready for him to move on.

I've seen Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer on most of the lists. To be fair, most of those listed are governors of swing states that the Dems hope to carry: Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (they almost have to win PA's 19 Electoral Votes to have any hope of winning), North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (not as necessary as PA but its 16 EV are the best prize among the states leaning Republican, Georgia's Governor Kemp is an R), Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (Minnesota, with 10 EV, is the most important state that is leaning D), and Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona (AZ has 10 EVs and leans R, Kelly is a popular former astronaut and Navy pilot + is the husband of icon Gabby Giffords so might appeal nationally). None of the other swing states have D governors except Wisconsin (but also a man). I'm not sure why Newsom is on so many short lists. It is frustrating that there are so few female governors.

List of ratings for the Electoral College (Solid D - Solid R)
https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/presidential-race-ratings

I note that all the people the pundits are putting forward for her VP are men.
Couldn’t have two women n a row, could we.

I understand ppl wishing candidates didn't resort to name-calling, even if those names/descriptions are accurate. But I think it's a brilliant way to bring around many on the left who opposed her in 2020 bc she was a prosecutor (aka Copmala). They hated her then for going after criminals but now cheer when she directs her prosecutory zeal toward Trump. Suddenly, stopping the "bad guys" and protecting victims isn't so horrible. I'm in awe of how successful she's been at this so far.

FWIW, I think a lot of the anger about her being a successful prosecutor was misogynoir. Being a successful Attorney General (of California) would have been a lot more acceptable if she were a white man.

Questions over a coup should have been addressed through the courts and if found guilty should have banned him from political office.

In the US, courts don't have that authority. The Constitution sets out the requirements for a president. It does not bar felons.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in March that states could not keep Mr. Trump off their ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies people who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after taking an oath to support the Constitution. . . .

The Constitution sets very few eligibility requirements for presidents. They must be at least 35 years old, be “natural born” citizens and have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.
There are no limitations based on character or criminal record. While some states prohibit felons from running for state and local office, these laws do not apply to federal offices.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-investigation-conviction.html