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

It might win over some Democratic voters to elect Harris purely on the basis of her sex and her mixed race, but it would lose many others ( Republicans and floating voters). She does not have a great record in office; her communication style is garbled and uncertain; she resorts to easy and predicatble mantras about identity politics - rather than coming acrosss as on top of her brief; and seems to have no obvious vision for the future.

Problem is Harris is too closely associated with the regime that kept the sudden and severe decline of Biden's cognitive condition a secret from the US public. I don't think it can be underestimated, the breathtaking arrogance of Harris and other senior Dems in recent months, lying to camera again and again, saying that Biden was 'sharp as a tack'. A bare faced lie told again and again. The sheer disrespect shown to democracy of that will be one for the history books.

I've said before that I am sure that Putin would not have attempted the full scaled huge land invasion of Ukraine had he not been confident in his info that the US president was too decrepit to pose a serious buffer.

So, in my view, whilst the next few days will be full of fake congratulations for 'Joe' for 'putting the country first', , over the coming months there will be anger at this deception carried out on the american public, and it'll also be a key point of research by future historians. And Harris is too closely associated with that.

She will be the nominee, and she won't do well, because her track record isn't great. I thought it was interesting that Obama conspiculously failed to endorse her, claling for a 'process' instead to find the new nominee.

We are talking about American politics, so yes. Sorry but that's the reality.

Not only that but Harris does have an issue with her own image tbh. Normally the Vice President has 'a cause' to which they attach themselves and promote. Harris hasn't really managed to do this and the argument I've heard is 'what does she actually do, what does she represent and who is she really?'.

She's not really taken ownership of the Vice Presidency and 'made it her own' if you will. The argument is that she incredibly non descript and lacking in presence.

And she's going to go up against Trump. Perhaps this will work in her favour but I very much doubt it.

The US perhaps more than any other western country looks for personality and 'a strong leader' . That's particularly true for anyone who leans slightly right but potentially could swing left for the right candidate.

Historically the younger looking candidate has always won the US election - with two exceptions - the first is Hilary and the second is voting against Trump (I frame Biden's win in this way deliberately as he didn't carry enthusiasm - it's similar to Keir Starmer's election in that the main motivating factor was a vote for competency at the last election not voting for Biden).

You also have to factor in the mentality of Christian America which is deeply patriarchal to a degree that Western Europe finds totally alien. There are many women who feel strongly that their role in life is mother and wife before career. (Career women are a coastal thing and goes hand in hand with atheism which is also deeply associated with the Democrats).

It's women, much more than men who make up swing voters. Trust will be important. Do they think they can trust Harris with their daughters. So abortion rights and women's rights are going to be pushed really heavily if Harris gets the nomination. That may entrench and alienate a whole bunch of men too. And honestly, stuff like the Title X stuff is going to be problematic for Harris rather than a help. I think women voters will trust a male democrat more than a female one, if they aren't deeply associated with the likes of Dylan Mulvaney.

I actually think that being a woman is more problematic than being black when it comes to US politics.

I think Harris is a deeply problematic candidate, and that will be seized on by Trump and his team. He will be delighted if she is the Democratic candidate.

But I say all this, mindful I've not spoken to a single person including Americans who are staunchly Democrat who hasn't said Biden is past it, he needs to go and he can't win. Not one. That's the problem and the lens that everything must be seen through.

While in an ideal scenario race and sex don't influence people, the real world says otherwise.

As Kamala walks into any room, unfortunately the first thing judgements about her are made on is her race and sex. It would be disingenuous to pretend it's not the case.

Also I should have said this. Women's issues are going to be bigger now in the campaign.

If Trump plays what is a woman card a lot he could REALLY do a number on Harris. Obviously she is going to focus on abortion, but Trump can counter by focusing more on women's sports. The republican convention had a few speakers mention that to huge cheers including Trump. It is a big wedge issue.

There is one more scheduled debate on ABC, if abortion comes up Trump would be daft not to counter by refocusing on Dems confusion over biology.

I think the Dems will go with Harris and pick a white guy as vice. As VP incumbent there are powerful structural reasons to go for her. Because of the US Presidential ballot system and the huge existing Biden/Harris campaign fund swapping out Harris might mean the Dems lose access to their funds and also have legal challenges to a new person heading the ballot in some states.

Harris has quarter of delegate votes needed already.

"President Biden has endorsed Vice President Harris to take over as the Democratic nominee to be president, but she’ll still need to secure enough delegates to officially replace him.
Close to 4,000 delegates will gather at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago starting on August 17. Biden has won more than 3,800 of those delegates, who will now all be released to vote for whomever they choose.
To win the nomination, a candidate must secure 1,986 delegates. As of 10 p.m. on Sunday, 531 delegates had already endorsed Harris."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4785260-vice-president-harris-delegates/

However polls show Harris trailing Trump by a few points. She has a better chance than Biden did, but still very tough fight. It will come down to a few states. Her big advantage is she can pay age card and she is also a fairly good debater. She might look Trump look bad in the next debate.

I think she could scrape a win, but she needs to do way way better than she has ever done before to do it. If she makes a few big campaign blunders she is sunk. She is NOT a great campaigner she is a bit awkward. She is also only a average speech maker. As VP she has mostly been in the background except she was given some responsibility in border matters, which are in a bad state. She had no power to change things at border, but Repubs will happily use it to target her as a failure. Throw in the misogyny/race factor and it is tough to win.

Clinton was a better candidate in 2016 only she failed to campaign enough in a bunch of states and also made some campaign blunders. Hillary did better than Trump in debates, but that wasn't enough. Harris will not make the mistake of avoiding target states, but there is a lot that could go wrong for her.

Though this is a massive subject which gets off topic about how many American institutions were set up to consolidate the country as an oligarchy, and even in the eighteenth century there were both people who wanted to exercise this power oppressively (for instance to protect the institution of slavery) and those who had more idealistic ambitions. And I suppose this more or less sums up American history ever since...

No-one said that slavery wasn't an issue in the constitution (and it hardly couldn't be with the fact that most of the influential American politicians in the era of the War of Independence being from Virginia), just that it wasn't a significant driver behind the electoral college system. It's worth noting that the three-fifths compromise was brought in because basing a notion of the wealth of American states (for taxation and other purposes) on either property wealth or head of population would disadvantage states with significant slave populations, due to the nature of slavery.

Um, slavery absolutely was an issue with the Constitution. It just wasn't why this particular change was made. While slavery was legal in almost all the states, the number was far greater in some. This is why the Three-Fifths Compromise was negotiated, to give the slave states greater representation and votes.

But in the case of the Electoral College, it was small versus large, and slave numbers don't line up by overall size.

There have been, it should be said, a lot of arguments made since 2016 that the electoral college system was racist, but this is largely to try to frame Trump's first victory as illegitimate. But it feeds very much into the modern "progressive" American line of argument which is basically "Everything I dislike is racist", and doesn't really deal with the complexities of the real world.

Thanks, @Lunatone ! I had mistakenly thought the College was considerably newer than it is.

Short answer: no.

Slightly longer answer: With the exception of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, all American states were slave states at the point of American independence. New York, for instance, only abolished slavery in 1827. So the question of a division between slave and non-slave states only came about many decades after the establishment of the electoral college.

Telling republican-voting people and states that their voice isn’t as important as liberal voices in New York or LA is a sure fire way to destroy the country.

Wasn't the Electoral College created to give more power to the slave-holding states, which generally had lower populations (especially of men allowed to vote)?

If they tried the small states would have a good excuse to leave the union.

Many ppl in the US want to eliminate the Electoral College. It is set up to advantage small, rural states (like Wyoming) over large, populous states (like California). The problem is that it would take a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the Electoral College and the amendment process also gives an advantage to small, less populous states by counting each state equally in terms of ratifying the proposed amendment.

A Constitutional amendment has to be passed by 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate then ratified by 3/4 of the states.(Wyoming, with a population of 584,057, counts for as much as California, with a population of 38,965,193 when it comes to ratifying a Constitutional amendment.) Why would the smaller states, who benefit from the EC, vote to get rid of it (or why would their representatives vote for that Constitutional amendment in Congress)?

Half the US population lives in 11 states. They're the main ppl who would benefit from a change but they aren't close to being able to push it through either both houses of Congress or 3/4 of the states. I can't forsee that changing.

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/three-branches/amendment-process

Not always, some states will split their electoral college votes. But it's essentially a kind of FPTP system. Personally, I think that's important, because it toes candidates to a specific set of people and a specific place, rather than an abstract set of voters. Whether a president, or congressman, or senator is a Democrat or Republican, they are meant to represent the best interests of all of their constituents in the place they live. Not just those who voted for them.

Yes, it doesn't totally negate population, nor should it, it is meant to be a balance.

I wouldn't underestimate it though. Hilary Clinton lost because she was an idiot in her campaign and neglected the industrial heartland states, thinking they weren't important. Frankly, she deserved to lose for that. She made it clear she didn't give a shit about those people in everything she did and said, and lost what were traditionally Democratic votes.

In any case, you can't just change it, any more than the EU can decide to change things so the individual member nations have less say. That would be a huge overstep.

FWIW< I think a black woman could be president, but not Harris.

For the Democrats, Michelle Obama would get it, if she wanted to, which she doesn't. On the Republican side, I could see Condoleeza Rice.

If I were placing odds I'd say the first woman or black woman would be more likely to be a Republican.

The current system disadvantages people in other ways, though. If you're a Democrat in Alabama or a Republican in Massachusetts, your vote is meaningless. I don't think that argument holds up. What the EC does is give small states disproportionate power because your votes equal your number of representatives (roughly proportional to population plus your 2 senators.

And candidates are still chasing states with higher numbers of votes, anyway.

I seem to remember there was an occasion where the bland Vice President was the presumptive Democrat candidate but wasn’t particularly inspiring, then a younger, dynamic handsome Latino man took the Democrat Convention by storm with a powerful speech that rallied supporters and won the nomination. He then went on to beat the favourite Republican candidate in the presidential election.

So it is possible. Although that may or may not be the plot of the final season of The West Wing🤔.

No that isn't why it was created.

The US is a union of states that have a lot of independence. The president needs to be the president of all of them.

If it were by population, a few very populated states - urban coastal states like California, mainly could elect the president. Small rural states would effectively have no effect on the outcome. The best interests of these states are often quite different than those of California or New York. And the president is not like the PM, the executive branch is one leg of the tripod that makes up the American government and in some ways have a lot more power.

Why would any state enter a union where they would be completely powerless to affect democratic elections? If would be as if the EU operated on popular votes across Europe, so a tiny country like Malta would simply have no say in anything. They'd be in dereliction of their duty to their citizens.

I don't think she'll be voted in. They might pick Shapiro

It is and isn't significant. The baseline was so low for Black Republican votes that even a relatively small change is statistically significant, if that makes sense.

The constitution was designed to be extraordinarily difficult to amend. It needs supermajorities in both houses of Congress AND ratification by 3/4 of the states.