Kamala got Republicans SHOOK! Fear Kamala Could Be the Next Obama

[bigtree]

Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2019, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)

chris evans @notcapnamerica 19m
Kamala got Republicans SHOOK! 🤭



from Vanity Fair:

“She’s Dangerous”: GOP Insiders Fear Kamala Could Be the Next Obama
Rattled by her deft vivisection of Joe Biden at the last debate, Republicans wonder how Harris might do against a real villain like Trump. “She doesn’t come across as a nutjob,” worries one GOP operative. “Kamala is a nightmare,” says another.

For months I’ve been in contact with a group of senior Republican strategists keeping tabs on Donald Trump and the party’s view of the unfolding Democratic presidential primary. Since the beginning of the campaign, these people have been worried that Biden constituted the biggest political threat to Trump’s reelection. Early public opinion polls certainly lend credibility to their concerns. But a smaller, though equally distinguished group of Republican operatives in my Rolodex, a sort of GOP cult of Kamala, had been insisting for weeks that Harris was being radically underestimated. With her surgical vivisection of Biden in the first debate, it seemed their fears had been realized. Now, as Democrats prepare for a second round of debates next week, these strategists are raising the alarm.

“I think she’s dangerous, and probably maybe the most dangerous, from our view,” a veteran Republican political consultant told me this month. “She theoretically would do very well with African American turnout and end up being positioned as a Vienna Soccer Mom.” In case you’re wondering, that’s Vienna, Virginia, an upscale bedroom community just west of Washington, D.C., that has accelerated its drift from the Republican orbit since a certain former reality-television star secured the Republican nomination three years ago. Suburbs just like it in critical battlegrounds could hand the White House back to the Democratic Party in 2020.

Harris, 54, is California’s junior U.S. senator and former state attorney general. She might have more natural political skill than any of her competitors for the Democratic nomination. She certainly checks more boxes—African American, woman, racially diverse, a legitimate strength in a party occasionally obsessed with identity politics. Harris also is something of a Washington outsider, or could claim to be, at least, having served in Congress for less than three years. Unlike Biden, she has not spent decades on Capitol Hill making tough choices or agreeing to imperfect compromises.

If any of this rings familiar, it’s because it is. The last Democrat to win the presidency, Barack Obama, was all of those things, save for the obvious. That is why some Republicans take it as an article of faith that by the time the Democrats gather in Milwaukee a little less than a year from now to coronate their nominee, Harris will be the guest of honor. Who else could they possibly nominate? some Republicans have told me, convinced. But in dismantling Biden on the big stage in Miami, Harris showcased how she might earn it—and why next week’s debate in Detroit could be decisive...


read more: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/gop-insiders-fear-kamala-harris

[msongs]

1. nice puff piece full of unnamed sources nt

[bigtree]

3. kind of like DU

[mcar]

29. Boom!

[bronxiteforever]

2. Kick and recommend. She needs to tighten up her message

But she is by far the toughest on the stump for the Orange Nero. I love many of our candidates yet was leaning her way but her attack on Biden put me back on the fence.
In the first debate, prior to the Biden exchange, she was on fire tearing into the creature in the WH. When she fights the GOP, no candidate on our roster brings the fire like her.If she sticks to that track, she is the most formidable. The GOP should be scared of her. She could put together a winning coalition like O did.

[bigtree]

17. it was hyped as an attack on Biden

...it was definitely a public confrontation, but it was in response to a deliberate set of remarks Biden made to establish himself as someone who can work across the aisle.

Biden bragged that he was able to work with two specific men (by name) who were well-known segregationists. His argument was that he could maintain Democratic values and still work with an adverse, and objectionable opposition. However, the examples he used happened to be unrepentant racists. Several problems with that...

In many of these compromises he's touting, we can see winners and losers, more often than not the losers in those political deals at the time were black Americans; black Americans alive today who happened to be living with the effects and consequences of institutionalized racism at the time who might not be as amenable to the argument Biden was making.

More importantly, Biden was asserting that he was able to maintain Democratic values in those relationships. So it was quite right for Kamala Harris and others to not only make clear just who Biden was talking about working with, but to point out his positions and statements on the issue of busing at the time, which agreed with those same segregationists he was working with, very often using the SAME offensive language as the white supremacists.

Those statements trouble me deeply. It's not ancient history to me, and I don't countenance the excuses that this was in the past, especially since the response to criticism has mainly been to 'attack' those who have raised concerns and questions about those statements and positions.

His strategy has been to deflect, carrying on, I think to the next debate where it looks like he's going to treat the two black candidates who've challenged his version of history like they're the issue, attacking them like they're more problematic than his own controversial history.

I think that is a strategy which invites conflict, instead of the illumination Harris and others sought to bring to the issues Biden himself raised with his selective recitation of his past political associations and conduct.

[bronxiteforever]

25. Her point about the segregationists was righteous

I thought the busing issue was confusing as it was an issue from the 70s that has little relevance now. Frankly it did seemed contrived.
Voter suppression, gerrymander and a host of contemporary race issues seemed a lot more relevant to 2020. I also thought the attack was bad politics. It took the steam out of her full throated hammering of Trumpolini.
But there is no perfect candidate. Joe has a record stretching decades that can be torn into. Harris needs to be more defined and while I loved her truth about climate change, there needs more substance. I believe she is the best fighter we have. Joe brings an authentic persona and Obama’s legacy. Warren brings more substance to the table than any candidate. I don’t think she is a street brawler and to win we need a street brawler (at least in my opinion and I am never confident in my opinion on who can win elections!)

Whoever it is I am voting for the blue ticket. I vote late in the primary season so most of the folks here will have made the decision for me. I hope, as the grail knight said, whoever it is “you choose wisely.”

[CTyankee]

23. I identified her early on as strong. And I think Trump is afraid of her.

She's used to going up against tough customers since she is a prosecutor. And she has a plethora of VP candidates, IMO. Mayor Pete and Beto come to my mind. they are both young and strong.

America, we've got talent!

[mr_liberal]

4. Biden is the biggest threat if he's up to it. She is second I would agree, but

I think would still lose the working class.

Warren and Bernie are too far left and would lose in landslides.

[bigtree]

5. you mean working-class white males

...no one expects Dems to do badly with what is essentially a minority-dominated national workforce.

[mr_liberal]

20. I dont think its race as much as it is that she's sort of an elitist from California

and I don't think would be able to connect with them (in the rust belt) very well. That would go with some minorities as well.

Her other weaknesses I see are: she doesn't have a core and just seems like "a politician", I don't know if voters would feel comfortable with her being Commander in Chief (which is a problem for all women), and she's from Calif which is a state Democrats already have.

She' actually not a bad candidate though. I think she would be an underdog against Trump if the economy stays good, but she'd probably do ok and wouldn't be a disaster.

[bigtree]

21. I love how people in sparsely populated areas of the country

...call folks from populated cities and states (where most Americans live and work) 'elitist,'

That's an especially specious label for California which is larger than most countries, and has a very diverse population and geography.

Harris began her career as a public servant, not a legislator, so I really don't buy the complaint about her 'core.' It's just not that hard to understand someone whose job was to protect people from predators, crooks, and those who inflict violence.

[highplainsdem]

6. You snipped out a very important paragraph without indicating you'd snipped/edited the excerpt.

This is the paragraph that the article has BETWEEN the last two paragraphs you quoted above:

Not everyone buys the idea that Harris is the next Obama, superficial similarities aside. “She’s overrated,” says a Republican grandee who still has battle scars from run-ins with the 44th president. “Obama had authenticity. She doesn’t.” Another Republican strategist who doesn’t buy the the hype called Harris “terrible” and “a disaster.”

Interesting omission...especially when you don't let us know you've cut something out.

Btw, re what that one Republican source said about Harris not having authenticity: the same CBS poll that rated Harris highly as "strong" -- polling Democrats -- also rated her last of the top several candidates when voters were asked which candidates were "authentic."

[bigtree]

10. that's a screwy charge, given that this forum doesn't allow more that 4 paragraphs

...and I'm under ZERO obligation to post parts of articles I disagree with.

Post what you want. Sounds like those republicans you chose to highlight are in denial.

“She’s overrated,” says a Republican grandee who still has battle scars from run-ins with the 44th president.

(I don't think you have a clear idea of how this forum works. You PMed me about a post I deleted like you were entitled to know what was there. I'm not posting for your benefit, I'm posting in my own interest.)

[highplainsdem]

12. Hardly a "screwy" charge. It's standard to indicate when you snip something out of an excerpt.

As for my PMing you about that post, as I explained in my mail, I thought you might have deleted it because it had been ignored, as sometimes happens here. And you explained that you'd just posted it in DP when it belonged in GD.

[bigtree]

13. no it isn't

...you're making stuff up.

Stop. You have the link. You found the rest that you think is important. You posted it.

None of that (other than the link) is my responsibility.

Keep up.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

7. Kamala Harris has always been my 2nd choice.

Kamala Harris could take it to Trump in ways Hillary Clinton could not if Joe Biden is not the Nominee. I do not think he would be all that upset if she was and he would back her to the end.

With her appeal, her smarts, and street-wise grit, she could roll Trump into a wad, and throw him into the trash bin. She would not take any shit from him on the debate4 stage if he even tried to trash talk her down like he did to Hillary. Harris would give him that "REALLY, Donald!" look over a pair of glasses. She would have the debate crowd eating out of her hands.

[bigtree]

15. there's a naturalness to her pique

...and just the right amount of moxie to invite viewers to cheer her on.

[emmaverybo]

26. The problem is that most presidential powers and duties do not involve debate, where Harris's

prosecutorial skill, speaking strengths, and sense of strategic theater can shine.

I don’t think that outside of that skill-set she is particularly competitive in terms of knowledge or experience with other Biden rivals.

However, more time in the senate could give her a broader resume down the line.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. Remember Reagan's "There you go again..." Methinks Ms. Harris has her own version...

and it will be devastating against Trump..

[helpisontheway]

8. No she is not like Obama. Nt

[SidDithers]

9. That's the way I see it too...

I believe momentum will grow around her as the campaign progresses.

Thanks for posting.

Sid

[bigtree]

14. she has room to grow

...and, perhaps, opportunities for growth with constituencies which might not gravitate naturally to the other candidates who are polling well right now.

Interesting how Trump hasn't mentioned her name.

[George II]

11. A bit of an exaggeration.

[FloridaBlues]

16. Perhaps I'm missing something but don't see any Obama traits. He is one of a kind.

[CTyankee]

24. I think she is, too. I am drawn to her again and again. But I don't want to be disappointed so

I'll wait and listen carefully to her in the next debate.

She did very well on The View, IMO.

[bluewater]

18. K&R

Thanks for posting this, bigtree.

The OP is correct and obviously scaring more than just the republicans.

[oldsoftie]

19. I've said all along that Michelle Obama could beat trump in her sleep.

Harris is very similar to Obama. She doesnt sound like she's angry when she's making a point, and thats a BIG deal. I still think Biden is the best shot to win, but i think she would be 2nd. Better pick someone from a red state as VP though.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

22. Looking hard ...

not seeing it.

[Skya Rhen]

27. My favorite Dems (besides Joe) are Barack and Hillary - Kamala is no Barack but she

can arguably be compared to Hillary. Similar magnetic personality.

[texasfiddler]

28. Unfortunately it doesn't matter what we think of Kamala

Winning the rust belt is the key to defeating trump. I would love to see Kamala as President. However, I wanted to see Hillary as President in 2016. I will be pragmatic and not give merit to dumbass republicans spewing crap in an article. I will continue to watch reputable polling in the rust belt. It is their opinion that matters. I am not looking at national polling like I did in 2016. IT DOESN'T FREAKIN MATTER.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

35. The rust belt is going to the Dem. Big time. Already

Look at the outcome of the 2018 elections.

Now, Trump is 10 pts underwater in PA. In WI. In MI. It's done. The Dem is winning there, unless a Howard Shultz/Jill Stein candidate arises to take votes from the Dem.


Let's get a candidate to run that will address the true problems and fix the country by destroying the GOP. Not some milquetoast compromiser that will throw the white house back to the GOP in 2024.

[EffieBlack]

30. That explains a lot of what we've been seeing here in recent weeks

The consistent and obvious attempts to undermine her, disrupt, and stir up animosity between her supporters and those of other candidates are a sure sign that some folks somewhere are getting mighty worried about her ...

[loyalsister]

32. Not sure about the comparison

I think she is at least as strong as he was as a presidential candidate though. She definitely generates enthusiasm and increasingly looks like she may be exactly the candidate and president we need at this moment.
Since I have become more aware of criminal justice reform, I have been skeptical of prosecutors. But her insider perspective has led me to see it as a strength because she has seen what is wrong up close and does not defend the system itself or policies that protect white supremacy with its hostility towards people who are not white.
Her "for the people" narrative didn't appeal to me at first, but I'm starting to see it's value.

[Princetonian]

33. Republicans are idiots. n/t

[EndGOPPropaganda]

34. THE GOP IS OBSESSED WITH *WHITE* IDENTITY POLITICS

Good article.
but the line about idenity politics is absolute HORSESH*T.

It is the REPUBLICAN party that depends on identity politics. THEY are the ones who have been amplifying racial and identity divides since the 1970s. THEY are the ones that lie to white people on Fox and Limbaugh daily.

Screw that. GOP identity politics are destroying the country. I don't want to hear anything else about Dems and identity politics.

[Drunken Irishman]

36. Harris isn't Obama.

And she never will be Obama.

She faces the same limits that a good amount of Democrats have faced that Obama was able to overcome in 2008 and 2012. There's just a completely different dynamic at play there that allowed for Obama to succeed in areas Democrats likely won't ever succeed in again (no Democrat is ever going to win Indiana like Obama did in 2008). Obama's campaign was built on inclusion, unity, hope and healing a divided nation. That message, whether liberals want to hear it, resonates with a lot of voters - voters who, for a long time, were left out in the political wilderness.

I know people my age who literally registered to vote so they could vote for Obama. He inspired. He built us up as a nation. There was never anything intolerant or dismissive or mean about him. He was tough but in a respectful way. Harris is tough but there's a mean-spirited approach to her attacks, especially lately, that doesn't sit well with me...especially when they're disingenuous and against who was, and probably still is, a friend. It comes off as a bit too opportunistic for my liking. I never got that with Obama and I don't really get it from the likes of Warren, either, though it's there with Booker and Sanders, to be sure.

At the end of the day, Harris isn't the next Obama and all you have to do is look at the fact she's still struggling to breakout. The Obama Coalition is not getting behind her.

There will never be another Obama. Just as there will never be another Bill Clinton. Clinton's coalition to win the White House in 1992 and 1996 was not there for Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004 or Barack Obama in 2008. In reality, the successful candidates we've had have built their own path to the White House and relied on a hodgepodge of past pathways, too.

Warren is building her path with a populist message.

Biden is building his path with a message targeting working class voters, specifically voters in three key states: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.

Sanders is building his with that progressive message - but also the hope he can bring out the voters who either voted third party in 2016, or stayed home.

Harris' path can't be just to try to rebuild the Obama Coalition. To be sure, there's crossovers to all these paths - but Obama didn't just win because he got the black vote out. That helped. But he also won because he was able to get moderate voters out in rust belt states. Just look at Wisconsin: despite the demographics being almost identical in 2012 to 2016, Trump did fourteen-points better than Romney did among self-identifying moderate voters. Obama appealed to a far broader voter electorate and I don't see Harris doing that ... yet. There's still time but her message is muddled and there's no legitimate theme.

Biden is running on restoring the soul of America.
Warren is running on restoring fairness to America.
Sanders is running on blowing up the status quo of America.
Harris is ... kinda still searching for a theme that resonates.