Let's lay out some inconvenient truth about Kamala Harris...

The growing very dangerous threat from increasingly mean and lawless people willing to destroy democracy and de-power the vote to get their way.

What's happened to many great candidates makes perfect sense if electability is ruling this time. That's especially true among minority voters who face potential loss of all gains over the past several decades. They're already feeling the effects of courts increasingly being packed with authoritarian RW bigots and religious ideologues. Women's and LGBTQ rights are also threatened, and women alone are half of AA after all.

VP Biden was already far out ahead of everyone, and already well liked by many AA, before he even entered the race, and he's stayed there. My guess is Senator Harris's only chance was to magically come from way behind to soar out ahead of Biden, or at least strongly challenge, and stay there.

Same for Booker and all the other redoubtable, dynamic candidates whose calls have gone unanswered by the electorate because they weren't able to prove electability up front. This time.

And all the other reasons being cited are secondary at best to recognition by people who have both feet on the ground that we are living in very dangerous times.

your comments are not appreciated. Why pile on? Makes me definitely not want to support your candidate.

he is outlining his opinion of the lessons our current, and future, campaigns can learn from this experience.

What’s pissing me off are the people who want to say racism doesn’t exist in politics or that the media didn’t largely ignore Kamala Harris.

Could she have done things different? Of course. But Christ on a crutch I don’t know what I’m still shocked when people want to say race and or gender are not factors because Obama. Or Hillary. Fuck.

She had no clear message from the beginning and then waffled around the big issues. Voters are smart enough and informed enough these days to look past identity politics.

She wasn't an interesting candidate? Did you ever watch a speech of hers? Watch her at the debates? See her in interviews? She was the most interesting candidate out there.

She had some excellent messages, great ideas and good plans. So good, in fact, that several other candidates borrowed from her ideas to make their own policies.

Waffled around the big issues? Sure, no other candidate has made changes in their stances on issues, ever, right? Harris changed her M4A plan after talking to voters - horrors! How dare she listen to them? Guess who else just changed their M4A plan? Elizabeth Warren. So does that mean she, too, waffles around big issues.

And please, just stop with the RW trope "identity politics." That ridiculous phrase is only ever brought up against candidates who aren't white men.

The fact that a non-white was elected president once in our history does not negate that. And Birtherism and Trumpism was a reaction to that election.

The candidates at the top of the field now are fairly boring themselves - not like there's anyone more charismatic than Kamala, who maybe not Obama/Bill (but few are) level but is fairly charming and funny, along with being a brilliant self made person.

But the things they DO have control over get passed over.
I think she got as much or more coverage by the media as the other candidates in her support range. She had a problem with black support, not white support, apparently due in part to her actions as Atty Gen in CA.
Elizabeth warren has been in the top 3 pretty much the entire race so far; most criticisms of her dont relate to her being a woman. Many of the same criticisms she gets are leveled at Sanders.
Does racism & sexism exist? Of course. But in large enough numbers of people to affect the early stages of the Democratic party primary? I doubt it. And yes, Obama. All these "racists" in Iowa picked HIM in '08 before he was even well known!

Not to mention the sexists gave HRC the second most delegates in 08 and she won in 16. Plenty of white men to vote for in those years too.

Harris lost due to Harris. Not racism or sexism.

so it's not just about Kamala, but a system failure. Beto is a white guy best known for fighting for non-whites, and he also failed to gain traction.

Iowa/NH, two small white states, help to set the narrative - no suprise that the top 4 candidates are whites who suit the tastes of middle America.

When Iowa picked Obama alot of that was hatred/sexism against Hillary, also about the Iraq war (that Obama was against), also in a time way before Birtherism and Trumpism. Obama would not get elected in this climate, where whites in both parties have moved more towards a racially conservative direction.

No way do i think trump could beat EITHER Obama today.
Condi Rice has been a favorite of the GOP to run since 2006. Colin Powell was pushed to run in 96 & 2000. At times he polled beating Clinton in the '96 race.
Its not just being a "person of color", you have to be one who appeals to people. Just like any white candidate.

and the point is it shouldn't require that, when you have white candidates of mediocre political talent currently in the top tier, in a field that started off with several appealing PoC candidates.

Aside from the issues with IA/NH, I think white leftists (not just Russian bots) on social media (twitter, facebook, youtube, etc) play a huge role in tearing down PoC candidates, who are resented as the changing face of the party.

Condi, Colin etc were merely tokens and could have never won a GOP primary, despite being talked about in the media in hypothetical general election matchups.

Obama had the same problem against Clinton in 2007, since older black voters are practical and go with whom they know.

Obama won Iowa, and subsequently black voters, because he ran from the left, where there were a lot of voters.

Harris was always too afraid and half-measured to go too far to the left or the right. She ended up appealing to a small slice of centrists. All the right-leaning dems are already with Biden and Buttigieg, while the left leaners are with Warren or Sanders.

I think race and gender are STILL major factors with the Dem ‘strategist’ class who keep telling us that this race can only be won by Biden. I call BS on that undemocratic, unrealistic ‘message’ from media pundits.

states we need.

Voters couldn't tell who she was or what she really stood for.

She's my Senator. I thought i knew her (and liked her, and voted for her) but at times I wondered who this person was on the trail.

She lost because of bad decisions on her part and the part of her campaign. Saying she lost does to racism is pure BS. People did not stop supporting her because they suddenly realized she's of mixed ancestry or that she's a woman. Nope.

Well said.

Californians do not geographically balance the 2020 Democratic ticket. California will go (D) anyway.

We don't want to drive even one independent away, but we also want to motivate millennials, liberals, women, and the rest of our base.

Perhaps in the general race or sex is a disadvantage, but nowhere nearly as much in the primaries and even less in the polling. We're Democrats, we'd *LOVE* to put a woman and/or another POC into office.

But there is no room in this game for anything other than a nearly perfectly run campaign.

'Ground game', logistics, organization, is not as visible as skin, nowhere nearly as interesting as race and gender, people's eyes glaze over...but it's the candidate with the best organization that wins, it's the campaign that puts the feet on the ground, the money on target and gets the candidate in front of the crucial groups at the crucial time that wins. As good as Obama was, his organization just simply outperformed McCain's and Romney;s- more phone calls, more advertising where and when it counted!

In an evenly ran race, with both campaigns functioning at optimum, then charisma matters, but I think it was ground game that did her in.

seemed to be the Killer in the last couple of months. And some of her actions as California AG apparently became issues.

Everything else are just excuses.

is that the candidate's name and picture is under your post. While we know better, there is still the appearance that the poster and the candidate share the stated opinion. For example, if a poster appears to be an ungracious winner gloating over the defeat of an opponent, the appearance is that the favored candidate shares in that unattractive action.

Some of us are grieving right now. Do you really need to rub salt in the wounds?

And oh, good golly, she had managerial problems in her campaign. Zounds! No other candidate in the world ever had managerial problems, right?

Actually, no; most candidates don't have the problems she apparently did. That's why they're still alive and kicking.

As for your grieving: I learned long ago not to get emotionally involved in political campaigns. I make dispassionate decisions on which candidates I'll support and which one's I won't (and when I shift). It makes life a lot easier. I also don't hang out in the candidate safe spaces, but they're available if people need them.

Yesterday I had lunch with Al Gross (AK-SEN) and coffee with Jason Crow (CO-6). Today I had financial requests from Gina Ortiz Jones (TX-23) and Amy Klobuchar's Campaign Manager. I'll give support where I think it's useful, and happily say "no" to the others.

I was grieving a month ago when Beto dropped out. And Kamala showed kindness and compassion for him and his supporters.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2403227

You're upset and you have the right to be. Hang in there.

But she's a great senator, and maybe she still has a shot at becoming somebody's running mate.

Show some compassion.

Her again soon.

took on Biden in debate. It wasn't thought of as strong...it came across as bashing. Then her numbers started going down.

But that's been a good while ago. I was actually starting to like her.

made me lose faith in her, I did like her before that incident

and ones reaction to a person's demeanor. Think it's absurd to blame it all on some secret bigotry. Think the vast majority of us look at a person's beliefs and their demeanor regardless of what they look like. And actions like you mention.

Will we have to do a post-mortem criticizing each?
We are fortunate in the Democratic party to have many strong and dedicated potential presidents. The other party has one TERRIBLE THUG SLUG.

We should celebrate our "deep bench". Only one will emerge from this as the nominee, but the rest aren't "losers". Let's not exacerbate division by finding fault with the 22 as they leave the stage.