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

[brooklynite]

The person to blame is not the "corporate media", not "pundits", not Bloomberg, not "the polls"; it was Kamala Harris.

First, we had 20+ candidates; there's no way every one could make their way to the top. Democrats expressed a preference for four candidates, male and female, progressive and mainstream, who didn't happen to be Harris.

Second, she had a moment in June (post Primary) where she started to gain support, but she couldn't translate that into long-term support and (more importantly) money. other candidates had a working fundraising operation; she didn't. Other candidates built a solid ground operation in Iowa; she didn't.

Third, she apparently had organizational and managerial problems with her campaign, which never ends well. When a senior aide publishes a letter outlining the organizational chaos, you don't accuse another candidate of paying her (which I've seen suggested), you look inward at the cause.

Kamala Harris is knowledgeable and politically talented, but that doesn't automatically make you the nominee.

[NurseJackie]

1. ...

[TidalWave46]

8. .

[Hortensis]

55. Sorry, disagree. Kamala's problem is the increasingly fascistic RW.

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.

[DURHAM D]

2. She is out of the race so therefore

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

[msongs]

4. and what does the candidate have to do with the OP's opinion? nt

[pangaia]

10. Right. Tell me !

[phleshdef]

16. How mature.

[Raine]

17. Geeesh!

[rampartc]

51. the op is not "piling on"

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

[ismnotwasm]

3. This is not inconvenient. This is analysis

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.

[madville]

5. She just wasn't that interesting of a candidate

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.

[mcar]

22. Absolutely none of that is true

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.

[radius777]

44. White identity politics is what defines America.

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.

[BuffaloJackalope]

6. +1000

[oldsoftie]

9. Because sexism/racism are often blamed because the person has no control over either.

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!

[Raine]

18. Exactly! nt

[squirecam]

30. Yes

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.

[radius777]

45. None of the candidates of color are at the top,

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.

[oldsoftie]

49. But every poll including her shows Michelle Obama beating the socks off of trump.

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.

[radius777]

53. but the Obamas are political rockstars,

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.

[wellst0nev0ter]

46. Her "problem" with black support is that a plurality went to Biden

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.

[blm]

11. They don't WANT to, IMO.

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.

[Demsrule86]

29. The media has attacked Biden relentlessly...so not true...voters can look at EC maps and see what

states we need.

[The Valley Below]

15. She ran a terrible campaign.

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.

[Andy823]

19. Exactly

Well said.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. All sounds true to me

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.

[The Mouth]

12. I think your third point is far and away the most important.

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.

[Wellstone ruled]

13. Paragraph four

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

[left-of-center2012]

14. She ran a poor campaign

Everything else are just excuses.

[TomSlick]

20. A problem with being identified with a candidate in this forum,

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.

[mcar]

21. Is this necessary?

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?

[brooklynite]

23. "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.

[mcar]

24. How nice for you

[brooklynite]

25. Yes, it makes my decision making a lot easier...

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.

[mcar]

26. How nice for you

[oldsoftie]

32. Well, it DOES sound nice!

[MustLoveBeagles]

31. I hear you

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.

[mcar]

33. Thank you!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Still, it's a loss. I'm sorry to see her go.

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

[bitterross]

28. Damn, could you at least have let the body get cold?

Show some compassion.

[brooklynite]

35. I've seen plenty of alternative "reasons" posted as to why she failed, so I'll stick to reality...

[MerryBlooms]

38. You stick to the $$$ bottom line, that's your reality. n/t

[brooklynite]

39. If it makes you feel better, I don't think Bloomberg or Steyer will be our nominee.

[MerryBlooms]

40. Has Jack-Shit to do with what I said. $$$ your bottom line. N/T

[brooklynite]

42. And I said that the candidates with $$$ won't be the nominee.

[MerryBlooms]

47. Good grief, that's what you think this conversation is about? We're done, $$$. N/T

[LongtimeAZDem]

48. OK, so what the heck ARE you talking about, with the "$$$ " thing?

[oldsoftie]

50. Ha!

[oasis]

34. Sen. Harris would be a great spokesperson for whoever is our nominee. nt

[kelly1mm]

36. She never recovered from Tulsi Gabbard gutting her on stage in the debate. Downhill since then. nt

[MFM008]

37. We will see

Her again soon.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

41. May be true but her big turning point was when she

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.

[katmondoo]

58. I thought at the time she made a huge mistake, having t-shirts already printed

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

[Laura PourMeADrink]

59. So much of this is just pure and simple human nature

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.

[OnDoutside]

52. Fair comments.

[dawg day]

54. You know, there are about 22 other candidates who are going to "lose"

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.

[blm]

56. ✔️

[riversedge]

57. I seldom disagree with you but certainly do in this case. NO need to make these comments.