Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's an interesting article from City-Journal on Kamala Harris. I always thought she was too strident and bitter to be taken seriously, but this author makes a compelling case for her potential nod as a presidential candidate.
From City-Journal -
"Her potential rise is aided by the increasing strength of progressives and African-Americans within Democratic Party contests. According to primary exit polls, the share of very liberal voters increased in every state between 2008 and 2016. Very liberal voters were less than one-fifth of the Democratic electorate in 2008 but constituted between 25 percent and 30 percent in 2016. The share of African-Americans within the electorate also rose in 17 of the 21 states with exit polls in both years.
Harris would also benefit from the dramatic decline of moderate and conservative Democratic primary voters. As recently as 2008, such voters were a majority in virtually every primary state. White moderates and conservatives provided the political support for centrist candidates, giving Hillary Clinton their backing in 2008 and 2016. But in 2016, moderates were outnumbered by liberals in all but two states, Tennessee and West Virginia. The share of Democrats who called themselves “just” liberal rose in tandem with the increase in very liberal voters. A candidate who can rally the Democratic left wing therefore stands in a stronger position than at any time in party history."
I always thought she was too strident and bitter to be taken seriously, but this author makes a compelling case for her potential nod as a presidential candidate.
I, as well as many other Californians, think that Harris is wonderful. However, she doesn't come close to having the qualifications to run for President (yet).
As long as she continues looking down on the rest of America (especially Republicans and conservatives), then no, I will not support her. If she comes to the center and plans on governing in that manner, then let's talk.
I, as well as many other Californians, think that Harris is wonderful. However, she doesn't come close to having the qualifications to run for President (yet).
She is of age. And what qualifications did the previous three elected Presidents have when they first won?
Funny how often prominent women are termed "strident." I can't recall many instances of the term being applied to men.
Strident...from the dictionary...
presenting a point of view, especially a controversial one, in an excessively and unpleasantly forceful way.
You can present your POV forcefully, which people respect or stridently which people don't. To be successful Ms Harris needs to understand the difference. Right now her speaking style will alienate many centrists.
Here's an interesting article from City-Journal on Kamala Harris. I always thought she was too strident and bitter to be taken seriously, but this author makes a compelling case for her potential nod as a presidential candidate.
...Personally I think she'll scare the hell out of every centrist no matter what party affiliation.
Kamala Harris is popular here in California. She's not a true progressive and is seen as more of a moderate Clinton centrist -- i.e., willing to compromise to get things done. She also echoes Obama, as in trying to tone down conflict and seeking agreement through consensus-building.
She would not be the first choice of the progressive wing of the party. If she ran for the nomination she would scare them, not the centrists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.