Kamala Harris Will Lose - Yasmin Nair
I know this goes against the popular narrative about Kamala Harris, especially after the recently concluded Democratic National Convention (DNC). But I think she is headed for a loss, and that we may well see a repeat of 2016. I thought of adding “probably” to the title, but matters are pretty stark...
You're viewing a single thread.
She's making the same mistakes Hillary did i.e. ignoring the Democratic base to appeal to moderate Republicans.
@queermunist @chobeat Not sure that's a big deal in this election, that election she was up against a loud mouthed television star that she didn't think anyone would elect, this election, we know what's coming, so you can largely bank on Democrats voting for her.
Nuh uh
Pretty core difference that Hilary was a moderate that had to try to win over the left. Harris is a progressive that has to try to win over the middle.
Thinking you can be a progressive that wins on progressivism alone with no coalition building or winning over anyone else only gets you the percentage of total American voters that are progressive, and is a recipe for defeat. There just aren't enough of us that ascribe to the whole platform.
Harris is a progressive that has to try to win over the middle.
Harris is a moderate Liberal, not a progressive. She's not winning over leftists, but she is trying to appeal to the less fascist republicans.
Harris would be center-right in any other developed country, but in the US, any position left of hunting the homeless for sport is immediately decried as communism, so there's the internal impression that in comparison to the ultra-extremists that make up the right, she is - relatively speaking - progressive.
According to her senate voting record she is quite progressive. You have to go by voting record, you can't use rhetoric.
I agree she's trying to pull some of the non-maga repubs though.
What do you mean by "progressive?"
Reformist dems. Voting rights protections, higher taxes, higher business regulation, more public services, environmental action, criminal justice reform, minority protections. For starters.
Reformist dems. Voting rights protections, higher taxes, higher business regulation, more public services, environmental action, criminal justice reform, minority protections. For starters.
Oh, you mean a centrist
No, the centrists are the neolibs. Lower taxes, light on regulation. Generally little criminal justice reform or environmental action. To the right of the centrists are the conservatives, against almost all regulation, criminal justice reform and minority protections. To the right of the conservatives are the fascists, be a christian or gtfo. Rolling back a lot of freedoms.
To the left of the centrists are the progressives, also often known as social democrats, who want highly regulated capitalism and a democratic society. To the left of them are communists, who want full egalitarianism.
In America anyway. Harris being an American presidential candidate, using the American scale seems appropriate.
Lenin was a democratic socialist.
You're talking about social democrats.
Oh, thank you. I'll edit.
Like, can you give an example? Additionally, these are all moderate liberal platforms.
Sure. Here's a list of some of the bills she introduced to congress when she was in:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kamala_harris/412678
Personally though I'm fond of her Back On Track program from back when she was AG if I remember right, where nonviolent offenders could get out of jail time and get their records expunged if they enrolled in education or got a job.
And yea we could quibble on what "progressive" means if we wanted, but we risk just getting into no true scottsman stuff. In my view, people that want to improve the existing system with steady movement forward qualify as progressive. This is in opposition to the neolib dem faction that does not want to progress forward, and instead just wants to keep to the Bill Clinton direction of the party.
Thanks for the source.
Either way, it seems we disagree with what we count as progressive. Harris seems intent on carrying through the Party Line of the DNC, and not moving an inch leftward, ergo she's not appealing to leftists but less extreme fascists. She isn't even campaigning on ceasing arms to Israel or even Medicare for All, it's just continued liberalism.
I agree, she is not campaigning on those things. But like I said earlier, I don't believe in listening to rhetoric, it's just too unpredictable when campaigning and governing within our legal governmental structure are such different things.
If she could deliver medicare for all, then perhaps I'd be happy to see it as a campaign issue. But delivering that without more progressive congress seats would be impossible, when both the repubs and neolib dems would oppose it. This would make it an empty campaign promise.
Regarding Gaza, I hope she does shift after the election, but I do not mind her saying what she has to say to win the office first.
A key thing to note is that there is no static DNC line. While the neolibs do outnumber us in most places, if we got more progressive officials in this would change. All we have is a handful of reps in the Squad and a couple senators though, that's not good enough.
I think there's a discrepancy here, I'm a Communist, not a Liberal. There's nobody in the DNC nor GOP that represents me, not even the squad. Even then, the Squad is regularly shut down by the Party at large, and forced to toe the Party Line.
There's discrepancy within the DNC, but there's also an overarching line to hold, and Capitalist donors to appease.