Kamala Harris Launches Presidential Bid: ‘My Intention Is to Earn and Win This Nomination’
Kamala Harris Launches Presidential Bid: ‘My Intention Is to Earn and Win This Nomination’
Kamala Harris, who launched her campaign for president, has long been a favorite of Hollywood donors.
Kamala Harris has launched her campaign for the White House, after President Joe Biden stepped aside Sunday under pressure from party leaders.
The vice president has Biden’s endorsement, and is unchallenged as yet for the Democratic nomination, which will be formally decided at the Aug. 19 convention in Chicago.
“I am honored to have the President’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination,” Harris said in a statement. “I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda. We have 107 days until Election Day. Together, we will fight. And together, we will win.”
In her statement, the vice president paid tribute to Biden’s “extraordinary leadership,” saying he had achieved more in one term than many presidents do in two.
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't like Harris, mainly because of her time as a prosecutor. I'm also not going to lie, I was having a really really hard time grappling with voting for Biden, I was begrudgingly willing to before the debate but when I watched it I was so outraged. I genuinely feel like his administration has been deceitful with his condition for a while. I'm not saying I wasn't going to vote for Biden, I understand the stakes, but I kept watching his interviews trying to get any genuine motivation for Biden. All I saw was a stubborn old man who refused to even acknowledge reality.
I've been following Biden news and this week I was convinced that he would drop out and so I wondered who would replace him. Harris immediately came to mind. Now as I said I don't care for Harris but before Biden announced this today I personally decided I would be willing to support Harris.
She isn't ancient, I believe she's more progressive, and I think she will be good in the debates. She isn't my 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th pick, but I have far fewer hangups voting for Harris compared to Biden, and of course over Trump.
She isn't the best candidate in terms of absolute popularity, but when you factor in funding logistics and the fact that I think many good Dems picks would want to run in '28 when the timing isn't fucked, I think Harris is the most realistic pick. I'll happily take her compared to Biden.
You know what? I felt the same way before today. But I've been thinking about it a lot since the announcement, and the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Harris is the best possible presidential candidate.
Like you, I don't think she'd make the best president. Hell, she wasn't even in my top 10. I'd have vastly preferred someone like Hakeem Jeffries. But here's the thing: the person best suited for the office of president isn't necessarily the best person to run for president.
Harris has all of the advantages Biden had: she can run on this administration's record, since it was her administration too. Every positive talking point about the stuff that Biden's done for the country can equally apply to Harris. Additionally, she gets his entire war chest, and with the president's blessing today, she's likely going to have 100% party support as well. To make matters even better, she doesn't have any of the flaws he sported: she's young, she's sharp, she's great in debates, and because she's the antithesis of Biden in all of these respects, all of the criticisms pointed at Biden (which could also 100% be applied to Trump) will now all be applied to Trump and Trump alone.
Lastly, I think that now is the most favorable moment in our country's history for a non-white, non-male person to become president. She's got the built-in support of everybody who dreads another Trump presidency. A significant number of people who would vote for Biden but not Harris due to sexism or racism will be rethinking that position when the opposition is Donald Trump. Also, something like 40% of people in the US just simply don't vote. Biden would never appeal to those people, but a black / asian woman who has succeeded in a mostly male dominated field could be very inspirational to a large number of otherwise apathetic non-voters.
I honestly think that Harris being endorsed for President is just an unalloyed good. I don't see any realistic downsides, and an incredible number of upsides. It actually has me excited, which is a feeling I haven't felt since 2008.
Don't forget that the fascists will push away moderates everywhere because they have no idea how racist and sexist they are, nor how to hide it, because it's their entire platform.
I don't know where all this "I don't like Harris" stuff comes from. Considering the presidents we've had lately, hahaha... if she won, it would be amazing. I'm sure there are better people in the world, but they don't even get close to the White House. We have to be realistic. She's a great pick considering current political realities.
Oh for sure. Don't get me wrong; she's not my ideal president, but she'd still probably be in the top 5 presidents we've ever had. That's not necessarily making a judgment about her without seeing her performance first, it's more of a statement about how bad most US presidents are. Still, I have high hopes for a Harris presidency. I think she'll do a great job. She's just not my #1 draft pick.
Mainly her policies she has fought for and enacted while in political office
I'm personally a little nervous about Harris--I remember the 2020 primary where her only notable accomplishments were accusing Biden of being racist over opposition to federal busing policies, and then flaming out shortly after and shuttering her campaign two months before the first caucus and polling single digits in California. Admittedly, she doesn't have the same headwinds now that she had in 2020--she doesn't have to differentiate herself from over a dozen other candidates and she won't struggle to raise money--but she also made some unforced errors (e.g. coming out for total elimination of private insurance before revealing a plan that included private plans, or admitting her own policy on busing was essentially identical to Biden's).
Hopefully, she'll run a much tighter campaign now since she'll inherit Biden's staff and can focus solely on attacking Trump, but I do have some concerns.
Polling single digits in California might actually be indicative of her having a better chance. The same reasons why she want the top choice in a deeply blue state may make her a stronger choice in more "on the fence" voters.
Agreed with all that! But I have one caveat.
the most favorable moment in our country's history for a non-white, non-male person to become president
Look, I cried tears of joy when Obama won. I mean that literally. But guess when the conservative hate machine got dialed to 11?
Some will say it started earlier, but I disagree. Back then I occasionally listened to Limbaugh and Hannity on the radio while running errands at work. They actually had some sane takes now and again. Wasn't very political, but I had my ear to the ground. The entire machine, especially Fox News, went so far off the rails in response to a black President, I simply couldn't listen to any of them, not for a second.
Conservative brains take time to assimilate new social conditions, gotta chip away at 'em. I'm already hearing the, "Fuck them!" replies, but that doesn't change the fact that these people exist and vote. And they're going to get more and more violent.
Look at LGBT rights. We got them to begrudgingly accept gay marriage. Fresh off that victory, liberals asked for more and more acceptance. Too much, too fast, they went full-on berserk. Now I feel gay rights are perhaps worse than before.
Scared to see what a double-whammy of a black woman does to their brains. I used to laugh about conservatives choking on their outrage, same with Christians. "Ha! Losing ain't ya!" But now it isn't so funny. They're in a corner and lashing out. What next?
All, or at least the vast majority, of those people you're talking about are already Trump voters. They're going to continue backing Trump no matter who the Democratic party picks. They saw a black guy get elected president, and that radicalized them. They aren't coming back. Pandering to the imaginary demographic of racists who will surely see the light if we elect the right candidate is simply a losing proposition.
Will there be right wing violence in response to a Harris presidency? Of course there will be. Is there right wing violence now? Of course there is. I understand that you're tired of hearing the "fuck them" replies, but seriously: fuck them. They are a cancer on this nation. Holding back on doing something good just because you're afraid that the fucking awful people you share a country with will do something awful just means that you never make any progress.
The thing is, they've already turned the hate machine up to 11. There's not much farther they can go than here.
Too much, too fast, they went full-on berserk.
Raises a conundrum I struggle with:
No one should have to wait for rights, true.
yet
Idiots vote, true.
How should we act if we know fighting for certain rights means fascists have an easier time in elections?
Should we…:
A. Be publicly on the right side of history at risk of losing an election to the detriment of all.
B. Be publicly on the wrong side of a human rights issue in order to win, then try to privately backchannel to make up for the sin.
(Perhaps a false binary here, so ready to be corrected.)
Idealist in me says fight at all costs, maybe it’ll work out. Pragmatist in me says “win the damn election & backchannel the heck out of your term.” Feel guilty either way.
Edit: corrected word to “wrong” from “right”
when you factor in funding logistics
This is an incredibly important point. Unless rich donors said they'd fully make up the current campaign war chest for the new candidate, there would be a significant funding issue. Being able to use the existing funds is extremely important.
As to that 2028 topic....If Harris wins, it pushes all of them all the way back to 2032. Many of those hopefulf may like their odds right now, as opposed to 8 years later, unless those same people are confident Harris will lose against Trump.
If Harris wins, this election is proof that a competitive primary that knocks out the incumbent isn't a death knell for the general. I promise you, Harris will have opponents.
Let’s hope so
mainly because of her time as a prosecutor.
What didn't you like about it?
Her policy
She wasn't anyone's top 4 even in 2020. Between what they did before Super Tuesday then, and now this, this isn't democracy. This is DNC controlling what happens to prevent something like Bernie. People aren't getting choice and primaries are pointless.
People could have voted for someone other than Biden in the primaries. That was always an option. Just because the incumbent was running again didn't mean the voters HAD to vote for him.
Quick poll
Please up vote if you had a chance (I did, that's 1)
Please down vote if you didn't get a chance to vote for someone else in the primary
Does "uncommitted" count as a person
I'd count that as "no chance", down vote.
I will never understand why we don’t just force Super Tuesday on all 50 states. My dipshit of a state is the week after and I hate it
I really think it's there's a few lobbies that keeps our election cycles so goddamn long. They need the horserace and the controversy for as long as possible to get ratings. News organizations, election consultants, advertisers, etc.
France had two elections within weeks of each other. Britain called a snap election and got it done in under two months. These things can be done quickly and efficiently, but nobody wants to run afoul of two groups required to get re-elected, so they keep us slogging through the mudslinging.
From my understanding, the reason for this is to give candidates with less funds and less name recognition an opportunity to bubble up. Imagine that if the primary consisted of all states at the same time, candidates would need to campaign nationally, or only in the most populous states, either of which would cost tons of money. This would make it so that only candidates already starting off with massive campaign funds would have any chance.
One possible alternative approach would be to start with the smallest states (either by population or by area), one at a time, and ramp up to multiple largest states at the end of the primary cycle. This would give candidates a viable way to ramp up their campaign funds and name recognition. The only problem with this approach would be that the smallest states tend to be very white, so perhaps some adjustments would need to be made to make it more representative of the demographics of the country as a whole from the beginning.
Voted for Marianne Williamson who had already withdrawn because A) she was the only other choice on the ballot and B) She is actually great in interviews. Dont agree with some of her conclusions but you can tell she is studied on political theory..
Dont think that really counts. The primary was yet another illusion of choice by the DNC who has proven they will make backdoor moves to nominate whoever they want since the days of Debbie Wasserman shultz and hillary
I didn't, but I'm registered independent, so I don't vote in the party primaries in my state.
This is DNC controlling what happens to prevent something like Bernie.
I've gradually come around to "they'd rather see Trump than someone like Bernie" despite snorting at it the first few times I heard it suggested.
Bernie is too old now honestly. I'd vote for him, but I don't think he'd win. At least where he is he can push for what's right.
I'm curious who are your top 4 picks?
She has also gotten close to $100M in funding just in the last 24 hours. From small donators.
That’s a record of some sort
I believe she’s more progressive
Convince me brother. I think we just sentenced ourselves to 8 years of "we'll still move to the right, just more slowly than Trump." Yes I'm going to vote for her, but would have loved for someone actually progressive to have a chance prior to 2032. If you run the calculus differently, tell me how.
She's Pro-Weed legalization, Pro-Medicare for All, and Pro-PRO Act. By all measures, she's significantly more left wing than Obama, so I don't exactly know how she could be "moving us to the right" at all.
Because sometimes people change their views because of personal growth and other times they say they have changed them for political expediency, which is the viewpoint considered by the article I linked. You are aware she was a prosecutor who made a career out of locking people up, right?
Edit: Not in the branch of discussion I thought we were, I had not linked the article here. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/kamala-cop-record/596758/
Edit 2: The most relevant bit:
I can forgive a politician a vote on a crime bill that looks ill-conceived two decades later, or a too-slow evolution toward marijuana legalization, or even a principled belief in the death penalty, something I adamantly oppose. I find it far harder to forgive fighting to keep a man in jail in the face of strong evidence of innocence, running a team of prosecutors that withholds potentially exculpatory evidence from defense attorneys, and utterly failing as the state’s top prosecutor to rein in glaringly corrupt district attorneys and law enforcement.
At best, Harris displayed a pattern of striking ignorance about scandalous misconduct in hierarchies that she oversaw. And she is now asking the public to place her atop a bigger, more complicated, more powerful hierarchy, where abuses and unaccountable officials would do even more to subvert liberty and justice for all.
It's attitudes exactly like this why American Democrats are center right, and why we have had almost zero meaningful legislation to help the normal people for 40 years.
If your family survives this coming shitshow of a fasist coup, I hope you beg their forgiveness and tell them your small part in helping start it.
As a normal person, I've been helped by legislation both by Biden and Obama. Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean it's not good.
SCOTUS, Congress, and POTUS have all, regardless of party have catered to corporate interest over the citizenry an OVERWHELMING amount my entire life, and I remember life before the internet.
Sure we get a few crumbs, cars for clunkers, a crippled ACA, a constant 'will they, won't they' over college loans.
Meanwhile Citizens United gave corporations near unlimited influence, the repeal of Glass-Steagall led to the housing collapse in 2008 and the banks were bailed out. Even recently in COVID those most benefitted were the corporations and ultra wealthy who netted a 1.3 FUCKINGTRILLION dollar payday with almost no oversight or pressure to pay back, and we are STILL seeing fraud cases from that show up.
So was your little 3k 'gift' that was meant for relief during A FUCKING PANDEMIC in any way commesurate with the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS the owner class (who was at no financial risk at any time) got to keep?
Do you feel all these little crumbs of social support they have doled out in meager and begrudging ways makes up for the fact that no matter what their party, NEARLY EVERY MEMBER of our top seats in government are more concerned about the interests of the wealthy than they are in normal people?
I feel your point deeply, but that’s a question you have to ask yourself….
Is the question "Why haven't we all taken to the streets beating pots and pans in protest?" because yes I ask myself that all the time nowadays.
why we have had almost zero meaningful legislation to help the normal people for 40 years.
The Affordable Care Act is why I was able to take a year off work to focus on my mental health after the pandemic crushed it. The Inflation Reduction Act is helping keep the renewable energy company I work for afloat and offering an optimistic future.
No one expects to end up on government assistance or using FMLA to take a few months off for an illness. We support it on the left because we know it's the fucking right thing to do.
It's all good and fine to criticize programs as useless theoretically when you don't rely on them. But when you've actually experienced them and needed them, your perspective changes heavily.
Democrats have gotten good shit done for the average person, and I've personally benefited from it when I really needed it.
Do you think the ACA that passed was the ACA originally intended? Because it wasn't, and there's only one party to blame for why.
I hope that one party you mean is the obstructionist republicans.
I prefer to call them 'repugnicans'.
That's irrelevant to your original point.
And there's actually only one person to blame -- Lieberman's vote was required to pass the legislation, and he refused to vote for it unless single payer was removed.
So the DNC gets to make this decision not me. This is a last minute situation that hasn't happened since the 60s, every ounce of divisiveness will only embolden the "facist coup". The time is up, whoever they pick we've got to unite behind and hopefully rally voters to the booths. Honestly the presidency needs to be D so it can't veto/ can veto, the VP can tie break, and executive orders. She will hopefully be a beacon to encourage voters to get more D in the senate and house. The house/senate flips and your meaningful legislation point becomes moot. Lastly I have no clue what you are saying in the 2nd paragraph, somehow voting for Harris makes a facist coup? No clue what middle steps are included to achieve that outcome but you must know something I don't. Regardless I have no worries about my family but I appreciate the concern!
Back to the lesser of 2 evils. It never ends
The only way you'll get a candidate that aligns with 100% of your personal beliefs, is if you run for office yourself
That being said, I'd love a real leftwing candidate
And sometimes you have to run on or embrace the ideals of someone else just to get elected. Unfortunate.
BOtH sIdEs
Both candidates are right wing so it's not really "BOtH sIdEs." People on the left would like some representation for once.
Not surprised you'd say that
What policies have the right and left regularly agreed upon? What bills put forth have unanimous votes?
I think your conflating Right and Left with Republican and Democrat.
They aren't the same thing.Both parties have been pro-corporate oligopoly. The Republicans, just more so.
Both parties have been catering to the same class of big corporate donors. The Republicans, just more so.
Both parties have been pro-military-industrial-complex. The Republicans, just more so.
Both parties have been pro-Israli genocide. The Republicans, just more so.
Both parties have shown a little movement toward economic populism. The Democrats, just more so.They might not vote together on many bills. Because it would look bad to their respective bases if they did.
But they've both been pushing in similar directions on a number of topics for decades.Don't worry they will totally respond with facts here....
LMAO
Fighting universal healthcare. Refusing to revoke Citizens United. Refusing the Right to Repair.
The Patriot Act. The Iraq War. Enabling The Genocide of Palestine. The continuous decline into corporatocracy.
All bipartisan efforts.
You shitlibs genuinely do not understand the conversation happening in front of you. We know you don't, or you wouldn't be a shitlib, you'd be a social democrat at worst.
Using the term sHiTliB renders you exempt from discourse. It's like screaming that you're unreachable and a huge waste of time
👍
What an embarrassing response after your own "BOtH SiDEs" and "yeah they'll totally respond with facts" comments. You can't even address the numerous examples they listed?
I don't argue with people who tell me it's hopeless to. I will say though, you're living up to the tag I gave you in the past.
Why carry on a meaningful conversation when you can latch onto a single word and use it as an excuse to dismiss everything else someone says?
It's way easier than having defensible positions.
Shitlibs lol… now you’re just being honest and making people mad
Yes, that's what rational people do, pick the less damaging choice.
What the FUCK is wrong with you people who actively choose the more damaging choice for lulz?
And that’s how we get pulled further to the right. When did I say I had chosen anyone for the lulz. What the fuck is wrong with you jumping to conclusions?
I have yet to meet a forum poster who unironically used the phrase 'and that's how we get pulled further to the right' in response to a reply about not voting for a fucking convicted felon pedophile fascist that wasn't a fucking fascist themselves.
Appropriate username. I never stated in any way who I was voting for now fuck off. I don’t have the time or energy to deal with your childish emotional outbursts.
You just keep rambling nonsense without reading the replies
Yes, that's how first past the post voting works.