"So I'm not gonna sit here and say I'mma do something that's only gonna benefit Black people. Noooo!" 
Kamala Harris has dropped out of the presidential race. (Politico/WAPO)
- Thread starter Anerdyblackguy
- Start date
She didn’t answer the freaking which was a simple yes or no.
She gave a song and dance and turned it into a people of color thing.
Captain Crunch
Veteran
1. I don’t have the numbers for black immigrants in SC, but given how Charleston was a big time slave port, it’s safe to say a vast majority of black Dems in SC are ADOS.
2. I’m not against voting, I will vote in 2020. When my ballot is released, I will talk to the candidates running locally(attend town halls, call the offices) and state what I want out of them, if they don’t oblige I’ll write in ADOS down the ballot.
3. Actually, there was an NYT piece about young black voters not feeling “the lesser of two evils” back in 2016, also there’s a number of articles from this election cycle about black people wanting specific policy out of presidential candidates(shouts to the Guardian piece on black voters at the ATL Debate).
Like or not, black people(specifically Black Americans) want policies for us, and one of those policies is reparations. Btw, Black voting went down from 65% in 2012 to 60% in 2016, a big reason is that we want policies specific for us.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 42,423
- Reputation
- 3,840
- Daps
- 152,086
- Reppin
- black love, unity, and music
Huge loss for the Indian community
she was gassed and thought she easily had the black vote with the whole announcing on MLK day and all the nonstop pandering
problem is black folks was looking at her like
the whole time, none of us ever messed with her like that as a candidate
yo real talk the audience ethered her just as much as Tulsi did
all that loud ass clappin, hootin and hollerin then dead silence when Kamala responded
problem is black folks was looking at her like
the whole time, none of us ever messed with her like that as a candidateyo real talk the audience ethered her just as much as Tulsi did
all that loud ass clappin, hootin and hollerin then dead silence when Kamala responded
daemonova
hit it, & I didn't go Erykah Badu crazy, #yallmad
Ezekiel 25:17
Veteran
Nothing to celebrate. Just means a greater chance for Orange Man to win again
The fukk are Democrats doing
The fukk are Democrats doingDo you realize what criminal justice was before 2014? Some of y’all really don’t remember shyt.Is trying to keep people in prison as long as possible for the explicit purpose of using them as slave labor 'progressive'?
Please stop with the ADOS shyt. This bytch was universally disliked across all groups
ORDER_66
Demon Time coming 2024
Nothing to celebrate. Just means a greater chance for Orange Man to win again
If the DNC gave the nomination vto Bernie the first time instead of sucking Hillary Clinton's dikk and just outright giving it to her because the fix was in maybe things would be different now...
But alas...
here we are... Let's see if history repeats itself...
Kamala Harris tried to be everything to everyone -- and failed
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 3:46 PM EST, Tue December 03, 2019
(CNN)Quick -- tell me in 10 words or less why Kamala Harris was running for president.
"); width: 36px; height: 36px; float: left; margin-top: 3px; margin-left: 20px;">
View this interactive content on CNN.com
Was it:
a) To be a populist fighter "for the people," as her campaign slogan promised?
b) To be a more electable version of the liberal policies espoused by the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren?
c) To be a more liberal version of pragmatic pols like Joe Biden?
d) To be a much-needed voice for women in Donald Trump's America?
e) To be a history maker -- as the first woman of color to be a major-party presidential nominee?
At different points throughout her campaign, which ended Tuesday afternoon in an email sent to supporters, Harris tried to be all of those things (and more). And that attempt to be everything everyone wanted in a presidential candidate ultimately contained the seeds of her slow but steady fall from relevance in the presidential race over the past year. And her ultimate decision to end her candidacy before a single voter had cast a ballot.
Before we jump to the end of her campaign, it's important to remember where Harris started.
When Harris formally entered the presidential race in January, she was seen -- by dint of her charisma, her profile (first African American woman and first Indian American woman elected to the Senate in California), her resume (former prosecutor and California attorney general) and her fundraising base in a giant (and giantly Democratic) state -- as one of the front-runners.
And her performance in the early days of the race did little to dissuade that sense. Her announcement in her native Oakland drew a massive crowd and received laudatory coverage. Her performance in the first Democratic presidential debate in late June amounted to a star-is-born moment -- and polling in the wake of that debate showed Harris soaring into a dead heat at the top of the field with former Vice President Joe Biden.
But even in those earliest days of the race you can see -- in retrospect -- the message confusion that eventually crippled the campaign.
In announcing her campaign January 21 on "Good Morning America," Harris sought to present herself as a history-making candidate along the lines of Martin Luther King Jr. ("I'm honored to be able to make my announcement on the day that we commemorate" King, she said) and as a sort of political warrior for the average Joe ("I have the unique experience of having been a leader in local government, state government and federal government. The American public wants a fighter ... and I'm prepared to do that.")
In her standout performance in the first debate, Harris won applause both for her call for the candidates to stop fighting with one another (Harris as uniter) and for hitting Biden as insensitive in his past opposition to school busing (Harris as historical figure).
Once Harris came out of that first debate as the star in the field, her tendency to try to be everything to everyone only got worse -- typified best by her struggles to articulate exactly what she thought about "Medicare for All" -- the proposal, favored by liberals within the party, that would get rid of all private health insurance in favor of a government-run system.
In the first debate, all 20(!) candidates were asked to signal by a show of hands whether they supported eliminating private health insurance. Only Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vermont), Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) and Harris raised their hands. Within minutes of the debate's conclusion, Harris' campaign was working in overdrive to walk that back. "So, the question was would you be willing to give up your private insurance," Harris said the following morning in an interview with CBS. When one of the CBS anchors noted that that wasn't how the question was asked, Harris replied, "That is certainly what I heard," adding: "I am supportive of a 'Medicare for All' policy, and under a 'Medicare for All' policy, private insurance would certainly exist for supplemental coverage."
Harris had done a similar flip-flop in January when pressed by CNN's Jake Tapper about whether she supported eliminating all private heath insurance.)
By the time Harris released her own health care plan in late July, she had officially walked away from her past support for eliminating private health insurance. And her plan wound up being a metaphor for her broader problems in the race. It wasn't liberal enough for liberals ("I like Kamala," Sanders said on CNN at the time. "She's a friend of mine, but her plan is not 'Medicare for All.' ") and it was too liberal for the more moderate wing of the party ("the new, have-it-every-which-way approach pushes the extremely challenging implementation of the 'Medicare for All' part of this plan 10 years into the future," said Biden's deputy campaign manager.)
Take this all out of the context of politics. Put it, for example, into the context of tennis. In tennis, there are two "good" places to be on the court if you want to improve your chances of winning the point: at the baseline or at the net. The one place you really do not want to be in tennis is in that dead man's zone between the service lines and the baselines. You're neither at the net nor at the baselines -- caught between the two, you wind up trying to hit balls back that keep landing at your feet. It's a stone-cold loser.
That's how presidential races -- and, really, all political races -- work. While a candidate is always more than one thing (Harris, of course, can be both a candidate who could make history while also being a populist fighter), the candidate and the campaign have to decide early on what particular message they want to be front and center. Voters tend to pay scant attention to politics even in the best of times. And that's doubly true when you are talking about a field that topped at above 20 announced candidates. People need to know the thing you care most about, the thing that defines you, the bumper sticker message of your campaign.
Harris and her campaign could never decide what that was. As a result, she was forever in that dead man's zone -- too liberal enough for moderates, too moderate for liberals, too much focus on race and gender for some, too little focus on race and gender for others, not enough demonstrated electability for some, too much focus on electability for others.
In trying to be everything, Harris wound up, to many Democratic voters, to stand for, well, not much. And that is a political loser every time.
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 3:46 PM EST, Tue December 03, 2019
(CNN)Quick -- tell me in 10 words or less why Kamala Harris was running for president.
"); width: 36px; height: 36px; float: left; margin-top: 3px; margin-left: 20px;">
View this interactive content on CNN.com
Was it:
a) To be a populist fighter "for the people," as her campaign slogan promised?
b) To be a more electable version of the liberal policies espoused by the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren?
c) To be a more liberal version of pragmatic pols like Joe Biden?
d) To be a much-needed voice for women in Donald Trump's America?
e) To be a history maker -- as the first woman of color to be a major-party presidential nominee?
At different points throughout her campaign, which ended Tuesday afternoon in an email sent to supporters, Harris tried to be all of those things (and more). And that attempt to be everything everyone wanted in a presidential candidate ultimately contained the seeds of her slow but steady fall from relevance in the presidential race over the past year. And her ultimate decision to end her candidacy before a single voter had cast a ballot.
Before we jump to the end of her campaign, it's important to remember where Harris started.
When Harris formally entered the presidential race in January, she was seen -- by dint of her charisma, her profile (first African American woman and first Indian American woman elected to the Senate in California), her resume (former prosecutor and California attorney general) and her fundraising base in a giant (and giantly Democratic) state -- as one of the front-runners.
And her performance in the early days of the race did little to dissuade that sense. Her announcement in her native Oakland drew a massive crowd and received laudatory coverage. Her performance in the first Democratic presidential debate in late June amounted to a star-is-born moment -- and polling in the wake of that debate showed Harris soaring into a dead heat at the top of the field with former Vice President Joe Biden.
But even in those earliest days of the race you can see -- in retrospect -- the message confusion that eventually crippled the campaign.
In announcing her campaign January 21 on "Good Morning America," Harris sought to present herself as a history-making candidate along the lines of Martin Luther King Jr. ("I'm honored to be able to make my announcement on the day that we commemorate" King, she said) and as a sort of political warrior for the average Joe ("I have the unique experience of having been a leader in local government, state government and federal government. The American public wants a fighter ... and I'm prepared to do that.")
In her standout performance in the first debate, Harris won applause both for her call for the candidates to stop fighting with one another (Harris as uniter) and for hitting Biden as insensitive in his past opposition to school busing (Harris as historical figure).
Once Harris came out of that first debate as the star in the field, her tendency to try to be everything to everyone only got worse -- typified best by her struggles to articulate exactly what she thought about "Medicare for All" -- the proposal, favored by liberals within the party, that would get rid of all private health insurance in favor of a government-run system.
In the first debate, all 20(!) candidates were asked to signal by a show of hands whether they supported eliminating private health insurance. Only Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vermont), Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) and Harris raised their hands. Within minutes of the debate's conclusion, Harris' campaign was working in overdrive to walk that back. "So, the question was would you be willing to give up your private insurance," Harris said the following morning in an interview with CBS. When one of the CBS anchors noted that that wasn't how the question was asked, Harris replied, "That is certainly what I heard," adding: "I am supportive of a 'Medicare for All' policy, and under a 'Medicare for All' policy, private insurance would certainly exist for supplemental coverage."
Harris had done a similar flip-flop in January when pressed by CNN's Jake Tapper about whether she supported eliminating all private heath insurance.)
By the time Harris released her own health care plan in late July, she had officially walked away from her past support for eliminating private health insurance. And her plan wound up being a metaphor for her broader problems in the race. It wasn't liberal enough for liberals ("I like Kamala," Sanders said on CNN at the time. "She's a friend of mine, but her plan is not 'Medicare for All.' ") and it was too liberal for the more moderate wing of the party ("the new, have-it-every-which-way approach pushes the extremely challenging implementation of the 'Medicare for All' part of this plan 10 years into the future," said Biden's deputy campaign manager.)
Take this all out of the context of politics. Put it, for example, into the context of tennis. In tennis, there are two "good" places to be on the court if you want to improve your chances of winning the point: at the baseline or at the net. The one place you really do not want to be in tennis is in that dead man's zone between the service lines and the baselines. You're neither at the net nor at the baselines -- caught between the two, you wind up trying to hit balls back that keep landing at your feet. It's a stone-cold loser.
That's how presidential races -- and, really, all political races -- work. While a candidate is always more than one thing (Harris, of course, can be both a candidate who could make history while also being a populist fighter), the candidate and the campaign have to decide early on what particular message they want to be front and center. Voters tend to pay scant attention to politics even in the best of times. And that's doubly true when you are talking about a field that topped at above 20 announced candidates. People need to know the thing you care most about, the thing that defines you, the bumper sticker message of your campaign.
Harris and her campaign could never decide what that was. As a result, she was forever in that dead man's zone -- too liberal enough for moderates, too moderate for liberals, too much focus on race and gender for some, too little focus on race and gender for others, not enough demonstrated electability for some, too much focus on electability for others.
In trying to be everything, Harris wound up, to many Democratic voters, to stand for, well, not much. And that is a political loser every time.
So what is your point? That in 2014, lengthening prison sentences would have actually been progress somehow?
So how is fighting in order to imprison people for longer as slave labor a move towards making things more progressive?
You make no sense.
Simply state how fighting for longer prison terms for slave labor progress? Make it make sense for us
Looks like an FBA conference flyer
Similar threads
