December 29, 2018

The NYT makes its 2020 presidential choice obvious.

On the front page:



Inside, the text is clear. There's Kamala Harris and there are 3 other decent choices... and those 3 other guys need to step back and get out of the way:
Senator Kamala Harris of California.... Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts senator... Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey... And Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.... These four high-profile Democratic senators are poised to enter the 2020 presidential race in the next several weeks...

The speed of the senators’ efforts reflects intense political pressure to establish themselves as leading candidates in a Democratic field that could get crowded, fast.... and they don’t want to lose a step to a rival fresh face, such as Representative Beto O’Rourke, the former Texas Senate candidate who has been the focus of intense speculation in recent weeks as a potential presidential candidate....

For the Senate foursome, moving quickly into the race is also a pre-emptive effort to undercut the early advantages of a duo of universally known contenders, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who may enter the race in the coming months. Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders would start off with important advantages, including existing networks of support among early-state activists and party donors, and the stature to generate impressive displays of support at early rallies.

But as white men, Mr. Biden, Mr. Sanders and Mr. O’Rourke do not reflect the gender and racial diversity of many Democratic candidates and swaths of the electorate that dominated the 2018 midterms. Ms. Harris, Ms. Warren, Ms. Gillibrand and Mr. Booker, by contrast, would instantly make the 2020 Democratic field the most diverse array of presidential candidates in history. And they might well scramble the early polling leads held by Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders, who benefit from strong name recognition but would be in their late 70s by Election Day 2020, at a moment when some in the party are agitating for generational change....

The number of male operatives under consideration for campaign manager posts has raised concerns among some female Democratic strategists who hoped the diversity of the 2020 field would prompt more hiring of female and minority staffers for senior roles.... The focus on staff diversity reflects not only the influence of the #MeToo movement on Democratic politics but the demands of a party that has shifted to the left during the Trump era....

169 comments:

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

His name is Bob. Not Beto.

rcocean said...

I agree with the NYT. kamala harris is the Democrat's best choice. biden and sanders are over the hill.

hawkeyedjb said...

Has any one of these people accomplished anything? Or are race and gender now considered 'accomplishments?'

gilbar said...

but i repeat myself.
It's going to be Kamela and Spartacus. I'm planning to say I told you so (in about a year).

rcocean said...

The D's would be crazy to nominate a 76 y/o Joe Biden or a 77 y/o Bernie Sanders!

Why would any black person support Joe "Those blacks sure are clean and articulate" Biden, or Bernie "Vermont Whitebread" Sanders?

rcocean said...

You can call me Bob, and you can call be Rob, but you doesn't have to call me Beto.

hawkeyedjb said...

O' Rourke has no visible accomplishments.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Accomplishment? - Kamala knows how to ask ridiculous over-the-top questions at hearings. She also likes to compare Immigration and Customs staff to the KKK.

That's the type of leftwing division mongering the base likes.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Bob O'Rourke's biggest accomplishment is excessive democratic hack press adulation and free pimpage..

Doug said...

I am all for the feminists in the day party nominating another horrible candidate and going down to defeat AGAIN. My granddaughters will learn that feminists are horrible people

cronus titan said...

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing time and again and expecting different results. This article is straight identity politics. It not only did a face plant in 2016, it opened a door for Trump. The NYT article is nothing more than Harris being black and a woman, therefore checks two boxes. She would be a formidable candidate with formidable weaknesses (which they never get around to, but Trump surely will).

Jupiter said...

A fundamental problem with the Democrats' increasing emphasis on "diversity" is that a President cannot be all that "diverse". I suspect the thinking at the Times, is that they won with a black male, but lost with a white female, so the choice is obvious. It is also true that Kamala Harris does not inspire the sort of hatred, contempt and loathing that Hillary Clinton does. But they have not got the lid of Hillary's coffin nailed shut just yet.

Sebastian said...

"O' Rourke has no visible accomplishments."

Do any of the others?

Joe "Hands" Biden maybe -- VP is an accomplishment of sorts.

But the rest?

Kamala "That Book That You Carry" Harris is an empty pant suit.

Cory "Spartacus" Booker is even more lightweight.

Liz "Fauxahontas" Warren is a POC non-starter.

But as long as Oprah doesn't jump in, it is rational for the NYT to play the identity politics card and bet on Harris.

Maybe she can make an ad that brings tears to Althouse's eyes, you know, something about let us be lovers or some such. That'll seal the deal.

steve uhr said...

Since three of the past three democratic nominees were either black or female, one wonders when a white male candidate with good qualities will be considered acceptable by the powers that be.

n.n said...

Diversity is not "identity politics." It is a politically congruent euphemism for color judgments, including racism, sexism, etc., indulged under a thinly veiled semantic play.

Meade said...

"His name is Bob. Not Beto."

That’d be the Beto, Bob.

tim maguire said...

Ms. Harris, Ms. Warren, Ms. Gillibrand and Mr. Booker, by contrast, would instantly make the 2020 Democratic field the most diverse array of presidential candidates in history.

At least since the 2016 Republican primaries.

If those female strategists think “diversity” is more than a show, then they are too gullible to be strategists.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I think either Harris or Clinton. Harris has best chance of beating Trump.

YoungHegelian said...

That's right. Start the 2020 prez race with the Dem's publicly hanging out a big sign that says "White Men Need Not Apply". That'll bring back those swing white voters back into the Democratic fold for sure!

Just be sure to help the process along by telling them emphatically & often just what a bunch of racist, sexist, & homophobic deplorables they all are, & that they need to vote like their betters tell them to!

How can it not work, I tells ya!

Jupiter said...

steve uhr said...
"Since three of the past three democratic nominees were either black or female, one wonders when a white male candidate with good qualities will be considered acceptable by the powers that be."

Maybe you ought to sit down and shut the fuck up, you white supremacist nazi. We're preparing camps for assholes like you.

Fernandistein said...

✔@Kamala "HiveMind" Harris
"Lynching is a dark and despicable aspect of our nation’s history. We must acknowledge that fact, lest we repeat it. Thank you to my colleagues for agreeing to unanimously pass our Justice for Victims of Lynching Act, and @CoryBooker and @SenatorTimScott for your partnership."

Lest we repeat it!

"Steve Sailer ...point[s] out that to the hivemind it is always 1965. When it comes to race relations it’s as though the last five decades never happened."

Fernandistein said...

IOW, Kamala Harris is just another standardized joker.

Gahrie said...

How long until the Democratic Party platform calls for taking farms away from White men and giving them to minorities?

Gahrie said...

Has Sharpton given his "We aren't calling for the murder of White people....yet" speech already?

Greg Hlatky said...

Willie Brown's Mattress is the Democratic front-runner.

Francisco D said...

Kamala is a very unpleasant person. Watch tapes of her questioning Justice Kavanaugh, Gen. Kelly and other nominees.

Like Hillary, she also flunked the bar exam the first time - not all that bright.

Obama was also a lightweight, but he had three big advantages:

1. Pleasant, non-threatening personality - Harris is strident and nasty;

2. Pretty much a blank resume - Harris has a trail.

2. He was the first AA POTUS. A lot of White people feel less guilty.

(Take AA to mean either of its predominant meanings).

fivewheels said...

"The number of male operatives under consideration for campaign manager posts has raised concerns among some female Democratic strategists ..."

... who want those lucrative positions for themselves. Duh.

I do kind of hope, though, that the Democrats throw out half or more of their experienced, competent campaign operatives because of unacceptable gender identification. Every little edge helps.

Fernandistein said...

"In 2017, Latina women were paid on average 53 cents for every dollar paid to white males[1]. Today, on Latina Equal Pay Day, it’s time to speak truth about the wage gap[2], call on employers to take steps to address it, and redouble our efforts to pass legislation to ensure fair pay."

[1] Damn them.
[2] Why doesn't Harris speak the truth about the "wage gap"[sic]?

campy said...

So the Times says the dems have shifted left? That means they went from being a center-right party to the exact center, I suppose.

YoungHegelian said...

@Francisco D.

A lot of White people feel less guilty.

And, what's worse for the Democrats, is that a lot of black people went through eight years of Obama with great expectations & at the end had nothing more to show for it.

Achilles said...

Harris has accomplished many things.

On the political casting couch.

Drago said...

I understand there is a movement to establish a "Michigan Republican Lawyers For Kamala!:

We will wait to see if that comes to fruition.

So many democrats, so little time for MI republican lawyers to choose....

Drago said...

hawkeyedjb: "O' Rourke has no visible accomplishments"

Careful.

This comment could be triggering to certain lefty and LLR commenters on this blog.

chickenlittle said...

It probably will be Harris, especially after California changes its primary voting date to effectively choose the national candidate. But she will have to walk back that ridiculous statement of ICE = KKK. That's not going to win her votes outside of the border states.

Jim at said...

O' Rourke has no visible accomplishments

And the rest of these clowns do?

Rabel said...

Comments on the Times article are not encouraging for the fearsome foursome.

Ann Althouse said...

Harris really is the best choice for the Democratic Party, don't you think?

Ann Althouse said...

But the media will jam her down our throats and jinx her.

YoungHegelian said...

@chickenlittle,

It probably will be Harris, especially after California changes its primary voting date to effectively choose the national candidate

I think this is going to be seen by a large fraction of Democrats, especially in the heartland, as an attempt by California to swing the party farther left than they want to go.

The bi-coastal states are far too blatant in their attempt to want to run the nation, with California far & away the worst of the lot. I don't expect this to end well.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Francisco D said...

Take AA to mean either of its predominant meanings

How would we know he was in AA? Aren't they anonymous?

chickenlittle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickenlittle said...

YH wrote: I think this is going to be seen by a large fraction of Democrats, especially in the heartland, as an attempt by California to swing the party farther left than they want to go.

Oh, I agree with that whole heartedly. The best news is that Californian Dems don't care and will do it anyways.

chuck said...

As I've said before, the NY Times has become a women's magazine. That said, Kamala is kind of cute and Beto vs Kamala could be in entertaining face off, so to speak.

chickenlittle said...

Althouse wrote: Harris really is the best choice for the Democratic Party, don't you think?

She will be twice as immune to criticism by the MSM if our experiences with Hillary and Obama taught us anything. Criticize her once and you're sexist; criticize her twice and maybe you're a racist too.

rehajm said...

Hillary says America is sexist. So does Andrea Mitchell. That plays into Trumps hands if Kamala runs against him.

Titus said...

The gays love Kamala. We want someone hot in the Oval Office again.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Ann Althouse said...

Harris really is the best choice for the Democratic Party, don't you think?

Do you say this based on:

1) Demonstrated competence in office
2) Ability on the campaign trail
3) Other intangibles

rhhardin said...

Because women will like her is them saying what I'm always saying about women.

No brains.

Jack Wayne said...

No, Althouse, Harris not the best choice. America will not vote for another black president until the taste of ObamaCare washes away:

chickenlittle said...

Titus said...The gays love Kamala. We want someone hot in the Oval Office again.

I know the fantasy was fellatio with Barack but what exactly is the fantasy with Harris? For gays, I mean.

Jack Wayne said...

Bloomberg may surprise you.

Rabel said...

"Harris really is the best choice for the Democratic Party, don't you think?"

No, that would be Biden with a minority VP.

rehajm said...

If Kamala is the best choice that doesn’t rekon with the idea that America is sexist.

Mark Jones said...

Yes! Oh yes, please! PLEASE put diversity hire qualifications above actual skills and talent when hiring your campaign staffs. Please, please, please....

cronus titan said...

There is one name that went completely unmentioned in the NYT article: Hillary Rodham Clinton. Democrats are delusional if they think she is not seriously organizing another run. Her actions have all the marks of setting up another run, and her ambition is boundless. She may believe he own BS that she was robbed in 2016. However, Clinton still has more money and connections that the rest of the field combined and would be formidable in primaries. Democrat ignore her at their peril.

rehajm said...

cronus titan is right. All those assholes who invented that SCOTUS block lady and the Russian hoax and those FBI guys still work for the Clintons.

chickenlittle said...

If Dems can't fairly decide on a "best candidate" from their existing pool, what does it tell you about their selection process?

Rigged?

rehajm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

If the Dems nominate Kamala or Spartacus, both gimmick candidates, or a nobody like Beto Bob, then if Trump is only slightly less than a disaster, then he will win re-election. Voters will stick with the status quo rather than jettison all sense of rationality.

Sorry, the "historic first" thing has been done already. Voters already gave at the office. You can't go to that well again.

rehajm said...

Run the top three in the general, Democrats

Mark Jones said...

Kamala Harris: she spread her legs for Willie Brown, and she'll spread them for you*.

*Assuming "you" are a powerful, politically-connected, wealthy leftist.

Hagar said...

Bloomberg (1942 - ) self-finances with a couple of billion.

Bill Peschel said...

I always thought Caitlyn Flanagan had her head on straight, until I saw recently that she approves of Kamala. In writing about Kirsten Gillibrand, she wrote:

"Perhaps she will learn more about the intersectional future, decide to abandon her own advancement, and put her considerable clout behind an impressive and deeply accomplished potential candidate who really would help make the future intersectional: Kamala Harris."

Or am I being whooshed?

Luke Lea said...

Will we be voting for a leader or a figurehead?

Unknown said...

I wouldn’t expect the NYTimes to be unbiased.

Bill Peschel said...

As God as my witness, I can't even anymore.

Meade said...

"But as white men, Mr. Biden, Mr. Sanders and Mr. O’Rourke do not reflect the gender and racial diversity of many Democratic candidates and swaths of the electorate that dominated the 2018 midterms. "

The Diversity Paradox: "gender and racial diversity" can't include "white men." Wouldn't be diverse enough.

Scott said...

I hope that every open leadership position in the Democrat party is awarded to a woman.

Drago said...

Jack Wayne: "No, Althouse, Harris not the best choice. America will not vote for another black president until the taste of ObamaCare washes away"

Those are fightin' words for LLR Chuck who often complains about republicans "sabotaging" obamacare, which, by the way, is precisely how the left terms it.

Jay Elink said...

Achilles said...
Harris has accomplished many things.

On the political casting couch.
***********************************

She's likely waiting for the last few weeks of the 2020 election (assuming she's nominated) to come out as #MeToo.

Willy won't see it coming. (Or her, ever again, for that matter.)

chickenlittle said...

Here's safe prediction: Dems will blow their chance at 2020 by focussing on Trump impeachment instead of doing their jobs on immigration and healthcare. The major candidates are Senators or Congresspersons. They could screw up so badly that R's will retake the House in 2020. They are staking everything on bringing down Trump.

Marcus Carman said...

Anti-Catholic bigot. That's your Dem choice NYT?

Fernandistein said...

How would we know he was in AA? Aren't they anonymous?

As a victim, I suffer from, or because of, Anonymous Action, or the lack thereof.

YoungHegelian said...

@Marcus C,

Anti-Catholic bigot. That's your Dem choice NYT?

The Dem's stopped caring about the Catholic vote at least since Obama.

Anti-Catholic bigotry (& bigotry against religious believers in general) is now cooked into the broth of the Left. It's not a bug it's a feature.

Fernandistein said...

Systemic Anonymous Action, that is; it's so prevalent that you can't see it because of the insidiousness.

gilbar said...

hawkeyedjb said...O' Rourke has no visible accomplishments

oh YES he does! he managed to marry a Billionairess!

Doesn't matter, though:
It's going to be Kamela and Spartacus (for VP).
I'm planning to say I told you so (in about a year).

As for Hilary, Sure, she Wants to run; but won't, on account of because she'll go under by then (probably)

Jack Wayne said...

The way I see it is pretty simple: My whole life Americans have always voted for the candidate they view as the strongest. Truman was up vs the weakling Dewey. Eisenhower faces the weakling Stevenson. Nixon lost to the stronger on missiles Kennedy. Johnson beat the crap out of the racist war-monger Goldwater. Nixon beat the war-monger Humphrey. And he beat the complete pussy McGovern. Carter, nucular warrior beat the doofus Ford. Reagan beat the pussy Carter. Reagan beat the innocuous Mondale. Bush beat the pussy Dukakis. Perot and Clinton beat the read my lips liar. Clinton beat an innocuous Dole. Bush barely eeked out a win over the low-energy Gore. Bush beat the night-sweat anti-warrior Kerry by a hair. Obama trashed the Republican Traitor McCain. And beat the innocuous Romney. Trump trashed everybody as America wanted an anti-establishment person. In 2020, if the Dems want to win, they will run someone who is from the middle, possibly anti-establishment who projects a more calm personality and who is anti-war. Harris does NOT fit that profile.

Browndog said...

Don't think for a minute the Clinton's have nothing to say about who the next dem nominee is. They still run the DNC and have all the donors and operatives that matter.

Kevin said...

They’re with her.

Because the only problem with Hillary was she wasn’t black enough.

Earnest Prole said...

If the Democratic Party can reconcile itself to Hillary, it can reconcile itself to anyone.

Mark said...

I overlooked Gillibrand, who also belongs to the gimmick category, as do all others where their genitalia or skin color is the only thing that they have to commend them.

As for Hillary, there is no likelihood that she will even be around in 2020. She did not have it in her to withstand the rigors of the 2016 campaign (not that she was inclined to do much heavy work anyway, expecting that the election just be handed to her). She won't survive another run. All the no-shows on her concert tour however will already show her the hard truth that nobody really likes her anyway -- and never did).

Jupiter said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Harris really is the best choice for the Democratic Party, don't you think?"

Tough call. On the one hand, the obvious strategy in a two-party system is to position yourself between your opponent and the majority of voters. That implies appealing to your base during the primaries and shifting toward the center for the general. And I don't think Harris is a shift-to-the-center kind of gal. Kamala sleeps on the wet spot. On the other hand, a substantial fraction of the Democrat base will lose interest in the election unless the candidate resembles them in pigment and genitalia. And it's hard to position yourself between your opponent and the majority of voters if your base forgets to vote.

gilbar said...

jack wayne said... In 2020, if the Dems want to win

But! that's Just IT! The demos know that they have No Chance of winning; and they'll want two black people so that they can blame it on Racism!

Thus: It's going to be Kamela and Spartacus (for VP).
I'm planning to say I told you so (in about a year).

MayBee said...

I feel sorry for Eric Holder, who said over the summer that he was looking into a run. Is he not good enough for a mention?


Blogger Hagar said...
Bloomberg (1942 - ) self-finances with a couple of billion.


He financed a lot of Democrat winners in 2018. He's gonna be owed a lot of favors.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...


Thus: It's going to be Kamela and Spartacus (for VP).
I'm planning to say I told you so (in about a year).


If that's what happens I'll geive Trump his nicknames.

Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber.

Browndog said...

Listen to Harris question a witness in a committee hearing-

She's shrill, mean, arrogant, and above all, stupid.

I think the one that sounds less nuts than the rest of the field will rise to the top. I suspect that will be Beto.

Christopher said...

See, this post is more deserving of your promise to say I told you so a year from now.

YoungHegelian said...

@MayBee,

He financed a lot of Democrat winners in 2018. He's gonna be owed a lot of favors.

Yeah, but do you expect blacks & Hispanics to turn out for Nanny Bloomberg? Maybe, white liberals, but minority voters? Naaaahhhh!

Trump got a bigger than expected share of minority, especially minority male votes, because he isn't your average boring & dull white male politician. Trump is a "playa", & I think that has appea to a fraction of the minority electorate. But, Bloomberg?! Physically challenged Bloomberg could get his ass stomped by your average Bar Mitzvah boy.

David Begley said...

Ann:

The best choice for a RATIONAL Dem Party would be Howard Schultz; a billionaire, White, straight, Jewish man of accomplishment and no political record.

I can’t wait to see these clowns in Iowa. Read all about it on Power Line.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Bloomberg could run in the general as a compromise candidate. I think if he spent enough money he would have a chance*.

*a chance to spoil it for the Dems. Run Bloomy run!

Gahrie said...

Harris really is the best choice for the Democratic Party, don't you think?

A woman with no real accomplishments who slept her way to the top?

Sounds right......

Jack Wayne said...

Bloom ran as a centrist in NY and won 3x. I will never vote for him but the “Reagan” Democrats will love him. The gerrymander in 2020 will be critical and we’ll see who has the upper hand in the election.

Jack Wayne said...

In any event, stick a fork in the USA. Our debt problem will blow up huge and most Americans will be all “Wut?”:

Jack Wayne said...

Re the 2020 gerrymander, I expect the Dems to recognize the opportunity and spend huge. And the Stupid Party to cave.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

David Begley@6:42 PM You're talking about the Howard Schultz who got shitcanned by Starbucks for being too SJW, right? You think that asshole has no political record? He may not be a politician, but he has a political record that is very publicly Democrat party open borders, abolish ICE, unlimited genders, abortion uber alles. He's Bloomberg with a slightly lower profile.

Jeremy Abrams said...

The dems absolutely refuse to select a woman whose success is based on her own merit. Hillary is a famous guy's wife who didn't divorce him after he abused and raped women. Kamala Harris was rewarded with a position that set her up to rise as a result of being Willie Brown's lover. Then we have the fake native American who clearly owed her professorship, the basis for her own rise, to fraud.

David Begley said...

Fitz:

No one fired Schultz. He’s the founder, CEO, Chairman and major shareholder. He retired once and came back and saved the company.

And he has never voted on a single bill. He has no political record.

That being said, I’m voting Trump.

LYNNDH said...

I said a long time ago to my friends that Harris will be the nominee.
Ann has now stated she will vote for Harris.
Harris will get white women (unless they are further trashed)
Big question, will she get Black Men.
All the other wantabe's are too powerful in their own right to be her running mate. My guess is Gov. Hickenlooper of CO. He is called a "centerist". He isn't, but he is affable enough not to upset people, would not be a threat to Harris and might get some of white men votes.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

"high-profile" =/= qualified

but for Lefty S's n G's go with Bobby McMexican & Kamala Whorris

Stephen Cooper said...

There are dozens of Democrats who could win, if they get lucky.

The number of Democrats who can win, by their own efforts , the way Trump won ----

there are one or two at most.

Maybe Bloomberg can somehow take Ohio and Pennsylvania, with his own efforts, maybe (assuming he does not have MeToo issues) Cuban can take Texas and Pennsylvania, and maybe even Ohio.

The rest are just, like poor little Choom gang Barry,the rest are just wannabe puppets, and they will only win with lots of luck and at least the normal amount of cheating.

rcocean said...

Blacks will vote 90-10 for Harris. White D's will split their vote between some Sanders-like Socialist and some Biden-like Establishment type. Game, Set, and Match - Harris.

The D's dream candidate is Oprah. But she ain't running. Harris is the next best thing.

Criticize her and your a racist AND a sexist. The first woman POTUS! None of the Hillary baggage. Sure she's a leftist and a dumbo - but so what? Try to get Mr. Average Stupid American to focus on that while the MSM is telling him Kamala! is the greatest thing ever!

Jeremy Abrams said...

And if the House passes articles of impeachment, Harris will have to record a vote on the issue, which will cost her either moderate dems and independents, or her base.

rcocean said...

What moderate Dems?

LOL!

Jay Elink said...

Jeremy Abrams said...
And if the House passes articles of impeachment, Harris will have to record a vote on the issue, which will cost her either moderate dems and independents, or her base.
****************

She's a Senator. If a Senate impeachment trial ever reaches a vote before the 2020 election, maybe then, but not before.

Mike Sylwester said...

Kamala Harris almost defeated the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court.

Harris asked Kavanaugh whether he had talked with anyone at some law firm.

Then Kavanaugh almost lost the Senate vote -- he just barely won a majority.

I think that lots of Senators thought that Kamala was onto something when she asked him whether he had talked to someone at some law firm. Kamala is highly respected by her fellow senators.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Kamala Harris is terrible on the issues.

Ken B said...

I get it. They hate me, my son, my son in law, my brother, my father, my male cousins. They would hate my grandfathers if they were alive and any other sons I might have had.

Mike Sylwester said...

Cory Booker courageously did civil disobedience during the Kavanaugh hearings. In that regard, Booker reminds us all of Martin Luther King, who likewise did civil disobedience.

By doing civil disobedience, Booker hastened the declassification of an old document that proved that Kavanaugh opposed racial profiling in airports.

Booker's courageous civil disobedience has earned him the nickname "Spartacus" among his fellow Senators and furthermore among the entire US population.

Jack Wayne said...

Mike Sylwester, dialing in from an alternate universe. Very entertaining!!!

Jack Wayne said...

Maybe you need the /sarc label???

tcrosse said...

Harris has that same delightful cocktail of Hubris and Stupidity that worked so well for Hillary. I look forward to some Kinseleyan Gaffes. If the Democrats are true to themselves, she's their nominee.

Ken B said...

Assuming Ann's question is serious, no Harris is not the Democrats' best pick. Trump would chew her up in a debate. I think, and hope, the best pick is not someone we have heard much of yet, possibly a governor of a medium state, or someone who retired from politics 20 years ago. None of these.
Of those mentioned, the most electable is probably Biden. But I hope they can do better.

bagoh20 said...

This is bullshit. I'm pretty sure the NYT is gonna endorse Trump in 2020. It's so early, how could anyone be sure they won't?

I'm still wondering why Santa didn't eat the cookies I left out for him.

Mike Sylwester said...

If Kamala Harris becomes the US President, she might have the opportunity to nominate a judge to the US Supreme Court. I foresee that she personally will question a candidate judge before she makes her final nomination decision.

Harris will summon the candidate judge to her Oval Office. Then she will name a law firm out of the blue and ask the candidate judge whether he or she ever has talked to anyone from that law firm.

Harris has demonstrated already that she is very skilled at questioning candidates for the US Supreme Court.

bagoh20 said...

Harris is like a lot of Democrats in that she is smart enough to know what she says is complete crap and that is likely to hurt her constituents, but corrupt and selfish enough to say it anyway. Think Hillary, Sanders, Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, etc.

The Republican version of that is to say shit that is true and good for the country, but then not do it anyway. Either way, we get screwed by the lies of liars.

Trump is a bullshitter, a shit talker, an exaggerator, but not the kind of lies that really hurt by taking advantage of you at your expense.

Mike Sylwester said...

One new quality that Kamala Harris would bring to the US Presidency is that she is good at comparing federal agencies to the Ku Klux Klan.

Before Kamala entered the Senate, nobody had thought up the idea of saying that some communities had a perception that a federal agency is like the Ku Klux Klan.

This idea was like a hundred-dollar bill that was lying in the middle of the floor. Only Kamala had the wit to pick up the bill and use it as political capital.

Lots of federal agencies are just like the Ku Klux Klan, in the perception of some communities. A President Kamala Harris would give a powerful new voice to those communities and to their perceptions about federal agencies.

Drago said...

It is absolutely imperative that whomever the democrats nominate for the Presidency that their candidate win convincingly along with dems sweeping every other office in the nation to ensure that "Real" "True Conservatism" can be reestablished sometime in the next century.

Maybe.

Or not.

At least, this is the preferred strategy offered up by our LLR "allies".

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mountain Maven said...

Harris was in charge of code violations when she worked for the SF District Attorney.

Mike Sylwester said...

Kirsten Gillibrand will be the favored candidate of the voters who have suffered from sexual assault. That political base includes about a fourth of all the women who ever have attended college.

If Gillibrand becomes President and then has the opportunity to nominate a judge to the US Supreme Court, she will order the FBI to investigate how each candidate behaved at parties during their high-school years. Because this precaution, the US public never again will have to suffer through a national embarrassment like the Kavanaugh hearings.

If Gillibrand becomes US President, she also will order all colleges to enforce again the Obama-era requirement that universities conduct kangaroo-court proceedings whenever a male student -- especially a White member of a fraternity -- is accused of sexual harassment.

About a fourth of female college students are sexually assaulted, and then they have to sit in the classrooms as the fraternity members who harassed them. This outrageous situation will end quickly if Gillibrand becomes the US President.

Dave Begley said...

Kamala Kardashian Harris. Famous for being famous. And sex.

Michael said...

It will be Harris. Way too long since we have had a poc at the helm with the attendant national healing. Plus woman. She is near the tip top of the intersectional pyramid and is a nasty piece of work likely able to go head to head with Trump. She will beat Trump for all the wrong reasons. Things will be more fucked up.

DavidUW97 said...

I live in the East Bay (of SF). Harris might be the Democrat choice but her record will hurt in the general. She does have accomplishments, like Hilary, she slept her way to her first job. Then she proceeded to politicize the death penalty and the law as much as Eric holder. Not pursuing the death penalty against cop killers will not help her in the Midwest, North Carolina, or other “purple” states and her ICE comments won’t help them turn Arizona. That the death penalty stance was a flip from her previous statements won’t help either. She’s a half Indian Dukakis.

Mountain Maven said...

Almost always the more charming and likeable candidate wins the general. Klinkers like Dole, Hillary and Kamala get landslided.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

With the Dem's cheat-the-vote scheme - does it even matter?

etbass said...

Is this the NYT's way of signaling Hillary to drop any plans she has?

eris said...

So Beto goes by the nickname given to him by his Mexican housekeeper. Talk about white privilege

Mark said...

There is a foolish delusion running through all of the analysis and comments here.

And that is that 2020 will be a clean and fair election. But there is a substantial probability that there will be more than a few cases of fraud, perhaps in enough places, in the right places, to make a difference.

With early "voting" and ballot harvesting, where party operatives can procure ballots for that vast population of typical non-voters and those vulnerable people who can be manipulated, and direct how those ballots are cast, and then deliver those ballots to election officials, you can have NO trust in the election system.

With election officials routinely not reporting results timely, and "finding" "lost" boxes of ballots in close elections, there can be NO trust in the election.

With non-citizens being on voter registration rolls, and anyone who appears at a polling station being allowed to cast at least a provisional ballot, which invariably will be subject to demands that it be counted no matter what, there can be NO trust in election results.

If anything is certain in these times it is that rules and laws and notions of "fairness" are for suckers. Rely on them at your peril.

wildswan said...

I got to not liking Kamala Harris when I actually saw her in action - and not because she was opposing Kavanaugh. She had that nasty self centered vibe you got from Hillary. There was smug, there was slightly mean-stupid. There was nothing nice or fun or amusing or empathic anywhere. She was an administrative state bicht.

So she may be ahead at this point as Althouse says but don't count on the voters not realizing who she really is before the primaries are over. Moreover, she can only win if the voters put identity ahead of qualifications. But the world is getting more dangerous all the time. I think she'll show herself up as a complete incompetent on defense and foreign policy issues and that will put people off more than she can realize or correct for. She is, after all, from California. She can't fix poop on the streets left by homeless maniacs and druggies in the USA, let alone handle the messes created by cunning, powerful dictators abroad.

narciso said...

That was a bit tongue in cheek, Mike Sylvester, the number of sexual assaults on campus is nowhere near 25%, but I see your point even though unlike Obama she will not be in the majority this cycle.

My name goes here. said...

"Harris really is the best choice for the Democratic Party, don't you think?"

No.

I think that everyone wants to think that Harris the is the best choice, but she is not. Right now everyone is trying to position themselves to be the best candidate and as soon as someone is the front runner they will get pounced on by all of the other candidates. The political fracas that follows will have someone else (probably) will be viewed as the front runner and the process will repeat. Each cycle will have someone(s) fall out of the fight (the Dean scream, the Jeb clap, etc.) until the remaining candidates manage to get a political coalition of critical mass to fight the other candidates on actual issues.

The Democrat coalitions can be divided (as I see it):
Abortion
Greens
Identity (race)
Socialists
Identity (XX chromosomes)
Gun grabbers
No Borders
Transgender

Previously there were two things that actually help this process sort of work. The first was the that initial contests were in small states where ideas could be communicated to communities in Iowa and New Hampshire and coalitions could be built small units at a time. The second is that every candidate viewed the process as difficult and time consuming. Both of those ideas are out of the window now. Each state is trying it's darnedest to boost it's favored child. But bigger still is that nobody thinks that running for the big office is hard nor time consuming.

Nobody in politics in 2016 (and I think now as well) ever believed that Trump was actually an effective campaigner. They seem to believe that Trump essentially stumbled into the office by accident. They saw him fly in, give a rally, and that was it. They never asked how was he able to draw such large crowds. They never asked how he was able to do three (four?) rallies in one day, for several days in a row. Trump made it look easy.

Andrea Mitchell says that she never watched The Apprentice and she did not know how many fans Trump had. Andrea Mitchell is one of the Deans of the Washington Press Corps and she *still* thinks that Trump had fans and that is why he won. It has dawned on approximately zero politicos that Trump actually had a message that resonated with people. They would stand in lines for hours to get into packed arenas and then wait hours more just to see him come speak.

Because everyone thinks this process is easy now we are going to have to suffer through the greatest cavalcade of wannabes ever. I predict all of the following will run:
Harris
Booker
Gildebrant
Biden
Sanders
O'Rourke
Bloomberg
Schultz
Cuban
2 other billionaires to be named later
Hickenlooper
And if she thinks she can stay continent long enough, Hillary.

The most sane choice is Hickenlooper. That pretty much means he will not get it.





Francisco D said...

And, what's worse for the Democrats, is that a lot of black people went through eight years of Obama with great expectations & at the end had nothing more to show for it.

I think most of the expectations were realized when Obama was elected. Many conservative African-Americans (like my ex-wife) voted for Obama because of the historic significance. Only White leftists actually believed his messianic bullshit.

An important point is that we are a strong country who can elect a symbolic empty suit and survive. Trump was elected to fix things that Obama fucked up. When things are going swimmingly well, we will elect a socialist idiot who will be followed by a (hopefully conservative) Republican to fix things again. It is a pattern throughout my life.

Tommy Duncan said...

If Harris is the nominee for the Democrat Party it will create an interesting dynamic as she runs against Trump. Trump will be brutally tough on her and tag her with a nasty nickname. The media will rabidly defend her as a woman, as a black and as a socialist. Trump will push that media defense way over the top. People already recognize and react to the media negativity toward Trump. Harris will throw gas on the media's negative Trump narrative. I suspect that will feed the same phenomenon that led to Trump's win in 2020. The media will help Trump win by opposing him.

The Drill SGT said...

Harris is even more of an idiot that Babs Boxer who she replaced. There is a lot of dirt in her SF past. Her white lawyer spouse will not be an asset. Douglas Emhoff

Bunkypotatohead said...

NYT says no whites allowed, then blames Trump. Ha!

Besides, after Obama's performance, he may be both the first black president, and the last one.

Crazy World said...

Meade is hilarious, Bless his big heart.

FIDO said...

Blacks will vote 90-10 for Harris.


Black women, of course! Getting a Sister to Powa? Crawl over broken glass. That is 23.5 million, minus some of those under 18 (because...Democrat)


Black men...she is the shrill, unpleasant and pushy. If Hillary is America's Ex Wife, Harris is America's 'Uppity Black Woman Too Good to Date Me'. There are only 21.5 million black men.

Hillary had the 'broken glass feminists' showing up dead to the voting booths. Affluent White Women. Will they be just as dedicated to vote for a black woman? If 2016 voters were 30% feminists, that would be about 17 million feminist white women.

Hillary won the popular vote only by about 3 million votes. Ten percent of black men and ten percent of Feminists feeling cheated by 'not our turn AGAIN' would be around 3.85 MILLION voters just from the Dems two main demographics.

Hillary only got 8 million Independent Men. Do you think the Harris will do even half that well? Hillary lost 10% of Dem men by being America's Ex Wife. How many White Democrat men will vote for the Democrat's Racist Harpy?


So Althouse's contention that Harris might be their best bet does not speak well of her chances...if the elections are fair. Althouse didn't comment on that either at the time.

Gahrie said...

That was a bit tongue in cheek, Mike Sylvester, the number of sexual assaults on campus is nowhere near 25%,

Althouse cites and defends the statistic that 25% of women who attend college are raped.

JayDee77 said...

Not sure if Kamala will win the nomination or if she could beat Trump. But, she's the only one who really scares the piss out of me. My perception is that she would be wholly vindictive in her governance. "Getting even" would be her MO.

walter said...

eris said...
So Beto goes by the nickname given to him by his Mexican housekeeper. Talk about white privilege
--
Hey now..maybe his skate park bros gave him that.
Has anyone consulted David Brooks on the early contenders to pants crease God Obama's Dem progression?

walter said...

JayDee77 said...
Not sure if Kamala will win the nomination or if she could beat Trump. But, she's the only one who really scares the piss out of me. My perception is that she would be wholly vindictive in her governance.
--
Yeah...not a "kinder gentler" variant..

walter said...

But besides ticking boxes of female, "black"..what else?
Pissed off?

Mr Wibble said...


There is one name that went completely unmentioned in the NYT article: Hillary Rodham Clinton. Democrats are delusional if they think she is not seriously organizing another run. Her actions have all the marks of setting up another run, and her ambition is boundless. She may believe he own BS that she was robbed in 2016. However, Clinton still has more money and connections that the rest of the field combined and would be formidable in primaries. Democrat ignore her at their peril.


My theory is that Hillary won't run, but she'll build up enough organization and energy that she can play kingmaker to whomever promises her the most influence over the party. The Clintons need to keep money flowing in, because without money the have no power whatsoever. If Hillary can play kingmaker to one of the other candidates in exchange for putting Clinton acolytes in key positions in the campaign, and promises of key positions in a future administration, then they can ensure a continued flow of money into the Clinton Foundation.

RK said...

"Althouse cites and defends the statistic that 25% of women who attend college are raped."

I don't recall Althouse commenting on that bullshit statistic, but her and I both get emails from UW-Madison whenever a sexual assault is reported. There might have been two or three in the fall semester. It's a campus with 44,000 students and more than half are women.

Do the math.

funsize said...

Ahh, Beto is white now! That didn't take long.

AllenS said...

FIDO said it first. Kamaltoe Harris will get the black woman's vote, but don't think for one minute that the majority of black men will vote for her.

Bay Area Guy said...

All these clowns have the same basic set of policy prescriptions:
1. Higher taxes
2. More regulation
3. More government spending
4. Lax border control
5. Unlimited abortion on demand
6. More gay rights
7. Climate changes
8. Racial identity politics
9. Excessive feminist ideology.

None of these clowns have any particular interest in American traditions, the Constitution, a strong military, promoting capitalism, promoting Christianity, reinforcing the Rule of Law, or supporting the families that work and pay taxes from private sector jobs.

Yancey Ward said...

The targets are Booker and Warren- both undercut Harris in different ways. I saw a headline today that California is moving its primary up in the rotation, and that also plays to Ms. Althouse's correct observation that word has gone out to promote Harris relentlessly.

I will just assume that Clinton's people have what it takes to drive Harris out of the race at the right moment.

Yancey Ward said...

A white male can win the nomination, by the way- if you get to mid march with Booker, Harris, Warren, and Clinton still in the race, one white male candidate could waltz away with it. This is why the pressure is being put on Warren and Booker- Harris against Biden and O'Rourke will be a cakewalk for Harris. It is Clinton who will find a way to get rid of Harris.

Ryan, Paul, Brett, Jim, Justin said...

"[T]he most diverse array of presidential candidates in history." Republicans in 2016 featured candidates who were black, Hispanic, Indian, and female. Beyond that lazy diversity, they featured a doctor, Rhodes scholar, tech CEO, reality TV star, investment banker, state solicitor general, and the most normal man in America. As far as I can tell, the democrats are universally offering people steeped in government ranks. But only the lazy diversity matters, it seems.

Unknown said...

The longer you think about it diverse it gets..

Miniauniversity said...

We would like to share our university link on your site

MINIa University

Vision and Mission
The University seeks to provide the necessary elements of continuous development to keep abreast of the rapid scientific and technological developments and improve the university performance. The University works to achieve its mission through:

Preparing specialized technical cadres in various fields that meet the needs of the society and are required by the areas of comprehensive development.
And provide qualified personnel in the new disciplines required by the labor market.
Conduct scientific and applied researches and studies related to the problems of society and development programs.
Emphasizing noble human values, deepening the value of national loyalty and preserving the original principles of society.
Cultural and scientific ties between the university and scientific institutions and Arab and international universities and their documentation.
Continuous development of study programs and graduate programs to cope with scientific and technological progress.
https://www.minia.edu.eg/Minia/Ehome.aspx

mccullough said...

Beto is likeable. Kamala is not. She comes off like a junior varsity version of Hillary.

Beto also has kids. Kamala is a career woman like Hillary. But not only can’t she bake collies, she can’t procreate. Not even kick out one kid like Hikasry.

And her husband is whiter than Bernie Sanders.

The voters like virile candidates. Kamala is Trumo’s choice opponent. And She’s from California. Land of Silicon Valley billionaires interspersed with Hollywood pedophiles, junkies who shit on the sidewalks, and illegal aliens who kill cops while the Dems applaud and shelter them.

Perfect opponent for Trump.

Howard said...

Mccullough: Yes. There's something off-putting about Harris in a Hillary vein. Beto's problem is he has awkward stage presence. Also, a Texas liberal is better sheep dipped than a California progressive.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"Meade is hilarious, Bless his big heart."

His big white heart.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Althouse cites and defends the statistic that 25% of women who attend college are raped.
On Christmas Eve I kissed a woman without getting explicit permission first.
I am such a dinosaur. Good thing I didn't get thrown in the pokey, or get on some internet hit list.
I suppose any chance I might have had for a career in public life is shot all to Hell now.

tim in vermont said...

Come on, “Beto” O’Rourke is at least as Hispanic as Paddy O’Furniture is Irish.

Tina Trent said...

@My Name Goes Here: Interesting. I'm not making a judgment call in saying Harris is most likely the candidate: she has a lot of things on her side. Long, real career, including Cali AG. She's actually not an intellectual lightweight like Obama (and Booker is a weird simpleton at best). The media and entertainment world (singular) is amping up to make this the election of the black woman. Expect Michelle! and Oprah and Obama and Stacey Abrams to stump for her, also Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou (even if she's dead, they'll ressurect the horrific dinosaur poo poem she wrote for Clinton's inauguration) and lots of actresses and actors.

Harris is really bad news. She is a radical leftist of the worst sort. She's personally caused countless murders and rapes with her criminal justice policies in California. Shhe is a vicious, hateful, deeply racist person, fully willing to weaponize identity politics and smart enough to do it in a way that enables her topretend she is being "moderate" while rending the country apart.

Her political ambitions and allies are fascistic. Her optics are safe upper class professional. Mommy and daddy are doctors.

Hubby is white. This is her one problem, but it's not the same problem Obama would have faced if he had married his long-term love instead of telling her he had to drop her to find a black woman to marry if he wanted to be president -- or anything else in Chicago politics.

And this is where Beto comes in. The key to soothing nervous white leftist males and placating doubting black males is for Harris to have a beta white male housepet for VP.

It's almost like Beto the Beta was invented for this purpose.



tim in vermont said...

That was a bit tongue in cheek, Mike Sylvester, the number of sexual assaults on campus is nowhere near 25%,

If you look at the CDC definition of “Sexual coercion” it includes such things as “telling things that are not true.” <<-- Their language, not mine. Telling a woman that if she is not interested in sex with you, well, perhaps then that’s a clue that the relationship might be over <<-- my language. And as we all know, their is the retroactively changing one’s mind the morning after and deciding that maybe it was a mistake. Or in the case of Lena Dunham, or CBF you could decide years later that you politics required you to have been raped by someone.

If they had objective definitions that agree with what people understand to be genuine sexual assaults, coercion, and rape, I think they would get more sympathetic hearing, but they would have a less spectacular number.

David Begley said...

A guy I know here in Omaha has been nominated to be a federal judge. During his hearing Senator Harris asked if he could be an impartial judge because he is Catholic and belongs to that extreme organization called the Knights of Columbus.

In Omaha, the extreme Knights appear at funerals, sponsor free throw contests and fish fries.

walter said...

That young Chapstiquiddick ginger (actual) Kennedy must be pissed.

narciso said...


Summing up the weak:

https://www.americanthinker.com/

Seeing Red said...

Any one of them would be a disaster. Trust me.

DEEBEE said...

So for Dems 2020 is the year of melangina. No more pallordicks

rcocean said...

"but don't think for one minute that the majority of black men will vote for her."

Blacks men have voted Democrat 80-20, in one POTUS election after another - since 1964.

The voted for Hillary 80-20. They'll vote for Harris at a higher percentage.

rcocean said...

During the 2008 and 2016 primaries there was no significant difference between black men and women.

Sacto_Dave said...

I wonder what Trump’s pet name for Beto will be.

Nicholas said...

Pet name for Beta? Runaway Robert of course; it reminds us of his real, non-Hispanic idenitity and his Kennedyesqe relationship with motor cars.

Big Mike said...

Harris has best chance of beating Trump.

Then Trump must be unbeatable. Harris compares ICE unfavorably with the KKK but 80% of the American voters think illegal immigration is a problem. She labels the Knights of Columbus an extremist organization. She didn’t even manage to impress Althouse with her inane questioning during the Kavanaugh hearings. I think Harris has exploitable weaknesses — and only her skin color and ovaries for strengths.