Been seeing a lot of people on social talking about how media are picking on Harris. There are some legit gripes like lack of coverage of Steyer stealing her data and the hit piece that cited the person who left her campaign for Bloomberg. But the simple truth is Harris never developed a base or cohesive message despite being a firm #5 in the polls.
She was lobbed a softball about Pete's SC slipup and failed to do anything with it. Instead she pushed really hard on the "Trump should be suspended from Twitter for violating terms of service" thing, which I can't imagine matters to a broad part of the electorate. She changed her messaging a lot, her campaign was constantly leaking stuff to the media, and as the candidate who started as the "electable progressive" she backed away from her original stance on M4A quicker than anyone.
All good Quality moves for someone accepting the reality that they're going to be a VP (or AG).
I like how that npr article portrayed his progressive roots of talking to Oxford buddies who now work for big law firms and hedge funds. Fun!
Shame on them for being successful. Does making a decent living invalidate one's progressive credentials?
not speaking specifically to this scenario because I don't know the reference, but how you make your money to become successful definitely matters to your progressive credentials
yeah, like bernie sanders
correct
book royalties are more palatable than, say, opioid sales
Shame on them for being successful. Does making a decent living invalidate one's progressive credentials?
Without addressing the original MHB point, as I've committed not to talking badly about other candidates, you are as a candidate who your base/supporters are. Class solidarity is real.
So Donald Trump is a salt of the earth farmer who goes to church three times a week.
Bernie Sanders is a 20 year barista.
Biden is a 55 year old Black woman who goes to the GHOE every year.
Seems like a tangled argument to make to get around the fact Pete is by far the least wealthy person in the Dem field.
Some context on timing:
In retrospect the plan of "let's focus on SC and beyond" followed by "oh shit, no one will vote for us if we don't do well in Iowa, move everything to Iowa!" was a bit of a mess.
No I'm not saying you as a person are similar to the people you appeal to. I mean what your campaign represents are the interests of the people in your base. Ask the average Biden supporter what they like about Joe's policies and they'd sound pretty similar to the average Trump supporter "I trust him/I like how he speaks his mind/I saw him on TV," maybe with a little "he can beat Trump" mixed in. I'm edging towards violating my rule here, but Kamala didn't fail because a bunch of billionaires joined the race and she didn't take PAC/billionaire money, she failed because the second her poll numbers tanked, all her billionaire support went to Pete. Kamala actually had a great deal of Dem establishment support, and the establishment will likely follow to Pete or Warren after this. Next will be Pete picking Kamala for VP or Warren turn to the center or both.