It's Kamala!

[Dill]

(08-12-2020, 12:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: I feel like I saw that kind of bickering all the time in the debates and seldomly have I regarded something as "destroying". What Warren did with Bloomberg, that was destroying. Aside from that, I feel the debate format alone does not really allow for meaningful discourse in the first place, and also not for determining who has the upper hand and "won" the exchange. Big part of that is Tapper interrupting everyone mid-sentence with his "thank you". What meaningful points can you even start to bring up if you got 1,5 sentences long to do so? Just letting it be instead of trying to make a finer point while being talked over already makes more sense, probably.

Debates between two people are generally good, and certainly are if the candidates are knowledgeable and civil. But when you've got 20 people on stage the incentive is to get that viral soundbite for the coming news cycle.

One good thing does follow from that incentive, though: you've got all those staffers out there looking for dirt on the other contestants, something I don't really have time for. If the dirt is really out there, they'll usually find it, and the sooner the better. 

Attacks like Gabbard's alert us to possible problems in others' records, and so they are valuable. Most, like Gabbard's, ultimately have little effect as they often turn out to be selective exaggeration and reasonable voters will situate them (in Mike Tomlin's words) in the candidate's "total body of work." Thus we all hear how candidates have "evolved" or "apologized."

In this case, e.g., the "innocent man from death row" has not yet been exonerated by DNA evidence, and Harris reversed her initial position on DNA testing and supported a review of the case--long before she was a candidate for Pres.  Anyway, Politifact reviewed Gabbard's accusations, finding not much there. https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/aug/01/were-tulsi-gabbards-attacks-kamala-harris-record-c/

What I get from looking at Harris' record so far is that she is both competent and about as progressive as a prosecutor can be. 

What remains to be seen is how attacks on her are sorted out over the next few months. Will Fox accusations of "racism" and the like really get any traction among swing voters? Will Kamala be unable to generate "enthusiasm" among black voters, most of whom were likely to vote for Biden anyway? Finally, what kind of help can we expect from Trump? How will his attacks on her resonate with people who identify with her gender or color? We can't know that yet, but I am thinking that she is a very attractive choice for the voting majority tired of Trump.