-48
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
-48 points (5.6% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2030 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
She went up against Sanchez, a 10 term Dem Representative. Harris was picked by the Dem party leaders. In California, you don't get a choice. Once the Dem party leaders pick and start endorsing.. it's just down ballot Dems.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/election-senate-kamala-harris-loretta-sanchez-barbara-boxer/
I distinctly remember voting in that election, in that specific race. And on looking at it again, the electorate clearly had a choice. And in the general it wasn't even a choice between Harris and an outright Republican. It was Harris or Sanchez (who as you point out is also a Democrat, at least in name).
Harris won by around 61% to 38%. Sanchez was a blue-dog, so she invariably garnered the votes of conservatives who voted in that race (the general). But Sanchez still lost convincingly to Harris.
And in the primary? Harris won handily there too. She and Sanchez smashed the ever-loving shit out of the opposition (38% and 18% respectively). The third place Democrat came in with just 2.2%. Yes, Harris has a very large war chest for that race. But regardless, a lot of people voted for her in both the primary and the general.
This narrative that Harris was forced on Californians without any say is false, and honestly it's disingenuous. Yes, the party framing the election in a way they wanted had an impact. That's how party's work, not only in California, not only in America, but all over the world. But you don't stroll to victory like Harris did purely on funding. If there was a genuine appetite for a hard-left candidates in CA they would have done much better in the primary. But they didn't. The simple fact is that despite what some (both inside and outside for California) say, the state's electorate is fairly moderate and pragmatic overall.
Edit: typo fix and minor clarification.
The 2020 presidential primary.
As I pointed out before, I'm talking about the 2016 Senate race. Because it shows that Harris was a viable political candidate in California then. And she's clearly still a viable candidate here based on recent polls.
Know who was "winning" in the polls? Hilldawg.
In 2016? Yeah. She also won in California by about 62% to 32% in the actual votes. That just reinforced my point that there isn't a huge appetite in California on a state level for far left candidates.