Let's Just Say I Had a Hunch (as I this mentioned before...) Former Biden HHS secretary Becerra launches bid for California governor.

@MarkPaul

There is no perfect candidate. They all make mistakes.

Kamala Harris came within about a baseball stadium's available seating of winning the three-state "Blue Wall" and the election.

She put together that close run in about 100 days, not two years. I'd don't buy the reason for the Walz selection you gave. Just winning Minnesota at that point was a real concern and the assumption was that he'd help in next door Wisconsin and nearby Michigan (where Gov. Shapiro would be a -unfairly but accurate- liability because of Muslim voters angered about the situation in Gaza).

There was no guarantee that Sen. Kelly would even win Arizona and Michigan Gov. Whitmer had ruled herself out.

I would have preferred retired Admiral James Stavridis as her running mate, but that's besides the point.

If America can't elect a woman as president (twice now from a major party ticket), then we're not yet the country we claim we aspire to be. And our punishment is therefore Donald Trump.

@beckyromero It is true there is no perfect candidate, but there are imperfect candidates who are able to win elections and those who can't. Harris isn't one who can win. And, it's not just because of her sex and colour. The key to win elections isn't to make 0.0 mistakes, but to be able to recover from mistakes, limit mistakes, and not repeat mistakes. She wasn't able to recover from her mistakes. She made too many mistakes. She repeated mistakes.

It's great and even notable that she came close to winning, but still she lost. And, that's all that matters especially when dealing with the heartless resolve of Red Hat cruelty. She didn't lose exclusively because she held Walz back, but that was one of the reasons. And, from behind-the-scenes reporting it seems there was a fear in the campaign that he would overshadow her. This isn't the time for big egos to get in the way of winning.

All the alternate candidates would have brought strengths and weaknesses, but her ego or fear of being overshadowed would have gotten in the way. Inside reports suggest that is why Shapiro turned the opportunity down. The problem is with her, not with the running mate or any of the other candidates should could have selected. This doesn't make her a bad person. It means she can't win.

America may or may not be ready to elect a woman. Personally, I don't think it is. That's a terrible commentary, it's a shame, it's sad. But it is reality. And, continuing to put up women who can't win to make a statement is a direct path to J D Vance. A woman might be able to win... but it's not Harris. She's proven she can't win and to risk throwing away another election without even acknowledging the risk because we don't like reality would be the reason why America would deserve to be punished again.

The goal for the next election should be to win against Red Hat fantasy and mythology. Everything else under this current reign of terror is noise. And, the last thing we need is to become distracted by noise.

@MarkPaul
I have to disagree with that narrative. That seems to have been the MAGAs and the Trump campaign that started spreading that message after the VP debate. The same sort of BS that Dems used when VP Bush picked Dan Quayle as his running mate.


That's really no different than an argument saying the Dems shouldn't have nominated Barack Obama because he's a black man.

Or saying Sharpiro shouldn't be nominated becaue America isn't ready for a Jewish president.

If you don't think that we as a nation are ready to elect a woman then that's no different than saying the lack of a mere 50,000 or so vote swing in WI, MI and PA caused Harris to lose the election because she is a woman, an a black woman at that.

As for mistakes, I don't think not going on Joe Rogan's show was a "mistake" (one of the "mistakes" often cited). But she only had a 100 day campaign. Most campaign have time to correct perceived mistakes.

@Thinkerbell
I like Condi Rice.

My only real criticism of her is when she had that news conference on September 20, 2002 and said, "nobody could have imagined a plane being used as a weapon", forgetting all about (or ignorant about)...

* Japanese kamikazes
* Samuel Byck hijacking a passenger airliner as part of his plot to crash the plane into the White House to in an attempt to assassinate President Richard Nixon
* Air France Flight 8969 and the plot by terrorists to crash the passenger plane into the Eiffel Tower
* Phase III of Bojinka terrorist plot: The CIA plane crash plot

* Pilot Episode of the X-Files spin-off: The Lone Gunman, which aired March 4, 2001

[media=https://youtu.be/PKM30nuZ48M]

Of course, there's also the FBI analysist who wrote prior to the attacks of 9/11 that he worried al-Qaeda terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui might have been plotting to hijack an airliner over the Atlantic and crash it into the World Trade Center.

Yes, Condi, "Who would have imagined..."

She wasn't the only one who lacked imagination. But as national security adviser, it was her job to HAVE one.

That all said, I am not blaming her for the intelligence failures on 9/11. Governmental blame for failure to react to the flying school plot was at the leadership of the FBI and George Tenet (CIA director), who knew Minnesota FBI chief Colleen Rowley went outside of the FBI chain of command to warn the CIA. But the failure was one of national complacency, similar to that of 1941.

@beckyromero You can disagree, but these are from inside stories... inside the campaign. Even Obama knew she wasn't ready and tried to get her circumvented, but after talking to James Clyburn realized "the statement" was already set.

What you can't seem to acknowledge is that Obama won. Harris has now tried twice and has crashed and burned twice. So, while personally I don't think America is ready to elect a woman, there is now empirical evidence that is confirmed she is not a winning candidate. If the Democrats keep propping her up to lock-in on their statement, it is they who will relegate the world to a world they are as much responsible for creating as Mitch McConnell. Drop the "statement politics" and go for the win.

She only had 100 days. She was a woman. Her husband was Jewish. She didn't have enough time. If only Joe Biden had endorsed her sooner. If only she didn't say she wouldn't do anything different about immigration. If only she wasn't perceived as being ineffective. Yeah, I get it. Those are all the things that help losers from feeling like losers. And, it's a legitimate way to get past losing.

This time, let's for the win.

@MarkPaul
McCain was leading into September, then the financial crisis hit.

There's always going to be a winner and a loser. If those 50,000 or so votes had flipped to Harris from Trump, Trump would have been on the losing end.

The election was essentially a coin toss Just like 1960, 1976, 2000, 2004, 2016 and 2020. Small variables in turnouts, vote flips in certain states, the weather, minor misues (Ford saying there was no Soviet domination in Eastern Eruope, for example). Hanging chads on ballots. Heck, even whether a candidate appeared to have not shave his beard before a debate.

Sen. John Kerry needed more votes to flip Ohio (and thus win the election) than Harris needed to flip in the three Blue Wall states to flip the election. Does that mean he couldn't have won?

Was Richard Nixon the wrong choice for Republicans in 1960 (Since Ike couldn't run)? I think Harris can turn a loss into a win, just like Nixon did. I think losing this past race will make her a more formidable candidate in 2028, with more time to craft a resonate message and assemble a strong campaign team.

@beckyromero It sure sounds like you think she was the near-perfect candidate and still could be while the blinders you are proudly rocking make you sound like Biden's closest aides (and me) who saw what was happening but stayed in denial. Harris is a two-time loser and still a really nice and genuine (or so it seems) person. Fluffing her up for a 3rd try is beyond insane and suggests, like the Democrats, you want to scream bloody murder about an existential and Constitutional crisis and then set things up for another election loss in return to prove your purity-of-message that America should not only accept a woman, but one who can't and won't win an election feeling comfy in that ideology. Good luck with that.

I do believe a crisis can only be resolved with productive action, so I will be searching for someone who has the chance to win. Being an ideologue is fun, but it doesn't win elections. And, this isn't the time to take a chance on someone who has a proven track record of not winning in the hope this time (THIS TIME) will be different. She's been tried. She's cooked. She's done.

@MarkPaul
Having voted for Kerry, McCain, Romney, Clinton, Biden and Harris I would think makes me anything but an ideologue. 😉

Stating the obvious, a candidate doesn't win the presidency until they actually win the presidency.

But having lost a primary run or a general election doesn't preclude winning (or coming darn close) the presidency:

Including presidential primary races:
Nixon lost in 1960, but won the presidency in 1968.
Reagan lost in 1976, but won the presidency in 1980.
Bush 41 lost in 1980 but won the presidency in 1988.
Gore lost in 1988, won the nomination in 2000 but lost the general (winning the popular vote).
Hillary lost in 2008, won the nomination in 2016 but lost the general (winning the popular vote).
Biden lost in 1988, lost in 2016 but won the presidency in 2020.

I do not think Kamala Harris was a "near perfect candidate." There hasn't been a near perfect candidate since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

But I do think that she is, right now, arguably the best candidate the Democrats can offer for 2028.

Yes, I do believe she would make just as good candidate and president as:

Gov. Andy Beshear
Gov. Josh Shapiro
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer
Sen. Chris Murphy

I also believe she would make a better candidate and president than:

Fmr. Sec. Pete Buttigieg
Sen. Michael Bennett
Sen. Cory Booker
Sen. John Fetterman
Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Sen. Mark Kelly
Sen. Bernie Sanders
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Gov. Kathy Hochul
Gov. Gavin Newsom
Gov. JB Pritzeker
Gov. Tim Walz
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Fmr. Gov. Steve Bullock
Fmr. Gov. Roy Cooper
Fmr. Gov. Deval Patrick
Fmr. Rep. John Delaney
Fmr. Rep. Beto O'Rourke
Fmr. Rep. Tim Ryan
Fmr. Rep. Joe Sestak
Fmr. Sec. Julián Castro
Fmr. Gov. Andrew Cuomo
Fmr. Mayor Bill de Blasio
Fmr. Mayor Rahm Emanuel 🤮
Fmr. First Lady Michelle Obama
Hedge Fung Mgr. Tom Steyer
Businessman Mark Cuban
Businessman Andrew Yang
Author Marianne Williamson

I left out Democrats who I think could be good presidents but aren't considering a run in 2028:

Sec. Hillary Clinton
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
Sec. Jennifer Granholm (actually, she can't run; she was born in Canada to Canadian parents)
Sen. Ed Markey
Sen. Jack Reed
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
Fmr. Sen. Mary Landrieu
Fmr. Gov. Martin O'Malley

Harris has already proven she can get 48.3% of the popular vote and 75,017,613 votes in a general election - despite all the vitriol thrown her way (by not just MAGAists but also by backstabbers in the Democrat Party).

No one listed above, except Hillary Clinton, has proven they can come any closer to winning the presidency than Harris.

Does that mean that none of the others could win? Of course not. You have to run to win.

They have about 2 years and 2 months (certainly no more, but probably less time) before they have to have a fundraising apparatus and a veteran campaign staff put into place so as to have any change to compete effectively in the first caucuses and primaries in 2028.

But in reality that means testing the waters, talking to their family members and closest advisors and setting the groundwork no later than January 2026. Because those that are even thinking of running for president MUST be active in the 2026 mid-terms.

We've seen how some of the others have performed on the national campaign trail and in primary debates (debates which I feel are pretty much meaningless given the moderators goal of inciting arguments). And the Kamala Harris who I saw on the campaign trial and in the one debate vs. Trump was a very different one than in the 2020 primary.

She also gained millions of dedicated supporters, many supporters who were outraged at Democrat backstabbers who forced President Biden out and damaged Harris' chances in the process and many supporters who came to admire the vigor and passion she brought to her campaign. And let's not forget that African-American women are one of the most important components of the Democrat coalition.

@beckyromero


Wrong. McCain was behind throughout the campaign, except for a few brief periods, none of which exceeded a couple of weeks.


https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2008/mccain-vs-obama

@Thinkerbell


McCain got a boost right after the RNC ended the first week of September.

The financial crisis began about a week later.

@beckyromero

Practically every major candidate gets a boost right after a convention.

And then McCain dropped back to where he had normally been.

@beckyromero You are in the same boat as Schumer. You mean well, but you think these are normal times where making ideologue statements is more important than winning an election. Harris won't win because she can't win. And, all the excuses you can come up for her won't make her a winning candidate. Obama knows that and he knows something about winning elections.

Elections are a tough business and they are not for those who are happy to wish, hope, and pray for the best to make a pitch-perfect statement of purity. I understand the sentimentality of clutching on to a favoured candidate. I clutched to Joe Biden who I realize now (from insider reports) he never could have made it through an election cycle. His stamina (not his mind) was shot. He and James Clyburn chose Harris and that, not Biden's delay in dropping out, was the irreversible error. She was the wrong candidate then, she is the wrong candidate now, and she will be the wrong candidate in 2028. She lacked substantive fortitude before, she lacks it now, and there is nothing to indicate that will change.

I question whether you truly realize the situation that exists as you fantasize the situation you wish there was. I suspect the leader of the Democrats have not yet shown himself (or herself). I can assure you though, no matter how much you wish, hope, and pray, it won't be Kamala Harris.

@MarkPaul
Sorry, but the Democrats LOST over 900 elective seats in Congress and state houses from the time Obama took office until the time he left. So I would argue he knows a lot about LOSING elections, such as squandered a Democrat-controlled Senate AND House in his first two years in the White House.


https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/under-obama-democrats-suffer-largest-loss-in-power-since-eisenhower/

And we are still paying for those losses by having fewer Democrats in Congress and having gerrymandering Republicans gone wild that will effect House district lines (and therefore elections) straight thru 2030.


We'll just have to wait and see about that. We might know by the end of the summer.

Very few people thought that Joe Biden would run, win the nomination and win the election in 2020. But I did. 😉

@beckyromero You suddenly and inexplicably went from talking about the presidency to Congress. Those are not quite the same type of elections or candidates. We do know Kamala Harris can win a Senate seat. Obama won both.

Blaming Obama for Republican gains in Congress is hardly novel, but it doesn't make much relevant sense especially in a discussion on does Harris have the substantive stamina to win a presidential race? You (and possibly Doug) might be the only people who think that doesn't matter.

Lots of people knew Biden was going to run, knew he was disappointed, frustrated, and hurt that Obama bypassed giving him his support (over Clinton), and wanted what he believed was his deserved shot, and that the line-up (including Harris) was weak and ineffectual. Of course, he needed Clyburn's endorsement to light the fire that propelled his win, but still it was pretty clear early on Cry-Baby-trump was crashing and burning all along the way. So, enjoy your self-inflicted victory lap, but unlike with Harris in 2024, Biden's win was predictable.

I understand you are extracting satisfaction from how close she came to winning. I see her loss as the need to dismiss her. Like her... yes. Dismiss her for another run... for sure. In times like this... winning is everything.

@MarkPaul

I think you've forgotten that I'm a Cubs fan.

We believe! 😉

@MarkPaul
Nothing personal, but it's easy to say dump on the Florida Marlins chances of winning the World Series this year (had to get a Florida joke in there) without ranking the teams you think could win the World Series.

It's not a fill-in-the-name later election. You might YOU think are the best Democrat candidates? (Apologies if I missed a post of yours advocating for one).

So who do you think who would not only be a good president, but could win the nomination and the general election? I gave you some of mine.

@MarkPaul

Vice President JD Vance and former Vice President Kamala Harris are seen as top contenders for the White House in 2028 by their respective parties, according to the latest Economist/YouGov poll.

The poll, released Wednesday, asks Democrats and Republicans whom they would consider supporting in the 2028 presidential election and asks which person would be their “ideal candidate.”

On the Democratic side, Harris, the 2024 Democratic candidate, similarly emerges at the top of the pack: 58 percent say they would consider voting for her in 2028, while 39 percent say they would consider voting for former Transportation Sec. Pete Buttigieg, 38 percent say the same about Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, 38 percent say so about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), 36 percent say so about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and 27 percent say so about Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.). No other candidate gets more than 25 percent support.

Asked to select one candidate as their “ideal choice,” 29 percent of Democrats opt for Harris, 9 percent say Buttigieg, 8 percent say California Gov. Gavin Newsom, 7 percent say Ocasio-Cortez, and 6 percent say Sanders.

The poll was conducted from March 30 through April 1 and included 1,626 respondents. The margin of error is 3.3 percentage points.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5229349-vance-harris-2028-white-house-contenders/

@beckyromero My point is no leader for the Democrats (male or female) has yet emerged. Chris Murphy seems particularly vocal and effective. It's unclear if he could win a national election though. Although I'm not a fan of Cory Booker, he did break the malaise the Democrats have been promoting that there is nothing they can do. He made a lot of good points in his 25-hour speech. I don't think he can win a national election though. I am not fans of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria (AOC) and not advocating for them, but they are motivating crowds which is both notable and impressive. That's what is needed... someone who can break though the noise, but who has the discipline to moderate.

I know the Democrats like to say they have a "deep bench," but my quarrel with them is the same one I have with you. I don't yet see one that can win an election in these times. These next elections (Midterms, Presidential) are not ones we can take a chance on to prove our purity. We do need to appeal to a 2025 electorate. The old Republican Party that I think you and I yearn for is gone for good. It's not coming back. I am waiting for a winning leader to emerge. Hopefully, I won't have to step forward.

@beckyromero Pete B will never win and had less of a remote chance than Harris. Nice and thoughtful guy though. And, J D Vance is not well liked by "the base" despite what they might be saying. They don't trust him.

@MarkPaul
I agree. I've been suggesting a more pro-active stance. Schumer is too polite.

Dems have been handed the winning issue on a silver platter and yet aren't using it against Trump and the Republicans: Social Security. The inside thinking is: save it for the mid-terms. To heck with that: use it NOW!


Well, that's certainly not Sanders or AOC.


Maybe one will emerge. That certainly can't be ruled out. John Edwards made a surprising run and fairly impressive try in 2004. But the history of the past 50 years shows it's usually someone who is already faily well-known nationally. There are a couple of exceptions of a lesser-known Democrat who won: Jimmy Carter (post-Watergate), Bill Clinton (in a three-way race) and Barack Obama. Republicans usually select the "next-guy-in-line": Reagan, Bush 41, Dole, McCain, Romney.


I had the same feeling in 2020. That's why I strongly supported Biden. Because he was the only one who I really believed could and would defeat Trump. I had strong doubts about ALL of the others, including Harris.


Yes, it's dead, buried and stomped on by Trump.

@MarkPaul
Watch out: Donald Jr. wants it bad. 😂

@beckyromero The saddest part of the commentary and what makes me feel like a shill on the magnitude of a Bernie Madoff victim, is that yes, Cry-Baby-trump stomped on the Republican Party, but it was Republicans who actually buried the Party while they claimed to believe in "American values," law-and-order, compassionate conservatism, decency and honour, and so on. Honestly, I don't think they ever really believed in any of those things.

I get that George Bush left politics, but he let me down by being so withdrawn and silent. Mitch McConnell... what can we say about Mitch? He's a fraud. I admire Liz Cheney, but in the end she said she would do everything she could to stop Cry-Baby-trump in his tracks. Who am I to expect things from others though? I'm not jaded or even disappointed in the classical sense. I'm not in despair and I don't even mind being classed with "the libs."

Possibly we all took for granted the principles we claimed to be for. It's easy to be for something when you don't really have to fight for it. That's the lesson I have learned... so far.

@MarkPaul
I do wonder how Bush is doing health-wise. We've so little of him publicly.

Yes, Liz Cheney really stepped up. Only a handful of others.

But let's not absolve the responsibility of rank-and-file Republicans. They don't receive death threats from the Trumpets. They're not in the public eye. They don't have to worry about their kids or grandkids being targets. They can cast their vote in the privacy of the voting booth. So, aren't they just as hypocritical as the Mitch McConnells and Lindsey Grahams and Susan Collinses of the party?

@beckyromero Yes, of course. I highlighted the self-proclaimed leaders. But, it's really the Republican electorate who didn't really believe in the things they claimed were important. I guess I am guilty too.