Kamala Harris Was Not a Progressive Prosecutor

Kamela Harris was not a progressive prosecutor. She is reinventing herself as one for her planned presidential bid for the Democratic nomination for President.

Harris can run but she cannot hide from her record as a prosecutor. I listed several of my primary objections last week and will restate them below: [More...]

From the 2017 article in Jacobin Magazine, The Two Faces of Kamela Harris:

In truth, there is much about Harris’s long record as a public prosecutor in California — the vast bulk of her career — that is up for legitimate criticism by any prospective 2020 Democratic voters.

The article gives several examples, such as that as California's attorney general, she defended the state's death penalty when a judge ruled it unconstitutional while refusing to support the state's anti-gay Proposition 8 in court, stating it was “a proposition that was found by a judge to be unconstitutional.”

You can see this pattern in Harris’s approach to criminal justice. Today, Harris talks a good game....Yet Harris’s “smart on crime” approach seems remarkably similar to a “tough on crime” one. “Getting Smart on Crime does not mean reducing sentences or punishments for crimes,” she explains in her book.

She defended California's horrendous three-strikes law.

She urged voters to reject Proposition 66, a ballot initiative that would have reformed the harsh law by making only serious or violent felonies trigger life sentences. Harris promised that if voters rejected the initiative, she would put forward her own, different reform. But Harris’s proposal was a tepid half-measure: it simply eliminated some third strikes.

...When she ran for attorney general, her Republican opponent actually ran to her left on the issue. In fact, four years earlier, as the Los Angeles County district attorney, he had proposed a reform of the law. Harris had not supported it. (emphasis supplied)

Her record on sentencing reform as an AG also leaves much to be desired:

In 2012 and 2014, California voters passed two ballot initiatives that gave judges more discretion in sentencing and retroactively scaled back punishment for certain low-level crimes. Harris didn’t take a public position on either, claiming that taking a side would come into conflict with her duty to write the ballot text. A fellow Democrat who had preceded her as attorney general called the excuse “baloney.”

Today she's concerned about imprisoned women. But as District Attorney (before becoming CA Attorney General):

For all her recent concern about the incarceration of women and its economic effects, as district attorney, she successfully championed a statewide version of an anti-truancy law she had put in place in San Francisco that threatened parents of chronically truant children with as much as a $2,000 fine and a year in jail. By October 2012, two mothers had been imprisoned under the law.

“We are putting parents on notice,” she said in her inaugural speech as attorney general. “If you fail in your responsibility to your kids, we are going to work to make sure you face the full force and consequences of the law.”

There's lots more examples in the article to give you pause about Kamela Harris. Including but not limited to the war on drugs. She's born-again on the issue now, but when she was AG she went in the other direction. This is a really long and thorough article and covers her prior contrary stances on many issues, from police shootings, to civil liberties, to transgender rights. The article also argues we shouldn't give her a pass on her old ways:

It should matter to us that Harris, the ardent criminal justice reformer, not only did little to enact this reform during her years as a prosecutor but backed harsh, punitive policies that undermined her own progressive rhetoric on the issue. It should matter that she at times did so needlessly, taking a harsher stance than her right-wing opponents. It should matter that she repeatedly attempted to keep an innocent man locked up in prison and attempted to defend a falsified confession.

And if she continues to sell herself to the public as a take-no-prisoners prosecutor who went after financial misdeeds in defense of the ordinary homeowner, then it should matter that her record on this was more underwhelming than even some county district attorneys.

For a similar view, expressed in a much more vernacular manner, here's Blake at AfroPunk, Kamala Harris Has Been Tough on Black People Not Crime.

Instead of misrepresenting her record, Harris would do better to acknowledge her failures as a prosecutor and say she's learned since then and promise to do better. Next candidate please?

< Trump to Announce Temporary Deal on Shutdown | Defense Gives Closing in "El Chapo" Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Being smart on crime (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 07:55:23 PM EST
    absolutely means (and requires) reducing the excessive sentences we presently have on the books, state and federal, which were generally inflated and aggravated over the last 30 years to totally unreasonable levels, by increasing maximums, imposing mandatory minimums, creating rigid "guidelines," restricting or eliminating parole, reducing the rate of good-conduct credits, eliminating judicial authority to reduce sentences after the passage of time, and in many other ways. Study after study shows that increased punishment does not increase deterrence or otherwise reduce crime.

    I won't vote for Harris. (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 08:18:10 PM EST
    What do you credit for the significant drop in US violent crime and murder rates since about 1990?

    Not the severity of sentencing, for sure (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 09:12:58 PM EST
    Here are a couple of progressive social scientists' responses to your very important question. And here are two more. Factors appear to include a declining percentage of males aged 17-26 in the population, improved policing strategies, increased use of private security and cameras, and social changes in urban neighborhoods.

    Thank you, excellent. (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 09:33:13 PM EST
    This certainly seems to make the point:

    1. Increased incarceration at today's levels has a negligible crime control bene t: Incarceration has been declining in e ectiveness as a crime control tactic since before 1980. Since 2000, the e ect on the crime rate of increasing incarceration, in other words, adding individuals to the prison population, has been essentially zero. Increased incarceration accounted for approximately 6 percent of the reduction in property crime in the 1990s (this could vary statistically from 0 to 12 percent), and accounted for less than 1 percent of the decline in property crime this century. Increased incarceration has had little e ect on the drop in violent crime in the past 24 years. In fact, large states such as California, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Texas have all reduced their prison populations while crime has continued to fall.

    You won't vote for her (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 08:37:06 PM EST
    In the primary or the general?

    Harris is not my first or second choice.  But she is formidable.  She seems to have the media in her pocket.  She could be the nominee.

    I would certainly hope anyone reading this not vote for Trump, or any other republican, given the choice.


    I regret now even commenting on her. (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 08:52:14 PM EST
    I'm much more interested in what is working in reducing crime.

    I'm not trying to argue with you (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 09:01:21 PM EST
    I think this thread is about her.  A possible presidential candidate.

    My biggest worry if she is the nominee is that it will give a bunch of democrats a reason to vote for Mr Starbucks billions who plans to be this cycles Jill Stein.

    Meaning we get screwed again.


    "I'm not trying to argue with you" (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Jan 27, 2019 at 09:15:24 PM EST
    Ya, I totally get that, I wasn't trying to argue with you.

    I responded to Peter G because he hit on the core of why I've been hanging out here for so long.


    All citizens (none / 0) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 08:21:12 PM EST
    Need to be single issue voters in 2020---support a Democrat who is most likely to win. Trump is not just incompetent and corrupt, but also, an existential threat to the country.   Changes of a candidate's position to more progressive ones as responsibilities change is not necessarily disqualifying.  

    Political activism's goal is to influence policy and positive change.  The campaigns offer opportunity for voters to let the candidates know of particular areas to be re-considered.  Federal Sentencing Guidelines (that may also impact state/local procedures) were intended to provide greater fairness and greater honesty. The guidelines may also have had the effect of  shifting some power to prosecutors, although Justice Breyer, who had a role in their development, would quarrel with that assessment.  In any event, changes desirable may be changed in keeping with changes in information and knowledge.


    I never thought you (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 04:36:32 AM EST
    Ever would vote for her so, so what?

    I wasn't speaking to you. (1.00 / 2) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 11:22:14 AM EST
    I'd suggest... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 09:15:07 AM EST
    ...we don't know sh*t about real crime or murder stats because law enforcement have been doctoring crime stats for decades, as doing so in the "positive" direction (lower crime) makes their status quo existence seem more vital, and increases their "value," which translates into increased money, bennies, pensions, etc. Which I don't fault them for, just wish as powerfully unionized public employees that they'd be honest about it. No different, IMO, than economic "statistics" are manipulated to make them seem shinier. This is basic American bullsh*t salesmanship by the empowered, in a nation where everything and everyone are for sale 24/7/365. Peace out, my old amigo. ADLERPOEMS still delayed, probably March release. (link)

    Good to hear from you Dadler, (none / 0) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 10:59:06 AM EST
    let us know when your words get released.

    Aren't these issues the (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 07:23:59 AM EST
    responsibility of legislative branch?

    The issues I listed are mostly legislative, yes (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 10:44:05 AM EST
    I was not responding directly to the "progressive prosecutor" point, but rather was disputing Harris's claim, from her book I believe, that to be "smart on crime" you do not have to reduce sentences. That statement is false, and it also shows she has not "evolved" on the issue ... and is not keeping up with the Democratic base on it either. That said, prosecutors have, and always have had, extensive discretionary power within the present system to moderate and mitigate the impacts of bad laws, even though they cannot unilaterally change those laws.

    I agree with you, J (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 09:04:29 AM EST
    There's that video of her bragging about utilizing increased incarceration threats as some kind of motivating fear in marginalized kids and parents. She's laughing with joy about it, oy, I can't begin to describe my revulsion. Gotta do better, be better, or what's the point in the log run?

    what kind of BMW (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by kdm251 on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 06:24:15 PM EST
    Does anyone know what year and make BMW Brown bought her? I work at a car Auction site based in the Bay Area and a couple of my co-workers are obsessed with finding the car

    A prosecutor is as much a public servant (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 04:54:23 AM EST
    As a defense attorney is. And what is going on socially is ever changing. I have no better candidate at this time to select. Harris is my candidate. I love her

    I think people evolve (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 07:43:34 AM EST

    I think she is impressive.

    I am much less concerned about what she did as what she wants to do.

    As I said my biggest reservation is the possible hue and cry from the left who might run to "Jill" Schultz and screw us again.

    That guy could be a disaster.


    Well until everyone (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 09:51:42 AM EST
    Finds out that when you are a part of a million dollar deal for him he leaves you a swag bag filled with loose tea bags and a $5 Starbucks gift card LOL.

    I think this country might have had it with selfish wealth.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 10:07:13 AM EST
    You are correct.  And there are other things.  His primary message seems, now, to be reducing the deficit by cutting domestic spending.  Now.

    But here's my worry.  We both know there are many people who have deeply buried possibly even unintentional prejudices.  

    Two big ones.  Women and people of color.  And then there's is (excuse the language) strong uppity woman of color.  I think Harris is going to scare the sh!t out of a lot of people.  

    I'm not suggesting this is fair or right or that it should even prevent her from being the nominee.  See Barack Hussein Obama.

    Just worring out loud.

    Its the main reason I would probably vote for Amy in the primary.

    But I think Harris could be a helluva candidate and i will be 1000% behind her if it comes to that.

    This Schultz guy is a snake.  A lifelong democrat.  If he runs he will understand the democrat is his rival.  He doesn't need to mention Trump.  I can imagine all kind of BS "policies" designed explicitly to get people like the ones who wrote and read articles like the ones linked in this post.  

    Its already begun.


    PS (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 10:14:26 AM EST
    Schultz is a snake smart enough to know he would never win a democratic primary.  So the rich narcissist is willing to be a spoiler.

    After all.  What does it matter to him who is president.


    Hillary punched a hole in the glass ceiling (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 10:32:32 AM EST
    We just didn't realize it until it was time for candidates to begin to line up. And sure, the edges are sharp. Everyone is lining up to cut on Harris right now. But she's pretty tough. Heck I think all the women running for the nomination are. Whoever wins I support.

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 10:42:05 AM EST
    I would just like to chew the Schultz a tiny bit more

    Democrats aren't the only ones who see Schultz as potentially helping Trump win a second term. Bill Kristol, the Never Trump Republican who is most active both in media appearances and private conversations representing the GOP resistance to the president, said he wouldn't support an independent run either.

    "One reason my colleagues and I are focused on a Republican primary challenge to Trump--apart from the fact that we're Republicans--is that it doesn't present any of the problems of inadvertently helping him by being a spoiler," Kristol wrote in an email.

    I just think this is red alert.   Battle stations.  I think anyone who thinks "both parties suck" particularly after the last month is not a message that coukd get traction is whistling past the graveyard.

    He might not win. But he could absolutely be a spoiler.

    So much so if he doesn't back off he should, IMO, make sure he has excellent personal security.


    Schultz touted a number of 69% (none / 0) (#24)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 12:39:52 PM EST
    of voters are registered as independent. That could be true, but what he is failing to realize in his already doomed campaign as an independent is that the voting laws and ballot access is skewed towards the major parties. Or at least being affiliated with some party. It can be near impossible to get on the ballot in some states as an independent. That is a fatal flaw in his aspirations. I believe PA is one of those states. Ballot access here is difficult as an independent.

    I wonder (none / 0) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    If Schultz fears that the odds are high that a women is the Democratic nominee and  so he will be Johnny-on-the-spot to save the country from such a fate.  His claim that he is needed because the Democratic Party is too far to the left does not  wash,  

    Listening to Schultz this morning on NPR (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 12:05:49 PM EST
    and reading about his "interview" with Gwyneth Paltrow a couple of days ago, I was astonished at how unashamedly vapid and idea-free a narcissist this guy is. Yeah, the problem with the new generation of Democrats is that they are not supportive enough of the interests of the rich, is all I could glean.

    Another Seattle moneybags weighs in on Schultz's (none / 0) (#58)
    by leap on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 09:32:20 PM EST
    vanity quest, Nick Hannauer. Except Hannauer knows real shit, including Howie, and tells it like it is: That's a horrible idea, Howie.

    Hannauer is a true Democrat and works toward progressive policies, and is kind of a liberal icon in Seattle.


    Schultz hires ex-Obama aide (none / 0) (#38)
    by ragebot on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 11:43:51 PM EST
    As (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 10:39:46 AM EST
    I have said before my gut is in love with her. Admittedly I do not know much about her past or  even present policies. She just comes off as so presidential with the right mix of toughness and compassion. IMO her elect-ability is off the charts which at this time is probably the most important factor.

    I'm sure that any lifelong prosecutor is going to occasionally run crossways with the criminal justice reform purists, but it's like deja-vu with some on the left letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.

    While I do find some of her actions as CA AG troublesome, I see some of them being cherry picking and others perhaps being out of context.

    Even the Jacobin article gives her  credit for her principles and some of her performance it ends up condemning her for a lot of BS reasons.

    She is lauded for her record on corporate malfeasance,  

    Harris also had a respectable record of standing up to corporate malfeasance. She filed a friend-of-the-court brief signed by thirty-one other state attorneys general in 2011 in a Supreme Court case looking to end the practice of drug companies paying competitors to keep generic versions of their drugs off the market. In 2012, she set up a privacy enforcement protection unit in the attorney general's office, which at one point fined a company for surreptitiously installing spyware on its customers' computers.

    In 2011, she brought the largest fraud settlement in decades against a company that had spent fifteen years overcharging the state's insurance program for the poor and disabled. She reached a $6.5 million settlement with two former Countrywide executives over predatory lending and called for a Homeowners' Bill of Rights, which led foreclosures to plummet in the state and Daily Kos to declare her "a bankster's worst nightmare."

    than later condemned for getting less than a perfect deal with the mortgage scandal even though he admits
    The deal Harris got for California was ultimately much better. It provided $18.4 billion in debt relief and $2 billion in other financial assistance, as well as incentives for relief to center on the hardest hit counties. This is particularly impressive when one considers the banks had originally only offered California, the state hardest hit by the housing crisis and fraud, $2-4 billion.
    again good but not perfect.

    The author cherry picks here

    For all her recent concern about the incarceration of women and its economic effects, as district attorney, she successfully championed a statewide version of an anti-truancy law she had put in place in San Francisco that threatened parents of chronically truant children with as much as a $2,000 fine and a year in jail. By October 2012, two mothers had been imprisoned under the law.
    Wow a whole two out of millions hardly seems like mass incarceration.

    This seems really sick

    One of the more egregious blots on Harris's record is her hostility to sex workers' rights.

    Harris fought a suit brought by a sex workers' rights organization to legalize prostitution in California. But much worse was her hounding of Backpage, an online classified website frequently used by sex workers, which Harris brought criminal charges against suspiciously close to her senate election, accusing it of being "the world's top online brothel." The relentless pressure eventually forced the website to shut down its adult advertising section.

    Backpage was by no means an admirable organization -- it was frequently used for child sex trafficking in addition to ordinary sex work

    I'm not going to argue about the pros and cons of a sex workers union but I am all for "hounding" a web site that " was frequently used for child sex trafficking.  

    I'm just (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 08:21:34 AM EST
    kind of feh on Harris at the point but being a prosecutor shouldn't be a hindrance anymore than being a defense attorney.

    I Think it Gross that US Prosecutors are Elected (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 10:15:34 AM EST
    and run police investigations, a feature that is shared with Russia.  If they were all put under civil service, I would have more faith in American justice.

    Well (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 02:32:29 PM EST
    I've long been an opponent of prosecutors running for office since it has caused a lot of problems. Maybe they should be appointed but it's not like appointments aren't rife with problems these days too.

    While it is waaaay too early (none / 0) (#27)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 04:08:18 PM EST
    I would submit we would all do well to learn a key lesson from 2016. Don't rely on what someone says about a candidate. Listen to the candidate herself/himself.  Listen to the candidate now. Look for current answers to past positions. Especially positions almost 10 years old.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 04:01:22 AM EST
    We would also do well to remember that perfect is always the enemy of the good, if only for the fact that nobody is perfect. A primary factor in my own assessment of a prospective presidential or gubernatorial candidate is his or her capacity for evolution on any given issue.

    Let's face it, very few of us have remained static in our opinions or views over a 20-year period. I try not to hold others to standards that I myself might otherwise find unreasonable, were they to be applied to me

    While it's way too early for me to commit to a particular candidate right now, I will admit to being very impressed with Kamala Harris's speech this weekend. She spoke to people's hopes and dreams for a better tomorrow, and that's exactly what we need right now. And in doing so, she set a high bar for those who are contemplating their own respective candidacies. And that's good.



    Same thing can be said of (none / 0) (#28)
    by ragebot on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 04:30:31 PM EST
    Gillibrand.  She was rated well over 90% by the NRA when she was first elected and now is around zero.  There are tons of online blurbs on the topic of how yesterdays successful Democrats would never be elected today based on the positions they held when they were elected.  No way Clinton could be elected advocating 'don't ask, don't tell' or talking about welfare queens.  Obama was against gay marriage when he was first elected.  JFK was more conservative than Trump.  Any pol who has been around for more than 10 years will have advocated plenty of positions that are not acceptable to their parties base today.

    Not saying I am a big fan of Schultz but this article in The Atlantic makes an interesting point.

    To defeat Trump, Democrats will have to appeal not to his fiercest enemies, but to his softest supporters.

    Or you could talk about (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 04:35:28 PM EST
    How Reagan or either Bush would not have a prayer in a republican primary.

    I do love that link is called something like how Schultz will "save the democratic party from itself"

    By David Frum



    One thing to note about Schultz (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 04:38:37 PM EST
    Is his big time primary advisor is Steve Schmidt.

    Who's last big find was Sara Palin.


    Ben Rhodes on board (none / 0) (#31)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 04:40:18 PM EST
    Now gimme my money

    Maybe at least this will (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    Convince MSNBC to drop these azzhats

    Correction (none / 0) (#39)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 12:23:57 AM EST
    Bill Burton

    Reagan would have a better chance (none / 0) (#33)
    by ragebot on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 05:03:04 PM EST
    than Mitt in todays Republican party.  But in general any pol from 10 years ago (or longer) is out of step with both major parties.

    I do think the Atlantic article is correct that the key to wining is not to go to the base but to go to the soft support.


    How do we (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 06:06:58 PM EST
    know this? Because that is what the media tells you because they have no idea and they get their impressions from social media?

    I disagree. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 04:09:16 AM EST
    These are clearly passionate times, and 2018 was a base election. I have no reason at this point to believe that 2020 will somehow be otherwise.

    The person (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 28, 2019 at 06:10:00 PM EST
    who talked about "welfare queens" was Reagan not Clinton. Clinton supported welfare reform.

    LOL LOL LOL at JFK being more conservative than Trump. Trump is more conservative than Reagan, Bush 1 or Bush 2. Trump is the Pat Buchanan president you never had.


    I don't think Biden will run (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 09:34:03 AM EST
    He might but surely can read the climate enough to know he would lose.

    I am also starting to think Beto will not run.  Maybe hope for VP.  He has all the time in the world.

    Stacey Abrams (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 02:01:35 PM EST
    will give the Democratic Party's response to the SOTU.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 02:19:06 PM EST
    VP material if a white male wins the nom.

    Why does it have to be (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 02:51:04 PM EST
    A man in one spot or the other?

    2020 is 100 years (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 02:59:28 PM EST
    One hundred years ago, the country finally began the last push that gave us the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing that the right to vote could not be denied or abridged on account of sex. That right became official in 1920, but the battle had been a hundred years' war.

    it's a pretty good bumper sticker


    Particularly after 4 years of (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    "President" Trump and his "Cabinet"

    A (none / 0) (#47)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 02:57:22 PM EST
    certain "balance" is always desired in these things, not saying it's right but two women on the ticket may be too much for some voters and two men will not be that inspiring.

    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 03:50:01 PM EST
    that was a good decision picking someone who lost to a Trumper.

    Doesn't seem quite fair (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 04:11:07 PM EST
    To keep penalizing her for a stolen election.  She is a remarkable politician.  And she has a big future.

    Well (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 04:38:55 PM EST
    we need to start putting forth evidence of what Kemp did like happened in NC 9 instead of just talking about what might have happened. Yeah, Kemp supposedly did some things but he's also massively inept. Already he is starting out with a 37% approval.

    I just think there are better people to make the case against Trump than Stacey. She does have a future but probably not in elected office unless she can find another state to run for office in.


    Looks like we may find out (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 10:11:44 AM EST

    According to a new poll, voters in Georgia could help turn the Senate blue again in 2020.

    Stacey Abrams, a Democrat who narrowly lost the 2018 governor's race to Brian Kemp, is considering a 2020 Senate run against the Republican incumbent, David Perdue -- and she's already more popular in Georgia than Perdue, according to a new poll from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

    Abrams enjoys a healthy 52 percent approval rating overall, and gets positive marks from 60 percent of women, two in three moderates, and 90 percent of black voters. The same poll shows Perdue with just a 45 percent approval rating.

    I really (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 03:06:23 PM EST
    think she's done in GA politics as far as running for office. She might run again but I think the party would not want to nominate someone who already has lost statewide versus a fresh face.

    Really? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Steve13209 on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 05:01:13 PM EST
    Seems that since she almost won the Governorship, she'd be the frontrunner for a Senate seat. Being from GA (I assume), are there negatives we don't know about?

    The tax thing (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 05:59:12 PM EST
    is going to dog her again. She didn't pay taxes and she is a tax attorney. She later worked out a payment agreement but it was all about how someone couldn't get help in the state because Stacey didn't pay her taxes. Kemp is going to be running the state. He'll make sure she is defeated. We need someone who will confuse the GOP.

    I believe you are (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 06:17:01 PM EST

    I don't think you are going to (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 06:21:45 PM EST
    Get much traction with voters because someone owes back taxes.  I suspect it's pretty common

    I am paying of a tax debt.  Not 200,000 thank god.

    She has addressed the issue

    Commentary: My $200,000 Debt Should Not Disqualify Me For Governor of Georgia


    In the article you linked to Abrams says (none / 0) (#70)
    by vml68 on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 07:01:27 PM EST
    I grew up one of six children with working class parents in the Deep South. My mother was a college librarian and my father worked in a shipyard. I never saw them balance a checkbook, but they kept a roof over our heads and got all six of us into college.

    According to wikipedia...

    The family moved to Atlanta, where her parents pursued graduate school and later became Methodist ministers.

    That she did not mention this in her article bothers me. IMO, it is a bit misleading.

    Also, in the article you linked to, she says,

    "I owe the IRS over $50,000 in deferred tax payments (I am currently on a repayment plan) and hold more than $170,000 in credit card and student loan debt".

    She has been working for almost 20 years making a six figure salary. I can see how the back taxes owed might be an issue for some (me included).


    It's the (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 07:16:58 PM EST
    tax payments that killed her. Nobody really cared about the college debt or the credit card debt but she is a tax attorney. Maybe if she wasn't a high paid tax attorney it wouldn't have been much of a deal.

    It say this actually (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 07:51:27 PM EST
    Abrams, one of six siblings, was born to Robert and Carolyn Abrams in Madison, Wisconsin and raised in Gulfport, Mississippi.[3] The family moved to Atlanta, where her parents pursued graduate school and later became Methodist ministers.[

    I don't understand your issue with her account.


    From the citation in wiki (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 07:57:52 PM EST
    Stacey Abrams grew up poor in Gulfport, Mississippi, the daughter of preacher parents, born Black on the wrong side of the tracks.
     After moving to Atlanta to finish high school, she attended historically Black Spelman College; after graduate school, she returned to Atlanta

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 07:19:03 PM EST
    that was before the election and her explanation never really connected with the electorate.

    I'm not sure what a person (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 07:45:37 PM EST
    Would need time do then to connect with the electorate.  She came really close to being elected governor of Georgia and she is a black woman

    As far as her debt, I made a six figure salary for years and I retired with debt.  Including IRS debt.  And I never had college debt or any of the other family obligations she had.

    Personally, I can see a pretty good argument that electing a person that is saddled with debt, as most Americans are, might not be a bad idea.  

    The millionaires and billionaires running the country now sure don't understand anything about that particular issue.

    But that's just me.

    But I make you a bet.  If she runs against Perdue, she will win.


    IF she does (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 07:47:23 PM EST
    I think there is a very good chance she is VP.

    I would also bet (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 08:00:54 PM EST
    Her stock goes way up after this SOU response.

    It wasn't (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 08:01:57 PM EST
    the debt. It was the fact that she was a tax attorney and should have known better and she made a lot more than most Georgians make. She might very well be someone's VP and that is okay. Perdue is a hack and should never have been elected in the first place. However, we ran Denise Majette for the senate and she lost too. I seriously doubt she could beat Perdue. Perdue's numbers are 8 points higher than Kemp's. She couldn't pull enough votes in the suburbs to get over the finish line and Perdue is going to have less of a problem in the suburbs than Kemp did.

    You did see the approval numbers (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 08:04:40 PM EST
    In the original link, right?

    I did (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 08:12:29 PM EST
    but it's like Hillary. They like her fine when she is not running for something. It's actually what all women candidates face. I'm not sure how to overcome this.

    Some support (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 08:16:58 PM EST
    Might help

    But you know what (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 08:28:57 PM EST
    That's a very important point.  The democratic field is going to be (I think probably) mostly women. Certainly heavily women.

    And it is going to be ugly.  Ugly ugly ugly.  It's already started.  And it needs to be confronted.  

    It's certainly not just her.  So far

    we have got the ridiculous attacks on Kirsten Senema for dressing like a woman

    in a way Abrams might end up being lucky that she is not
    Drop dead gorgeous

    So she won't get what happening to Kamala Harris.

    #HorizontalHarris the Kneepad Princess.

    Then there is the rights obsession with AOC.  who I find I like more everyday.

    This is going to be the cycle where it ALL comes out.


    I have defended (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 10:34:22 PM EST
    every one of them on social media. The bros before hos crowd is out once again in full force.

    The worst part of it all is the media is loathe to call out misogyny for some reason. We saw it in 2016 and we're gonna see it again. You're right about it being ugly. It is going to be incredibly ugly. And it's not just the right. It's going to be the left too.

    I just do not get their obsession with AOC. She's a freshman and frankly there are other freshman that are much more impressive than her. The only thing I can come up with is the media gets their "impressions" from social media because it's not like they interact with your average voter everyday.


    I go back and forth (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 02:57:31 PM EST
    on Biden running but today it looks like Biden is not going to run. Surely he has to look at the people already running and see he does not fit in but Biden has a huge ego and it might not matter about all that.

    I don't think Beto is going to run either. There's going to be a lot of competition and he did not win in Texas. Other people have won their own state.


    This is it for Joe (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 03:04:03 PM EST
    Does he want to lose again?

    I think the possibility (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 04:01:17 PM EST
    of losing again is really the reason he's not announced yet that he was going to run. He knows it's probably a big possibility. Looking at the someone else numbers in polling should tell him. Even though he's technically the front runner he's a mighty weak one.

    I think Joe Biden (none / 0) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 03:56:14 PM EST
    will run because he believes he can be successful this time around.  And, it is part of his DNA by this time.  My hope is that he won't.  At this point,  his contribution may best be as a distinguished member of the.Cabinet in a New Democratic Administration. As Secretary of State, his political stature, particularly, having served with President Obama, would be a tremendous asset in reclaiming our global role, reassuring our allies, and reinvigorating our alliances.  No small task given the wreckage caused by Trump and his henchmen, Pompeo, the white mustachioed guy, and the latest addition and pardoned felon, Elliot Abrams--to solve South American problems as he help mess up 30 years ago.

    If he believes the media (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 04:09:25 PM EST
    He will run.  I kind of think he is smarter than he acts and he knows better.

    Avenatti says Harris is a risky candidate (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 10:03:44 AM EST
    For different reasons

    "If she is aware, for instance, of a situation where she agreed to a plea deal for a defendant and that defendant turned around and committed a violent crime -- like a rape or a murder or something of that nature -- she better get out in front of that," Avenatti said. "Because if she thinks that that will not surface in this environment, she is sadly mistaken."

    Comparing her to Dukakis

    i am not endorsing this view

    He may (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 30, 2019 at 02:21:36 PM EST
    very well be right on that. I really do not know. But he's also right about this environment it will come out. Bernie's semi naked singing with the Russians came out the other day.

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#85)
    by Peter G on Thu Apr 30, 2020 at 02:55:19 PM EST