This is from Red State, the Right leaning Blog…
But got a mention for Harry Enten....
You know what they say about karma being a (word that rhymes with “witch”), right?
At the second Democratic presidential primary debate back in July, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI) absolutely torched Sen. Kamala Harris’ (CA) criminal justice reform record during her time as California’s attorney general. It was the political shot heard round the world.
In case you missed it, watch it below:
Understandably, Harris was none too pleased about it and let it be known in a post-debate interview in what Brandon Morse described at the time as a “childish and elitist” response:
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: Did you expect that from Tulsi Gabbard? Had you had interaction about that in the past? And how do you think it went?
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I mean, listen, I — this is going to sound immodest, but I’m obviously a top-tier candidate, and so I did expect that I would be on the stage and take hits tonight because there are a lot of people that are trying to make the stage for the next debate.
COOPER: For a lot of them it’s do or die.
HARRIS: Especially when some people are at zero or 1%, whatever she might be at. So I did expect that I might take hits tonight.
Watch:
CNN Politics
@CNNPoliticsKamala Harris on Tulsi Gabbard’s comments regarding her record as a prosecutor: “I’m obviously a top tier candidate and so I did expect that I would be on the stage and take hits tonight. … I’m prepared to move on” #DemDebate
Well, here we are three months later, and the tables have dramatically turned. Not only has Kamala Harris’ campaign cratered, but in some national and state polls Gabbard is now ahead of her, in spite of vicious attacks on the Hawaii congresswoman earlier this month from failed 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
First up, the CNN/UH state poll out of New Hampshire:
David Chalian
@DavidChalianNew CNN/UNH poll numbers from the Granite State (margin of error +\- 4.1%)Sanders 21%
Warren 18%
Biden 15%
Buttigieg 10%
Gabbard 5%
Klobuchar 5%
Yang 5%
Harris 3%
Steyer 3%
Booker 2%
O’Rourke 2%
Sestak 1%
Here’s how things have trended in that poll since July:
Dave Weigel
@daveweigelNew CNN poll of NH (trend since July):
Sanders: 21% (+2)
Warren: 18% (-1)
Biden: 15% (-9)
Buttigieg: 10% (+0)
Gabbard: 5% (+4)
Klobuchar: 5% (+5)
Yang: 5% (+4)
Harris: 3% (-6)
Steyer: 3% (+3)Gets Gabbard one step closer to November debate.https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/politics/new-hampshire-poll-2020-cnn/index.html …
Note…Harris could be out of campaign money as she is cutting staff and other expenses 3 months out from the first contest in Iowa …
I have frankly been surprised at how poorly Harris and Booker have been doing.
Barack Obama broke the color barrier for the White House…
As my wife felt about Harris?
She comes across as ‘mean’….
It’s just a feeling…
Cory Booker just doesn’t have ‘it’….
We tend to not see that Obama had/has a natural speaking and visual talent…
Probably his time spent doing some community work he developed good communication skills that the other two simply do NOT have…
I think we are seeing less identity politics than before among African-American Democrats post-Obama.
On the other hand, you are probably seeing it among Asian-Americans, or perhaps just Chinese-Americans, at least to some extent, because Andrew Yang, the first serious Asian-American contender (not counting Harris who is perceived as black) is doing a lot better than might have been expected.
And you are also seeing identity politics help Buttigieg as well.
It’s not working as well for Castro. Possibly because he just learned how to speak a few words of Spanish a few months ago.
Is it “identity politics” that the overwhelmingly white Republican Party overwhelmingly approves of a white guy like Trump?
No, the “white vote” is split on Trump.
And non-whites in the Republican Party are just as supportive of Trump.
I was looking through the P1 state pages and checking out who was running for office everywhere and there is an incredibly large amount of African-American, Hispanic-American, and Asian-Americans running as Republicans. I don’t know how many will win primaries for winnable offices, but there are likely to be at least a few,
Good analogy Scott, I think our friend missed your point. An overwhelmingly white party supports a leader who fashions himself as the “Great White Hope.” I call that identity politics.
Oh, I have never said anything other than white nationalism was at the heart of Trump’s political appeal.
But Scott was making a different point it seemed.
Like when Bill Clinton went to NYC in 1993 to campaign for Dinkins and to claim that too many people were unwilling to vote for someone of a different race.
He was not realizing that such a charge applied far more to those voting for Dinkins than voting against him.
I’ve found that conservatives love to bemoan “identity politics”–yet gladly cast their white vote for white guy Trump
Not the same thing exactly. One can say that the identity politics appeal of Trump is a reactionary force.
Or one could say it is just White Nationalists voting for another White Nationalist.
Yes, that is a given, but there are many people who do not even realize it.
But for all that is rightful to criticize with that, it is not the same area of discussion as “identity politics” as it is often seen in Democrat politics in regards to who is the “black candidate” and the Latino candidate and the “young candidate” and the “gay candidate”, etc etc.
All sorts of primaries for Democrats, from the federal to the local level fall along those lines.
Oh I disagree .
Trump was the White Nationalist candidate ,in contrast say to Kasich, Bush et al.
Trumps supporters were very disdainful of them.
White Nationalism is now ,and will remain ,a major factor here national Republican politics in my view
I personally see little difference.
Are we talking primary or general?
By the same token though, those who would have supported Ben Carson or Ted Cruz (or Herman Cain in 2012) were also very dismissive of “the establishment” etc,
Trump seems to have a unique thing of stoking the politics of resentment and getting people to believe that immigration is the cause of all sorts of problems.
This is a very big issue but its not the same thing as what I was suggesting regarding the presence of or lack thereof as well of “identity politics” in the Democrat primaries.
Let’s not compare apples and potatoes.
I see Harris as likeable. In what way is Harris mean? because she criticized Biden on busing?
My wife says she seems like a snooty bitch…
Just a visceral thing ….
Gabbard’s steep rise in the polls is solely attributed to Hillary’s unfair accusations of her. At the time, I predicted That Hillary’s attack would only help Gabbard.
I don’t expect Gabbard to rise again in the polls,unless (highly unlikely) that Hillary goes after her again.
I agree with ya Z…..
Attention IS ATTENTION good or bad….
Klobuchar had an even bigger rise in the polls than Gabbard and is a Democrat I trust (unlike Tulsi)
Go Amy!
Amy actually had a good debate….
But she and Buttigieg are hungry for Biden’s moderate base…..
But they have NO appeal to the black voter part….
The race IS Biden’s to lose ….
Warren and Sanders cannot win without stealing some of Biden’s black voters…
It IS THAT simple
Ah that mean old Hillary telling the truth about Assad’s best friend and a potential third party spoiler. Tulsi supports a murderous dictator who gassed his own people and even met with him to bring him legitimacy (see Trump). And, she’s skeptical of impeachment. But apparently her anti-war rhetoric makes her popular in some quarters. Even though she was actively anti-gay and believed in gay conversion therapy (that should make her popular with Mike Pence).
I really didn’t care to discuss this, but Hillary was putting down a marker, letting people know that Tulsi would pull a Stein (and does anyone doubt Stein had Russia’s active support?). The folks who know Tulsi best, her fellow Democratic Members of Congress, pretty much all think her ties to Assad make her a potential candidate for compromise.
And, did Tulsi say anything negative about Trump’s pro-Russia betrayal of the Kurds? Don’t think so.
Tulsi was on her way to losing her race for Congress, she was always going to most likely run third party given her past conflicts with the DNC and her popularity with Fox News.
I find it interesting that people think Hillary made this “prediction” without consultation and that it didn’t get the desired result. She put Tulsi in a box. And, Hillary told the truth. Of all the potential Democrats running, Tulsi is the prime recruit to be the potential spoiler candidate in this race. She’s one of Trump’s best friends, just like all the people that will vote third party next year.
Clearly, I am no fan of Gabbard and have spoken extensively about her troubling record and rhetoric regarding Assad and the rest.
But she is no more “skeptical of impeachment” than the Democrat posters here were not long ago. She came out in favor of it weeks ago.
As to the gay issue, she has said she was wrong in the past and has changed her mind. Her positions are now totally in league with the other Democrats on that matter. Why shouldn’t that be enough? (Her father was at one time a prominent Hawai’i Republican before changing parties to become a Democrat where he still serves in the legislature.)
Why does Obama, Hillary, and all the rest that have changed from “anti-gay” to pro gay rights get a free pass but Gabbard doesn’t?
I still cannot get the answer for how Gabbard can run third party when a vast majority of states have “sore loser” laws that would make it impossible for her to get on the ballot in the fall since she signed paperwork and raised funds to run for the office of President as a Democrat.
It seems like a weak cover-up for Hillary’s gaffe. Hillary is mostly upset that Gabbard backed Bernie Sanders over her the last time.
And even if you ignore the sore loser laws, it seems obvious that Gabbard is stronger now than when Hillary attacked her. She was at 1% in the primary polls Now she is at 5%. And the fact that Hillsry attacked Gabbard, Gabbard is likely now viewed more favorably by both independents and Republicans.
Sure Gabbard gets some bump in SOME polling….
Her RCP average is scant
I like Klobuchar – and if the election were tomorrow, I would probably vote for her.
Unlike most here, I do not distrust Gabbard. I reserve the right to change my mind, but the fact that Hillary opposes Gabbard does not concern me at all.
I like Klobuchar too and have mentioned that she could be a possible fall back contender for the Democratic establishment ,if Biden falters.
She still lags significantly in all the polls though and the real question is ,can she even survive financially until the primaries kick into high gear?
No…..
The die is cast with the top 2 …
That’s ridiculous.
The first vote hasn’t been cast yet.
You have no idea how the land will lay in a few months.
History is full of candidates who were leading at this stage – only to completely fall apart once the voting started. Guliani and Muskie come to mind immediately.
Jack is correct. To conclude that the race will clearly be between Warren and Biden is naive.
I’m sticking to my story….
Biden and Warren….
Sanders strikes out again
Klobuchar needs to do well in Iowa because I don’t see her doing well in New Hampshire – unless she significantly exceeds expectations in Iowa.
Amy is gonna run out of money by NH i’d think…