(February 24, 2019 at 11:54 am)Brian37 Wrote: Now mind anyone reading this I will STILL VOTE BLUE in the general. I think most in this current field all could make great presidents. But I've been listening to Kamala Harris on both economic and social issues and liking what I am hearing so far.
Some have argued that being from California is going to an easy target for the GOP. If the GOP wants to go that route she can point out that Reagan was Governor of California.
I have to admit though, since it is this early on, I may change my mind. The primaries are far off in any case.
In general I like most of our field, Bernie and Warren and Booker and Harris, and Biden if he jumps in.
One of the problems with her being from California is that she won't be bringing any electoral college votes with her. California is a Deep Blue state, so there is no built in advantage to choosing a candidate from there. California is going to vote for the Dem nominee no matter where they are from. Their electoral votes are already ours.
This is why a lot of people are arguing for Biden and Brown. To win in 2020, we need to win back the rustbelt. Chances of victory are slim without it. Biden has huge name recognition. Brown has never lost a race, and he won despite Ohio leaning toward Republicans.
Bernie has proven that he is competitive the rustbelt. So he is also a good choice if one is thinking in terms of taking the rust belt back (which is pretty much necessary to win in 2020).
Some say that Amy Klobuchar could be competitive in the rust belt, but they are saying that based on her being a centrist, and not on her having proven her competitiveness there.
It is hazardous to run a nominee whose competitiveness in the rust belt is unknown. I will be watching Warren and Harris closely when they campaign through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
We do not inherit the world from our parents. We borrow it from our children.
