Kamala's Campaign Launch Draws 20,000

[iuwclurker]

Those are Trumpoline numbers. Then a full hour town hall in Iowa last night, televised live on CNN. She's already left Warren in her dust trail.

“I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States,” Harris said. “I’m running for president because I love my country . . . I’m running to be president of the people, by the people, and for all people.”

“We have foreign powers infecting the White House like malware,” she said to a roar from the partisan crowd.

“When we have leaders who bully and attack a free press and undermine our democratic institutions, that’s not our America,” said Harris, stabbing a finger in the air for emphasis. “When white supremacists march and murder in Charlottesville, or murder innocent worshipers in a Pittsburgh synagogue, that’s not our America.”

“My mother used to say, ‘Don’t sit around and complain about things. Do something.’ Basically I think she was saying, you’ve got to get up, stand up and don’t give up the fight,” Harris said, quoting reggae icon Bob Marley.
​

Some think it will take a man to beat Trump. Pelosi debunked that. Looks like Kamala is ready to take off the gloves too.

​

 

[hoosboot]

Those are Trumpoline numbers. Then a full hour town hall in Iowa last night, televised live on CNN. She's already left Warren in her dust trail.

“I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States,” Harris said. “I’m running for president because I love my country . . . I’m running to be president of the people, by the people, and for all people.”

“We have foreign powers infecting the White House like malware,” she said to a roar from the partisan crowd.

“When we have leaders who bully and attack a free press and undermine our democratic institutions, that’s not our America,” said Harris, stabbing a finger in the air for emphasis. “When white supremacists march and murder in Charlottesville, or murder innocent worshipers in a Pittsburgh synagogue, that’s not our America.”

“My mother used to say, ‘Don’t sit around and complain about things. Do something.’ Basically I think she was saying, you’ve got to get up, stand up and don’t give up the fight,” Harris said, quoting reggae icon Bob Marley.
​

Some think it will take a man to beat Trump. Pelosi debunked that. Looks like Kamala is ready to take off the gloves too.

​

She's a shrewd politician. I don't love everything about her, but I am puzzled by the way some people try to dismiss her. The slogan that she introduced at the rally (Kamala Harris - For The People) is a really smart approach to taking what some progressives see as a weakness (her time as a prosecutor who drove up conviction rates in her office) and turning it into a passionate and eloquent strength.

Bay Area politics is a gauntlet that tests the mettle of its participants in dramatic ways. Howard Schultz should test himself in an arena like that if he wants to be President. :>)

 

[dbmhoosier]

She's probably the favorite to be the nominee at this point and I've been saying that for over a year. She's already got the SC and CA primaries in bag and CA moved its up. It will be interesting to see if Obama endorses her. If he does it's game over for the rest of the field. She'll get the Oprah endorsement. But she's also probably the easiest candidate for Trump to beat outside of maybe Warren and of course Bernie.

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

She's got a lot going for her in the Dem Primary.

1. She's a Black woman: That puts her at the top of the inter-sectional hierarchy (there is a certain segment of D primary voters that vote on this alone)

2. 0 congressional record: Similar to Obama her brief time in the Senate works in her favor, because nationally she hasn't been outed as incompetent yet (although her time as AG in CA made that clear)

3. The facade of being a moderate: Her time as a prosecutor will convince many Hillary/ Moderate Dems that she is not a radical (in reality there is not daylight between her and AOC/ Sanders, but it's the facade that counts)

She would be my favorite for both the Primary and General.

But who will be her Willie Brown on the national scale? Obama? He's married to, so he might just fit the bill.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Those are Trumpoline numbers. Then a full hour town hall in Iowa last night, televised live on CNN. She's already left Warren in her dust trail.

“I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States,” Harris said. “I’m running for president because I love my country . . . I’m running to be president of the people, by the people, and for all people.”

“We have foreign powers infecting the White House like malware,” she said to a roar from the partisan crowd.

“When we have leaders who bully and attack a free press and undermine our democratic institutions, that’s not our America,” said Harris, stabbing a finger in the air for emphasis. “When white supremacists march and murder in Charlottesville, or murder innocent worshipers in a Pittsburgh synagogue, that’s not our America.”

“My mother used to say, ‘Don’t sit around and complain about things. Do something.’ Basically I think she was saying, you’ve got to get up, stand up and don’t give up the fight,” Harris said, quoting reggae icon Bob Marley.
​

Some think it will take a man to beat Trump. Pelosi debunked that. Looks like Kamala is ready to take off the gloves too.

View embedded media

​

She did very, very well in that format. She’s going to be a formidable candidate. Of course, the far left is already going after her saying she is the Black Hillary and talking about her dating life. We are good at eating our own.

 

[zeke4ahs]

She's probably the favorite to be the nominee at this point and I've been saying that for over a year. She's already got the SC and CA primaries in bag and CA moved its up. It will be interesting to see if Obama endorses her. If he does it's game over for the rest of the field. She'll get the Oprah endorsement. But she's also probably the easiest candidate for Trump to beat outside of maybe Warren and of course Bernie.

Why do you think she’d be easier to beat than the many other possibilities?

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

Why do you think she’d be easier to beat than the many other possibilities?

In looking at her last night three things stick out:

1. I see a person that is radically pandering to the far left

2. I see someone who struggles with their own record as a prosecutor

3. I see someone who gives platitudes as answers to obvious questions

She does not generate excitement, except for that manufactured by the media.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Why do you think she’d be easier to beat than the many other possibilities?

I think she would be a Democratic handicap because she is the kind of candidate that Schultz would hurt the most. If the Democrats are really interested in blunting a Schultz campaign, they would back a candidate like Hickenlooper, Brown, Blumenthal, or perhaps Gillibrand.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I think she would be a Democratic handicap because she is the kind of candidate that Schultz would hurt the most. If the Democrats are really interested in blunting a Schultz campaign, they would back a candidate like Hickenlooper, Brown, Blumenthal, or perhaps Gillibrand.

This is your best take in a while

 

[twenty02]

Well, she's already out with loony-toon nonsense, advocating Medicare for All (and eliminating all private insurance). That's about as realistic as Mexico paying for the border wall.

So hard for me to take her seriously.

 

[Morrison]

Well, she's already out with loony-toon nonsense, advocating Medicare for All (and eliminating all private insurance). That's about as realistic as Mexico paying for the border wall.

So hard for me to take her seriously.

Meh. She’s a moderate. I think she’s just trying to outflank Bernie and Beto to grab early attention from the progressive wing.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Well, she's already out with loony-toon nonsense, advocating Medicare for All (and eliminating all private insurance). That's about as realistic as Mexico paying for the border wall.

So hard for me to take her seriously.

no doubt all the rest of the industrialized world, which get far better results for far less cost, and universal coverage, with a Medicare type single negotiator system, would agree with you.

NOT!

were else but a big money controlled govt, would worse results and less coverage for more money, and healthcare tied to employers killing jobs, wages, and trade leverage, be considered as the superior way to go.

 

[DrHoops]

If she’s the nominee and Schultz doesn’t blow everything up she will win. If America votes for Trump again over a Russian asset and criminal, we deserve what we get.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Why do you think she’d be easier to beat than the many other possibilities?

I think she would be a Democratic handicap because she is the kind of candidate that Schultz would hurt the most. If the Democrats are really interested in blunting a Schultz campaign, they would back a candidate like Hickenlooper, Brown, Blumenthal, or perhaps Gillibrand.

I’m going to be really surprised if Schultz is actually a serious candidate and stays in long. We’ll see.,

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

If she’s the nominee and Schultz doesn’t blow everything up she will win. If America votes for Trump again over a Russian asset and criminal, we deserve what we get.

Kamala is a Russian asset and criminal? Good to know.

Probably to the same extent Trump is.

 

[MrBing]

Well, she's already out with loony-toon nonsense, advocating Medicare for All (and eliminating all private insurance). That's about as realistic as Mexico paying for the border wall.

So hard for me to take her seriously.

I don't understand why we can't take every dollar we're already spending on every government healthcare program and put it toward Medicare for All and be able to afford it. That would mean that businesses might take some of what they spend on employee health insurance and instead pay it to the federal government. Employees would pay premiums to Medicare for All instead of private insurance and it would be based on ability to pay. Federal employees health insurance would be replace by Medicare for All and that would include the military except for combat medical care. We could get rid of Medicaid or roll that into the Medicare for All program also. Wouldn't we get more efficiency and reduce costs overall? Other countries have done universal care and I don't understand why our country can't.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Why do you think she’d be easier to beat than the many other possibilities?

Lots of reasons but being from California will hurt her big-time in the rust belt. It's the common perception in those states that anyone from CA is a nut especially anyone with San Fran ties. If she's the nominee you'll see around the clock ads with her palling around with Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, etc. It will be way too easy for Trump to portray her as a moonbat. I'm surprised he hasn't labeled her the SF Treat or countless other nicknames already.

She's going to get destroyed in the primaries for a lot of the reasons outlined here but she'll still probably be the nominee.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

 

[IUXC68]

I don't understand why we can't take every dollar we're already spending on every government healthcare program and put it toward Medicare for All and be able to afford it. That would mean that businesses might take some of what they spend on employee health insurance and instead pay it to the federal government. Employees would pay premiums to Medicare for All instead of private insurance and it would be based on ability to pay. Federal employees health insurance would be replace by Medicare for All and that would include the military except for combat medical care. We could get rid of Medicaid or roll that into the Medicare for All program also. Wouldn't we get more efficiency and reduce costs overall? Other countries have done universal care and I don't understand why our country can't.

Universal care is often funded by taxes. If you take a look at what citizens in some of those countries pay in taxes, you will likely find that the contributions are much higher than what we pay.

 

[hoot1]

She's got a lot going for her in the Dem Primary.

1. She's a Black woman: That puts her at the top of the inter-sectional hierarchy (there is a certain segment of D primary voters that vote on this alone)

2. 0 congressional record: Similar to Obama her brief time in the Senate works in her favor, because nationally she hasn't been outed as incompetent yet (although her time as AG in CA made that clear)

3. The facade of being a moderate: Her time as a prosecutor will convince many Hillary/ Moderate Dems that she is not a radical (in reality there is not daylight between her and AOC/ Sanders, but it's the facade that counts)

She would be my favorite for both the Primary and General.

But who will be her Willie Brown on the national scale? Obama? He's married to, so he might just fit the bill.

Black?

Why is it I wouldn't characterize Kamala as being Black ?

Her mother and father provide a diverse set of DNA which makes her far more unique than her skin color tells us.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Why do you think she’d be easier to beat than the many other possibilities?

Lots of reasons but being from California will hurt her big-time in the rust belt. It's the common perception in those states that anyone from CA is a nut especially anyone with San Fran ties. If she's the nominee you'll see around the clock ads with her palling around with Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, etc. It will be way too easy for Trump to portray her as a moonbat. I'm surprised he hasn't labeled her the SF Treat or countless other nicknames already.

She's going to get destroyed in the primaries for a lot of the reasons outlined here but she'll still probably be the nominee.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

But that’s the exact opposite of what you said. The criminal justice part shows that she is actually pretty conservative.

 

[zeke4ahs]

She's got a lot going for her in the Dem Primary.

1. She's a Black woman: That puts her at the top of the inter-sectional hierarchy (there is a certain segment of D primary voters that vote on this alone)

2. 0 congressional record: Similar to Obama her brief time in the Senate works in her favor, because nationally she hasn't been outed as incompetent yet (although her time as AG in CA made that clear)

3. The facade of being a moderate: Her time as a prosecutor will convince many Hillary/ Moderate Dems that she is not a radical (in reality there is not daylight between her and AOC/ Sanders, but it's the facade that counts)

She would be my favorite for both the Primary and General.

But who will be her Willie Brown on the national scale? Obama? He's married to, so he might just fit the bill.

Lol. After Donnie, I don’t think you’re allowed to be concerned about who someone slept with . But that’s typical. Excuse Trump for sleeping with porn stars and bribing them to be quiet, but want to make an issue about who she slept with decades ago, when she was single and he was separated. That’s the w ay we play, right?

 

[UncleMark]

Lol. After Donnie, I don’t think you’re allowed to be concerned about who someone slept with . But that’s typical. Excuse Trump for sleeping with porn stars and bribing them to be quiet, but want to make an issue about who she slept with decades ago, when she was single and he was separated. That’s the w ay we play, right?

Girls will be girls.

 

[iuwclurker]

I think she would be a Democratic handicap because she is the kind of candidate that Schultz would hurt the most. If the Democrats are really interested in blunting a Schultz campaign, they would back a candidate like Hickenlooper, Brown, Blumenthal, or perhaps Gillibrand.

While I get your logic, if Schultz runs, no Democrat is going to stop him from taking a huge share of right-leaning liberals. Schultz is that much better, as a speaker, as a straight shooter, and in terms of his policy ideas.

Schultz is free to take the correct position on every issue, so he doesn't need to flip on trade like Hillary did under pressure from Bernie. Abandoning TPP was the wrong thing to do, Bern had it wrong, Hillary was wrong to flip, and it's probably by far the biggest mistake of the Trump Administration economically. We had China crushed with the TPP. Then we threw it all away. Head-banging stupid. Schultz gets that and is free to say so, not being beholden to any Party interests.

 

[DrHoops]

Did Reagan have a hard time being from Cali?

Lots of reasons but being from California will hurt her big-time in the rust belt. It's the common perception in those states that anyone from CA is a nut especially anyone with San Fran ties. If she's the nominee you'll see around the clock ads with her palling around with Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, etc. It will be way too easy for Trump to portray her as a moonbat. I'm surprised he hasn't labeled her the SF Treat or countless other nicknames already.

She's going to get destroyed in the primaries for a lot of the reasons outlined here but she'll still probably be the nominee.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Universal care is often funded by taxes. If you take a look at what citizens in some of those countries pay in taxes, you will likely find that the contributions are much higher than what we pay.

Nope. We pay more per capita than any other country. No one is even close.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't understand why we can't take every dollar we're already spending on every government healthcare program and put it toward Medicare for All and be able to afford it. That would mean that businesses might take some of what they spend on employee health insurance and instead pay it to the federal government. Employees would pay premiums to Medicare for All instead of private insurance and it would be based on ability to pay. Federal employees health insurance would be replace by Medicare for All and that would include the military except for combat medical care. We could get rid of Medicaid or roll that into the Medicare for All program also. Wouldn't we get more efficiency and reduce costs overall? Other countries have done universal care and I don't understand why our country can't.

Because Republicans have decided that something which works everywhere else is impossible here, for reasons of "because, socialism," or something.

 

[iuwclurker]

Nope. We pay more per capita than any other country. No one is even close.

I think he's talking about more in taxes, part of which funds their health care system. Our system doesn't pay for health care with taxes, other than the existing medicare of course.

 

[DrHoops]

At this point, the US healthcare system needs a 100% overhaul. It’s interesting to me that veterans love the VA system, seniors love Medicare...what is so radical about Medicare for all?

My health insurance is $870 per month and I blew my knee out over the weekend in Telluride. Just for me to go to the ER, after ski patrol had to take me on a sled down the mountain, cost me $1000. If I wanted to wait ‘til the next day it would have cost $15. But who on earth would wait a day to go to the ER when their knee is mangled?

Now, I made the decision to have a high copay for ER visits, but still, it’s become absolute insanity. Something radical has to be done.

Well, she's already out with loony-toon nonsense, advocating Medicare for All (and eliminating all private insurance). That's about as realistic as Mexico paying for the border wall.

So hard for me to take her seriously.

 

[iuwclurker]

Because Republicans have decided that something which works everywhere else is impossible here, for reasons of "because, socialism," or something.

I don't think that's the only answer. As you know, our healthcare costs are double elsewhere. Our costs might have to be halved to make Universal affordable for the Government. Doctors will be a whole lot poorer than now.

 

[meridian]

While I get your logic, if Schultz runs, no Democrat is going to stop him from taking a huge share of right-leaning liberals. Schultz is that much better, as a speaker, as a straight shooter, and in terms of his policy ideas.

Schultz is free to take the correct position on every issue, so he doesn't need to flip on trade like Hillary did under pressure from Bernie. Abandoning TPP was the wrong thing to do, Bern had it wrong, Hillary was wrong to flip, and it's probably by far the biggest mistake of the Trump Administration economically. We had China crushed with the TPP. Then we threw it all away. Head-banging stupid. Schultz gets that and is free to say so, not being beholden to any Party interests.

If true, wouldn't he be better off to run as a Democrat? Is he afraid of primaried out? Furthermore, why is he making noise this late? Having no political background, he has a lot to catch up. If he runs as an independent and loses, which is the most likely the scenario, he will never have another chance as well as losing his reputation.

Maybe he is not a very good politician.

 

[iuwclurker]

At this point, the US healthcare system needs a 100% overhaul. It’s interesting to me that veterans love the VA system, seniorsove Medicare...what is so radical about Medicare for all?

My health insurance is $870 per month and I blew my knee out over the weekend in Telluride. Just for me to go to the ER, after ski patrol had to take me on a sled down the mountain, cost me $1000. If I wanted to wait ‘til the next day it would have cost $15. But who on earth would wait a day to go to the ER when their knee is mangled?

Now, I made the decision to have a high copay for ER visits, but still, it’s become absolute insanity. Something radical has to be done.

Bummer, man. Glad I quit before my eventual mangling. I had some freaking nasty falls without more than a mild sprain.

 

[iuwclurker]

If true, wouldn't he be better off to run as a Democrat? Is he afraid of primaried out? Furthermore, why is he making noise this late? Having no political background, he has a lot to catch up. If he runs as an independent and loses, which is the most likely the scenario, he will never have another chance as well as losing his reputation.

Maybe he is not a very good politician.

First part of your question answered here. He's been thinking about this for a year and a half. He's not running yet. He's going to explore it for three months on his book tour. I hope he resonates with people. He can win as an independent if he can resonate.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

If true, wouldn't he be better off to run as a Democrat? Is he afraid of primaried out? Furthermore, why is he making noise this late? Having no political background, he has a lot to catch up. If he runs as an independent and loses, which is the most likely the scenario, he will never have another chance as well as losing his reputation.

Maybe he is not a very good politician.

One point here - this isn't late. These Presidential announcements are early. It's going to be a long campaign season.

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

BUT TRUMP!

 

[IUXC68]

Nope. We pay more per capita than any other country. No one is even close.

Goat, good to hear from you again. How does the oft-cited Norway stack up?

 

[twenty02]

I don't understand why we can't take every dollar we're already spending on every government healthcare program and put it toward Medicare for All and be able to afford it. That would mean that businesses might take some of what they spend on employee health insurance and instead pay it to the federal government. Employees would pay premiums to Medicare for All instead of private insurance and it would be based on ability to pay. Federal employees health insurance would be replace by Medicare for All and that would include the military except for combat medical care. We could get rid of Medicaid or roll that into the Medicare for All program also. Wouldn't we get more efficiency and reduce costs overall? Other countries have done universal care and I don't understand why our country can't.

As Obama said repeatedly.....if you were building a system from the ground up, maybe something along that line would make sense. But the transition would be epically disruptive and it's totally, 100% politically impossible.

There are universal coverage systems all over the world in many stripes. Very few look like the Canadian model - which is basically what this is.

 

[twenty02]

no doubt all the rest of the industrialized world, which get far better results for far less cost, and universal coverage, with a Medicare type single negotiator system, would agree with you.

NOT!

were else but a big money controlled govt, would worse results and less coverage for more money, and healthcare tied to employers killing jobs, wages, and trade leverage, be considered as the superior way to go.

I've asked you this every time you bring this up....what country's system do you want copied here? You imply everyone else has around the world uses a single-payer type system. That's just not accurate. They all vary and use all types of methods to obtain universal coverage.

 

[UncleMark]

As Obama said repeatedly.....if you were building a system from the ground up, maybe something along that line would make sense. But the transition would be epically disruptive and it's totally, 100% politically impossible.

Transitioning shouldn't be difficult or impossible as long as the politicians aren't bought off. Simple enough to start with a public option -- i.e. allow individuals and businesses to buy into Medicare as an alternative to private insurance. Start it at age 55. lets say, they bring the age down in increments over time.

 

[twenty02]

Transitioning shouldn't be difficult or impossible as long as the politicians aren't bought off. Simple enough to start with a public option -- i.e. allow individuals and businesses to buy into Medicare as an alternative to private insurance. Start it at age 55. lets say, they bring the age down in increments over time.

Yeah, that's one thing that could maybe be politically possible at some point....a public option. Or I've seen mentions of expanding Medicare Advantage type plans. But that's not what Harris is talking about.

I get politicians are full of shit and have no issue making outlandish promises that have no chance in hell occurring. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out on it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Goat, good to hear from you again. How does the oft-cited Norway stack up?

Norway spends about 2/3 what we do per capita.

I will add links and numbers to this discussion when I get home. On phone right now.