Kamala Harris's plan to crush 2020 rivals on her home turf

[RandySF]

WASHINGTON — As she moves swiftly to build a juggernaut in her home state, California Sen. Kamala Harris is revealing what looks like an audacious strategy for delivering a mortal blow to her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination next March.

It relies on her geographical edge at home, her perceived demographic advantage in the South and a primary calendar that brings them together on March 3 — known as "Super Tuesday" because it is the date on which the most delegates to the party's convention are in play in primaries across the country.

California voters alone will send more than 400 delegates to the convention, nearly double second-ranking Texas, and Harris, who is one of two African-American candidates in the race, is likely to have a shot at consolidating the black electorates in Southern states voting on Super Tuesday, including Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia.

In 2008 and 2016, respectively, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fueled their nominations with massive delegate hauls in heavily African-American Southern states where black voters formed a bloc behind the winning candidate. Harris would like to repeat those feats — a bigger challenge, for sure, in a multi-candidate race that also features Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who is black.

But for Harris, the real key is to make California — where it is notoriously expensive and difficult to organize statewide campaigns — a maelstrom of wasted time and money for everyone else. And while she's been making the rounds of early states with the other Democrats, her campaign has begun the work of standing up an operation back home.

"You need a long runway to build and run here," said Buffy Wicks, a state House member who ran Obama and Clinton's winning primary campaigns in California. Wicks is something of a secret weapon for Harris: an elected official who has endorsed the senator but also brings to the campaign unrivaled experience in winning contested presidential primaries in the state.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/kamala-harris-s-plan-crush-2020-rivals-her-home-turf-n974051?cid=public-rss_20190224

[RandySF]

1. This strategy also carries risk

What happens if she doesn't score the knockout punch in March?

[Bradshaw3]

2. There's also risk to Democrats winning the general

California is not representative of the country as a whole and winning it big in the primary doesn't mean she is the best candidate to win in November. I would put her down the list on that score.

[RandySF]

5. The same can be said about numerous states.

That's also the risk Bernie's campaign runs when they point to his 2016 primary wins in places like West Virginia.

[Bradshaw3]

10. West Virginia is as irrelevant as California

Of course the Dem nominee has to, and will, carry California, just like any repub has to carry WV. The states that matter in the general won't change, and I'm sure you know which ones they are. If a candidate does well in the primaries in MI or WI that carries a whole lot more weight to me than what happens in California, just like Warren winning Mass is expected and won't give her cred for winning in November.

[honest.abe]

29. Are you kidding??

California is one of the most diverse complex states in the country while West Virginia is one of the least diverse, most homogeneous (95% white) and probably the most racist. Winning WV for a Democratic nominee is an indication you are probably not a good Democrat. On the other hand, doing well in California means you are connecting with a wide array of demographic groups and voting blocks. Very good for a Democratic nominee.

[Bradshaw3]

33. Are you kidding?

As I said very clearly in my post, I was talking about the general election, so, to repeat: a Dem candidate HAS to carry CA or they have no chance while a reub HAS to carry WV or they have no chance of winning the general. I wasn't comapring voting blocks in the two states; just that winning CA for Harris or Mass for Warren in the primary doesn't mean a whole lot toward winning the general election while winning in a battleground state such as Michigan in the primary would matter toward the general. And either of those candidates will be expected - has to - CA and MA in the general.

[honest.abe]

34. I was referring to your ridiculous comment about WV and CA having the same significance.

They are not similar in any way, shape or form.

[Bradshaw3]

35. I never said that

I never said anything even remotely like that. Feel free to reread my post without the knee jerk reaction and hopefully you will will not find lanything ike that in that post. It's ok to disagree with people but it's not ok to put words in their mouth or make claims that are untrue. What I did say was that Dems have to carry one to win and repubs have to carry the other to win. That is simly an electoral fact.

[honest.abe]

36. "West Virginia is as irrelevant as California".. your words.

That is ridiculous.

[Bradshaw3]

37. What is ridiculous is the dishonesty about what I said

You claimed that I said they had the same significance. I didn't. I said they were irrelevent as far as the primaries and that in no way is the same. I went to great lengths to explain it to you in the simplest terms possible so try and debate on those terms rather than make false claims.

[TeamPooka]

13. actually CA is representative of the whole country. We have a large argi business and huge red

areas that vote republican.
CA feeds the world.
We have mountains plains and beaches.
We have snowy areas and warm ones

[Bradshaw3]

15. None of those make it representative from an electoral standpoint

California is great but it is an almost completely blue state (fantastic!) while America is definitely not. That's just a fact when talking about elections.

[TeamPooka]

17. visual proof of you being wrong.

Not completely blue is it?

[Bradshaw3]

18. Visual proof you don't understand an electoral map

tRump tried to use the mostly red - geographically - national map to show his "strong" election win and got rightly mocked for it. Votes come from people, not land. The blue areas are metropolitan areas with lots of voters while the red areas are more rural with less voters - hence that's why there is more land to them.

You really should quit. I wish the country voted like California. It doesn't and saying there are farms there that produce food or deserts where a few people vote reub does not make it like the rest of the country.

[TeamPooka]

19. You don't understand California. California is America in microcosm. This state used to be all red.

It sent Nixon and Reagan to the White House
The lesson is understanding the transformation this state has gone through electorally can be applied to the whole country
if people are willing to try to understand it and not write it off in a stereotypical fashion.

Your words - "The blue areas are metropolitan areas with lots of voters while the red areas are more rural with less voters - "

Yeah, that's California and that's America.

If you can't see it, well, they say you can lead a horse to water....

[Bradshaw3]

20. The facts say you are completely wrong

Here are the facts for California elections:
Democrats won every statewide office in the state
Democrats have super majorities in both state houses
Democrats won 46 of 53 Congressional seats.

That is, as I wrote, almost complete control of the state. That makes it one of the bluest states in the nation. America is not blue, as I would hope you would admit that reality.

Nationally, repubs have a majority of governorships and control of BOTH statehouses in 32 of 50 states. They of course control the presidency and the Senate.

California is NOT reprsentative of America from an electoral standpoint. Anyone arguing otherwise is ignoring the facts. Obviously you don't want to hear the facts from me but try listening to someone you trust who understands how elections work. Your belief that the rest of America is now, as you stated, like California or will become like California is not anywhere close to reality, as the facts attest, and it won't be in 2020.

[calimary]

27. And the population looks like everybody in the US.

California has just about EVERY kind, size, shape, and color of human being, every demographic and every economic group. Every income group. Every interest group. Almost every kind of weather. It IS representative of the country, especially as we all experience what is now frequently described as “the browning of America.”

And every kind of geography and topography. Farms and cities. Manufacturing and agriculture. Mountains, rivers, lakes, forests, deserts, and pastureland. The heights (MT. Whitney) and the depths (Death Valley). Plus an international border. California is its own country, especially if you look at the rankings in terms of its economy. Fifth in THE WORLD.

[Awsi Dooger]

14. A nominee from California also plays smack into Trump's hands

He has no risk at all because he realizes he can't win that state. No lie or mischaracterization would be out of bounds. Day after day.

That is the state he has targeted for his smears on immigrants and the preposterous notion of millions of illegal voters. If we conveniently give him a nominee from California then all of that explodes, along with attacks on how the state has shifted politically. You know darn well he would make disparaging remarks about current California compared to the Reagan years, and try to attach Kamala to any negative statistic he could find or lie about. He would try to make California the symbol of American shift toward socialism and Kamala as a trigger.

Obviously there's no merit to any of this. But I always try to understand situational influence as opposed to tunnel vision now followed by surprise and shock later. We have not had a serious contender from California for a long time so I'm not sure it's recognized how that state has been stereotyped by white males, or at least the ones who post on the sports sites I frequent. They attack the California political shift all the time. Heck, it even happens on USC forums among alums. They try to blame the recent USC scandal on liberalism now compared to a more conservative university when they attended. Then if you throw in that table listing Kamala with the most liberal voting record in the senate it only feeds the stereotypical fear.

[Bradshaw3]

16. Good points that we have to face

That view of California is prevalent in many areas, including AZ where Dems hope to pick up a senate seat and maybe win the presidential with the right candidate.

[honest.abe]

25. I dont think Kamala is going to be characterized as just a west coast California politician.

She has a complex background and appeal and will likely be as popular in the south as in her home turf.

[workinclasszero]

3. She gets knocked out?

[RandySF]

4. If she doesn't rack up the delegates in Super Tuesday with no strategy going forward.

[wasupaloopa]

6. She will. Most of us in CA have already voted for her twice.

Once as AG and once as Senator. We know her and the others not so well.

I have been contributing to her campaigns since her run for AG.

[honest.abe]

7. Super Tuesday will likely be a huge day for her.

Alot of states that would appear to be good for her including CA.

[madville]

8. California awards delegates proportionally so it's not make or break

She could get a decent chunk but hypothetically Biden and Sanders could come away from California with quite a few delegates themselves.

[Garrett78]

11. All of our primaries and caucuses are proportional, thank goodness.

[honest.abe]

30. Yeah, but its a big haul.

If she runs up the numbers there, she comes away with a huge load of delegates that will hard for the others to make up.

[ripcord]

9. There is a lot of excitement in California over Harris

She already has Gov. Newsome's endorsement and many unions will follow, if she has an overwhelming Super Tuesday it could be all over.

[TeamPooka]

12. So Cal is crazy for Kamala Harris. I'm in Ventura and LA area and she's the one most are talking

about

[Maru Kitteh]

21. I find this very exciting! I'm okay with anyone but Sanders-Gabbard, but Harris is very inspiring.

If Sanders-Gabbard gets the nom I'll buy some Vicks, do my duty and cast my Democratic vote without a single moment's hesitation. But I'm convinced that will mean 4 more years of Metamucilinni, and our family will have to start taking seriously our musings about applying for residency north of the border.

With Harris, we have a great chance for winning with someone who can walk in the spirit of good-will, fairness, dignity and most of all optimism rather than coming from a place of anger, continual, vociferous, exhausting outrage, and needing boogeymen/"opponents" to conquer and demonize.

[calimary]

28. You and me both, Maru Kitteh.

If it comes to that, I’ll just hold my nose and vote Democratic. If it comes to Sanders/Gabbard and they win, would Bernie stay a Democrat? Or flitch it off again like lint on his jacket sleeve?

But I’ve said it before, here, many times. I Will Vote For The Democratic Nominee. Whoever she or he is. If there’s a “D” after its name, it gets my vote.

[NewJeffCT]

22. I like Harris, but the last time a candidate waited to get involved in a later primary

was Rudy Giuliani waiting for Florida in 2008...by that time, the race was over because McCain had surprised in Iowa and then won New Hampshire and had all the momentum.

[honest.abe]

24. She's definitely not waiting.

She has already had numerous events in the SC, NH and Iowa. She's way ahead of her rivals in that respect. Furthermore CA is not late.. its early March, Super Tuesday.

I suspect she will do good enough in Iowa and NH, then win in both SC and NV, which will propel her into a huge day on Super Tuesday.

[NewJeffCT]

26. That sounds like a plausible path

for her.

but, I looked at the 2008 Republican results and Florida was before Super Tuesday in 2008 (January 29) - but, McCain won all the delegates in Florida because he had the momentum coming out of New Hampshire and South Carolina (big upset win over Huckabee)

[honest.abe]

32. I did not realize FL was so early in 2008 for the Repubs.

Regardless I dont think there is any risk of anything like that happening to Harris. She seems to be running a very smart campaign so far.

[calimary]

23. I'm just glad California moved up in the primary schedule.

It’s irked me for a LONG time that the most populous state, the state that is thereby MOST DIRECTLY affected and PROFOUNDLY impacted by anything that comes out of Washington DC, would have to wait a two the end of the line to weigh in, long after the decision has already been made.

Frankly, I think that entitles California to go FIRST.

[Garrett78]

31. CA voted on Super Tuesday in 2000, 2004 and 2008. 2012 didn't matter.

2016 was the only time of consequence this century when CA didn't vote on Super Tuesday.

This state is too big and too populous to be one of the initial contests, but I think Super Tuesday is just right.