Progressives gear up for their first big fight if Harris wins: Protecting Lina Khan
Progressives gear up for their first big fight if Harris wins: Protecting Lina Khan
While liberals have held their tongues as Kamala Harris tacked to the center, they're preparing for a major battle over the future of the party, with personnel emerging as a flashpoint.
You're viewing a single thread.
"recent calls from some allies ..."
Who? What allies? Could this be any more vague. The article gives no hints as to who these mysterious unnamed "allies" are and no evidence of anyone, donor or not, calling for her removal. Nor has Harris or anyone from her campaign so much as hinted of any plans or feelings of wanting to oust Khan. Other than Mark Cuban, all the tech bro/oligarch types are Trump allies, not Harris donors.
Sounds like just another piece trying to stoke rumors and stir up division.
Dems Rally to Save Lina Khan After Mark Cuban Puts Target on Her Back
https://newrepublic.com/post/186971/bernie-sanders-aoc-lina-khan-mark-cuban
Thanks for the additional info. I'd call this "anticipatory worry/outrage" as a parallel to how the oligarchs ceding to Trump is called "anticipatory obedience".
Just because Cuban supports her and may expect obedience in return, I seriously doubt Harris would do it, especially as she is running as a previous DA/AG who went after lenders and others to protect the consumer, and has campaigned on going after 'price gougers' and others who harm the middle class. For her to turn around and get rid of Khan would fly in the face of all that and wreck her credibility right off the bat. I can't see why she would consider doing that.
Having seen her progressive voting record I wouldn't have expected her to campaign as a "moderate" and go back on every progressive stance she ever held either. In short, I don't trust her to be consistent.
There's no way she'd have even a chance of winning if she hadn't campaigned that way.
I disagree, I think if she had campaigned as the most progressive Democrat in history that would have sparked a massive wave of new support, but it would have put her campaign up against a lot of wealthy and powerful people. She chose the easy path by cozying up to capital interests, and this strategy gets us nowhere. At best it staves off the worst of the growing fascist movement for a time, but at the same time moves the needle further to the right. I think it's shortsighted.
Wow, you have a very unrealistic understanding of where the American electorate is if you think running as "the most progressive Democrat in history" could get anywhere close to a majority, If someone could win that way, they'd certainly be trying it. Enjoy living in that bubble!
I believe a large portion of the electorate that vote Democrat are liberals who weren't fans of Biden but hated Trump, and intended to vote for Biden only to prevent Trump from winning. Kamala would not lose this contingency of voters even if they think Kamala is too progressive, but she would gain new voters who previously felt unrepresented. Only anti-Trump conservatives (a tiny but admittedly growing voting bloc) might jump ship.
Kamala chose to appeal to conservatives to steal votes from Trump and because it gets her more wealthy donors. It's possibly a winning strategy, but it is not the only one, and this one abandons the progressive voting bloc in favor of conservatives in a time where younger people are trending leftwards. This is a move that will have long-term consequences.
Her campaign had record-setting grass roots donations. She didn't need to kow-tow to wealthy donors to get enough funding--that is not the reason she's running as moderate. It's because she needs lots of votes from moderates and anti-trump republicans if she's going to win (and I do think she will). And by the way, "stealing votes"?! That's not stealing votes ffs, it's winning them. Even then the race is way too close.
I don't think you realize how many Democratic men can't, won't, or have a real hard time bringing themselves to vote for her because she's a woman. Lots of interviews on video showing them. It's so ironic to me that their main reason is they say "women are too emotional to be given the responsibility." When trump is the biggest ketchup-throwing cry baby ever to occupy the Oval office? I can't count how many times I've seen male senators and congressmen losing their shit while the women are the calm adults in the room. John Boehner, who was Speaker of the House, used to burst into tears on the House floor at the drop of a hat. But I digress.
Point is, not even Democrats are as liberal as you think they are. Only a faction of them are very liberal. (Out of curiosity, do you live in a blue state, and/or a large urban area? I wonder why you think there are that many truly liberal voters in the United States.)
I do agree with your first sentence that intense anti-trumpism is the reason we might finally get a woman president. Under normal circumstances it wouldn't happen. The US is just not like other democracies that way.
whatever, and you enjoy losing to a republican instead of a dem pretending to be one.
Americans want police reform, guns out of schools, a public option, judicial term limits, weapons to Israel to stop. Biden/Harris have been against all of these things and each of tnem cost her votes and voter enthusiasm. She could have won easily by embracing all of those. Tacking to the center has gotten very few republicans onboard, which is evidenced by the way she has been losing ground to trump steadily all month.
Campaigning this way has hurt her chances.
Do you not remember during the housing crisis?
Kamala Harris Has To Answer For Not Prosecuting Steve Mnuchin