Kamala Harris Faces Uncertain Path to 2028 as Democrats Weigh Future

[impulse]

10 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

4th largest economy with highest poverty rate in the national and a horrible literacy rate. 

 

SACRAMENTO, CA — California continues to face significant levels of poverty, with the state once again having the highest poverty rate in the nation, according to a new Budget Center analysis of newly released data by the United States Census Bureau. Despite some recovery from the economic impacts of the pandemic, California’s poverty rate in 2023 remained alarmingly high at 18.9%, with approximately 7.3 million state residents unable to meet basic needs — a population larger than California’s four largest cities combined: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco.

 

https://calbudgetcenter.org/news/new-census-data-show-california-poverty-soared-to-alarmingly-high-levels-in-2023/

 

 

 

There you go letting facts get in the way.

 

[impulse]

28 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

This guy was shut out by the DNC before he even got out the starting gate (stabbed in the back much like they did Bernie). I don't know much about him, they quashed him cuz they wanted a black woman. Free elections my ass.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Phillips

 

You and I disagree on a lot.  On Dean Phillips and the way he was treated by the Dem Elite, we agree.  He would have been a much better candidate than Joe or Kamala.  And there were others who could have won. 

 

The Dems gave 2024 away.  But I hear that $500 million of their war chest went to pay Dem operatives, so it wasn't all bad for them.  Lots of them got filthy rich in losing.

 

[henryford1958]

48 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

If only the Dems had run strong woman (or man) of any color, they could have won in 2024. 

 

It was theirs to lose, and they ran Kamala and Tim.  In soccer, they call that an "own goal".

 

 

 

Exactly. They must have known that Biden wasn't good for another 4 years (or even 4 minutes) but switching to Kamala at the last minute guaranteed they would lose.

[newbee2022]

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Title: Kamala Harris Faces Uncertain Path to 2028 as Democrats Weigh Future

 

Senate Democrats are cautiously navigating the question of whether former Vice President Kamala Harris should make another run for the presidency in 2028, after her decisive loss to Donald Trump last year. While skepticism runs deep among many in her party, few are ready to count her out entirely.

 

Harris recently reentered the national spotlight with a high-profile speech in San Francisco, where she attacked Trump’s first 100 days in office, accusing him of orchestrating “the greatest man-made economic crisis in modern presidential history.” Her return to the public eye comes as she considers a number of political options, including a gubernatorial bid in California in 2026 or another attempt at the presidency two years later.

 

One Senate Democrat, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, didn’t mince words when asked whether Harris should run again: “No.” The senator added that voters had already rendered their judgment and Harris should step aside.

 

Others were more measured in their responses. Senator John Hickenlooper of Colorado, who once ran for president himself, acknowledged Harris’s high name recognition but stopped short of declaring her the party’s future. “I think time will tell,” he said, adding, “I think she will add value to the national conversation. What’s going to happen over the next six to 18 months is going to be lots of Democrats having lots of different opinions about what our priorities should be. What are the values we have to put first?”

 

Hickenlooper also noted that Harris’s 2024 loss does not necessarily preclude a comeback. “Every election is unique. We always try to draw analogies and inferences based on past elections. I don’t think it disqualifies her that she lost.”

 

Many Democrats, wary of the uncertainties in their party’s future leadership, are hesitant to close the door on Harris entirely. Comparisons have been made to the Democratic reaction after Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, when party leaders called for a fresh start. “I think it’s time for our party to move to new leadership, a new spokesperson,” said Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois after Clinton’s defeat.

 

Yet Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, unlike others who had opposed a Clinton re-run in 2020, is open to seeing Harris in the mix again. “I’m a big fan of Kamala Harris, I enjoyed serving with her. I think given the time frame that we have, which is very different from what we were dealing with last time, that it’s going to be an open process,” he said. “Anybody who thinks they’ve got what it takes will step into that and someone will emerge.” He added, “I would never underestimate her talent.”

 

Supporters of Harris argue that the circumstances of 2024 were stacked against her. After President Biden dropped out in July, Harris had just over three months to mount a national campaign. “I think you need time to really get to know the candidates and feel comfortable about them,” Heinrich said. “If you’re going to run for president, you don’t get to hide a lot of cards. You really have to be comfortable in your own skin, and even the process of that — in my view — takes a year. She didn’t get the benefit of that.”

 

Despite raising over $1 billion and spending nearly $2 billion in conjunction with super PACs, Harris lost all seven battleground states, including the blue wall of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. She also lost the popular vote by about 2.3 million, and her defeat was viewed as a drag on down-ballot Democrats. The party lost four Senate seats and its majority.

 

Democratic strategist Steve Jarding still sees Harris as viable. “She obviously was vice president for four years. She got thrown into [a] 107-day election, which may not have been a fair read — probably not fair,” he said. “She’s got a tremendous donor base to work with. She’s got experience. I would be careful if I were the Democrats to throw out, ‘Well, she lost all the battleground states.’ Who has a better résumé, for instance?”

 

Still, Harris's campaign faced setbacks beyond her control, including the backlash over her husband Doug Emhoff’s law firm agreeing to provide pro bono legal services to Trump’s administration. Emhoff criticized the deal, but the optics added to Harris’s challenges.

 

Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut remains hopeful. “I think she’s a potential candidate. There were a good many reasons that she lost, some beyond her control. But she’s a strikingly attractive and effective candidate and public official,” he said. “She would certainly have support. The question would be whether she’s the best candidate, and there will be a lot of debate about that question.”

 

  Adpated by ASEAN Now from LBC News  2025-05-06

 

 

I would prefer AOC

[dinsdale]

1 hour ago, nick supreme said:

The United States was not prepared for a strong woman of color. We still have a long way to go to break the glass ceiling.

And there it is in a nutshell. Race baiting from the left. What has colour and gender have to do with it? If Harris wasn't an idiot and the Dems hadn't abandoned most of their base to go to the radical, progressive left, then there was a chance a woman of colour might have been POTUS.

[JonnyF]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Like I said I'm not a big fan.

But in many ways she was served an unfair deck by the timing of Bidem's exit.

So we saw something historically weird and difficult. 

So I'm just saying she deserves to compete in the primaries

 

I really hope she runs again. 😃

 

But the Dems will have to keep her away from the primaries same as last time, she is totally incapable of winning votes.

 

If she went into a rocking Pattaya gogo at 11pm and promised free drinks and barfines most people would get up and go next door. 

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, nick supreme said:

The United States was not prepared for a strong woman of color. We still have a long way to go to break the glass ceiling.

 

Well, the US already had a black President so you must be saying it's because she's a woman.

 

Why not just accept she's a terrible candidate with inane policies? Even The Dems disliked her so much she couldn't face the normal Democratic process to be the candidate. I guess they are all misogynists as well? 😃

[spidermike007]

She needs to either bow out or be pushed out, she is of no use to the Democratic party, she's failed at nearly everything she's done, and I say that as a Centrist Democrat. The party should stay as far away from her as possible, they need real talent not just someone who represents different sorts of people. 

 

I sure wish I would see some Republicans speaking out like this, about their horrific leaders, and their terrible policy decisions, and showing some moral courage and independence. 

[thesetat]

1 hour ago, nick supreme said:

The United States was not prepared for a strong woman of color. We still have a long way to go to break the glass ceiling.

Maybe if they actually had a strong woman of color running, they would be prepared and actually win. Kamala Harris is definitely not one of those people

[bendejo]

She ain't gonna run.  Ya get one shot at the title.  And there are plenty of Dem hopefuls who will remind her.

In the meantime it'll give Fox something to cover: with DT bringing more and more bad news they are so strapped for content (you know they hit bottom when they're doing pet vids) they have to revive Obama-era talking points to have bad stuff to say of the Dems.

 

 

[thaipo7]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Not a big fan but I think except for a few major errors, she ran an incredible campaign. But the people wanted fascism, cheaper eggs, and to scapegoat immigrants and LGBT people. In fairness, she deserves another shot to COMPETE for the nomination if there is a real election by then. 

You and Tug - Two peas in a pod.  She should never get a chance.  US can't take 4 years of her.

[dinsdale]

13 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

She needs to either bow out or be pushed out, she is of no use to the Democratic party, she's failed at nearly everything she's done, and I say that as a Centrist Democrat. The party should stay as far away from her as possible, they need real talent not just someone who represents different sorts of people. 

 

I sure wish I would see some Republicans speaking out like this, about their horrific leaders, and their terrible policy decisions, and showing some moral courage and independence. 

Too early to know what's going to happen and conversely too early to be critising. Only been just over 100 days. 

[Smokey and the Bandit]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Not a big fan but I think except for a few major errors, she ran an incredible campaign. But the people wanted fascism, cheaper eggs, and to scapegoat immigrants and LGBT people. In fairness, she deserves another shot to COMPETE for the nomination if there is a real election by then. 

Love the sarcasm...good one!!

[zombie nights]

Surely the Democrats can find a winnable candidate next time. 

 

K. Harris was and is a loser.

[mikeymike100]

2 hours ago, nick supreme said:

The United States was not prepared for a strong woman of color. We still have a long way to go to break the glass ceiling.

Kamala Harris was a very weak woman, what color she was is debatable!

[bunnydrops]

I don't think she would likely win the primary.

[jas007]

I can't think of a better way for the Democrats to guarantee another election loss than to run Harris again.  Of course, it isn't going to happen. The woman can't even hold an unscripted press conference and she would have to survive the primaries. They did their best to keep her away from the press during the last election cycle, but she screwed up even the softball interviews.  Not presidential material.  

 

What's the alternative?  Who knows, but we'll be lucky if we're around in 2028 to worry about it.  

 

People should perhaps spend their time worrying about WW III and the nutcase Neocons surrounding Trump.  The most dangerous threat the human race has ever faced.  

 

 

[Tug]

1 hour ago, thaipo7 said:

You and Tug - Two peas in a pod.  She should never get a chance.  US can't take 4 years of her.

Ok thaipo I’ll bite what is it about her that concerns you?Her being raised in a single female head of household home?her earning her law degree?her becoming a prosecutor?her becoming the attorney general for a major state or her being elected senator for said state?perhaps it was her beeing Vice President???as apposed to trump his burning of alliances with the good guys and becoming an asset to the enemy..or tanking the worlds economy over a pipe dream.perhaps it’s the clown car cabinet that appeals to you……the corruption or the being a scofflaw just what is it thaipo?im curious 🧐 

[JonnyF]

3 hours ago, zombie nights said:

Surely the Democrats can find a winnable candidate next time. 

 

K. Harris was and is a loser.

 

Maybe Michelle Obama? 

 

I've seen of few clips of her podcast and I must say, the less she spoke the more impressive she seemed. 😃

[Jingthing]

7 hours ago, steven100 said:

Isn't there any sane, decent, educated,  level headed common sense candidate's to run for Presidency left in the world. 

 

god help America   !    god help the world   !!    

Yes of course.

Pete Buttigieg. 

[Jingthing]

45 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Maybe Michelle Obama? 

 

I've seen of few clips of her podcast and I must say, the less she spoke the more impressive she seemed. 😃

Definitely not.

She has zero interest in doing that.

[Jingthing]

4 hours ago, bunnydrops said:

I don't think she would likely win the primary.

It's hard to know.

Having been a VP influence a lot  of people. Depends on the number of and dynamics of the competition.

[newnative]

     I'm not a fan but I think she's welcome to run  in 2028 and compete with other Dem candidates during the primary season.  Let the voters decide if they want her to be the candidate again, once they get a second look.  I hope by 2028 some better candidates will emerge.