The case for Harris for president.

In 2016, then attorney general Kamala Harris defeated longtime US House representative Loretta Sanchez in an election to Barbara Boxer´s senate seat. Shortly thereafter, rumors spread that the democratic establishment had chosen her as the DNC pick for president in 2020. They thought Harris could appeal to minorities enough to secure a path to 270 electoral votes, and they also thought that she could have enough appeal to both wings of the democratic party to win a primary.

Will that ultimately be how things shake out for Harris?

Well, it depends. Pretty much everything I mentioned above has to happen for President Kamala Harris to happen. If you are going to run in the primary as a progressive but also someone who has the baggage of usually being more conservative *cough cough* Kirsten Gillibrand *cough cough*, then it´s very hard to strike a balance, given liberals are always incresing their standards for purity tests.

It’s also not very rosy elsewhere for the Harris campaign when it comes to early states. If her campaign does very well, she could pull-off an Obama type win in Iowa, and go on a run after that. However, she would almost have no chance in New Hampshire. Obama lost there pretty badly and Biden, Sanders or Warren would probably go on a run there before anyone could catch them, given that they are from New England and New Hampshire tends to vote for candidates from neighboring states.

So, of the early states, Harris really needs to pull off a win in Iowa, or she’s rather doomed. But it can’t just be a squeaker, or a pretty weak win. It has to be an upset.

That’s how it worked for Obama in 2008. He took Iowa and his main rival, Hillary Clinton, came in third (John Edwards finished second). Yes, Obama lost New Hampshire, but he won most of the remaining states (especially southern states) because he had built up momentum from that Iowa win. Harris has to pull off a similar feat.

To be completely clear, I’m not saying candidates can’t come from behind in primaries and win, or that any candidate who does poorly in Iowa mandatorily has to lose, but it’s just pretty unlikely. Iowa and New Hampshire are your two big chances if you’re a candidate, and you better deliver in at least one of those states if you wanna keep your campaign alive. It’s not impossible to imagine Harris losing both Iowa and new Hampshire, but then going on to take Nevada and South Carolina by good margins. Pull off a California blowout on Super Tuesday and she’s probably the frontrunner. But I think it’s also pretty likely that she faulters in both of the early states, her momentum erodes nationally and she pulls a Marco Rubio in California.

But, let’s assume for a second that Harris does well across the map, gets a large enough number of delegates from southern states and goes on to get the nomination without a contested convention. What would a general election map for Kamala Harris look like?

Well, kind of the opposite from Biden and Sanders. She would probably do worse in the rust belt and midwest just by virtue of being a black woman and she would do better in the south and the sun belt for pretty similar reasons. She would have a built-in advantage in Florida, especially with the passing of Amendment 4 on November 6th, Georgia, and maybe Texas and Arizona, although I’m a bit less confident about that. While I also think she wouldn’t have much trouble in Minnesota, she could have a bad time in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and especially Michigan, which is getting swingier.

So, you know the drill. Strengths and weaknesses:

STRENGTHS:

• Great appeal to voters of color.
• Real path to the nomination through southern states.
• Establishment backing.
• Some progressive backing, as Harris has pivoted to the left.
• Built-in advantages in states with lots of electoral votes (FL, GA, TX, AZ, more?).

WEAKNESSES:

• No appeal to white working-class voters.
• A tough first couple of states for the campaign that she would presumably run.
• Trying to run in both lanes of the primary could prove to be difficult.
• A real possibility of stagnation (more on that below).

You might be noticing a pattern here. Most candidates have more strengths than they have weaknesses, but that’s mostly because these are the ones that have the best chance to win so it’s not a very good way to look at it. Harris also has less of both because, well, I’m unsure of what kind of campaign she will run. But if you want my opinion, I think it’s more likey that we’ll be looking at the story of a paper tiger, a la Marco Rubio, rather than the story of president Harris. But, she’s in here for a reason, after all.

Also, you may have noticed the lack of an article yesterday. It happened for unrelated reasons, but I guess that Wednesday is now official Young Politics day off.

Have a happy Thanksgiving.