She also spent the most money the past few weeks in ads. She spent over 100k in facebook ads during he launch week. She spent over 1.2 million on ads during 2018 when she was not even on the ballot.
source:https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-2020-launch-is-the-best-by-far
I feel like her strategy is to out viral everyone else to become the de facto candidate for black and women voters. I dont blame her, especially in trying to box out Booker. They basically have the same strategy. Win/Overperform in IA or NH, then crush it with black voters in SC and cruise through Super Tuesday. Kamala also wants to add winning Cali as an exclamation point to her nomination, but basically same strategy.
I don't think it is a terrible strategy, but I think 2020 is going to be a long campaign and drowning everyone out nationally doesn't really mean much when there isn't a national primary. I also think it could lead to burnout.
That isn't really the point of that tweet.
On 1/22/2019 at 9:25 AM, Psychic Gibbon said:
Just a word of warning: I'd take social media followings with a grain of salt. We know full well that politicians and other prominent people, and some of their weird fans, like to hire bot companies to pad their followers and engagements. This applies to politicians I like as well.
As for your first point, there really aren't that many examples. It is rare for candidates polling in the 1-5% range at this point to win the nomination. The only ones I can think of are Carter, Bill, and Trump. Booker would have to pull off something historic to win. Not saying that it's impossible but... it's very unlikely. Also, though I'd like more polls to confirm it, we have that poll from a month or so ago that showed that the top second choice with Biden supporters was Sanders (and vice versa) so, unless that was incorrect, then I don't see how a Biden implosion will help Booker.
She bought herself an astroturf social media following to appear more popular than she actually is.
lostone and AF89 like this
That may not be your point, but it doesn't mean it is not supporting evidence. It isn't as if Kamala Harris didn't know that she wanted to be president as soon as she was elected in 2016.
https://www.axios.com/ocasio-cortez-dominates-twitter-6a997938-b8a5-4a8b-a895-0a1bcd073fea.html
Look at the likes/retweets she has gotten the past most. It all pointed to a pattern of seeming more popular to dissuade other candidates.
30 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:
He has a point there.
7 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:
Corey was in it 7 years ago.
Don't Run Bernie Don't Run.
So it was Klobuchar who was mean/abusive to staff.
Booker or Warren 2020 confirmed.
SP is not popular. People want Dems to provide an alternative system not replace the entire system.
4 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:
You need to have the political will to campaign for it to convince people. That started during the 2016 primary and is why it's even in consideration now, to go along with many other left-wing positions (eg. wealth tax).
Corporate Dems don't and never have had the will to campaign for much of anything. It's why they target half measures before starting and water them down from there when there is pushback (eg. Obamacare).
It is getting considered because people like the slogan. And for a majority of people, the slogan means opening Medicare for all. NOT forcing people onto Medicare.
Obamacare got water down largely because of a few senators like Leiberman. House version of Obamacare passed with measures like the public option.
And whether or not you go with Medicare option, default, or only, what needs to be done is merging Medicaid/CHIP into the new system and making subsidies more generous.
32 minutes ago, AF89 said:
It'd be interesting to see how they'd do that. The 6th and 7th districts are already designed to crack significant blue strongholds in Dekalb and Gwinnett that have populations too large to put in a single district.
They have an idea of what it is and have fixated on the slogan, yes, and that is why the Dem establishment is attempting to redefine what "all" means.
Private health insurance and your job providing it, presuming it even does, is so ingrained in our psyche that most people can't imagine something better and saying you want to replace feels like when a parent tries to take their kid's safety blanket away. That is why, as I said, it's important to campaign on it and win people over, to show them that though they're losing their safety blanket they're getting something that actually secures them and frees them to pursue jobs they want instead of any one that offers health insurance.
Indeed. They aren't as good.
If you want the Australian system then you need to first break private health insurance and then let it come back in a limited form. You're getting the order of operations wrong by trying to implement a public system while the private system is still firmly entrenched.
Booker, Harris, and Beto's favorable numbers have been really good in IA, NH, and nationally. That group should not be slept on.
Also, how does Warren have nearly 30% of Dems having an unfavorable view of her? Bernie and Bloomberg I get, but who has warren pissed off so much.