Why a black woman will not be running for President.

[pnwmom]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/opinion/kamala-harris-black-women.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

In the end, however, she and other candidates were hamstrung by the same thing that has sheltered Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg — the structural discrimination that comes from how we define electability. The left’s hyper-focus on beating President Donald J. Trump in 2020 has also resulted in a re-narrowing of who is electable in ways that many assumed had forever changed after 2008.

Thrown about as an identity-neutral term, there is no doubt that, in 2019, electability means white male centrist. In the shadow of America’s first black president, it seems that only white men who take positions that are more conservative than the party’s base can overcome the misogyny and racism of the current president, not women or racial minorities and certainly not a black woman.

It is doubtful whether or not having the support of the African-American community would overcome this. Currently, Pete Buttigieg has tiny black support and he is still seen as a viable candidate. This is the challenge going forward for flawed candidates like Ms. Harris or for that perfect black female candidate people seek — convincing the media and the electorate to reject the tendency to revert to traditional understandings of who can be president. If flawed white male candidates are still “highly electable,” then where is the space for flawed black, white, Latina, Asian or Native ones?

To be clear, this is not just a story of white voters rejecting her candidacy, though they did. It’s also about black voters doing the same. Any time a black politician has to demonstrate her blackness or prove her connections to the black community, she is already in serious trouble. But why were blacks so suspicious? None of it seemed to be enough — not her decision to attend a historically black college, join a black sorority, not even her black father. This I still don’t understand. Nor do I understand her lack of a response to these suspicions that, I suspect, people have expressed throughout her life. She should have been ready, and the fact that she fumbled portended larger problems.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. Eventually a black woman will run for President.

And eventually one will be elected.

I am not about to attempt to predict when that will be. After all, if we'd surveyed people here on DU in, say, 2007, they'd have said having a black man elected President was probably twenty years in the future.

I'm old enough to recall that when Jack Kennedy was running, the conventional wisdom was that a Catholic could not possibly become President.

Yeah, white Protestant men have been President all too often, and it's time to embrace our genuine diversity.

[DownriverDem]

20. Women - Black or White

need to be VP first. Too many folks will not vote for a woman president. We need a VP to show them in this leadership role. Am I proud of this? No, but I am a realist.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

34. I don't agree that a woman needs to be VP first.

Obviously, neither one of us can "prove" our take here. Only time will tell.

If we were having a discussion in 2006 about when a black man might become President, I wouldn't be surprised if the perceived wisdom wouldn't have been that one would need to be VP first.

I think the bigger hurdle is expression of religion. We have a long way to go before someone who doesn't at least pretend to be a "good Christian" can actually be elected.

[still_one]

2. Perhaps Senator Harris lost support because her message was not clear, and this is

evidenced by Elizabeth Warren whose message has been clear and concise

People have many reasons for preferring one candidate over another, and for some people it has nothing to do with race or gender, but messaging

[ritapria]

12. Well said

Candidates need to take strong, clear positions on major issues like healthcare ….. Biden and Buttigieg clearly oppose MFA … Until recently , both Bernie and Warren were clearly for MFA .. When Kamala and Elizabeth began attempting to please everyone on healthcare , their numbers began to fall ……..

[phleshdef]

3. As a Biden supporter, I get the "sheltered by electability" thing, but Buttigieg, as a gay man...

...is definitely not sheltered by the electability argument. This country is still extremely homophobic.

I'm not saying he couldn't win. I think he he is a very talented, brilliant and well tempered public servant (reminds me a little bit of Obama sometimes).

But lets not act like being gay isn't an uphill climb for someone running for President. It definitely is.

[pnwmom]

5. A 37 year old black lesbian Mayor of a town of about 100K would not be taken seriously

as a candidate for President, even if she had been in the military and had gone to Oxford.

He benefits from white privilege even though he is gay.

[phleshdef]

6. Nice strawman. He doesn't benefit nearly as much as he would if he were straight.

And that was the point I was making.

But hey, if you want to minimize a group of people that have been shit on by society by saying "oh but these folks over here have it much worse", then thats all on you. I don't think you are helping anyone who suffers from being a subject of any kind of socially constructed identity label.

[pnwmom]

13. He is hurt by the prejudice in the society that remains, however,

he has also gained from positive media attention -- because most of the media is enthusiastic about his success.

Women are more than half the voting population but didn't even get the vote till about a hundred years ago, and there still has never been a woman President. So please let's not pretend that gay men have a more difficult time being elected President than women, out or not.

[mr_lebowski]

28. I kinda think until we actually HAVE one or the other, it's hard to make a definitive assessment ...

20 years ago I'd bet if you'd polled the public they'd have thought a woman would be elected before a black man ... probably have been close to 50/50, but I think a woman would have been ahead. If you'd thrown a white gay male into that equation, he'd have polled the lowest of the three, very handily.

Point being until it happens, we don't really know which is bigger hindrance.

Sadly, I would say I'd bet on a white woman winning POTUS before a woman of color ... but 10 years from now when Abrams is the first female POTUS and proves that idea wrong, I'll be very happy to say '10 years ago I was way wrong!'

[Demsrule86]

38. No matter how Buttigeig does in Iowa or New Hampshire...he will be out when we move on to

more diverse states as he like Harris can't attract AA voters. Harris is out because she could get support...it is not a national tragedy...but the way elections work always. You can give access to all but can't guarantee any particular outcome.

[oldsoftie]

10. When Butteigeig first started, everyone laughed. The RIGHT woman could do it.

[pnwmom]

14. Oh, yeah, the right woman. As if there hasn't been one right woman in the last 100 years.

Or in the hundred + years before then, when women weren't even allowed to vote.

You can be for damned sure that first woman President wouldn't have been a lesbian.

Mayor Pete looks and sounds like the kind of person many Americans are used to having for President -- more so than any woman. So many Americans who might be put off by his being gay find themselves able to ignore it. Meanwhile, if any woman candidate had the appearance or voice of a man, that would immediately be a huge strike against her. She's in a no win situation. She can come across as a female, which is perceived as lesser kind of person; or she can be viewed as strong and capable, which makes her less of a woman. (Which was why Hillary was so often mocked as probably being lesbian. In the eyes of many, she wasn't appropriately female.)

[mr_lebowski]

31. And she lost by less than 80K votes across 3 key states ... and won by 3M nationwide

I think the argument that the US is too misogynistic to elect a Female POTUS ... is extremely tenuous at this point, no offense ... that election was SO close, it's borderline nonsense to claim a woman CAN'T win.

It does have to be the 'right woman', just as it has to be the 'right man'. At least in the eyes of the 'right people' i.e. the all-freaking important 'swing state voters'.

[Demsrule86]

39. This is a sexist country...regrettably. You will not be able to force voters to vote for a women

candidate-no matter how worthy. There will come a time when the candidate will overcome such obstacles as Obama did...and then and only then we will have a woman president...I hope I live to see it. That being said, I don't think this is what caused Harris to fail. She simply did not have enough support...partly because of her message or lack of message. I also think her attacks on Biden and Gabbard did her no good. And she did not respond to questions about her time as AG and DA...that being said, I would not be surprised if Harris runs again and maybe wins next time.

[pnwmom]

41. Her attacks on GABBARD? Gabbard went after her with lies the very first debate. nt

[Demsrule86]

45. It didn't do Gabbard any good either...I hear you...but the 'you are so far beneath me, I will not

address anything you have top say kind of reply' was a mistake. Harris needed to address her time as DA and AG. She didn't do this and I believe this is why she is out.

[still_one]

19. Absolutely.

[DownriverDem]

22. Too many

folks seem to be supporting who they like with no thought to who can actually win.

[lapfog_1]

4. Kamala had 20,000 people at her launch announcement

lots of donors early on (I was one).

She appealed to more moderate WHITE college educated voters (men and women) more than she appealed to black voters once Biden entered the race. This was mainly because of her record as a prosecutor and DA and AG.

Mostly it was the fact that she never appealed to the very liberal "base" which is currently split between Bernie and Warren so she had to carve out her support from the same group that is either with Biden, Mayor Pete, Amy Klobachar, and the huge collection of mostly white male whats-their-names that thought this was a golden opportunity (many of whom are now dropping out).

The debates were a joke... you can't get anything other than "gotcha sound bites" when you have more than 10 people at podiums on a stage. She delivered one... which hurt her as much as helped her.

After that... can anyone tell me what her positions are on virtually anything? Health Care? Climate Change? Race relations? Economic reform? military support? Taxes? ... her message, if she had one, simply disappeared. I also blame the media... I said they would make this a close horse race before it even started. Whoever was "in front" or "scored points" would be attacked... and look what has happened... Biden was attacked for being a segregationist sympathizer and for being too old, Warren for not explaining how to pay for M4A and when she did, for not being realistic, Mayor Pete for "not connecting with black voters" and whatever the hell else someone makes up. Anytime ANYONE establishes a "front runner status" the media is right there with the negative stories.

So right after her take down of Biden... we started hearing about how her conduct as a DA and state AG and how she went for the "max" in this case or that case. And that was it. Add in the money raising factor and the billionaires self funding huge advertising buys... and the typical Senator or Governor really can't compete for even name recognition.

If only 3 or 4 democrats entered the race... if the older generation (Biden, Bernie, Warren) had decided to not run... I think she would have had a decent shot at it. Doesn't help, btw, that she was from California... I think the country has a negative attitude about people from California now (a right wing meme, but it infects even democrats)...

But I don't think that it was that she was a black woman.

[still_one]

7. Really, people have a negative attitude about people from California that include "Democrats"?

I respectively disagree, and from Nancy Pelosi to Adam Schiff I think demonstrates that assessment is incorrect.

I think your other points make a great deal of sense.

[sweetloukillbot]

21. Pelosi was getting pilloried left and right from the moment we retook the house

Until she announced the impeachment. And she still gets it to a much lesser degree whenever she has a presser that doesn't include the words "Contempt of Congress."
Not sure it's because she's from California, but there's still major negativity towards her.

[still_one]

24. I am referring to those in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. The "left" does NOT necessarily represent

the voice of the Democratic party, though our illustrious media goes out of their way to present it as such.

The Democratic party is a big tent, with many diversities, and just looking at the primary polls is an indication of that.

Just because the media gives a lot of attention to segments within the Democratic that are not aligned with Speaker Pelosi, doesn't mean that is what it is.

California is a complex state, and assumptions made about California by those who do not live here are many times way off base.

[sweetloukillbot]

29. California is also good code for the right on a lot of subjects

Hollywood - "Jews"
San Francisco - "Teh Gay"
Coast elites...
It works for gang violence and immigration as well.

[beachbumbob]

8. the reality is still the reality, electablity is what gets people elected

[PunkinPi]

9. Electability isn't known until votes are actually cast. Polls can be wildly inaccurate. nt

[oldsoftie]

11. Michelle Obama, a black woman, would walk away with this election.

Harris just wasnt the RIGHT "black woman". Had little to do with her BEING a black woman. And Barack Obama had to deal with the same "black enough" nonsense from the black community when HE started out. And his was even worse IMO.

[ismnotwasm]

15. Bullshit

[oldsoftie]

17. Well thought out response. Wrong, but still very well stated.

But keep blaming the boogeyman!

[still_one]

25. I don't think it has anything to do with race, but messaging. I do agree though that President

Obama had some very challenging things he had to deal with. The one issue that could have derailed his whole campaign was the Reverend Wright controversy. He handled beautifully though.

I might note that some comments made here at the time were quite upset with President Obama because he didn't embrace Reverend Wright's statements at the time.

Which only demonstrates that the assessment by some "even here" is not always on target

[oldsoftie]

42. I pretty much agree with that.

[JoeDuck]

16. Michelle for president!

I agree. I am ready to vote for a woman, a black woman, a lesbian black woman. Or a white woman, a lesbian white woman. An atheist lesbian white woman. Or a white or black man, gay, or whatever. But I never felt that Kamala Harris was my candidate of choice. Michelle Obama? I would definitely vote for her. I wish she would jump into the race. My concern about all of the candidates is this: They have good ideas, but how will they manage to get anything through an obstructionist bunch of Republicans. I live in Kentucky and I want Mitch McConnell to fade into the sunset along with Donald Trump.

[oldsoftie]

18. Every poll that has included her shows her winning by a large margin

Even Steve freakin' Bannon said so
Even Rasmussen had her winning by 10 points.
But I understand why she wouldnt want to. She served her time.

[oasis]

23. IMO, an early Michelle announcement would've shrunk the amount of

candidates by more than half. Biden, especially would have passed.

[LanternWaste]

35. You have objective data to support this?

"Harris just wasnt (sic) the RIGHT "black woman". Had little to do with her BEING a black woman."

You have objective data to support this? Or will the fictional boogeyman you mention prevent that from being available?

[oldsoftie]

43. Hush, adults are talking.

[no_hypocrisy]

26. I think that the question should be "Can an African American woman be elected *outside*

her community/region/state?"

In my neck of NJ (Paterson/Passaic County), there are plenty of women of all races and national origins and ages who run successfully for office, serve their constituents well. They are supported by local organizations (WEDO/Women Empowered Democratic Organization) and by the local, regional, and state party. That doesn't mean that any of them could necessarily win a presidential election unless they are supported and voted for by those outside our geography.

[flotsam]

27. " Why a black woman will not be running for President."?

A black woman WAS running until 48 hours ago...and in spite of the fact the democrats ran Hillary Clinton as their chosen 2016 candidate stories still abound about discrimination and prejudice in democratic primaries. We've elected a Black man and run a white woman and a woman and a gay man are among the four current top runners. Time to simply admit your candidate failed and make a second choice. In America there are second acts and if Harris is worthy we will see her's.

[treestar]

30. She's not blaming race

Or misogyny. I haven't heard Harris use these once.

This is a one person office; it is not as if there will never be another white man who is our nominee. We had a big first with the first black President - that doesn't mean every President has to be black, female, gay, etc. There will be other firsts. We tried to have two in a row (first woman President, who really did win), but we don't have to disqualify every white man from now on. And every person who is black or female or gay - they could possibly lose naturally. It could be a factor but you are talking about Democrats, and we are all liberals.

[oldsoftie]

44. Well that just makes too much sense!

And you're right. Hadnt thought of it, but she HASNT mentioned either. Which is a testament to her strength

[underthematrix]

32. As an African American woman I find it disturbing that race is now being used to

explain Harris' exit from the race. She's my senator and I love her as my senator.

With that said, there are five reasons Harris faltered:

1. Black people expected a female version of President Obama and discovered she had neither his oratory, his vision or his presidential swag
2. Her disturbing interview with Daily Show host Trevor Noah in which the host had to remind her she was on the show because she was running for president, not favorite auntie.
3. Her policy pronouncements seemed poll driven rather than vision driven
4. Her one-on-one interviews lacked depth and verbal elegance
5. Her attack on Joe Biden - shocking and vicious. this was the most egregious.

[pnwmom]

33. "had to remind her" "favorite auntie"?

I didn't see that interview, or find it on google, but it sure sounds sexist to me.

[underthematrix]

36. At the time, I taped because I'm not a regular TDS viewer.

Noah is a comedian. He was making a point in a funny way. He was saying show us your presidential swag. It didn't seem sexist to me.

[pnwmom]

40. You said:

2. Her disturbing interview with Daily Show host Trevor Noah in which the host had to remind her she was on the show because she was running for president, not favorite auntie.

Of course this is sexist. So many Biden supporters look past all his gaffes and over-friendliness, and yet this male comedian "had to remind" her that she was running for President, not favorite auntie.

Men running for President are allowed to just be nice and funny when they're in an interview with a comedian. Women have to act Presidential 100% of the time, apparently. (But when they do, like Hillary, they're criticized for being too stiff.)

Do you think if Senator Obama had been in an interview with Noah, Noah would reminded him that he was running for President, not favorite Uncle?

[oldsoftie]

46. Well, people constantly refer to Biden as "good 'ol Jucle Joe". Thats sexist too?

Theres nothing wrong with either. People need to get a grip for gods sake

[MineralMan]

37. Kamala Harris was just not quite ready to run for President.

She just didn't quite get the magnitude of being a successful candidate for that office. I was really excited about her after her launch rally, and said so right here. Sadly, she didn't grow as a candidate as well as she needed to. She was unknown, except in California. She didn't have a well thought-set of goals she could articulate at the drop of a hat.

Here's what I think. If Biden decides, as he might do, to choose her as his running mate, she'll have four years to build her national experience and credibility. Then, in four years, or eight years, she'd be well positioned to run again and possibly win the Democratic nomination. Biden, I think, will put a lot of responsibility on his VP's shoulders. Not just to offload that responsibility, but to set up a potential successor. I'm pretty sure that Kamala Harris is smart enough and capable enough to rise to whatever occasion presented to her. I think she would be formidable after a stint as VP.

So, let's see what happens. Kamala Harris is a US Senator right now. That's also a cred-building position to hold, and she has done well in her presentation as a Senator. Let's see what happens. I'm still excited about her, but she just wasn't quite ready for a presidential run in 2019. She will be soon, though.

[oldsoftie]

47. I agree. And she would one tough VP candidate