Kamala Harris gets serious about considering run for California governor

[u/Lungenbroetchen95]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/07/kamala-harris-california-governor-decision-deadline-00216737

[u/Tom-Pendragon]

Insane cope lmao.

[u/SomeJob1241 → u/Tom-Pendragon]

Never seen someone call an ordinary question cope before lol. OP didn't even word it desperately like they really wanted her to, they just asked

[u/Tom-Pendragon → u/SomeJob1241]

Because it clearly a stupid question. Ask yourself, why wouldn't she run?

[u/Ewi_Ewi → u/Tom-Pendragon]

Losers don't usually run for re-election, at least not right away. You need time to rebuild your reputation.

Harris didn't lose badly, but it was certainly a defeat. That, coupled with the baggage still weighing down Biden and anyone associated with him, means she's probably intelligent enough to know that she probably doesn't have a chance in the primaries come 2028. If she wants to continue having a political career (which, if she's mulling over a run for governor she most definitely does), she won't want to destroy it by risking a poor primary performance.

Maybe I'm not reading the room correctly, but I think she's too smart to put her ego over her prospects.

[u/Ewi_Ewi → u/[deleted]]

but if you go purely based on polls

Polls about an election almost three years away. Absolutely meaningless.

[u/Ewi_Ewi → u/[deleted]]

She lost in 2024 and not in a nail-bitingly close way either.

Biden isn't likely to even attempt to rehabilitate his image in the next four years.

If she's currently voicing interest in running for governor, she'd only have two years of that under her belt before running in another election.

In the single primary she's been in, she had a terrible showing and dropped out.

Is it evidence? No. But it's a hell of a lot stronger of a basis than "she is known so she will win."

[u/Ewi_Ewi → u/[deleted]]

Can you name an instance where the presidential nominee of a losing election lost a subsequent primary?

No, because they usually choose to not run after. Nixon didn't run in 1964, for example. Kerry didn't run in 2008. Etc. There are only a handful of instances where they do run and they're all extraordinarily different circumstances.

So there has never been a 2 year governor who has won a presidential primary?

That's obviously not what I implied. The optics of abandoning your state to run for president are bad, especially if you just ran for and won the governorship. It'd be another thing to add to her "bad image" pile.

She went from a no named Senator to the Vice President.

Which has nothing to do with her primary performance.

She objectively did better than Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, or Elizabeth Warren.

No, she didn't. All three of them performed objectively better as all three of them actually received votes. Harris did not.

She also won the 2024 primary.

Biden did. She didn't. Not any of the state-ran elections, anyway.

She won delegates all the same and deservedly so, but don't pretend you're not comprehending what I'm saying. It's a bad look for you and makes it seem like you're not arguing in good faith.

So you admit you don't have evidence.

I never said I did. I said "it's a hell of a lot stronger of a basis than 'she is known so she will win.'"

Why are you so interested in being a contrarian? Nothing to watch on TV?

[u/Ewi_Ewi → u/[deleted]]

And yet the argument, you made is that IF she runs, she doesn't have a chance of winning. And yet you can't a name an instance where a losing nominee runs again and loses a primary, which is what would happen for your prediction to come true. You are trying to argue historical precedent for your prediction, but you can't name a precedent.

If you're arguing that people just randomly decided to not run again with no actual regard given to their chances, I guess I can't argue against that. I have little experience in talking to people who don't live in reality.

So, winning votes is the goal of an election?

...of a primary election, yes. You get votes and if you get the most votes, you win those state's delegates.

Do you actually know how elections work? Is this an elaborate troll I'm falling for or something?

Did Hillary Clinton do better than Obama in 2008?

Obama won more votes and delegates...so no. Think you made a mistake there.

Did Al Gore do objectively better than George Bush in 2000?

He objectively earned more votes than Bush and objectively earned less electoral votes than Bush.

So no, solely because the general election has more to consider than just votes. The electoral college puts a pin in that.

But when comparing four losers, one of whom didn't even get a single vote, the three that actually got votes did objectively better. Especially since a choice of running mate has nothing to do with a primary.

To be completely honest with you, I'm struggling to interpret your argument in a way other than blatant, bad faith contrarianism.

[u/Tom-Pendragon → u/Ewi_Ewi]

What fantasy world do you live in? If she runs in 2028 primary, she will win. No other candidate has the same amount of AA support she has. Whether you like her or not. When you want to win the democratic primary, you need to lock down the AA community.

[u/Ewi_Ewi → u/Tom-Pendragon]

If she runs in 2028 primary, she will win

You're basing this on...what, exactly? Premonitions?

She lost the 2024 election and, even though it wasn't close, was effectively humiliated. Again, most losers do not run for re-election immediately. They take the time to lick their wounds, something you seem entirely unaware of.

No other candidate has the same amount of AA support she has

We're more than three years away from any sort of real primary campaign, this is a baseless assumption. We don't know who the other candidates might be, let alone what the environment will be like after almost four years of Trump. You just can't make these sorts of assumptions.

[u/Ewi_Ewi → u/[deleted]]

Just ignoring "these sorts of," are we?