Newly obtained audio from a 2003 debate shows Kamala Harris, during her campaign for DA, faced criticism for overstating the number of cases she had tried as a prosecutor
She went up against Sanchez, a 10 term Dem Representative. Harris was picked by the Dem party leaders. In California, you don’t get a choice. Once the Dem party leaders pick and start endorsing… it’s just down ballot Dems.
Harris never trailed in polls or fundraising and was the consensus pick of the Democratic establishment. She was endorsed by President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Gov. Jerry Brown, Boxer and her soon-to-be Senate colleague from California — Dianne Feinstein.
I distinctly remember voting in that election, in that specific race. And on looking at it again, the electorate clearly had a choice. And in the general it wasn’t even a choice between Harris and an outright Republican. It was Harris or Sanchez (who as you point out is also a Democrat, at least in name).
Harris won by around 61% to 38%. Sanchez was a blue-dog, so she invariably garnered the votes of conservatives who voted in that race (the general). But Sanchez still lost convincingly to Harris.
And in the primary? Harris won handily there too. She and Sanchez smashed the ever-loving shit out of the opposition (38% and 18% respectively). The third place Democrat came in with just 2.2%. Yes, Harris has a very large war chest for that race. But regardless, a lot of people voted for her in both the primary and the general.
This narrative that Harris was forced on Californians without any say is false, and honestly it’s disingenuous. Yes, the party framing the election in a way they wanted had an impact. That’s how party’s work, not only in California, not only in America, but all over the world. But you don’t stroll to victory like Harris did purely on funding. If there was a genuine appetite for a hard-left candidates in CA they would have done much better in the primary. But they didn’t. The simple fact is that despite what some (both inside and outside for California) say, the state’s electorate is fairly moderate and pragmatic overall.
As I pointed out before, I’m talking about the 2016 Senate race. Because it shows that Harris was a viable political candidate in California then. And she’s clearly still a viable candidate here based on recent polls.
In 2016? Yeah. She also won in California by about 62% to 32% in the actual votes. That just reinforced my point that there isn’t a huge appetite in California on a state level for far left candidates.
Yet she was elected as a senator before then.
You weren’t supposed to say that part out loud! You ruined OP’s narrative.
She went up against Sanchez, a 10 term Dem Representative. Harris was picked by the Dem party leaders. In California, you don’t get a choice. Once the Dem party leaders pick and start endorsing… it’s just down ballot Dems.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/election-senate-kamala-harris-loretta-sanchez-barbara-boxer/
I distinctly remember voting in that election, in that specific race. And on looking at it again, the electorate clearly had a choice. And in the general it wasn’t even a choice between Harris and an outright Republican. It was Harris or Sanchez (who as you point out is also a Democrat, at least in name).
Harris won by around 61% to 38%. Sanchez was a blue-dog, so she invariably garnered the votes of conservatives who voted in that race (the general). But Sanchez still lost convincingly to Harris.
And in the primary? Harris won handily there too. She and Sanchez smashed the ever-loving shit out of the opposition (38% and 18% respectively). The third place Democrat came in with just 2.2%. Yes, Harris has a very large war chest for that race. But regardless, a lot of people voted for her in both the primary and the general.
This narrative that Harris was forced on Californians without any say is false, and honestly it’s disingenuous. Yes, the party framing the election in a way they wanted had an impact. That’s how party’s work, not only in California, not only in America, but all over the world. But you don’t stroll to victory like Harris did purely on funding. If there was a genuine appetite for a hard-left candidates in CA they would have done much better in the primary. But they didn’t. The simple fact is that despite what some (both inside and outside for California) say, the state’s electorate is fairly moderate and pragmatic overall.
Edit: typo fix and minor clarification.
The 2020 presidential primary.
As I pointed out before, I’m talking about the 2016 Senate race. Because it shows that Harris was a viable political candidate in California then. And she’s clearly still a viable candidate here based on recent polls.
Know who was “winning” in the polls? Hilldawg.
In 2016? Yeah. She also won in California by about 62% to 32% in the actual votes. That just reinforced my point that there isn’t a huge appetite in California on a state level for far left candidates.