Kamala Harris

[Awsi Dooger]

71. IMO, there is too much Marcia Clark in her

First of all, understand that I am coming at this from a handicapper perspective. It is always difficult for me on this site because I am accustomed to free-for-all environments on sports sites and sports wagering venues. Blunt assessment is valued and considered a necessity. The cheerleader types and tippy-toe types are not respected. On partisan political sites the dynamic can be reversed, and I often struggle with it.

I think Kamala Harris is much closer to John Kerry caliber than Barack Obama caliber. That would be my base summary. She is being confused as special when in fact her instincts are poor and the inherent weaknesses would show up at the wrong moments during a fall campaign. Harris certainly could defeat Trump but it would require Trump to remain at his current approval level and not 2-3 points higher.

Let me get this out of the way before going further: If we have a black female nominee then the polling is going to overstate her numbers. More people would say they would vote for her, than would actually vote for her. Misogyny is very real. The Andrew Gillum example is very fresh, and devastating to me as a Floridian. Just because a charismatic midwestern male like Barack Obama did not suffer compared to his polling does not mean the angle is gone. Nominating a black female liberal from a coastal liberal state would test every bit of it. As someone who prioritizes margin for error, I really don't want to test every bit of it.

Marcia Clark was given that O.J. Simpson case because she was incredibly effective and respected in high profile cases like Rebecca Schaeffer, the actress slain outside her complex front door. Clark was accustomed to being on offense. She thought she had special bond with jurors, particularly black female jurors. The O.J. Simpson case was being confused as a slam dunk case, by Clark and others in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Not until the Simpson defense was far beyond anything Clark had ever encountered or could anticipate, both in caliber of argument and caliber of deceit, did all of Marcia Clark's weaknesses show up. Now she's scowling. Now she's barking. She can't believe she is actually on defense in a slam dunk case. Consequently her instincts are being tested like never before, and she butchers many big picture decisions, like allowing 9 black females on the jury despite focus groups indicating that type of juror would hold animosity to Nicole. She failed to veto the glove demonstration by Christopher Darden, which should have been Lead Prosecutor 101.

And so forth. Again, I realize comparisons like this are more common and accepted on sports sites than political sites. I do not apologize. I trust my instincts. And Kamala Harris has verified those instincts recently by failing to provide a competent response to questions about her prosecutor past. She can't wish those questions away. The "modern day lynching" comment regarding Smollett would have been a surprising gaffe from any of our other candidates. From Kamala Harris it was almost the favorite. Her explanation of that has been pathetic so far.

Our nominee is going to be on defense in fall 2020. It doesn't matter what it looks like now. Defeating an incumbent is a monumental uphill task. I want someone who understands that right how, instead of being jolted late in the game as it unfolds that way, like Marcia Clark in the mid '90s. I simply don't trust Kamala Harris in that scenario, and the type of decisions her instincts would allow when it is one barrage of new unexpected onslaught variables every day. A male is best suited to deflect that type of thing. If we nominate a female it needs to be someone with innate charisma and patience, and not an attack dog type. I have hosted enough debate watching parties to know how that type of female plays among apolitical types.