I'll put it another way.
If Beto and Harris were both asked about Harris' record on criminal justice, isn't it possible that Harris could have a better response? Beto's response would be easier, but Kamala's response could be deeper. A deeper understanding of what went wrong because she was there, she did it, and she's been forced to reckon with herself ever since. She has first hand knowledge about what drove her past actions and can better understand what it takes to overcome those incentives, if she's given it serious introspection. I think it's possible she would be more motivated to be better on criminal justice because of her past, rather than in spite of it. An opportunity for her to make up for past mistakes. IF that's how she see is.
Of course, maybe she'll just make excuses and say what she thinks people will want to hear (this is certainly the more common approach we see).
I'm just saying both are possible. Kamala Harris has been who I think has the most potential, even if it's unlikely that potential ends up being expressed (I think it's more likely she'll play it safe, which is why my money would be on Beto).
Sure, this is possible, but I'm not going to trust this possibility enough to vote for her over someone without her history in the primary, frankly.
I'm not saying that she can't genuinely assess her past actions, the context of those actions, and how those actions harmed communities. I'm not saying that she can't then share a unique viewpoint about how her views have changed after living this history.
I'm just saying that I'm not going to vote for her words when there are also her actions available for evaluation; I'm going to vote based on her actions in the primary.
To that second paragraph, there is no POTUS Harris in 2023 if we're refusing to back her in 2020 because we don't trust her on criminal justice issues.
And to clarify, I'm just using your post as an example about how we're talking about primary candidates in general, the litmus test is very harsh.
I don't understand this post. There is no POTUS Harris in 2023 if she scares off a significant bloc of voters in 2019 because of her history, in which case, the primary process worked. And if she doesn't scare off that bloc, wins the primary, and wins the presidency, the primary process...also worked. What's your point here?
Right, and isn't that threshold defined by what they actually do? I have not seen Kamala's support for three-strike sentencing or Gillibrand's support for immigration crackdowns resurface as planks of their senate careers, for instance. Just the opposite. If legislative action as senators doesn't a reflect an evolution in thinking, then what does?
Harris's actions in the past, when she had more power than being in the minority of the Senate as she is now, carry more weight with me. But again, your argument here that Harris done "just the opposite" probably isn't actually true, at least in any substantive way. Hey, if this sentencing reform bill, which looks reasonably decent, gets out of the Senate with her vote, you'll have more of an argument than you currently have about Harris having clear markers of evolution on her positions w/r/t crime.
And please, the whining about my "controversial" remark is unbecoming, and it wasn't pointed at you anyway, so relax.
It's totally fair for people to have red lines in the primary. Like, personally, Warren is out for me after that DNA shit. Just brutally insensitive to Native people, and she's done nothing but triple down on it.
Harris doesn't cross a red line for me (isn't she in with that Abolish Bail movement now with Booker?), but it's fair if she does for other people.
Right? This is a primary. Dream big! Hold to your ideals!
Then get in line for the general.
