,
15 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Got a lot of (mostly really racist) shit this a.m. for casually responding to a Tweet in which @KamalaHarris said she would consider @staceyabrams as a running mate by saying it'd make Trump's head explode and it'd be a great ticket. I mean really really racist shit.
Also got a bunch of DC pundit types explaining to me that I am living in a bubble to even contemplate such a thing. Which compels me to do something I seldom do in the face of such a reaction. And that is offer a brief response.
Not to the racists or the bots but to those on the right and in the punditocracy that laugh at such a ticket. (Even one brought up in passing, on Twitter of all places.) First, @KamalaHarris is one of only five people in the world right now with a legit shot at being president.
@KamalaHarris And frankly, I'm not sure about one or two of the others. If Biden stumbles--not a zero possibility--she is well placed to step up. She and Warren lag in the polls largely on name recognition and we are a long way from the election.
Further, she is the only one of the Dem candidates to have actually run a large bureaucracy, is a strong debater, could appeal to a broad cross-section of the Dem base, is gaining traction in key states and is almost sure to get stronger.
Further, she is a candidate who could run for two terms (Biden and Sanders could not) and she could energize the electorate. Abrams very likely would have won the election in Georgia if the GOP had not cheated. In fact, she probably did win it.
That makes her a red state candidate that would balance a Harris ticket. She is a great campaigner. She is brilliant. In fact, it is clear, people would be salivating over a Harris-Abrams ticket if both were white men. Which brings us to the fact they are not.
The last three popular votes have been won by a woman and a black man. The black man holds the record for the biggest popular vote in our history. The woman is second. In fact, if you look at the past six elections you can add to that that the 2000 popular vote was won by...
...the most well-known green activist candidate in our history. The electorate is shifting and will continue to in favor of more diverse candidates. For those who note Trump won the electoral college--he did, can't deny that. But he was a theory back then and today we know him.
He is the worst president in our history. He is likely to face additional scandals in the year ahead. We are likely to face a recession. He has alienated much of his base. And so the polls showing a close race between Harris and Trump are likely to shift in her favor.
Am I saying this is the only good ticket? No. Am I saying it is ideal? No. Am I saying that it is absolutely credible and has much going for it and would pose real problems for Trump and the GOP to campaign against? Oh yes.
I can hardly imagine a better way to respond to a party that has decided to make racism the centerpiece of its identity than a ticket like this. (Or Warren-Harris, Harris-Warren, Warren-Castro, Harris-Booker or Warren-Booker or...well, there are lots of great possibilities.)
The point is that dismissing this as crazy bubble thinking is cavalier and in fact, bubble thinking. And thinking a woman or a person of color or a woman of color would not be a strong candidate in today's America...against Trump...is also just foolish and ignores recent history.
If you don't like the--very off-the-cuff, rather casual--analysis, fine. But take a moment to ask whether what led to the dismissive response was racism, inside-the-beltway conventional thinking, or some combination of the two.
A winning Dem ticket should be diverse, should celebrate the party's inclusiveness, & should be built to lead for eight more years. It should also be the very best, smartest, most capable, talented, candidates we can muster. Both @KamalaHarris & @staceyabrams meet those criteria.
