Kamala Harris says when she talks to parents on the campaign trail, one of their top concerns is that their daughters won't have access to abortion in college
Charlie Spiering, summarizing a recent Kamal Harris interview.
I come from a sufficiently well-educated family such that my grandmother, Agnes, on my mother's side, had attended and graduated from university.
If you consider that she was born in 1891, that's quite the feat.
Now, I'll admit that my father was the first one to attend university on his side of the family, but his father, and his grandfather, and his great-grandfather, had all been successful businessmen at a time at which you didn't need a college education to be one, or even a high school education for that matter. My father's father, who I never met, was universally regarded by those who knew him as extremely smart.
Indeed, I once was stopped on the sidewalk by an elderly lawyer who knew my father and his father, who asked about the family. My son must have been in high school at the time, and the odd question "is he extremely smart. . . " like all of the members of the family.
I often, frankly, feel that I'm on the bottom end of the family intelligence pool compared to my own father and my kids.
No real college parents anywhere have, as one of their top concerns, that their daughters won't be able to commit infanticide, unless they've drunk so deeply of the left wing Kool-Aid they're perusing brochures from The Young Pioneers.
Democratic campaigns for the Oval Office, or Democratic campaigns in general, are not smart.
They're about as dumb as can be.
From 1914 until 1980 the Democrats were masters at coalition building. The party kept hardhat workers, urban Irish Catholics, Hispanics, and the entire South together, which was frankly quite a feat. It supported unions and working class families, and generally was pretty pro farmer. It had a left wing, but it also had a conservative one as well. Starting in 1968, when it embraced American battlefield defeat to a degree, and then in 1973, when it took the bloody abortionist hand, it took a turn toward the left, and as it did that, it dumped democracy like a hot rock in favor of an imagined Platonic body of robed elders who would tell the people what to do, and they'd like it.
Absolutely everything about the current Democratic message is wrong, including some things that shouldn't be regarded as wrong, but which are in the current political atmosphere. One thing that's definitely wrong is the concept that infanticide is a winning ticket. It isn't. The Democrats have read single issue matters on ballots here incorrectly. Maybe in that'st the only thing on a ballot, you get the voters only concerned about that to come out. Otherwise, people aren't going to vote that way.
Moreover, if Harris is really being told this by the parents of college women, it's because she's talking to the most liberal parents imaginable, and they're going to say crap like that no matter what. Moreover, the college educated are largely voting for Biden already. Biden/Harris need to get votes that they don't already have. The college educated have largely already left the GOP.
What's left of the electorate that is in the GOP is made up of the working class, small business owners (some college educated), and residents of rural regions (including quite a few well-educated ones in those areas). They don't believe "diversity is strength", they aren't interested in tolerating non "Judeo-Christian" religions, or gender mutilation, and they feel that their lives and livelihoods are threatened by out of control illegal immigration. They love their regions, but they're largely incapable of believing in climate change in spite of the evidence. They quit listening to scientist and social scientist of all types because they were lied to about some things, and therefore don't believe any of it. They listen to Evangelical pastors who tell them what they want to hear, and who make their massive departures from Christian doctrine irrelevant by not mentioning them (ever hear any of them criticize Trump for living in an adulterous relationship, which by conventional Christianity he is? Or of an Evangelical Church refusing to marry two people who have been married before?)
When I first started practicing law, a firm partner, a true Christian gentleman, told me about litigation that "this isn't a nice game". It isn't. Politics is even less so, and you have to be smart about it.
There's 0 reason that the Biden/Harris ticket needs to mention abortion at all. Where that's been an issue, they had no role in it. And they're driving Democrats away right now who are Catholic, which includes the Hispanic voters they imagine they'll be gaining. And their absolute incompetence on the border is in fact a good reason to vote against them. A competent ticket would shut up on abortion and would make a very serious effort on the border.
Obama, it might be noted, had a very controlled border. And while he was President before Dobbs, he didn't say much about abortion either.
He won twice.
Pointing out that more IRS agents punishes the wealthy, not the middle class, would help too. Pointing out that Trump has been a personally immoral man, might as well. Pointing out that he was the one who surrendered to the Taliban would as well.
And parking Harris somewhere would be a good idea, if not dumping her entirely.
And that's where you have to say thing that re uncomfortable.
Al Smith was the Democratic nominee for President in 1928. He would have won, but he was Catholic. Yes, that meant a lot of the electorate was bigoted, but it also meant that the Democrats weren't smart in running him.
They would be now, but Smith wouldn't be a Democrat any longer. He'd likely be an independent. He wasn't willing to compromise on his Catholicism, like Joe Biden has, and he wasn't a liar of any kind either.
Kamala Harris is like Al Smith in one fashion. She reminds bigoted voters who they hate. She's a lawyer (regular people hate lawyers), she's the child of two immigrants (MAGA people don't like immigrants), one of whom was Indian and the other Jamaican, making her a "person of color" (a lot of MAGA people really don't like people of color, let alone immigrant people of color), she's married to an entertainment lawyer (oh, oh) who is Jewish (again, MAGA people like Israel, but Jews. . . ) and the children of the couple are from his first marriage, meaning she has low parent street cred.
Are any of those items a reason not to vote for Harris? Absolutely not. Her policies are a reason not to vote for Harris. But will some MAGA people vote for Trump for these reasons? You bet they will, and in a race this close, in a handful of states that matter, that's a problem.
I don't know who would be a better VP candidate. Amy Klobuchar strikes me as one who would be better in every fashion. If you could find an American Christian Levantine politician (and there definitely are some) they'd be absolutely perfect, particularly if the choice was a woman. But what I am saying is that in a race with democracy itself on the ticket, choosing to go with a candidate this old for President, and a VP who is so disliked, is just dumb. And emphasizing the aspects of your campaign that the populist right hates, even if they do so wrongly on some of them, and the nervous middle aren't comfortable with, isn't very smart either. Having the disliked person, even if the dislike is immoral, who people fear might end up President isn't very smart, either.
This isn't a nice game. Sometimes choices have to be made in the candidates and the strategy that aren't very palatable. A lot of Republicans will do what Cynthia Lummis admitted to doing in 2016 as to Trump, and "hold her nose and vote". The Democrats should hold their noses and make some smart choices.
But they will not.
