Sadly Weak Democratic Bench Presages A Kamala Nomination

I live in California and I never voted for Kamala Harris for anything— not in a primary and not in a general election. If she winds up running against Trump, I’ll vote for her— eyes wide open. No one has to tell me how bad she is; I know. Better than Trump? Obviously. Better than Biden? Not worse and probably more likely to have a fighting chance of beating Trump. Better than the mediocre pack or corporate-friendly neo-liberals being offered by the media and pundits as the only alternatives to Biden? And that’s what’s so depressing about the SurveyUSA poll that came out this morning.

Not a single alternative offered is remotely progressive— and not a single one worthy of presidential consideration unless the only criteria is… would they make a better president than Trump? And not among the alternatives are some folks who really would make excellent presidents: Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley, Ro Khanna, Jamie Raskin, AOC… instead, we just get dreck— or at best mediocrities— like Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom, billionaire JB Pritzker, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Josh Shapiro, Gretchen Whitmer and, of course, Kamala.

Aside from her “top cop” reputation, the other critiques of Kamala are that she’s a corporate shill and that she agreed with a Medicare-for-All perspective but as soon as that looked unpopular with her corporate donors, she jettisoned the whole idea in a millisecond. 

FairVote’s interpretation is that if Biden does the right thing for the party and the country, Kamala’s got this pretty much locked up. It’s ranked choice polling in 6 swing states and there’s no doubt that Kamala “is the strong favorite among Democrats and independent respondents”— performing the best of all non-Biden options (Trump 46%-Harris 42%). In the end, she beats out her closest rival, Gretchen Whitmer 68-32%. She’s “the most popular first-choice candidate for both women and men, across every racial group, and across every age group among likely Democratic and independent voters.”

In case you’re wondering what I don’t like about the other contenders, let me give you just a fee bullet points:

Mayo Pete, the McKinsey consultant:

• Did I mention McKinsey?

• Pawn of the corporate donor class

• Anti-Medicare-for-All

• Charter school creep

• Mayor of South Bend, Indiana isn’t adequate preparation for the presidency
  

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (MI)

• Her support for Medicaid work requirements were punitive towards low-income individuals.

• Her pro-union protestations aside, she some of her policies and actions haven’t fully aligned with labor interests.

• Her handling of the Line 5 pipeline issue was scary and threatening to the Great Lakes

• She’s another one too dependent on campaign contributions from corporate interests, including the fossil fuel industry. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom (CA)

• Close relationships with tech companies and business interests, which influence his policy decisions.

• His actions on homelessness are disqualifying.

• His environmental policies are disqualifying.

The whole bunch of them are incrementalist corporate Dems, closely tied to the Establishment, who all aspire to be labeled “moderate,” doing all they can to avoid addressing the sweeping reforms needed to address systemic issues in healthcare, the economy, criminal justice and climate change. Not one is likely to willingly take any bold, progressive stances, instead aligning more with maintaining the status quo.