Ryoichi Sasakawa
Jul 27, 2017 · 3 min read

You don’t frequent anywhere I post, but I actually called this like only a week after the election. They alternated between “SHE’S RUNNING AGAIN” or “KAMALA HARRIS 2020!!!” You can even already order relevant campaign tchotckes!

What’s really funny is they even have similar fuzzy histories, just on a much smaller more localised scale for Ms Harris, like taking donations from slum lords to drop cases. These are small donations, but they’re small complaints as well. Nuisances. It’s just setting the groundwork for future mischief. Ir’a like an inoffensively-seeming “mini-whitewater”

Then there’s how her initial career path took off. They even have similar temperament. Nothing damning, in her pre-fame past, yet, but it does set down character traits that we've all become familiar with over the past couple years… Do a little wrong here, do a little surface-good to ‘even it out’ there… Such as trading kowtowing to Mnuchin for disavowing Prop 8.

As you can also see in that last link, her stance on police brutality is also spotty at best. She pleases neither the police, nor the activists. What’s that old saying about in trying to pander to all you only piss off everyone?

“She’s perceived as very, very difficult to work for,” one strategist familiar with the campaign told The Hill. “She doesn't have real relationships and partnerships. She has acquaintances.”

The fundraising numbers point to the problem, the strategist said.

“Here she is, she’s running for Senate, as an African American woman, she should be raising gobs of money,” the source said. “The fact that she’s raising one and a half to 2 million a quarter, is absurd.

“She expects fundraisers who helped Obama to help her…She gets upset when donors don’t flock to her, it drives her crazy that she actually has to meet and talk with people,” the source added.”

“ Since announcing her bid for the Senate in January, Harris has raised $5.9 million and spent $2.6 million, at a relatively high burn rate of 44 percent. In the most recent fundraising quarter, Harris raised $1.7 million and spent $1.4 million at an even higher burn rate of 82 percent, according to Federal Elections Commission filings.

Her main rival, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), has a burn rate of just 25 percent, but is raising significantly less money.

She has taken $1 million from contributors since announcing in May, and has also loaned her campaign $300,000 and transferred $500,000 from her House account. Sanchez has spent just $250,000 to date.

Harris has been spending at roughly double the rate of other Democrats running in safe seats such as Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Ron Wyden (R-Ore.), the Sacramento Bee pointed out in an analysis of Harris’ spending.”

You can bet she’s in the top 3 potential picks. Possibly even ahead of Chelsea

I can already forsee the repeat. All the superdelegates go to her at the start while the Berner pick, Tulsi Gabbard, gets crowded out of media notice. All the same sneery know-it-all smug putdowns over ‘oh you had to know she would never stand a chance of winning anyway!’ that Bernie got.

Plus you have to think, they believe their campaign was flawless, if not for those damned emails…..

Well, Kamala doesn't have an albatross of a foundation to deal with.

That means she must be even more perfect a candidate, right?

At least they won’t be able to get away with that fucking calling everyone that disagrees a sexist next time, since both anti-establishment choices people are really pulling for are women. No Bernie Bro narrative this time!

And, I see below someone already got around to posting better examples of the Mnuchin stuff so I took my source for that off. Good show, Ben!

Make no mistake, this IS Clinton 2.0, the cleaner, less scandalised attempt.

    Ryoichi Sasakawa

    Written by

    /mlp/has returned with less scruffy than ever! Admin of http://octabooru.net & http://rule34.paheal.net/post/list Hardcore pinko environmentalist/socialist scumbag.