Can Kamala Harris win?

Now that Democrats are coming to grips with Biden's much-needed departure from the presidential race, it's time to choose the successor.

Being this late in the game, the logical choice is Biden's VP Kamala Harris.

But can Harris win?

She has a lot of things going for her.

Harris can beat Trump in November

She's got the name recognition, her policies have been out there since her run for the Democratic nomination in 2020, she was elected Vice President in 2020 and is on the Biden/Harris ticket that resoundingly swept the primaries in 2024.

Harris is a known commodity that could hit the campaign trail running.

And, perhaps the biggest reason of all, because Harris and Biden share a campaign committee, all $91 million on hand of the campaign's war chest would come Harris's way (which wouldn't likewise transfer to any other Democrat).

Note: Although, amazingly, that massive amount still trails Trump's $116 million, it towers above the available funds any other potential Democratic hopefuls might have.

Harris's polling tends to run a bit better than Biden's in a match-up with Trump. Her numbers are generally better, as well, with two demographics that are well-positioned to make a difference in the upcoming election: Blacks and women.

She has also gained renown as a champion for abortion and women's reproductive rights, an issue that has mobilized voters even in red states to support laws protecting a woman's right to choose. Ostensibly, Harris would bring those voters out in November, as well.

There are the Biden/Harris administration successes she could point to--bipartisan bills regarding infrastructure and semi-conductor production, for example--and what, by then, should be a much more positive picture regarding issues such as inflation and the border (especially with Biden's recent executive action).

And her experience as a California prosecutor would eviscerate Trump's positions and record--the exact opposite of what Biden should have done (and was unable to do) in his catastrophic June debate.

Some down sides: She's connected to the perceived failures of the Biden administration, i.e., inflation and immigration (the latter of which she was tasked with improving, pretty much to no avail); her disapproval rating runs higher than her approval (although she still fares better than both Biden and Trump); she fostered some policy and performance criticism during her time as San Francisco DA and California Attorney General; and the above-mentioned Biden/Harris administration successes appear to have been pretty much all Joe, no Kamala.

But there are two ENORMOUSLY important points that would help Kamala Harris win in November:

1) She's not Biden

2) She's not Trump

So, Democrats, let's get on with it.

It's Harris's time.

Bring on November.

Here's a great take about why Harris may NOT win (from Politico)

George Santos and Even More Terrifying Things

The recent House expulsion of NY GOP US Representative George Santos highlights three disturbing things: Santos's lies and alleged crimes, the trashing of the presumption of innocence, and the immense hypocrisy of the GOP, which continues to back its own indictment-laden leader, of which the last is the most terrifying.

First the good news: Santos is now free to pursue his other interests.

Perhaps he could investigate his "Jew-ish" heritage (including his OJ Simpson-style promise to prove that his Brazilian-born grandparents fled Hitler) or the "kidnapping" of his niece by Chinese Communists (law enforcement, which found no evidence, said, "I'd lean into, 'he made it up.'").

He could parlay into a new career his volleyball stardom from Baruch College or maybe a promotion at Goldman-Sachs.

He could go back to fundraising (he seems to have a soft spot for veterans and their sick dogs).

He could even explore his penchant for alternate identities (whether that of his donors or that of Anthony Devolder or Kitara Ravache).

As vile (and, in some cases, incredibly sadly comical) as Santos's alleged actions are, they pale in comparison to two others.

The first is the expulsion itself. Virtually all of the Democrats and nearly half the Republicans voted to expel Santos. It's disturbing that he hasn't been convicted of a crime. Our country prides itself on the belief that we are innocent until proven guilty. The US House of Representatives apparently no longer believes that. 

(It's notable that the US Senate hasn't expelled its own alleged king of corruption, New Jersey's Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, who is currently facing conspiracy and bribery charges--federal charges he also faced under different circumstances back in 2015--before he's tried in court)

With the Santos expulsion--only the sixth ever in the House, and ostensibly for accused crimes--the US House has thrown under the bus the presumption of innocence (although any decent politician would have likely resigned if they were in Santos's position). Although an ethics committee report was damning, the crimes are still only alleged, and no member of the House has been expelled without a conviction (of the previous five, three had fought for the Confederacy, and two were convicted of federal crimes). 

Despite the lies and alleged criminal actions of George Santos, we should all be disturbed that a precedent has been set for the country that doesn't bother to wait for the determination of the courts. And such a precedent can be the start of a slippery slope for the presumption of innocence.

But it gets worse.

Of the 220 GOP members in the House, 105 GOP members (48%) voted to expel Santos, not because he was a serial liar, but because of his alleged crimes. The House Committee of Ethics found that the NY Congressman “placed his desire for private gain above his duty to uphold the Constitution, federal law, and ethical principles.”

Which brings us to this: amazingly, most of these 105 GOP members who voted to oust a man accused of 23 felonies and who "placed his desire for private gain above his duty to uphold the Constitution, federal law, and ethical principles," ardently support for the US Presidency a serial liar, a man facing 91 felonies--backed by a thorough House investigation with virtually all GOP witnesses, as well as accusations and evidence laid out in his four indictments--a man who has pledged retribution, a man who has greenlighted using the DOJ for revenge, a man who has discussed invoking the Insurrection Act, and a man who wanted to seize voting machines (Maryland Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin called them out here).

Despite this ousting, in supporting Trump's continuing candidacy, these GOP members also quixotically back a man who, in fact, “placed his desire for private gain above his duty to uphold the Constitution, federal law, and ethical principles.”

And that is more terrifying than anything George Santos could have ever dreamed up.

House Expulsion Factoid: The previous last member of the US House of Representatives (of now only 6) to be expelled, in 2002, was Ohio's Democrat Jim Traficant, whose charges included racketeering and bribery.

Just before the expulsion, he said, "I'll go to jail before I resign and admit to something I didn't do."

Traficant served seven years in federal prison.

Speaking of Expulsions: The House didn't even expel Kentucky's William Graves after he killed Maine's Representative Jonathan Cilley in a duel using rifles, in 1838.

Chink in the Armor?

I was going to wait until the results were in, but I'm going to say ahead of time that, yes, the special elections for three Wisconsin State Assembly seats is an important statement for non-Walker forces.

Walker's appointment of three Representatives for his administration created the openings in a 60 Rep-37 Dem (one independent) State Assembly, and to be honest, moving three to the Blue side of the aisle won't make much of a difference as far as voting legislation goes.  The Republican puppets will still do as the puppetmaster commands.

However, the results will speak volumes about the satisfaction level of Wisconsin voters.  Some, such as the AP in the Chicago Tribune, are touting this as a virtual referendum on labor issues.

If labor has managed to mobilize and keep its base energized, there should be some tangible results.  Just as JoAnne Kloppenburg ran David Prosser to an almost vrtual dead heat in the State Supreme Court race--after finishing 30 points behind him in the primary--and the in-your-face vote for Milwaukee County exec Chris Abele over Walker pal Jeff Stone--in Walker's old job, by an incredible 61%-39% margin, so, too, will this gauge how the electorate is leaning.

Granted, of these three Assembly seats, two--District 60 in Washington/Ozaukee Counties (Candidate Rick Aaron), and District 83 (Candidate James Brownlow against Paul Ryan disciple Dave Craig) in Racine/Walworth/Waukesha--are stalwart Republican strongholds.  Even a 30% showing for Dems would be somewhat of a statement (Democrats usually garner no more than 25% or so of the vote in these districts).  35% would be major.  UPDATE: Upon further review, District 83 only went 21% for Dems in 2010, District 60 didn't even run a candidate. 
District 94 (parts of LaCrosse and Monroe Counties) has a real chance to turn the tide (as of this moment, LaCrosse station WXOW is reporting a 51-49% lead for Democrat Steve Doyle, with 23% of the precincts reporting).

It's possible by the time I actually get off my butt and post this thing, the election results will be announced.

Hopefully, for the state of Wisconsin, it's good news.

THIS WILL BE UPDATED AS RESULTS COME IN.

9:27 PM JS Online
Dist. 60  100% reporting
Stroebel , GOP, 7,331 votes, 76%
Aaron,     Dem,  2,357 votes, 24%

Dist. 83  100% reporting
Craig,      GOP,  8,313 votes, 74%
Brownlow, Dem, 2,895 votes, 26%

Dist. 94 100% reporting
Lautz       GOP,  7,219 votes, 46%
Doyle,     Dem,  8,369 votes, 54%