Split Laphonsa Butler chosen to replace Feinstein

[thebeave]

Really? Winning the #2 spot from a point of relative obscurity on the national stage? Looks like a stellar success to me—much better than anyone aside from Joe.

She certainly wasn't obscure in 2019. And I do not see how her being selected as Veep by Biden erase the poor decisions made by her and her campaign staff in the 2020 primary campaign.

She was hardly well known nationally.

Why would Biden, an extremely savvy politician, choose as his running mate someone he didn’t think could run a good campaign?

Of course, being from California (and the Bay Area, where Kamala is from) I have known of her from back in her SF days, which was many years ago. Obama actually brought her into the national spotlight back in 2013. You don't remember this? We talked about it in this forum:

Obama apologizes to Kamala Harris for 'best-looking attorney general' comment

 

[Gospel]

Why in the hell wouldn't he seek out more of that minority female base?!

Because politics shouldn't be reduced to a divisive, 'us-versus-them' narrative. A governor should genuinely serve minority female constituents, not leverage them merely to maintain power through their votes. Whether Newsom is doing this or not isn't my claim; I'm merely pointing out a facet of politics that I find nonsensical and can't engage with.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Why in the hell wouldn't he seek out more of that minority female base?!

Were there no qualified black women living in the state?

I have no problem with her but I want the Democrats to shut up the next time a Republican runs for Senator in a state they don’t currently live in, like happened a couple times in the last election.

I despise the hypocrisy not the choice.

 

[thebeave]

Remember when Newsom was in a recall election? Black women voted 91 to 9 against the recall. White men, 57 to 43. Let's dive into those numbers!

For every 100,000 voters, white men were 24% of the vote, black women, 4% of the vote. Despite being just 4%, the net gain for black women was nearly as large (3640 to 360 = 3280) than that for white men (13680 to 10320 = 3360) for every 100,000 votes in the election. Latino women were larger than both of them at a delta of +4080.

Why in the hell wouldn't he seek out more of that minority female base?!

Gavin is quite obviously expoiting the tendency of women to vote based on how hot the guy is.

 

[laughing dog]

Why in the hell wouldn't he seek out more of that minority female base?!

Were there no qualified black women living in the state?

I have no problem with her but I want the Democrats to shut up the next time a Republican runs for Senator in a state they don’t currently live in, like happened a couple times in the last election.

I despise the hypocrisy not the choice.

What hypocrisy do you think you are seeing? There is a real difference between running in an election to gain a seat and being appointed. Criticizing a candidate for their views is one thing, criticizing a candidate for the reason they were appointed is another thing.

I happen to think Newsom made an error in saying he would appoint a black woman. As I have as said before, I think the same people would be making the same complaints about appointing a black woman if he had not made his pledge to appoint a black woman.

I still have yet to see any cogent argument from the complainers of this appointment about the lack of relevant qualifications of the appointee other than she has not lived 100% of the time in California - a qualification which is dubious at best.

The election for this seat is in a little over a year. If the Ms. Black runs for the seat, the voters of California have the say whether or not she gets the Democratic nomination and the actual seat. No matter which Democrat Newsom appointed, this is not a big deal that anyone should bemoan.

 

[Toni]

She was hardly well known nationally.

I certainly heard of her.

Why would Biden, an extremely savvy politician, choose as his running mate someone he didn’t think could run a good campaign?

Biden is an extremely savvy politician? In any case, he was pressured into choosing a black woman due to the 2020 unrest, as I have stated before.

Why do you think he only chose Harris because he was pressured to do so? Or because she's a black/Indian/woman?

 

[Elixir]

Why do you think he only chose Harris because he was pressured to do so?

I think the reasons (2: gender, color) for that are apparent from the poster’s posting history.

 

[TomC]

Why in the hell wouldn't he seek out more of that minority female base?!

Were there no qualified black women living in the state?

I have no problem with her but I want the Democrats to shut up the next time a Republican runs for Senator in a state they don’t currently live in, like happened a couple times in the last election.

I despise the hypocrisy not the choice.

You're clutching your pearls over hypocrisy in a political race?

Virtually everything I know about Butler came from this thread. She sounds brilliant and accomplished. That she has a breadth of life experience ranging from Mississippi to California to Maryland is a big plus to me.

Largely because I don't see the main goal of Senators to be representing their state, exactly. That is what The House is expected to do. The Senate is supposed to be a more deliberative body, representing Americans over all. It would be better if all Senators had her experiences.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Really? Winning the #2 spot from a point of relative obscurity on the national stage? Looks like a stellar success to me—much better than anyone aside from Joe.

She certainly wasn't obscure in 2019. And I do not see how her being selected as Veep by Biden erase the poor decisions made by her and her campaign staff in the 2020 primary campaign.

She was hardly well known nationally.

Why would Biden, an extremely savvy politician, choose as his running mate someone he didn’t think could run a good campaign?

Of course, being from California (and the Bay Area, where Kamala is from) I have known of her from back in her SF days, which was many years ago. Obama actually brought her into the national spotlight back in 2013. You don't remember this? We talked about it in this forum:

Obama apologizes to Kamala Harris for 'best-looking attorney general' comment

I honestly don't. It wasn't a very smart comment on Obama's part, although it is clear that it was well intentioned.

I'm really certain I had heard of her prior to 2016 but not that much.

 

[Toni]

Why in the hell wouldn't he seek out more of that minority female base?!

Were there no qualified black women living in the state?

I have no problem with her but I want the Democrats to shut up the next time a Republican runs for Senator in a state they don’t currently live in, like happened a couple times in the last election.

I despise the hypocrisy not the choice.

You're clutching your pearls over hypocrisy in a political race?

Virtually everything I know about Butler came from this thread. She sounds brilliant and accomplished. That she has a breadth of life experience ranging from Mississippi to California to Maryland is a big plus to me.

Largely because I don't see the main goal of Senators to be representing their state, exactly. That is what The House is expected to do. The Senate is supposed to be a more deliberative body, representing Americans over all. It would be better if all Senators had her experiences.
Tom

The main goal of a senator IS to represent their state. Like you, I never paid much attention to Butler, although of course I am familiar with Emily's List. It is not unusual for people who are working in certain roles to move to Washington DC to fulfill the duties of the job, as Butler did in 2021, while at the same time, maintaining a home in their previous state. Butler owns two homes in California. Many members of congress and some of their staff maintain residences in their state while also needing to live in Washington DC.

She does sound brilliant and accomplished. I am thrilled that she's so young, actually. We DO need to be bringing forward accomplished people of her generation so that the old fogies can turn over the reins to people with the knowledge, skills, and commitment can assume those roles.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why in the hell wouldn't he seek out more of that minority female base?!

Because politics shouldn't be reduced to a divisive, 'us-versus-them' narrative.

Should is a four letter word. What is the hardest thing to do? Get people not interested in politics to vote. Convincing them, they have skin in the game. Convincing them that they matter.

A governor should genuinely serve minority female constituents, not leverage them merely to maintain power through their votes. Whether Newsom is doing this or not isn't my claim; I'm merely pointing out a facet of politics that I find nonsensical and can't engage with.

Or in that appointing a few black women will indicate to that demographic he isn't taking their vote for granted? All the legislation and policy can mean nothing if other certain aspects aren't maintained. In a perfect world, race isn't a thing. We aren't in that perfect world.

I'd rather people not lead up front that they will appoint *insert whatever race/gender*, I'd rather they just do it.

My other consideration is just looking at the 2016 and 2020 election. Why is Biden President? Not because of the white vote. The reason we aren't amid a second term of ridiculous shit and a fifth impeachment because Trump was caught giving intel to a "Russian spy" is because of the minority vote. They saved the country (for a bit). So throwing them bones among the poverty that hasn't been resolved... I'm not losing sleep over it.

 

[Elixir]

I'd rather people not lead up front that they will appoint *insert whatever race/gender*, I'd rather they just do it.

Amen.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why in the hell wouldn't he seek out more of that minority female base?!

Were there no qualified black women living in the state?

I have no problem with her but I want the Democrats to shut up the next time a Republican runs for Senator in a state they don’t currently live in, like happened a couple times in the last election.

I despise the hypocrisy not the choice.

My in-laws lived in CT and in FL as they went back and forth each year usually. They stayed aware of politics in both places and had interests in both places. Due to reasons of taxes and voting and whatever else, it is illegal to to try to vote or run for office in both places simultaneously. You can't vote for politicians in both states during elections. The government makes you choose the place you are registered to vote, even if you have dual residence.

In the case of Laphonza Butler she had residences in CA and MD since graduating college in the early 2000's. It seems, though, that until very recently her focus and career had been on CA in particular out of the two. It was only starting late 2021 when she became President of Emily's List that her residence focus changed a bit to MD and likely this has to do with the MD-Washington DC connection.

The reason I say that is because her old 2000's residences were in Baltimore area which while is a commute-doable thing to DC, once her job started with Emily's List, her MD residence changed to Silver Spring which is much closer to DC.

Even so, her work for Emily's List was really a focus on all geography, getting women to run and be successful in politics and supporting women's issues, and so this includes women's issues in CA, though it's not CA-specific. It isn't too different from when a person residing in CA decides to become Senator (or President) and then has dual residence in the DC area and in CA. They have to flip that switch to say they are registered in CA even though most of the year they may live in the DC area.

YES, it IS different. But not THAT different. I mean, I don't think that she was that invested in voting in Silver Spring, MD. She's just gotta have her primary residence back in CA now, even if afterward she is still going to live at the SAME HOUSE in Silver Spring, just 6 miles away from DC...and continue to travel back to a house in View Park, CA.

Here's maybe something similar... take a look at this terrible article about Dianne Feinstein's residences and worth from conservative news media:

Dianne Feinstein leaves stunning properties to her, billionaire husband’s feuding kids

Dianne Feinstein jetted around on a Gulfstream and maintained mansions in Hawaii, San Francisco and DC.

nypost.com

How about Ronald Reagan? He was from California and obviously moved to the DC area (White House) when interested in federal politics but then later moved back to CA and probably maintained a dual residence while in office.

I don't think this is quite the same thing as a lot of other cases and really comparisons ought to be made on a case-by-base basis for hypocrisy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why in the hell wouldn't he seek out more of that minority female base?!

Were there no qualified black women living in the state?

I'm not arguing otherwise there. It is peculiar to select someone who isn't in the state, especially when it is a straight up constitutional requirement! Granted, I doubt there is risk of her voting strictly on how legislation benefits Maryland over California.

The selection is controversial in ways and completely uncontroversial in other ways. This person is a seat warmer. She almost certainly isn't running for election in 2024. But it seems small circle as well, which is my bigger concern. Doesn't Newsom have a binder somewhere full of women?.

I have no problem with her but I want the Democrats to shut up the next time a Republican runs for Senator in a state they don’t currently live in, like happened a couple times in the last election.

I don't think this is was as much a carpetbagger issue. The PA Senate seat was between PA and NJ. And there is a rivalry. Kind of like how NY'ers don't allow NJ'ers to consider themselves NY'ers. It wasn't a matter of qualification, but a matter of PA v NJ. This doesn't exist between MD and CA.

 

[Gospel]

I'd rather people not lead up front that they will appoint *insert whatever race/gender*, I'd rather they just do it.

You seem to concur that such political tactics are ineffective, especially when they clearly announce prioritizing certain groups over others. A mutual belief that all concerns will eventually be considered might motivate both politicians and the community they serve to move from appealing for specific demographics to addressing wider issues. By 'wider,' I refer to addressing the needs of even those perceived to be at odds with your political platform. In my view, it's a leadership shortfall when any constituent sees you as an adversary, not due to perceived neglect or delays in addressing their concerns but because of your rhetoric.

I don't know much about Newsom, seems like a reasonable governor in comparison to mine to be honest, so it's possible he lends an ear to those he doesn't necessarily agree with and maybe some of his policies reflect that. I wouldn't know.

For instance, while I'm critical of DeSantis' approach to Black history education, I do recognize his commendable position on net metering for solar energy. It's both unfortunate & stupid that he governs with such a pronounced partisan lens, prioritizing the 'Libs vs Conservative' narrative. Ya know, because he's more a fascist asshole than a leader.

 

[ZiprHead]

They're not bad decisions, they're just decisions you disagree with.

They objectively tanked her once promising campaign.

You're attitude that you're the arbiter of good and bad in these sorts of situations is annoying. It's narcissistic and egotistical.

I am hardly the only one who thinks that. See the NY Times article I posted for an example. In fact, I am baffled so many on here defend her presidential campaign this much, to the extent that any suggestion that she is less than perfect is scoffed at. Methinks y'all doth protest too much. Kinda like with Hillary who was claimed to be the most qualified presidential candidate ever.

The NYT article is paywalled. Almost no one here can read it.

What I can see is this: "Ms. Harris is the only 2020 Democrat who has fallen hard out of the top tier of candidates. She has proved to be an uneven campaigner who changes her message and tactics to little effect and has a staff torn into factions." It says nothing about her choices of a platform.

I suggest you gift the article here or quote the parts that say it was her anti-fracking position was the reason she tanked.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

They're not bad decisions, they're just decisions you disagree with.

They objectively tanked her once promising campaign.

You're attitude that you're the arbiter of good and bad in these sorts of situations is annoying. It's narcissistic and egotistical.

I am hardly the only one who thinks that. See the NY Times article I posted for an example. In fact, I am baffled so many on here defend her presidential campaign this much, to the extent that any suggestion that she is less than perfect is scoffed at. Methinks y'all doth protest too much. Kinda like with Hillary who was claimed to be the most qualified presidential candidate ever.

The NYT article is paywalled. Almost no one here can read it.

What I can see is this: "Ms. Harris is the only 2020 Democrat who has fallen hard out of the top tier of candidates. She has proved to be an uneven campaigner who changes her message and tactics to little effect and has a staff torn into factions." It says nothing about her choices of a platform.

I suggest you gift the article here or quote the parts that say it was her anti-fracking position was the reason she tanked.

I bet they cite a campaign aide who left to work for Bloomberg's campaign, who would have an obvious agenda to promote Bloomberg by tanking Harris, but also Bloomberg's campaign was arguably the worst in American history. So not very trustworthy source...that guy spent a gazillion dollars and probably couldn't even secure an ambassadorship, never mind a highly prized slot like VP.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Why in the hell wouldn't he seek out more of that minority female base?!

Were there no qualified black women living in the state?

I have no problem with her but I want the Democrats to shut up the next time a Republican runs for Senator in a state they don’t currently live in, like happened a couple times in the last election.

I despise the hypocrisy not the choice.

You're clutching your pearls over hypocrisy in a political race?

Tom

“clutching pearls” is a bit too strong a characterization of what I said and feel about the issue.

I don’t care too much. I was just pointing out how much the Democrats squealed and whined about the races where the candidate was t living in the state and here they go and do this. I think the distinction between a running candidate and an appointment is too pedantic to be a mitigating point.

Just my not too strongly felt opinion.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Why in the hell wouldn't he seek out more of that minority female base?!

Were there no qualified black women living in the state?

I have no problem with her but I want the Democrats to shut up the next time a Republican runs for Senator in a state they don’t currently live in, like happened a couple times in the last election.

I despise the hypocrisy not the choice.

My in-laws lived in CT and in FL as they went back and forth each year usually. They stayed aware of politics in both places and had interests in both places. Due to reasons of taxes and voting and whatever else, it is illegal to to try to vote or run for office in both places simultaneously. You can't vote for politicians in both states during elections. The government makes you choose the place you are registered to vote, even if you have dual residence.

In the case of Laphonza Butler she had residences in CA and MD since graduating college in the early 2000's. It seems, though, that until very recently her focus and career had been on CA in particular out of the two. It was only starting late 2021 when she became President of Emily's List that her residence focus changed a bit to MD and likely this has to do with the MD-Washington DC connection.

The reason I say that is because her old 2000's residences were in Baltimore area which while is a commute-doable thing to DC, once her job started with Emily's List, her MD residence changed to Silver Spring which is much closer to DC.

Even so, her work for Emily's List was really a focus on all geography, getting women to run and be successful in politics and supporting women's issues, and so this includes women's issues in CA, though it's not CA-specific. It isn't too different from when a person residing in CA decides to become Senator (or President) and then has dual residence in the DC area and in CA. They have to flip that switch to say they are registered in CA even though most of the year they may live in the DC area.

YES, it IS different. But not THAT different. I mean, I don't think that she was that invested in voting in Silver Spring, MD. She's just gotta have her primary residence back in CA now, even if afterward she is still going to live at the SAME HOUSE in Silver Spring, just 6 miles away from DC...and continue to travel back to a house in View Park, CA.

Here's maybe something similar... take a look at this terrible article about Dianne Feinstein's residences and worth from conservative news media:

Dianne Feinstein leaves stunning properties to her, billionaire husband’s feuding kids

Dianne Feinstein jetted around on a Gulfstream and maintained mansions in Hawaii, San Francisco and DC.

nypost.com

How about Ronald Reagan? He was from California and obviously moved to the DC area (White House) when interested in federal politics but then later moved back to CA and probably maintained a dual residence while in office.

I don't think this is quite the same thing as a lot of other cases and really comparisons ought to be made on a case-by-base basis for hypocrisy.

Reagan was given his California ranch by billionaire Robert Abplanalp. Image the GOP foamy lipped ranting if some billionaire gave a nice property to Joe Biden.

 

[TomC]

I am thrilled that she's so young, actually. We DO need to be bringing forward accomplished people of her generation so that the old fogies can turn over the reins to people with the knowledge, skills, and commitment can assume those roles.

We certainly agree on this part.
I care less about her race and gender than the fact that she's replacing someone 112 years her senior.
The Democrats were becoming the party of geezers. C'mon. Pelosi, Feinstein, and Biden? Couldn't they find anybody with a triple digits SSI number?
Tom