On whether Kamala Harris can beat Trump
Steven Brennan writes: Absolutely Democrats will have a better chance of defeating Donald Trump [with Kamala Harris].
She will bring into sharp relief who Trump really is and what the Democrats under Biden have actually achieved while they’ve been in office. I’ve spoken to some Americans and they do recognise Biden has done a decent job, despite the prevailing winds of the world economy.
I know Americans are tribal. I’ve met them and seen them conduct themselves as groups in my travels over the years. So I agree there would be sections of American society who’ll vote Republican no matter what. They’ll see the great ship America, full of holes and sliding into the seas, and still vote Trump.
On the other hand, I don’t believe the polls and some of the commentary about people refusing to vote for Harris because she’s a “Black woman feminist”. Obama won two terms.
One thing I’m sure of: she will take it to Trump and inject some cold hard facts and spirit into this campaign. She may not win, but she’ll save some of the furniture — as the cliché goes.
Ian Dunn writes: I find it odd that any commentator on the changed scene in US could write a great many words without including the word “abortion”.
Not only Black women but also young voters of either gender may be energised by the Harris ascension into the role of candidate. And the selection by the Republicans of JD Vance may prove to be very unfortunate.
The race is now open.
Margaret Callinan writes: The title of Bernard Keane’s article, “Kamala Harris, the least-worst candidate in a contest of the terrible”, reminds me of that cohort of anti-compulsory-voting citizens who ask why they should have to vote for someone they don’t like. The current situation in the US is the perfect example to answer that question. A responsible citizen sometimes has the duty to vote for the least worst candidate in order to not finish up with the worst of the worst.
The glory of compulsory voting is that it can, if we are wise enough, avoid the worst candidate and/or extremists from running the show. Hopefully that will be the case in Australia’s forthcoming election where, to put it kindly, we will have two lacklustre party leaders, both awful in different ways, vying for the position of prime minister.
Sue Walker: I feel compelled to write in response to Bernard Keane’s recent article suggesting that Vice President Kamala Harris is a “second-rate” candidate (the best of the terrible). I find this characterisation troubling, sexist and dismissive of a woman with incredible credentials and capacity. The way he dismisses Obama is also surprising. (I think it’s a pretty tough job, Bernard).
Vice President Harris is an accomplished and highly educated individual with degrees in political science, economics and law. She has served as the district attorney of San Francisco and the attorney general of California, and is the first Indian and African American woman to become a US senator. Her advocacy on critical issues like gun control, and her effective leadership as president of the Senate in a closely divided chamber, demonstrate her competence and dedication. She knows her way around the White House and has already garnered incredible support.
To dismiss her achievements and qualifications as “best of the worst” seems somehow biased. Moreover, history shows that not all US presidents have been exemplary or “fit for purpose” from the start. George W Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon — best of the best? I doubt it…
I believe Vice President Harris has the experience and capability to lead and do an incredible job, and I hope she has the opportunity to prove you wrong. And boy is she organised! Oh yeah, and Donald Trump is a self-serving lunatic and lacking in both intelligence and empathy.
