Bofferbrauer2 said:
That doesn't have to mean anything. After all, she just backed out a healthcare bill she co-sponsored with Sanders 2 years ago: https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-says-shes-uncomfortable-with-bernies-health-care-plan-two-years-after-cosponsoring-it https://www.vox.com/2019/8/20/20813658/kamala-harris-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-2020 |
It's been two years and she has her own plan now. If the bill was up for vote two years ago she would have voted for it.
tsogud said:
Not really, if there's anything this primary showed us it's that is not the reality anymore. You can run a successful campaign without going to big donor fundraisers. If she went through with this and then got elected as president and push came to shove how could I, or most of the American people, believe that she'd choose the climate over her big donors if their interests conflicted? |
Harris is running aa traditional campaign and even though money does not play as big of a role as it used to be it's still very very important. i remember watching an interview with Yang and he was saying that one of his campaigns biggest worries pre 2nd debate was how much money they were going to bring in that day. Now Harris campaign is much larger than Yang's so they'd need more money.
I don't think Harris is dumb enough to take money from anti climate change activist so I don't think a conflict of interest would arise.
