My concern is that voters would liken her to Clinton even if its not true.

I should clarify my statement. I think she would win all the states Clinton won but would have trouble expanding past that. If we want to win, we have to flip the rust belt or sun belt and Florida. I see her having a hard time winning back states like Michigan or Wisconsin. She would have to win flip some of the counties that went for Trump in 2016 which I don't see happening.

The problem is that many voters don't vote rationally. We saw the same thing during the 2000 and 2004 presidential election. Al Gore was much more qualified than Bush and still lost. Many voters will vote based on who they can have a beer with. I don't know if Harris can give off that vibe to enough voters. Truth be told I see Eric Garcetti, Tim Kaine, or Andrew Cuomo having the same problem. Obama was successful in part of being able to bring different coalitions together. Being from California would open her up to being likened to Pelosi or Feinstein. Yes I know she's different but this would seriously hamper her campaign in a general election.

A woman running will have to balance between being serious and warm and fuzzy. My concern is that she would have trouble balancing this with voters. She would be seen as too serious with voters. Clinton was considered too shrill in 2008.

I will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate for President even if its a ham sandwich. I m more concerned about who can draw enough energy to get out the vote and less concerned with ideological purity at the moment. I think we should look past big states for nominees.