Biden Picks Kamala Harris for Running Mate

OldWiseGuy said:

That pick just cost him the election.

Click to expand...

Trump was never going to "lose" in November.

It's for your entertainment this happened.

cow451 said:

Why Kamala Harris embraces her biracial roots

Joe Biden has tabbed Kamala Harris as his running mate on the Democratic ticket.

IMHO, she will make a good President.

Click to expand...

I definitely agree that she would make a better president than Biden. But why do you suppose she didn't win the DNC nomination and did so poorly in the primary?

Oompa Loompa said:

I definitely agree that she would make a better president than Biden. But why do you suppose she didn't win the DNC nomination and did so poorly in the primary?

Click to expand...

Too far right at the time, and not well enough known to be acceptable in the moderate category that put her in?

Speedwell said:

Too far right at the time, and not well enough known to be acceptable in the moderate category that put her in?

Click to expand...

Do you think that today's racial tensions may be a factor as to why Biden picked her? Perhaps she may be able to bring people together better than if Biden picked someone else?

Kaon said:

Trump was never going to "lose" in November.

It's for your entertainment this happened.

Click to expand...

I think you're right.

Andrewn said:

Still, I prefer to have a Republican-controlled senate to offer balance.

Click to expand...

Not with McConnell in charge. That’s not balance. It’s a roadblock to even considering changes. If it were a couple of decades ago I'd agree that it would be useful to have some balance. But not now.

The McConnell rule says the Senate isn't even allowed to consider something unless a majority of Republicans favor it. That makes it impossible to do things where a bipartisan majority support it, but one party doesn't. That's exactly the opposite of what we want. If the Supreme Court still believed in voting rights, it would even be unconstitutional, because it means that those who voted for Democrats are completely disenfranchised.

cow451 said:

IMHO, she will make a good President.

Click to expand...

She is going for VP not president.

I'm not in USA so I'm not aware of the various people's policy stances. But that aside, I have high regard for Harris and Schiff as well.
They are both really strong thinkers and seem to have high integrity.

Loved when Harris was grilling Barr, ("asked or suggested?"....""suggested, hinted, inferred")

stevil said:

She is going for VP not president.

Click to expand...

There are several reasons why it's important for the VP to be qualified to be president. The most important is that things happen to presidents. She could be called on to take over. A good VP also tends to become a candidate for president later.

hedrick said:

There are several reasons why it's important for the VP to be qualified to be president. The most important is that things happen to presidents. She could be called on to take over. A good VP also tends to become a candidate for president later.

Click to expand...

Sure, but right now she is the VP pick for Democrats.

There is a rightwing meme going around that Biden is unfit/too old etc and so is just getting the VP into place and then will move aside. I thought the post I quoted was playing into that (whether intentional or intentional IDK)

stevil said:

There is a rightwing meme going around that Biden is unfit/too old etc and so is just getting the VP into place and then will move aside. I thought the post I quoted was playing into that (whether intentional or intentional IDK)

Click to expand...

It's hard to know just how sensible voters are. You'd think attacking things that the candidate hasn't done would be a losing strategy. But maybe not. I've also read about attacks against Booker, who Biden hasn't appointed to any position nor indicated interest in doing so.

hedrick said:

Not with McConnell in charge. That’s not balance. It’s a roadblock to even considering changes. If it were a couple of decades ago I'd agree that it would be useful to have some balance. But not now.

Click to expand...

I used to be big on balancing the congress, but I've given up on that with the Party of Trump. With the conservatives effectively gone, balance is out the window. And yes, McConnell has been a problem in his own right. Let the Democrats take over for a while, and maybe the Republican Party can reorganize and make a comeback someday.

hedrick said:

It's hard to know just how sensible voters are. You'd think attacking things that the candidate hasn't done would be a losing strategy. But maybe not. I've also read about attacks against Booker, who Biden hasn't appointed to any position nor indicated interest in doing so.

Click to expand...

I think it worked really well against Hillary Clinton, many people didn't vote for her thinking she is corrupt, evil or criminal.
USA politics is famous for having negative smear campaigns.

I know many on the right come up with conspiracies such as Birther, Bengazhi, Hunter etc
I don't know if the left does it also but I understand they often cite people past of having discriminatory positions. I presume both sides do it to a degree, but it's hard for me to consider that the left side would have fallen for something as silly as the Birther conspiracy. I struggle to see why the people on the right fell for that.

Yttrium said:

I used to be big on balancing the congress

Click to expand...

As an outsider looking in, I really dislike the USA system. It seems the president and the admin can get things done while they own the house and senate but once they lose one of those, they pretty much stagnate and nothing happens. Both sides don't typically work together, they try to thwart each other on everything.

So your system created stagnant, ineffective federal governments.

stevil said:

...I struggle to see why the people on the right fell for that.

Click to expand...

Have you spent much time in their media bubble? They've been in it 20, 25 years now.

stevil said:

As an outsider looking in, I really dislike the USA system. It seems the president and the admin can get things done while they own the house and senate but once they lose one of those, they pretty much stagnate and nothing happens. Both sides don't typically work together, they try to thwart each other on everything.

So your system created stagnant, ineffective federal governments.

Click to expand...

There was always rivalry. But the situation is much worse now than in the past. We definitely have to do something about it.

durangodawood said:

Have you spent much time in their media bubble? They've been in it 20, 25 years now.

Click to expand...

I find it very hard to watch clips of the foxnews guys (Hannity, Tuckerson, Ingrahm, Pirro)
They are very aggressive, cynical, generalise everything as left vs right, radical liberals, socialists etc
At times quite racist stuff too.

I know the right wing supporters claim CNN and MSNBC and MSM as being far left and just as bad as Fox. But I don't see that. Maddow does long indepth stuff just like Tuckerson and Hannity, but she doesn't seem to delve into conspiracies, doesn't generalise about right or even the Republican party but instead she is specific about who actually is involved. Anderson Cooper and Cuomo are both great, Cuomo even defends the Republicans at times, he's very much a straight shooter. So I don't see any comparison between Foxnews and CNN. But I can understand that a person who voted for Trump they would be turned off by CNN as they are putting out criticisms of Trump all the time, on all their shows.

stevil said:

As an outsider looking in, I really dislike the USA system. It seems the president and the admin can get things done while they own the house and senate but once they lose one of those, they pretty much stagnate and nothing happens. Both sides don't typically work together, they try to thwart each other on everything.

So your system created stagnant, ineffective federal governments.

Click to expand...

It didn’t used to be like that. There was usually an understanding that if you lost the White House but held one of the houses of Congress that you could negotiate from a stronger position but you were still expected to go along with the public will. This idea of pure obstructionism is a fairly recent phenomena that was hoisted upon us by the Republicans who decided that because the rules technically allow a minority to block things, that they could use that to basically stymy the will of the people until such a time as they regained power themselves. It’s been absolutely toxic and exposed the gaping flaws in a system that used to rely so heavily on convention and tradition. You can thank Newt Gingrich for starting it.

timothyu said:

Because the more they align themselves with self interest groups to gain their support the more they will have to back that by inclusion. Like I said, expect a non gender card carrying 'Karen' or 'Woke' or 'cancel culture' advocate (preferably a combination of all) for the next election. Either that, or sanity will have returned.

Click to expand...

Kamala Harris seems like she's not inordinately aligned with any interest groups, aside from the groups that believe in treating everybody equally.

Kentonio said:

It didn’t used to be like that. There was usually an understanding that if you lost the White House but held one of the houses of Congress that you could negotiate from a stronger position but you were still expected to go along with the public will. This idea of pure obstructionism is a fairly recent phenomena that was hoisted upon us by the Republicans who decided that because the rules technically allow a minority to block things, that they could use that to basically stymy the will of the people until such a time as they regained power themselves. It’s been absolutely toxic and exposed the gaping flaws in a system that used to rely so heavily on convention and tradition. You can thank Newt Gingrich for starting it.

Click to expand...

New Gingrich introduced sleaze into an institution that used to believe in decency and civility. Gingrich basically told his fellow Republicans "punch below the belt... or else".

FireDragon76 said:

New Gingrich introduced sleaze into an institution that used to believe in decency and civility. Gingrich basically told his fellow Republicans "punch below the belt... or else".

Click to expand...

The real question is whether we can reverse this. There are areas where I think Democrats will restore sanity, such as independence of the Attorney General and IGs. But reversing polarization in the Senate would take effort of a kind that I'm not sure anyone is willing to do.