Kamala Harris Is Biden’s VP Pick

[cormorant]

That New York Times article of yours, micha, is revolting.



So the Biden approach to Warren in a nutshell: She had tits, which was good, but they were old white tits, which was bad.

And Tammy Duckworth ruled out because of birther arguments?

The more I hear about the selection process, the more repulsive it sounds.

What fake outrage nonsense. So it would have been better to have two candidates over 70?

Where were you for the years of birther crap that Obama went through because he wasn't white (pushed by Trump himself)? Look at what they are doing to Kamala already.

It would have been better, light years better, to select a candidate not using sex, race and age as the primary drivers. There is an argument for saying that you're not selecting anyone past retirement age, but that argument vanishes when the person doing the selecting is far further past retirement age himself.

It is sexist, racist, ageist, and a damned disgrace.

Flash you are so right. He’s hella fake. His misogyny I think is real as he’s demonstrated with his word choice.

[Octavious]

Amazing... It's like Clinton's deplorable comment played out in miniature. Democrats really can't help themselves. Trump maybe worth a small flutter after all.

[cormorant]

Amazing... It's like Clinton's deplorable comment played out in miniature. Democrats really can't help themselves. Trump maybe worth a small flutter after all.

It’s ok. If my mother were a hamster I might be a misogynist too. Who hurt you? Kissy make better?

[Matticus13]

That New York Times article of yours, micha, is revolting.



So the Biden approach to Warren in a nutshell: She had tits, which was good, but they were old white tits, which was bad.

And Tammy Duckworth ruled out because of birther arguments?

The more I hear about the selection process, the more repulsive it sounds.

What fake outrage nonsense. So it would have been better to have two candidates over 70?

Where were you for the years of birther crap that Obama went through because he wasn't white (pushed by Trump himself)? Look at what they are doing to Kamala already.

It would have been better, light years better, to select a candidate not using sex, race and age as the primary drivers. There is an argument for saying that you're not selecting anyone past retirement age, but that argument vanishes when the person doing the selecting is far further past retirement age himself.

It is sexist, racist, ageist, and a damned disgrace.

Amen

[cormorant]

What fake outrage nonsense. So it would have been better to have two candidates over 70?

Where were you for the years of birther crap that Obama went through because he wasn't white (pushed by Trump himself)? Look at what they are doing to Kamala already.

It would have been better, light years better, to select a candidate not using sex, race and age as the primary drivers. There is an argument for saying that you're not selecting anyone past retirement age, but that argument vanishes when the person doing the selecting is far further past retirement age himself.

It is sexist, racist, ageist, and a damned disgrace.

Amen

Still waiting to hear who you all think is more qualified than Kamala (Kanye West was deemed equally qualified by Oct) we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Though I’ll concede MBDTF is a classic album.

[Matticus13]

It would have been better, light years better, to select a candidate not using sex, race and age as the primary drivers. There is an argument for saying that you're not selecting anyone past retirement age, but that argument vanishes when the person doing the selecting is far further past retirement age himself.

It is sexist, racist, ageist, and a damned disgrace.

Amen

Still waiting to hear who you all think is more qualified than Kamala (Kanye West was deemed equally qualified by Oct) we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Though I’ll concede MBDTF is a classic album.

Many who were passed over based on race/gender were just as qualified (not more qualified). That's the point.

Kamala is a fine/quality/qualified choice, and was my favorite of all options (even the ones who were not considered). The process used to vet VP prospects based on race/gender by the Democratic Party is deplorable.

[flash2015]

Amen

Still waiting to hear who you all think is more qualified than Kamala (Kanye West was deemed equally qualified by Oct) we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Though I’ll concede MBDTF is a classic album.

Many who were passed over based on race/gender were just as qualified (not more qualified). That's the point.

Kamala is a fine/quality/qualified choice, and was my favorite of all options (even the ones who were not considered). The process used to vet VP prospects based on race/gender by the Democratic Party is deplorable.

I could understand a little if you had said something like "Governor X or Senator Y (or even someone like Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang) was a much better prospect and would have led to a glorious democrat victory and the stupid process which led to Harris will lead to a Trump whitewash". That could have been an interesting discussion. I could even agree with you there.

But you say Harris was the best choice anyway??? This all seems like not even an argument but weak talking points to deflect from the real sexism and racism from Trump which you don't seem to give a rats about.

[Matticus13]

Still waiting to hear who you all think is more qualified than Kamala (Kanye West was deemed equally qualified by Oct) we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Though I’ll concede MBDTF is a classic album.

Many who were passed over based on race/gender were just as qualified (not more qualified). That's the point.

Kamala is a fine/quality/qualified choice, and was my favorite of all options (even the ones who were not considered). The process used to vet VP prospects based on race/gender by the Democratic Party is deplorable.

I could understand a little if you had said something like "Governor X or Senator Y (or even someone like Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang) was a much better prospect and would have led to a glorious democrat victory and the stupid process which led to Harris will lead to a Trump whitewash". That could have been an interesting discussion. I could even agree with you there.

But you say Harris was the best choice anyway??? This all seems like not even an argument but weak talking points to deflect from the real sexism and racism from Trump which you don't seem to give a rats about.

Trump is an embarrassment to the United States of America and democracy. It was OBVIOUS he would be in 2016, yet the Democratic Party found a way to punt.

When people demand a candidate be of a specific race or gender, you say: NO

When you don't, your message loses power. Shows independents you lack integrity. I hope the Dems win in 2020. Wouldn't surprise me if they blow it again.

[MajorMitchell]

I love your passion Michael but the comment that Matticus might not give a rat's about Trumptoad's mysoginy and racism is, in my opinion, going too far, getting personal. I'm certainly no Saint in that regard, but I'd encourage reasonable restraint in exercising your advocacy for your cause. Just suggesting. Matticus obviously cares about this election. Democrats have to face their own weaknesses, not doing so.is in my opinion is a flawed strategy and I might suggest, less than honest if instead window dressing & defection & spin is the democrats response, Not saying it is, just expressing my opinion.

[cormorant]

I love your passion Michael but the comment that Matticus might not give a rat's about Trumptoad's mysoginy and racism is, in my opinion, going too far, getting personal. I'm certainly no Saint in that regard, but I'd encourage reasonable restraint in exercising your advocacy for your cause. Just suggesting. Matticus obviously cares about this election. Democrats have to face their own weaknesses, not doing so.is in my opinion is a flawed strategy and I might suggest, less than honest if instead window dressing & defection & spin is the democrats response, Not saying it is, just expressing my opinion.

Thanks MM definitely appreciate the constructive criticism. One question is whether on balance whether the stridency turns off more people, or if people want to see a Democratic party that is ready for a fight, to Rhetorically defend their people, and by extension will fight for them. Like if they don’t even defend their own candidate, who will
They defend?

a lot of people were lukewarm in their support of Hillary, including myself. After the election so many women I care about were in a bit of shock with thoughts like “wow I never realized they hated us THAT much”.

There are unfortunately a lot of men in the US that are not willing to be In a diverse coalition where women have a significant enough voice that their political demands are responded to. How far should democrats bend over backwards for this fickle and unsupportive group when the consequences of doing so alienates their Most loyal constituency? that are going to volunteer and vote like their life depended on it.

I see the younger generation stepping up in ways that are really brave and inspiring, so that gives me hope. So
Much has been taken from them. I really hope we can get through the next few months to pick up the pieces and start to rebuild our institutions and forge a true multiracial democracy like we have never had in this country.

[Octavious]

a lot of people were lukewarm in their support of Hillary, including myself. After the election so many women I care about were in a bit of shock with thoughts like “wow I never realized they hated us THAT much”.

You have successfully identified a growing problem with, particularly American, but increasingly politics across the West. The idea that some people equate not voting for Hillary as showing hate for women, and the various other incarnations of similar thinking. It's easy to dismiss people who hold such views as utter morons who aren't worth bothering with, but as it becomes less and less of a niche idea it becomes more important to challenge this kind of clouded thinking head on.

I see the younger generation stepping up in ways that are really brave and inspiring, so that gives me hope.

An argument that has been used predominantly by the left since time immemorial, and carries as much weight today as in every decade. The young people seem to like us, so all we have to do is wait and we'll win. It's utter tosh, and little more than an excuse not to change. The Democrats will win an election before too long, that is almost certain. It may well be the next one. But it will not have any more to do with a younger generation uniting around left wing principles than any other election, nor indeed when the Republicans win it back.

[flash2015]

I love your passion Michael but the comment that Matticus might not give a rat's about Trumptoad's mysoginy and racism is, in my opinion, going too far, getting personal. I'm certainly no Saint in that regard, but I'd encourage reasonable restraint in exercising your advocacy for your cause. Just suggesting. Matticus obviously cares about this election. Democrats have to face their own weaknesses, not doing so.is in my opinion is a flawed strategy and I might suggest, less than honest if instead window dressing & defection & spin is the democrats response, Not saying it is, just expressing my opinion.

I don't think I was getting personal. I am trying to understand where he was coming from. I have seen a lot of fake arguments trying to justify Trump's bad behaviour. A common tactic is to try and turn it around and say no, but democrats are the real racists (or sexists) or whatever! I just saw Eric Trump make the same argument being made here...with no self-awareness of the sexism/racism which Trump is fanning the flames of on a daily basis. I have seen too often the argument that the democrats are the REAL racists because some of them were part of the confederacy 150+ years ago. Serious BS.

I was actually trying to find some common ground here too. I agree that the process was horribly flawed and I really am not a fan of Kamala Harris. I didn't like the media hyperventilation about there not being enough diverse candidates after Yang/Booker/Harris dropped out. It pissed me off immensely that the media forced Biden into a corner on this in one of the primary debates (in general I hate how they force pledges early on on a whole range of issues limiting candidates flexibility in a future government). He couldn't say no because at that point he had to do whatever to keep his chances alive.

But I feel it is quite a stretch to call the decision process racist/sexist when the selection is about winning the election rather than purely merit. Rightly or wrongly here are lots of arbitrary decisions made in this candiate selection process on religion, marital status etc. too. The candidate's constituency also hasn't been represented before in the Oval Office so at least for now white guys are not being underrepresented yet. And the candidate the democrats chose out of all this was the candidate Matticus thought was best for the job anyway.

Having said all this I am glad he has clarified that for him this wasn't a backhand way of supporting Trump. At least I know where he comes from now even though I don't agree with his characterization of this specific issue. I am fully aware that the democrats have a lot of problems (I can go into pages on it)...but at least for this election it absolutely paramount that Trump is gone.

[Matticus13]

Historically candidates have been eliminated before of their skin colour and gender. That is why every VP in history ha sheen a white man.

Where is your outrage at that?

I am outraged by it. I continue to be outraged by it. Now they are simply changing how they discriminate, and I'm supposed to be OK with it. That's outrageous as well. I don't approve of discrimination in any form. It doesn't matter why or who.

Just letting you know that a majority of Americans don't agree with you here and are fine with how Biden made his choice:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bi ... is-harris/

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, Flash. I would like to point something interesting out from the article you linked earlier, and see if you still think people don't agree with me.

From the article:

"A New York Times/Siena College survey from late June found much lower levels of support (just 25 percent of Democrats said Biden should choose a Black running mate), but that may have more to do on how the question was phrased — respondents weren’t asked if this was important. Instead, they were asked if Biden should choose a white person, choose a Black person, or not factor race into the decision."

Here is the link to the survey:
https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploa ... 378388.pdf

It's Question 27. 71% of Democrats chose *race shouldn't be a factor*. 82% of total responses were *race shouldn't be a factor*.

[orathaic]

It is so utterly pathetic that some people are crying about discrimination, when only 3 of the 4 (P/VP) major candidates are White males...

But I agree, it is a terrible reflection of US culture that racism and sexism is so deeply engrained, that the Democrats felt they had to take action against it.

The action itself is positive. But reflects deeply troubling society, which some of you may not feel comfortable admitting. After 100 years of rule exclusively by female PoC I will listen to your complaints.

[MajorMitchell]

I did not suggest that you Dipcomrade flash were "getting personal", that suggestion I made regarding a comment from Micha, but the auto scriptcorrecting thingy changed Micha to Michael, so you Dipcomrade flash are absolved of some responsibility for any confusion as to whom I suggested was "getting personal".
The "getting personal" caper is of course fraught with hazards yet can be most rewarding, dependant in part on what form it takes & the whims, stings and flings of fate.

[flash2015]

I am outraged by it. I continue to be outraged by it. Now they are simply changing how they discriminate, and I'm supposed to be OK with it. That's outrageous as well. I don't approve of discrimination in any form. It doesn't matter why or who.

Just letting you know that a majority of Americans don't agree with you here and are fine with how Biden made his choice:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bi ... is-harris/

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, Flash. I would like to point something interesting out from the article you linked earlier, and see if you still think people don't agree with me.

From the article:

"A New York Times/Siena College survey from late June found much lower levels of support (just 25 percent of Democrats said Biden should choose a Black running mate), but that may have more to do on how the question was phrased — respondents weren’t asked if this was important. Instead, they were asked if Biden should choose a white person, choose a Black person, or not factor race into the decision."

Here is the link to the survey:
https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploa ... 378388.pdf

It's Question 27. 71% of Democrats chose *race shouldn't be a factor*. 82% of total responses were *race shouldn't be a factor*.

I saw it. This poll was the outlier in all the other polls quoted by fivethirtyeight. I don't know how much weight to give it vs. the other polls. As fivethirtyeight noted, the wording of the question was markedly different than the other polls. The USA Today/Suffolk University question asked "Joe Biden has promised to pick a woman as his running mate. How important is it to you that he picks a woman of color -would you say...?" which 72% of democrats said was very important or somewhat important.

I think if you read closely support for choosing a woman as his vice presidential pick is probably more popular than choosing a black woman candidate which makes sense. 90% of democrats and 62% of people overall were supportive of Biden narrowing his choice down to women only vs. the 60%-72% of democrats (no overall numbers given) who were supportive of him specifically deciding to choose a black woman.

Early polls since the Harris choice appear not to have moved the needle much in either direction (yet). I will be interested to see what the situation is like in a week or two.

[flash2015]

I did not suggest that you Dipcomrade flash were "getting personal", that suggestion I made regarding a comment from Micha, but the auto scriptcorrecting thingy changed Micha to Michael, so you Dipcomrade flash are absolved of some responsibility for any confusion as to whom I suggested was "getting personal".
The "getting personal" caper is of course fraught with hazards yet can be most rewarding, dependant in part on what form it takes & the whims, stings and flings of fate.

The "not giving a rats" thing was me though. Given he hadn't mentioned the elephant in the room on sexism/racism, I thought perhaps he was messing with me and I wanted him to clarify. If anyone thought I was casting aspersions though, that was not my intention.

[Randomizer]

Race and/or sex is never a consideration until it is because the respondent's preferred choice isn't picked. It's why we had eight years of trying to disqualify Obama with fake birther claims and racist speech about him and his wife that wouldn't be used against a white president.

[Matticus13]

Just letting you know that a majority of Americans don't agree with you here and are fine with how Biden made his choice:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bi ... is-harris/

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, Flash. I would like to point something interesting out from the article you linked earlier, and see if you still think people don't agree with me.

From the article:

"A New York Times/Siena College survey from late June found much lower levels of support (just 25 percent of Democrats said Biden should choose a Black running mate), but that may have more to do on how the question was phrased — respondents weren’t asked if this was important. Instead, they were asked if Biden should choose a white person, choose a Black person, or not factor race into the decision."

Here is the link to the survey:
https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploa ... 378388.pdf

It's Question 27. 71% of Democrats chose *race shouldn't be a factor*. 82% of total responses were *race shouldn't be a factor*.

I saw it. This poll was the outlier in all the other polls quoted by fivethirtyeight. I don't know how much weight to give it vs. the other polls. As fivethirtyeight noted, the wording of the question was markedly different than the other polls. The USA Today/Suffolk University question asked "Joe Biden has promised to pick a woman as his running mate. How important is it to you that he picks a woman of color -would you say...?" which 72% of democrats said was very important or somewhat important.

Valid point, but if they phrase read along the lines of:

"Should Biden pick a man, woman, or should gender matter?"

I suspect you would have a majority of respondents answer *gender shouldn't matter*

This is the perspective we should be using, IMO. That's why I'm not a Democrat anymore. Best of luck in the election. It will be an absolute miracle if Joe doesn't find a way to miss this layup.

[flash2015]

Valid point, but if they phrase read along the lines of:

"Should Biden pick a man, woman, or should gender matter?"

I suspect you would have a majority of respondents answer *gender shouldn't matter*

This is the perspective we should be using, IMO. That's why I'm not a Democrat anymore. Best of luck in the election. It will be an absolute miracle if Joe doesn't find a way to miss this layup.

Perhaps one question leads people to think about the question theoretically and the other leads people to think about the question practically. Theoretically, yes, it shouldn't matter but practically it does.

Whatever happens though and whatever you believe I do encourage you to vote. It could be for one of the main parties, it could be third party, it could be a write-in candidates like Hanks/(Dwayne) Johnson or even write-in Cthulu because why vote for the lesser evil anyway?

Every vote sends a message. Democracy withers if people lose so much faith in the process that they can't be bothered participating at all.