Kamala Harris as VP Candidate

[dismalist]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/2020-election-biden-vp-pick/index.html

Her biggest strength might be "law & order". Don't know if she will be able to use it.

[Ruralguy]

I don't think the intention is for her to use that experience. Its more as a preventative measure for Biden.  If the cities break down more than they are, the backlash against the Democratic candidates can be significant even if nobody in those cities actually changes their votes.  So, if he picks a "law and order" VP he can be seen as caring about those issues as well as picking a VP candidate who "looks like America."

[Puget]

I'm very pleased-- she was my top choice in the primary but dropped out before I got to vote. I think she just got a bit lost in a crowded field this year, but definitely has the chops to be a great VP and then P. The way she demolished Bloomberg in his first debate I think demonstrated that she can play the needed attack dog role of a VP candidate, and she also is very good at taking complicated policy and relating it back to people's lives.

I'm people on both the left and right will find things to snipe about, but I think she's a very solid choice.

[mahagonny]

Well, she shows a lot of spirit while debating. If they get to, that is.

Funny watching FOX news yesterday. I sometimes forget that they do keep a facade of wanting the best for everyone. One of the talking heads asked another 'who should he pick?' They named positive personal qualities without, of course, giving a name. They should have said 'he should pick the most unappealing person he can find, so we can cream him!'

[downer]

It seemed very likely he would choose someone centrist rather than someone on the left, since he is centrist himself and the Republicans seem to be running on the "Democrats are anarchist communists" ticket. It hard to make that stick with Harris there. Most people expect that the VP will be president before 2024.

I live in a state that will vote Democrat for President. I don't think the VP choice will make any difference in more local races. Choosing Harris doesn't make me any more likely to vote for Joe.

[secundem_artem]

A pick that should satisfy BIPOC voters, moderate voters and have little appeal to Bernie/Warren voters.  It will be a moderate ticket across the board - thank the gods.

[Puget]

since he is centrist himself

I keep hearing this (mostly from the Bernie crowd) and it just isn't true, unless you mean "at the center of the Democratic party" or some global context. Bloomberg is a centrist in the sense of center of the US political spectrum (more or less) and we saw how well that went down. Biden has always been pretty much positioned at the center of the *party*, and has shifted left as that has shifted left. If you look at his actual policy statements, he's arguably to the left of both Obama and Clinton.

I guess it's fine with me if this myth continues though, since it gives R leaning voters permission to vote for him, and I think (hope) that all but the most extreme Bernie crowd will not make the perfect the enemy of the good this time around.

[Parasaurolophus]

I'm very pleased-- she was my top choice in the primary but dropped out before I got to vote. I think she just got a bit lost in a crowded field this year, but definitely has the chops to be a great VP and then P. The way she demolished Bloomberg in his first debate I think demonstrated that she can play the needed attack dog role of a VP candidate, and she also is very good at taking complicated policy and relating it back to people's lives.

I'm people on both the left and right will find things to snipe about, but I think she's a very solid choice.

I think you're either conflating Harris with Warren, or Bloomberg with Biden. Harris had dropped (Dec. 3, 2019) by the time Bloomberg was in (Feb. 19, 2020). She did hit Biden hard in the first debate, although she muddied the waters of her critique (on bussing) the very next day when she flopped the flip.

I hope she's figured out how to talk about her (not stellar) record as a prosecutor. Or, at least, that she'll have it figured out for 2024. No more of this transparently BS "but I was progressive!" crap. I'd like to see her acknowledge her record, own her mistakes, point to the difficulty of being a black female DA and AG in the 2000s, and embrace real reform. I imagine she'll be fine, since she's presumably already figured out which lane she's in and won't be ping-ponging from the progressive to the centrist lane any more.

[marshwiggle]

I hope she's figured out how to talk about her (not stellar) record as a prosecutor. Or, at least, that she'll have it figured out for 2024. No more of this transparently BS "but I was progressive!" crap. I'd like to see her acknowledge her record, own her mistakes, point to the difficulty of being a black female DA and AG in the 2000s, and embrace real reform. I imagine she'll be fine, since she's presumably already figured out which lane she's in and won't be ping-ponging from the progressive to the centrist lane any more.

So which lane is her natural one?

[Cheerful]

Bloomberg is a centrist in the sense of center of the US political spectrum (more or less) and we saw how well that went down.

Did you see Bloomberg in the debates?  Wasn't he in two debates?  As I recall, two of the worst debate performances ever.  Especially the first one he did.  I wouldn't judge the viability of a centrist candidate based on Bloomberg's debate performances.  Bloomberg has been a Democrat, Independent, and Republican.  Next up, Green Party?

[Parasaurolophus]

I hope she's figured out how to talk about her (not stellar) record as a prosecutor. Or, at least, that she'll have it figured out for 2024. No more of this transparently BS "but I was progressive!" crap. I'd like to see her acknowledge her record, own her mistakes, point to the difficulty of being a black female DA and AG in the 2000s, and embrace real reform. I imagine she'll be fine, since she's presumably already figured out which lane she's in and won't be ping-ponging from the progressive to the centrist lane any more.

So which lane is her natural one?

Dunno. We'll see when she tells us and sticks to it.

[Cheerful]

Dunno. We'll see when she tells us and sticks to it.

Depends on what the polls tell her?  Many candidates "stick to it" only if polling suggests it's a good idea to stick to it.  Then again, who trusts polls these days?

[pepsi_alum]

I strongly dislike the "lane" metaphor, which I find overly reductionistic and not terribly useful without looking at the details of the candidate's record over time. That having been said, if we're going to talk in those terms, I would say that Harris' default spot on the political spectrum is "mainstream establishment liberal" -- to the left of party centrists, but not as far left as the Warren/AOC/Sanders wing. Some of the journalistic postmortems written last December claimed that the main problem in Harris' presidential run was that she initially veered to the left because she thought she had to do so to compete with Warren and Sanders, only to find herself defending political positions that weren't comfortable to her and struggling to pivot back. (It's an interesting contrast with Pete Buttigieg, who initially started primary season a progressive candidate, but found success in Iowa by pivoting to more centrist positions).

Overall, I think Harris is an excellent VP pick for Biden. Her background has already been vetted by the national media and doesn't leave much room for Trump to exploit, and though her primary campaign may not have fantastic in terms of messaging, she's not one to get easily tripped up or flustered under pressure. All of the other frequently-mentioned VP finalists (Rice, Bass, Demings, Whitmer, Warren) either hadn't been though that level of media scrutiny or had political records that (fair or not) the GOP would have harped about nonstop. Harris passes the "first do no harm" test in a way that others didn't.

[Parasaurolophus]

I wonder: what happens now, Biden campaign-wise? Do they keep up the thing where they let him lurk in the shadows, but they push Harris out front to be the face of the campaign? Do they both keep to the shadows? Do they both try to come out and campaign together?

The first of those options sounds like the best to me, though it probably does mean the VP overshadowing the President, not unlike McCain-Palin. That also seems desirable to me, but what do I know?

The latter two options don't sounds so hot to me, however. I mean, ideally, yes, I'd want to see Biden out there, and he really should be. I just dread what I'm going to see if he does it.

[financeguy]

Biden narrowed his selection pool by gender. Fine, but if I'm supposed to be excited by a candidate because they're a "strong independent woman" pant suit and all, that person probably shouldn't have gotten their start in the political arena by boinking one of the most corrupt politicians on the planet in exchange for a "low show" patronage job paying 70k a year to meet twice a month in 1990s money.

Willie Brown is 32 years older than Kamala, but this didn't stop her from pursuing the then married San Fran political figure when 29 years old in order to secure the cash, connections and prizes. All feminists should be proud of this ingenious shortcut. Also, she said "I believe them" regarding Biden's accusers. Huh? That's even stranger to me than accepting the debate "I don't think you're a racist" swipe. How are you on a ticket with someone you say you believe to be guilty of sexual misconduct?

Like most feminists, Kamala has no values at all and is purely about the transaction, leveraging fake ideology when convenient and tossing it when in the way of the deal. Couple this with a horrible record of "for thee, not me" attitude as a prosecutor and all you can really say is that the choice wasn't quite as bad as Susan Rice, who I thought Biden's handlers would select. All anyone needs to do is edit Tulsi's beat down from the debates to fit a 30 second ad spot and run with it.