President Joe Biden

[Bigga]

Honestly, what's the point in this post??

If you're trying to make out Biden is a saint around children you haven't studied the internet enough!!

 

[Silva_Spell]

Winning in her own right -- well, Harris won two elections in a city of 700,000 people and three in a state of 35 million and has never lost. Pete lost a statewide election in Indiana and then won two in elections where about 15,000 people cast ballots. Harris was an AG -- talk about having "work across the aisle". Having said that, I prefer candidates with executive experience (governors especially) in an executive role like the presidency as opposed to a legislative background.

I think Harris was on the short list from day 1 -- she's the "bad cop" and Biden is the "good cop". To me this is a highly differentiated ticket between the two protagonists, more so than most.

I would have thought it would have been Klobuchar had I to guess without caveats. I didn't really have a preference and I usually don't because the role is so ceremonial, though if you assume Biden is only running for one term (and I think that's right) perhaps the VP slot takes on new meaning (though Al Gore is the only candidate in recent memory who has leveraged it besides Biden -- though I doubt Biden would be running had, say, Kasich been his opponent).

In the end it especially doesn't matter to me this year because I'd vote for a ripe avocado before Trump.

Pete won a primary (essentially 2 primaries) for President. Harris was rejected so badly that she had already ended her campaign. I think winning an election in Cal as a Democrat is one thing. People being able to envision you as President is another. Given Biden had the nomination in the bag from day 1, Pete, as a moderate who didn't try to go down the crazy Bernie route like Warren, did well to get the polling and votes he did.
I think Pete's age would have brought much needed energy to the ticket. He could've overshadowed Biden and highlighted his dodderingness too much tho. Harris comes off fake when she tries to be enthusiastic so maybe her dour speeches work for Biden.

Well, Tulsi certainly highlighted just how bad a cop Harris was.

I agree that VP doesn't usually matter but for the reason you state and the potential that Biden doesn't make it through his 1 term, it's a big deal this time.

 

[Silva_Spell]

I disagree on that actually, Harris is, except for her gender and race, an extremely conventional choice. She's very typically qualified as a current senator and previous attorney general. She's in a safe seat and will be replaced by a Democrat should she win. He's old, she's young, but she's also experienced enough to take over if necessary. They have largely similar ideological views. She ran in the primary and has been vetted by the media already. And most importantly, she doesn't piss off anyone too much - VP selections are all about not messing up what's working. Checks basically every box.

I don't know what her ideological views are outside of whatever's ideal for her at the time

How has the media vetted her?
And why does that matter when she was looked at and roundly rejected in the Primary by the people who actually matter?

 

[cjn]

I don't know what her ideological views are outside of whatever's ideal for her at the time

How has the media vetted her?
And why does that matter when she was looked at and roundly rejected in the Primary by the people who actually matter?

On ideology I mean more like she's just generally in the mainstream of the party, like Biden is. It's not a clash like it would be pairing Biden with Warren or AOC if that were possible is all I'm saying.

On the vetting - it's a pretty common thing. When you run a national primary, even if the result was really bad, you come under a lot of scrutiny. People find old stories, and anything stupid you might've done or said years ago is suddenly dug up, that sort of thing. You can be more confident that someone who's run in a high profile primary doesn't have previously uncovered skeleton's in their closest than someone with a lower profile might.

I'm not arguing that Harris is good or bad, just that as far as VP selections go, she's a pretty typical choice.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Pete won a primary (essentially 2 primaries) for President. Harris was rejected so badly that she had already ended her campaign. I think winning an election in Cal as a Democrat is one thing. People being able to envision you as President is another. Given Biden had the nomination in the bag from day 1, Pete, as a moderate who didn't try to go down the crazy Bernie route like Warren, did well to get the polling and votes he did.
I think Pete's age would have brought much needed energy to the ticket. He could've overshadowed Biden and highlighted his dodderingness too much tho. Harris comes off fake when she tries to be enthusiastic so maybe her dour speeches work for Biden.

Well, Tulsi certainly highlighted just how bad a cop Harris was.

I agree that VP doesn't usually matter but for the reason you state and the potential that Biden doesn't make it through his 1 term, it's a big deal this time.

I don't think Biden had it in the bag from day one. Anyhow, I agree with @cjn that she's a conventional choice politically. I think her presidential campaign suffered from an appalling lack of organization (as some of the stories of defections at the time indicated) which is worrisome. I think her presence on the ticket is more or less a wash.

 

[Bigga]

Now, let's get one thing straight, I DO NOT LIKE TOMMY SOTOMAYOR'S VIEWPOINT AS A WHOLE, but he's bang on about Biden.

 

[Silva_Spell]

Now, let's get one thing straight, I DO NOT LIKE TOMMY SOTOMAYOR'S VIEWPOINT AS A WHOLE, but he's bang on about Biden.

Watched it all from the start of Biden's interview. Whilst he makes some sensible comments it should be noted that Biden's crime bill didn't cause the increase in incarceration, it had been rising for many years before then due to the increasing crime.

 

[Bigga]

Watched it all from the start of Biden's interview. Whilst he makes some sensible comments it should be noted that Biden's crime bill didn't cause the increase in incarceration, it had been rising for many years before then due to the increasing crime.

The irony is missed that Biden's bill swept up the most innocuous of people for '3 strikes' serving 25 years for the dumbest things. That would include the separation of fathers (and mothers) from the family dynamic.

So, that would create people that commit crime cos that's all they know, when their neighbourhoods are parentless and underfunded.

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

 

[Silva_Spell]

The irony is missed that Biden's bill swept up the most innocuous of people for '3 strikes' serving 25 years for the dumbest things. That would include the separation of fathers (and mothers) from the family dynamic.

So, that would create people that commit crime cos that's all they know, when their neighbourhoods are parentless and underfunded.

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

3 Strikes tho has been associated with lower crime rates (last I read anyway)

Maybe I'm wrong about this but whilst it differs between the states I thought 3 strikes was typically reserved for more serious crimes, and 3 strikes relating to Biden's bill only concerned federal crimes

I'm always a bit sceptical of the 'woe is me' attitude because when you get down to it no-one is forcing you to commit multiple crimes and if you have a kid wtf are you playing at? With that said, 3 strikes could encourage you to commit a more serious 3rd crime than you otherwise would. I think I also read it's associated with killings of police (and you'd assume police shootings) as escaping arrest could save you from going away for decades.

So many variables to consider.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Even if he was diagnosed as senile.

he’s a far better alternative than Trump