Nobody likes Kamala Harris lmao

[dead0man]

I'm confused about exactly what she is supposed to be doing?

I don't know, maybe find some way---any way---to demonstrate that the country would be in good hands with her as President.

Vice President is a crappy job unless you're Dick Cheney, yes, so on one level I sympathize (and yes, she's the most prominent black female politician in the country, so of course she's going to get a lot of nasty, bigoted, and unfair criticism).

That being said:

The point that is being missed is that a lot of women politicians are the subject of likability tests in ways that male politicians are not.

This isn't incongruent with Kamala Harris being a lousy potential presidential candidate/nominee and/or President. Both things can be true.

The thing is that her experience makes her qualified to be second in line. The past few Vice Presidents have had less executive experience.

the previous VP was a governor for 4 years

[Landslide Lyndon]

the previous VP was a failed governor for 4 years

Fixed.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm confused about exactly what she is supposed to be doing?

I don't know, maybe find some way---any way---to demonstrate that the country would be in good hands with her as President.

Vice President is a crappy job unless you're Dick Cheney, yes, so on one level I sympathize (and yes, she's the most prominent black female politician in the country, so of course she's going to get a lot of nasty, bigoted, and unfair criticism).

That being said:

The point that is being missed is that a lot of women politicians are the subject of likability tests in ways that male politicians are not.

This isn't incongruent with Kamala Harris being a lousy potential presidential candidate/nominee and/or President. Both things can be true.

The thing is that her experience makes her qualified to be second in line. The past few Vice Presidents have had less executive experience. I can't even think of a Vice President that has done much to demonstrate that they would be a good President or much else because they've pretty much stayed in the background.

Pondering likability isn't an indictment on qualifications.

This isn't a real thing. It was an effective attack line against Trump because his lack of prior public service was lived down to by his complete inability to understand or care about the way the federal government functions or what constitutes an appropriate balance of power within it, but in a broader historical context the "qualified" thing is a complete red herring. If all you needed to be a good President was a beefy résumé, students of American history would always be hearing about wise elder statesman James Buchanan and his successor, feckless pooch-screwer Abraham Lincoln.

[Landslide Lyndon]

This isn't a real thing. It was an effective attack line against Trump because his lack of prior public service was lived down to by his complete inability to understand or care about the way the federal government functions or what constitutes an appropriate balance of power within in, but in a broader historical context the "qualified" thing is a complete red herring. If all you needed to be a good President was a beefy résumé, students of American history would always be hearing about wise elder statesman James Buchanan and his successor, feckless pooch-screwer Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln might have lacked experience relative to other presidential candidates but he more than made up for it with character and intellect. Trump had neither of those things to counterbalance his other flaws.
Not only was he ignorant, he was also incurious, if not outright dismissive of anyone who tried to explain to him how things work, and was under the delusion that he was the smartest person in the room.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Harris is an incompetent empty suit and this has been clear since at least her time in the Senate.  She’s been useless as vice president and there’s every reason to think should be a complete failure as either a president or an even as a presidential nominee.  It won’t happen, but Biden really should drop her from the ticket in 2024.

[Sir Mohamed]

The obsession with Harris is kind of absurd, imho. For sure overblown. I do like her, though I'm not that sympathetic to a 2028 bid because I prefer someone with a better chance of winning. Harris at least seems to struggle with having able people around her. Both during her initial 2020 campaign and the VP's office. And I'm saying this as someone who backed her in 2019 and didn't switch to Biden until ST rolled around.

[EastwoodS]

I don't dislike her at all, in fact, she looks like someone I would definitely like to be friends with; I'm sure there are a lot of things we would agree on.
as for her job performance, the only thing I see from her that makes me cringe is how uncomfortable and unprepared she looks whenever she is giving interviews or speeches. I'm not quite sure what is going on with her and why she seems so nervous and out of place whenever she has to speak because she seemed a lot more confident about public speaking during the Trump years and now? I'm not sure what's going on.
- I will say kamala Harris was basically set up to fail from beginning by being given the impossible task to fix the dumpster fire that is the southern border. I actually feel bad for her; she probably hates being there.

[Saint Milei]

I don't dislike her at all, in fact, she looks like someone I would definitely like to be friends with; I'm sure there are a lot of things we would agree on.
as for her job performance, the only thing I see from her that makes me cringe is how uncomfortable and unprepared she looks whenever she is giving interviews or speeches. I'm not quite sure what is going on with her and why she seems so nervous and out of place whenever she has to speak because she seemed a lot more confident about public speaking during the Trump years and now? I'm not sure what's going on.
- I will say kamala Harris was basically set up to fail from beginning by being given the impossible task to fix the dumpster fire that is the southern border. I actually feel bad for her; she probably hates being there.

You might actually be the worst Blue avy poster in atlas history. Do us all a favor and just call yourself a liberal. S019 2.0

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This isn't a real thing. It was an effective attack line against Trump because his lack of prior public service was lived down to by his complete inability to understand or care about the way the federal government functions or what constitutes an appropriate balance of power within in, but in a broader historical context the "qualified" thing is a complete red herring. If all you needed to be a good President was a beefy résumé, students of American history would always be hearing about wise elder statesman James Buchanan and his successor, feckless pooch-screwer Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln might have lacked experience relative to other presidential candidates but he more than made up for it with character and intellect. Trump had neither of those things to counterbalance his other flaws.
Not only was he ignorant, he was also incurious, if not outright dismissive of anyone who tried to explain to him how things work, and was under the delusion that he was the smartest person in the room.

That's sort of the point I'm making. There are character traits that matter as much as or more than experience or qualifications in the senses of those words being discussed.

I don't know enough about Kamala Harris to know which of those traits she does or doesn't have and I'm agnostic on how much of the dislike for her is racially or sexually motivated. I'm just not an expert on the woman.

[EastwoodS]

I don't dislike her at all, in fact, she looks like someone I would definitely like to be friends with; I'm sure there are a lot of things we would agree on.
as for her job performance, the only thing I see from her that makes me cringe is how uncomfortable and unprepared she looks whenever she is giving interviews or speeches. I'm not quite sure what is going on with her and why she seems so nervous and out of place whenever she has to speak because she seemed a lot more confident about public speaking during the Trump years and now? I'm not sure what's going on.
- I will say kamala Harris was basically set up to fail from beginning by being given the impossible task to fix the dumpster fire that is the southern border. I actually feel bad for her; she probably hates being there.

You might actually be the worst Blue avy poster in atlas history. Do us all a favor and just call yourself a liberal. S019 2.0

damn, I thought the right claimed to be the loving and accepting ones fighting against rampant cancel culture, lol, glad to know that was also a scam.

[kwabbit]

the previous VP was a failed governor for 4 years

Fixed.

This is a good point. Pence wasn't a popular governor picked to be VP, he was actually quite unpopular. He was embroiled in a tough fight for reelection in a red state because he was too far right. Kamala had a mediocre electoral track record too, but she was as popular as a Democrat should be in California when Biden picked her.

[Saint Milei]

I don't dislike her at all, in fact, she looks like someone I would definitely like to be friends with; I'm sure there are a lot of things we would agree on.
as for her job performance, the only thing I see from her that makes me cringe is how uncomfortable and unprepared she looks whenever she is giving interviews or speeches. I'm not quite sure what is going on with her and why she seems so nervous and out of place whenever she has to speak because she seemed a lot more confident about public speaking during the Trump years and now? I'm not sure what's going on.
- I will say kamala Harris was basically set up to fail from beginning by being given the impossible task to fix the dumpster fire that is the southern border. I actually feel bad for her; she probably hates being there.

You might actually be the worst Blue avy poster in atlas history. Do us all a favor and just call yourself a liberal. S019 2.0

damn, I thought the right claimed to be the loving and accepting ones fighting against rampant cancel culture, lol, glad to know that was also a scam.

I support affirmative Action for conservatives

There are more conservatives in university than you think, its just that we're afraid to say something that gets us booted out...

some of the things conservatives say deserve to be met with societal expulsion.

this u?

[EastwoodS]

I don't dislike her at all, in fact, she looks like someone I would definitely like to be friends with; I'm sure there are a lot of things we would agree on.
as for her job performance, the only thing I see from her that makes me cringe is how uncomfortable and unprepared she looks whenever she is giving interviews or speeches. I'm not quite sure what is going on with her and why she seems so nervous and out of place whenever she has to speak because she seemed a lot more confident about public speaking during the Trump years and now? I'm not sure what's going on.
- I will say kamala Harris was basically set up to fail from beginning by being given the impossible task to fix the dumpster fire that is the southern border. I actually feel bad for her; she probably hates being there.

You might actually be the worst Blue avy poster in atlas history. Do us all a favor and just call yourself a liberal. S019 2.0

damn, I thought the right claimed to be the loving and accepting ones fighting against rampant cancel culture, lol, glad to know that was also a scam.

I support affirmative Action for conservatives

There are more conservatives in university than you think, its just that we're afraid to say something that gets us booted out...

some of the things conservatives say deserve to be met with societal expulsion.

this u?

the fundamental difference between the cancel culture of right wing and left wing is the left wing is expanding social acceptance and justice of discriminated minorities and classes of people that have been seen "less than" under the current societal norms and conventions that largely uphold people that are straight, socially and culturally conservative, and most but not all the time white men. Right wing cancel culture simply stims from cancelling people that do not want to uphold this Americanized fetish of "Christian-judeo values."

[Хahar 🤔]

To add on to my previous post, the extreme hostility we see toward Kamala Harris (on this forum, but also elsewhere online) is interesting to me. It's unclear how specifically she's "unqualified" or how she's demonstrated "incompetence" when she has a job with no power and no responsibilities and (as mentioned previously) her background is similar to that of other vice presidents. The obvious difference here is the idea that she got her job just based on the identity boxes she checks off.

The people who feel this way have obvious justification in that they can point to what the Biden campaign actually said. I don't recall these sorts of criticisms of Kamala Harris being leveled in the same way when she ran for president, because then she was running against a bunch of candidates who weren't black women whom she would have to defeat. It may have been strategically useful for the Biden campaign to say that it was going to choose a black woman as its running mate, but doing so preemptively destroyed the credibility of anyone who might be chosen.

Sometimes you see the suggestion that Biden should have chosen a different black woman instead of Kamala Harris and that would have been better. I find that hard to believe. My recollection is that the other candidates who were regularly mentioned were Val Demings, Stacey Abrams, and Susan Rice. None of those three have ever won a statewide election and only Demings has ever been elected to a higher position than state legislator. Does anyone really believe that any of them would be seen as less of a token selection?

Suppose that the Biden campaign had chosen Kamala Harris without announcing that it would select a black woman and after suggesting that a variety of Democrats of different backgrounds would be considered. This wouldn't change the issues that Kamala Harris has had as vice president in terms of being disconnected from her base and lacking strong allies in Washington, but I think that there would be less hostility toward her in general because she wouldn't be seen in the same way as having been advanced without merit.

[Landslide Lyndon]

To add on to my previous post, the extreme hostility we see toward Kamala Harris (on this forum, but also elsewhere online) is interesting to me. It's unclear how specifically she's "unqualified" or how she's demonstrated "incompetence" when she has a job with no power and no responsibilities and (as mentioned previously) her background is similar to that of other vice presidents. The obvious difference here is the idea that she got her job just based on the identity boxes she checks off.

The people who feel this way have obvious justification in that they can point to what the Biden campaign actually said. I don't recall these sorts of criticisms of Kamala Harris being leveled in the same way when she ran for president, because then she was running against a bunch of candidates who weren't black women whom she would have to defeat. It may have been strategically useful for the Biden campaign to say that it was going to choose a black woman as its running mate, but doing so preemptively destroyed the credibility of anyone who might be chosen.

Sometimes you see the suggestion that Biden should have chosen a different black woman instead of Kamala Harris and that would have been better. I find that hard to believe. My recollection is that the other candidates who were regularly mentioned were Val Demings, Stacey Abrams, and Susan Rice. None of those three have ever won a statewide election and only Demings has ever been elected to a higher position than state legislator. Does anyone really believe that any of them would be seen as less of a token selection?

Suppose that the Biden campaign had chosen Kamala Harris without announcing that it would select a black woman and after suggesting that a variety of Democrats of different backgrounds would be considered. This wouldn't change the issues that Kamala Harris has had as vice president in terms of being disconnected from her base and lacking strong allies in Washington, but I think that there would be less hostility toward her in general because she wouldn't be seen in the same way as having been advanced without merit.

Almost every VP is chosen because he checks some boxes which are irrelevant to his ability to govern.
Pence was chosen because as an ultra-conservative Christian would assuage Evangelicals.
Biden was chosen because he was an old white guy who would balance Obama.

[President Johnson]

To add on to my previous post, the extreme hostility we see toward Kamala Harris (on this forum, but also elsewhere online) is interesting to me. It's unclear how specifically she's "unqualified" or how she's demonstrated "incompetence" when she has a job with no power and no responsibilities and (as mentioned previously) her background is similar to that of other vice presidents. The obvious difference here is the idea that she got her job just based on the identity boxes she checks off.

The people who feel this way have obvious justification in that they can point to what the Biden campaign actually said. I don't recall these sorts of criticisms of Kamala Harris being leveled in the same way when she ran for president, because then she was running against a bunch of candidates who weren't black women whom she would have to defeat. It may have been strategically useful for the Biden campaign to say that it was going to choose a black woman as its running mate, but doing so preemptively destroyed the credibility of anyone who might be chosen.

Sometimes you see the suggestion that Biden should have chosen a different black woman instead of Kamala Harris and that would have been better. I find that hard to believe. My recollection is that the other candidates who were regularly mentioned were Val Demings, Stacey Abrams, and Susan Rice. None of those three have ever won a statewide election and only Demings has ever been elected to a higher position than state legislator. Does anyone really believe that any of them would be seen as less of a token selection?

Suppose that the Biden campaign had chosen Kamala Harris without announcing that it would select a black woman and after suggesting that a variety of Democrats of different backgrounds would be considered. This wouldn't change the issues that Kamala Harris has had as vice president in terms of being disconnected from her base and lacking strong allies in Washington, but I think that there would be less hostility toward her in general because she wouldn't be seen in the same way as having been advanced without merit.

Almost every VP is chosen because he checks some boxes which are irrelevant to his ability to govern.
Pence was chosen because as an ultra-conservative Christian would assuage Evangelicals.
Biden was chosen because he was an old white guy who would balance Obama.

Kennedy chose Johnson as a geographical balance, and Johnson himself did so with Humphrey. Yould even argue so with Dan Quayle, especially for his age.

The unfortunate issue for Harris is that she's less experienced than the president. In other administrations presidents kind of relied on the vice president's experience and connections to Capitol Hill which the top guy lacked.

[jojoju1998]

To add on to my previous post, the extreme hostility we see toward Kamala Harris (on this forum, but also elsewhere online) is interesting to me. It's unclear how specifically she's "unqualified" or how she's demonstrated "incompetence" when she has a job with no power and no responsibilities and (as mentioned previously) her background is similar to that of other vice presidents. The obvious difference here is the idea that she got her job just based on the identity boxes she checks off.

The people who feel this way have obvious justification in that they can point to what the Biden campaign actually said. I don't recall these sorts of criticisms of Kamala Harris being leveled in the same way when she ran for president, because then she was running against a bunch of candidates who weren't black women whom she would have to defeat. It may have been strategically useful for the Biden campaign to say that it was going to choose a black woman as its running mate, but doing so preemptively destroyed the credibility of anyone who might be chosen.

Sometimes you see the suggestion that Biden should have chosen a different black woman instead of Kamala Harris and that would have been better. I find that hard to believe. My recollection is that the other candidates who were regularly mentioned were Val Demings, Stacey Abrams, and Susan Rice. None of those three have ever won a statewide election and only Demings has ever been elected to a higher position than state legislator. Does anyone really believe that any of them would be seen as less of a token selection?

Suppose that the Biden campaign had chosen Kamala Harris without announcing that it would select a black woman and after suggesting that a variety of Democrats of different backgrounds would be considered. This wouldn't change the issues that Kamala Harris has had as vice president in terms of being disconnected from her base and lacking strong allies in Washington, but I think that there would be less hostility toward her in general because she wouldn't be seen in the same way as having been advanced without merit.

Almost every VP is chosen because he checks some boxes which are irrelevant to his ability to govern.
Pence was chosen because as an ultra-conservative Christian would assuage Evangelicals.
Biden was chosen because he was an old white guy who would balance Obama.

Also Biden had foreign policy experience, and experience in Congress.

[emailking]

It may have been strategically useful for the Biden campaign to say that it was going to choose a black woman as its running mate, but doing so preemptively destroyed the credibility of anyone who might be chosen.

They didn't do that. They said they would pick a woman.

[ingemann]

To add on to my previous post, the extreme hostility we see toward Kamala Harris (on this forum, but also elsewhere online) is interesting to me. It's unclear how specifically she's "unqualified" or how she's demonstrated "incompetence" when she has a job with no power and no responsibilities and (as mentioned previously) her background is similar to that of other vice presidents. The obvious difference here is the idea that she got her job just based on the identity boxes she checks off.

The people who feel this way have obvious justification in that they can point to what the Biden campaign actually said. I don't recall these sorts of criticisms of Kamala Harris being leveled in the same way when she ran for president, because then she was running against a bunch of candidates who weren't black women whom she would have to defeat. It may have been strategically useful for the Biden campaign to say that it was going to choose a black woman as its running mate, but doing so preemptively destroyed the credibility of anyone who might be chosen.

Sometimes you see the suggestion that Biden should have chosen a different black woman instead of Kamala Harris and that would have been better. I find that hard to believe. My recollection is that the other candidates who were regularly mentioned were Val Demings, Stacey Abrams, and Susan Rice. None of those three have ever won a statewide election and only Demings has ever been elected to a higher position than state legislator. Does anyone really believe that any of them would be seen as less of a token selection?

Suppose that the Biden campaign had chosen Kamala Harris without announcing that it would select a black woman and after suggesting that a variety of Democrats of different backgrounds would be considered. This wouldn't change the issues that Kamala Harris has had as vice president in terms of being disconnected from her base and lacking strong allies in Washington, but I think that there would be less hostility toward her in general because she wouldn't be seen in the same way as having been advanced without merit.

Almost every VP is chosen because he checks some boxes which are irrelevant to his ability to govern.
Pence was chosen because as an ultra-conservative Christian would assuage Evangelicals.
Biden was chosen because he was an old white guy who would balance Obama.

No one thought that Pence is less competent than Trump. As for Biden he had been a Senator for decades and pretty clearly made up for Obama’s inexperience and inability to deal with people who don’t worship the ground he walks on.

Harris is not a good VP, but I think for Biden she serves the purposes he wanted her to serve, so she’s a good nr. 2. By selecting her he shut up the people for who identity politics is everything. While no one really likes her, her background as DA ensured he didn’t alienate potential voters who was worried about crime, she’s also the right level of uncharismatic, not enough to truly alienate people but enough that the media doesn’t care to cover her. I would replace her if I was Biden*, but I get the benefit in keeping her around, she doesn’t cost any vote, and while she would be a bad president, she would not be a disaster in the position.

* to avoid the morons in the Democratic Party decides to make her the candidate in 2028.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

To add on to my previous post, the extreme hostility we see toward Kamala Harris (on this forum, but also elsewhere online) is interesting to me. It's unclear how specifically she's "unqualified" or how she's demonstrated "incompetence" when she has a job with no power and no responsibilities and (as mentioned previously) her background is similar to that of other vice presidents. The obvious difference here is the idea that she got her job just based on the identity boxes she checks off.

The people who feel this way have obvious justification in that they can point to what the Biden campaign actually said. I don't recall these sorts of criticisms of Kamala Harris being leveled in the same way when she ran for president, because then she was running against a bunch of candidates who weren't black women whom she would have to defeat. It may have been strategically useful for the Biden campaign to say that it was going to choose a black woman as its running mate, but doing so preemptively destroyed the credibility of anyone who might be chosen.

Sometimes you see the suggestion that Biden should have chosen a different black woman instead of Kamala Harris and that would have been better. I find that hard to believe. My recollection is that the other candidates who were regularly mentioned were Val Demings, Stacey Abrams, and Susan Rice. None of those three have ever won a statewide election and only Demings has ever been elected to a higher position than state legislator. Does anyone really believe that any of them would be seen as less of a token selection?

Suppose that the Biden campaign had chosen Kamala Harris without announcing that it would select a black woman and after suggesting that a variety of Democrats of different backgrounds would be considered. This wouldn't change the issues that Kamala Harris has had as vice president in terms of being disconnected from her base and lacking strong allies in Washington, but I think that there would be less hostility toward her in general because she wouldn't be seen in the same way as having been advanced without merit.

Almost every VP is chosen because he checks some boxes which are irrelevant to his ability to govern.
Pence was chosen because as an ultra-conservative Christian would assuage Evangelicals.
Biden was chosen because he was an old white guy who would balance Obama.

No one thought that Pence is less competent than Trump. As for Biden he had been a Senator for decades and pretty clearly made up for Obama’s inexperience and inability to deal with people who don’t worship the ground he walks on.

Harris is not a good VP, but I think for Biden she serves the purposes he wanted her to serve, so she’s a good nr. 2. By selecting her he shut up the people for who identity politics is everything. While no one really likes her, her background as DA ensured he didn’t alienate potential voters who was worried about crime, she’s also the right level of uncharismatic, not enough to truly alienate people but enough that the media doesn’t care to cover her. I would replace her if I was Biden*, but I get the benefit in keeping her around, she doesn’t cost any vote, and while she would be a bad president, she would not be a disaster in the position.

* to avoid the morons in the Democratic Party decides to make her the candidate in 2028.

The problem is that the 5 previous Democratic VPs were all nominated for President.

[emailking]

That's a good thing since I wanted and still want her to be President!