Biden VP news megathread (pg 286 - been selected, announcement could be today)

[DrScholl]

Harris was basically written off in 2010 Attorney General race because she was anti-death penalty and was running against a Republican who won in Los Angeles County. I recall people actually being shocked when she won Los Angeles County because there was an assumption that Cooley would win it or at least keep it close. The race wasn't close because Harris was bad candidate, it was close because who she was running against.

[Devils30]

Yes, Demings may have broader appeal than Harris! To people here, broader appeal means appealing to Bernie's 2% hardcore most leftists. I am referring to the undecided/soft lean Biden moderates.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

The KHive is extremely toxic. They deserve no support - zero.

"A couple people are nasty on Twitter so we're not gonna pick you, sorry Kamala."

If he were in a position to be pegged Would you give Bernie the same benefit? Honest question. I would not. I am with Elizabeth and Hillary on this one. You are responsible for creating a culture around you, and those two groups are uniquely bad

I've seen a few Biden supporters be toxic and annoying towards progressives and Bernie supporters. Should Biden not have gotten the nomination?

Just say that you hate Kamala and go. Stop beating around the bush.

*writes down names*
*closes book*

I’ve been very clear that I don’t Like her, but I also think it true that she has a unique cult Around her, comparable only to Trump and Bernie. I base that on my experiences and those of my friends. That’s one of the reasons I don’t like her. Not the other way around

If the only reason for you not liking Harris is because a few of her supporters are cult-like then that's honestly sad.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Harris was basically written off in 2010 Attorney General race because she was anti-death penalty and was running against a Republican who won in Los Angeles County. I recall people actually being shocked when she won Los Angeles County because there was an assumption that Cooley would win it or at least keep it close. The race wasn't close because Harris was bad candidate, it was close because who she was running against.

Exactly!

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yes, Demings may have broader appeal than Harris! To people here, broader appeal means appealing to Bernie's 2% hardcore most leftists. I am referring to the undecided/soft lean Biden moderates.

From what I have seen the anti-Trump Republicans like Harris just fine, despite the fact that they acknowledge she is very liberal. As a matter of fact, the only VP contender they seem to dislike is Warren.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Harris was basically written off in 2010 Attorney General race because she was anti-death penalty and was running against a Republican who won in Los Angeles County. I recall people actually being shocked when she won Los Angeles County because there was an assumption that Cooley would win it or at least keep it close. The race wasn't close because Harris was bad candidate, it was close because who she was running against.

This. When it comes to Kamala Harris it’s always revisionist history. Don’t pay attention to what people say about her past now that she’s a threat to their fave’s political fortunes. Look what was said in real time. She wasn’t about a bad candidate in 2010, her Republican opponent was uniquely strong and she overcame it. She wasn’t a corrupt evil b**** locking up Black men indiscriminately, she was called a social worker as marijuana convictions plummeted, she refused to apply the death penalty, and she re-routed low level non violent offenders away from prison through her Back on Track program.

[heatcharger]

Yes, Demings may have broader appeal than Harris! To people here, broader appeal means appealing to Bernie's 2% hardcore most leftists. I am referring to the undecided/soft lean Biden moderates.

From what I have seen the anti-Trump Republicans like Harris just fine, despite the fact that they acknowledge she is very liberal. As a matter of fact, the only VP contender they seem to dislike is Warren.

You have a warped view of who swing voters are, most likely because as a foreigner your exposure to people outside the Democratic Party is entirely online. "Anti-Trump Republicans" aren't the concern -- it's the older, whiter, less-ideological, less-"informed", less-college-educated, less-partisan voters who've signaled in polls to be open to voting for Biden. This is a unique opportunity and there's no state in America where this isn't an important voting demographic. But I assure you Harris is poison to this group.

My opposition to Harris has less to do with the 2020 election anyway, and more to do with the consultants and political hacks, who've never won anything being rewarded with the Vice Presidency and keys to the party in four years. It's a straight-up coup. I didn't sign up for this.

[FlyoverCoast]

From the Axios/SurveyMonkey Poll (6/12–6/16)

In your view, what's the single most important attribute for Joe Biden's (2020) vice presidential running mate to have?


Experience as an executive, such as serving as governor of a state or mayor of a city   
14%

Brings racial and ethnic diversity to the Democratic ticket   
23%

Represents the future of the Democratic Party   
17%

Brings ideological balance to the Democratic ticket   
14%

Has proven appeal to swing voters   
11%

Experience as a legislator   
6%

Other (please specify)   
12%
   
No answer   
2%

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

You’re usually right in your assessments and I generally agree with you, but this ain’t it. Her endorsements have gone to a slew of progressive candidates (Booker, Bowman, Eastman, Stephen Smith) but she has also endorsed candidates on the more moderate side of things plenty of times. Her organization is about coalition building. I also think it’s strange that she endorsed Hick but I’m not going to act like this is a knock against her progressive bonafides because she’s been endorsing plenty of candidates who align with her values. I think she might’ve endorsed Hick from an electability POV, as polls have shown him crushing Gardner so he seems like the safest bet to flip that seat. This doesn’t bother me and it doesn’t undo everything else she’s done for progressives both before and after her run for POTUS. One bad endorsement does not a snake make.

The problem with this is that you're operating under the assumption that Hickenlooper is a moderate. Hickenlooper is a Blue Dog. He's definitely on the moderate side of the economy question, and his climate record as governor is outright conservative. Colorado isn't a purple state anymore - it's got a decidedly blue tint to it now, and we can do better than someone like Hickenlooper there.

My issue isn't that she endorsed Hickenlooper, but the timing of the endorsement. If she endorsed earlier like Harris did, I'd be fine with it. I'd be a bit disappointed, but I wouldn't be angry. It's different than Jeff Merkley endorsing the DSCC slate or Kamala Harris backing her. It's different from Bernie staying out. She openly attempted to paint Hickenlooper as the progressive candidate despite his actual conservative positions. You know it's bad when her own supporters are dragging her for it.

Her putting her thumb on the scale just as Romanoff is starting to gain steam and traction is what pissed me off. This isn't, say, Yang or Tulsi deciding to endorse Biden over Bernie after Super Tuesday. Sure, Bernie was more aligned with them, but the guy's campaign was dead in the water. Romanoff probably won't win, and a Warren endorsement wouldn't have closed the gap between them. But the momentum is undeniably heavily in Romanoff's direction right now, and a Warren endorsement would have brought a lot of enthusiasm towards his campaign. Her endorsement, to say the very least, stifles that momentum. At best, it's a misjudgment of the race, and at worst it's a calculated political move to shut down a progressive challenger to a conservative Democrat in a blue state. With the timing of the endorsement, I'm more inclined to believe it's the latter.

One endorsement does not make a snake, but this endorsement is part of a greater pattern. Going along with her team's dubious accusations of sexism, staying in for Super Tuesday, this... some of that might be exaggerated, but all that shows that Elizabeth Warren is more interested in being a "player in the game" than pushing a progressive agenda. We don't need another Barack Obama who will use us to get elected and sell us down the river when they get in power. We need someone who we can trust to fight for us.

And as sad as it is, Elizabeth Warren has broken that trust with me.

Wasn't Romanoff running in 2010 to the right of Michael Bennet? He even had a Clinton endorsement. It's pretty clear that all of these folks are just playing the game.

[NYSforKennedy2024]

From the Axios/SurveyMonkey Poll (6/12–6/16)

In your view, what's the single most important attribute for Joe Biden's (2020) vice presidential running mate to have?


Experience as an executive, such as serving as governor of a state or mayor of a city   
14%

Brings racial and ethnic diversity to the Democratic ticket   
23%

Represents the future of the Democratic Party   
17%

Brings ideological balance to the Democratic ticket   
14%

Has proven appeal to swing voters   
11%

Experience as a legislator   
6%

Other (please specify)   
12%
   
No answer   
2%

These numbers really help the case for KLB. Executive experience and her ideological appeal to the progressive left may be her ticket in.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You have a warped view of who swing voters are, most likely because as a foreigner your exposure to people outside the Democratic Party is entirely online. "Anti-Trump Republicans" aren't the concern -- it's the older, whiter, less-ideological, less-"informed", less-college-educated, less-partisan voters who've signaled in polls to be open to voting for Biden. This is a unique opportunity and there's no state in America where this isn't an important voting demographic. But I assure you Harris is poison to this group.

There is literally zero evidence for that.

[DisneyDem]

The KHive is extremely toxic. They deserve no support - zero.

"A couple people are nasty on Twitter so we're not gonna pick you, sorry Kamala."

If he were in a position to be pegged Would you give Bernie the same benefit? Honest question. I would not. I am with Elizabeth and Hillary on this one. You are responsible for creating a culture around you, and those two groups are uniquely bad

I've seen a few Biden supporters be toxic and annoying towards progressives and Bernie supporters. Should Biden not have gotten the nomination?

Just say that you hate Kamala and go. Stop beating around the bush.

*writes down names*
*closes book*

I’ve been very clear that I don’t Like her, but I also think it true that she has a unique cult Around her, comparable only to Trump and Bernie. I base that on my experiences and those of my friends. That’s one of the reasons I don’t like her. Not the other way around

If the only reason for you not liking Harris is because a few of her supporters are cult-like then that's honestly sad.

I don’t mean to sound harsh but where did I imply it was the only reason? I’ll break it down. I’ve gone from thinking she was generally unremarkable and overrated, to briefly thinking she should be the nominee after the first debate, to reading about her record and wondering why she was even in contention in the Democratic primary, to watching numerous supporters of her harassed me and my friends, even threatening violence to some of them, while she gives them winks and nods. Thus I arrived where I am, believing that this is a movement within the party that cannot be rewarded. Now on another note, judging by your name we agree on a lot of other things and I think I even recall really liking some of your timelines, so I sincerely hope she’s not picked so we can go back to agreeing on everything.  I apologize if I’ve upset you in someway.

[GoTfan]

The KHive is extremely toxic. They deserve no support - zero.

"A couple people are nasty on Twitter so we're not gonna pick you, sorry Kamala."

Wasn't that the same rationale on here for screaming about now awful Sanders was?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

You’re usually right in your assessments and I generally agree with you, but this ain’t it. Her endorsements have gone to a slew of progressive candidates (Booker, Bowman, Eastman, Stephen Smith) but she has also endorsed candidates on the more moderate side of things plenty of times. Her organization is about coalition building. I also think it’s strange that she endorsed Hick but I’m not going to act like this is a knock against her progressive bonafides because she’s been endorsing plenty of candidates who align with her values. I think she might’ve endorsed Hick from an electability POV, as polls have shown him crushing Gardner so he seems like the safest bet to flip that seat. This doesn’t bother me and it doesn’t undo everything else she’s done for progressives both before and after her run for POTUS. One bad endorsement does not a snake make.

The problem with this is that you're operating under the assumption that Hickenlooper is a moderate. Hickenlooper is a Blue Dog. He's definitely on the moderate side of the economy question, and his climate record as governor is outright conservative. Colorado isn't a purple state anymore - it's got a decidedly blue tint to it now, and we can do better than someone like Hickenlooper there.

My issue isn't that she endorsed Hickenlooper, but the timing of the endorsement. If she endorsed earlier like Harris did, I'd be fine with it. I'd be a bit disappointed, but I wouldn't be angry. It's different than Jeff Merkley endorsing the DSCC slate or Kamala Harris backing her. It's different from Bernie staying out. She openly attempted to paint Hickenlooper as the progressive candidate despite his actual conservative positions. You know it's bad when her own supporters are dragging her for it.

Her putting her thumb on the scale just as Romanoff is starting to gain steam and traction is what pissed me off. This isn't, say, Yang or Tulsi deciding to endorse Biden over Bernie after Super Tuesday. Sure, Bernie was more aligned with them, but the guy's campaign was dead in the water. Romanoff probably won't win, and a Warren endorsement wouldn't have closed the gap between them. But the momentum is undeniably heavily in Romanoff's direction right now, and a Warren endorsement would have brought a lot of enthusiasm towards his campaign. Her endorsement, to say the very least, stifles that momentum. At best, it's a misjudgment of the race, and at worst it's a calculated political move to shut down a progressive challenger to a conservative Democrat in a blue state. With the timing of the endorsement, I'm more inclined to believe it's the latter.

One endorsement does not make a snake, but this endorsement is part of a greater pattern. Going along with her team's dubious accusations of sexism, staying in for Super Tuesday, this... some of that might be exaggerated, but all that shows that Elizabeth Warren is more interested in being a "player in the game" than pushing a progressive agenda. We don't need another Barack Obama who will use us to get elected and sell us down the river when they get in power. We need someone who we can trust to fight for us.

And as sad as it is, Elizabeth Warren has broken that trust with me.

Wasn't Romanoff running in 2010 to the right of Michael Bennet? He even had a Clinton endorsement. It's pretty clear that all of these folks are just playing the game.

What I've noticed is that it's much easier being accepted by the left if you're a white man, even if you've had a more conservative past. To the left, that's "growth". Women like Warren and Harris, who have been consistently progressive throughout their careers, were shunned because they weren't perfectly progressive. When they pivoted to the left, they were called "phony" and "inauthentic" and "opportunistic". You're not hearing any of this being said about Romanoff. I wonder why.

[Landslide Lyndon]

What I've noticed is that it's much easier being accepted by the left if you're a white man, even if you've had a more conservative past. To the left, that's "growth". Women like Warren and Harris, who have been consistently progressive throughout their careers, were shunned because they weren't perfectly progressive. When they pivoted to the left, they were called "phony" and "inauthentic" and "opportunistic". You're not hearing any of this being said about Romanoff. I wonder why.

Remember when the Intercept boys, Sirota, and other rose twitter bigwigs fawned over Ojeda when he entered the race for president?

[Beet]

I mean none of them should be accepted. Politicians should have to answer for what they did in the past if they claim to be turning over a new leaf.

My problem with Harris is that not only has she not addressed the specific abuses that she committed as prosecutor, when confronted with some of them by Tulsi Gabbard (because journalists are apparently reluctant to do it), she completely brushed it off as if she was too good to even respond to the point. No she didn't say "it was one of the thousands of lawyers under me" because some of these cases were very high profile, made the LA Times, and involved hundreds of cases. KAMALA HARRIS knew about them. She actually said "I'm proud of my record" as prosecutor. If that's the kind of record she's proud of then Amy Klobuchar can say she's proud of her record too. Then any prosecutor whose office illegally withheld evidence, fabricated transcripts, and sued to keep an innocent man behind bars can be proud.

As far as Warren I disagree with her endorsement of Hickenlooper, it was a sh**tty move. But as a progressive I support her for VP because she's by far the most progressive option out there. Give me an alternative that is better than her and I'll switch to them. But as of now she's better than the other options being talked about.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I mean none of them should be accepted. Politicians should have to answer for what they did in the past if they claim to be turning over a new leaf. My problem with Harris is that not only has she not addressed the specific abuses that she committed as prosecutor, when confronted with some of them by Tulsi Gabbard (because journalists are apparently reluctant to do it), she completely brushed it off as if she was too good to even respond to the point. No she didn't say "it was one of the thousands of lawyers under me" because some of these cases were very high profile, made the LA Times, and involved hundreds of cases. KAMALA HARRIS knew about them. She actually said "I'm proud of my record" as prosecutor. If that's the kind of record she's proud of then Amy Klobuchar can say she's proud of her record too. Then any prosecutor whose office illegally withheld evidence, fabricated transcripts, and sued to keep an innocent man behind bars can be proud.

As far as Warren I disagree with her endorsement of Hickenlooper, it was a sh**tty move. But as a progressive I support her for VP because she's by far the most progressive option out there. Give me an alternative that is better than her and I'll switch to them. But as of now she's better than the other options being talked about.

If "none of them should be accepted", then why do you accept Warren? Just because you personally decided that she's "the most progressive option"?

*interesting*

[Beet]

I mean none of them should be accepted. Politicians should have to answer for what they did in the past if they claim to be turning over a new leaf. My problem with Harris is that not only has she not addressed the specific abuses that she committed as prosecutor, when confronted with some of them by Tulsi Gabbard (because journalists are apparently reluctant to do it), she completely brushed it off as if she was too good to even respond to the point. No she didn't say "it was one of the thousands of lawyers under me" because some of these cases were very high profile, made the LA Times, and involved hundreds of cases. KAMALA HARRIS knew about them. She actually said "I'm proud of my record" as prosecutor. If that's the kind of record she's proud of then Amy Klobuchar can say she's proud of her record too. Then any prosecutor whose office illegally withheld evidence, fabricated transcripts, and sued to keep an innocent man behind bars can be proud.

As far as Warren I disagree with her endorsement of Hickenlooper, it was a sh**tty move. But as a progressive I support her for VP because she's by far the most progressive option out there. Give me an alternative that is better than her and I'll switch to them. But as of now she's better than the other options being talked about.

If "none of them should be accepted", then why do you accept Warren? Just because you personally decided that she's "the most progressive option"?

*interesting*

She's the best option in a relative sense. There may be others out there who are better than her but I don't see them being discussed as potential VP picks.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Warren now is down to 5 points on trade, its Demings or Harris. Since she cant ride on Bernie voters like she did in the primary, she isn't seen as a great Veepstakes

[DisneyDem]

What I've noticed is that it's much easier being accepted by the left if you're a white man, even if you've had a more conservative past. To the left, that's "growth". Women like Warren and Harris, who have been consistently progressive throughout their careers, were shunned because they weren't perfectly progressive. When they pivoted to the left, they were called "phony" and "inauthentic" and "opportunistic". You're not hearing any of this being said about Romanoff. I wonder why.

Remember when the Intercept boys, Sirota, and other rose twitter bigwigs fawned over Ojeda when he entered the race for president?

Another excellent example. The man openly supported Donald Trump in 2016 and ran a conservative campaign for congress, but Kamala is the evil right-wing hack.

Just so my hands are clean I thought the man was an idiot from the beginning.

[NYSforKennedy2024]

Unrelated - is anyone here genuinely pulling for Rice?

If so, why?

I find her to be the easiest political punching bag for Trump, an embodiment of establishment status-quo Obama years neoliberalism; a pretty unpopular ideology among many Americans on both sides.

Full disclosure of bias, I'm a Demings/KLB fan, but I don't understand Rice's rise in betting markets.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

You’re usually right in your assessments and I generally agree with you, but this ain’t it. Her endorsements have gone to a slew of progressive candidates (Booker, Bowman, Eastman, Stephen Smith) but she has also endorsed candidates on the more moderate side of things plenty of times. Her organization is about coalition building. I also think it’s strange that she endorsed Hick but I’m not going to act like this is a knock against her progressive bonafides because she’s been endorsing plenty of candidates who align with her values. I think she might’ve endorsed Hick from an electability POV, as polls have shown him crushing Gardner so he seems like the safest bet to flip that seat. This doesn’t bother me and it doesn’t undo everything else she’s done for progressives both before and after her run for POTUS. One bad endorsement does not a snake make.

The problem with this is that you're operating under the assumption that Hickenlooper is a moderate. Hickenlooper is a Blue Dog. He's definitely on the moderate side of the economy question, and his climate record as governor is outright conservative. Colorado isn't a purple state anymore - it's got a decidedly blue tint to it now, and we can do better than someone like Hickenlooper there.

My issue isn't that she endorsed Hickenlooper, but the timing of the endorsement. If she endorsed earlier like Harris did, I'd be fine with it. I'd be a bit disappointed, but I wouldn't be angry. It's different than Jeff Merkley endorsing the DSCC slate or Kamala Harris backing her. It's different from Bernie staying out. She openly attempted to paint Hickenlooper as the progressive candidate despite his actual conservative positions. You know it's bad when her own supporters are dragging her for it.

Her putting her thumb on the scale just as Romanoff is starting to gain steam and traction is what pissed me off. This isn't, say, Yang or Tulsi deciding to endorse Biden over Bernie after Super Tuesday. Sure, Bernie was more aligned with them, but the guy's campaign was dead in the water. Romanoff probably won't win, and a Warren endorsement wouldn't have closed the gap between them. But the momentum is undeniably heavily in Romanoff's direction right now, and a Warren endorsement would have brought a lot of enthusiasm towards his campaign. Her endorsement, to say the very least, stifles that momentum. At best, it's a misjudgment of the race, and at worst it's a calculated political move to shut down a progressive challenger to a conservative Democrat in a blue state. With the timing of the endorsement, I'm more inclined to believe it's the latter.

One endorsement does not make a snake, but this endorsement is part of a greater pattern. Going along with her team's dubious accusations of sexism, staying in for Super Tuesday, this... some of that might be exaggerated, but all that shows that Elizabeth Warren is more interested in being a "player in the game" than pushing a progressive agenda. We don't need another Barack Obama who will use us to get elected and sell us down the river when they get in power. We need someone who we can trust to fight for us.

And as sad as it is, Elizabeth Warren has broken that trust with me.

Wasn't Romanoff running in 2010 to the right of Michael Bennet? He even had a Clinton endorsement. It's pretty clear that all of these folks are just playing the game.

Romanoff shifting leftward is not something Warren should have dismissed out of hand (certainly not to the extent of endorsing Hickenlooper) given her own political trajectory.

Even an evolution driven purely by a shift in the state's dynamics would be better than what the former Governor is offering.

For all the accusations of racism because Kamala Harris is met with more skepticism - she's in a different ballgame as a former presidential candidate/current vice presidential candidate (both of those races had and still have wide fields). If Romanoff were running for that role, he'd catch more heat, and if Kamala Harris were the only one running against Hickenlooper, I can assure you that most of the left that currently isn't giving her a pass would be offering her their full-throated support.

[Ogre Mage]

Yes, Demings may have broader appeal than Harris! To people here, broader appeal means appealing to Bernie's 2% hardcore most leftists. I am referring to the undecided/soft lean Biden moderates.

From what I have seen the anti-Trump Republicans like Harris just fine, despite the fact that they acknowledge she is very liberal. As a matter of fact, the only VP contender they seem to dislike is Warren.

You have a warped view of who swing voters are, most likely because as a foreigner your exposure to people outside the Democratic Party is entirely online. "Anti-Trump Republicans" aren't the concern -- it's the older, whiter, less-ideological, less-"informed", less-college-educated, less-partisan voters who've signaled in polls to be open to voting for Biden. This is a unique opportunity and there's no state in America where this isn't an important voting demographic. But I assure you Harris is poison to this group.

My opposition to Harris has less to do with the 2020 election anyway, and more to do with the consultants and political hacks, who've never won anything being rewarded with the Vice Presidency and keys to the party in four years. It's a straight-up coup. I didn't sign up for this.

Biden may have some appeal to that group but to be frank he does not generate huge enthusiasm from the Democratic base.  He won the primary because he was seen as the most electable.  He needs to get excitement from at least some part of the base.   Expecting the Democratic base to fall in line on the VP pick just to satisfy the above group is unfair not to mention a bad electoral strategy in this era of polarization.  We saw what happened in 2016.  Hatred of Trump is not enough.  And many Democrats put aside our preferred choices to accept Biden as the nominee.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Yes, Demings may have broader appeal than Harris! To people here, broader appeal means appealing to Bernie's 2% hardcore most leftists. I am referring to the undecided/soft lean Biden moderates.

From what I have seen the anti-Trump Republicans like Harris just fine, despite the fact that they acknowledge she is very liberal. As a matter of fact, the only VP contender they seem to dislike is Warren.

You have a warped view of who swing voters are, most likely because as a foreigner your exposure to people outside the Democratic Party is entirely online. "Anti-Trump Republicans" aren't the concern -- it's the older, whiter, less-ideological, less-"informed", less-college-educated, less-partisan voters who've signaled in polls to be open to voting for Biden. This is a unique opportunity and there's no state in America where this isn't an important voting demographic. But I assure you Harris is poison to this group.

My opposition to Harris has less to do with the 2020 election anyway, and more to do with the consultants and political hacks, who've never won anything being rewarded with the Vice Presidency and keys to the party in four years. It's a straight-up coup. I didn't sign up for this.

Biden may have some appeal to that group but to be frank he does not generate huge enthusiasm from the Democratic base.  He won the primary because he was seen as the most electable. He needs to get excitement from at least some part of the base.   Expecting the Democratic base to fall in line on the VP pick just to satisfy the above group is unfair not to mention a bad electoral strategy in this era of polarization.  We saw what happened in 2016.  Hatred of Trump is not enough. And many Democrats put aside our preferred choices to accept Biden as the nominee.

People who did this were signalling they would be prepared to vote for a ticket that didn't enthuse them. I'm not saying Biden can afford to run an obnoxiously centrist campaign (his strength among AA voters seems pretty overrated relative to his performance within other demographic groups, in my opinion), but people who voted for him were showing a willingness to show up in November for his campaign as it stood then rather than with their preferred VP pick. This should have been (and outside of Atlas, I suspect it largely was) clear to those who voted for him.

[Devils30]

Yes, Demings may have broader appeal than Harris! To people here, broader appeal means appealing to Bernie's 2% hardcore most leftists. I am referring to the undecided/soft lean Biden moderates.

From what I have seen the anti-Trump Republicans like Harris just fine, despite the fact that they acknowledge she is very liberal. As a matter of fact, the only VP contender they seem to dislike is Warren.

You have a warped view of who swing voters are, most likely because as a foreigner your exposure to people outside the Democratic Party is entirely online. "Anti-Trump Republicans" aren't the concern -- it's the older, whiter, less-ideological, less-"informed", less-college-educated, less-partisan voters who've signaled in polls to be open to voting for Biden. This is a unique opportunity and there's no state in America where this isn't an important voting demographic. But I assure you Harris is poison to this group.

My opposition to Harris has less to do with the 2020 election anyway, and more to do with the consultants and political hacks, who've never won anything being rewarded with the Vice Presidency and keys to the party in four years. It's a straight-up coup. I didn't sign up for this.

Biden may have some appeal to that group but to be frank he does not generate huge enthusiasm from the Democratic base.  He won the primary because he was seen as the most electable.  He needs to get excitement from at least some part of the base.   Expecting the Democratic base to fall in line on the VP pick just to satisfy the above group is unfair not to mention a bad electoral strategy in this era of polarization.  We saw what happened in 2016.  Hatred of Trump is not enough.  And many Democrats put aside our preferred choices to accept Biden as the nominee.

Again, the base will vote for Biden no matter who he picks. The academics, insiders just love Harris style liberalism that is about social issues and is (mostly) hands off on Wall Street. You saw this with Pete, Klobuchar voters as well. It's a unique brand of liberalism to DC, NY, Silicon Valley that has a lot of media power behind it.