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

[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.

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.

Be fair to Harris here - she's not a fully fledged progressive, but her primary campaign was a fair bit tougher on economic issues than Pete and Klobuchar. Her public option was actually fairly close to universal, which is why it was one of the best healthcare plans rather than eXpaND oBAmaCaRe or Medicare for All Who Want It^{terms and conditions apply}.

I do think your wider point about social issues is valid, though. Plenty of ground can be ceded in the Great Culture Wars that is actually not worth holding (e.g. Trump Twitter, Title IX, etc.) in exchange for electoral capital that can be reinvested in supporting transformative change. Harris is far from the best candidate to do this, though as VP-nominee, she'd still be a long way from "electoral poison."

[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.

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.

That's what we thought in 2016.

[Progressive Pessimist]

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.

That's what we thought in 2016.

To be fair, I don't think anybody who was skeptical about voting for Clinton completely wrote her off because she picked Kaine. Both he, and Pence, were very incidental to that election.

It could be different this time though when considering Biden's age and what people want his running mate to offer or balance out.

[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.

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.

When I talked about Democrats who put aside their preference to accept Biden as the nominee, I was speaking about those who did NOT vote for him in the primary but now accept him as the nominee.  I am one of them.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

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.

Tammy Baldwin is apparently being vetted, and (they'd be dark horses, but) there's been some as-of-yet undenied speculation regarding Karen Bass, Hilda Solis, Barbara Lee, Katie Porter and Ayanna Pressley.

[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.

When I talked about Democrats who put aside their preference to accept Biden as the nominee, I was speaking about those who did NOT vote for him in the primary but now accept him as the nominee.  I am one of them.

If this is the group of voters to court, why do you think Harris would be a better pick than any of the above figures? I can see a case for her adding a great electoral boost to the ticket overall, but am interested in seeing arguments for her having more appeal than any of the figures I just mentioned to non-Biden primary voters specifically.

[Morning in Atlas]

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.

Funnily enough, I actually didn't know that much about Romanoff's 2010 campaign. From my own research, Romanoff seems to have campaigned on the positions of a bog-standard Democrat aside from education. Moreover, he's always been to the left of Hickenlooper on environmental policy, and the definition of progressive has changed from the last 10 years (partially thanks to Warren).

Actually, there was a similar situation in last cycle's gubernatorial primary in my state where the exact parallel you described happened. We had a Warren Democrat - staunch progressive, yet firmly establishment-leaning - as the favorite running against a Bernie-aligned candidate. She flip-flopped on a state income tax - something that's generally accepted as a necessity to win in the state. The insurgent "Berniecrat" candidate was exactly as you described Romanoff to be - a former centrist No Labels chair who had suddenly had an epiphany and became a full-throated Bernie stan in 2016. I voted for the Warren Democrat in the primary specifically because I trusted her record more.

Don't even ****ing try to make the sexism argument with me. Even if your argument's true, I'm confident in my record of defending. But then again, considering you all but said I told my abuse story for a cheap attention-grab, I shouldn't be surprised that you'd sink that low.

[DisneyDem]

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.

She’s my second choice after Warren because she’s a black woman without law-enforcement baggage. I would put Abrams or KLB above her but are conventional wisdom put too much emphasis on experience

[South Dakota Democrat]

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.

She's immensely qualified.  I think Biden needs to signal that he understands that his VP pick is particularly important, given his age, and this pick needs to be unquestionably ready on Day 1.  I also ultimately think her baggage is exaggerated.  The fact that she's black doesn't hurt, but that's honestly a secondary consideration - she's just very ready to do the job, particularly from a national security/foreign policy perspective.

That said, Rice isn't the only candidate that fits this bill, and I think a lot of others would be solid as well.  I really like Warren.  Harris isn't my first choice, but she'd be fine.  Demings would be fine (on paper doesn't seem like she has a ton of experience, but she was an impeachment manager and has served on some important committees - homeland security, judiciary, and intelligence.  Not my first choice, but would be fine), KLB would be fine (but may fall short on experience).  Duckworth would be excellent.  Baldwin would be excellent.

[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.

Be fair to Harris here - she's not a fully fledged progressive, but her primary campaign was a fair bit tougher on economic issues than Pete and Klobuchar. Her public option was actually fairly close to universal, which is why it was one of the best healthcare plans rather than eXpaND oBAmaCaRe or Medicare for All Who Want It^{terms and conditions apply}.

I do think your wider point about social issues is valid, though. Plenty of ground can be ceded in the Great Culture Wars that is actually not worth holding (e.g. Trump Twitter, Title IX, etc.) in exchange for electoral capital that can be reinvested in supporting transformative change. Harris is far from the best candidate to do this, though as VP-nominee, she'd still be a long way from "electoral poison."

Exactly! This stuff is what offers the Dems no electoral benefit whatsoever.

[Ogre Mage]

When I talked about Democrats who put aside their preference to accept Biden as the nominee, I was speaking about those who did NOT vote for him in the primary but now accept him as the nominee.  I am one of them.

Tammy Baldwin is apparently being vetted, and (they'd be dark horses, but) there's been some as-of-yet undenied speculation regarding Karen Bass, Hilda Solis, Barbara Lee, Katie Porter and Ayanna Pressley.

If this is the group of voters to court, why do you think Harris would be a better pick than any of the above figures? I can see a case for her adding a great electoral boost to the ticket overall, but am interested in seeing arguments for her having more appeal than any of the figures I just mentioned to non-Biden primary voters specifically.

Because the running mate needs to do more than just appeal to the Democratic base.  They also need to be a plausible president on "Day 1" (Biden's words).  Baldwin is plausible, but there are terrible problems with regards to retaining her Senate seat and I don't think she would be a satisfying choice for the African-American part of the base.  In Wisconsin she has not had much experience appealing to black voters.

The others have either been out of office for a long time (Hilda Solis) or are district-level public officials who don't have experience appealing to a wider electorate.  Additionally, Porter and Pressley (both of whom I think are potential rising stars) were just elected so they would face even bigger questions about necessary experience.  Lee is so far on the left I think she WOULD scare off moderate voters.  None of them have been seriously tested on the national stage.

Harris has won statewide office three times (twice as AG, once as a U.S. Senator).  She has been vetted on the national stage by running a presidential campaign.  She's not going to flake out when the cameras come on.  Her name recognition is also higher.  She's the only black woman in the U.S. Senate and the only black woman whose credentials cannot be seriously questioned in terms of presidential preparedness.  I also think she's been working very hard to be responsive to the Democratic base's concerns since the coronavirus and George Floyd crises have broke.

[wbrocks67]

The Harris hate on here just seems so irrational and in bad faith.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

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.

I'm not pulling for Rice, though I certainly get where the appeal comes from. Most Rice supporters seem to point out her foreign policy chops. And as a Canadian, I would love for the VP to have an extensive foreign policy background; it would signal that America is serious about rebuilding its international standing and relations.

But Rice's strengths seem better suited for SoS than VP. She doesn't have any domestic policy or political experience, and I don't think it's a good idea for her first job in domestic politics to be VP.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Not exactly a dealbraker but Rice's son is a staunch Republican, and from what I've read he declared recently that he will campaign against Biden even if his mother is selected as his VP.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I wonder if Warren being in the veepstakes makes it more likely she'll be offered Treasury.

[With you in spirit]

I wonder if Warren being in the veepstakes makes it more likely she'll be offered Treasury.

There is no chance she gives up her Senate seat unless she's going for VP. I also don't feel like Biden would offer her that post.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I wonder if Warren being in the veepstakes makes it more likely she'll be offered Treasury.

There is no chance she gives up her Senate seat unless she's going for VP. I also don't feel like Biden would offer her that post.

I dunno.  The position may not get as much media coverage, but with the President's backing a talented Treasury Secretary can get a lot more done than a single Senator can, even one who commands the limelight.  Treasury is a powerful department.  Plus, there's gotta be something appealing about being America's first female Treasury Secretary.

[Roemerista]

The Harris hate on here just seems so irrational and in bad faith.

Just like her hate for Catholics.

[With you in spirit]

I wonder if Warren being in the veepstakes makes it more likely she'll be offered Treasury.

There is no chance she gives up her Senate seat unless she's going for VP. I also don't feel like Biden would offer her that post.

I dunno.  The position may not get as much media coverage, but with the President's backing a talented Treasury Secretary can get a lot more done than a single Senator can, even one who commands the limelight.  Treasury is a powerful department.  Plus, there's gotta be something appealing about being America's first female Treasury Secretary.

Yeah but the operative phrase is "with the President's backing." You're talking about Joe Biden, who ran as an unabashed fiscal moderate--he was talking about not soaking the rich and falling on his sword about not passing any policy that was too expensive. Putting Warren in charge of Treasury seems like a significant departure from those statements.

[SingingAnalyst]

The Harris hate on here just seems so irrational and in bad faith.

Just like her hate for Catholics.

Does she hate Catholics? If so, I don't think she would run on a ticket with Joe Biden.

I, too, have questioned her questioning of Brian Bueschler's K of C membership, but she is the odds-on favorite for VP. I don't see anti-Catholicism being institutionalized if Harris becomes VP or Prez. Not long after her questioning of Bueschler, the Washington Post ran an op-ed saying, essentially, that we have nothing to fear from the K of C. The Establishment media's got this. One cheer.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I wonder if Warren being in the veepstakes makes it more likely she'll be offered Treasury.

There is no chance she gives up her Senate seat unless she's going for VP. I also don't feel like Biden would offer her that post.

I dunno.  The position may not get as much media coverage, but with the President's backing a talented Treasury Secretary can get a lot more done than a single Senator can, even one who commands the limelight.  Treasury is a powerful department.  Plus, there's gotta be something appealing about being America's first female Treasury Secretary.

Yeah but the operative phrase is "with the President's backing." You're talking about Joe Biden, who ran as an unabashed fiscal moderate--he was talking about not soaking the rich and falling on his sword about not passing any policy that was too expensive. Putting Warren in charge of Treasury seems like a significant departure from those statements.

Biden has a plan to increase taxes on the rich that would raise $4 trillion over a decade--one of the largest wealth transfers in American history.  He's proposing more generous subsidies and Medicaid funding along with a public option to achieve universal healthcare.  He's proposing a combination of $1.7 trillion in clean energy investment and a suite of tighter regulation to bring emissions to zero by 2050.  He's proposing a combined $2 trillion in new spending on early education, post-secondary education, and housing.  He's got a $1.3 trillion infrastructure plan.

He's got an ambitious, progressive agenda and he's going to want ambitious progressives in his administration to help him accomplish those goals, in the vice presidency, the Treasury, and everywhere else.

[wbrocks67]

The Harris hate on here just seems so irrational and in bad faith.

Just like her hate for Catholics.

Like I said.... irrational and bad faith

[Devils30]

The Knights of Columbus is just another reason for Biden to avoid Harris, it is not worth all the cultural traps she will walk directly into.

People here who think she is getting picked also don't know anything. How do we know Biden didn't meet with Demings and was swept away by her? His team isn't leaking anything for a reason.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Not exactly a dealbraker but Rice's son is a staunch Republican, and from what I've read he declared recently that he will campaign against Biden even if his mother is selected as his VP.

I would consider myself as a failed parent if my child turned out like Rice's son. The embarrassment would be overwhelming.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

The Knights of Columbus is just another reason for Biden to avoid Harris, it is not worth all the cultural traps she will walk directly into.

People here who think she is getting picked also don't know anything. How do we know Biden didn't meet with Demings and was swept away by her? His team isn't leaking anything for a reason.

OK, Mr. I Hate Kamala For Any Reason™.