Biden’s choice of Harris- helped him or hurt him

[Fwillb21]

I’m not so sure. I’d like to think choosing a woman of color from the west coast helped him, so I’m curious to know what you all think.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

I don't think it made a significant impact. If he had not chosen a black woman it would've likely had a negative impact, but I don't know how many people were on the fence about Biden until he chose Harris.

[Bootes Void]

No impact which is sort of good I guess.

[brucejoel99]

Above all else, the goal of a VP choice is to "do no harm." In that light, her selection clearly helped him.

[Motorcity]

Neither

Had Biden not picked a women, that would have angered some. Not a African American , angered someone else.

Susan Rice and Karen Bass would have turned someoff.

Harris was the best choice because she did no damage. She kept things as they are. That’s what a VP is suppose to do.

No one says “I wasn’t going to vote for Biden but now I will because Harris is on the ticket”.

My logic is, if you campaign is underwater and is trying to shake things up with a VP choice, it’s already too late. Like Mondale and McCain. Biden didn’t have that problem

[Liberalrocks]

Above all else, the goal of a VP choice is to "do no harm." In that light, her selection clearly helped him.

This, with a lot of recent VP ticket selections causing some damage or not debating well, this clearly was a net positive for him.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Harris was supposed to help especially NC where there are plenty of AA, instead she lost NC, and we got a tied Senate instead of 52/48 and we could of gotten rid of Fillibuster not wait til 2023, NC, and ME would have put us over the top

I kept hearing, Harris was gonna win NC for D's and she underperformed

[Not Me, Us]

I still wish he had chosen Warren or Bass.

[Ogre Mage]

It is said the vice-presidential pick only matters at three points.  1) the initial rollout of the VP pick 2) the convention speech and 3) the vice-presidential debate.  Harris performed well in all three phases.  So I would say she fit the "do no harm" cardinal rule.

[Non Swing Voter]

I definitely think she helped him in Arizona and Georgia.  I don't think there are any states where she hurt him. 

She was a safe choice. 

[OSR stands with Israel]

It is said the vice-presidential pick only matters at three points.  1) the initial rollout of the VP pick 2) the convention speech and 3) the vice-presidential debate.  Harris performed well in all three phases.  So I would say she fit the "do no harm" cardinal rule.

Pence won that debate and that was the start of a comeback for the Trump campaign which went from looking like they would he defeated 1980 style to being defeated 1976 style

[wbrocks67]

It is said the vice-presidential pick only matters at three points.  1) the initial rollout of the VP pick 2) the convention speech and 3) the vice-presidential debate.  Harris performed well in all three phases.  So I would say she fit the "do no harm" cardinal rule.

Pence won that debate and that was the start of a comeback for the Trump campaign which went from looking like they would he defeated 1980 style to being defeated 1976 style

girl.... no

[BudgieForce]

It is said the vice-presidential pick only matters at three points.  1) the initial rollout of the VP pick 2) the convention speech and 3) the vice-presidential debate.  Harris performed well in all three phases.  So I would say she fit the "do no harm" cardinal rule.

Pence won that debate and that was the start of a comeback for the Trump campaign which went from looking like they would he defeated 1980 style to being defeated 1976 style

I've actually never seen this take before. It's an interesting one, although I cant say i agree with it.

[Xing]

No impact. Very few people actually change their minds based on the VP pick, with a few exceptions.

[Ogre Mage]

It is said the vice-presidential pick only matters at three points.  1) the initial rollout of the VP pick 2) the convention speech and 3) the vice-presidential debate.  Harris performed well in all three phases.  So I would say she fit the "do no harm" cardinal rule.

Pence won that debate and that was the start of a comeback for the Trump campaign which went from looking like they would he defeated 1980 style to being defeated 1976 style

Heh, multiple polls disagreed with your assertion.

More Americans said Sen. Kamala Harris did the best job in the vice presidential debate Wednesday night, according to a CNN Instant Poll of registered voters who watched. About 6 in 10 (59%) said Harris won, while 38% said Vice President Mike Pence had the better night.

Harris did improve her favorability rating among those who watched, according to the poll, while for Pence, the debate was a wash. In pre-debate interviews, 56% said they had a positive view of Harris -- that rose to 63% after the debate. For Pence, his favorability stood at 41% in both pre- and post-debate interviews.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/07/politics/mike-pence-kamala-harris-vice-presidential-debate-poll/index.html

A new Morning Consult/Politico poll conducted Thursday found 51 percent of voters who watched the debate believe Harris performed best, while 40 percent opted for Pence.

https://morningconsult.com/2020/10/08/vp-debate-polling-kamala-harris-mike-pence/

Debate watchers were more impressed with Harris’s performance than Pence’s, with 69 percent saying her performance was “very good” or “somewhat good,” compared to 60 percent who said the same for him. They were also more impressed with the policies she outlined.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/harris-pence-vp-debate-poll/

[Ogre Mage]

Another point worth remembering:

Joe Biden is seeing a massive surge in fundraising after announcing Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate. On Thursday, the Democratic presidential ticket hauled in $48 million in just 48 hours.
 
After the news broke, a Biden-Harris campaign aide tweeted that the hour of the announcement had been the best single hour of fundraising for the entire campaign. It quickly became the best fundraising day for the campaign so far, too, with the team raking in $26 million in 24 hours, including contributions from 150,000 first time donors.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-harris-ticket-rakes-in-millions-after-running-mate-announcement/

[brucejoel99]

It is said the vice-presidential pick only matters at three points.  1) the initial rollout of the VP pick 2) the convention speech and 3) the vice-presidential debate.  Harris performed well in all three phases.  So I would say she fit the "do no harm" cardinal rule.

Pence won that debate and that was the start of a comeback for the Trump campaign which went from looking like they would he defeated 1980 style to being defeated 1976 style

Heh, multiple polls disagreed with your assertion.

[snip]

Something something facts, something something feelings.

[Calthrina950]

It is said the vice-presidential pick only matters at three points.  1) the initial rollout of the VP pick 2) the convention speech and 3) the vice-presidential debate.  Harris performed well in all three phases.  So I would say she fit the "do no harm" cardinal rule.

Pence won that debate and that was the start of a comeback for the Trump campaign which went from looking like they would he defeated 1980 style to being defeated 1976 style

girl.... no

I'm not sure if the debate truly impacted the trajectory of the race, but I don't believe that Harris won the debate against Pence. At best, it was a draw.

[Skill and Chance]

It is said the vice-presidential pick only matters at three points.  1) the initial rollout of the VP pick 2) the convention speech and 3) the vice-presidential debate.  Harris performed well in all three phases.  So I would say she fit the "do no harm" cardinal rule.

Pence won that debate and that was the start of a comeback for the Trump campaign which went from looking like they would he defeated 1980 style to being defeated 1976 style

girl.... no

I'm not sure if the debate truly impacted the trajectory of the race, but I don't believe that Harris won the debate against Pence. At best, it was a draw.

IMO the question is whether Biden was really leading by 10+ in late September/early October or if it was just bad polling?  If Biden was, then Trump/Pence did something to win a substantial number of voters back, and the most prominent events from that point onward were the remaining debates.

Even though the final polls were off, there was some movement toward a closer race, but that movement came late.  I would think the possible Trump comeback had more to do with the final presidential debate (which IMO Biden clearly lost) than the VP debate, which is usually a low stakes affair to begin with.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It is said the vice-presidential pick only matters at three points.  1) the initial rollout of the VP pick 2) the convention speech and 3) the vice-presidential debate.  Harris performed well in all three phases.  So I would say she fit the "do no harm" cardinal rule.

Pence won that debate and that was the start of a comeback for the Trump campaign which went from looking like they would he defeated 1980 style to being defeated 1976 style

girl.... no

I'm not sure if the debate truly impacted the trajectory of the race, but I don't believe that Harris won the debate against Pence. At best, it was a draw.

IMO the question is whether Biden was really leading by 10+ in late September/early October or if it was just bad polling?  If Biden was, then Trump/Pence did something to win a substantial number of voters back, and the most prominent events from that point onward were the remaining debates.

Even though the final polls were off, there was some movement toward a closer race, but that movement came late.  I would think the possible Trump comeback had more to do with the final presidential debate (which IMO Biden clearly lost) than the VP debate, which is usually a low stakes affair to begin with.

Trump also started running a good campaign after that VP Debate where as prior to that he was running an atrociously bad re-election campaign

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It was a bad pick.  Who exactly did Kamala Harris appeal to?  There was no perfect pick for Biden, and anyone else would have only helped at the margins, but I don’t really think Harris helped at all, and she may have lost Biden some votes among Latinos.

[brucejoel99]

It was a bad pick.  Who exactly did Kamala Harris appeal to?

Black voters who help to make up the Democratic base & swing voters in rapidly diversifying suburbs across the country, but more particularly in the Sun Belt.

There was no perfect pick for Biden, and anyone else would have only helped at the margins, but I don’t really think Harris helped at all, and she may have lost Biden some votes among Latinos.

Even if one disregards the fact that she was elected 3 times statewide in the state that's home to the largest number of the country's Latinos as a result of her supportive immigration policies (including helping undocumented children by working with private firms to get them pro-bono representation & supporting legislation to get them funding for lawyers, representing a pretty striking comparison to how the then-current administration treated these children, & even that ignores their inherent general connection to a diverse candidate: albeit not one who shares their ethnicity, she nevertheless shares a story that many can relate to as children of immigrants), lol no.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It was a bad pick.  Who exactly did Kamala Harris appeal to?

Black voters who help to make up the Democratic base & swing voters in rapidly diversifying suburbs across the country, but more particularly in the Sun Belt.

There was no perfect pick for Biden, and anyone else would have only helped at the margins, but I don’t really think Harris helped at all, and she may have lost Biden some votes among Latinos.

Even if one disregards the fact that she was elected 3 times statewide in the state that's home to the largest number of the country's Latinos as a result of her supportive immigration policies (including helping undocumented children by working with private firms to get them pro-bono representation & supporting legislation to get them funding for lawyers, representing a pretty striking comparison to how the then-current administration treated these children, & even that ignores their inherent general connection to a diverse candidate: albeit not one who shares their ethnicity, she nevertheless shares a story that many can relate to as children of immigrants), lol no.

The notion that Latinos would have been more likely to support a ticket with Harris on it because she was “diverse” (but NOT Latino!) is laughable.

An it’s not like Black voters were clamoring for Harris either.  If they were, they would have supported her in the primary. 

Why didn’t they?  Because they supported Biden.  If you look at polling during the campaign, Biden was more popular than Harris among Black voters, even after Harris was chosen as VP.  Biden already was the choice of Black voters in the race, and the choice of Black voters on the ticket.   He should have diversified his coalition rather than making a weak attempt to appeal to the voters he had already locked up.

[brucejoel99]

It was a bad pick.  Who exactly did Kamala Harris appeal to?

Black voters who help to make up the Democratic base & swing voters in rapidly diversifying suburbs across the country, but more particularly in the Sun Belt.

There was no perfect pick for Biden, and anyone else would have only helped at the margins, but I don’t really think Harris helped at all, and she may have lost Biden some votes among Latinos.

Even if one disregards the fact that she was elected 3 times statewide in the state that's home to the largest number of the country's Latinos as a result of her supportive immigration policies (including helping undocumented children by working with private firms to get them pro-bono representation & supporting legislation to get them funding for lawyers, representing a pretty striking comparison to how the then-current administration treated these children, & even that ignores their inherent general connection to a diverse candidate: albeit not one who shares their ethnicity, she nevertheless shares a story that many can relate to as children of immigrants), lol no.

The notion that Latinos would have been more likely to support a ticket with Harris on it because she was “diverse” (but NOT Latino!) is laughable.

An it’s not like Black voters were clamoring for Harris either.  If they were, they would have supported her in the primary. 

Why didn’t they?  Because they supported Biden.  If you look at polling during the campaign, Biden was more popular than Harris among Black voters, even after Harris was chosen as VP.  Biden already was the choice of Black voters in the race, and the choice of Black voters on the ticket.   He should have diversified his coalition rather than making a weak attempt to appeal to the voters he had already locked up.

Disregarding the strawman you began your point with (I didn't say 'Latinos [were] more likely to support a ticket with Harris on it because she was "diverse"' but go off, I guess), I literally provided a link to proof - multiple post-VP selection polls - showing you that approval for the ticket significantly increased among both Black & Latino voters following the selection. But nah, you're probably right: picking Kamala was obviously just "a weak attempt to appeal to the voters he had already locked up," despite the polling directly contradicting that in indicating that he hadn't previously had as many of them locked up as he needed to in order to win in November by even the electoral equivalent of just the skin of his teeth, 43K votes. For sure. /s if it wasn't already painfully obvious

Sorry (not sorry) reality doesn't conveniently line up with whatever the incorrect narrative that you choose to believe is.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

I agree with what most people have already said: Harris was a "do no harm" candidate, and that is the number one priority in selecting a running mate.

It's hard not to see how she was at least somewhat of a net positive for the campaign. The day she was announced was the day the Biden campaign smashed fundraising records, so she obviously generated excitement with the base. She also helped bridge some of the gap between the moderate and progressive wings of the party, as evident in the excitement expressed by people like Michael Moore and Angela Davis when the announcement was made.