It's Kamala!

[hollodero]

(08-13-2020, 10:41 AM)Dill Wrote: When Repubs pick a Sarah Palin or a Mike Pence, they are signalling that they'll take a huge component of their base seriously. Same major box checking.

Well, one might say with Palin they showed they do not take their base seriously... but sure, I see your point.

(08-13-2020, 10:41 AM)Dill Wrote: Being an evangelical pro-lifer isn't any more an accomplishment than "being black" or a woman, but yes our Fox friends will "quite easily say, mainly [Harris] got the gig because she checked the two major boxes, that aren't exactly accomplishments."
And they'll take if further, as Laura Ingraham already has, calling the choice evidence of "racism" and a violation of the expectation that a president is supposed to choose the "best qualified" person for the job (the kinds of attitude and judgment I want to see OUT of our national politics now).

I mean the racism thing is nonsense for sure, but I have to say that imho the overall point sounds like a fair one to make. By committing to a black female early on, Biden excluded many people preemptively, hence artificially limiting his choices based on factors like gender and race, that, yeah, just are not qualifications based on merit. I'm not trying to be foxier than FOX here, that just seems to be true.

The other way round, if someone asked me why Biden picked Harris, the first thing to respond imho is not "because she was the best choice", but to say "because she was a black female and possibly the best choice amongst this group". Which, in a sense, could be seen as bad for Harris as well. She'll always have this label now.

(08-13-2020, 10:41 AM)Dill Wrote: Given Comma-la's experience as a prosecutor and AG for the largest state in the union, plus her time on the Senate intel committee, I think she will be very qualified, a great asset on the campaign trail and do an excellent job as VP.

Fair enough, it might just turn out that way. I didn't imply she was unqualified.

(08-13-2020, 10:41 AM)Dill Wrote: *In another post you wondered why a Hispanic pick would not get more votes, since there are more Hispanics.

That was not quite what I tried to be getting at.... it's also that hispanics behave way more like a "swing demographic", if you will. Most blacks are in the Dem camp, the same is not true for most hispanics.
And often folk choose a VP to win a certain swing state or a certain undecided group, why not apply this logic here. It might just as well turn out more hispanics than a black VP turns out additional black votes.
My hint that there are more hispanics overall was rather tongue in cheek and directed at the argument of diversity. I just feel a case can be made for a hispanic female VP with the same logic applied. Aren't hispanic women also marginalized?

(08-13-2020, 10:41 AM)Dill Wrote: First, despite the fact there are more Hispanics, it is not clear that more, out of that total, vote Dem than out of the total number of Black voters. Second, NOT choosing a Hispanic would not majorly anger that constituency, possibly costing many votes, the way it would anger a group that has arguably been the party's most reliable work horse.  With the Harris pick, Joe was showing that he not presuming he already had the black vote.

I get the strategy (also from your first sentences I just skipped), I also get that's a valid counterargument, but wouldn't he be right to presume he already has the black vote? I feel he has. The black states secured him the nomination in the first place, and I don't think it was because of his black female VP promise. They will still strongly prefer him over Trump no matter who is VP. Maybe.