It's Kamala!

[masterpanthera_t]

(08-13-2020, 11:25 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, one might say with Palin they showed they do not take their base seriously... but sure, I see your point.

I agree.

Quote: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.

Yes Biden definitely boxed himself in very early, but internal party dynamics probably dictated this to some extent. Also, as brought up in posts by others, the sentiment that black women have been carrying water for the party disproportionately to the party's benefit without getting the necessary say so in terms of policymaking or the ability to implement it in terms of position, probably led to this early limiting of choices. When that's taken into consideration, I can't fault the party too much. 

Quote: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.

I get your point here and agree to an extent that this perspective cannot be completely discounted. However, I believe that the party brass probably thinks that there are plenty of qualified black women who can be picked for VP, and they will do a fine job and questions about qualification will be rendered moot. Probably not from FOX, but that's a lost cause or non cause from the DEM perspective. Especially in light of the importance symbolically and in real terms of getting a black woman VP nominee.

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

Addressed just above, but would like to add that she certainly holds qualifications well above any minimum reasonable standard for VP, and arguably much higher.

Quote: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?

I think what you say here is correct, but ultimately the party likely felt they couldn't risk disillusionment among their base of black women, and that they're more "due" than hispanic women. Not that hispanic women aren't due, just that their turn is not as urgent. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar concession to hispanics in the next election cycle.

Quote: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.

It's possible, but certainly a gamble. I doubt he would lose votes to Trump among this base, but there certainly could be less turnout which is not with risking. I also think there's a groundswell within the party that feels it's definitely time for selecting a black woman nominee for reasons of fairness, that it simply couldn't be ignored. I imagine that groundswell likely includes a large part of the hispanic base as well.