I don't think this pick is meant to impact black voter turnout. Trump attacking Kamala's DA/AG record will be awkward since he's running on law & order. Trump has been saying that Biden wants to abolish police but he's also going to say that Kamala is a crooked cop? Like I said, awkward.

her DA record suggests nothing remotely connected to law and order. abuse corruption and misconduct yes.

Trump is just saying “Biden said he is fine with defunding cops”, which the lefties desire and would want happen. However, not only is Biden not going to abolish the police hes putting the most notable crooked cop as his 2nd in command

He's pivoted from that. He's going to attack her as a fraud who sleeps her way into power.

Joe and the Hoe.



Perhaps those antifa folks aren't as numerous as they pretend to be.

there are quite a few in a select number of cities. they just wield zero power or influence outside of bullying normal American citizens, in particular workers/minorities.

This post was edited by excellence on Aug 11 2020 05:14pm

a huge blow to any progressives who hadn't learned their lessons and still thought there was any hope. the expected DNC establishment pick. way to ensure biden's campaign won't pick up ANY momentum or enthusiasm amongst voters who didn't already support him at this point.

might as well embrace it and run as "not trump 2020" - because not being a total disaster of incompetence, indifference, stupidity, nepotism, and bigotry is literally the only thing they got going for them, lol.

The base of the establishment is people of color. I think white liberals need to take a seat and let POC do some of the driving.

I'm not so sure. Harris might appeal to voters in upscale suburbs, which are a key battleground and have been trending toward Democrats at a rapid pace in the era of Trump.

Someone on a different site put it really well: "picking Harris means that Biden is disregarding the progressive vote to instead go all-in for the Karen vote".

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 11 2020 10:11pm

identity hackery.

first of all, the establishment already got the presidency itself, and secondly, poc and 'liberals' (i was talking about progressives, not liberals, those are not the same) are not mutually exclusive. you could easily serve both by picking a progressive poc.
who actually 'needs to take a seat' are establishment shills, who refuse to see how constantly supporting corporate puppets makes it harder to ever get back from oligarchy...





karen... you keep using that word, but i do not think it means what you think it means. it definitely does NOT mean everyone in upscale suburbia, and i'd like to see how biden has that group not already covered, or how exactly harris appeals to it.
i think people severely underestimate the importance of turnout and voter enthusiasm, especially when it comes to battleground states, which could be decided by a couple of thousand votes (illustrating how shitty and broken that system is, lol)...

You're right about progressives and liberals. I use white liberals and white progressives interchangeably because that's just my experience based on where I live. Why do you keep calling people like the late John Lewis, Jim Clyburn, etc. shills? These people have done great things for America and are the HEART of the Democratic establishment. I really don't think it's appropriate to make derogatory remarks towards POC. In addition, you need to be wary of tokenism. Kamala wasn't chosen because she is black. It helps but it's not like Biden said "find me the finest negress you got!" Instead, he looked at a list of qualified individuals (Warren included) and chose the person he thought would maximize his chances of an effective presidency (which includes getting elected). From my perspective, I thought that person would be Duckworth but I suppose Kamala was a better choice because she has far more media exposure and party connections.

As for the video, I've seen it before and I reject some of the basic premises in it. IMO, there should NOT be a 1 to 1 correlation between public support and likelihood of a bill passing. I suppose my ideal scenario would be slightly misshapen sigmoid where the floor is around 30-40% and the ceiling is 60-70%. The inflection point should probably be around the 60% support IMO. But anyway, most policy shouldn't be geared towards "popularity." Rather, it should be geared towards popular principles. I think where it gets tricky is when two opposing parties AGREE that something should be done (i.e. less expensive healthcare or improved gun control) but they vehemently disagree with the implementation.

As for the rich getting a fair amount of what they want, that also makes sense because it's the rich who are affected MOST by the minutia of things. There are billions of dollars at stake so it's important that Congress gets it right. Now, a lot of it doesn't sit well with me and I imagine most people feel this way. But this is the system that the Founding Fathers WANTED. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this without taking a giant shit on the Constitution. We already KNOW who meets with Congressmen, how much $ is donated to campaigns, etc. That information is public and you can easily look it up. The problem is not enough Americans care to inform themselves. I can't blame them because they have more important shit to worry about such as making ends meet. The average Joe can also team up with average Janes to pool their resources (similar to a union). Just look at how much $$ Bernie raised! But wait! That's exactly what a PAC is! Why aren't more Americans forming PACs so that represent a common interest? The video that you linked belongs to an organization that is the EXACT THING that they are upset about! They even have legislation ready to go! Talk about a corrupt special interest group...