IMO that was Amy Klobuchar from the folks that ran in the primaries. Advocated for her at the time.
From her flame out I certainly didn’t think it was Harris.
Was Kamala a DEI pick?
- Thread starter Colonoscopy
- Start date
From her flame out I certainly didn’t think it was Harris.
It was an eventual criteria. There are pros and cons to any choice. The fact that they wanted the perspective of a woman and a PoC is as valid as any other criteria at that point.
If she is qualified why does it matter to you what the reasons are for the final choice?
Was that a consensus? Do you acknowledge that different people mught have different, valid, opinons?
I said she was qualified in my first response to you.
It’s his pick…he can pick who wants. Just don’t pretend that being a woman of color wasn’t the litmus test.
Sigh.
1) I'm saying that race and gender, unless you're doing it for vote getting itself, don't make any sense as a positive predictor of performance. To filter on those could only serve to unnecessarily narrow your set of good candidates. Just like height or hair style or being male or roller skating. Yes, there are diverse criteria for what might be "best" -- but race and gender aren't included in that set.
2) Of course it's always possible that it just so happened that the people that roller skate are also the best candidates. But if you're screeching about the need to pick roller skating people, or siblings of the president (nepotism) or only white people you're going to come under scrutiny for filtering on attributes that don't matter. And rightfully so.
3) If your given selection sort of sucks -- or appeared to suck as Harris did in the primaries -- and you've got a selection criteria on an attribute irrelevant to the job that favored them.... people are going to wonder. And they might even just be a bit critical of your decision making.
4) Biden and the democrats came under fire for explicitly stating that they would pick a woman (and then a woman of color I think, the final 4) coupled with the fact that Harris didn't seem to be a strong candidate. If Harris was a strong candidate, and or they had said we're doing this to turn out the black vote, I don't think you get any of this clapback. But that's not what happened.
Capeesh?
Last edited:
Is there any reason to think that wasn't taken into account?
To get a sufficient answer it would be helpful to define "best" in a way that will be universally accepted.
It was a qualification, not THE qualification. That's where you and the others get off track.
The question remains, if she is qualified in your eyes why does it make a difference?
I think she is a completely viable choice. I would have no way of determining who is "best". And neither do you.
The obvious point is that that race and gender qualification knocks out a bunch of other candidates and people are left wondering how good the candidate chosen is.
I mean, nepotism is frowned upon for the same reason.
But maybe your brother really is the best for the job...
And this is all easy to question in regards to Kamala because we watched her perform very poorly on the national stage during the primaries.
That coupled all the clamoring for a woman of color on the left obviously led you to believe she may be there because of those attributes
That coupled all the clamoring for a woman of color on the left obviously led you to believe she may be there because of those attributes
1) You've acknowledged that selecting a running mate is about demographic capture, yet continue to assert it being a barrier to an undefined best candidate.
2) If anyone is screeching they can probably be ID'd by the number of characters used to defend their perspective.
3) I get it, you don't like or think Kamala Harris is qualified. That is not surprising or novel. It's also doesn't really matter. She was already selected and the ticket won by millions of votes. I.E. the people have used their democratic voice to approve of the selection.
4) Call the press, people running in opposition to the Dems called into question the abilities of the DNC. Gee wiz, have we ever seen anything like it?
If you absolutely look at this from a data driven perspective. Her addition to a major ticket and it's victory calls into question any sort of universal qualification of "best" you would ever be able to quantify. More to the point, by virtue of being a woman of color and currently holding the office, she proves that past indicators of a successful VP candidate are no longer valid.
Last edited:
She’s half black but no part African American. Her father, who basically shunned her, is Jamaican and descended from the owner of a slave market.
No one is responsible for the sins of their ancestors, but likewise no one gets to benefit from their suffering either.
Is it your opinion that Mike Pence or JD Vance was/is the best choice if Trump is incapacitated? Why do you think they were chosen by Trump?
It's obviously because A) they don't believe in affirmative action logic B) they don't think Kalama is a strong pick.
And so... the only way a weak pick got through was because of democrats affirmative action logic. The better candidates were eliminated.
And so the clip of Joy Reed above.
They don't like it because she is a black woman who will campaign very effectively.
It's clear you don't understand Affirmaive Action or DEI for that matter.
Previous posts addressed this stuff.
1) No. I noted that could be a reason for selecting someone on attributes like race or gender. And if so, it would be a performance based reason. I stated clearly that the argument against Harris was on the basis of her being a fairness pick -- not for reasons of voter turn out. Basically, what Joey Reed was arguing for -- fairness. The progressive wing of the democratic party was (is) really into representation of gender and color and the like. That's what people were taking issue with.
2) Cop out.
3) No, I clearly stated that she could be reasonably considered a qualifier in the pool -- clearly stated in the post above that you didn't read. My complaint is that she presented as a terrible candidate on the national stage. When most people were just getting to know her.
4) I was obviously making a case for why republicans could legitimately ponder that she's a DEI pick without the stupid accusation levied towards them that theyre only doing so because they're bigots. (which you and riley seemed to suggest)
5) Was Kamala any good?
And maybe Biden would have won by a good bit more without her? Or maybe the VP didn't really have any effect at all. No, she didn't seem to be colossal detriment to his campaign at the very least.
I've yet to find analysis that says she was a big help to his reelection. Or anything else, really. My exposure to her has been her poor presidential run, poor polling numbers, and relative invisibility as VP. (aside from the occasional Kamalism)
The biggest reason I can see that she was picked was her gender and color.
Biden didn't hire Harris, the voters did. If she's a DEI choice, the American people made it, not Biden.
Tell me why Pence was the best choice for the Republican ticket in 2016? What qualifications made him better than all the other Republicans available to be VP?
You're wing and really a poor debater.Previous posts addressed this stuff.
1) No. I noted that could be a reason for selecting someone on attributes like race or gender. And if so, it would be a performance based reason. I stated clearly that the argument against Harris was on the basis of her being a fairness pick -- not for reasons of voter turn out. Basically, what Joey Reed was arguing for -- fairness. The progressive wing of the democratic party was (is) really into representation of gender and color and the like. That's what people were taking issue with.
2) Cop out.
3) No, I clearly stated that she could be reasonably considered a qualifier in the pool -- clearly stated in the post above that you didn't read. My complaint is that she presented as a terrible candidate on the national stage. When most people were just getting to know her.
4) I was obviously making a case for why republicans could legitimately ponder that she's a DEI pick without the stupid accusation levied towards them that theyre only doing so because they're bigots. (which you and riley seemed to suggest)
5) Was Kamala any good?
And maybe Biden would have won by a good bit more without her? Or maybe the VP didn't really have any effect at all. No, she didn't seem to be colossal detriment to his campaign at the very least.
I've yet to find analysis that says she was a big help to his reelection. Or anything else, really. My exposure to her has been her poor presidential run, poor polling numbers, and relative invisibility as VP. (aside from the occasional Kamalism)
The biggest reason I can see that she was picked was her gender and color.
Who said I had a problem. I just don’t buy the gaslighting around why she was picked.
Joe decided a woman of color was the litmus test. That’s fine….
Pence was a good choice in that regard. Vance isn’t.
Pence was chosen to throw traditional R’s and evangelicals a bone.
No idea why he picked Vance and think it was a stupid pick
Care to give you opinion on my question.
Why Pence was the best choice for the Republican ticket in 2016? What qualifications made him better than all the other Republicans available to be VP?
Also are VPs hired by the nominee or the citizens? No one, other than Gerald Ford, becomes Vice President without being hired by the voters.
I just saw that, but you didn't explain what qualifications made Pence the best choice if Trump was incapacitated. You explained why he was a good choice to bring Trump more votes which is the same reason Harris was chosen.
What made Pence a better potential Presidential replacement than Harris?
I guess we agree on this.
Pence was picked to get traditional R’s and evangelicals.
Harris was picked because she was a woman of color and would solidify the black vote.
I think Pence would have been a better replacement for the Presidency because he was a Governor and had executive experience.
Can we also agree that both of them were hired by the American voters not their respective Presidential nominees? In other words if one or both of them were DEI hires, the voters did the hiring
She was 100% a DEI pick as VP and now that's coming back to haunt the Dems because they are stuck with 3% Harris as their 2024 Candidate.
LOL
Still doesn't change the fact that no VP is elected without voters. If the public doesn't consider the whole ticket that's on us, not the nominee.
Whataboutism is the only thing the Dems can fall back on when anyone questions 3% Harris being the current VP
And again, you're wrong. It was a criteria they wanted, it wasn't THE criteria. Continuing on that path demonstrates how gullible you are.
It's also funny how you and other rubes try to fall back on what you "say" as being the truth rather than what you do. No wonder so many of you buy into what Trump "says".
