Because she isn't? Sure she's better than any of the Republicans, but that's a stupid low bar and doesn't really tell you much. Her record in California is abysmal, she had zero support in her campaign, and she's done fuck all since she became VP. She's essentially a glorified security barrier to stand between the nuclear codes and whatever asshat the Republicans end up shoving in as Speaker in the event that Biden goes the way of all flesh during his term.
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Agree, but dammit all if I didn't come here to just dap you for the final turn of phrase. Haven't heard that in ages, well done.
The last time I heard that phrase was the Gojira song from years ago
She’s essentially a glorified security barrier to stand between the nuclear codes and whatever asshat the Republicans end up shoving in as Speaker
To be fair, that's pretty much all the VP really does. Pretty much the only point of having a VP is to have someone ready in case the President mysteriously drops dead or something. They could eliminate the entire position tomorrow and it wouldn't change a thing.
They also break ties in the senate. And Harris is tied for the most tie breaks.
I think the main issue here has nothing to do with Harris , it's all about Biden and his age. When Obama tapped Biden to be his VP, he did it partially to counteract the idea that Obama was too young and inexperienced for the job. So we got to hear about Biden's leadership qualities right away, as well as his influence on decisions. Obama was essentially borrowing Biden's experience, he gained directly from having Biden involved.
The Biden/Harris dynamic is different, because Biden is so old, he needs to continually prove that he had the stamina to govern, wholly, on his own. Pushing off any significant part of his agenda to Harris might start talk that his facilities are slipping.
This upcoming election is sure to be Biden's last time in front of voters, though. If he wins, he is safe to spend the next 4 years burnishing Harris' credentials for 2028, because at that point it doesn't matter anymore.
That's a nice sugarcoating of the Obama/Biden situation, but the reality was that Biden the old white man was chosen in an attempt to calm down racists over a young black man president.
that'd be one cynical way of interpreting it. Another less condescending take, and I think more based in reality, was that Obama was a senator for a brief time before elevation to the white house. He needed someone experienced in both getting legislation passed and handling all the interpersonal relationships a president must forge - and they got the ideal guy, Joe "I've lived on cap hill for 20 fucking years" Biden. Joe understood the people and the legislative machinery in a way that a jr senator simply had little experience with. Together they made a pretty groovy combo.
Obama won twice so despite some racists not liking it, the nation as a whole chose him as the best candidate. It can happen again but I doubt that candidate is Harris.
That's the thing, the country wanted change and change is what Obama promised. Race plays a part but in ways many don't account for and it doesn't play as much a role in other ways that many think it does. The same is true for gender. Some like to claim Hillary lost because of her gender, but they don't account for her messaging that the status quo is fine. The person who was promising change in that presidential race was her opponent, Trump, who ended up winning. This is not a mere coincidence.
that'd be one cynical way of interpreting it. Another less condescending take, and I think more based in reality, was that Obama was a senator for a brief time before elevation to the white house. He needed someone experienced in both getting legislation passed and handling all the interpersonal relationships a president must forge - and they got the ideal guy, Joe "I've lived on cap hill for 20 fucking years" Biden. Joe understood the people and the legislative machinery in a way that a jr senator simply had little experience with. Together they made a pretty groovy combo.
I'm biased in that I didn't think she was ready to be Vice President.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article233375207.html
But her issues now appear to be that she's not liked even (especially?) among her own staff.
But her issues now appear to be that she’s not liked even (especially?) among her own staff.
That's been her issue for years. She was wildly unpopular in the primaries last time. God help us if she ever gets the nomination for President, because I truly believe she is un-electable nationally.
Ah boo, I really wanted her to do well. And do good.
Typical Dem - bad at politics, abysmal messaging, just there to say “oops the repugs did it again, darn if only we could have raised more money and done something to stop them!”
To Harris’ credit she has attempted to fight for women’s healthcare access, women’s inclusion in STEM, etc…she just sucks at telling anyone about it. And the rumors about how she treats her staff are super cringe if true.
It's the perpetual double standard. Qualifications are important. So let's talk about Trump and George W Bush. How were they in any way shape or form qualified? Bush didn't even finish his national guard service. Trump doesn't understand why soldiers die for their country. Both of those twats shouldn't 'qualify' for president.
That’s part of what is so frustrating about Harris - she is qualified, but doesn’t make her case. Trump will straight up tell MAGA that only he can protect them from the deep state transing their kids, and they lap it right up.
It’s just bizarre how bad Dems are at messaging…maybe they suffer from being in the Washington bubble and constantly being reassured they’re the greatest ever, I don’t know. This consistently hamstrings their party by failing to lead, and instead settling for “at least we’re not them.” Newsflash ya idgits - we’re all Americans.
Don't compare spam with shit and tell me I should be happy to eat spam.
Unfortunately sir I don't get to set the menu, only serve it up. Please speak with the DNC otherwise.
She was super vocal during the 2020 campaign but once elected she went silent. What the hell happened?
I haven't heard a single thing about her since she became VP. Has the news just been avoiding her? Has she done anything in the past three years?
I don't exactly avoid the news, but I know more about some congresspeople / governors / senators than I do about the sitting VP.
Let me preface this by saying I'm not a fan of Harris. Despite this,
- she has been lobbying pretty hard for abortion rights.
- she has actually had some successes in addressing the deep causes of illegal immigration, despite the optics of the symptoms
- she did a good job pushing for voting rights, but was ultimately stymied by fucking Manchin and Sinema
But then again, as people have pointed out, the VP is just kind of sitting there as insurance. I'm so incredibly disappointed in the Dems inability to primary their candidates.
That’s kind of the job of VP, though. She’s been in the news but never in the front.
That's a failure of the party to not promote her then. Gore got coverage and sponsored legislation as a vp. Cheney spearheaded an entire war. A vp can be in the news cycle if you want them to.
Gore has always been a huge media favorite (even before he became VP), knew how to play the game and loved the attention. Same for Cheney. Some VP are more on the front, but you hadn’t heard much of Biden while he was VP, and Pence… well he was a lap dog until the constitution depended on him.
Can you even tell me who George HW Bush’s VP was? Or Carter’s? Without looking?
Harris doesn’t care about it, it’s not required for her job, and if she doesn’t do a good job we’d probably know about it more than if she did.
When Obama was in power Biden just seemed to be the smiling old white uncle that had a couple funny cameos on TV, from my recollection.
Is there any sense whatsoever of Harris having contributed meaningfully in internal deliberations of the executive branch? As VP, Biden played a reasonably active role in debates over, e.g., foreign policy (he was well known as one of the most outspoken doves on Iraq/Afghanistan issues). Even if he didn't always get his way (actually, he often didn't), he was there in the room. I don't get the sense that Harris is pulling her weight to the same extent.
Obama also carved out portfolios for Biden to handle, like overseeing the disbursal of stimulus funds; face it, giving out of goodies is probably the single thing politicians love best. What has Biden carved out for Harris? Solving the border problem---that sounds like he's screwing her over rather than helping groom her as a successor. Maybe she will next be tasked with resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict?
Don't forget fixing voting rights and solving America's gun problem. Just a couple of easy wins to build her profile.
What does VP Harris stand for? What does she value? I don't know much about her political philosophy. I'm not invested in her because I don't know her.
Harris probably thinks of herself as the loyal government servant who has always done what is asked of her. The problem is, much of what America does is unpopular with public and people want to find politicians to blame everything on.
I would bet her poll numbers would flip if she spent her VP career pissing off rightwing donors and going left of Biden on popular issues.
Normally the vice president wouldn't get this kind of attention. She's getting this attention because Biden is so old, and he is standing again for election. Vice President is a bizarre non-job in the US system but also very important because of its potential.
Kamala Harris is being attacked because there is a serious chance she will be President.
On the one hand she is being attacked and undermined because she's a woman and she's black. But on the other hand it is an election and it's right to think about the vice president, and particularly one who may actually be President.
...or is she simply hated because of her history as a prosecutor and the air of disingenuousness she gives off?
Tbf, I find something to hate about most US politicians, but I really don't like the idea of it being semi-planned to elect an old fart for a second term so he can die of old age and the appointed VP "inherits" the position.
...the US political system is so fucked up.
Well she's not a decrepit old white man yet, that's why.
Until scrolling past this post, and then scrolling back out of confusion, I had completely forgotten she even existed.
It would help if she was a proponent of weed. Sounds like she needs to start toking, regardless, if her own staff hates her.
If I remember correctly she does or did, just thinks other people should be jailed for it and don't think other people should be released from prison for it, and be used as cheap labour.
She a case of rules for thee not for me.
I really hope Biden goes with a different VP pick this go around, maybe Buttigieg or someone more competent. I had hoped Harris was gone for good after the primaries, she’s just been a waste this whole time. Maybe it’s because of how important VPs have been the past few administrations, whereas traditionally it’s been a do-nothing position, Harris has sort of brought the position back to it’s normal role.
I really hope Biden goes with a different VP pick this go around, maybe Buttigieg or someone more competent.
I very seriously doubt Biden is going to switch up VP picks. That's just dumping a truckload of fodder for the GOP to use against him.
Biden isn't going to lose any votes over keeping Harris. That would imply that Democrat voters are willing to say that they dislike Harris so much that they're willing to essentially vote for Trump in protest. But he could lose votes over whoever the next VP pick is, as the fact that he switched up VPs midstream is going to immediatly become a focal point of the campaign, regardless of who the new pick is.
I'm not a fan of Harris and she has the personality of sandpaper. But I think going in a different direction would be worse than keeping her around.
I agree. In a time when the party needs to portray confidence, consistency, and predictability in the face of a rudderless and treasonous GOP, the last thing they need to do is hand the position off and inject a bunch of chaos and uncertainty into the process. That'll hand Republicans all the campaign fodder they'll ever need.
Harris is a total dud but they're sticking with her, and we'd be better off if people went ahead and abandoned the idea that she'll be replaced. It's just not going to happen.