c_hawkbob wrote:While not my 1st choice I think she's a great pick. Conservative enough that many Repubs like her better than Joe and progressive enough to gather in the younger generations of Dems. While I'd have chosen Susan Rice had the choice been mine to make, what I like best about Harris is imagining what the VP debate is gonna be like! I think she'll have Pence talked into a corner in no time and have him crying like a baby afterward.
c_hawkbob wrote:I didn't say "will" like her better than Joe, I'm quite sure that now that she's on the opposing ticket most will take a firmly adversarial position. I said many already "do" like her better than Joe; Watching an interview with an analyst on the news - probably NBC national news as they have a half hour sandwiched between the 2 segments of my local news and I haven't been watching much other news lately (12/13 hour days at work, it's that time of year). I believe what said specifically was that Kamala currently polls better than Joe among moderate Republicans.
Hawktawk wrote:I love how “sleepy” Joe turned Trumps attacks on Kamala against him immediately , pointing out Trump had called her “ nasty” and that he was “ whining about her being too hard on his nominees “ it’s not surprising since whining is what he does best”. These are simple true attack lines that everyone gets . Sleepy joe is doing just fine so far .
RiverDog wrote:Not that I don't believe you, but I'd be interested in seeing those polls (plural?), when they were taken, what kind of questions they were asking, etc. It sounds counter intuitive as Harris is almost without question one of the most liberal Senators on the hill.
The major problem with the selection is that Harris's positions don't align well with Biden's, who's biggest asset is his centrism. The Trump people will use Harris's nomination as proof positive that the Democrats have shifted far to the left side of the political spectrum and will paint her as the Ghost of Christmas Future if she's elected VP as she would be the heir apparent to the nomination in 2024 or 2028. And the sad thing is that they won't have to make up lies and fake news as Trump is so famous for doing. She has plenty of statements, ratings by liberal advocacy groups, her voting record, etc, to provide the opposition with plenty of legitimate ammunition. Some of the groups that Biden and the Democrats were making inroads into, such as evangelicals, may be driven back to the Trump camp.
c_hawkbob wrote:I didn't say "will" like her better than Joe, I'm quite sure that now that she's on the opposing ticket most will take a firmly adversarial position. I said many already "do" like her better than Joe; Watching an interview with an analyst on the news - probably NBC national news as they have a half hour sandwiched between the 2 segments of my local news and I haven't been watching much other news lately (12/13 hour days at work, it's that time of year). I believe what said specifically was that Kamala currently polls better than Joe among moderate Republicans.
RiverDog wrote:Not that I don't believe you, but I'd be interested in seeing those polls (plural?), when they were taken, what kind of questions they were asking, etc. It sounds counter intuitive as Harris is almost without question one of the most liberal Senators on the hill.
The major problem with the selection is that Harris's positions don't align well with Biden's, who's biggest asset is his centrism. The Trump people will use Harris's nomination as proof positive that the Democrats have shifted far to the left side of the political spectrum and will paint her as the Ghost of Christmas Future if she's elected VP as she would be the heir apparent to the nomination in 2024 or 2028. And the sad thing is that they won't have to make up lies and fake news as Trump is so famous for doing. She has plenty of statements, ratings by liberal advocacy groups, her voting record, etc, to provide the opposition with plenty of legitimate ammunition. Some of the groups that Biden and the Democrats were making inroads into, such as evangelicals, may be driven back to the Trump camp.
c_hawkbob wrote:I don't care whether you believe me or not, I know what I heard and it's not the only time I've seen the argument made that the Trump team would rather have had someone farther to the left to villainize. Google it, you might just surprise yourself.
I-5 wrote:Looks like they’ve launched their first Kamala attack (via a Trump interview),and it’s.....another birther conspiracy. She’s born in Oakland CA of course. He is too tired to even come up with something.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Kamala is political. She will align with what values are necessary to win much as Romney did during his run. Kamala's stances were in line with her California liberal base, but she'll adjust to fit into the political landscape of the nation's Democrats if that is who she is appealing to. That's why Biden chose her. She's adaptable and knows the politics game.
Kamala will do what Kamala needs to do to appeal to the wider Democratic base she's dealing with. I could tell this is how she operates watching her the few times I did and reading on her political career. She's a political animal that is adaptable, smart, and knows how to win elections and hold power in a Democracy.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Much like Dumb as Dirt started going to church for the first time I've seen in 30 plus years of following Trump. When I saw Trump in church, I had to laugh. How can you worship a god when you believe yourself to be a god? I don't know how that works. If Donald Trump got to Heaven and had a conversation with God himself, he'd be talking over him and telling God how great he was. God could say, "I created the world" and Trump would be talking about how he made Trump Towers and banged pornstars.
c_hawkbob wrote:I don't care whether you believe me or not, I know what I heard and it's not the only time I've seen the argument made that the Trump team would rather have had someone farther to the left to villainize. Google it, you might just surprise yourself.
RiverDog wrote:Oh, come on, now. You want to be believed, don't you? Especially by people you consider to be friends? I was trying my best not to challenge your assertation. It was an honest question. But I did as you said and googled it. Here's what I came up with:
In addition, about 25% of Republicans said they had a favorable view of Harris and approve of her choice as Biden's running mate. Only about 20% of Republicans said they have a similarly favorable view of Biden.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/poll-ha ... -1.9070013
5% difference isn't a heck of a lot of daylight when you consider that most polls have around a 3% margin of error, especially considering that she's a first term Senator and still a relative unknown vs. Biden, who's been around for decades. She's in her honeymoon phase right now. Once Trump's campaign starts with their attack ads and people start learning what's behind that attractive, smiling face, expect that percentage to plummet.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... nt-decide/She is clearly not in the mold of a Sanders or even an Elizabeth Warren. The conventional wisdom about why Harris’s presidential primary campaign faltered, in fact, was that it did not have a defined message and it was not clear what she was about. You can spin that in a positive way as pragmatism, or you can spin it in a negative way as a lack of principles. But to suggest she’s some kind of radical socialist infiltrator is difficult to square with the idea that she has got nonradical principles that she has abandoned out of expediency and is also beholden to Wall Street
https://www.denverpost.com/2020/08/11/kamala-harris-vice-president-herod-gardner-polis-hickenlooper-colorado/“Kamala Harris is brilliant, tough and can readily take on all the fascists running the show,” she later told The Denver Post. “Is she as progressive as I’d like? No ... Harris faced some pushback from the left during the vetting process because of her record as San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general, which some characterized as furthering policies that disproportionately harm Black and Latino defendants.
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/12/901592063/californians-react-bidens-decision-to-name-kamala-harris-his-running-mateNORMAN SOLOMON: For Joe Biden, he doesn't want the so-called big tent of the Democratic Party to be big enough to include, really, authentic progressive activists and progressive voters. And I think that's disturbing.
c_hawkbob wrote:And no, I don't care whether you believe me or not, but I do bristle a bit at being called a liar.
c_hawkbob wrote:And no, I don't care whether you believe me or not, but I do bristle a bit at being called a liar.
RiverDog wrote:Well, I care if people believe me or not, and for heaven's sake, I wasn't in any way, shape, or form suggesting that you were untruthful and on two different occasions went to great lengths to make that apparent. All I wanted to do was to see your source of information.
Harris might not be as liberal as Sanders or Warren, but she's obviously out in the 90%+ region on the spectrum. Plus she's from California, specifically San Francisco, the epicenter of the liberal movement. It would be easier for her to shake that image if she were from a red or purple state.
Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal advocacy group that compiles ratings based on major votes, gave her perfect scores in 2017 and 2018.
Harris’ record is anathema to conservatives. The American Conservative Union gives her a 3.03 lifetime score out of 100.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-go ... 08657.html
According to GovTrack.us, Harris was more liberal than even Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, which seems like an impossible feat.
https://www.westernjournal.com/senate-a ... en-bernie/
RiverDog wrote:That's been one of the strangest parts of the Trump effect. I can't understand how the evangelical community can embrace Trump in the manner they have. Those same folks went ballistic when it was Bill Clinton that was the immoral heathen, and his sins pale in comparison to our chief pornstar banger. It's the exact same hypocrisy expressed that various women's groups did when they gave Slick Willy a pass for using his cigar on a 21 year old intern. Our country no longer has a moral compass. Everything is political.
NorthHawk wrote:I think the evangelicals agreed to a Faustian deal with Trump in that they would look the other
way regarding his transgressions if he delivered conservative Supreme Court judges.
I think it's really that simple.
c_hawkbob wrote:I don't care about degrees of progressivism, that's not what I said. I made a simple, clear statement and I told you what my source was and you chose not to believe it and asked me to prove it. That's BS and don't appreciate it. I even told you that I didn't have time to chase it down or to watch much news recently due to my schedule at work (0700 to 2000 today for instance) so telling you I saw it on the news should have sufficed. It's not as though I have a track record of untruthfulness here.
NorthHawk wrote:I think the evangelicals agreed to a Faustian deal with Trump in that they would look the other way regarding his transgressions if he delivered conservative Supreme Court judges. I think it's really that simple.
c_hawkbob wrote:In my experience "not that I don't believe you but ..." almost always means "I don't believe you".
If that's not how you meant it fine, I'll be the one to apologize, but please stop making me find a link for you when I tell you where I heard something, you could have done that little bit of investigating for yourself. Disagree with it all you like, but you don't need to make me prove to you it was ever said.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests