I don't see her having any pop culture appeal and its why she never gained any real traction. Thanks for giving a detailed reply I guess we just see her differently.
If this ad suggest to a person that the Chinese-American US Ambassador to China is a Chinese National or Chinese Official THAT person is the racist or at least ignorant.
I expect any Biden VP pick to be primarily evaluated on the 'potential POTUS' scale and i think that works against Abrams. I agree with an earlier poster in that Abrams needs more seasoning, not necessarily as a person but definitely in the minds of the voters. Kamala looks good on paper, but Klobucher seems a safer choice and has the midwest going for her. Whitmer I not too sure where she fits, (maybe as a solid backup). My current choice would Klobuchar for VP and Kamala for AG (Powers for Sec)
Great post and this is an important point. You have to give the average voter or person that doesn’t follow politics closely a reason to tune in and care. A candidate that has the “it” factor that Obama, Trump and a select few others have/had, that you’re referring to, certainly makes that task a lot easier. I think the Dems hoped Beto had that quality before he ruined his brand running on such a polarizing platform for President. It’s kind of sad, too, that a Klobuchar type that’s all business and results is boring and uninspiring to many. But it is what it is. Optics, personality and how you’re viewed by the media clearly matters. The Dems need a rockstar that’s going to get standing ovations at the Grammy’s, become a household name and somebody that’s going to #Trend, #GoViral and all the other things that make millennials and Gen Z pay attention. I’m not sure a Gretchen Whitmer type gets you there. Biden’s numbers on voter enthusiasm are extremely poor and he’s being labeled as Hillary 2.0 by many for that reason. You need a VP that makes the ticket appealing and hip, as much as you need to choose somebody that’s ready to lead. The latter isn’t going to matter much if you can’t defeat Trump in November. The natural foil and best way to complement Biden, somebody viewed as old and boring, is choosing somebody that’s young and charismatic.
I agree with all of this and it's why I don't see Harris a good choice. And to be honest I think she would be to busy looking ahead to 2024 and not willing to be a real team player to really help Biden as a VP like Biden did with Obama. I could be totally wrong but I just get that feeling that she is in it for herself.
I wouldn't blame her for looking toward 2024... heck, I will be looking towards 2024. I get the feeling you don't like Harris and that's cool... liking your candidate is important. But what is the VP's function and role anyway? Stand/sit behind the president looking like its true love. Cast the occasional tie vote in the senate. Make a few speeches on special projects as assigned. That's pretty much it. In what of those roles do you see her not being a team player?
I don't have a problem with her looking forward to 2024 per say but not at the detriment of her job a VP. I not that I dislike Harris I was one of the people taking up for her against the allegations of sleeping her way to the top and wondered why people were dismissing her out of hand. My issue with Harris is that she came off as an opportunist who would say anythig to get ahead, her flip flopping on M4A is one thing and I don't even support M4A. Her pushing the Busing thing was especially galling and shows she does not only is willing to do anything to get ahead but also does not show good judgement, who would think busing is good issue to promote in 20/20. It was blatant pandering. The VP and the president should always be on a untited front I just see her as doing things to benefit herself. That's just my opinion and has nothing to do with a personal dislike. Biden did a lot of behind the scenes stuff for Obama a good VP does a lot more than a few speeches and occasional voting.
No. I was here for the T Will wars, I just don't know what he has to do with the convo. Are you comparing Harris to T Will?
So is this actually a thing? Biden Bros? https://nypost.com/2020/04/09/biden-bros-attack-bernie-advisor-after-campaign-suspended/
I've heard some of the supporters of Sanders here and elsewhere complain of attacks on Sanders supporters. I can certainly believe that there are mouth breathers out there for Biden, or more likely very anti-Sanders. How many there are I can't say. From my own experience it seems like more on the Sanders side and that seems to be what most reports are showing.
You keep on saying this yet more than a month ago I cited an article from CNN that showed that they didn't rely upon tweets and actually had other sources including people in researching digital media. Can you show us news pieces that it was widespread for reporters reporting on "Bernie Bros" relying upon random tweets from random accounts? Here is the article I referenced and it was actually from two months ago on Feb. 7. cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/bernie-sanders-social-media-attacks-invs/index.html
Link those news pieces. Those people researching digital trends didn't state a ratio or at the very least the CNN article didn't mention it. All it claimed was Bernie supporters are more active online which makes sense as most of his supporters arf younger. Also, that "study" did zero analysis on verification of these tweets on whether the accounts are from bad faith trolls or foerign actors. Again, random tweets from unverified accounts isn't news. It's surprising that for a group of people who jump to Russian conspiracy theories so easily you just accept at face value that a random angry "Bernie bro" online is a genuine supporter rather than a troll especially given how prevelant bad faith actors are online especially with foerign actors trying to create division in the US. You are a random poster online so your concentration on portraying Bernie supporters as bullies isn't going to sway anyone from abstaining from voting but hopefully CNN and MsNBC understands if they try to still push this narrative, they are shooting themselves in the foot if they desire Trump to be a one term president.
Well, technically random tweets, plus tweets by known public supporters, facebook posts, interviews on TV, on-the-record comments from various campaigns, threats reported by non-profits and other organizations, activities at state conventions, real-life people showing up at people's houses, and other endless other such evidence. But sure, stick with the tweets.
Like I said I hope CNN doesn't go this route as I also don't Trump to get reelected. I'm sure a lot of this is implicit bias. Just like right wingers believe antifa and left wing terrorism is more prevelant than right wing terrorism because they mainly watch content that confirm their biases, you have a bias against Sanders and therefore are going to be more drawn to negative Bernie coverage.
