Continuing outrages related to our 45th President

[sixwings]

yeah I definitely agree, if something like that were to happen i doubt places like NY, the west coast, etc. would be fine with that. Dunno what they could do, but I doubt california and NY are totally fine with their democratic voting being eliminated by degenerates in Michigan or Arizona.

In 2000 the Supreme Court decided the Presidential election election, nothing was done about it.

Hmm good point, but i feel like that's different, that was a one time decision made by the SC that the state would abided by, had the SC ruled the other way FL would have gone blue. I think that's different than some state legislators saying they are going to ignore democratic processes going forward and just install whoever they feel like regardless of voting.

[talltexan]

I'm not an attorney (and I didn't vote for W.), but my understanding of what SCOTUS decided in Bush v. Gore was that a vote count that had already been certified would remain the count.

[Just Joe]

If I felt confident another Trump election would lead to the party self-destructing without a civil war for example, I might learn to not GAF. I'd love for American conservatism to reboot itself and actually become what they have long said they were. The more moderate and positive things they've advertised over my lifetime so far.

I expect though that another cycle with Trump in office or someone Trump-like might help the party to drift dangerously close to dictator-like choices and enable very bad corporate behavior.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

yeah I definitely agree, if something like that were to happen i doubt places like NY, the west coast, etc. would be fine with that. Dunno what they could do, but I doubt california and NY are totally fine with their democratic voting being eliminated by degenerates in Michigan or Arizona.

In 2000 the Supreme Court decided the Presidential election election, nothing was done about it.

Hmm good point, but i feel like that's different, that was a one time decision made by the SC that the state would abided by, had the SC ruled the other way FL would have gone blue. I think that's different than some state legislators saying they are going to ignore democratic processes going forward and just install whoever they feel like regardless of voting.

Agree with talltexan and sixwings. This would be a totally different situation. Whether you like the Bush Gore decision or not, all it did was stop a recount. That's a far cry from, as sixwing said, having state legislators just disregard voting altogether....by an order of magnitude in my estimation.

[sonofsven]

yeah I definitely agree, if something like that were to happen i doubt places like NY, the west coast, etc. would be fine with that. Dunno what they could do, but I doubt california and NY are totally fine with their democratic voting being eliminated by degenerates in Michigan or Arizona.

In 2000 the Supreme Court decided the Presidential election election, nothing was done about it.

Hmm good point, but i feel like that's different, that was a one time decision made by the SC that the state would abided by, had the SC ruled the other way FL would have gone blue. I think that's different than some state legislators saying they are going to ignore democratic processes going forward and just install whoever they feel like regardless of voting.

Well, they didn't necessarily ignore the democratic process, but they manipulated it, and they did disregard the voting. They stopped the recounting of the vote because a bunch of planted activists pitched a fit. It didn't hurt that the governor of the state was the "winning" candidates brother, and that he also "cleansed" the voter rolls substantially before the election.

[talltexan]

About a year ago, I listened to Leon Neyfakh's "Fiasco" podcast about the Florida recount saga. The Secretary of State at the time is the one who comes across from that podcast as totally partisan and un-democratic.

Just a reminder about how important that position is, and why Trump disciples seem so focused on winning it.

[talltexan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/15/trump-2024-announcement-running-president/

Headline: Trump, who as president fomented an insurrection, says he is running again

[nereo]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/15/trump-2024-announcement-running-president/

Headline: Trump, who as president fomented an insurrection, says he is running again

And do the reality show begins it’s next two seasons…

[GuitarStv]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/15/trump-2024-announcement-running-president/

Headline: Trump, who as president fomented an insurrection, says he is running again

And do the reality show begins it’s next two seasons…

Will it be four more years for Presidento Trump . . . or four more years and four more years and four more years and four more years and four more years . . .?

[nereo]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/15/trump-2024-announcement-running-president/

Headline: Trump, who as president fomented an insurrection, says he is running again

And do the reality show begins it’s next two seasons…

Will it be four more years for Presidento Trump . . . or four more years and four more years and four more years and four more years and four more years . . .?

well, he's 76 years old right now. He's lost the popular vote twice and his last re-election. If he loses in 2024 I'm not sure the GOP will tolerate him running again four years later, and if he wins the 22nd amendment is pretty clear. His attempt to circumvent a free and fair election didn't work last time.

[FIPurpose]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/15/trump-2024-announcement-running-president/

Headline: Trump, who as president fomented an insurrection, says he is running again

And do the reality show begins it’s next two seasons…

Will it be four more years for Presidento Trump . . . or four more years and four more years and four more years and four more years and four more years . . .?

well, he's 76 years old right now. He's lost the popular vote twice and his last re-election. If he loses in 2024 I'm not sure the GOP will tolerate him running again four years later, and if he wins the 22nd amendment is pretty clear. His attempt to circumvent a free and fair election didn't work last time.

Alito doesn't seem to care about the 14th amendment, so I'm sure he could come up with something.

[GuitarStv]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/15/trump-2024-announcement-running-president/

Headline: Trump, who as president fomented an insurrection, says he is running again

And do the reality show begins it’s next two seasons…

Will it be four more years for Presidento Trump . . . or four more years and four more years and four more years and four more years and four more years . . .?

well, he's 76 years old right now. He's lost the popular vote twice and his last re-election. If he loses in 2024 I'm not sure the GOP will tolerate him running again four years later, and if he wins the 22nd amendment is pretty clear. His attempt to circumvent a free and fair election didn't work last time.

Alito doesn't seem to care about the 14th amendment, so I'm sure he could come up with something.

The midterms turned out better than was expected for freedom, but it's still quite a different political environment than when Trump incited insurrection the last time.

Wes Allen, Chuck Gray, Monae Johnson, and Diego Morales are all election deniers who now hold the secretary of state post.  Greg Abbott, Ron DeSantis, Sara Huckabee Sanders, Kay Ivey, Brad Little, Joe Lombardo, Kristi Noem, Kim Reynolds, and Mike Dunleavy are all election deniers who were elected governors.  Katie Britt, Ted Budd, John Kennedy, Ron Johnson, James Lankford, Mike Lee, Markwayne Mullin, Rand Paul, Eric Schmitt, and JD Vance are all election deniers who have been elected to senate.  And then there's the question of Thomas on the Supreme Court.

A lot of people in the US don't want fair elections any more.  They have helped put people in power who will be able to work to corrupt the election process.

[nereo]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/15/trump-2024-announcement-running-president/

Headline: Trump, who as president fomented an insurrection, says he is running again

And do the reality show begins it’s next two seasons…

Will it be four more years for Presidento Trump . . . or four more years and four more years and four more years and four more years and four more years . . .?

well, he's 76 years old right now. He's lost the popular vote twice and his last re-election. If he loses in 2024 I'm not sure the GOP will tolerate him running again four years later, and if he wins the 22nd amendment is pretty clear. His attempt to circumvent a free and fair election didn't work last time.

Alito doesn't seem to care about the 14th amendment, so I'm sure he could come up with something.

14th?  The naturalized citizen?  Presidential term limits were established by the 22nd (post FDR).
He would still need to 1) win in 2024, 2) not die (he will be 82 by 2028), 3a) win re-election in 2028 or 3b) circumvent the election, which he failed to do last time. None of those seem like a sure bet right now to me.

[brandon1827]

He seems completely disinterested in running again judging by the announcement last night. Low energy, spewing the same old lines from his stump speeches, not having any real concrete plans, and boring the crowd to tears. I think he's just running to avoid indictment or at least delay it. He also still appears to be snorting adderall judging by his sniffing and dilated pupils. Just a complete shit-show of a human being

[bacchi]

At this point, he's a spoiler for the Republican primary. A lot of donor money will be spent criticizing DeSantis and Trump. I'm all for it.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

As I see it, Trump has jumped the shark. I know many die hard Republicans, and they're turning on him. The only thing I think he can really do is split the Republicans at this point.

[Captain FIRE]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/15/trump-2024-announcement-running-president/

Headline: Trump, who as president fomented an insurrection, says he is running again

And do the reality show begins it’s next two seasons…

Will it be four more years for Presidento Trump . . . or four more years and four more years and four more years and four more years and four more years . . .?

well, he's 76 years old right now. He's lost the popular vote twice and his last re-election. If he loses in 2024 I'm not sure the GOP will tolerate him running again four years later, and if he wins the 22nd amendment is pretty clear. His attempt to circumvent a free and fair election didn't work last time.

Alito doesn't seem to care about the 14th amendment, so I'm sure he could come up with something.

14th?  The naturalized citizen?  Presidential term limits were established by the 22nd (post FDR).
He would still need to 1) win in 2024, 2) not die (he will be 82 by 2028), 3a) win re-election in 2028 or 3b) circumvent the election, which he failed to do last time. None of those seem like a sure bet right now to me.

I think FIPurpose is referring to overturning Roe v. Wade (although, it's really Casey that was the most recent precedent on it), which described a right to privacy based on the 14th amendment.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

ETA: Actually I take it back that it's about Roe.  It could be a whole number of things now that I think about it.  He's not exactly keen on equal protection in general.

[jinga nation]

everything Trump is a long con.
he's doing this to sell merchandise and more (all Made in China, obviously) until he gets beaten by DeSantis etc. in a primary.
then he'll continue to sell while announcing a run as 3rd party candidate.
if a republican wins the presidential election, he's claim credit for running interference.
if a democrat wins, he'll claim the GOP candidate was crap and Sad!
and if he loses at any stage, he'll blame 46, FBI, DoJ, NY AG, the Yeti, Loch Ness monster, and the 3rd rock from the sun.
but through it all, he'll sell merch, because all publicity is good publicity. Art of the Deal.

[FIPurpose]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/15/trump-2024-announcement-running-president/

Headline: Trump, who as president fomented an insurrection, says he is running again

And do the reality show begins it’s next two seasons…

Will it be four more years for Presidento Trump . . . or four more years and four more years and four more years and four more years and four more years . . .?

well, he's 76 years old right now. He's lost the popular vote twice and his last re-election. If he loses in 2024 I'm not sure the GOP will tolerate him running again four years later, and if he wins the 22nd amendment is pretty clear. His attempt to circumvent a free and fair election didn't work last time.

Alito doesn't seem to care about the 14th amendment, so I'm sure he could come up with something.

14th?  The naturalized citizen?  Presidential term limits were established by the 22nd (post FDR).
He would still need to 1) win in 2024, 2) not die (he will be 82 by 2028), 3a) win re-election in 2028 or 3b) circumvent the election, which he failed to do last time. None of those seem like a sure bet right now to me.

I think FIPurpose is referring to overturning Roe v. Wade (although, it's really Casey that was the most recent precedent on it), which described a right to privacy based on the 14th amendment.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

ETA: Actually I take it back that it's about Roe.  It could be a whole number of things now that I think about it.  He's not exactly keen on equal protection in general.

Right. Alito's originalism only uses early founding fathers for his justifications and conveniently skips over the Radical Republican's who wrote those amendments.

[nereo]

What dyes that have to do with Trump winning a third term (assuming he wins a second, and wants to run again in 2028, and doesn’t die or get bumped out of power)?

[Captain FIRE]

What dyes that have to do with Trump winning a third term (assuming he wins a second, and wants to run again in 2028, and doesn’t die or get bumped out of power)?

FIPurpose is saying for all he claims to be an originalist, Thomas only uses that argument when it suits him and would happily make up an argument to allow him to interpret the clear text of 22nd Amendment to allow Trump a third term.

22nd Amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once...."

[FIPurpose]

What dyes that have to do with Trump winning a third term (assuming he wins a second, and wants to run again in 2028, and doesn’t die or get bumped out of power)?

FIPurpose is saying for all he claims to be an originalist, Thomas only uses that argument when it suits him and would happily make up an argument to allow him to interpret the clear text of 22nd Amendment to allow Trump a third term.

22nd Amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once...."

^ Yep, however like Nereo said. I don't think Trump would win even if he made it past the primary. The GOP seems done with him. They bled him dry and the election only hastened that process. Higher up GOP leaders will be pushing for an indictment behind closed doors.

Trump, Alito, and Thomas all making it another 6 years to a third term.... I don't see it happening. As crazy as it sounds, if the Supreme Court ever took up a third Trump term, I have my doubts that it would be a 9-0 decision. Alito and Thomas have written some ridiculous dissents.

[ATtiny85]

Some of these recent posts are like deja vu all over again. It's like reading 2016 threads. Maybe they'll be correct this time. Only two more years to keep up the hate.

I was thinking about some of the election results. Some races went this way, some races went that way. Then I started wondering what impact the overturn of RvW had. It really pissed off a lot of folks (and sort of rightly so). So then I wondered if that Republican "victory" actually cost them a few seats.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Some of these recent posts are like deja vu all over again. It's like reading 2016 threads. Maybe they'll be correct this time. Only two more years to keep up the hate.

I was thinking about some of the election results. Some races went this way, some races went that way. Then I started wondering what impact the overturn of RvW had. It really pissed off a lot of folks (and sort of rightly so). So then I wondered if that Republican "victory" actually cost them a few seats.

The difference is we've already seen a repudiation of trumpism in the midterms. He's a failing brand. Republicans are politically savvy enough to abandon ship.

[nereo]

Some of these recent posts are like deja vu all over again. It's like reading 2016 threads.

Is it more like 2016 or 2020?

[chevy1956]

Some of these recent posts are like deja vu all over again. It's like reading 2016 threads. Maybe they'll be correct this time. Only two more years to keep up the hate.

I was thinking about some of the election results. Some races went this way, some races went that way. Then I started wondering what impact the overturn of RvW had. It really pissed off a lot of folks (and sort of rightly so). So then I wondered if that Republican "victory" actually cost them a few seats.

The difference is we've already seen a repudiation of trumpism in the midterms. He's a failing brand. Republicans are politically savvy enough to abandon ship.

I hope you are right. I can see them backing him because he will run because he is such an arrogant tool and he will take a lot of votes from any legitimate candidate they can put up.

[Kris]

Some of these recent posts are like deja vu all over again. It's like reading 2016 threads. Maybe they'll be correct this time. Only two more years to keep up the hate.

I was thinking about some of the election results. Some races went this way, some races went that way. Then I started wondering what impact the overturn of RvW had. It really pissed off a lot of folks (and sort of rightly so). So then I wondered if that Republican "victory" actually cost them a few seats.

The difference is we've already seen a repudiation of trumpism in the midterms. He's a failing brand. Republicans are politically savvy enough to abandon ship.

I hope you are right. I can see them backing him because he will run because he is such an arrogant tool and he will take a lot of votes from any legitimate candidate they can put up.

That’s the thing. If someone else gets the GOP nomination, there is no way Trump will stand down. He will keep running, either by making his own party, running as an independent… and he’ll suck all those votes away from the Republican nominee.

Not sure how the GOP is planning to handle this.

[jim555]

Trump will get the nomination.  Got my popcorn, ready to watch another loss.  Good times.

[chevy1956]

Trump will get the nomination.  Got my popcorn, ready to watch another loss.  Good times.

So long as it's a loss than it is good times. If not it'll do my head in.

[GuitarStv]

I think Trump's chances depend on the candidate that the Democrats run.  Is Biden running again?

[rocketpj]

Up until the release of the COVID vaccine registered Democrats and Republicans were dying at comparable rates (R a bit more because they skew older).  After the release of the vaccines Republican 'excess' deaths have been about double that of Democrats.  Not all Dems got vaccinated, many Republicans did get the jab.  But vaccination and other measures became an identity thing for Republicans and they have been dying by the thousands as a result.

Aside from the net human tragedy, the political effect has been that there are about 1.6% fewer Republican voters on the rolls in a lot of the 'swing' states.  Quite a few of those states were won, by Democrats, with less than a 1.6% margin of victory.

So, as much as I was appalled by end of Roe-v-Wade, the election was at least somewhat decided by comparatively large numbers of Republican voters autoeuthanizing themselves via vaccine refusal and resistance to other measures.  Taking themselves off the board via self destructive scientifically illiterate choices. Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada all come to mind.

This is not something to celebrate, for two reasons.  1.  Lots of death and suffering is never something to celebrate, even if it is sometimes via stupidity.  2.  That means that the same reactionary views still hold for large numbers of the population, it's just that there a few less of them.

[rocketpj]

I think Trump's chances depend on the candidate that the Democrats run.  Is Biden running again?

Doubtful.  The man's turning 80 shortly here.  I think he'll be coy for another year, then announce that he's done what he set out to do and will not run again.  Being a politician he is probably trying to do some backroom kingmaking along the way. 

I have no idea who the next D candidate will be.  Hopefully not Harris.

[Just Joe]

I think Trump's chances depend on the candidate that the Democrats run.  Is Biden running again?

Doubtful.  The man's turning 80 shortly here.  I think he'll be coy for another year, then announce that he's done what he set out to do and will not run again.  Being a politician he is probably trying to do some backroom kingmaking along the way. 

I have no idea who the next D candidate will be.  Hopefully not Harris.

I have no problems with Harris except that she is radioactive just like Clinton was. We need someone more palatable to both sides.

[FIPurpose]

I think Trump's chances depend on the candidate that the Democrats run.  Is Biden running again?

Doubtful.  The man's turning 80 shortly here.  I think he'll be coy for another year, then announce that he's done what he set out to do and will not run again.  Being a politician he is probably trying to do some backroom kingmaking along the way. 

I have no idea who the next D candidate will be.  Hopefully not Harris.

I have no problems with Harris except that she is radioactive just like Clinton was. We need someone more palatable to both sides.

One side doesn't like Biden enough that they've promised to impeach him over... I don't even really know. I don't think it's actually going to happen with a 3-4 seat majority.

You only need someone palatable to certain demographics in the Rust belt and the Southwest, not "both sides". As long as 30 states continue to treat politics like sports ball, voting for their side no matter how backwards the policies are, votes outside of the 5 swing states will continue to not matter.

[sixwings]

Up until the release of the COVID vaccine registered Democrats and Republicans were dying at comparable rates (R a bit more because they skew older).  After the release of the vaccines Republican 'excess' deaths have been about double that of Democrats.  Not all Dems got vaccinated, many Republicans did get the jab.  But vaccination and other measures became an identity thing for Republicans and they have been dying by the thousands as a result.

Aside from the net human tragedy, the political effect has been that there are about 1.6% fewer Republican voters on the rolls in a lot of the 'swing' states.  Quite a few of those states were won, by Democrats, with less than a 1.6% margin of victory.

So, as much as I was appalled by end of Roe-v-Wade, the election was at least somewhat decided by comparatively large numbers of Republican voters autoeuthanizing themselves via vaccine refusal and resistance to other measures.  Taking themselves off the board via self destructive scientifically illiterate choices. Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada all come to mind.

This is not something to celebrate, for two reasons.  1.  Lots of death and suffering is never something to celebrate, even if it is sometimes via stupidity.  2.  That means that the same reactionary views still hold for large numbers of the population, it's just that there a few less of them.

It's also worth noting that millenial and gen Z went dem by like a 65-35% margin. Repubs are getting double hit where the new generation of voters hate the GOP, and their voters are dying. Trump will only continue to make that worse.

[GuitarStv]

538 says that candidates who have polled like Trump have one the primaries 75% of the time - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-2024-president/

[jinga nation]

I think Trump's chances depend on the candidate that the Democrats run.  Is Biden running again?

Doubtful.  The man's turning 80 shortly here.  I think he'll be coy for another year, then announce that he's done what he set out to do and will not run again.  Being a politician he is probably trying to do some backroom kingmaking along the way. 

I have no idea who the next D candidate will be.  Hopefully not Harris.

I have no problems with Harris except that she is radioactive just like Clinton was. We need someone more palatable to both sides.

Mark Kelly is my pick. If he runs. Astronaut. US Navy Captain. Combat mission experience. Space experience. Engineering degrees from military institutions. Checks all boxes (for me).

[former player]

Is Secretary Pete a no-go for his sexuality ? He seems to have everything else going for him.

[Fru-Gal]

I have no problems with Harris except that she is radioactive just like Clinton was. We need someone more palatable to both sides.

While I don’t necessarily disagree, what are the ingredients that make a woman candidate radioactive?

[jrhampt]

I have no problems with Harris except that she is radioactive just like Clinton was. We need someone more palatable to both sides.

While I don’t necessarily disagree, what are the ingredients that make a woman candidate radioactive?

Being a woman.

[GuitarStv]

I have no problems with Harris except that she is radioactive just like Clinton was. We need someone more palatable to both sides.

While I don’t necessarily disagree, what are the ingredients that make a woman candidate radioactive?

Being a woman.

. . . I'm trying really hard to think of an exception . . .

[jrhampt]

I have no problems with Harris except that she is radioactive just like Clinton was. We need someone more palatable to both sides.

While I don’t necessarily disagree, what are the ingredients that make a woman candidate radioactive?

Being a woman.

. . . I'm trying really hard to think of an exception . . .

Good luck with that.  At this point I think we get a first gentleman in the White House in one of two ways:

A gay male candidate is elected president, or a president with a female VP dies in office.

[bacchi]

I have no problems with Harris except that she is radioactive just like Clinton was. We need someone more palatable to both sides.

While I don’t necessarily disagree, what are the ingredients that make a woman candidate radioactive?

Being a woman.

. . . I'm trying really hard to think of an exception . . .

Good luck with that.  At this point I think we get a first gentleman in the White House in one of two ways:

A gay male candidate is elected president, or a president with a female VP dies in office.

Gen Z would vote for a woman. That election would probably have more Gen Z voters than 2020 did.

[Glenstache]

I have no problems with Harris except that she is radioactive just like Clinton was. We need someone more palatable to both sides.

While I don’t necessarily disagree, what are the ingredients that make a woman candidate radioactive?

Being a woman. Misogyny/sexism.

FTFY.

[nereo]

I have no problems with Harris except that she is radioactive just like Clinton was. We need someone more palatable to both sides.

While I don’t necessarily disagree, what are the ingredients that make a woman candidate radioactive?

Being a woman. Misogyny/sexism.

FTFY.

I agree that gender plays a huge part in electability in the US, but could someone please summarize (beyond her being a woman) how Harris is “radioactive”?  From my social sphere and media diet the impression I get is that she’s a fairly typical VP, mostly making speeches and pushing the EO narrative along. Her role seems very predictable and a bit dull, which is how the framers seemed to have envisioned the VP. What am I missing?

[Glenstache]

I have no problems with Harris except that she is radioactive just like Clinton was. We need someone more palatable to both sides.

While I don’t necessarily disagree, what are the ingredients that make a woman candidate radioactive?

Being a woman. Misogyny/sexism.

FTFY.

I agree that gender plays a huge part in electability in the US, but could someone please summarize (beyond her being a woman) how Harris is “radioactive”?  From my social sphere and media diet the impression I get is that she’s a fairly typical VP, mostly making speeches and pushing the EO narrative along. Her role seems very predictable and a bit dull, which is how the framers seemed to have envisioned the VP. What am I missing?

She was a bit aggressive as a prosecutor, which left some of the left with mixed feelings about her. I think the right dislikes her because, well, they do, for "reasons." I think that as a person she seems to have the temperament and resume to be a good president. Our election system is more like a popularity contest, and I'm not sure that she has a personality to rally the troops to win in a general election or primary. I kind of feel like questions about her being "radioactive" are a push poll or self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Fru-Gal]

I think it has something to do with her personality and her past politics as a centrist Democrat. From a personality standpoint I assume it’s that she comes across as a fake, overly jovial, elite California politician. If I had to summarize how she’s characterized on both sides I think it’s sort of laughing at other people’s misery.

That said, she still has time to prove herself, she’s achieved the highest leadership position any woman has in the US yet and she’s very intelligent. In terms of ethnicity she attracts two powerful voting blocks, the Black vote and the Indian/Asian vote (which dominates the tech industry).

I was a huge Hillary supporter. I would vote for Harris for president. Though I might be concerned about hawkishness.

[FIPurpose]

I have no problems with Harris except that she is radioactive just like Clinton was. We need someone more palatable to both sides.

While I don’t necessarily disagree, what are the ingredients that make a woman candidate radioactive?

Being a woman. Misogyny/sexism.

FTFY.

I agree that gender plays a huge part in electability in the US, but could someone please summarize (beyond her being a woman) how Harris is “radioactive”?  From my social sphere and media diet the impression I get is that she’s a fairly typical VP, mostly making speeches and pushing the EO narrative along. Her role seems very predictable and a bit dull, which is how the framers seemed to have envisioned the VP. What am I missing?

I think when you combine:

1. Woman
2. Color
3. As California AG was basically everything Progressives don't want in criminal justice reform with several stories of refusing to review wrongfully convicted people.
4. She's a terrible speaker (granted like most VP's it seems), and her mannerisms come across as disingenuous.
5. I've heard on more than one occasion from right wing people things such as "I don't think Joe will be that bad, but it's K-AH-mala I'm worried about".
6. Her political persona doesn't work to win the Rust Belt. She's as stiff as Romney, but doesn't seem to even have any of the convictions that at least Romney had.
7. What does she believe in? What's her position on things? I have no idea and she doesn't either until she gets more polling data on that.

Klobuchar had most of the same problems in the last cycle.

There are women though that I think could be successful: Katie Porter or Tammy Duckworth for example.

[GuitarStv]

I have no problems with Harris except that she is radioactive just like Clinton was. We need someone more palatable to both sides.

While I don’t necessarily disagree, what are the ingredients that make a woman candidate radioactive?

Being a woman. Misogyny/sexism.

FTFY.

I agree that gender plays a huge part in electability in the US, but could someone please summarize (beyond her being a woman) how Harris is “radioactive”?  From my social sphere and media diet the impression I get is that she’s a fairly typical VP, mostly making speeches and pushing the EO narrative along. Her role seems very predictable and a bit dull, which is how the framers seemed to have envisioned the VP. What am I missing?

She was a bit aggressive as a prosecutor, which left some of the left with mixed feelings about her. I think the right dislikes her because, well, they do, for "reasons." I think that as a person she seems to have the temperament and resume to be a good president. Our election system is more like a popularity contest, and I'm not sure that she has a personality to rally the troops to win in a general election or primary. I kind of feel like questions about her being "radioactive" are a push poll or self-fulfilling prophecy.

A bit aggressive is right!  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/five-times-prosecutor-kamala-harris-got-the-wrong-guy  Her past in law is checkered.

Harris was a little bit of a weird choice for Biden to begin with.  There has been a lot made of the fact that she had never served in an executive position and had only been in the senate for four years when picked.  Many accusations were made of selecting a person due to sex / skin colour rather than qualifications.  It hasn't helped that she sort of seemed unprepared - doing almost nothing of note or interest as VP with a staff that has constantly been reported to be in disarray, and apparently getting little support from Biden while on the job.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I just think the Democrats need a clean break from anything tied to Biden. They need a fresh face.