What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Democratic VP candidates - Kamala Harris Is The Choice (1 Viewer)

Let's hope. Anecdotally though, I haven't seen to many of my friends and colleagues change their minds. Most who seem to share my sentiment still voted against Trump in 2016 (albeit they may have voted for Johnson). Most people I know who voted for Trump will be doing so again in 2020. Again, this is just my anecdotal world which consists of personal conversations and, primarily, facebook and this website. 
I think this is mostly right - if the Democrats plan is just hope that the same people won't vote for Trump then they are setting themselves up to lose.  I don't think that's the case and honestly I think a bigger factor in why I think Biden will win is that he's not Hillary Clinton.  I know many on the left don't want to hear it but she was a toxic (but qualified) candidate.  Trump hasn't been able to get anything to "stick" to Biden yet and I'm not sure he will.  People are not going be fired up to vote against Biden or sit out like they were for Hillary.

 
Sure, historically. But in 2020, this feels like by far the safe pick. 
I don't think it will have much effect as she is not on the top of the ticket, but unfortunately even in 2020 we are still stuck with a world where being a woman or being black are electoral liabilities. 

 
I don't think it will have much effect as she is not on the top of the ticket, but unfortunately even in 2020 we are still stuck with a world where being a woman or being black are electoral liabilities. 
and considered "pandering"...we still have a long way to go.  :kicksrock:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think it will have much effect as she is not on the top of the ticket, but unfortunately even in 2020 we are still stuck with a world where being a woman or being black are electoral liabilities. 
I think this was the safe choice. Which I think shows progress and is a good thing.

Do you think there were other legit candidates Biden could have chosen that would have been safer picks?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this is mostly right - if the Democrats plan is just hope that the same people won't vote for Trump then they are setting themselves up to lose.  I don't think that's the case and honestly I think a bigger factor in why I think Biden will win is that he's not Hillary Clinton.  I know many on the left don't want to hear it but she was a toxic (but qualified) candidate.  Trump hasn't been able to get anything to "stick" to Biden yet and I'm not sure he will.  People are not going be fired up to vote against Biden or sit out like they were for Hillary.
Hillary was qualified, but she had her entire political career handed to her by virtue being married to the right guy.  She never actually won a competitive election, unless you count the 2016 Democratic primary as a stand-alone event.  

By way of contrast, Biden and Harris both built careers on their own and can fairly be said to have earned their positions. 

 
Sure. For some people, you can find anything that will be a liability. I think this was clearly the safe choice. Which I think shows progress and is a good thing.

Do you think there were other legit candidates Biden could have chosen that would have been safer picks?
I think given the circumstances where he had already announced he was picking a woman and that most people assumed he was picking a woman of color, Harris rocked the boat the least which is probably safest. 

 
I think given the circumstances where he had already announced he was picking a woman and that most people assumed he was picking a woman of color, Harris rocked the boat the least which is probably safest. 
Why do you think people assumed it was going to be a woman of color?

 
Hillary was qualified, but she had her entire political career handed to her by virtue being married to the right guy.  She never actually won a competitive election, unless you count the 2016 Democratic primary as a stand-alone event.  

By way of contrast, Biden and Harris both built careers on their own and can fairly be said to have earned their positions. 
Don't disagree with that at all.  I was not a fan of her as the nominee.  Not excited about Biden either but he seems like he's a good bet to win - it's funny but I think before Trump entered the 2016 race if you said the 2020 President would be Joe Biden most people would have said you are crazy.  Hillary and Trump being the nominees led us to this, IMO.  If people on the right so worried about a Biden presidency then maybe they shouldn't have voted for the guy in office now.

 
I think this was the safe choice. Which I think shows progress and is a good thing.

Do you think there were other legit candidates Biden could have chosen that would have been safer picks?
Not really, Biden was locked into picking a female.  If he picked Whitmer it would have been roasted as too white. Abrams might have been too black, picking the bi-racial Harris was the safe pick for sure.

The only problem is Harris ripped into Biden unmercifully during the primaries and pretty sure those tapes are being made into commercials right now. 

 
  • Thinking
Reactions: rct
I don’t think this reads very well for you - and maybe it’s very telling.  Why is your concern limited to a black female?  Is there no concern if this were a white male?
I really dont care how it reads and yes it would be a concern no matter who it is.  As I have said numerous times in the Biden thread one of the huge negatives about him for me is age.  Its a tough job and I would prefer someone a little more dialed into todays environment like say Obama was.  Joe is just an old man at this point.  Who the hell knows what the stress of the job will do to him and he has hinted already at dying in office and being a one term president.  In regards to Kamala, if the democratic party feels the need so strongly for a black female to become president then they should have got behind her better.  This potential for a bait and switch is cheap.

 
  • Sad
Reactions: rct
Why do you think people assumed it was going to be a woman of color?
He has talked the whole time about wanting diversity in his administration. However when Amy Klobuchar dropped out and suggested he pick a woman of color, it became locked in many people's minds he would. The betting markets clearly reflected this. I don't think this was locked in in Biden's mind though. It seems clear he was giving Whitmer serious consideration. 

 
Well if Sheila Jackson Lee feels that way I stand corrected !
She's an African American woman. You don't understand why she  or any woman of color would be happy about this?

Blame Democrats for their motives all you like. Not their fault that the GOP has never nominated a person of color for Prez or VP.

Gotta sleep in the bed you made and all that I guess.

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: rct
The only problem is Harris ripped into Biden unmercifully during the primaries and pretty sure those tapes are being made into commercials right now. 
Curious for the political historians in here but I'm assuming this isn't out of the ordinary.  Unfortunately, we have setup a system where basically everybody has to "play the game" to win.  I don't like it but it's the way it is.  This is the reason 3rd parties are virtually pointless in our current system - somebody can't have a principled stand on everything without some give and take.  Some may see that as checks and balances but I see it as the 2 parties working their hardest to keep themselves in power.

 
The only problem is Harris ripped into Biden unmercifully during the primaries and pretty sure those tapes are being made into commercials right now. 
This is a waste of time, imo.

It won't switch any voter from pro-Biden to pro-Trump (or even, "not voting for Biden now")

Anyone who looks at that and sees Biden's deficiencies, will see Harris as the counter-weight.

 
Curious for the political historians in here but I'm assuming this isn't out of the ordinary.  Unfortunately, we have setup a system where basically everybody has to "play the game" to win.  I don't like it but it's the way it is.  This is the reason 3rd parties are virtually pointless in our current system - somebody can't have a principled stand on everything without some give and take.  Some may see that as checks and balances but I see it as the 2 parties working their hardest to keep themselves in power.
I am pretty sure calling someone during a debate a racist (in so many words) and then saying that they believed the accuser of the same guy is pretty out of the ordinary

 
  • Laughing
Reactions: rct
This is a waste of time, imo.

It won't switch any voter from pro-Biden to pro-Trump (or even, "not voting for Biden now")

Anyone who looks at that and sees Biden's deficiencies, will see Harris as the counter-weight.
I agree..but why do both parties spend tens of millions on ads then?

 
I am pretty sure calling someone during a debate a racist (in so many words) and then saying that they believed the accuser of the same guy is pretty out of the ordinary
I don't think it is - I believe @Yankee23Fan talked about this in the past.  BTW, where's he been? 

Anyway, I think he's mentioned how down and dirty things got in the past and then they would kiss and makeup.

Also, she explicitly said she didn't think Biden was a racist and someone explained what she meant on the other one.  She's just playing the game like I said.

 
I agree..but why do both parties spend tens of millions on ads then?
Ads are not a waste of time/resources - this particular attack is ineffectual.

A Trump attack that Biden/Harris will be bad for the economy, or will sell out to China, or will take away your guns, or any number of wedge issues can be effective.

 
Ads are not a waste of time/resources - this particular attack is ineffectual.

A Trump attack that Biden/Harris will be bad for the economy, or will sell out to China, or will take away your guns, or any number of wedge issues can be effective.
It is the same attack that is used every election cycle.

 
Ads are not a waste of time/resources - this particular attack is ineffectual.

A Trump attack that Biden/Harris will be bad for the economy, or will sell out to China, or will take away your guns, or any number of wedge issues can be effective.
Who watches commercials/ads any more?  I avoid them all like the plague and not just because they may contain political nonsense.

 
I'm not a Dem but the reaction in this thread tells you everything you need to know.  Most people's minds are made up, sides have been picked.  For most of us in here (read: white men) the pick doesn't move the needle at all.  I do think that having a black woman as VP is a big deal and is historic, no matter who she is and what her credentials are.  I think anybody turned off by the pick most likely wasn't voting Biden anyway and likewise anybody who is super enthused about it was voting Biden no matter what.
Pretty much same as 2016. Most people had made up their mind and there was like 3-5% “undecided”.

 
I am pretty sure calling someone during a debate a racist (in so many words) and then saying that they believed the accuser of the same guy is pretty out of the ordinary
I am honestly trying to understand how you think this matters.

How does that argument get made by the Trump camp? 

I just can't see an effectual way for Trump to win voters by calling Biden a womanizer and a racist.  If anything, it could cost Trump votes from people who are OK with womanizers and racists, but want a little less crazy in the White House.

 
It is the same attack that is used every election cycle.
Maybe we are talking about different things, or maybe I don't have such a good memory.  But, I don't recall an effective attack ad pitting a VP candidate against a Presidential candidate.  Did the Dems try that with Pence v. Trump?  (If they did, it obviously was not effective...)

 
Who watches commercials/ads any more?  I avoid them all like the plague and not just because they may contain political nonsense.
I see a lot - on twitter.

I don't watch much commercial TV, so I don't get them there.  But, I see all kinds of viral spots on-line.

And, in case we have forgotten 2016 - apparently a lot of people see ads on Facebook.  :shrug:

 
I am honestly trying to understand how you think this matters.

How does that argument get made by the Trump camp? 

I just can't see an effectual way for Trump to win voters by calling Biden a womanizer and a racist.  If anything, it could cost Trump votes from people who are OK with womanizers and racists, but want a little less crazy in the White House.
I thought he was just saying it was a "hypocritical" pick - but maybe I misunderstood

 
She's an African American woman. You don't understand why she  or any woman of color would be happy about this?

Blame Democrats for their motives all you like. Not their fault that the GOP has never nominated a person of color for Prez or VP.

Gotta sleep in the bed you made and all that I guess.
No , I don’t understand 🙄

Of course I understand why she would be happy about this. What I don’t understand is why the poster quoted me and posted her thoughts 

 
Pretty much same as 2016. Most people had made up their mind and there was like 3-5% “undecided”.
I'd say its much more entrenched now.

Donald Trump, as a politician/President was still very much an unknown in 2016.  I think that gave people a little wiggle room - "I kind of like what an outsider might do in Washington, even if I don't know what that looks like."

Now, virtually everyone knows what a Trump presidency looks like, and most people will have a general idea of what a Biden presidency will look like.   People who like what Trump as done, will vote Trump, people who don't like what Trump has done will probably vote for Biden.  But very few people don't know where they stand on that issue.

 
I'd say its much more entrenched now.

Donald Trump, as a politician/President was still very much an unknown in 2016.  I think that gave people a little wiggle room - "I kind of like what an outsider might do in Washington, even if I don't know what that looks like."

Now, virtually everyone knows what a Trump presidency looks like, and most people will have a general idea of what a Biden presidency will look like.   People who like what Trump as done, will vote Trump, people who don't like what Trump has done will probably vote for Biden.  But very few people don't know where they stand on that issue.
This is what I don't understand. His biggest "accomplishment" is dividing the country and making Americans despise each other.  The political party has now become the new Crusades. 

 
Maybe we are talking about different things, or maybe I don't have such a good memory.  But, I don't recall an effective attack ad pitting a VP candidate against a Presidential candidate.  Did the Dems try that with Pence v. Trump?  (If they did, it obviously was not effective...)
The Trump campaign will put ads of Harris ripping into Biden.    Is that what we are talking about?

 
Right. And nobody (at least not me since I apparently started this ####storm) is suggesting that more education = more intelligence/smarter. 
Why wouldn't you suggest that though? Is there any question that college educated folks are smarter than non college educated folks? How about high school graduates vs high school dropouts? There is certainly a strong correlation between intelligence and education wouldn't you say?

 
No , I don’t understand 🙄

Of course I understand why she would be happy about this. What I don’t understand is why the poster quoted me and posted her thoughts 


:goodposting:

“i need black voters and female voters so I’ll nominate a black woman as VP” is insulting. 
I believe it was in response to this post of yours?

I think the point he was making is that women of color certainly aren't "insulted" by the Harris pick.

Yes, people tend to vote for people they feel represent them and their values. Yes, picking a woman of color is saying that the Democrats want to relate to women and people of color.

 I don't see how that's a bad thing.

 
I believe it was in response to this post of yours?

I think the point he was making is that women of color certainly aren't "insulted" by the Harris pick.

Yes, people tend to vote for people they feel represent them and their values. Yes, picking a woman of color is saying that the Democrats want to relate to women and people of color.

 I don't see how that's a bad thing.
Sigh, noone implied that they would be insulted

have a lovely day

 
Why wouldn't you suggest that though? Is there any question that college educated folks are smarter than non college educated folks? How about high school graduates vs high school dropouts? There is certainly a strong correlation between intelligence and education wouldn't you say?
Well, for the purpose and context of the point I was trying to make it wasn't relevant and my goal wasn't at all to suggest that Trump voters are less intelligent. My goal was simply to provide a very recent example of a candidate connecting with a group that he didn't fit the demographic for. 

I don't think that as a matter of fact college educated people are smarter than non-college educated people. I would say that more education would likely make one smarter/more intelligent than he or she was previously. 

 
The only problem is Harris ripped into Biden unmercifully during the primaries and pretty sure those tapes are being made into commercials right now. 
Considering the tape out there of what current hard core Trump allies said about Trump during the campaign I’m not sure what someone says about someone else matters any more.  He was torn to shreds and that was all washed away in one night.  

 
Considering the tape out there of what current hard core Trump allies said about Trump during the campaign I’m not sure what someone says about someone else matters any more.  He was torn to shreds and that was all washed away in one night.  
And what people he has had work for him say about him....Mattis, Vindman.....there is a ton of material against Trump by those who worked inside the administration even.  

 
And what people he has had work for him say about him....Mattis, Vindman.....there is a ton of material against Trump by those who worked inside the administration even.  
The democrats need to pound him non stop with this type of stuff

Especially the 'it is what it is' and then the 'their is good people on both sides'

 
I really dont care how it reads and yes it would be a concern no matter who it is.  As I have said numerous times in the Biden thread one of the huge negatives about him for me is age.  Its a tough job and I would prefer someone a little more dialed into todays environment like say Obama was.  Joe is just an old man at this point.  Who the hell knows what the stress of the job will do to him and he has hinted already at dying in office and being a one term president.  In regards to Kamala, if the democratic party feels the need so strongly for a black female to become president then they should have got behind her better.  This potential for a bait and switch is cheap.
So are you pro Trump-Pence?  Based on your statement you should be pro Kamala.

 
And what people he has had work for him say about him....Mattis, Vindman.....there is a ton of material against Trump by those who worked inside the administration even.  
For sure current house pet Lindsay Graham, had choice words for then candidate Trump ...

 
Not really, Biden was locked into picking a female.  If he picked Whitmer it would have been roasted as too white. Abrams might have been too black, picking the bi-racial Harris was the safe pick for sure.

The only problem is Harris ripped into Biden unmercifully during the primaries and pretty sure those tapes are being made into commercials right now. 
Bringing in someone who doesn’t always simply agree? We need more of that in government these days.

 
My Fox News translator seems to be on the fritz.  Can someone help me?

Is Kamala Harris a tough-on-crime former cop whose selection proves Biden hates the left?

Or a radical leftist that panders to the great unwashed mass of anarchists?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top