Since when is being a DEI hire a bad thing?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
After aggressively pushing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in just about every facet of American life, the Left suddenly has decided it's offensive to brag about one of DEI's greatest successes: Vice President Kamala Harris.
Harris is the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee now that President Joe Biden is out of the race. But before she was the heir apparent, she was the first black female vice president ever, the primary example of the Left's commitment to "diversity, equality, and inclusion."
But don't take it from me. Take it from Biden.
"To me, the values of diversity, equality, inclusion are literally — and this is not kidding — the core strengths of America. That's why I'm proud to have the most diverse administration in history that taps into the full talents of our country. And it starts at the top with the vice president," Biden said in May.
This is the same Biden who repeatedly and publicly said his running mate would "preferably … be someone who was of color and/or a different gender."
Harris should take this as a very high compliment. After all, she's helping make the Biden administration look more like the rest of America.
But for whatever reason, the Left has decided it's "racist" and "sexist" to point out that Harris's diverse features played a very big role in helping her land the job.
What other factor possibly could have persuaded Biden to choose her? It certainly wasn't the fact that she dropped out of the 2020 Democratic primary after watching her campaign combust before the Iowa caucuses. Nor was it her insinuation during a 2020 primary debate that Biden was racist. She wasn't a skilled politician, and she wasn't exactly a friend to Biden. But she was a minority woman.
One might think the Left would be celebrating this, since the entire point of DEI is to elevate lesser-represented demographics simply for the sake of doing so. Instead, they've admitted the whole thing is a farce. Worse, it's racist!
The Left can't keep its story straight. Is DEI a vital part of the fight to rid America of systemic inequality or not? And if it is, then why is it such a bad thing for Harris to be associated with it?
The answer is obvious. Like everyone else, the Left understands that it is far better for a candidate to have earned her position on the merits rather than because of some identity politics-driven hand-out. DEI emphasizes the latter, usually at the expense of merit.
Harris, the crowning jewel of DEI in American politics, is no exception. She's a talentless politician who sometimes comes across as mediocre if she sticks to the teleprompter. And now Democrats are stuck with her.
Tags
Who is online
52 visitors
Greg, we are not going to play into their hands.
She has a radical record and has advocated for radical policies. Here is the first campaign ad:
Just wondering: Are there any non-whites or females of any color in government that you think aren’t DEI hires?
And also, are they any unqualified conservative white males in government?
Absolutely Tacos!
Vance count ?
DEI is only a problem when you do not get the best qualified person for a position regardless of boxes checked that should never have been institited. I am old school that believes in hiring/promoting based solely on merit. The liberal left has gone hog with DEI since Biden was elected and liberals cannot/will not see the problems they have created in this country.
What is your opinion then on the extremely common practice of picking a VP primarily based on the electoral votes he/she can bring to the ticket?
Why do you have to be liberal to want a variety of people in power? What actual problems have been created?
Your approach implies that all the white men in power are objectively competent and deserving of power, but I don’t know how anyone could make such an assumption or claim. So if we have less than optimal white men in control, where is the harm in looking for women or people of color to do the work? I don’t know anyone who is suggesting we vote for an incompetent woman or person of color. I don’t know why anyone would even want that.
Donald Trump was elected in spite of having zero experience or training in law and government. Where was the merit in electing him? By contrast, Kamala Harris has a long, successful career in law and government at the local, state, and federal levels. Her résumé implies substantially more merit than anything Trump had going for him.
I was thinking the same thing.
And up until fairly recently it was axiomatic that the presidential ticket had to have one type of diversity-- geographical diversity!
While there might be exceptions to diversity there (Pres. and VP from different parts of the country)-- how many tickets have there been with two Southerners in the top two spots? Two New Englanders? Two Midwesterners? Two from the Left Coast?
And i don't think I've ever heard anyone criticizing that "unwritten rule" because it might mean not "choosing the best person for the job).
"Your approach implies that all white men in power are objectively competent and deserving of power..."
I never implied any such thing and you know it. I just want the best qualified person for the job and I absolutely do not give a rat's posterior what their color, gender, or orientation may be as long as they can do the job. Is that so difficult to comprehend?
As far as Kamala Harris is concerned, I don't care what she did or did not do in California and in Congress. I am only concerned with her last four years as VP, which I find highly questionable.
Personally, I disagree with that practice and find it unfair.
I do not see it as unfair, but I also dislike picking a VP primarily to garner votes. Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin come to mind.
Politics is a bloodsport and priority number one is to get elected. Thus I see why some would play the electoral college game.
Unfair is the gop depending on the quirks of the Electoral College and US Senate to rule as the minority of voters. Trump has never gotten over 50% of the vote and there is no path for him to now, though he could pull another inside straight with the Electoral College. Also, how fair is it that Wyoming and the Dakotas have the same two US Senators as do New York and California?
because senators are assigned by statehood , not population , thats why its fair , a senators job description is to represent the states interests , not the peoples or population , really? you missed that in school? must have been absent that day .
Now if you wish it to be different , all you have to do is get a proposed amendment passed and then ratified by 3/4 ths the states . all it would take is 13 affected states to not ratify and your proposal is in the crapper. any guesses which states that would be? 3 you mentioned so what other 10 states would not go along ?
so want to try again ?
I gave you my honest opinion of where your position logically leads. You are free, of course, to disagree, but don’t tell me what I know. If you think I’m wrong, make a logical argument.
You say you want people selected on merit, but everyone has their own idea of what constitutes relevant merit. It is not objective.
We rarely see any of the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth over merit like we currently see with The Right’s attacks on Kamala Harris - and never to this degree unless we are talking about a woman or person of color.
Where is the similar level of concern for JD Vance’s abilities? Or Trump’s? It just doesn’t exist - or at least not 1/1000th as much as we see for Harris. I find this baffling - unless we allow for racism and sexism - because Harris has far more of what I would consider relevant training and experience.
You’re allowed to have that point of view, but others also want other qualifications. That’s their right. If you genuinely don’t care about those things as long as they can do the job, then you have no cause to complain unless you can demonstrate that they can’t do the job.
In my opinion, that’s a very narrow view. Personally, I like having government leaders with training in the law and experience in government.
As I've said before, she's not going to be able to wash off the stench of Biden's failed administration, she was part of it. Even worse is her very visible record as a Senator. Now they're trying to say she was never the border czar, who never went to the border. This ad is just the first of many that won't let up on her. She simply has no accomplishments and no gravitas.
Vice Presidents don't make policy-- presidents do. And the VPs just go along. That's their job, (If they don't like the Presidents policy, they can resign).
The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces., not the VP. The VP (along with numerous other people) can give the president input-- but the Pres. makes the ultimate decisions.
VP's are life insurance. Stop. 81million people voted for Kamala Harris and Joe Biden over the alternative in 2020
DEI is like taking a good pot roast and adding a can of spam, grass clippings and mud and saying that it is now improved.
The whole DEI is little more than bling. How many Black auto mechanics does anybody think Harris dated before finding Emoff? She isn’t going to be Black enough to fool the unwashed masses in November.
I think you're assuming that the only reason any Black person would vote for her if they were sure she was "Black enough". Some people are governed by factors other than a candidate being the same race.
Such a statement, I had not even noticed that before.
Imagine thinking that it is the "unwashed masses" aka poor people who must be "fooled" to vote for someone and that a criterion is being "black enough". What a twisted mess of bigotry that is!
DEI is nothing more than an updated Affirmative Action and should be treated the same.
It is if you go around saying that’s the only reason she is VP, or it’s all you ever can talk about.
As a general matter, I would suggest that a person who has been a big city DA, the Attorney General of the most populous state in the country, and a senator from that state is nicely qualified to be VP and probably more qualified to be VP than a political and legal novice like Donald Trump.
Funny how so many cannot comprehend that when they claim Harris is VP only because she is female and with dark skin that they are engaging in both classical misogyny and racism. Hopefully the GOP will continue to encourage its useful minions to keep perpetuating this bigotry.
Taken to its logical conclusion, that could mean that every presdent before Obama was only elected because they were White!
Heck, only because they were a White Male.
It is sickening what can come up out of the 'bowels' of the world wide web. That being said, at the least, we know where to look
with expectations of finding "Archie Bunkerism-styled types."
Well Biden did make it a point to announce that his VP would be a woman and would be black. Sounds like DEI at work to me.
I do have a question, the left pushes all this DEI stuff but when somebody is called out for being a DEI hire, why are you all offended by that?
It's pretty funny. It's the evil that cannot be named, apparently. To point out its existence is racist/sexist etc (you know the drill).
But these are people who say things like this in public: " White women, we have 100 days to help save the world" So many brains have been broken by racialist obsessions and savior complexes that they can only apparently think in those terms.
Because opposition to ideals like diversity, equity and inclusion is by definition motivated by racism, sexism and homophobia!
[✘]
Choosing someone based on skin color is racism, period!
Because hiring anyone based on their race, sex, or any other factor other than being the best qualified candidate for the job is racism, sexism, and several other ism's that the left is more than willing to tolerate.
Not unless he just ran down to the corner, found a random woman, and nominated her. Instead, he decided he wanted a woman, went looking for - and found - a qualified one. In fact, he had multiple qualified candidates to consider.
It’s a choice, like any other hiring choice. Maybe the employer wants someone who is young or old, friendly or serious, a social butterfly or a shrinking violet, a veteran, an amputee, or a person of faith. There are many human qualities that can shape who we are, our perspective, and our approach to issues. Diversity doesn’t just create representation. It also takes us out of our bubble and exposes us to different ways of thinking - and previously unimagined solutions.
As I have already explained, you shouldn’t be “calling out” anyone for being a DEI hire. It’s all you see. You dismiss and disrespect a smart, qualified person.
Notwithstanding racism, sexism, or any other prejudice, it is human nature to be attracted to people we see as similar to us in some way. But there is real value in seeking out someone who is different from us. It can be uncomfortable, but the experience can be enriching for all parties.
Is it legal for an employer to only consider women for a VP position and exclude all other candidates on the basis of sex?
So, what is the qualification for VP - or president for that matter?
Ideals and implementation are two different things.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution states for a person to serve as vice president must:
It also really helps to be able to spell potato.
Certainly. Why would it be illegal?
Federally - for ordinary employment - we have Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (a piece of legislation conservatives seem eager to invalidate). In general, it declares that sexual discrimination in hiring is prohibited, unless an employer can define a bona fide qualification that exists based on sex. There are obvious physical examples - e.g., hiring a bikini model. But if a presidential candidate feels the office of VP would benefit from a female perspective and approach, that’s fine.
Ultimately, Title VII is irrelevant to the VP because it’s not actually a hire. It’s an elected office, and people are allowed to vote for a candidate for any reason that suits them.
Conservatives have consistently rejected any attempt to constitutionally end discrimination based on sex, so when they complain about sexual discrimination, it’s kind of laughable.
I mean I know the qualifications. I just want to hear what Ronin thinks the qualifications are, and why a candidate can’t choose a running mate for any reason that suits him.
I think that it is the candidates decision and who/how the VP is picked tells us a little more about the candidate.
One of John McCain's biggest regrets was not sticking with his choice of picking Lieberman as his running mate. McCain was talked out of choosing Lieberman by his campaign aides. McCain, in his later years, admitted that he had major regrets about not picking Lieberman despite the concerns of his advisers.
“It was sound advice that I could reason for myself, but my gut told me to ignore it, and I wish I had.”
He would still have lost in 2008, but would have avoided the embarrassment of Sara Palin.
hy would it be illegal?
Did you read the rest of what you wrote? There's no BFOQ for a woman to be VP of the US, and it's one of the more preposterous arguments one could make.
Title VII is irrelevant to the VP because it’s not actually a hir
You were the one who brought up an example of an employer. Glad we agree it would constitute illegal discrimination for an employer to do what Joe Biden did.
onservatives have consistently rejected
Nice deflection.
other than the obvious constitutional qualifications , if you ask 10 different people the qualifications they think are needed , you will get 10 different answers .
there is one possible qualification i think the top of the ticket may or may not take into consideration .
assassination insurance , pick someone qualified enough in other areas , but someone , they really wouldnt want to have to step up.if something should happen .
I mean look at the last few administrations , back then , unless the VP had started to be groomed to replace the president after 2 terms , would anyone really would have wanted number 2 to step up?
thats my point .
In fact, I have already made the argument. I can’t help it if you don’t read it or you choose to pretend it doesn’t exist.
Your characterization is dishonest. Again, you’re only reading the parts you want to read.
Oh you don't understand what the words BFOQ mean. At least I hope that's the case. Because if you did, you'd never claim that being a female is a BFOQ of the vice presidency. Can you figure out why? Maybe look at history and see if men were able to successfully fulfill that role?
By all means though, show any authority that claims a corporation can discriminate against a protected class merely be deciding that despite all this history of the protected class performing the job, it's suddenly a BFOQ for the other sex.
Your characterization is dishonest.
Frankly, if you think a corporation can restrict a search for a vp of operations based on sex, there's not much to say. The language can't be much clearer. I almost hope, for your sake, it's a dishonest characterization on your part
Lol.
Interesting, so what do you think the opposition to the ideal of merit is motivated by?...
Sigh. I never said a man could not be VP. It’s like you’re talking to yourself. I also explained why VP is different from ordinary employment, but again, you don’t read.
A corporation???? Where the fuck did you pull that out of? Wow.
Lol. You flit from making bizarre claims where you blatantly mischaracterize a concept like BFOQ to repeatedly attacking strawen that have no relation to anything I wrote.
I 'll make this simple and and walk you through the discussion.
hy VP is different from ordinary employment,
You, that's you as in not me, brought up "ordinary employment" and some of the characteristics an employer can select for when hiring. I asked "Is it legal for an employer to only consider women for a VP position and exclude all other candidates on the basis of sex?"
Your response "Certainly. Why would it be illegal" is where your response goes off the rails. It is 100%, unequivocally wrong. It's literally indefensible.
To compound your mistake you then completely misapply the BFOQ standard and somehow manage to get it ass backwards. There is no BFOQ that would justify excluding someone from a VP position on the basis of sex. None. It is hard to imagine anyone even the slightest bit familiar with the concept making that claim. It is so obvious it should not even have to be said, yet here we are.
Then you pivot to this strawman..
imately, Title VII is irrelevant to the VP because it’s not actually a hire.
Again, no shit. We were discussing whether Biden's act would be legal in a private business.
A corporation???? Where the fuck did you pull that out o
Remember, you started this with your bizarre claim that a private employer can categorically exclude candidates for VP based on their sex. When discussing the actions of a private employer did using the word corporation really throw you for that much of a loop? Did I err in assuming you could follow that?
Here's what can't be disputed. If Title VII applied to Biden selecting a VP, like it would to a fictional CEO Biden selecting a VP of Operations, Biden's exclusion of men from the VP search would be illegal discrimination. It's impossible to dispute that in good faith. The only way to do it is by making up definitions of words and ignoring the plain meaning of others.
The cherry on top was claiming a BFOQ for the position of VP exists that justifies discriminating on the basis of sex. That is, to put it politely, indefensible.
Yes - to distinguish it from selecting a running mate.
Yes, I know. You’re the one who keeps acting like hiring someone and selecting a VP running mate are the same thing. They aren’t.
I didn’t apply it because it’s not relevant. Selecting a VP is not subject to the same rules. Remember, you’re the one who brought up legality.
I did not. I don’t know why you keep trying to characterize my remarks as meaning something other than what I say they mean. It’s like you’re more intent on arguing anything than actually discussing the topic.
We’re done here. You’re incapable of addressing the topic, and interested only in whatever strawman/rabbit hole you can dig.
Me: Remember, you started this with your bizarre claim that a private employer can categorically exclude candidates for VP based on their sex.
Let's look at the tape:
7.2.11
Lol. Keep on digging your hole. All the strawmen and deflections in the world won't change what your wrote.
I would have liked to see Joe end up as president.
I deliberately not mark that comment as META.
(Should I have?)
No matter how you spin it, she's a DEI hire.
Why? Because it's offensive to call somebody out for being what they are? It's reality. If you don't want a hire / candidate to be called a DEI hire, don't promote them as a DEI hire / candidate as Biden did.
It's a question. A question that nobody can give a straight answer to.
Wow, what a radical idea.
Therefore what? It’s a bad hire? She’s unqualified? Say what you mean. Is it positive, negative, or neutral? If it’s anything other than negative, why are we talking about it as if it were negative?
Presidents choose VPs from swing states because they think it will get them more votes. This is super common. In fact, I would say it’s the norm. Why is a political geography hire ok, but a DEI hire is suddenly a crisis?
Yes
Far from it.
I do.
Why? Who would be better?
What qualifications should a VP have?
Never mind she checked all the boxes that the Democrats demanded for making Biden the nominee.
What the left ignores is her record as a Senator and VP.
She deserves to be attacked repeatedly on both; and w/o mercy.
She is unqualified and unfit to be President; and the "But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!" BS is well past it's expiration date.
So what? I think DEI considerations are a lot better than selecting a running mate because he lives in a “swing state.” Your whining implies that all the VPs you’d like are selected because of their stellar administrative record. That’s bullshit.
How about the fact she was those things? She has a long record of public service - in addition to a law degree. Those are outstanding prerequisites for being President.
You want to prioritize qualifications? Now??? WTF did Donald Trump have in his résumé before 2016 that qualified him? He didn’t know shit about law and government, and he still doesn’t.
Reality TV participate.
Funny you should mention that. You don't think she's gonna pick a VP from a swing state? Wouldn't make any sense for her not to.
If she does, should we assume that person is an unqualified swing state hire?
It makes great sense for her to select a VP from a swing state.
It also makes great sense for her to select a white male because she alone already breaks two glass ceilings if elected.
Further, it makes sense for her to pick someone who is youthful.
Those are very reasonable demographic guide rails for a decision. Within those criteria there exist plenty of well qualified individuals.
What do you think? Since you brought it up...
I’m asking you. Is “swing state” a proper qualification?
Unless your talking about an individuals competency, no, it's just politically expedient.
And that political expedience is a very popular criterion for modern presidential nominees.
Trump picked Pence to get the evangelical vote. Is being an evangelical draw a good qualifier to be V.P.? Should people criticize Trump for merely picking Pence because of this religious draw? Or should they be rational and recognize that this was a strategic criterion and that picking the specific V.P. will require additional criteria? Pence's experience as governor is one example of a factor directly related to performing the job itself. Just like Harris' experience as Senator, Attorney General, District Attorney, and prosecuting attorney are factors related to performing the job.
Agreed.
Mmmm..... didn't they?
The point is that you excuse a selection based on one kind of political expediency but you condemn another and assume that the candidate chosen for some other reason must be incompetent and unqualified. At minimum, that’s hypocrisy.
On the other hand, I think it’s possible to narrow the field of possible candidates using certain criteria and then still find a competent and qualified person within that cohort.
But taking the position that some here - and out in the world - are taking results in the assumption that any candidate selected from a group of women or people of color can’t possibly be a good choice for VP or President. That strikes me as racist and sexist.
Where the fuck do you think I did that?.....
Or that?...
Mmmmkay... nevermind.
Yes, I’m aware that people don’t like when we use words like racism or sexism to describe a a position or words. The simple solution is don’t be racist or sexist. You’re free to condemn all this whining about DEI hires, but you won’t. That’s tells the rest of us everything. You just don’t want to admit the truth to yourself.
You should probably try a little harder.....
Try to ignore sexism and racism? No thanks.
[✘]
Every time you reply you have an opportunity to condemn it. Buuuuutttt, you don’t.
Condemn what? The fact that you called me racist and sexist for pointing out that the president said he picked her for those very reasons or that DEI is bad practice?...
He did not call you a racist and a sexist; he correctly pointed out that your comments were misogynistic and racist. And they are. When you try to argue that Harris' only qualifications are her gender and skin color that is blatant bigotry — it is misogyny and racism.
Especially here in the realm of politics. The VP choice often is based on who can win states more so than qualifications to be VP. That should really give you heartburn. And then consider Trump's VP choice. Is Vance the best qualified person to be VP in terms of experience? You think he has the experience to take over as PotUS?? Apply just a tiny bit of objectivity in your arguments.
Biden gave up the state electoral vote advantage by picking Harris. So what if he wanted diversity? That was his political call. It is not inherently bad; especially in politics. And given that he picked an individual for VP who was a Senator, twice elected Attorney General for the largest state in the nation, DA, and prosecuting attorney he clearly did not pick someone lacking experience or intelligence.
You parroting this feeble GOP talking point will go nowhere other than further convince people that the GOP has bigotry issues. It is a counterproductive argument.
Really? What do you think Trump's qualifications are?
Non sequitur. I mentioned Vance, not Trump. Nobody is picking Trump as their VP.
You have just wasted another opportunity.
And a shoot load of money...
What do the words "The simple solution is don’t be racist or sexist." mean to you?
Behavior, not nature.
Writing a racist comment is being racist; that is not a claim that a person is a racist.
Just like declaring a comment stupid is not the same as saying that the author is stupid.
Or declaring a comment a lie is not the same as saying the author is a liar.
You avoided answering the question. What do the words don't be a sexist or racist mean to you?
I directly answered the question, in detail even. With analogies to make it even clearer.
All the Left?
Well, at least you're not prone to overgeneralizing!
/sarc
You answered a question I didn't ask.
What do the words "don't be a sexist or racist mean" to you?
Since you cannot or will not understand what I wrote, get a dictionary.
Hint: what is the difference between 'you are a racist' and 'do not make racist comments'?
Yes, that is the question you answered. The question I asked was What do the words "don't be a sexist or racist" mean to you? To make it easier would the words "don't be a sexist or racist " fall under "racist comment" or "racist" category? I would ask why you are dodging the question but it is obvious for anyone to see.
They mean: do not write comments that are sexist are racist.
This is a forum. We write comments. We respond to comments.
Find something important to whine about.
So now you are the arbiter of what’s important for others?
Where in "don't be a sexist or racist " are they talking about comments. They are obviously talking about a person and you are obviously dancing in order not to admit it.
Where in you write comments that are sexist and racist, don't. If you can't make the point without doing as much, that should probably tell you something.
It tells me that if you can't make a point without pulling those cards to try and be insulting, you're not worth reading or replying to.
Yep
never claimed to be, but i think you get my drift
No, actually I don't. Could you explain it for me please?
no
Mmmm, not surprising...
Context is allowed to differ dramatically depending on your leanings.
The five rules to dodgeball come to mind……
dodge dip dive duck and dodge.
Much of the political right is obsessed with putting down diversity.
They want "their" country back.
tv show cast of 40 people, none anything other than white
I've never heard anyone complain about TV show diversity.
Then you haven’t been watching TV long enough. Star Trek is maybe Exhibit A for me, personally. But there was also I Love Lucy, Mary Tyler Moore, Maude, The Jeffersons, Good Times, Different Strokes, Cosby, etc. All of these shows rubbed somebody the wrong way because they featured minorities or women in leading roles.
Maybe I just ran with a weird crowd back in the day.
Or maybe it was just tv....
Or perhaps it was just good 'ole fashioned bad luck?
I know I did!
Of course in my case it was deliberate-- I found them interesting.
(Not all weird people of course-- I was very selective in the type of weird persons I preferred!)
Perhaps its the crowd you're hanging out with. If you try, my guess is that eventually you could find some folks who do complain about TV show diversity.
Maybe because they didn't start complaining about it until the snowflakes of 2020+ decided the shows were offensive.
Snuck Premise: How to Handle Fallacious Presuppositions
A snuck premise is a controversial and unsupported assumption that someone includes in their argument as if it’s necessarily true. For example, if someone says “the problem with this immoral law is that it will have negative consequences”, the premise that the law is immoral can be considered snuck, if it’s controversial and unsupported by evidence.
Find (a/the) snuck premise/s in the article quote listed above!
Find (a/the) snuck premise/s in the article quote listed above!
Whoa-- you're going too fast!
Many people are still trying to figure out how all those new-fangled "pronouns" work.
You know-- when a person decides they can be a he, a she, and a they-- simultaneously!
Notice how I "snuck" that in there?
Pretty cool, eh?
DEI has letters in wrong order, DEI needs to DIE
Why? Because diversity, equity and inclusion are death to the dominant white male patriarchy?
If I am building something I want to work right and last, I want quality materials that fit together and are easy to work with. .
Sure, you pick the type of materials you want and then go shopping for the best actual choices best on other criteria such as price, availability, warranty, serviceability, replaceability, reviews, etc.
There is nothing wrong with Biden establishing criteria for his branch that he believes are good for the nation and then find the best candidates that meet his criteria. Biden, like any other nominee / PotUS has the right to design the Executive branch as he sees fit.
Note that Biden already had California so picking Harris bought him absolutely nothing in terms of electoral votes. He apparently believed that it was more important to have the Executive branch reflect the diversity of the nation and a female VP (even better if a minority) is what he sought.
I would suggest that his constraints left him with a hell of a lot more qualified choices than a choice designed to win over a swing state.
Might not have hurt with the deep pocket donors on the West Coast though.
Deep pocket donors in CA who would contribute to the Ds would do so regardless of the VP pick. Securing electoral votes is far more important than unqualified potential increases in funding.
Have you ever voted against your presidential choice based on a VP candidate on the opposing ticket?
Klobuchar urges Biden to pick nonwhite woman as running mate
Politics Jun 19, 2020 10:00 AM EDT
CHICAGO — Amy Klobuchar says she is dropping out of the running to be vice president and urging Democrat Joe Biden to select a woman of color instead.
The white Minnesota senator, who had seen her prospects fall as racial tensions swept the nation, said Thursday that she called the presumptive presidential nominee Wednesday night and made the suggestion. Biden had already committed to choosing a woman as his running mate.
“I think this is a moment to put a woman of color on that ticket,” Klobuchar said on MSNBC. “If you want to heal this nation right now — my party, yes, but our nation — this is sure a hell of a way to do it. ”
Biden praised Klobuchar in a tweet Thursday, citing her “grit and determination” and saying, “With your help, we’re going to beat Donald Trump.”
Klobuchar’s chances at getting the VP nod diminished after the killing of George Floyd by a white police officer in Minneapolis. Klobuchar was a prosecutor years ago in the county that includes Minneapolis, and during that period, more than two dozen people — mostly minorities — died during encounters with police.
Floyd’s death last month set off days of protests across the country and criticism that as the county’s top prosecutor, Klobuchar didn’t charge any of the officers involved in citizen deaths. O fficer Derek Chauvin, who was charged with Floyd’s murder, had been involved in one of those cases , the fatal 2006 shooting of a man accused of stabbing people and aiming a shotgun at police.
. . . .
Even before Floyd’s death, activists were pushing Biden to consider a woman of color, saying it would help build a multiracial coalition behind the Democratic ticket and motivate people — particularly younger voters — who may be underwhelmed by the 77-year-old former vice president’s bid. The founder of She the People, a network of women of color, called news that Biden had asked Klobuchar to undergo formal vetting “a dangerous and reckless choice.”
“To choose Klobuchar as vice president risks losing the very base the Democrats need to win, most centrally women of color, and could be a fatal blow to the Democrats’ chance to win the White House,” Aimee Allison said in May.
Others wanted Biden to choose a more progressive candidate, who could bring in support from voters who backed Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the primary. Like Biden, Klobuchar disagreed with Sanders and Warren during the campaign on major issues such as health care, calling “Medicare for All” unachievable and pushing instead for changes to the Affordable Care Act.
Democrats with knowledge of the process told The Associated Press last week that Biden’s search committee had narrowed the choices to as few as six serious contenders after initial interviews. Among the group still in contention: Warren, California Sen. Kamala Harris and Susan Rice, who served as President Barack Obama’s national security adviser. Warren is white; both Harris and Rice are black.
More context on Klobuchar on link: Klobuchar urges Biden to pick nonwhite woman as running mate | PBS News
The game is turnout. The VP can indeed negatively affect turnout. The actual votes are what matter.
I doubt if it effects home state turnout much.
We are a very mobile society. I’ve lived in 5 states and don’t consider any of them, ‘my state’.
I think Biden picked Harris because:
woman? ;Shouldn't she get the ole Crocodile Dundee test to be sure ?
B & I ?:didn't know she was Indian. How can you Patel ?
AG sounds like letters Trump is allergic to...
Nationally Core Vetted: But can we really trust the FBI, Secret Service, etc?
N B ?:are you positive, she has not negative baggage
SPUDZ
Is never having shock therapy, a plus + or a negative - currently?
It didn’t matter what I thought but what Joe thought.
I believe she was a safe choice as well, and the more I hear from her, the better I like her. As if I had any other choice, but, I have been impressed by her since actually paying any attention to her. She is light years ahead of 2025 and the ender of e;lections if you just vote for Trump this November...
Yes they do and people have the right to point out if they don't agree with it
Yet another ridiculously obvious platitude.
As was the comment it responded to.
Correct!
And still other people have the right to totally ignore some of the stupider political on line discussions.
Exactly. Isn't living in the USA great!
But speaking if diversity, there's another meaning-- the Muslim interpretation. That's spelt EID!
What is EID? What is Eid and why is it celebrated?
Eid al-Fitr is a celebration which marks the end of Ramadan. Muslims will not only celebrate the end of fasting, but will also thank Allah for the help and strength they were given throughout Ramadan.
Notice how cleverly I just "snuck" that in there?