Yikes. I’m quite neutral about Harris, same as Biden when he was VP. I came out with the same as you though.
During our interview in Chicago, I tried to ask Harris whether quotes like Reid’s bothered her, reducing her selection to her identity rather than her record. “I don’t think I understand your question,” Harris said.
It feels like she’s trying hard for an “I can’t comprehend how somebody could think my race had any impact on my selection”.
And most of her other answers - “Where are you from moderate to progressive” and she says essentially, “Define each label for me and then I’ll tell you if I am that.” No, answer the damn softball. You need an answer for “are you progressive?”
Overall it wouldn’t bother me should she need to fill out the remainder of a Biden term, but I’d want her primaried out for the next cycle.
Your reaction to how Harris answered the questions is identical to my view.
I think the interviewer could also have done a better job by asking more pointed questions, such as “what is your view on x issue” after she didn’t get an answer on a broader question such as “are you a progressive?”
In Canada, I find that a lot of our journalists are lousy interviewers of our leaders. Our Conservative Party leader gets an easy ride as he just dismisses long or broad questions from reporters or throws them back like Harris. Journalists need to nail him down on where he stands on specific issues and they don’t do that.
which makes her super on brand for a VP but doesn’t move the needle for her in the top gig. VP’s main role is to be seen/not heard unless pointed at for something.
Of course, it comes after “much prayer and deliberation” - because God apparently never gives anyone a signal, no, you shouldn’t run for President, and months of polling 3-4% [aka “within the statistical margin of error”] if that didn’t further hammer the message home.
IIRC, Pence was in the mix long enough to be on a debate stage and have all the other (almost all the other?) candidates say that he did the right think on Jan 6. I’m glad that question got asked. I’m glad they answered the way they did.
I’ve never seen a realistic scenario that doesn’t end in Trump simultaneously as nominee and under, what is it now, 4 major sets of indictments?
I’m hopeful that the courts won’t entirely acquiesce and say, “Oh I see you have a job interview, we’ll revisit in 2025, or maybe 2028 if you’re elected.” I think his court schedule will have an impact exceeding the Comey investigations into Clinton. Not so much that his base will worry if he’s found legally to be a fraud (just another opportunity to send Trump money), but him not being able to campaign as much will hurt him.
Only if Trump dies or maybe if he somehow goes to prison quickly, perhaps another candidate will make it.
Yep. I don’t think prison will have any impact on his supporters. They are convinced this is all political persecution and expect Trump to do the same to his enemies if they elect him.
It won’t hurt him in the primaries but I cannot see any independent voters being swayed by the fact that he is the subject of the greatest witch-hunt in the history of witch-hunts
That’s where I’m at, I’m counting 30% of the total vote as locked in for Trump. However that leaves 20%+ of possibly Trump-curious independents and tired-of-Trump Republicans who may not be willing to vote in an incarcerated felon.
There is, of course, also the (remote) possibility that RFK Jr. actually wins a state and neither of the other two candidates get sufficient electoral votes to be declared President.
Assuming the Republicans in the House would vote along party lines, the plurality of red state representation in the House would result in a Republican President being elected. Thus Trump could become POTUS without getting the most electoral votes nor winning the popular vote.
I’d say 45% of the populace is locked in for Trump, and another 4-5% will still vote for him because “he’s not a goddamn Democrat” and/or “Biden sucks more.” It’s a question of where those voters are located and whether Republicans can peel off just enough in swing states to flip the election.
That’s exactly what Republicans are trying to do: present a “reasonable alternative” that attracts people who’d support Biden and splinters enough of his vote off to allow Trump to win. It’s why you see them running “reasonable” sounding policy ideas with the who would really not support this? feel, as a runway to supporting full-blown Republican policies and attracting voters to pull the big R lever.
I think the states can make their own rules about who can run for state offices. For federal offices, the US constitution rules and it doesn’t say anything about “not a felon”.
If I were running for congress as a felon, the House or Senate could expel me after I’m elected. But we don’t have a similar process for president.