I’m isolating B&P’s comments from the Trump thread for discussion here.
Harris is our president-in-case-Biden-doesn’t-meet-the-role’s-requirements.
ETA: I might add that we have identified a younger leader who is a moderate and demonstrates the qualifications to lead our country. She’s been receiving a world-class education and training for the role of president for 4 years now.
I’ve never understood the disdain for Kamala Harris.
I can’t recall a VP garnering so much negative reaction since Dan Quayle, though that was for very different, and for quite obvious reasons. Yet, Harris has experienced “some of the lowest approval ratings of any VP in recorded history”.
Sure, she was handed a poison chalice with the responsibility in reducing numbers of asylum seekers, but I suspect if she were appointed head of the bipartisan committee for orphan puppies it would’ve made little difference.
Whatever one’s political stripes, I would’ve thought she would at least garner a level of respect as articulate, intelligent and educated, qualities too often regrettably lacking among recent US politics.
Even on the LR thread “If Biden were to drop out of the race…”, her name has only warranted a mention in two of 55 posts, both in a negative context.
Please tell me it’s not as simple as race and sex.
The latter didn’t appear to be an issue with Sarah Palin; her shortcomings lying elsewhere. When Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale’s running mate in 1984, I don’t recall a massive pushback as a potential woman VP. Hillary was always carrying some of her husband’s baggage was otherwise polarising.
Viewing from afar, I just don’t understand why Harris is viewed so negatively. What would a Harris (partial) presidency mean for the US? LR political animals, please help me out here.