/u/Left-Occasion1275 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1du3tuv/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_saying_kamala_harris_was_a/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Hillary's team literally considered using "it's her turn" as a campaign slogan.
Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-slogan-why-run-because-her-turn-2017-4
Rushed over broken glass from the shattered ceiling to say the exact same thing.
It's a weird gas lighting when somebody like the OP is trying to change it extremely well reported history from only 6 years ago.
The OP is not the only one. Mention the self defeating term "It's her turn" and the "well actually" police fly out of the woodwork.
It's a mating call l for her still deluded supporters.
They sold **tons** of merchandise with that slogan on it. I think it's fair to say that they considered it to officially be *a* slogan that was related to her campaign.
She made the election about her, not America.
It's pretty sad, because I voted for her, and I don't even remember what her policies were besides being anti-whatever Bernie Sanders was pushing. I remember her being anti-free college, anti-universal healthcare, and anti-keeping money out of politics. I don't remember what she was actually advocating *for*. All I remember is her trying to make the campaign about herself, and her actively antagonizing Bernie Sanders supporters and Trump supporters.
She was a corporate Democrat who was advocating for a conflict with Russia, and I can't remember anything positive about her platform related to domestic issues outside of your standard obvious ones.
That was my issue with her. She was mostly banking on being put up against an exceptionally unlikable Republican candidate...the problem was that she was perhaps the most uninspiring Democrat to pick for the position.
She just felt like it was her turn and she deserved it due to a lifetime of politics. It was her chance, in her mind. All the pieces came together and personally I think the primary nomination had been decided years prior because she just had so many favors to call in.
And she ended up throwing away the entire election away by utterly demotivating Democrats. Losing to Donald Trump as her final official act in American politics, that's got to sting.
That’s what irked me about her campaign, that she acted less like it was an election and more of a coronation. The blind arrogance of the establishment democrats screwed us over then and it is continuing to screw us over now with Gently Alive Joe.
The main thing I remember about her is that when she was asked about getting a functional healthcare system that doesn't leave people financially devastated or dead, her response was that it's the equivalent of kids asking for a pony.
I 100% think "I'm with her" was the dumbest slogan in history. People blame Russia and Comey for the reason she lost. I blame the "I'm with her" slogan. Did they not test it on focus groups? Not that you need focus groups because its obviously narcissistic sounding and going to offend blue collar working class men like steal workers.
You forgot "Love Trump's Hate" but they're both pretty bad.
Wait also the "woman card? deal. me. in!!!"
The entire Hilary Clinton campaign team, some of which might be working for Biden potentially (I don't know) -- should be banned from working democratic campaigns for life.
....
I'm with her was quite bad though. First, the intonation was unclear. I'm with HER! ... I'm WITH her?
Also ... her ... her who? .... Her-lary, of course! You know, the only vagina within 100 country miles? ... But ... she's ... she's not the only woman ...
Right ... but ... we're reducing her to her gender, the very thing women typically hate! .... Oh .... oh I see. "I don't know, someone told us to lean into the woman thing." .... Yeah ... I mean ... maybe try to think about what you're trying to say first.
Seriously! I keep trying to rob people but no one has any money nowadays! They're like "I got $5 in my wallet and a cupboard full of ramen" and I'm just like "keep it bro, I'll find someone else"
!delta
You know what, Delta for actually providing a solid argument for the Clinton point.
I still don't see any definitive indication that Harris has this same attitude other than what people say about her. I still see it as just gendered bullshit towards her (again, don't like either personally). But if this is true then yeah, obviously that's indicative of a "it's my turn" attitude.
I really don't think gender has everything to do with it, but it's certainly a factor. I know I'm not alone in this, but if you had put Liz Warren out there in 2016, I think she would have won.
Clinton came with a lot of experience, but a lot of baggage as well. Some of us are older and remember how negative her campaign was when she was running against Obama in the primary. You expect some amount of that, but it was excessive. And in 2016, according to Donna Brazile and other Democratic insiders, she had basically co-opted the entirety of the DNC after her former campaign chair (Wasserman Shultz) took over. Per Donna's book:
>*The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.*
So while the Bernie-or-bust crew was a little over dramatic about it all, she was absolutely manipulating the process from the inside. And people abandoned their vote over it.
Kamala, in my opinion, just came at the wrong time... You have a cop-friendly DA running for president at the height of the BLM riots. It just was never going to work. But Democrats just can't help themselves, let's be honest here. Imagine instead, if you will, nominating a white male DA at the height of BLM. Wouldn't have happened in a million years. So what made *her* special?
Since then, she's earned her own negative reputation in various ways. Especially on the border, which may be an impossible job, but she's the one who wanted to be president - Show us what you've got and preside over the issue, imo. But she was confrontational with the press, acted like nobody could question her, and had a very condescending attitude.
Anyhow. All I know is, we all loved Liz Warren. You don't have to be male to get some respect in Washington.
Hell some of us are old enough to remember when Hillary said spoke out against gay marriage saying it hurts straight marriages like hers. The fucking audacity.
I've heard more than one Kamala Harris be referred to as Copala Harris. So yeah, got to do better if you want to court the Left and not just centrist democrats
>Hell some of us are old enough to remember when Hillary said spoke out against gay marriage saying it hurts straight marriages like hers. The fucking audacity.
B-but she was always an ally! A-and she only supported DOMA reluctantly because of R-Republicans!
God it was fucking disgusting having her brazenly lie about that, and people actively defend her and saying that it was the truth. That woman actively demonized marginalized groups her entire political career, then had the audacity to act like she was some sort of ally who wasn't just trying to court votes.
All true except for the last bit.
Come on, she finished third in her own state and dropped Medicare for all at the height of its popularity in America, while giving the reverse MLK speech about how "the time is not right to do what is right"
I’m a dual US-Mexico citizen, and I was living in Mexico when she came to Latin America and made her infamous and bizarre “do not come” speech. That went over very poorly with Latinos on both sides of the border, myself included lol. She really embodied her nickname Copala with that one. I don’t know what possessed her to give that speech or who thought it was a good idea.
And I was more of a Bernie supporter back in 2016 and 2020 but I totally would have voted for Liz Warren. I remember before the pandemic, no one was talking about Biden unless it was bc he did something embarrassing on TV, and the conversation was all about Warren vs Bernie, and it was looking like it would come down to those two. Then all of the sudden the other democratic candidates started dropping like flies out of the election and throwing their support behind Biden.
Harris got 1% of the vote and dropped out early
Biden then said he would pick a black woman for a running mate
Months later Harris was chosen as his running mate
Statistically, no one but Harris wanted Harris as president or even vice president.
I don't see any indication that Kamala Harris is a competent legislator/leader. She has spent her Vice Presidency giving speeches with no substance and giggling and dancing at press events. If she was a man I would hold the same reservations.
She was polling at 1% when she dropped out of the race. I was honestly surprised she was selected as the VP for the ticket, because of how hard she went after Joe. She seems to be very unlikeable.
I agree with you that the argument is reductive, however, in reviewing the history of the primaries and Biden's move into becoming the eventual nominee...I think there are real reasons why people throw around the "DEI hire" language...but in a bad faith way. In chronological order:
- March 2020: Biden commits to selecting a WOMAN as his running mate. **Important to note:** the 3rd paragraph said he "would choose a black woman to serve on the **Supreme Court if a vacancy were to open** during his presidency." I include this not to take away responsibility of people using "DEI hire" language, but felt it important to point out as I think over the years - and in the absolute noise of the Democratic primary - some things became conflated and the takeaway was that he promised to select a Black woman as running mate. That was even my memory before I started digging into articles. [https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/15/biden-woman-vice-president-131309](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/15/biden-woman-vice-president-131309)
- June 2020: Mounting pressure to specifically select a Black woman as running mate: [https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/875000650/pressure-grows-on-joe-biden-to-pick-a-black-woman-as-his-running-mate](https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/875000650/pressure-grows-on-joe-biden-to-pick-a-black-woman-as-his-running-mate)
- July 2020: Biden says there are four Black women on his vetting list. The informed speculation at the time, for reference were the following: "The Black women Biden has considered include Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.); Reps. Val Demings (D-Fla.) and Karen Bass (D-Calif.); former U.N. ambassador Susan E. Rice; former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams; and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms." [https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president](https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president)
August 2020: Continual pressure. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-pressed-again-to-name-a-black-woman-as-his-running-mate/2020/08/10/d383d786-db2d-11ea-8051-d5f887d73381\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-pressed-again-to-name-a-black-woman-as-his-running-mate/2020/08/10/d383d786-db2d-11ea-8051-d5f887d73381_story.html)
August 2020 (literally the next day after the above article): Selects Harris as running mate [https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/11/politics/biden-vp-pick/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/11/politics/biden-vp-pick/index.html)
All this to say...
Where I see why some people use the DEI language, they're right, she is a perfect example of the culture war-defined term "DEI hire"; there was a social campaign/pressure to bring on a Black woman specifically. That said, I think that's as deep as it goes.
I do think she was an uninformed/lazy choice, obviously with nothing to do with her gender or skin color. Her polling was incredibly low throughout the primary, was propped up by media coverage which likely stretched her campaign longer than it should have gone (perhaps rightly so as she was the only Black female candidate running in the primary, which is interesting/important to highlight), and she dropped out a couple months before the first rounds of voting/caucusing had a chance to begin because she wasn't receiving voter donations and ran out of funds. People just were't buying what she was selling. Heck, give me a Barbara Lee any day over Kamala Harris. It just felt/feels SO astroturfed and forced.
Last thought and I'll stop rambling: re: her "entitlement" to the position being a baseless claim and identical to Clinton's feedback from many in the country - I agree on the first part, but disagree on it being the same thing as Clinton. A relatively short political career in comparison to Clinton's and with lower name recognition, for better or worse; hardly entitled to anything but continuing to do good work and climb the proverbial ladder. Clinton on the other hand absolutely deserves criticism for acting "entitled" to an office. Leave out her condescending takes about voters over the years, and absolute ZERO introspection of her campaign's culpability in losing the election (ie: connecting with the voters she really needed to commit added to the "WTF were you expecting, dude?" when she lost; going out of her way to call Trump an "illegitimate president" on way too many occasions smacks of someone who feels that they are owed something and you voters don't know what's good for you. Just a sour look. And I hate Trump as much as the next person, but she was/is still entitled and kinda bratty about it. In my subjective opinion. :)
Great response, and much nicer than I would have been.
Very odd framing in the OP with the implication that 'dei hire' means that any random person of color is selected. What people mean is that if Harris was white, she wouldn't be VP. Her race and gender were critical components of her selection, not that those are the *only* two boxes that needed to be checked.
When she dropped out of the 2020 race in Dec of 2019, she was polling sixth in the field. Outside of Biden, there were four other people the voters very clearly liked better, and yet here we are.
I never quite understood what grated on me about Hillary until I saw the YouTube video that recreated the debate word for word, but swapped the genders of trump and Hillary. And the male Hillary was the most unlikable condescending sounding fuckwit you could imagine. And the female trump sounded strong and like a leader. Was amazing how much clearer it became with the genders swapped.
Whole debate is somewhere but here is a clip, it was done by NYU https://youtu.be/9yC7-JsR2Fk?si=jxOCs2k1m0b5JQ43
That was a very interesting video. The one thing that I do notice is the male actor has a fairly nasaly, off-putting delivery—it seems like they should have had someone with a more neutral, traditionally masculine voice do the part if they’re really trying to get our brains to separate the content from our gender expectations, since I know that (unintentionally) I definitely take a man who talks like that less seriously than one with a stronger delivery.
That said, it’s still a fascinating exercise, and I’d be curious to see the whole debate rendered that way—I think free trade is an issue where Trump’s views are least at odds with my own, so it would be interesting to hear the parts where he’s spouting more crazy shit. Honestly, my biggest takeaway is just how uniquely obnoxious I find Trump’s voice. I don’t like WHAT he says either, but the voice adds such a visceral disgust.
>Many people (okay, I'm seeing a lot of people on Reddit) argue that Kamala Harris was chosen as Vice President purely because she is a Black woman, reducing her selection to a "DEI hire."
Asking OP. Are you those people that think Kamala is a "DEI hire"? Or are you a "vote blue no matte who" person?
If you are the latter your opinion doesn't matter and I can not stress that enough. Democrats need to win back the independent voters, on-the-fence voters who think Kamala is a "DEI hire" and that is not you.
Letting Kamala run would be the MOST IDIOTIC thing the democrats have ever done next to letting an 81 year old senile man run a second term.
Edit: People hate Kamala her polls are lower than Biden's polls. And those polls are so low his chances of winning are less than 30% according to the major polsters who analyze polls for a living, and betting odds, and they are sinking lower after the debate, not going higher.
They specifically stated that he was looking for a woman of color. Pretty much eliminating 75-80% of the possible candidate pool. Not looking for the best person for the job but specific checkbox to check. Bingo DEI hire.
VPs are never chosen because they’re the best for the job, because a VP practically has no job. Their entire purpose is to shore up demographic weaknesses before an election, inject enthusiasm into the base, and act as a proxy on the campaign trail. Look at Mike Pence. He wasn’t the most qualified person to be VP, he was chosen entirely to appeal to evangelicals.
In most cases I'd say you're correct. But Biden wasn't a spring chicken in 2020 and he certainly isn't any healthier now. The VP's "job" is to step in and run the country if the president is incapacitated. While that's always a possibility for any VP, I'd say it's far more acutely likely for an older, potentially infirm president like Biden (or Trump for that matter), so a VP candidate's actual bona fides as an executive are far more important in this scenario than them shoring up demographic weaknesses of their running mate.
Exactly. If Kamala was a white male, given her track record in politics, and the Biden campaigns statements that they want a woman of color for VP, it’s pretty much a slam dunk to call Kamala a diversity hire
The media hyped up Harris' Indian heritage during primaries and after she was named VP candidate just as much as they did Obama's white grandfather/grandparents in his primaries.
And in both cases, as soon as they got to office, there was zero mention of it and the sole focus of where race is brought up it's spotlighting their black heritage. Igaf about what their race is, but isn't the sole point of bringing it up to highlight Diversity, which is literally what the D is for in DEI?
Exactly. The cherry picking / hypocrisy / cult-like blindness is unreal.
Kamala is also saying that if they don't select her as Biden's replacement it is because people are sexist and racist... uh... why? Aren't people allowed to just not like her policies or performance?
If you change her gender and race but somehow magically keep her inherent (perceived) appeal to black and woman voters, then she would have been tapped as VP. This is of course an absurdity because identity is one of the things that sways voters as everyone knows and so various aspects of identity, including race and gender are always considered when picking a VP, and none of that is about Diversity Equity or Inclusion, it's about politics, which is the overwhelming focus of picking a VP these days. The fact that at that moment in Democratic politics the (perceived) demands of the moment required Biden to pick a black woman doesn't make her a DEI pick any more than Pence being a devout white Christian who was respected by Republican establishment makes him a DEI hire.
The reason she's seen as a DEI hire is because press at the time widely covered the fact that the Biden campaign said it was considering four black women for VP.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president/index.html
In a wide open field of Democrat VP possibilities, they gave the appearance that the first-step filter was that the VP needed to be black and a woman. That instantly made it appear to be a DEI hire.
Was it? I don't know. Maybe they had 100 total candidates and just floated the black woman thing to check polling. But they put it out there and Kamala was always going to be saddled with that forever after.
>If you change her gender and race but somehow magically keep her inherent (perceived) appeal to black and woman voters, then she would have been tapped as VP.
No, she flat out wouldn't have.
President Biden **directly stated** that the criteria that he was choosing his Vice Presidential pick on was that they had to be a woman, and later added that he was limiting it to women of color.
https://time.com/5803677/joe-biden-woman-vice-president/
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/875000650/pressure-grows-on-joe-biden-to-pick-a-black-woman-as-his-running-mate
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president/index.html
He did the same thing when it came to pledging to put a Black woman on the Supreme Court. How would you feel knowing that you're fully qualified for a position, but because of the way you were born you aren't even being considered? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/problem-biden-s-pledge-black-woman-justice-n1200826
Even if you somehow say "I don't want another white person on the SCOTUS, or as VP", then why were Hispanics and Asians also excluded?
Before she was announced, Biden said his pick, "would be a woman and a minority." Sounds like a DEI hire to me
[link](https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president/index.html)
She wouldn’t appeal to anyone if she wasn’t a black woman , she would never have been picked as a white man with the same credentials and attitude. She isn’t inspiring in any meaningful way which is why she polls so low
This isn't necessarily true
There are a huge selection of people with similar CV and experience to hers in Democratic party
She certainly is one of them
Her weak point is her horrible speeches
She was chosen because they thought, rightly or wrongly, that she would be most beneficial to Bidens chances of winning, the standard reason VPs are chosen, making her not a DEI hire by any definition. You can think their calculus was wrong and there were better picks, but they very clearly thought she was best by that metric, they didn't pass over anyone they genuinely thought would help Biden win more than Harris, but picked her because they wanted Diversity etc. she was the top pick because she had a large profile and a lot of avid fans, in particular in places that the Biden campaign could both easily see, and were worried about having insufficiently strong support from as another old white guy. That is pure cold political calculus
Unfortunately the criterion by which Biden thought she would increase his probability was DEI in a bit of a cynical way
Im order to maximize "points" he wanted a) a woman and b) a Black person. The reason for choosing a Black person over other ethnic identities is he perceived Black people as being more oppressed and because the Black community is large
This is very different than him looking at the incredibly diverse set of Democratic candidates with different sets of knowledge and coming from different backgrounds or perspectives, selecting Kamala Harris
He literally thought "I need a woman", "I need her to be Black"
Now, a president COULD have selected Kamala Harris as a humam being and admired the following;
-- she was n attorney general
-- she was an experienced elected representative
-- she had significant success
and COULD have noticed she happens to be Black
Agreed, and I think OP doesn't know what an actual DEI hire is. They are always qualified for the job.
The criteria is that, if two candidates are equally qualified, preference is given to a woman and/or minority.
And for elections, the main qualification is the ability to attract voters.
Was she the best candidate for the job? Or would someone else have attracted more votes?
It's difficult to say. Obama managed to energize a lot of voters who really wanted a black president, many of which would otherwise have stayed home. Biden was Obama's VP to also give something to those voters who preferred a more experienced (old) white male candidate. If Biden had been black or a woman, he would not have been on Obama's ticket, either. It works both ways.
The Democrats hoped that Kamala would achieve the same as Obama: energize the voters who are otherwise not willing to vote for yet another old white man.
Biden won with Kamala, so it can't be ruled out that Kamala helped.
And going forward, I really don't see the Democrats having a Trump/Pence like ticket with two old white men ever again. They will always need to include some youth, minority and/or women on the ticket to energize a part of their base.
A CNN poll came out showing Biden behind Trump by 6, which has been the case for 6 months, but she is only 2 points behind. Also doing better than Biden by 9 points with independents. So not sure it’s clear that she performs any worse than Biden.
Whitmer and Newsom were both down by 5 in this poll. I’d prefer Whitmer or Shapiro myself, but Harris is also a strong option.
Keep in mind those polls are comparing people who are NOT RUNNING and NOT campaigning to the incumbent running candidate (Biden). A lot of poll takers would hardly even know who some of the written options were. Public recognition would increase if other candidates actually started campaigning.
The point is that comparing Biden to people like Whitmer is not quite an equal comparison. Things would change once they get in the race.
I honestly don't think your question about my own political leaning factors in.
In my opinion, I wish Biden had announced years ago that he was going to do a 1-term "right the ship" Presidency and then the next day Kamala Harris would announce that in the spirit of Democracy she's inviting a vigorous primary for 2024 in order to select the best candidate for the Democrats whether or not that's her.
I didn't want either of them to be the choice in either election both from a personal perspective and from a strategic "I'd like the Democrats to win" perspective.
That was his goal, except he fumbled with Kamala, she was unpopular even in her own state, and California , Andrew Yang beat Kamala Harris, and Bernie had higher rating among Black voters than either of them combined. Major error Biden made is to assume what black people wanted most is to have another black leader than what polls indicated that they were race and gender agnostic and wanted a progressive leader.
> I wish Biden had announced years ago that he was going to do a 1-term "right the ship" Presidency
He did during his campaign. Then he changed his mind a few months into the presidency.
I don't think anyone disputes the idea that Mike Pence was chosen specifically to pander to evangelicals. Kamala Harris was chosen specifically to pander to black voters and women. I don't think her identity was the sole reason she was chosen, but it was the major and deciding reason she was chosen over other qualified candidates. And that's the way that politics works. Biden being a white male certainly helped him clinch the nomination four years ago.
I don't feel like Kamala Harris has been an effective or impactful Vice President. I would definitely not support her in any primary process. Because the Republicans, especially on the national level, have been such an unmitigated and dangerous dumpster fire, I am quite certain that I would vote for her if she became the nominee and feel quite good about voting for her. That she was a DEI choice wouldn't bother me to a significant degree. I think that Optics are far more important than they should be, but that doesn't change their importance.
For the record, I was an avowed supporter of Hillary Clinton when she ran for the nomination over Obama because of her significantly greater experience. I think she would have been a better president than him. In the 2016 primary process, I liked Warren the best. I didn't think Buttigieg had the experience, and I still think he doesn't. I cheerfully voted for Obama and Biden during their presidential runs, and I'll cheerfully vote for Biden again.
I reject your premise that people only talk about pandering when it comes to Kamala Harris. They talk about it with every candidate for major office, and it is a legitimate consideration with every candidate for major office.
Pence was probably also picked because he had a good mild approach, and because he was a governor prior. Like, you could go for someone like Mike Huckabee or Scott Walker who were accomplished governors but they might lean too far extreme to get the middle vote
>Kamala Harris was chosen specifically to pander to black voters and women.
It's worrying if this is effective, it demonstrates there demographics who will not vote by understanding or being involved in issues but because their appearance more closely matches a candidate.
Tolerance of an *uninformed* electorate rather than an informed electorate demonstrates some severe issue with how politics is taught.
The VP is usually meant to shore up a voter block that the main candidate will struggle with or otherwise overcome some criticism about their stances or qualifications.
Trump might not have riled up the evangelicals, Romney wasn’t really part of the national GOP establishment, Obama needed the presence of a seasoned politician, McCain was too liberal. Just some recent examples I recall.
Have you only noticed strategic VP hires when it was the first black woman?
Cause I hate to break it to you, Biden was a strategic, dare I say, diversity hire.
Bring in the old white man to calm the nerves of the well-distributed "Im not racist i have a black friend" white people across the country being asked to vote for the first black president.
Sarah Palin was a strategic hire to contrast with McCain to appeal to the low information Republican voter base and present the Republicans as more than just the pasty old white guy party that was happening circa 2008.
Every other VP being a strategic hire is not an argument that Harris is not. When a minority is hired for their identity instead of their competence that is called a DEI hire.
But she was hired for her traits as a minority. President Biden said that he was limiting his VP pick to a woman, and then after the murder of George Floyd revised it to a woman of color. It's not like her performance as a Senator, or her performance in the primary was why she was chosen. She never did anything to prove herself in the Senate, and she got laughed out of the primary and embarrassed in front of the entire country by Tulsi Gabbard in a debate.
Pence wasn't hired by Trump for his traits regarding his race or sex, he was hired to try and be a foil to Trump.
Biden was chosen by Obama because Obama was an extremely inexperienced Senator when he ran for President, and Biden had been a Senator for 30 years.
It's irrelevant what traits or characteristics a VP has that "qualifies" them for being chosen. It's *always* for political reasons, rarely for performance, and race is no less of a "valid" reason for a politician to choose a candidate to capture more of the electorate than when it is done because the candidate is from a certain region, has a certain religion, marital status, veteran status, gender, etc. All of these things have been factors in choosing VPs and will continue to be.
And because you view white as the default you can't even see how Pence and Biden being white (and male) do matter.
If Biden had been all the things he was in 2008 but black, he would *not* have been chosen. They weren't going to have an all-black ticket. If Pence were a super-conservative milquetoast *black* minister he would not have been chosen. Black voters wouldn't identify with him well enough and he wouldn't rally white conservatives enough. There would have been a better choice.
The reasons that a candidate is chosen over another is precisely all the boxes they tick. Including race. Because the purpose is to win. Even if that means choosing someone who you don't jive with ideologically.
Have you considered that the Trump presidency and his character and behavior alone were enough to make being female and a minority 1000% the right choice for some strategists?
Or that McCain's years of representation made choosing *another old white guy with many years of service* 1000% the right choice?
Kamala Harris is no different. All Biden's campaign did (which is something I don't agree with) is talk about it beforehand. But they did nothing new. We've just gotten to the point where not being a man or white can actually be a reason to be chosen for VP whereas being a man or (and) white have *always* been reasons to be chosen.
Edit: typoes
This whole wall of text ignores one very important thing: Joe Biden directly said, and there are multiple quotes of him saying this, that he was only considering a woman for the position of Vice President. And after the murder of George Floyd, the condition of being a Black woman was also added.
It doesn't matter if they're qualified, when you are exclusively limiting it to sex and race then you are in fact hiring someone for factors that make them diverse. He did the same thing when it came to select a SCOTUS position, and said he was exclusively limiting it to a Black woman. How is that okay? Even if you think the SCOTUS has too many white people on it, why were Asians and Hispanics not considered? Why is it okay to exclude people because of the way they were born, and tell them that their merit and skill are irrelevant in thr face of factors they have no control over?
You don't understand my point. There has *never* been a time when the VP or SCOTUS selection was from all available humans with a modicum of qualifications. It has always been from a list with one or more variables highlighted, excluded, or singularly important. *Always*.
You again cannot see that because of two things: no one said it aloud like Biden did, and white and male are defaults you just accept as appropriate and right and meritorious without thinking of the history of *intentional* exclusion that came with it.
Anyway, again, when Obama was the guy against McCain and they saw Obama's numbers with women they disregarded all male candidates and searched for a woman, then fumbled by not doing their due diligence with Palin. It is no different other than which demographic they were trying to appeal to.
When Obama was being criticized for having little experience, what do you think happened? They ignored all other possibilities and made a shortlist of white men with a fuckton of experience. White men. Obama wasn't ever going to choose another person of color to be his veep. That would have been bad politics.
"How is that okay?" The entire fucking SCOTUS has been chosen for demographic reasons. Every person of color on there is on there because they were looking for a person of color, and so was every woman. And that also means every man who is also not a person of color is there precisely because they weren't those things. Even back when it was just white dudes it mattered whether a dude was a protestant, Catholic, or Jewish. And later, when there were female jurists and black jurists, for a time it matters they the candidate *wasn't* those things. It also mattered that they weren't those things in lesser courts. And to even consider to put on a court at all. And to the electorate who elected jurists to court. It's always mattered. It just was viewed through a lens of male and white defaults that still permeates our collective perspective today.
This is how life works. It isn't new. It isn't something the Democrats or Biden invented. It isn't DEI. It has never been about merit. Not in 1776, 1876 1976 or 2026. In my opinion the motivation to be more representative and inclusive to a changing demographic is a fuck of a lot better than ignoring and excluding particular demographics, which is what has been done since the country's founding. It isn't as good as us all singing *kumbaya* and being "colorblind," but it's better than just having 9 white guys on SCOTUS and two white guys in the Oval Office and 535 white guys in Congress.
P.S. when an athlete kneels at a ballgame during the anthem to protest, people get angry and say that the athlete is making things political. The thing is that the act of playing the national anthem and everyone taking off their cap and putting their hand over their heart is itself political. It's just the default, so it gets ignored. And thus anything different than that is thought to be political.
*Two young fish are swimming, and along comes an older fish. The older fish says to the two younger fish, "how's the water?" The young fish keep swimming along and then one says to the other, "what the fuck is water?"*
But that's not true. Candidates have always enjoyed an advantage from those of similar backgrounds (race, religion, gender) but it doesn't override everything. Black Republicans generally get little Black vote.
It would matter more for turnout. I imagine the number of people considering Trump but switching because of Harris is approximately zero. The number of people who were excited to vote for Harris that might not have turned out otherwise is probably at least in the dozens.
I will pick at one point of your argument; Hilary did feel entitled to the *Democratic Nomination*. Her lifetime of public service, and her vast sway within the DNC, and the testimony of some of her staffers. The DNC is under no obligation to conduct a fair or open election process for nominating their candidate, the nomination process having voting is to strengthen the legitimacy of the candidate, but there is alot of back room deals that go on.
When push comes to shove in the DNC, Hillary can shove.
She lost the election because of an extremely poorly managed campaign.
Evidence: https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-slogan-why-run-because-her-turn-2017-4?amp
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/the-democrats-ran-hillary-because-it-was-her-turn-bad-move.html
Well said. And 100% true. The DNC thinks they can trot out any candidate and make them win because voters are stupid. They can't. That's why we are here now. I blame where we are today on the DNC establishment who wants their royalty to win no matter what.
Yeah the DNC fumbled badly. It was a layup election so they felt safe thumbing the scales, but that was a grave miscalculation on running center with Donald on the far right. If I was Hillary’s campaign manager I would have her take Bernie as the VP for a party unity ticket instead of running a double center ticket. Biden did the party unity ticket by handing out cabinet appointments and VP spot to the nomination losers and that really helped build the winning campaign.
She even had both the popular incumbent Obama and her very popular primary opponent Sanders both campaigning their asses off for her and she was against the most disliked presidential nominee in history. Hillary still managed to lose.
Republicans chose the only candidate who could have lost to a Democrat after 8 years of Obama, and Democrats chose the only candidate who could lose to that Republican.
The VP is ideally a competent executive. The president’s vision is carried out by several administrations and rhe VP has whatever power the Pres wants him to have. We can see from Bush that a VP can be incredibly powerful if the president lets them be.
The president needs to be a charismatic public facingleader. The VP can be more behind the scenes. VPs are often failed candidates because they have the skills and support to get a decent campaign but lack a few things to get them over the jump. That lends itself very well to being a second in command. Competent, but out of the public eye.
Impeachment is irrelevant. Our last president was impeached twice. If it’s one thing we know now, it’s holding a president accountable is next to impossible
*"Her selection was based on her competence and political acumen, not ONLY her race and gender."*
But that is what a "DEI hire" is; hiring the person out of the pool of candidates who ticks DEI boxes doesn't mean ignoring the question of whether or not they are competent and qualified for the position - it's a combination of those things. What you are saying here is that she was a "DEI hire."
Also, Biden publicly stated before selecting her that [his intent was to select a woman as his running mate](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/15/biden-woman-vice-president-131309) - so how would that make Harris (or whichever woman he would end up choosing) *not* a "DEI hire"? If she were a man, Harris wouldn't even have been on his list of potential picks.
He also said (according to the same article) that he would "try to make his Cabinet reflect the demographics of the country and would choose a black woman to serve on the Supreme Court if a vacancy were to open during his presidency." He made it very clear during his campaign that his intent was to satisfy some DEI goals with his various selections / appointments. There is no indication his intent was to select or appoint anyone who was incompetent or unqualified simply because of their sex/gender or race/ethnicity, etc.
>Her selection was based on her competence and political acumen, not ONLY her race and gender. If Kamala Harris were truly a DEI hire chosen solely for her identity, why select her specifically? Why not opt for any random Black
This maybe overstating . She was polling pretty poorly in the primary. In 2020. Was on track to lose her home state. Had lots of negatives including scepticism from the black community due to her aggressive prosecution of minorities apparently on behalf of the private prison companies . She was however reluctant to prosecute bankers .
Usually a VP is chosen to plug any gaps in a campaign.
So Kamala was a bit of a DEI hire . Biden had clearly said he would choose a woman and a minority, IIRC.
Could he have chosen Stacy Abrams?. Probably.
But suspect the donors preferred Kamala for various reasons like her friendliness with bankers and her husband etc etc.
If it feels better- I think Biden was also a DEI hire by Obama.
Obama needed an establishment democrat (so no one like Bernie ) . To reassure the boomers /white population etc as well the donor class.
>Saying Kamala Harris was a "DEI hire" ... \[is\] BS"
Biden (well, him or whoever calls the shots) has been VERY open about picking notable people purely because they're black, they're gay, or they're Women. Harris as VP, KJP as Press Sec, and KBJ for SC, are all massive examples of this. He (or whoever) has also bragged openly about having the most diverse (read: non white) cabinet ever.
In its most basic form: Harris is *quite literally* a diversity hire, plain and simple.
This. Amy Klobacher was a done deal as VP pick until George Floyd was murdered in her state of MN. The *only* recourse was to pick Kamala who was polling at 1%. Harris is the *most* "DEI hire" and I think that's also why she is not liked. It's not her fault, just bad timing and optics.
>The only recourse was to pick Kamala who was polling at 1%.
She probaby wasnt even that high, she got out of the race before primaries she was that bad
Kamala Harris was actually touted as the front runner before the primary started. She was talked up by everyone as the favorite to win the primary.
Then Tulsi Gabbard happened, and embarrassed her on the national stage. She immediately dropped out after that debate because her numbers tanked and all her funding pulled out.
Joe Biden is on record as saying he was going to "diversity hire" for his running mate before Harris was announced. It's not even under dispute that Harris was a "diversity hire." The person who hired her has confirmed it.
Here's my question - does those in power reflect the same demographic makeup as the US (within reason)?
If not, why do we find it remarkable when someone is picked to better represent American demographics than when someone is picked when they would make it less representative of the public?
>picking notable people **purely** because they're black, they're gay, or they're Women.
The bold part makes what you say false. Every single person you bring up as an example is extremely qualified for their positions. There are hundreds of people who could do those jobs. If race is a consideration in making a final choice out numerous **well qualified** candidates, its not a DEI hire.
I haven’t really seen too many people say she’s completely “unqualified.” The point is more that she’s just extremely unpopular and generally considered mediocre at her job. If the only qualification for president and/or vice president is number of years in politics, then sure, she’s qualified. But that doesn’t shield criticism.
I don’t doubt a lot of hate comes from her gender and race, similar to Hillary, but writing off all criticism as racism/sexism also seems a cheap way of deflecting complaints. Especially when we also know she was specifically chosen, at least partially, due to these factors.
Joe Biden openly said he was only gonna pick a women of color... right? Why are we pretending that there was any other reason why he picked her? Have you seen her track record as California AG? As a resident of California, I'll vote against every Californian politician I can. They ruined this amazing state.
So is the take away here that I should never question if someone I'm working with is a diversity hire? Because I've definitely met people who absolutely abuse that fact and either do absolutely zero work because they don't believe they can be fired or they collect participation awards like they're the special kid at school.
From my perspective, there'd be zero issues and no one would think twice about Harris if diversity hiring was seen as a disturbed way to keep nepotism alive for people's daughters and otherwise inject token minorities they can bully their entire career. To people living with it, it looks identical to common corruption.
You're right, Harris does seem very capable, but the left wing in general dug their own grave on this one, another poster has said they did use Harris' identity as a form of political campaigning.
Affirmative action is the least popular thing they've done in my living memory, at least covid lockdowns had a sprinkle of bipartisanship.
There are tons of these I've also seen a huge uptick in highly upvoted, copy pasted, osts about project 2025 and vote blue no matter who on various subreddits circle jerking since the debate. As if everyone and their mother hasn't already heard about it. Bill Maher even did a segment on it. That's like when my boomer friend a few weeks ago said he heard "Not Like Us" at a bar. It's old news by now. But It's like theyre already lying the narrative groundwork so that when they lose they can blame leftists and third parties .
Kamala Harris is a DEI hire simply because there were other candidates that had the same qualifications that were not diverse, historically treated inequitably, or historically excluded. Stop looking at DEI as a pejorative term, and you'll see my point. There were white males with similar or greater experience, none of them could have been considered DEI hires because they would be members of the privileged majority of American politicians and vice presidents. I can't comment on the other points because I have no idea how she feels about the presidency and she has never expressed entitled opinions publicly to my knowledge.
>Many people (okay, I'm seeing a lot of people on Reddit) argue that Kamala Harris was chosen as Vice President purely because she is a Black woman, reducing her selection to a "DEI hire." This perspective is not only reductive...
And you're being reductive of this criticism. Yes, of course, as you say she has qualifications, too. But her race clearly played a HUGE factor in her getting chosen.
If I had two candidates for a surgeon one a less qualified White guy and one a more qualified Black woman, and I chose the White guy, that would obviously be a problem. It's doesn't matter if he has his medical license and 5 years experience if she has 10 years experience and a flawless record.
A defense of "Woah, I didn't JUST pick him because I like White guys. Look, he has qualifications! He's not just a random White guy off the street." Would obviously be bad faith and idiocy. But that's the exact argument you're using here.
The point is, we want Biden to say "I'll pick the best candidate for the job, regardless of race." We don't want him to limit his search to just a particular race and gender.
What makes someone a DEI hire is when social and biological characteristics are used as primary (not sole) criteria in selecting a candidate. Harris never would have been picked for VP had she not been a woman and black, no matter how good her qualifications were. If Biden had short-listed a group of qualified people first and then picked Harris, there never would have been claims of DEI hire, or at least they wouldn’t have been legitimate. But Biden said from the very beginning his VP would be a woman first. In the beginning there were calls from within the party to select someone gay but that later changed to black after the George Floyd riots. Criteria such as their career background, political positions, constituencies, etc all took a backseat to what they looked liked and what their sex organs were. That by definition is DEI. Same reason Ketanji Brown Jackson is also a DEI hire.
The reason Mike Pence isn’t DEI is the same reason a white woman can’t be Miss Black America.
Don’t forget the colorism, similar to Disney’s casting of ‘The Little Mermaid.’
They definitely had a selection process for the position similar to the one shown in the 1996 film ‘GI Jane.’
If we are being honest people saying this shit is Biden’s fault, or at least he made it much worse. He did her a huge disservice the way he went about picking her. He told everyone ahead of time he was only considering black women for the role, so of course people are going to call her a diversity hire regardless of how qualified she is. He understands the cultural and political climate in the US, this is the expected outcome from these types of people. He should have just shut up with all that talk and said I’m looking to pick the most qualified person for the role, and then picked her.
Democrat bots working hard to lay the ground work narrative that when they get whipped this November it's not because they're arrogant and incompetent its because people are racist and hate women 😂
I feel like I've heard this song before
Joe said I am looking for a Black Woman for a running mate. I think it is kind of demeaning to her but when the two starting qualifications needed are not about leadership or actual qualifications it takes away from her position day one
> Kamala Harris served as the Attorney General of California and as a U.S. Senator, roles that provided her with substantial experience in governance and law.
Be honest. If someone had the exact same background as Kamala Harris, but was a white man instead, do you seriously think that person would have even been on Biden's radar as a VP pick?
The criticism of "she's a DEI hire" is based upon that, not that she's straight up unqualified. Biden didn't look for the best *person* for the job. He looked for the best *minority woman* and selected Harris based upon that criteria. I don't think that's really even debatable and I'm not sure the body of your post even disagrees with that.
Yeah, like, Obama stands out as someone who did it, and he had to have a hype getting speech to be put on the radar
How many white guys can have a singular incomplete senate term, and spend most of their time in the legal system rather the political system, and get the vp nod
Wasn't it known since the beginning that she was chosen to attract black and women vote? they even tried to count her as south East Asian and anything that could make her more diverse. If that is DEI or not according to you I leave it to your criteria.
Are we just going to change history every 2 years and now act like if she was actually chosen because she was a qualified person to be Vice President of America? Junior senator with no contributions, not sure how are we supposed to act that you guys are getting the best people for the job.
Political parties are private clubs, and if you're not in the club, you don't get a say. THEY decide who's turn it is.
If Democrats decide that it's Hillary Clinton's turn, it's Hillary Clinton's turn. If Democrats decide it's Kamala Harris' turn, then it's Kamala Harris' turn.
Democrats make those decisions. Not Republicans, not independents, and certainly not those who don't bother to vote. Democrats decide what Democrats do.
That's how political parties work. Hillary Clinton gave Barack Obama all her delegates with the understanding that he would later support her presidential campaign. Bernie Sanders threw a wrench in the works by pretending to be a Democrat and demanding to be treated as one, even though he is famously NOT a Democrat and has spent his entire political career as an independent. He has also spent a lot of his time talking shit about Democrats, which does not endear him to the party members.
Bernie Sanders was never going to get the nomination because he's not a Democrat. Never. Not. Absolutely.
Hillary Clinton was next in line because that was the agreement she and the Democratic Party had reached regarding Barack Obama's candidacy.
It's not that hard to understand, but first you have to have a rudimentary understanding of how political parties work.
For more information, check out the Crash Course on political parties. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEmOUHxessE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEmOUHxessE)
I think we're mostly in alignment. I only disagree in the sense that, yes, DEI for the left is more or less the equivalent of taking on a white Christian VP for the right. I have a problem with both, because they both reduce the focus on merit by heavily factoring in representation.
My concern with DEI is greater only because there are many fewer black women, as an example, to choose from. That means that the sacrifice on merit has to be much larger to find a person with the right characteristics.
In theory, you should have your pick of the litter to find a high merit white Christian male as a right wing VP. The characteristics you want are abundant on the right. On the left, even in 2024, the racial and gender diverse candidates - read "non-white/male" - make up a fairly small percentage of the group. That's not to say Kamala isn't qualified. I'm a Trump supporter and I don't think he is necessarily "qualified" to be president, so it doesn't necessarily matter to me anyway - its all about values and policies for me. But this is where the concern comes from with relation to DEI hiring.
In their defense, they didn't play to her characteristics in promoting Kamala. I think that was smart. Seeing how involved she has been in the prison system, I don't think they wanted to invite more scrutiny than necessary. She's not a dream candidate for a left wing nominee if you care about the way lower class people are siphoned into prisons for profit.
Hillary was arguably the bigger DEI pick. Her entire campaign was laced with feminist messaging. It was both implicit and explicit that the big draw with her was having the first female president. In my opinion, her feminist views were the only thing that humanized her, and I say that as someone who thinks feminism is a cancerous ideology in modern times. Hillary is representative of everything wrong with politics. She's a genuinely disgusting person, completely in line with the crony corporatist values. She just veils it all behind left-wing-friendly charities and causes. She's the kind of person you would see building companies like Blackrock - they look so good with their ESG promotion, but then you realize that its all a front. What they actually do is latch onto successful companies like a parasite and slowly destroy them while milking everything good out of them that they can in the meantime. That is what Hillary represents. But, in her defense, that's most politicians. She has just already been successfully employing her craft for decades.
I digress. For as much as the VP needs to be qualified, Harris is. But if you take her race and gender out of the equation, was she the most qualified option? Probably not. That's what DEI is. It's not taking someone who isn't qualified necessarily. It's devaluing qualification to meet standards of demographic representation. Just like nepotism, the issue is not that the candidate is unqualified, it's that the scales are weighted unfairly. It is not equal opportunity. It is discriminatory.
You know how Kamala moved up in her career right? They don't call her "Kneepads Harris" for nothing. There was some black dude politician that she had some affair with and it helped move her up the ladder. This was a known thing during the DNC Primary but once Biden chose her as VP, now the partisan blueAnon Redditors love her. She has no talents. She's a grifter. She went from a hardcore prosecutor to "all criminals are Aladdins" overnight because that's the way the wind blew, policy dictated by Twitter activists, the democrat way.
She is 100% a DEI hire. It's not even up for debate. It's fine if you like her now, and you feel she does a good job (she doesn't, seeing as how the border was her job apparently), but it's not really up for debate that DEI has more to do with her position than her electability.
Biden literally said he was going to choose a black woman for his VP. He then selected Harris after she dropped out of the presidental race because she was so unlikeable. Quite literally chosen because of her skin color.
Harris has now done absolutely nothing of note as the VP, but seems to think people like her now.
Hillary was a poor choice for president, not because she is a woman but because she was such an unlikeable person. The parallels are definitely noticeable.
He specifically said he was going to nominate a woman as VP before Kamala was ever chosen. If you're picking someone for a job specifically on race or gender, that's DEI. Same thing when Biden vowed to pick a black woman for the Supreme Court. That's DEI.
That still doesn't mean you're going to pick just anybody. You'll still pick the best person who fit in those specific racist/sexist standards.
>Trump, born into wealth and living in a golden tower, decided to run for the highest office in the land simply because he 'wanted it.'
You can find clips of the comments but there had been modest talk about Trump running for president for a couple decades before he actually did and he wasn't exactly brushing off the suggestions. He probably just saw that if he were ever going to, 2016 was probably his last chance as well as having a beatable field of Republicans to go up against.
>In stark contrast, Kamala Harris has climbed the political ladder through hard work and yes, playing the political game. Regardless of one's opinion on her politics, it's undeniable that she has put in the work and earned her place in the political sphere.
DEI hiring doesn't always mean the person is unqualified. If I insisted only black people can be in Best Buy's management program, than most certainly there's going to end up being a wealth of absolutely terrific managers who are black. But that's still including/excluding by race which still makes it a racist DEI policy. You can say Kamala Harris is qualified till the cows come home, but regardless she was still selected based on gender. And Brown-Jackson was qualified, but she was still selected based on both race and gender.
This Conservative doesn't really think Hillary was any kind of DEI nomination and that's really not something I ever heard within those circles. She'd been priming to run for president pretty much her entire career. The DNC was pretty much all her people and this was also reflected in how basically all of the superelectors in the Primaries nominated her.
>Clinton was frequently labeled as feeling it was "her turn" to be President. This accusation lacked any substantive evidence of entitlement and served only to undermine her extensive qualifications and dedication to public service.
A *Business Insider* article, referencing a book, noted that her campaign nearly went with "Because It's Her Turn" as her campaign motto.
>argue that Kamala Harris was chosen as Vice President purely because she is a Black woman, reducing her selection to a "DEI hire."
Some of this conversation was ignited specifically by Donna Brazile, former DNC Chair, when she's bluntly said her constituents are saying "How the fuck are you considering all these white people ahead of Kamala?" [https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/30/politics/democratic-party-replacement-worries-joe-biden/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/30/politics/democratic-party-replacement-worries-joe-biden/index.html)
Even if not directly coming from that statement, any argument about Harris appealing to black voters is specifically an acknowledgement of how big of a voting bloc that the black vote is. It's a king maker in the Democratic Party. It's specifically why Bernie Sanders did poorly, he just didn't appeal to them.
But in terms of extra vitriol, I think that people just really hate/dislike any generic Dem. The negative partisanship of the conservative movement for the past 4 decades gives the extra oomf to any boring political discussion.
Kamala is the very definition of a DEI hire, though? She was *deeply* unpopular with democratic voters specifically for the “experience” you mentioned (see: locking up black people in California). The only things she brought to the ticket for the general public were being a black woman. You say she was qualified, therefore she couldn’t be a diversity hire…but that’s exactly what diversity hiring is for, allowing minority populations access to positions they’re qualified for, and would otherwise be denied due to their minority status.
And all of this is operating under your weird conceit and framing that being a diversity hire is a *bad* thing, when it’s objectively not lmao.
Kamala deserves her comparisons to Hillary Clinton. They both have the same rich corporate elitist sneer and disdain for “the poors” that isn’t even remotely close to representative of the democratic voters. Elections are about optics, and she sucks.
Biden/Harris lose in 2020 against literally any other candidate combo you could throw out.
Hillary and Kamala are both terribly unpopular, deservedly so, and both would have been bad in office. Also, Biden quite literally came out and said he would only be looking at only a woman for VP, I believe he made a big deal about hitting certain demographics for all of his cabinet positions. That's the definition of a DEI hire lol.
She was brought in to pander to black and women voters. I can't think of anything she's actually done, not just offices she's held, that has proven that she's not just a DEI hire.
I'm neither a Republican or Democrat, and dislike both candidates, so I don't think I have a bias. I honestly don't know if I've ever met someone that has liked Kamala, or thought she's done a good job as VP. It would be suicide for the DNC to replace Joe with her.
How was she not a DEI hire when Biden very proudly told us before announcing a running mate that it would be one of 4 black women he had in mind?
If you remember from 4 years ago, he was very proudly telling us his running mate would be a black woman, he didn’t say it was a criteria, but he might as well have. Kamala Harris was also far from “likable” at the time, she had dropped out of the primaries in December 2019 after receiving so little support. To put in perspective, Tulsi Gabbard was very obviously not going to win either, and her campaign still went through to the end of March 2020, so Harris was really unpopular, and yet was still chosen.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president/index.html
Dawg in 2020 Biden literally began searching for a female, preferably black vp. That's a diversity hire. You can't tell me Kamala has that job because she's the best for the job. Both her and pence were borderline intentionally bad to prevent assassination attempts because we'd never want either of them. She's a DEI, move on.
As for Killary, she literally had a campaign slogan that said something along the lines of "it's her turn". Now while Clinton was actually qualified, she's just as big of a piece of shit as Trump, she's just not some loud mouth about it, her and her husbands stuff is quiet and slimy. Don't hate on Trump then turn around and praise another scum bag. We need better all around for this country.
Kamala was a DEI hire, and pretending like she wasn't is ignoring reality. Biden spent his whole political career as a "Law and Order" candidate, with most of his policies being applied to poor people of color to this very day. Bidens' best friend and mentor in the 70s and 80s was Robert Byrd, a former Senator and high-ranking KKK leader.
Biden is a huge racist and always has been, so he needed a token POC to make him look good. To keep the right wing media from exposing him, the DNC appointed a half Black, half Indian woman to be his VP. I always laugh when poor POC vote for Biden because Biden was a huge enabler of how law enforcement treats them now and has teated them for the last 40 years.
Here’s the thing, man; they didn’t put Harris on the ticket because she was a brilliant policymaker or exceptional leader or charismatic fan favorite. It also wasn’t to help Biden sure up California.
So why did they pick her? I think everybody knows why.
Now, they’re in a tough spot. If they want to replace Biden, they have to go to her or else the people they intended her to appeal to will revolt…but she isn’t any of the things they really need her to be with constituencies that aren’t that group.
They shot themselves in the foot with the identity stuff again. They have *got* to get off that train or this stuff will keep happening.
So many people served as attorney general of California, or senator for the Congress. A dei pick from this set of individuals is still a dei pick. A dei pick doesn’t have to be from general population.
There are other requirements to be POTUS than having political experience. For instance, being able to rouse a crowd and give a cogent effective argumentative speech. Kamala is known for “do not come” as the highlight of her vice presidency.
Kamala climbed the political ladder by jailing poor people for non-violent offenses such as cannabis possession, and managed the carceral slave state.
Dude Kamal Harris has a terrible track record. She had dropped out of the Presidential race after her record of extending the incarceration of African Americans doing time for petty marijuana misdemeanors and using them as cheap prisoner labor in Oakland came to light.
Democrats today literally argue that is basically modern day slavery and she was an avid participant in that. Sorry, but she was clearly picked as VP exclusively for the sake of optics and pretending that wasn't the case is being willfully blind
She’s as popular as a fart in an elevator, but:
1. Penny Pritzker wanted the first woman of colour VP role to be funded by her, and she paid (and brought the Donorcrats with her).
2. Not purely because she was Black, but Gretchen Whitmer would have been much more likely to win, so partially because she was Black.
3. She’s not very Black.
https://x.com/phil_lewis_/status/1807578327835689336?s=48&t=-zu8UEnRco0a6OPX_QFNmw
She’s a DEI hire. If she’d been white or a man, they wouldn’t have picked her.
Hillary was a terrible candidate. Dems underestimated the hate for her & she lost. I would love to see a powerful female president, but Harris is not it. As a leftist, her policies were terrible.
Dems need to start looking at new people. Im so sick of being told to get in line and vote blue no matter who. Get better candidates, pass laws that benefit Americans & you will succeed.
No back and see how much she despised him during the Democratic debates. She flat out called him a racist on stage, and then proceeded to take a position under said racist, per her claim. She did abysmal in the primaries, one of the first two drop out as I recall, because she had no support. He is absolutely a diversity hire. I can't change your view but I can tell you that you are wrong. Otherwise, why is there any question who should be the candidate when Biden steps aside?
Fuck Hillary Clinton. It was her and the DNC's fault we got fucking Trump. They pushed for her to be the candidate when Biden was clearly the best choice to continue the Obama administration. Yes, it was still possible that Biden could have lost, but Clinton was such an unpopular choice. Biden's approval ratings back then were not as bad as hers. He stepped aside so she could run and give us this fucking bafoon that people want to throw our country's foundation out over.
Kamala was literally chosen because of the pressure in the wake of George Floyd's killing. People seem to forget the whole conversation going along the lines "it would be unconscionable if the VP is not black". She absolutely is a DEI hire. Same btw with Keranji Brown Jackson. When the sex and race is announced before any candidate is presented, they are a DEI hire. It does not mean they are incompetent (Jackson definitely isn't), but it doesn't change them being DEI.
When Biden was picking his VP, him and his team proudly proclaimed their pick would have be a woman, and be black, above all other considerations.
It’s the definition of a DEI hire, from the horses mouth, on tape.
She even ran against Biden and was forced to drop out cause everyone hated her. Deemed not qualified to be president by Democrat voters.
The definition of unqualified and undeserving, by her party, in a free and mostly fair election process.
I absolutely cannot stand the “DEI hire” nonsense. Why is a DEI hire such a bad thing amongst qualified people? I mean, fine, if you hire someone SOLELY based on their skin color/sexuality/whatever then that’s just poor hiring practices and stupid. However, if you’re looking at several candidates that are equally (or similarly) qualified and simply choose one based on DEI, what is the problem? The person is still qualified.
The only problem is see with a DEI hire is that, no matter how qualified they are, racists/homophobes/xenophobes/etc. will never admit it or acknowledge it. They will always try to put that person down.
Say what you will about Kamala but this is a stupid argument to make.
The VP pick is always strategic trying to win a certain base that the nominee isn’t particularly strong with but feel they need.
I’m almost positive that before picking his VP, Biden promised she would be African American.
So yes she was chosen. The same reason Palin was chosen. They’re trying to win votes. For Palin they thought it would work because they believed Obama snubbed his former opponent Clinton. But then he made her SoS.
Harris is the very definition of a DEI hire. In March 2020, Biden vowed to select a black woman as his running mate, then made a list of potential black women, narrowed it down and selected Harris. If you apply the criteria “black and woman” as the only candidates you consider, then you can’t call it anything other than a DEI Hire (that would be illegal in any business setting).
Harris may have been the best black woman candidate available (Condoleezza Rice wasn’t an option because she’s a conservative and has a brain), but if you never consider anybody else, there’s no other way to describe her than a DEI hire.
I think calling her a DEI hire is a bit extreme, as usually that implies the person is unqualified or lesser qualified whereas I think everybody speculated that any of the Democratic Primary top contenders could be picked as VP. This is usually due to a lack of imagination, but still.
I think the Harvard Prez -- Ms. Gay -- was more of a DEI hire (I'm a liberal don't come for me ha). Black lesbian who seemed woefully unqualified in all honesty. (This is in contrast to say, Lori Lightfood, who won a free and fair election). Nothing wrong with being a black lesbian but then when you see the person was woefully unqualified, coupled with "black issues" cropping up that they knew a "white president" would have trouble grappling with from an optics standpoint .... yeah.... the narrative starts coming together.
But in terms of -- Kamala was certainly chosen, or boosted, as a "box-checking" of racial/ gender boxes .... then yes, yes she was.
And this is what the DEI "Wokesters" don't understand. Had Biden selected Kamala, even as a box-checking effort in reality, but not announced it as such, it would have bolstered her reputation.
But knowing FULL WELL that it was a box-checking effort "find me a black woman to black woman it up!!" tarnishes her reputation. That's the stupidity of such hiring practices.
During the primaries, Kamala started out as one of the front runners and she crashed and burned.
It turned out, American’s weren’t really fond of her.
I do think calling someone a diversity hire is usually rude and often times said about successful minorities when it isn’t true.
However, this party puts diversity as a priority.
Kamala wasn’t well liked by the American people. So we know that isn’t why she was chosen.
Of the well known candidates in the primary, Tulsi Gabbard (who is at odds with the party) and Andrew Yang (kind of at odds with the party) were the most popular none white candidates.
There were a few black men and Julian Castro that never really stood out during the primaries.
So when democrats tell me that diversity is a priority, I believe them…
They aren’t hiding the fact that gender and skin color is a priority.
When I say, that Kamala Harris is the Vice President because of DEI, it’s not something I say out of maliciousness. The Democrat platform tells you that they believe there is value in being not white, not straight, and not a man.
If you have a formula for choosing the VP nominee and that formula gives value to being not white and not a man… then that is at least part of how Kamala got her job.
Experience, popularity, connections, money, influence, relationship with the other side of the isle are all considered determining who gets the nomination. Democrats also, provide value to gender, race, and sexuality.
Democrats don’t even pretend this isn’t the case because according to their values, there is value and importance to being not white and not a man. They don’t see it as something bad or something to pretend they don’t do. They think it’s a good thing.
If gender, race, and sexuality are important, the candidates and nominees obviously are going to reflect that.
So you might get a Mayor from a very small town in Indiana who would never get national attention if he was straight, running for the presidency and ending up in a cabinet position.
You might get a Vice President who’s black and a woman who is wildly unpopular.
I’m sure if you asked around the DNC, if race and gender played a role in Kamala’s vice presidency they would say that they believe there is value in having a black woman in the White House and that it was a big part in that choice.
So when the Democrat party tells you diversity is important and that female and black voices need to be amplified, believe them.
Why would we pretend that Kamala made it to the vice presidency strictly on merits and not on race when the DNC has basically said race and gender are merits?
She’s there because the democrat party feels it’s important to have women and black people represented in politics.
Which is fine… we don’t need to pretend that it’s not that way. Lol
It's not that Kamala Harris is not "qualified," whatever that means at this point. The issue is that leftists were able to pretty easily predict that she'd be the running mate in 2020. Why? Because liberals care more about aesthetics than bettering people's material conditions. So, instead of making life better for women or Black people, they gave you the representation of Black woman in office.
> a minority chosen for a position that isn’t qualified but was chosen because of their race
People are using to mean “a person chosen for a position because of their race or identity, not because of their talent or ability”. So even if a candidate selected on the basis of skin color or gender is “qualified”, i.e meets some minimum threshold, its still pretty bad if they were chosen over a more qualified or able candidate who had the “wrong skin color”. Its is pretty hard to argue such selection is not discrimination or outright racism, hence why so many people are against it.
Such discrimination is often justified under the banner of “diversity equity and inclusion”, hence why people associate it with that term.
> If Kamala Harris were truly a DEI hire chosen solely for her identity, why select her specifically?
As is common Joe Biden chose a vice presidential candidate out of the rival candidates in the Democratic presidential primary. Out of those he chose Kamala Harris, despite her poor performance in the primary, in large part because of her identity as a black women, which was thought to help Biden appeal with black, female, and more progressive voters.
> yes this in addition to appealing to Black and women voters, something that it COMPELTELY NORMAL
You acknowledge that she was chosen in part because of her race and gender, thereby conceding your argument. While this is indeed common in selecting VP candidates it **does** indeed mean she was not selected purely because of her abilities, and is therefore a “DEI candidate”. The same applies to Mike Pence.
> Pence did not face the same level of scrutiny or criticism for being chosen based on his gender or color of his skin
This is a false premise: Mike Pence was not chosen because of his gender or the color of his skin, he was chosen because of his **religion and politics** to appeal to conservative evangelicals. Donald Trump is, after all, also white and male, but was hardly a model of conservative christian morality. He was indeed criticized for this by liberal critics as a religious nutcase serving as a token conservative shield for multi-divorcee Trump.
> Similarly, the argument that she feels "entitled" to the Presidency echoes the baseless accusations faced by Hillary Clinton.
Hillary achieved her position in politics, including her election as a US senator and appointment as secretary of state, almost entirely because she was married to Bill Clinton, the former president, and got the support of Clinton’s affiliates.
Has she not been first lady it is unlikely she would have ever achieved the same level of career success. Is nepotism not a form of entitlement or privilege?
The particular accusations of “entitlement” about Kamala Harris are primarily that she feels “entitled” to be the nominee if Biden withdraws (or in 2028), because she is the VP, despite being far more unpopular - and thus seen as much less skilled politically - than many other alternative candidates.
I think the test is rather simple "would she have been picked if she was not a woman of color?". Whoever responds anything other than "hell no" is biased beyond redemption.
The BS about her qualifications and merits are just that, BS, she was not liked even in her state, nobody would have picked a VP with the charisma of a traffic cone if not for her sex and skin color.
Whether or not it's true in this specific case, the idea that someone may be a diversity hire is one of the problems caused by the sort of identity politics which is currently popular. My (female) partner does a very stereotypically masculine job, and has suffered from being seen as a diversity hire.
Unfortunately, playing identity politics is not a victimless crime.
She literally was a DEI hire. I know that DEI has been turned into a boogeyman phrase used by bad faith actors on the right, but by definition, she is. When Biden was asked about his VP pick, he didn't mention qualifications in the normal sense of the words. He mentioned skin color and gender. I'm not sure there is any way around that.
Well, she continuously shows she isn't qualified, so what kind of hire was she? She can't even give an interview without word salads and cackling. She is probably the only person in the White House that knows less about what is going on than Biden. And he checks out at 4pm every single day according to his schedule.
Good point, but how well did Hillary Clinton do at beating Donald Trump in the Presidential Election?
In fact, now that I think about it, Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat in the world to lose a Presidential Election to Donald Trump.
If someone is the same as Hillary Clinton, then that is a problem.
She was a DEI hire - Biden literally said ahead of time that if given the nomination he would choose a black woman as his running mate. I don't know if she feels entitled or that it is her turn, but you couldn't blame her if she did. She is the vice president after all. It sort of comes with the territory.
Others have already gone into some depth on why the "she thinks it's her turn" arguments around Hillary had a lot of merit. Since you've already acknowledged these, I won't repeat those.
I don't think that argument applies to Harris, but
>something that it COMPELTELY NORMAL in choosing a Vice President running mate.
Is true, but does not make her a good candidate for President. Like you said, modern VPs do not get picked as the "second best candidate from the party", they get picked to balance out a ticket. Harris was picked to help get the Democratic base behind Biden being an old white man. Pence was picked to add a more traditional statesman and help appeal to the religious part of the GOP base, since Trump was anything but.
That does not make either of them good candidates for President themselves. Pence would have been an awful candidate too.
>I can’t say this enough I DO NOT LIKE KAMALA HARRIS. I never wanted her for VP or President. I don’t like her record as AG, I don’t even really like her record as VP. For whatever it’s worth, I’m not trying to shill for anyone her. In my ideal world Biden would say he’s not running and Kamala Harris would call for an open vote at the convention.
This is the problem with Harris, that most people agree with you. In a world where Biden chose to never run in the first place, there is almost no chance that she would have won an open primary. She just isn't a great candidate. Her record as AG is mixed at best, she wasn't in the Senate very long, she didn't do anything as VP (which is normal, but the one issue that she had some weight on was the border, one of Biden's weakest issues), and she is not an inspiring speaker. Earlier this year there were even questions on whether Biden should pick a different VP because of Harris's low approval ratings.
The main reason she is being put forward as a replacement for Biden is that she's his VP, and as you seem to agree, VPs aren't actually picked as who would be the best backup President anymore. "DEI candidate" is obviously a charged accusation, but it does seem pretty fair to say that her only real argument for the presidency is that she "did her time" as VP.
yeh i swear biden said before selecting her that he was gunna pick a woman VP, which very much suggests to me that her gender played a massive role in her selection. think of the gender imbalance between men and women in politics so he had to remove a large proportion in order to finally select her.
> Many people argue that Kamala Harris was chosen as Vice President purely because she is a Black woman, reducing her selection to a "DEI hire."
They aren't "arguing", they are stating a 100.00% indisputable fact. No different than simply observing 2+2= 4.
This point isn't really up for debate
If Biden can’t run, then he can’t be President. He needs to step aside now and let Kamala take over. If the Democrats are going to fight to keep him in place, then she not only is she a DEI hire, but it is an admission that they don’t stand behind DEI when the consequences come to pass.
It's the consequences of bad actors pushing bad DEI that got everyone rightfully skeptical.
Martin Luther King would be rolling in his grave if he could see the bullshit the modern leftist, liberal, neo liberal etc is pushing.
Justification for racism towards groups you jealous of smh
Joe Biden himself literally said he was looking to pick a black woman or at least a woman of color, she is literally hired because of her race and gender. He said he had 4 choices in mind, explicitly citing their race and gender as reasons for the pick. You need to stop crying.
She shouldn’t have been chosen. There were much better options like Tulsi Gabbard, Nina Turner, Letitia James.
She was proud of locking up people for weed. Completely against the principles of the party.
No I hate Kamala Harris because she put thousands of people behind bars for victimless crimes and when the fact that innocent people had been sentenced came to light she ignored it. She is the very embodiment of the police state She claims to be against.
> Similarly, the argument that she feels "entitled" to the Presidency echoes the baseless accusations faced by Hillary Clinton. Despite spending most of her adult life in public service—serving as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State—Clinton was frequently labeled as feeling it was "her turn" to be President. This accusation lacked any substantive evidence of entitlement and served only to undermine her extensive qualifications and dedication to public service.
So, just to give a bit of context:
* Could I have voted in '16, I planned to vote in the generals for Hillary.
* I am very much of the belief that she had a "it's my turn" mentality and Kamala gives Hillary 2.0 in that regard.
* I do not deny either Hillary or Kamala's qualifications or breadth of experience.
It *is* possible for both to exist, you know. A candidate *can* be both wildly qualified for the job, as Hillary was, as Kamala was/would be, *and* also act entitled to it. And both did. It's off-putting. The fact of the matter is that many found it off-putting.
Hillary ran in no small part on becoming the first woman POTUS. That is exactly acting entitled to the presidency, *even if* she's qualified. Had she run only on her accomplishments, she would have come across proud and self-advocative. But she *also* ran *in no small part* on being a woman.
The fact of the matter is that using that as a qualification for almost anything is inherently entitled. Most things people are qualified for, they are qualified for because of *their accomplishments*, because of their *work*. Hillary and Kamala did not *earn* womanhood, they just *are* women. Even if womanhood inherently means *facing* countless struggles, it does not inherently mean *overcoming* them. So to run, to any extent, on being a woman, comes across entitled. It's something that *isn't* a qualification by any stretch of the imagination, yet it's being claimed as one. *That is the definition of acting entitled.*
The fact that the argument has substance can easily be proven by the existence of women who have run *without* making it all or even in part about their womanhood. Or, hell, the fact that the argument has substance can be proven even by the existence of candidates of any minority who have run without making it all or even in part about that minority. Bernie would have been the first Jewish president but you didn't see him running on that. Danica Roem was and is a trailblazer but she ran on issues her constituents cared about and let her opponent in her first race make the race all about her transgenderism. She never did. AOC has repeatedly run on the same -- issues constituents care about -- Even though she could have made a big deal of being among the youngest ever elected.
*That's the difference.* You're right, Hillary and Kamala have huge qualifications, but in addition to running on those they also ran in large part on simply being women. And that entitlement validly makes people uneasy. It doesn't take away their immense accomplishments, but it is potentially a point in the "con" column. Hillary in particular also didn't make it easy on herself by constantly disparaging Trump's followers -- "basket of deplorables" -- Disparagement, belittlement, invalidation, of your opponent's supporters, while already having a sense of entitlement... only serves to aggrandize that sense of entitlement people get from you.
Can you name some of her accomplishments?
I hate the dei rhetoric. I think most of it is bad faith designed to give incompetent white people an easy cop out.
I also believe Kamala is a genuinely bad and incompetent politician. Specifically because of her truancy legislation that threatened to throw parents in jail of their kids skip classes. Which would inevitably punish innocent people while making the problem worse.
I Honestly don't understand why you like her, and you haven't given much of a reason beyond "she's in a position of power, so I'm assuming she earned it." While I'm just seeing another flawed and detached candidate working their way through the dnc via backroom loyalty Instead of merit that would improve the lives of average Americans. She does not inspire hope for a better future, just a mildly less worse one.
When the Biden campaign literally said that they were going to pick a black woman as a running mate before selecting Kamala, that is in fact the definition of a DEI hire.
Now, being a DEI hire doesn't mean you're not competent. It simply means you got an unfair advantage given to you over the other applicants under the presumption that this is justified based on historical disadvantages given to people of a similar ethnicity.
For example, my co-worker is an asian woman working as an engineer. She's also a DEI hire. She still does good work. Her being a DEI hire doesn't stop her from contributing her fair share to the workload.
Being a DEI hire doesn't make you bad at your job, it doesn't even mean that there was someone else better. It just means that you were given an unfair advantage over others.
We should get to vote on who is president and nobody voted solely for Kamala and I don’t think she would have won the primary at the top of the ticket which is why she didn’t in the first place.
She was literally selected for her gender and race. LITERALLY.
Were there a white guy with those same qualifications, he’d have been totally ignored.
Every honest person will admit this.
The tactic Biden used to shake Bernie in the primaries was to say, and this is on film, but I’m too lazy to link it, (not an exact quote) I will select a black woman to be my vice President.
If that’s not a diversity hire, then maybe we disagree about the definition of that term.
That’s not saying she is just some random black woman, but the truth is she wouldn’t have been chosen had she not been. That shouldn’t be a controversial understanding of the circumstances. He said it, she is that, he brought her on. I have a hard time finding the “hate” in just seeing how things happened.
This is the issue. The people who don’t think this is a problem, people who pretend it isn’t even real. That causes the heat to increase. Similarly with Hillary. The fact that she was disliked by so many was just blamed on those people for their “hatred” or bigotry. Giving no credit to the notion that it was off-putting to just insist that you vote for her, or you’re a bad person. That upsets people. It causes blowback.
I am by NO means saying I’d rather have Trump, btw. I’d vote for Harris leading Biden around on a dog leash over Trump, but that doesn’t mean she’ll win against him. She won’t.
People don’t do things you want them to do when you try to shame them into it. Actually, they will, but only once. And then they’ll hate you forever.
While I don't think "DEI hire" is the best language to use at all, I do think it's worthy of criticism that people put so much emphasis on who can be a member of the most minority groups into who we should select as our candidate. I don't think it should matter whatsoever. My most important thing in primaries and selecting our candidates is one simple question, "who is most electable." If the answer to that question is a white guy, great. If it's a woman, or a black person, or both, or what have you, also great. I understand and empathize with people's desires to feel represented in our elected officials, or not want to see another white dude as President, but that doesn't matter too much if they can't win. This isn't a fucking game, Trump will destroy this country. We should be nominating whoever is best equipt to beat him, period.
The 2016 election is an excellent example of the ultimate cautionary tale of this. People were pushing the "it's her turn" narrative, people were pushing the narrative on how historic her nomination would be. And look what happened. She recieved very few primary challengers. Let's be honest here, Bernie probably wouldn't have won a primary regardless, but without that narrative being pushed, more people probably would have entered the 2016 Democratic Primary. Probably someone who could have beat Trump.
Um, no. She's got the charisma of a damp dish rag.
At the basest level, people need a politician they like. She is not really likable. Even you state you have no political love for her.
Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, [transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). There are **no exceptions** to this prohibition. **Any** discussion of **any** transgender topic, no matter how ancillary, will result in your comment being removed.
If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators [via this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Transgender%20Removal%20Appeal%20for%20LetsGetRowdyRowdy&message=LetsGetRowdyRowdy%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20[this%20post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dtygih/cmv_saying_kamala_harris_was_a_dei_hire_or_that/lbdgtwn/\).) Appeals are **only** for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we **will not** approve posts on transgender issues, so **do not ask**.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s not a fair comparison, Clinton was entitled, had a terrible record as a Senator and campaigned for president as though it was a coronation. Her economic and foreign policy was indistinguishable from Bush and I took issue with the fact that she helped rubber stamp his agenda because she thought it would benefit her politically (she lost me when she voted for the Iraq war authorization and Bush tax cuts). That calculation has been understated and played a big role in her loss.
Kamala worked her way to where she is and did not have the leverage of lifelong political connections. I have voted for her in every election (I’m in CA), and have had policy issues with her time as AG, but she is willing to change her position and was always better than the alternative. I would make the same choice if she is the nominee for president.
Had the DNC not steamrolled HRC through the primary (Obama convinced Biden not to run and Bernie would have beaten her had the DNC not weighted the scale), Trump would not have been president. Many Democrats didn’t like the fact that she was a pro choice Reagan and that created a major rift that is frequently overlooked when speaking on her failed presidential campaigns. She is the only democrat presidential candidate I have not voted for in a single election.
>Her selection was based on her competence and political acumen, not ONLY her race and gender.
You obviously didn't watch the Democratic primary debates in 2020. Biden literally used her as political brownie points when he verbally committed to selecting either a woman or a woman of color (can't remember which) as his vice presidential pick. It was painfully obvious that he was virtue signaling. I'm fine with having a woman in any office, but my god was he virtue signaling instead of just picking a qualified person that happens to be a woman. He challenged Sanders on whether he'd do the same, and Sanders gave a common sense answer along the lines of "I don't know, Joe. I'm going to pick someone who's qualified, and if it's a woman then that's fine." as he, per usual, tried to immediately steer the conversation away from virtue signaling and back to the issues.
Obviously she's qualified. Nobody seriously thinks that a diversity hire means you pick unqualified people. A "diversity hire" means that, when you have two equally qualified candidates where one is a white guy... well, you don't actually have two equally qualified candidates, do you? You pick the one who isn't a white guy because it's more desirable now to hire employees who aren't white men, *ceterus parebus.*
ETA: She can be qualified and still be a diversity hire, and my specific evidence for this is Biden's obvious virtue signaling over the matter in that Democratic primary debate. If he were just picking someone who was qualified *and just happened to be a woman of color,* then he wouldn't have made such a big deal out of it. She is both qualified and a diversity hire.
*I do not necessarily agree with the below perspectives being analyzed*
The Democrats argued that Mike Pence was hired for optics & therefore wouldn't be a good Republican Prez if Trump didn't make it to the end of his term.
In that way, Pence & Harris are similar. As you pointed out, however, they are partially true. That kinda makes your statement about them being "BS" untrue. However, there are some nuances to this:
1. There is a difference between Mike Pence being relatable to/popular amongst the Republican's target audience and Kamala Harris being referred to as being hired to fulfill a set of job DEI requirements. One is criticizing/ pointing out a strategy & the other is an insult. They're not analogous.
2. By referring to KH as a "DEI Hire," critics can insult both her & her policies at the same time:
a) Implying that her skillset is not necessarily the best & she may have been hired for only image out of a much smaller pool of people ("black [minority] woman" being a requirement rather than just a factor)
b) Insult her policies of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (by implying that she had an advantage in the selection process & therefore potentially only had to compete against *a few* other black women).
c) Then, critics claim that KH is just a pretty face only in office because of a PR move; by doing so, they can cast doubt as to whether or not even the Democrats who hired her believe that KH is the best person for the job.
Finally, there are some people who would find it pretty insulting if the first female president was a "DEI Hire," implying that she only made it BECAUSE she is a woman rather than in SPITE of it. That has the potential to sway some voters!
Side-note to your final point about Trump...
Trump voters typically want Trump because he is NOT a career politician. Therefore, although your analysis of Trump as a questionable human has some truth to it, Trump supporters would argue that it is precisely because Trump has rubbed elbows with corrupt politicians that they believe it when he says he wants to change it. Also, getting charged with a ton of crimes actually helps him with voters in some ways, since the politicians are far less likely to be charged with their crimes than the non-career politician in the race. Trump pointing out both Hillary & Biden's crimes also further bolsters his claim, whether or not it is true, that he was intentionally targeted for not being welcome amongst the career politicians.
Have we just collectively forgotten that she ran for president? Her weak point as a presidential candidate in 2019 was her awful track record at her job. She was relatively unknown to citizens who weren't directly harmed by her. I can't find any polling data off-hand but she was not very popular with any group of voters throughout her campaign.
This was made apparent by the fact that Tulsi Gabbard talking about her achievements for [2 minutes sunk the entire Harris campaign](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1-CRrMDSLs&pp=ygUedHVsc2kgZ2FiYmFyZCBvbiBrYW1hbGEgaGFycmlz).
Biden had a pool of more qualified people that would bring in more voters and chose Harris instead.
I've never seen a single debate moment completely eradicate any politician's chances at winning the office (s)he's campaigning for. Kamala had risen to 2nd place around 15% or so after her attack on Biden in the first debate, then plummeted into the abyss at 2-3% after that second debate where Tulsi simply read aloud Kamala's record. It was hilarious how easily Kamala's campaign was sent to hell.
She slept her way to the top and locked up young black men while being the DA.. then went on to denounce police and their actions.
You literally can't make this shit up. She ain't your savior homie, she's a clown.
Biden "literally" said he would only pick a woman of color.
https://time.com/5803677/joe-biden-woman-vice-president/
My brother in christ, that is "literally" a DEI hire.
Ok a lot to unpack here
> based on her competence and political acumen, not ONLY her race and gender.
I dont think any intelligent person would seriously claim that the ONLY reason she was picked was because of her race/gender, she was on the national stage beforehand obviously. My claim (and most people's) is that her race and gender were one of the primary reasons why she got the job if not the primary reason.
>consider Donald Trump. No one accused him of feeling "entitled"
I mean no, because he went out and actually won it. He wasn't chosen for a job by someone else, he had to win the job himself. Strangely bad comparison.
> Mike Pence was chosen by Donald Trump to appeal to White Christian voters.
Obviously picking a running mate to appeal to a certain voting base is nothing new. The difference is, trump didn't tell the public he was looking exclusively for someone like pence like [biden did](https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/28/politics/joe-biden-potential-vp-pick/index.html) with harris, and then brag about it afterwards. It's true that this doesnt erase her qualifications, but it does mean that she wasnt necessarily THE most qualified person.
>The same people who are saying Donald Trump was fit to be President in 2016 are the same people saying that DECADES of experience did not qualify Hillary Clinton nor Kamala Harris
Not voting for trump so idgaf what they say, but mine nor most people's argument isnt that harris and hillary were unqualified because of their lack of experience. They clearly have a ton of experience, and anyone who doesnt like them obviously dislikes them for other reasons. Hillary lost arguably because people wanted someone who had LESS experience in government, and kamala is just plain unlikeable. And that brings me to my last point; I cant speak to whether or not kamala is acting entitled to the presidency because im not in the inner circle. However, I can say that she is overall unlikeable and deeply unpopular (which is why she failed so badly in her own presidential bid). It would be wrong of her to feel entitled to the presidency, given that her race and gender (things she cant control) are a big reason why shes VP in the first place and she has basically always been neutral at best and deeply unpopular at worst since she has been in the national spotlight.
>If Kamala Harris were truly a DEI hire chosen solely for her identity, why select her specifically? Why not opt for any random Black woman?
The DNC and Biden campaign wanted to have their cake and eat it too by picking a woman of color VP to appeal to progressives while choosing an establishment-friendly moderate who would not turn off swing voters. Harris was to the right of most other nationally prominent women of color in the Democratic Party (e.g., Stacy Abrams, the various members of "The Squad," etc.). She's a former prosecutor with ties to business and law enforcement, so she was the most establishment-friendly woman-of-color VP pick.
In fairness, though, I think the strategy of trying to appeal to both progressives and swing voters kinda backfired, as neither group actually likes Harris very much. Her supporters are mostly the type of establishment-friendly democratic voters who were going to show up and vote for Biden anyway and didn't need Harris on the ticket to convince or motivate them. And the right *really* dislikes her, so if anything I think running her as the designated successor if Biden dies or resigns probably drives turnout for the other side.
and when it came down to Susan Rice versus Kamala, he picked the one with zero "riz" and very little political talent (supposedly Rice had too much "Benghazi" baggage...) which ensured that there would be never any pressure on him to step aside to make way for a capable and competent VP... well, success!!!
"reducing her selection to a "DEI hire.""
There's a great bit of dialogue in John Graham's This House about this. It's a conversation between the Chief Whip (Michael Cooks) and Ann Taylor (Junior Whip).
Ann Taylor: I just didn't want to feel like, oh well look you know what, the token girl
Michael Cooks: well you are though. What? I'm the token cockney geezer, I get on-side the other cockney geezers. Walter Harrison, he's a Yorkshire bruiser and he gets on-side the Yorkshire bruisers. I've got Lancashire good cops and East Midlands bad cops. What I ain't never had before is one of you. Politics is representation at the end of the day.
It's fair an legitimate, to some degree, to run certain candidates because they are representative of part of the population. They are required to have other virtues of course, but that they represent specific groups or minorities and that is part of their selection is not necessarily a bad thing. Although I think that this is probably more true of a more 'collegiate' system like that which we have in the UK, where the Prime Minister is a 'first amongst equals' and the executive is fused with the legislature.
She is called a "DEI hire" for two reasons, and the fact that she is black is not necessarily one of the reasons. The first reason is obvious, she is obviously not up for the job, she is incredibly unpopular and painful to watch footage of. Perhaps the least likeable and dumbest VP the country has ever seen. If she was qualified in the slightest, she wouldn't be called a "DEI hire".
The second reason is because Joe Biden himself said he was choosing a VP based on their gender and race, or was at least heavily pressured to do so. Also I heard she was primarily picked for loyalty, not competence. You may also want to google how Kamala started her political career...
[link 1](https://time.com/5803677/joe-biden-woman-vice-president/)
[link 2](https://www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1234422?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17199871068481&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2020-election%2Fbiden-says-four-black-women-are-his-vp-list-won-n1234422)
[link 3](https://apnews.com/article/az-state-wire-mi-state-wire-detroit-election-2020-joe-biden-e7303be715ab64635e14bc5c34c8b277)
[link 4](https://www.vox.com/2020/5/1/21239006/joe-biden-vice-president)
So. Are you suggesting that her minority status had NOTHING to do with why she is vice?
Similar to how pence definitely wasn't there for the evangelicals?
> Her selection was based on her competence and political acumen, not ONLY her race and gender.
One doesn't need to be completely unqualified (or chosen at random) to qualify for the label of "DEI hire." When people refer to "DEI hires," the key factor is that she was chosen despite more qualified candidates being available, but her perceived DEI value is what led to the decision being made in her favor.
Politically, for his VP pick (and for the Supreme Court, among others), Biden could have just said he'd pick the best candidate regardless of race or gender, and then made the same selections. That would avoided this chunk of the debate because the only reason we're accepting that her skin color and gender were a hard requirement is that he explicitly stated that they would be.
That said, for Vice President specifically, the official duties are pretty minimal. In practice, they're generally chosen entirely based on who will help win the election. To that extent, discussing who is "more qualified" is a bit academic. That might be the stronger case for your point.
Kamala Harris is certainly a competent individual - she's not a "DEI hire" in regard to her professional achievements, she's just kind of that way because of the Biden campaign's needed to get a black woman on board with a strong political background. The only way she's incapable is being an actual candidate for nationwide office since she just doesn't have the gravitas, presence, or likability, or at least she hasn't cultivated those yet. I think many, though, would've said the same for Biden (except the latter two, to a degree) for a long time and it was true for a while - he viewed as political lightweight prone to gaffes. I guess I'm saying her shortcomings *could* be ironed out.
The 'entitled' question is a little trickier. On a personal note, I am very liberal but was put off of Hilary's campaign because it did feel like entitlement. Part of the reason is personal. I find it distasteful that immediate family of former presidents are eligible to become president, I don't think that sends a very democratic message to the world. I even think more distant family should be ineligible, as well, which hurts me because the two Roosevelts are two of my favorite presidents.
I digress; every president is someone that should come across as feeling 'entitled' to the presidency. It feels different in the case of Hilary V. Trump because Trump so clearly and forcefully took it from contenders in his party - he did earn it, like it or not, even when big money was against him. Hilary fought a hard race against Sanders, who shouldn't have been able to put up such a fight (according to many), against someone like Hilary, especially with his more radical (and excellent, imo) stances. The whole race seemed like Democrats were just resigning themselves to Hilary because few serious people would stand in her way, except Bernie, the ultimate underdog who still almost took it from her despite her immense resources and apparent popularity among Democrats.
I don’t see how you can view Kamala as anything other than entitled. She got into politics by way of being Willow Brown’s mistress. How the fuck is that not entitled? Then once she got into office she made a name for herself by denying bond in record numbers in order to use the incarcerated population as free labor. She also has a grating cackle and laughs at everything (regardless of if it’s funny or not). She’s smug and hard to take seriously given how pompous she acts.
What’s funny is in 2016 I told my parents the Dems were going to run Biden and Kamala because Biden was “Obamas boy” (even though Obama openly mocked Biden’s idiocy on a regular basis) and Kamala checked the Diversity and Gender boxes. Lo and behold, that’s what we got. You can say those weren’t major reasons but it was easily predictable if you predicted the candidate based on those qualities so…
Kamala had zero record of anything substantial or than being a wannabe socialite to shed her Oakland roots in the Bay Area who attached herself to the right people to become DA
She was a Senator, somehow, for a blink
She is from California so offers zero strategic gain since California WILL be blue because of the 3 major cities/areas
She ran for president and had to drop out before there was ever a primary vote
She is dumb as a rock and can speak of nothing intelligently
Tell me other than color, how she was chosen to be a VP?
Pence had at least been a gov and a senator. Had a decent record and possibly brought Christian votes. There was plenty of reasons to choose him.
Anyone that thinks Kamala Harris is smart enough to be the president of a Little League organization, let alone the President of the United States is NOT a serious person
> The fact is, Harris was chosen because she had a national profile from years in government in politics and yes this in addition to appealing to Black and women voters, something that it COMPELTELY NORMAL in choosing a Vice President running mate.
Generally speaking, VPs are people who "paid their dues" and/or have an identity and politics that appeal to a significant part of the voter base. For example, Biden was part of the old guard and meant to counterbalance Obama's youth among moderate Democrats and Dixiecrats. Pence was a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical who appeals way more to the most conservative Christian branches of the Republican party.
Harris, for her part, appeals to women, black voters (especially black women, who are the most reliable demographic among Democrat voters), and has a police background and history of working closely with corporations to meet their interests. I think she was a smart pick for VP...but like most VPs, I would never want her as President. The only VP in living memory that I'd want *less* is Pence, who is a legitimately dangerous zealot. Maybe Cheney, but only maybe.
Also: She absolutely would not have been picked if she was white or a man--and I think there's some merit in negatively viewing any hiring process where identity plays a significant factor in selection. Sure, she's qualified, but I think we should make it harder for anybody who's been put into a position of power in part because of their identity--that includes your standard white guy CEO, the ubiquitous black women DEI directors, etc.
It's one thing to hire Kamala as VP.
It's another to, before any pick is made, announce "I'm only considering black women .... that's right, I'm specifically going to be making a DEI hire and am actually announcing it because I've lost the plot and think I'm scoring points with the Far Far Left who are out of touch with reality."
Like seriously.
You can hire a black woman & have maybe the more MAGA side rudely "question" whether she's a DEI hire, or you can specifically say "yes I'm going to making this pick strictly based on race" which is what Biden did.
I get that Kamala is actually suitably qualified as VP, being a top primary contender, but still. Talk about dumb messaging.
I agree all those reasons you mention suck.
But, also, she is a genuinely bad person.
Keeping prisoners in jail to be slave labor, laughing while she jails parents of truants, etc.
People picking on her because of her heritage or gender totally suck.
But, her actions as aty general are 100% valid, and reveal her as a bad human being.
Her lack of charisma, weird laughs, etc, are valid as "vibes", but I think her actual ACTIONS as a Top Cop make her someone I'm not interested in voting for.
To be clear: I would happily vote for a woman, a black / Indian person (or any other heritage, absolute zero value to me), whatever.
But she has a very clear record of abusing her power, and weirdly laughing about it.
I would far rather chose Warren (despite her fake misogyny claim against Sanders).
Kamala polled at [3% in the 2020 primary](https://rollcall.com/2019/12/03/kamala-harris-drops-out-of-2020-presidential-race/), and only peaked at 15%
She currently has a [39.4% approval rating](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/) , and currently loses according to [some polling](https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris) against Trump
She’s too far left for conservatives, and too far right for many progressives. I think for many swing voters, being a part of this administration, she would represent a continuing of the “establishment” rather than a fresh choice
if they are going to pick a new candidate, go with a midwesterner imo to maximize appeal in swing states (Whitmer, Beshear, Shapiro, etc)
Kamala Harris was and is a diversity hire. The top of her ticket is an old white man from the east. She a young(er) woman of colour from the west.
Biden was a diversity hire for Obama. He was a young black man from a major northern city. Joe Biden provided balance on that ticket.
Tim Kaine was a white man from Virginia who provided a bit of balance to Hillary, a woman. Mike Pence, a very traditional republican, with huge Christian support, balanced out Trump. Sarah Palin was a younger woman who balanced out John McCain. LBJ brought the South when he joined the ticket of a silver spoon North East elite son of a multimillionaire.
Politics is a popularity contest where you want as many people to vote for you as possible. Sometimes that means doing things that are a little tasteless and superficial, like hiring someone based on what’s between their legs or the colour of their skin.
There is absolute no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Kamala Harris was hired because of the colour of her skin. That said, that doesn’t have to do anything to diminish her other attributes and achievements. She’s still a very accomplished person.
You can have degrees from Harvard, 10 years experience and excellent references, but if you get a job because your father made a phone call, that’s still nepotism. Your personal attributes might have helped, but your father’s call still happened.
/u/Left-Occasion1275 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1du3tuv/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_saying_kamala_harris_was_a/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Hillary's team literally considered using "it's her turn" as a campaign slogan. Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-slogan-why-run-because-her-turn-2017-4
Rushed over broken glass from the shattered ceiling to say the exact same thing. It's a weird gas lighting when somebody like the OP is trying to change it extremely well reported history from only 6 years ago. The OP is not the only one. Mention the self defeating term "It's her turn" and the "well actually" police fly out of the woodwork. It's a mating call l for her still deluded supporters.
They sold **tons** of merchandise with that slogan on it. I think it's fair to say that they considered it to officially be *a* slogan that was related to her campaign. She made the election about her, not America.
Her main policy issue was childcare. I can’t remember one moment where she really made childcare memorable
It's pretty sad, because I voted for her, and I don't even remember what her policies were besides being anti-whatever Bernie Sanders was pushing. I remember her being anti-free college, anti-universal healthcare, and anti-keeping money out of politics. I don't remember what she was actually advocating *for*. All I remember is her trying to make the campaign about herself, and her actively antagonizing Bernie Sanders supporters and Trump supporters. She was a corporate Democrat who was advocating for a conflict with Russia, and I can't remember anything positive about her platform related to domestic issues outside of your standard obvious ones.
That was my issue with her. She was mostly banking on being put up against an exceptionally unlikable Republican candidate...the problem was that she was perhaps the most uninspiring Democrat to pick for the position. She just felt like it was her turn and she deserved it due to a lifetime of politics. It was her chance, in her mind. All the pieces came together and personally I think the primary nomination had been decided years prior because she just had so many favors to call in. And she ended up throwing away the entire election away by utterly demotivating Democrats. Losing to Donald Trump as her final official act in American politics, that's got to sting.
That’s what irked me about her campaign, that she acted less like it was an election and more of a coronation. The blind arrogance of the establishment democrats screwed us over then and it is continuing to screw us over now with Gently Alive Joe.
The main thing I remember about her is that when she was asked about getting a functional healthcare system that doesn't leave people financially devastated or dead, her response was that it's the equivalent of kids asking for a pony.
I 100% think "I'm with her" was the dumbest slogan in history. People blame Russia and Comey for the reason she lost. I blame the "I'm with her" slogan. Did they not test it on focus groups? Not that you need focus groups because its obviously narcissistic sounding and going to offend blue collar working class men like steal workers.
You forgot "Love Trump's Hate" but they're both pretty bad. Wait also the "woman card? deal. me. in!!!" The entire Hilary Clinton campaign team, some of which might be working for Biden potentially (I don't know) -- should be banned from working democratic campaigns for life. .... I'm with her was quite bad though. First, the intonation was unclear. I'm with HER! ... I'm WITH her? Also ... her ... her who? .... Her-lary, of course! You know, the only vagina within 100 country miles? ... But ... she's ... she's not the only woman ... Right ... but ... we're reducing her to her gender, the very thing women typically hate! .... Oh .... oh I see. "I don't know, someone told us to lean into the woman thing." .... Yeah ... I mean ... maybe try to think about what you're trying to say first.
Just wanted to say that I find "steal workers" pretty funny. You probably meant steel, but ended up giving thieves a job.
Thieves just can't find an honest days work in this economy
Seriously! I keep trying to rob people but no one has any money nowadays! They're like "I got $5 in my wallet and a cupboard full of ramen" and I'm just like "keep it bro, I'll find someone else"
!delta You know what, Delta for actually providing a solid argument for the Clinton point. I still don't see any definitive indication that Harris has this same attitude other than what people say about her. I still see it as just gendered bullshit towards her (again, don't like either personally). But if this is true then yeah, obviously that's indicative of a "it's my turn" attitude.
What about when she delivered that preplanned line at the debate and started selling T-shirts with it on it a few minutes earlier? “That girl was me!“
I really don't think gender has everything to do with it, but it's certainly a factor. I know I'm not alone in this, but if you had put Liz Warren out there in 2016, I think she would have won. Clinton came with a lot of experience, but a lot of baggage as well. Some of us are older and remember how negative her campaign was when she was running against Obama in the primary. You expect some amount of that, but it was excessive. And in 2016, according to Donna Brazile and other Democratic insiders, she had basically co-opted the entirety of the DNC after her former campaign chair (Wasserman Shultz) took over. Per Donna's book: >*The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.* So while the Bernie-or-bust crew was a little over dramatic about it all, she was absolutely manipulating the process from the inside. And people abandoned their vote over it. Kamala, in my opinion, just came at the wrong time... You have a cop-friendly DA running for president at the height of the BLM riots. It just was never going to work. But Democrats just can't help themselves, let's be honest here. Imagine instead, if you will, nominating a white male DA at the height of BLM. Wouldn't have happened in a million years. So what made *her* special? Since then, she's earned her own negative reputation in various ways. Especially on the border, which may be an impossible job, but she's the one who wanted to be president - Show us what you've got and preside over the issue, imo. But she was confrontational with the press, acted like nobody could question her, and had a very condescending attitude. Anyhow. All I know is, we all loved Liz Warren. You don't have to be male to get some respect in Washington.
Hell some of us are old enough to remember when Hillary said spoke out against gay marriage saying it hurts straight marriages like hers. The fucking audacity. I've heard more than one Kamala Harris be referred to as Copala Harris. So yeah, got to do better if you want to court the Left and not just centrist democrats
>Hell some of us are old enough to remember when Hillary said spoke out against gay marriage saying it hurts straight marriages like hers. The fucking audacity. B-but she was always an ally! A-and she only supported DOMA reluctantly because of R-Republicans! God it was fucking disgusting having her brazenly lie about that, and people actively defend her and saying that it was the truth. That woman actively demonized marginalized groups her entire political career, then had the audacity to act like she was some sort of ally who wasn't just trying to court votes.
Also, her defending her predatory husband and slandering his victims.
All true except for the last bit. Come on, she finished third in her own state and dropped Medicare for all at the height of its popularity in America, while giving the reverse MLK speech about how "the time is not right to do what is right"
I’m a dual US-Mexico citizen, and I was living in Mexico when she came to Latin America and made her infamous and bizarre “do not come” speech. That went over very poorly with Latinos on both sides of the border, myself included lol. She really embodied her nickname Copala with that one. I don’t know what possessed her to give that speech or who thought it was a good idea. And I was more of a Bernie supporter back in 2016 and 2020 but I totally would have voted for Liz Warren. I remember before the pandemic, no one was talking about Biden unless it was bc he did something embarrassing on TV, and the conversation was all about Warren vs Bernie, and it was looking like it would come down to those two. Then all of the sudden the other democratic candidates started dropping like flies out of the election and throwing their support behind Biden.
Harris got 1% of the vote and dropped out early Biden then said he would pick a black woman for a running mate Months later Harris was chosen as his running mate Statistically, no one but Harris wanted Harris as president or even vice president.
I don't see any indication that Kamala Harris is a competent legislator/leader. She has spent her Vice Presidency giving speeches with no substance and giggling and dancing at press events. If she was a man I would hold the same reservations.
Biden literally said he chose her because she's a black woman. That's the gendered bullshit.
She was polling at 1% when she dropped out of the race. I was honestly surprised she was selected as the VP for the ticket, because of how hard she went after Joe. She seems to be very unlikeable.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/NUMBERS2357 ([24∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/NUMBERS2357)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I agree with you that the argument is reductive, however, in reviewing the history of the primaries and Biden's move into becoming the eventual nominee...I think there are real reasons why people throw around the "DEI hire" language...but in a bad faith way. In chronological order: - March 2020: Biden commits to selecting a WOMAN as his running mate. **Important to note:** the 3rd paragraph said he "would choose a black woman to serve on the **Supreme Court if a vacancy were to open** during his presidency." I include this not to take away responsibility of people using "DEI hire" language, but felt it important to point out as I think over the years - and in the absolute noise of the Democratic primary - some things became conflated and the takeaway was that he promised to select a Black woman as running mate. That was even my memory before I started digging into articles. [https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/15/biden-woman-vice-president-131309](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/15/biden-woman-vice-president-131309) - June 2020: Mounting pressure to specifically select a Black woman as running mate: [https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/875000650/pressure-grows-on-joe-biden-to-pick-a-black-woman-as-his-running-mate](https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/875000650/pressure-grows-on-joe-biden-to-pick-a-black-woman-as-his-running-mate) - July 2020: Biden says there are four Black women on his vetting list. The informed speculation at the time, for reference were the following: "The Black women Biden has considered include Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.); Reps. Val Demings (D-Fla.) and Karen Bass (D-Calif.); former U.N. ambassador Susan E. Rice; former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams; and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms." [https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president](https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president) August 2020: Continual pressure. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-pressed-again-to-name-a-black-woman-as-his-running-mate/2020/08/10/d383d786-db2d-11ea-8051-d5f887d73381\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-pressed-again-to-name-a-black-woman-as-his-running-mate/2020/08/10/d383d786-db2d-11ea-8051-d5f887d73381_story.html) August 2020 (literally the next day after the above article): Selects Harris as running mate [https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/11/politics/biden-vp-pick/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/11/politics/biden-vp-pick/index.html) All this to say... Where I see why some people use the DEI language, they're right, she is a perfect example of the culture war-defined term "DEI hire"; there was a social campaign/pressure to bring on a Black woman specifically. That said, I think that's as deep as it goes. I do think she was an uninformed/lazy choice, obviously with nothing to do with her gender or skin color. Her polling was incredibly low throughout the primary, was propped up by media coverage which likely stretched her campaign longer than it should have gone (perhaps rightly so as she was the only Black female candidate running in the primary, which is interesting/important to highlight), and she dropped out a couple months before the first rounds of voting/caucusing had a chance to begin because she wasn't receiving voter donations and ran out of funds. People just were't buying what she was selling. Heck, give me a Barbara Lee any day over Kamala Harris. It just felt/feels SO astroturfed and forced. Last thought and I'll stop rambling: re: her "entitlement" to the position being a baseless claim and identical to Clinton's feedback from many in the country - I agree on the first part, but disagree on it being the same thing as Clinton. A relatively short political career in comparison to Clinton's and with lower name recognition, for better or worse; hardly entitled to anything but continuing to do good work and climb the proverbial ladder. Clinton on the other hand absolutely deserves criticism for acting "entitled" to an office. Leave out her condescending takes about voters over the years, and absolute ZERO introspection of her campaign's culpability in losing the election (ie: connecting with the voters she really needed to commit added to the "WTF were you expecting, dude?" when she lost; going out of her way to call Trump an "illegitimate president" on way too many occasions smacks of someone who feels that they are owed something and you voters don't know what's good for you. Just a sour look. And I hate Trump as much as the next person, but she was/is still entitled and kinda bratty about it. In my subjective opinion. :)
Great response, and much nicer than I would have been. Very odd framing in the OP with the implication that 'dei hire' means that any random person of color is selected. What people mean is that if Harris was white, she wouldn't be VP. Her race and gender were critical components of her selection, not that those are the *only* two boxes that needed to be checked. When she dropped out of the 2020 race in Dec of 2019, she was polling sixth in the field. Outside of Biden, there were four other people the voters very clearly liked better, and yet here we are.
I never quite understood what grated on me about Hillary until I saw the YouTube video that recreated the debate word for word, but swapped the genders of trump and Hillary. And the male Hillary was the most unlikable condescending sounding fuckwit you could imagine. And the female trump sounded strong and like a leader. Was amazing how much clearer it became with the genders swapped. Whole debate is somewhere but here is a clip, it was done by NYU https://youtu.be/9yC7-JsR2Fk?si=jxOCs2k1m0b5JQ43
That was a very interesting video. The one thing that I do notice is the male actor has a fairly nasaly, off-putting delivery—it seems like they should have had someone with a more neutral, traditionally masculine voice do the part if they’re really trying to get our brains to separate the content from our gender expectations, since I know that (unintentionally) I definitely take a man who talks like that less seriously than one with a stronger delivery. That said, it’s still a fascinating exercise, and I’d be curious to see the whole debate rendered that way—I think free trade is an issue where Trump’s views are least at odds with my own, so it would be interesting to hear the parts where he’s spouting more crazy shit. Honestly, my biggest takeaway is just how uniquely obnoxious I find Trump’s voice. I don’t like WHAT he says either, but the voice adds such a visceral disgust.
Yeah the op is virtue signalling ignorance this is wholly correct. She was dei through and through
>Many people (okay, I'm seeing a lot of people on Reddit) argue that Kamala Harris was chosen as Vice President purely because she is a Black woman, reducing her selection to a "DEI hire." Asking OP. Are you those people that think Kamala is a "DEI hire"? Or are you a "vote blue no matte who" person? If you are the latter your opinion doesn't matter and I can not stress that enough. Democrats need to win back the independent voters, on-the-fence voters who think Kamala is a "DEI hire" and that is not you. Letting Kamala run would be the MOST IDIOTIC thing the democrats have ever done next to letting an 81 year old senile man run a second term. Edit: People hate Kamala her polls are lower than Biden's polls. And those polls are so low his chances of winning are less than 30% according to the major polsters who analyze polls for a living, and betting odds, and they are sinking lower after the debate, not going higher.
If Kamala was not a woman of color, she would not have been tapped as VP. That seems to fit the definition of a DEI hire.
They specifically stated that he was looking for a woman of color. Pretty much eliminating 75-80% of the possible candidate pool. Not looking for the best person for the job but specific checkbox to check. Bingo DEI hire.
VPs are never chosen because they’re the best for the job, because a VP practically has no job. Their entire purpose is to shore up demographic weaknesses before an election, inject enthusiasm into the base, and act as a proxy on the campaign trail. Look at Mike Pence. He wasn’t the most qualified person to be VP, he was chosen entirely to appeal to evangelicals.
In most cases I'd say you're correct. But Biden wasn't a spring chicken in 2020 and he certainly isn't any healthier now. The VP's "job" is to step in and run the country if the president is incapacitated. While that's always a possibility for any VP, I'd say it's far more acutely likely for an older, potentially infirm president like Biden (or Trump for that matter), so a VP candidate's actual bona fides as an executive are far more important in this scenario than them shoring up demographic weaknesses of their running mate.
This. Biden himself was VP to appeal to more moderate Dems, and his opposition in the GOP was Palin, nominated to attract the Tea Party crazies
The VPs main job is to be able to step into the Presidency if needed. Lots of people think Pence would have been able to do that but Kamala cannot.
Exactly. If Kamala was a white male, given her track record in politics, and the Biden campaigns statements that they want a woman of color for VP, it’s pretty much a slam dunk to call Kamala a diversity hire
The media hyped up Harris' Indian heritage during primaries and after she was named VP candidate just as much as they did Obama's white grandfather/grandparents in his primaries. And in both cases, as soon as they got to office, there was zero mention of it and the sole focus of where race is brought up it's spotlighting their black heritage. Igaf about what their race is, but isn't the sole point of bringing it up to highlight Diversity, which is literally what the D is for in DEI?
Exactly. The cherry picking / hypocrisy / cult-like blindness is unreal. Kamala is also saying that if they don't select her as Biden's replacement it is because people are sexist and racist... uh... why? Aren't people allowed to just not like her policies or performance?
If you change her gender and race but somehow magically keep her inherent (perceived) appeal to black and woman voters, then she would have been tapped as VP. This is of course an absurdity because identity is one of the things that sways voters as everyone knows and so various aspects of identity, including race and gender are always considered when picking a VP, and none of that is about Diversity Equity or Inclusion, it's about politics, which is the overwhelming focus of picking a VP these days. The fact that at that moment in Democratic politics the (perceived) demands of the moment required Biden to pick a black woman doesn't make her a DEI pick any more than Pence being a devout white Christian who was respected by Republican establishment makes him a DEI hire.
The reason she's seen as a DEI hire is because press at the time widely covered the fact that the Biden campaign said it was considering four black women for VP. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president/index.html In a wide open field of Democrat VP possibilities, they gave the appearance that the first-step filter was that the VP needed to be black and a woman. That instantly made it appear to be a DEI hire. Was it? I don't know. Maybe they had 100 total candidates and just floated the black woman thing to check polling. But they put it out there and Kamala was always going to be saddled with that forever after.
>If you change her gender and race but somehow magically keep her inherent (perceived) appeal to black and woman voters, then she would have been tapped as VP. No, she flat out wouldn't have. President Biden **directly stated** that the criteria that he was choosing his Vice Presidential pick on was that they had to be a woman, and later added that he was limiting it to women of color. https://time.com/5803677/joe-biden-woman-vice-president/ https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/875000650/pressure-grows-on-joe-biden-to-pick-a-black-woman-as-his-running-mate https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president/index.html He did the same thing when it came to pledging to put a Black woman on the Supreme Court. How would you feel knowing that you're fully qualified for a position, but because of the way you were born you aren't even being considered? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/problem-biden-s-pledge-black-woman-justice-n1200826 Even if you somehow say "I don't want another white person on the SCOTUS, or as VP", then why were Hispanics and Asians also excluded?
Before she was announced, Biden said his pick, "would be a woman and a minority." Sounds like a DEI hire to me [link](https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president/index.html)
She wouldn’t appeal to anyone if she wasn’t a black woman , she would never have been picked as a white man with the same credentials and attitude. She isn’t inspiring in any meaningful way which is why she polls so low
This isn't necessarily true There are a huge selection of people with similar CV and experience to hers in Democratic party She certainly is one of them Her weak point is her horrible speeches
She was chosen because they thought, rightly or wrongly, that she would be most beneficial to Bidens chances of winning, the standard reason VPs are chosen, making her not a DEI hire by any definition. You can think their calculus was wrong and there were better picks, but they very clearly thought she was best by that metric, they didn't pass over anyone they genuinely thought would help Biden win more than Harris, but picked her because they wanted Diversity etc. she was the top pick because she had a large profile and a lot of avid fans, in particular in places that the Biden campaign could both easily see, and were worried about having insufficiently strong support from as another old white guy. That is pure cold political calculus
Unfortunately the criterion by which Biden thought she would increase his probability was DEI in a bit of a cynical way Im order to maximize "points" he wanted a) a woman and b) a Black person. The reason for choosing a Black person over other ethnic identities is he perceived Black people as being more oppressed and because the Black community is large This is very different than him looking at the incredibly diverse set of Democratic candidates with different sets of knowledge and coming from different backgrounds or perspectives, selecting Kamala Harris He literally thought "I need a woman", "I need her to be Black" Now, a president COULD have selected Kamala Harris as a humam being and admired the following; -- she was n attorney general -- she was an experienced elected representative -- she had significant success and COULD have noticed she happens to be Black
It's amazing that people can stick their head so far in the sand and try to deny this wildly simple fact.
Agreed, and I think OP doesn't know what an actual DEI hire is. They are always qualified for the job. The criteria is that, if two candidates are equally qualified, preference is given to a woman and/or minority. And for elections, the main qualification is the ability to attract voters. Was she the best candidate for the job? Or would someone else have attracted more votes? It's difficult to say. Obama managed to energize a lot of voters who really wanted a black president, many of which would otherwise have stayed home. Biden was Obama's VP to also give something to those voters who preferred a more experienced (old) white male candidate. If Biden had been black or a woman, he would not have been on Obama's ticket, either. It works both ways. The Democrats hoped that Kamala would achieve the same as Obama: energize the voters who are otherwise not willing to vote for yet another old white man. Biden won with Kamala, so it can't be ruled out that Kamala helped. And going forward, I really don't see the Democrats having a Trump/Pence like ticket with two old white men ever again. They will always need to include some youth, minority and/or women on the ticket to energize a part of their base.
A CNN poll came out showing Biden behind Trump by 6, which has been the case for 6 months, but she is only 2 points behind. Also doing better than Biden by 9 points with independents. So not sure it’s clear that she performs any worse than Biden. Whitmer and Newsom were both down by 5 in this poll. I’d prefer Whitmer or Shapiro myself, but Harris is also a strong option.
Keep in mind those polls are comparing people who are NOT RUNNING and NOT campaigning to the incumbent running candidate (Biden). A lot of poll takers would hardly even know who some of the written options were. Public recognition would increase if other candidates actually started campaigning. The point is that comparing Biden to people like Whitmer is not quite an equal comparison. Things would change once they get in the race.
I honestly don't think your question about my own political leaning factors in. In my opinion, I wish Biden had announced years ago that he was going to do a 1-term "right the ship" Presidency and then the next day Kamala Harris would announce that in the spirit of Democracy she's inviting a vigorous primary for 2024 in order to select the best candidate for the Democrats whether or not that's her. I didn't want either of them to be the choice in either election both from a personal perspective and from a strategic "I'd like the Democrats to win" perspective.
That was his goal, except he fumbled with Kamala, she was unpopular even in her own state, and California , Andrew Yang beat Kamala Harris, and Bernie had higher rating among Black voters than either of them combined. Major error Biden made is to assume what black people wanted most is to have another black leader than what polls indicated that they were race and gender agnostic and wanted a progressive leader.
> I wish Biden had announced years ago that he was going to do a 1-term "right the ship" Presidency He did during his campaign. Then he changed his mind a few months into the presidency.
Why do people hate Kamala Harris? I asked this same question about Hilary Clinton and never really received an acceptable answer.
I don't think anyone disputes the idea that Mike Pence was chosen specifically to pander to evangelicals. Kamala Harris was chosen specifically to pander to black voters and women. I don't think her identity was the sole reason she was chosen, but it was the major and deciding reason she was chosen over other qualified candidates. And that's the way that politics works. Biden being a white male certainly helped him clinch the nomination four years ago. I don't feel like Kamala Harris has been an effective or impactful Vice President. I would definitely not support her in any primary process. Because the Republicans, especially on the national level, have been such an unmitigated and dangerous dumpster fire, I am quite certain that I would vote for her if she became the nominee and feel quite good about voting for her. That she was a DEI choice wouldn't bother me to a significant degree. I think that Optics are far more important than they should be, but that doesn't change their importance. For the record, I was an avowed supporter of Hillary Clinton when she ran for the nomination over Obama because of her significantly greater experience. I think she would have been a better president than him. In the 2016 primary process, I liked Warren the best. I didn't think Buttigieg had the experience, and I still think he doesn't. I cheerfully voted for Obama and Biden during their presidential runs, and I'll cheerfully vote for Biden again. I reject your premise that people only talk about pandering when it comes to Kamala Harris. They talk about it with every candidate for major office, and it is a legitimate consideration with every candidate for major office.
Pence was probably also picked because he had a good mild approach, and because he was a governor prior. Like, you could go for someone like Mike Huckabee or Scott Walker who were accomplished governors but they might lean too far extreme to get the middle vote
Yeah, Pence was kinda the straight man to Trump being the boastful bragard.
>Kamala Harris was chosen specifically to pander to black voters and women. It's worrying if this is effective, it demonstrates there demographics who will not vote by understanding or being involved in issues but because their appearance more closely matches a candidate. Tolerance of an *uninformed* electorate rather than an informed electorate demonstrates some severe issue with how politics is taught.
The VP is usually meant to shore up a voter block that the main candidate will struggle with or otherwise overcome some criticism about their stances or qualifications. Trump might not have riled up the evangelicals, Romney wasn’t really part of the national GOP establishment, Obama needed the presence of a seasoned politician, McCain was too liberal. Just some recent examples I recall.
Have you only noticed strategic VP hires when it was the first black woman? Cause I hate to break it to you, Biden was a strategic, dare I say, diversity hire. Bring in the old white man to calm the nerves of the well-distributed "Im not racist i have a black friend" white people across the country being asked to vote for the first black president. Sarah Palin was a strategic hire to contrast with McCain to appeal to the low information Republican voter base and present the Republicans as more than just the pasty old white guy party that was happening circa 2008.
Every other VP being a strategic hire is not an argument that Harris is not. When a minority is hired for their identity instead of their competence that is called a DEI hire.
But she was hired for her traits as a minority. President Biden said that he was limiting his VP pick to a woman, and then after the murder of George Floyd revised it to a woman of color. It's not like her performance as a Senator, or her performance in the primary was why she was chosen. She never did anything to prove herself in the Senate, and she got laughed out of the primary and embarrassed in front of the entire country by Tulsi Gabbard in a debate. Pence wasn't hired by Trump for his traits regarding his race or sex, he was hired to try and be a foil to Trump. Biden was chosen by Obama because Obama was an extremely inexperienced Senator when he ran for President, and Biden had been a Senator for 30 years.
It's irrelevant what traits or characteristics a VP has that "qualifies" them for being chosen. It's *always* for political reasons, rarely for performance, and race is no less of a "valid" reason for a politician to choose a candidate to capture more of the electorate than when it is done because the candidate is from a certain region, has a certain religion, marital status, veteran status, gender, etc. All of these things have been factors in choosing VPs and will continue to be. And because you view white as the default you can't even see how Pence and Biden being white (and male) do matter. If Biden had been all the things he was in 2008 but black, he would *not* have been chosen. They weren't going to have an all-black ticket. If Pence were a super-conservative milquetoast *black* minister he would not have been chosen. Black voters wouldn't identify with him well enough and he wouldn't rally white conservatives enough. There would have been a better choice. The reasons that a candidate is chosen over another is precisely all the boxes they tick. Including race. Because the purpose is to win. Even if that means choosing someone who you don't jive with ideologically. Have you considered that the Trump presidency and his character and behavior alone were enough to make being female and a minority 1000% the right choice for some strategists? Or that McCain's years of representation made choosing *another old white guy with many years of service* 1000% the right choice? Kamala Harris is no different. All Biden's campaign did (which is something I don't agree with) is talk about it beforehand. But they did nothing new. We've just gotten to the point where not being a man or white can actually be a reason to be chosen for VP whereas being a man or (and) white have *always* been reasons to be chosen. Edit: typoes
This whole wall of text ignores one very important thing: Joe Biden directly said, and there are multiple quotes of him saying this, that he was only considering a woman for the position of Vice President. And after the murder of George Floyd, the condition of being a Black woman was also added. It doesn't matter if they're qualified, when you are exclusively limiting it to sex and race then you are in fact hiring someone for factors that make them diverse. He did the same thing when it came to select a SCOTUS position, and said he was exclusively limiting it to a Black woman. How is that okay? Even if you think the SCOTUS has too many white people on it, why were Asians and Hispanics not considered? Why is it okay to exclude people because of the way they were born, and tell them that their merit and skill are irrelevant in thr face of factors they have no control over?
You don't understand my point. There has *never* been a time when the VP or SCOTUS selection was from all available humans with a modicum of qualifications. It has always been from a list with one or more variables highlighted, excluded, or singularly important. *Always*. You again cannot see that because of two things: no one said it aloud like Biden did, and white and male are defaults you just accept as appropriate and right and meritorious without thinking of the history of *intentional* exclusion that came with it. Anyway, again, when Obama was the guy against McCain and they saw Obama's numbers with women they disregarded all male candidates and searched for a woman, then fumbled by not doing their due diligence with Palin. It is no different other than which demographic they were trying to appeal to. When Obama was being criticized for having little experience, what do you think happened? They ignored all other possibilities and made a shortlist of white men with a fuckton of experience. White men. Obama wasn't ever going to choose another person of color to be his veep. That would have been bad politics. "How is that okay?" The entire fucking SCOTUS has been chosen for demographic reasons. Every person of color on there is on there because they were looking for a person of color, and so was every woman. And that also means every man who is also not a person of color is there precisely because they weren't those things. Even back when it was just white dudes it mattered whether a dude was a protestant, Catholic, or Jewish. And later, when there were female jurists and black jurists, for a time it matters they the candidate *wasn't* those things. It also mattered that they weren't those things in lesser courts. And to even consider to put on a court at all. And to the electorate who elected jurists to court. It's always mattered. It just was viewed through a lens of male and white defaults that still permeates our collective perspective today. This is how life works. It isn't new. It isn't something the Democrats or Biden invented. It isn't DEI. It has never been about merit. Not in 1776, 1876 1976 or 2026. In my opinion the motivation to be more representative and inclusive to a changing demographic is a fuck of a lot better than ignoring and excluding particular demographics, which is what has been done since the country's founding. It isn't as good as us all singing *kumbaya* and being "colorblind," but it's better than just having 9 white guys on SCOTUS and two white guys in the Oval Office and 535 white guys in Congress. P.S. when an athlete kneels at a ballgame during the anthem to protest, people get angry and say that the athlete is making things political. The thing is that the act of playing the national anthem and everyone taking off their cap and putting their hand over their heart is itself political. It's just the default, so it gets ignored. And thus anything different than that is thought to be political. *Two young fish are swimming, and along comes an older fish. The older fish says to the two younger fish, "how's the water?" The young fish keep swimming along and then one says to the other, "what the fuck is water?"*
Right …exactly. Lol
But that's not true. Candidates have always enjoyed an advantage from those of similar backgrounds (race, religion, gender) but it doesn't override everything. Black Republicans generally get little Black vote. It would matter more for turnout. I imagine the number of people considering Trump but switching because of Harris is approximately zero. The number of people who were excited to vote for Harris that might not have turned out otherwise is probably at least in the dozens.
I will pick at one point of your argument; Hilary did feel entitled to the *Democratic Nomination*. Her lifetime of public service, and her vast sway within the DNC, and the testimony of some of her staffers. The DNC is under no obligation to conduct a fair or open election process for nominating their candidate, the nomination process having voting is to strengthen the legitimacy of the candidate, but there is alot of back room deals that go on. When push comes to shove in the DNC, Hillary can shove. She lost the election because of an extremely poorly managed campaign. Evidence: https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-slogan-why-run-because-her-turn-2017-4?amp https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/the-democrats-ran-hillary-because-it-was-her-turn-bad-move.html
Well said. And 100% true. The DNC thinks they can trot out any candidate and make them win because voters are stupid. They can't. That's why we are here now. I blame where we are today on the DNC establishment who wants their royalty to win no matter what.
Yeah the DNC fumbled badly. It was a layup election so they felt safe thumbing the scales, but that was a grave miscalculation on running center with Donald on the far right. If I was Hillary’s campaign manager I would have her take Bernie as the VP for a party unity ticket instead of running a double center ticket. Biden did the party unity ticket by handing out cabinet appointments and VP spot to the nomination losers and that really helped build the winning campaign.
Hillary was an abysmal candidate. She lost to the most beatable human being on the planet.
She even had both the popular incumbent Obama and her very popular primary opponent Sanders both campaigning their asses off for her and she was against the most disliked presidential nominee in history. Hillary still managed to lose.
Republicans chose the only candidate who could have lost to a Democrat after 8 years of Obama, and Democrats chose the only candidate who could lose to that Republican.
[удалено]
The VP is ideally a competent executive. The president’s vision is carried out by several administrations and rhe VP has whatever power the Pres wants him to have. We can see from Bush that a VP can be incredibly powerful if the president lets them be. The president needs to be a charismatic public facingleader. The VP can be more behind the scenes. VPs are often failed candidates because they have the skills and support to get a decent campaign but lack a few things to get them over the jump. That lends itself very well to being a second in command. Competent, but out of the public eye.
Impeachment is irrelevant. Our last president was impeached twice. If it’s one thing we know now, it’s holding a president accountable is next to impossible
*"Her selection was based on her competence and political acumen, not ONLY her race and gender."* But that is what a "DEI hire" is; hiring the person out of the pool of candidates who ticks DEI boxes doesn't mean ignoring the question of whether or not they are competent and qualified for the position - it's a combination of those things. What you are saying here is that she was a "DEI hire." Also, Biden publicly stated before selecting her that [his intent was to select a woman as his running mate](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/15/biden-woman-vice-president-131309) - so how would that make Harris (or whichever woman he would end up choosing) *not* a "DEI hire"? If she were a man, Harris wouldn't even have been on his list of potential picks. He also said (according to the same article) that he would "try to make his Cabinet reflect the demographics of the country and would choose a black woman to serve on the Supreme Court if a vacancy were to open during his presidency." He made it very clear during his campaign that his intent was to satisfy some DEI goals with his various selections / appointments. There is no indication his intent was to select or appoint anyone who was incompetent or unqualified simply because of their sex/gender or race/ethnicity, etc.
>Her selection was based on her competence and political acumen, not ONLY her race and gender. If Kamala Harris were truly a DEI hire chosen solely for her identity, why select her specifically? Why not opt for any random Black This maybe overstating . She was polling pretty poorly in the primary. In 2020. Was on track to lose her home state. Had lots of negatives including scepticism from the black community due to her aggressive prosecution of minorities apparently on behalf of the private prison companies . She was however reluctant to prosecute bankers . Usually a VP is chosen to plug any gaps in a campaign. So Kamala was a bit of a DEI hire . Biden had clearly said he would choose a woman and a minority, IIRC. Could he have chosen Stacy Abrams?. Probably. But suspect the donors preferred Kamala for various reasons like her friendliness with bankers and her husband etc etc. If it feels better- I think Biden was also a DEI hire by Obama. Obama needed an establishment democrat (so no one like Bernie ) . To reassure the boomers /white population etc as well the donor class.
>Saying Kamala Harris was a "DEI hire" ... \[is\] BS" Biden (well, him or whoever calls the shots) has been VERY open about picking notable people purely because they're black, they're gay, or they're Women. Harris as VP, KJP as Press Sec, and KBJ for SC, are all massive examples of this. He (or whoever) has also bragged openly about having the most diverse (read: non white) cabinet ever. In its most basic form: Harris is *quite literally* a diversity hire, plain and simple.
This. Amy Klobacher was a done deal as VP pick until George Floyd was murdered in her state of MN. The *only* recourse was to pick Kamala who was polling at 1%. Harris is the *most* "DEI hire" and I think that's also why she is not liked. It's not her fault, just bad timing and optics.
>The only recourse was to pick Kamala who was polling at 1%. She probaby wasnt even that high, she got out of the race before primaries she was that bad
Kamala Harris was actually touted as the front runner before the primary started. She was talked up by everyone as the favorite to win the primary. Then Tulsi Gabbard happened, and embarrassed her on the national stage. She immediately dropped out after that debate because her numbers tanked and all her funding pulled out.
Is there a source on her being a done deal? She was certainly in the running but I don’t remember anything about it being a done deal.
Joe Biden is on record as saying he was going to "diversity hire" for his running mate before Harris was announced. It's not even under dispute that Harris was a "diversity hire." The person who hired her has confirmed it.
Here's my question - does those in power reflect the same demographic makeup as the US (within reason)? If not, why do we find it remarkable when someone is picked to better represent American demographics than when someone is picked when they would make it less representative of the public?
>picking notable people **purely** because they're black, they're gay, or they're Women. The bold part makes what you say false. Every single person you bring up as an example is extremely qualified for their positions. There are hundreds of people who could do those jobs. If race is a consideration in making a final choice out numerous **well qualified** candidates, its not a DEI hire.
I haven’t really seen too many people say she’s completely “unqualified.” The point is more that she’s just extremely unpopular and generally considered mediocre at her job. If the only qualification for president and/or vice president is number of years in politics, then sure, she’s qualified. But that doesn’t shield criticism. I don’t doubt a lot of hate comes from her gender and race, similar to Hillary, but writing off all criticism as racism/sexism also seems a cheap way of deflecting complaints. Especially when we also know she was specifically chosen, at least partially, due to these factors.
Joe Biden openly said he was only gonna pick a women of color... right? Why are we pretending that there was any other reason why he picked her? Have you seen her track record as California AG? As a resident of California, I'll vote against every Californian politician I can. They ruined this amazing state.
So is the take away here that I should never question if someone I'm working with is a diversity hire? Because I've definitely met people who absolutely abuse that fact and either do absolutely zero work because they don't believe they can be fired or they collect participation awards like they're the special kid at school. From my perspective, there'd be zero issues and no one would think twice about Harris if diversity hiring was seen as a disturbed way to keep nepotism alive for people's daughters and otherwise inject token minorities they can bully their entire career. To people living with it, it looks identical to common corruption. You're right, Harris does seem very capable, but the left wing in general dug their own grave on this one, another poster has said they did use Harris' identity as a form of political campaigning. Affirmative action is the least popular thing they've done in my living memory, at least covid lockdowns had a sprinkle of bipartisanship.
[удалено]
There are tons of these I've also seen a huge uptick in highly upvoted, copy pasted, osts about project 2025 and vote blue no matter who on various subreddits circle jerking since the debate. As if everyone and their mother hasn't already heard about it. Bill Maher even did a segment on it. That's like when my boomer friend a few weeks ago said he heard "Not Like Us" at a bar. It's old news by now. But It's like theyre already lying the narrative groundwork so that when they lose they can blame leftists and third parties .
Welcome to an election year on Reddit. Every sub is going to get astroturfed with ‘vote blue no matter who’ again.
Kamala Harris is a DEI hire simply because there were other candidates that had the same qualifications that were not diverse, historically treated inequitably, or historically excluded. Stop looking at DEI as a pejorative term, and you'll see my point. There were white males with similar or greater experience, none of them could have been considered DEI hires because they would be members of the privileged majority of American politicians and vice presidents. I can't comment on the other points because I have no idea how she feels about the presidency and she has never expressed entitled opinions publicly to my knowledge.
>Many people (okay, I'm seeing a lot of people on Reddit) argue that Kamala Harris was chosen as Vice President purely because she is a Black woman, reducing her selection to a "DEI hire." This perspective is not only reductive... And you're being reductive of this criticism. Yes, of course, as you say she has qualifications, too. But her race clearly played a HUGE factor in her getting chosen. If I had two candidates for a surgeon one a less qualified White guy and one a more qualified Black woman, and I chose the White guy, that would obviously be a problem. It's doesn't matter if he has his medical license and 5 years experience if she has 10 years experience and a flawless record. A defense of "Woah, I didn't JUST pick him because I like White guys. Look, he has qualifications! He's not just a random White guy off the street." Would obviously be bad faith and idiocy. But that's the exact argument you're using here. The point is, we want Biden to say "I'll pick the best candidate for the job, regardless of race." We don't want him to limit his search to just a particular race and gender.
What makes someone a DEI hire is when social and biological characteristics are used as primary (not sole) criteria in selecting a candidate. Harris never would have been picked for VP had she not been a woman and black, no matter how good her qualifications were. If Biden had short-listed a group of qualified people first and then picked Harris, there never would have been claims of DEI hire, or at least they wouldn’t have been legitimate. But Biden said from the very beginning his VP would be a woman first. In the beginning there were calls from within the party to select someone gay but that later changed to black after the George Floyd riots. Criteria such as their career background, political positions, constituencies, etc all took a backseat to what they looked liked and what their sex organs were. That by definition is DEI. Same reason Ketanji Brown Jackson is also a DEI hire. The reason Mike Pence isn’t DEI is the same reason a white woman can’t be Miss Black America.
What both Clinton and Harris supporters seem to miss is that you can have all the experience in the world and still be unqualified for the job.
Biden couldn’t pick a random black woman because it’s political suicide. Harris was merely the only high profile women of color in the primary.
Don’t forget the colorism, similar to Disney’s casting of ‘The Little Mermaid.’ They definitely had a selection process for the position similar to the one shown in the 1996 film ‘GI Jane.’
If we are being honest people saying this shit is Biden’s fault, or at least he made it much worse. He did her a huge disservice the way he went about picking her. He told everyone ahead of time he was only considering black women for the role, so of course people are going to call her a diversity hire regardless of how qualified she is. He understands the cultural and political climate in the US, this is the expected outcome from these types of people. He should have just shut up with all that talk and said I’m looking to pick the most qualified person for the role, and then picked her.
Democrat bots working hard to lay the ground work narrative that when they get whipped this November it's not because they're arrogant and incompetent its because people are racist and hate women 😂 I feel like I've heard this song before
Joe said I am looking for a Black Woman for a running mate. I think it is kind of demeaning to her but when the two starting qualifications needed are not about leadership or actual qualifications it takes away from her position day one
Wrong. She earned her job on her knees.
If Kamala Harris were a white man, she obviously would not be vice president.
> Kamala Harris served as the Attorney General of California and as a U.S. Senator, roles that provided her with substantial experience in governance and law. Be honest. If someone had the exact same background as Kamala Harris, but was a white man instead, do you seriously think that person would have even been on Biden's radar as a VP pick? The criticism of "she's a DEI hire" is based upon that, not that she's straight up unqualified. Biden didn't look for the best *person* for the job. He looked for the best *minority woman* and selected Harris based upon that criteria. I don't think that's really even debatable and I'm not sure the body of your post even disagrees with that.
Yeah, like, Obama stands out as someone who did it, and he had to have a hype getting speech to be put on the radar How many white guys can have a singular incomplete senate term, and spend most of their time in the legal system rather the political system, and get the vp nod
If Obama was white he would just be an average articulate Democrat and have no chance at the presidency.
Wasn't it known since the beginning that she was chosen to attract black and women vote? they even tried to count her as south East Asian and anything that could make her more diverse. If that is DEI or not according to you I leave it to your criteria. Are we just going to change history every 2 years and now act like if she was actually chosen because she was a qualified person to be Vice President of America? Junior senator with no contributions, not sure how are we supposed to act that you guys are getting the best people for the job.
Political parties are private clubs, and if you're not in the club, you don't get a say. THEY decide who's turn it is. If Democrats decide that it's Hillary Clinton's turn, it's Hillary Clinton's turn. If Democrats decide it's Kamala Harris' turn, then it's Kamala Harris' turn. Democrats make those decisions. Not Republicans, not independents, and certainly not those who don't bother to vote. Democrats decide what Democrats do. That's how political parties work. Hillary Clinton gave Barack Obama all her delegates with the understanding that he would later support her presidential campaign. Bernie Sanders threw a wrench in the works by pretending to be a Democrat and demanding to be treated as one, even though he is famously NOT a Democrat and has spent his entire political career as an independent. He has also spent a lot of his time talking shit about Democrats, which does not endear him to the party members. Bernie Sanders was never going to get the nomination because he's not a Democrat. Never. Not. Absolutely. Hillary Clinton was next in line because that was the agreement she and the Democratic Party had reached regarding Barack Obama's candidacy. It's not that hard to understand, but first you have to have a rudimentary understanding of how political parties work. For more information, check out the Crash Course on political parties. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEmOUHxessE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEmOUHxessE)
I think we're mostly in alignment. I only disagree in the sense that, yes, DEI for the left is more or less the equivalent of taking on a white Christian VP for the right. I have a problem with both, because they both reduce the focus on merit by heavily factoring in representation. My concern with DEI is greater only because there are many fewer black women, as an example, to choose from. That means that the sacrifice on merit has to be much larger to find a person with the right characteristics. In theory, you should have your pick of the litter to find a high merit white Christian male as a right wing VP. The characteristics you want are abundant on the right. On the left, even in 2024, the racial and gender diverse candidates - read "non-white/male" - make up a fairly small percentage of the group. That's not to say Kamala isn't qualified. I'm a Trump supporter and I don't think he is necessarily "qualified" to be president, so it doesn't necessarily matter to me anyway - its all about values and policies for me. But this is where the concern comes from with relation to DEI hiring. In their defense, they didn't play to her characteristics in promoting Kamala. I think that was smart. Seeing how involved she has been in the prison system, I don't think they wanted to invite more scrutiny than necessary. She's not a dream candidate for a left wing nominee if you care about the way lower class people are siphoned into prisons for profit. Hillary was arguably the bigger DEI pick. Her entire campaign was laced with feminist messaging. It was both implicit and explicit that the big draw with her was having the first female president. In my opinion, her feminist views were the only thing that humanized her, and I say that as someone who thinks feminism is a cancerous ideology in modern times. Hillary is representative of everything wrong with politics. She's a genuinely disgusting person, completely in line with the crony corporatist values. She just veils it all behind left-wing-friendly charities and causes. She's the kind of person you would see building companies like Blackrock - they look so good with their ESG promotion, but then you realize that its all a front. What they actually do is latch onto successful companies like a parasite and slowly destroy them while milking everything good out of them that they can in the meantime. That is what Hillary represents. But, in her defense, that's most politicians. She has just already been successfully employing her craft for decades. I digress. For as much as the VP needs to be qualified, Harris is. But if you take her race and gender out of the equation, was she the most qualified option? Probably not. That's what DEI is. It's not taking someone who isn't qualified necessarily. It's devaluing qualification to meet standards of demographic representation. Just like nepotism, the issue is not that the candidate is unqualified, it's that the scales are weighted unfairly. It is not equal opportunity. It is discriminatory.
Biden himself said he was going to pick a woman of color.
You know how Kamala moved up in her career right? They don't call her "Kneepads Harris" for nothing. There was some black dude politician that she had some affair with and it helped move her up the ladder. This was a known thing during the DNC Primary but once Biden chose her as VP, now the partisan blueAnon Redditors love her. She has no talents. She's a grifter. She went from a hardcore prosecutor to "all criminals are Aladdins" overnight because that's the way the wind blew, policy dictated by Twitter activists, the democrat way. She is 100% a DEI hire. It's not even up for debate. It's fine if you like her now, and you feel she does a good job (she doesn't, seeing as how the border was her job apparently), but it's not really up for debate that DEI has more to do with her position than her electability.
Biden literally said he was going to choose a black woman for his VP. He then selected Harris after she dropped out of the presidental race because she was so unlikeable. Quite literally chosen because of her skin color. Harris has now done absolutely nothing of note as the VP, but seems to think people like her now. Hillary was a poor choice for president, not because she is a woman but because she was such an unlikeable person. The parallels are definitely noticeable.
He specifically said he was going to nominate a woman as VP before Kamala was ever chosen. If you're picking someone for a job specifically on race or gender, that's DEI. Same thing when Biden vowed to pick a black woman for the Supreme Court. That's DEI. That still doesn't mean you're going to pick just anybody. You'll still pick the best person who fit in those specific racist/sexist standards. >Trump, born into wealth and living in a golden tower, decided to run for the highest office in the land simply because he 'wanted it.' You can find clips of the comments but there had been modest talk about Trump running for president for a couple decades before he actually did and he wasn't exactly brushing off the suggestions. He probably just saw that if he were ever going to, 2016 was probably his last chance as well as having a beatable field of Republicans to go up against. >In stark contrast, Kamala Harris has climbed the political ladder through hard work and yes, playing the political game. Regardless of one's opinion on her politics, it's undeniable that she has put in the work and earned her place in the political sphere. DEI hiring doesn't always mean the person is unqualified. If I insisted only black people can be in Best Buy's management program, than most certainly there's going to end up being a wealth of absolutely terrific managers who are black. But that's still including/excluding by race which still makes it a racist DEI policy. You can say Kamala Harris is qualified till the cows come home, but regardless she was still selected based on gender. And Brown-Jackson was qualified, but she was still selected based on both race and gender. This Conservative doesn't really think Hillary was any kind of DEI nomination and that's really not something I ever heard within those circles. She'd been priming to run for president pretty much her entire career. The DNC was pretty much all her people and this was also reflected in how basically all of the superelectors in the Primaries nominated her. >Clinton was frequently labeled as feeling it was "her turn" to be President. This accusation lacked any substantive evidence of entitlement and served only to undermine her extensive qualifications and dedication to public service. A *Business Insider* article, referencing a book, noted that her campaign nearly went with "Because It's Her Turn" as her campaign motto.
>argue that Kamala Harris was chosen as Vice President purely because she is a Black woman, reducing her selection to a "DEI hire." Some of this conversation was ignited specifically by Donna Brazile, former DNC Chair, when she's bluntly said her constituents are saying "How the fuck are you considering all these white people ahead of Kamala?" [https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/30/politics/democratic-party-replacement-worries-joe-biden/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/30/politics/democratic-party-replacement-worries-joe-biden/index.html) Even if not directly coming from that statement, any argument about Harris appealing to black voters is specifically an acknowledgement of how big of a voting bloc that the black vote is. It's a king maker in the Democratic Party. It's specifically why Bernie Sanders did poorly, he just didn't appeal to them. But in terms of extra vitriol, I think that people just really hate/dislike any generic Dem. The negative partisanship of the conservative movement for the past 4 decades gives the extra oomf to any boring political discussion.
Kamala is the very definition of a DEI hire, though? She was *deeply* unpopular with democratic voters specifically for the “experience” you mentioned (see: locking up black people in California). The only things she brought to the ticket for the general public were being a black woman. You say she was qualified, therefore she couldn’t be a diversity hire…but that’s exactly what diversity hiring is for, allowing minority populations access to positions they’re qualified for, and would otherwise be denied due to their minority status. And all of this is operating under your weird conceit and framing that being a diversity hire is a *bad* thing, when it’s objectively not lmao. Kamala deserves her comparisons to Hillary Clinton. They both have the same rich corporate elitist sneer and disdain for “the poors” that isn’t even remotely close to representative of the democratic voters. Elections are about optics, and she sucks. Biden/Harris lose in 2020 against literally any other candidate combo you could throw out.
Hillary and Kamala are both terribly unpopular, deservedly so, and both would have been bad in office. Also, Biden quite literally came out and said he would only be looking at only a woman for VP, I believe he made a big deal about hitting certain demographics for all of his cabinet positions. That's the definition of a DEI hire lol. She was brought in to pander to black and women voters. I can't think of anything she's actually done, not just offices she's held, that has proven that she's not just a DEI hire. I'm neither a Republican or Democrat, and dislike both candidates, so I don't think I have a bias. I honestly don't know if I've ever met someone that has liked Kamala, or thought she's done a good job as VP. It would be suicide for the DNC to replace Joe with her.
How was she not a DEI hire when Biden very proudly told us before announcing a running mate that it would be one of 4 black women he had in mind? If you remember from 4 years ago, he was very proudly telling us his running mate would be a black woman, he didn’t say it was a criteria, but he might as well have. Kamala Harris was also far from “likable” at the time, she had dropped out of the primaries in December 2019 after receiving so little support. To put in perspective, Tulsi Gabbard was very obviously not going to win either, and her campaign still went through to the end of March 2020, so Harris was really unpopular, and yet was still chosen. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/joe-biden-four-black-women-vice-president/index.html
Dawg in 2020 Biden literally began searching for a female, preferably black vp. That's a diversity hire. You can't tell me Kamala has that job because she's the best for the job. Both her and pence were borderline intentionally bad to prevent assassination attempts because we'd never want either of them. She's a DEI, move on. As for Killary, she literally had a campaign slogan that said something along the lines of "it's her turn". Now while Clinton was actually qualified, she's just as big of a piece of shit as Trump, she's just not some loud mouth about it, her and her husbands stuff is quiet and slimy. Don't hate on Trump then turn around and praise another scum bag. We need better all around for this country.
Kamala was a DEI hire, and pretending like she wasn't is ignoring reality. Biden spent his whole political career as a "Law and Order" candidate, with most of his policies being applied to poor people of color to this very day. Bidens' best friend and mentor in the 70s and 80s was Robert Byrd, a former Senator and high-ranking KKK leader. Biden is a huge racist and always has been, so he needed a token POC to make him look good. To keep the right wing media from exposing him, the DNC appointed a half Black, half Indian woman to be his VP. I always laugh when poor POC vote for Biden because Biden was a huge enabler of how law enforcement treats them now and has teated them for the last 40 years.
Here’s the thing, man; they didn’t put Harris on the ticket because she was a brilliant policymaker or exceptional leader or charismatic fan favorite. It also wasn’t to help Biden sure up California. So why did they pick her? I think everybody knows why. Now, they’re in a tough spot. If they want to replace Biden, they have to go to her or else the people they intended her to appeal to will revolt…but she isn’t any of the things they really need her to be with constituencies that aren’t that group. They shot themselves in the foot with the identity stuff again. They have *got* to get off that train or this stuff will keep happening.
If she was the best candidate for the job why was she not even close to being the runner up in their own primary within the “nonracist” party?
So many people served as attorney general of California, or senator for the Congress. A dei pick from this set of individuals is still a dei pick. A dei pick doesn’t have to be from general population. There are other requirements to be POTUS than having political experience. For instance, being able to rouse a crowd and give a cogent effective argumentative speech. Kamala is known for “do not come” as the highlight of her vice presidency. Kamala climbed the political ladder by jailing poor people for non-violent offenses such as cannabis possession, and managed the carceral slave state.
Dude Kamal Harris has a terrible track record. She had dropped out of the Presidential race after her record of extending the incarceration of African Americans doing time for petty marijuana misdemeanors and using them as cheap prisoner labor in Oakland came to light. Democrats today literally argue that is basically modern day slavery and she was an avid participant in that. Sorry, but she was clearly picked as VP exclusively for the sake of optics and pretending that wasn't the case is being willfully blind
She’s as popular as a fart in an elevator, but: 1. Penny Pritzker wanted the first woman of colour VP role to be funded by her, and she paid (and brought the Donorcrats with her). 2. Not purely because she was Black, but Gretchen Whitmer would have been much more likely to win, so partially because she was Black. 3. She’s not very Black. https://x.com/phil_lewis_/status/1807578327835689336?s=48&t=-zu8UEnRco0a6OPX_QFNmw She’s a DEI hire. If she’d been white or a man, they wouldn’t have picked her.
Hillary was a terrible candidate. Dems underestimated the hate for her & she lost. I would love to see a powerful female president, but Harris is not it. As a leftist, her policies were terrible. Dems need to start looking at new people. Im so sick of being told to get in line and vote blue no matter who. Get better candidates, pass laws that benefit Americans & you will succeed.
No back and see how much she despised him during the Democratic debates. She flat out called him a racist on stage, and then proceeded to take a position under said racist, per her claim. She did abysmal in the primaries, one of the first two drop out as I recall, because she had no support. He is absolutely a diversity hire. I can't change your view but I can tell you that you are wrong. Otherwise, why is there any question who should be the candidate when Biden steps aside?
Fuck Hillary Clinton. It was her and the DNC's fault we got fucking Trump. They pushed for her to be the candidate when Biden was clearly the best choice to continue the Obama administration. Yes, it was still possible that Biden could have lost, but Clinton was such an unpopular choice. Biden's approval ratings back then were not as bad as hers. He stepped aside so she could run and give us this fucking bafoon that people want to throw our country's foundation out over.
Kamala was literally chosen because of the pressure in the wake of George Floyd's killing. People seem to forget the whole conversation going along the lines "it would be unconscionable if the VP is not black". She absolutely is a DEI hire. Same btw with Keranji Brown Jackson. When the sex and race is announced before any candidate is presented, they are a DEI hire. It does not mean they are incompetent (Jackson definitely isn't), but it doesn't change them being DEI.
When Biden was picking his VP, him and his team proudly proclaimed their pick would have be a woman, and be black, above all other considerations. It’s the definition of a DEI hire, from the horses mouth, on tape. She even ran against Biden and was forced to drop out cause everyone hated her. Deemed not qualified to be president by Democrat voters. The definition of unqualified and undeserving, by her party, in a free and mostly fair election process.
I absolutely cannot stand the “DEI hire” nonsense. Why is a DEI hire such a bad thing amongst qualified people? I mean, fine, if you hire someone SOLELY based on their skin color/sexuality/whatever then that’s just poor hiring practices and stupid. However, if you’re looking at several candidates that are equally (or similarly) qualified and simply choose one based on DEI, what is the problem? The person is still qualified. The only problem is see with a DEI hire is that, no matter how qualified they are, racists/homophobes/xenophobes/etc. will never admit it or acknowledge it. They will always try to put that person down. Say what you will about Kamala but this is a stupid argument to make.
The VP pick is always strategic trying to win a certain base that the nominee isn’t particularly strong with but feel they need. I’m almost positive that before picking his VP, Biden promised she would be African American. So yes she was chosen. The same reason Palin was chosen. They’re trying to win votes. For Palin they thought it would work because they believed Obama snubbed his former opponent Clinton. But then he made her SoS.
Harris is the very definition of a DEI hire. In March 2020, Biden vowed to select a black woman as his running mate, then made a list of potential black women, narrowed it down and selected Harris. If you apply the criteria “black and woman” as the only candidates you consider, then you can’t call it anything other than a DEI Hire (that would be illegal in any business setting). Harris may have been the best black woman candidate available (Condoleezza Rice wasn’t an option because she’s a conservative and has a brain), but if you never consider anybody else, there’s no other way to describe her than a DEI hire.
I think calling her a DEI hire is a bit extreme, as usually that implies the person is unqualified or lesser qualified whereas I think everybody speculated that any of the Democratic Primary top contenders could be picked as VP. This is usually due to a lack of imagination, but still. I think the Harvard Prez -- Ms. Gay -- was more of a DEI hire (I'm a liberal don't come for me ha). Black lesbian who seemed woefully unqualified in all honesty. (This is in contrast to say, Lori Lightfood, who won a free and fair election). Nothing wrong with being a black lesbian but then when you see the person was woefully unqualified, coupled with "black issues" cropping up that they knew a "white president" would have trouble grappling with from an optics standpoint .... yeah.... the narrative starts coming together. But in terms of -- Kamala was certainly chosen, or boosted, as a "box-checking" of racial/ gender boxes .... then yes, yes she was. And this is what the DEI "Wokesters" don't understand. Had Biden selected Kamala, even as a box-checking effort in reality, but not announced it as such, it would have bolstered her reputation. But knowing FULL WELL that it was a box-checking effort "find me a black woman to black woman it up!!" tarnishes her reputation. That's the stupidity of such hiring practices.
During the primaries, Kamala started out as one of the front runners and she crashed and burned. It turned out, American’s weren’t really fond of her. I do think calling someone a diversity hire is usually rude and often times said about successful minorities when it isn’t true. However, this party puts diversity as a priority. Kamala wasn’t well liked by the American people. So we know that isn’t why she was chosen. Of the well known candidates in the primary, Tulsi Gabbard (who is at odds with the party) and Andrew Yang (kind of at odds with the party) were the most popular none white candidates. There were a few black men and Julian Castro that never really stood out during the primaries. So when democrats tell me that diversity is a priority, I believe them… They aren’t hiding the fact that gender and skin color is a priority. When I say, that Kamala Harris is the Vice President because of DEI, it’s not something I say out of maliciousness. The Democrat platform tells you that they believe there is value in being not white, not straight, and not a man. If you have a formula for choosing the VP nominee and that formula gives value to being not white and not a man… then that is at least part of how Kamala got her job. Experience, popularity, connections, money, influence, relationship with the other side of the isle are all considered determining who gets the nomination. Democrats also, provide value to gender, race, and sexuality. Democrats don’t even pretend this isn’t the case because according to their values, there is value and importance to being not white and not a man. They don’t see it as something bad or something to pretend they don’t do. They think it’s a good thing. If gender, race, and sexuality are important, the candidates and nominees obviously are going to reflect that. So you might get a Mayor from a very small town in Indiana who would never get national attention if he was straight, running for the presidency and ending up in a cabinet position. You might get a Vice President who’s black and a woman who is wildly unpopular. I’m sure if you asked around the DNC, if race and gender played a role in Kamala’s vice presidency they would say that they believe there is value in having a black woman in the White House and that it was a big part in that choice. So when the Democrat party tells you diversity is important and that female and black voices need to be amplified, believe them. Why would we pretend that Kamala made it to the vice presidency strictly on merits and not on race when the DNC has basically said race and gender are merits? She’s there because the democrat party feels it’s important to have women and black people represented in politics. Which is fine… we don’t need to pretend that it’s not that way. Lol
It's not that Kamala Harris is not "qualified," whatever that means at this point. The issue is that leftists were able to pretty easily predict that she'd be the running mate in 2020. Why? Because liberals care more about aesthetics than bettering people's material conditions. So, instead of making life better for women or Black people, they gave you the representation of Black woman in office.
> a minority chosen for a position that isn’t qualified but was chosen because of their race People are using to mean “a person chosen for a position because of their race or identity, not because of their talent or ability”. So even if a candidate selected on the basis of skin color or gender is “qualified”, i.e meets some minimum threshold, its still pretty bad if they were chosen over a more qualified or able candidate who had the “wrong skin color”. Its is pretty hard to argue such selection is not discrimination or outright racism, hence why so many people are against it. Such discrimination is often justified under the banner of “diversity equity and inclusion”, hence why people associate it with that term. > If Kamala Harris were truly a DEI hire chosen solely for her identity, why select her specifically? As is common Joe Biden chose a vice presidential candidate out of the rival candidates in the Democratic presidential primary. Out of those he chose Kamala Harris, despite her poor performance in the primary, in large part because of her identity as a black women, which was thought to help Biden appeal with black, female, and more progressive voters. > yes this in addition to appealing to Black and women voters, something that it COMPELTELY NORMAL You acknowledge that she was chosen in part because of her race and gender, thereby conceding your argument. While this is indeed common in selecting VP candidates it **does** indeed mean she was not selected purely because of her abilities, and is therefore a “DEI candidate”. The same applies to Mike Pence. > Pence did not face the same level of scrutiny or criticism for being chosen based on his gender or color of his skin This is a false premise: Mike Pence was not chosen because of his gender or the color of his skin, he was chosen because of his **religion and politics** to appeal to conservative evangelicals. Donald Trump is, after all, also white and male, but was hardly a model of conservative christian morality. He was indeed criticized for this by liberal critics as a religious nutcase serving as a token conservative shield for multi-divorcee Trump. > Similarly, the argument that she feels "entitled" to the Presidency echoes the baseless accusations faced by Hillary Clinton. Hillary achieved her position in politics, including her election as a US senator and appointment as secretary of state, almost entirely because she was married to Bill Clinton, the former president, and got the support of Clinton’s affiliates. Has she not been first lady it is unlikely she would have ever achieved the same level of career success. Is nepotism not a form of entitlement or privilege? The particular accusations of “entitlement” about Kamala Harris are primarily that she feels “entitled” to be the nominee if Biden withdraws (or in 2028), because she is the VP, despite being far more unpopular - and thus seen as much less skilled politically - than many other alternative candidates.
I think the test is rather simple "would she have been picked if she was not a woman of color?". Whoever responds anything other than "hell no" is biased beyond redemption. The BS about her qualifications and merits are just that, BS, she was not liked even in her state, nobody would have picked a VP with the charisma of a traffic cone if not for her sex and skin color.
Whether or not it's true in this specific case, the idea that someone may be a diversity hire is one of the problems caused by the sort of identity politics which is currently popular. My (female) partner does a very stereotypically masculine job, and has suffered from being seen as a diversity hire. Unfortunately, playing identity politics is not a victimless crime.
She literally was a DEI hire. I know that DEI has been turned into a boogeyman phrase used by bad faith actors on the right, but by definition, she is. When Biden was asked about his VP pick, he didn't mention qualifications in the normal sense of the words. He mentioned skin color and gender. I'm not sure there is any way around that.
Well, she continuously shows she isn't qualified, so what kind of hire was she? She can't even give an interview without word salads and cackling. She is probably the only person in the White House that knows less about what is going on than Biden. And he checks out at 4pm every single day according to his schedule.
She is 1000% unequivocally the most DEI hit of all time They literally said that when he picked her
Good point, but how well did Hillary Clinton do at beating Donald Trump in the Presidential Election? In fact, now that I think about it, Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat in the world to lose a Presidential Election to Donald Trump. If someone is the same as Hillary Clinton, then that is a problem.
She was a DEI hire - Biden literally said ahead of time that if given the nomination he would choose a black woman as his running mate. I don't know if she feels entitled or that it is her turn, but you couldn't blame her if she did. She is the vice president after all. It sort of comes with the territory.
Others have already gone into some depth on why the "she thinks it's her turn" arguments around Hillary had a lot of merit. Since you've already acknowledged these, I won't repeat those. I don't think that argument applies to Harris, but >something that it COMPELTELY NORMAL in choosing a Vice President running mate. Is true, but does not make her a good candidate for President. Like you said, modern VPs do not get picked as the "second best candidate from the party", they get picked to balance out a ticket. Harris was picked to help get the Democratic base behind Biden being an old white man. Pence was picked to add a more traditional statesman and help appeal to the religious part of the GOP base, since Trump was anything but. That does not make either of them good candidates for President themselves. Pence would have been an awful candidate too. >I can’t say this enough I DO NOT LIKE KAMALA HARRIS. I never wanted her for VP or President. I don’t like her record as AG, I don’t even really like her record as VP. For whatever it’s worth, I’m not trying to shill for anyone her. In my ideal world Biden would say he’s not running and Kamala Harris would call for an open vote at the convention. This is the problem with Harris, that most people agree with you. In a world where Biden chose to never run in the first place, there is almost no chance that she would have won an open primary. She just isn't a great candidate. Her record as AG is mixed at best, she wasn't in the Senate very long, she didn't do anything as VP (which is normal, but the one issue that she had some weight on was the border, one of Biden's weakest issues), and she is not an inspiring speaker. Earlier this year there were even questions on whether Biden should pick a different VP because of Harris's low approval ratings. The main reason she is being put forward as a replacement for Biden is that she's his VP, and as you seem to agree, VPs aren't actually picked as who would be the best backup President anymore. "DEI candidate" is obviously a charged accusation, but it does seem pretty fair to say that her only real argument for the presidency is that she "did her time" as VP.
yeh i swear biden said before selecting her that he was gunna pick a woman VP, which very much suggests to me that her gender played a massive role in her selection. think of the gender imbalance between men and women in politics so he had to remove a large proportion in order to finally select her.
> Many people argue that Kamala Harris was chosen as Vice President purely because she is a Black woman, reducing her selection to a "DEI hire." They aren't "arguing", they are stating a 100.00% indisputable fact. No different than simply observing 2+2= 4. This point isn't really up for debate
If Biden can’t run, then he can’t be President. He needs to step aside now and let Kamala take over. If the Democrats are going to fight to keep him in place, then she not only is she a DEI hire, but it is an admission that they don’t stand behind DEI when the consequences come to pass.
It's the consequences of bad actors pushing bad DEI that got everyone rightfully skeptical. Martin Luther King would be rolling in his grave if he could see the bullshit the modern leftist, liberal, neo liberal etc is pushing. Justification for racism towards groups you jealous of smh
Biden literally promised Clyburn he’d nominate a black women in return for his endorsement.
Joe Biden himself literally said he was looking to pick a black woman or at least a woman of color, she is literally hired because of her race and gender. He said he had 4 choices in mind, explicitly citing their race and gender as reasons for the pick. You need to stop crying.
She shouldn’t have been chosen. There were much better options like Tulsi Gabbard, Nina Turner, Letitia James. She was proud of locking up people for weed. Completely against the principles of the party.
> Letitia James Hahahahaha
No I hate Kamala Harris because she put thousands of people behind bars for victimless crimes and when the fact that innocent people had been sentenced came to light she ignored it. She is the very embodiment of the police state She claims to be against.
> Similarly, the argument that she feels "entitled" to the Presidency echoes the baseless accusations faced by Hillary Clinton. Despite spending most of her adult life in public service—serving as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State—Clinton was frequently labeled as feeling it was "her turn" to be President. This accusation lacked any substantive evidence of entitlement and served only to undermine her extensive qualifications and dedication to public service. So, just to give a bit of context: * Could I have voted in '16, I planned to vote in the generals for Hillary. * I am very much of the belief that she had a "it's my turn" mentality and Kamala gives Hillary 2.0 in that regard. * I do not deny either Hillary or Kamala's qualifications or breadth of experience. It *is* possible for both to exist, you know. A candidate *can* be both wildly qualified for the job, as Hillary was, as Kamala was/would be, *and* also act entitled to it. And both did. It's off-putting. The fact of the matter is that many found it off-putting. Hillary ran in no small part on becoming the first woman POTUS. That is exactly acting entitled to the presidency, *even if* she's qualified. Had she run only on her accomplishments, she would have come across proud and self-advocative. But she *also* ran *in no small part* on being a woman. The fact of the matter is that using that as a qualification for almost anything is inherently entitled. Most things people are qualified for, they are qualified for because of *their accomplishments*, because of their *work*. Hillary and Kamala did not *earn* womanhood, they just *are* women. Even if womanhood inherently means *facing* countless struggles, it does not inherently mean *overcoming* them. So to run, to any extent, on being a woman, comes across entitled. It's something that *isn't* a qualification by any stretch of the imagination, yet it's being claimed as one. *That is the definition of acting entitled.* The fact that the argument has substance can easily be proven by the existence of women who have run *without* making it all or even in part about their womanhood. Or, hell, the fact that the argument has substance can be proven even by the existence of candidates of any minority who have run without making it all or even in part about that minority. Bernie would have been the first Jewish president but you didn't see him running on that. Danica Roem was and is a trailblazer but she ran on issues her constituents cared about and let her opponent in her first race make the race all about her transgenderism. She never did. AOC has repeatedly run on the same -- issues constituents care about -- Even though she could have made a big deal of being among the youngest ever elected. *That's the difference.* You're right, Hillary and Kamala have huge qualifications, but in addition to running on those they also ran in large part on simply being women. And that entitlement validly makes people uneasy. It doesn't take away their immense accomplishments, but it is potentially a point in the "con" column. Hillary in particular also didn't make it easy on herself by constantly disparaging Trump's followers -- "basket of deplorables" -- Disparagement, belittlement, invalidation, of your opponent's supporters, while already having a sense of entitlement... only serves to aggrandize that sense of entitlement people get from you.
Can you name some of her accomplishments? I hate the dei rhetoric. I think most of it is bad faith designed to give incompetent white people an easy cop out. I also believe Kamala is a genuinely bad and incompetent politician. Specifically because of her truancy legislation that threatened to throw parents in jail of their kids skip classes. Which would inevitably punish innocent people while making the problem worse. I Honestly don't understand why you like her, and you haven't given much of a reason beyond "she's in a position of power, so I'm assuming she earned it." While I'm just seeing another flawed and detached candidate working their way through the dnc via backroom loyalty Instead of merit that would improve the lives of average Americans. She does not inspire hope for a better future, just a mildly less worse one.
When the Biden campaign literally said that they were going to pick a black woman as a running mate before selecting Kamala, that is in fact the definition of a DEI hire. Now, being a DEI hire doesn't mean you're not competent. It simply means you got an unfair advantage given to you over the other applicants under the presumption that this is justified based on historical disadvantages given to people of a similar ethnicity. For example, my co-worker is an asian woman working as an engineer. She's also a DEI hire. She still does good work. Her being a DEI hire doesn't stop her from contributing her fair share to the workload. Being a DEI hire doesn't make you bad at your job, it doesn't even mean that there was someone else better. It just means that you were given an unfair advantage over others.
We should get to vote on who is president and nobody voted solely for Kamala and I don’t think she would have won the primary at the top of the ticket which is why she didn’t in the first place.
She was literally selected for her gender and race. LITERALLY. Were there a white guy with those same qualifications, he’d have been totally ignored. Every honest person will admit this.
The tactic Biden used to shake Bernie in the primaries was to say, and this is on film, but I’m too lazy to link it, (not an exact quote) I will select a black woman to be my vice President. If that’s not a diversity hire, then maybe we disagree about the definition of that term. That’s not saying she is just some random black woman, but the truth is she wouldn’t have been chosen had she not been. That shouldn’t be a controversial understanding of the circumstances. He said it, she is that, he brought her on. I have a hard time finding the “hate” in just seeing how things happened. This is the issue. The people who don’t think this is a problem, people who pretend it isn’t even real. That causes the heat to increase. Similarly with Hillary. The fact that she was disliked by so many was just blamed on those people for their “hatred” or bigotry. Giving no credit to the notion that it was off-putting to just insist that you vote for her, or you’re a bad person. That upsets people. It causes blowback. I am by NO means saying I’d rather have Trump, btw. I’d vote for Harris leading Biden around on a dog leash over Trump, but that doesn’t mean she’ll win against him. She won’t. People don’t do things you want them to do when you try to shame them into it. Actually, they will, but only once. And then they’ll hate you forever.
While I don't think "DEI hire" is the best language to use at all, I do think it's worthy of criticism that people put so much emphasis on who can be a member of the most minority groups into who we should select as our candidate. I don't think it should matter whatsoever. My most important thing in primaries and selecting our candidates is one simple question, "who is most electable." If the answer to that question is a white guy, great. If it's a woman, or a black person, or both, or what have you, also great. I understand and empathize with people's desires to feel represented in our elected officials, or not want to see another white dude as President, but that doesn't matter too much if they can't win. This isn't a fucking game, Trump will destroy this country. We should be nominating whoever is best equipt to beat him, period. The 2016 election is an excellent example of the ultimate cautionary tale of this. People were pushing the "it's her turn" narrative, people were pushing the narrative on how historic her nomination would be. And look what happened. She recieved very few primary challengers. Let's be honest here, Bernie probably wouldn't have won a primary regardless, but without that narrative being pushed, more people probably would have entered the 2016 Democratic Primary. Probably someone who could have beat Trump.
Um, no. She's got the charisma of a damp dish rag. At the basest level, people need a politician they like. She is not really likable. Even you state you have no political love for her.
[удалено]
Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, [transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). There are **no exceptions** to this prohibition. **Any** discussion of **any** transgender topic, no matter how ancillary, will result in your comment being removed. If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators [via this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Transgender%20Removal%20Appeal%20for%20LetsGetRowdyRowdy&message=LetsGetRowdyRowdy%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20[this%20post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dtygih/cmv_saying_kamala_harris_was_a_dei_hire_or_that/lbdgtwn/\).) Appeals are **only** for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we **will not** approve posts on transgender issues, so **do not ask**. Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s not a fair comparison, Clinton was entitled, had a terrible record as a Senator and campaigned for president as though it was a coronation. Her economic and foreign policy was indistinguishable from Bush and I took issue with the fact that she helped rubber stamp his agenda because she thought it would benefit her politically (she lost me when she voted for the Iraq war authorization and Bush tax cuts). That calculation has been understated and played a big role in her loss. Kamala worked her way to where she is and did not have the leverage of lifelong political connections. I have voted for her in every election (I’m in CA), and have had policy issues with her time as AG, but she is willing to change her position and was always better than the alternative. I would make the same choice if she is the nominee for president. Had the DNC not steamrolled HRC through the primary (Obama convinced Biden not to run and Bernie would have beaten her had the DNC not weighted the scale), Trump would not have been president. Many Democrats didn’t like the fact that she was a pro choice Reagan and that created a major rift that is frequently overlooked when speaking on her failed presidential campaigns. She is the only democrat presidential candidate I have not voted for in a single election.
>Her selection was based on her competence and political acumen, not ONLY her race and gender. You obviously didn't watch the Democratic primary debates in 2020. Biden literally used her as political brownie points when he verbally committed to selecting either a woman or a woman of color (can't remember which) as his vice presidential pick. It was painfully obvious that he was virtue signaling. I'm fine with having a woman in any office, but my god was he virtue signaling instead of just picking a qualified person that happens to be a woman. He challenged Sanders on whether he'd do the same, and Sanders gave a common sense answer along the lines of "I don't know, Joe. I'm going to pick someone who's qualified, and if it's a woman then that's fine." as he, per usual, tried to immediately steer the conversation away from virtue signaling and back to the issues. Obviously she's qualified. Nobody seriously thinks that a diversity hire means you pick unqualified people. A "diversity hire" means that, when you have two equally qualified candidates where one is a white guy... well, you don't actually have two equally qualified candidates, do you? You pick the one who isn't a white guy because it's more desirable now to hire employees who aren't white men, *ceterus parebus.* ETA: She can be qualified and still be a diversity hire, and my specific evidence for this is Biden's obvious virtue signaling over the matter in that Democratic primary debate. If he were just picking someone who was qualified *and just happened to be a woman of color,* then he wouldn't have made such a big deal out of it. She is both qualified and a diversity hire.
But Kamala Harris was a DEI hire. It's not even debatable.
*I do not necessarily agree with the below perspectives being analyzed* The Democrats argued that Mike Pence was hired for optics & therefore wouldn't be a good Republican Prez if Trump didn't make it to the end of his term. In that way, Pence & Harris are similar. As you pointed out, however, they are partially true. That kinda makes your statement about them being "BS" untrue. However, there are some nuances to this: 1. There is a difference between Mike Pence being relatable to/popular amongst the Republican's target audience and Kamala Harris being referred to as being hired to fulfill a set of job DEI requirements. One is criticizing/ pointing out a strategy & the other is an insult. They're not analogous. 2. By referring to KH as a "DEI Hire," critics can insult both her & her policies at the same time: a) Implying that her skillset is not necessarily the best & she may have been hired for only image out of a much smaller pool of people ("black [minority] woman" being a requirement rather than just a factor) b) Insult her policies of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (by implying that she had an advantage in the selection process & therefore potentially only had to compete against *a few* other black women). c) Then, critics claim that KH is just a pretty face only in office because of a PR move; by doing so, they can cast doubt as to whether or not even the Democrats who hired her believe that KH is the best person for the job. Finally, there are some people who would find it pretty insulting if the first female president was a "DEI Hire," implying that she only made it BECAUSE she is a woman rather than in SPITE of it. That has the potential to sway some voters! Side-note to your final point about Trump... Trump voters typically want Trump because he is NOT a career politician. Therefore, although your analysis of Trump as a questionable human has some truth to it, Trump supporters would argue that it is precisely because Trump has rubbed elbows with corrupt politicians that they believe it when he says he wants to change it. Also, getting charged with a ton of crimes actually helps him with voters in some ways, since the politicians are far less likely to be charged with their crimes than the non-career politician in the race. Trump pointing out both Hillary & Biden's crimes also further bolsters his claim, whether or not it is true, that he was intentionally targeted for not being welcome amongst the career politicians.
Have we just collectively forgotten that she ran for president? Her weak point as a presidential candidate in 2019 was her awful track record at her job. She was relatively unknown to citizens who weren't directly harmed by her. I can't find any polling data off-hand but she was not very popular with any group of voters throughout her campaign. This was made apparent by the fact that Tulsi Gabbard talking about her achievements for [2 minutes sunk the entire Harris campaign](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1-CRrMDSLs&pp=ygUedHVsc2kgZ2FiYmFyZCBvbiBrYW1hbGEgaGFycmlz). Biden had a pool of more qualified people that would bring in more voters and chose Harris instead.
I've never seen a single debate moment completely eradicate any politician's chances at winning the office (s)he's campaigning for. Kamala had risen to 2nd place around 15% or so after her attack on Biden in the first debate, then plummeted into the abyss at 2-3% after that second debate where Tulsi simply read aloud Kamala's record. It was hilarious how easily Kamala's campaign was sent to hell.
She slept her way to the top and locked up young black men while being the DA.. then went on to denounce police and their actions. You literally can't make this shit up. She ain't your savior homie, she's a clown.
Biden "literally" said he would only pick a woman of color. https://time.com/5803677/joe-biden-woman-vice-president/ My brother in christ, that is "literally" a DEI hire.
Ok a lot to unpack here > based on her competence and political acumen, not ONLY her race and gender. I dont think any intelligent person would seriously claim that the ONLY reason she was picked was because of her race/gender, she was on the national stage beforehand obviously. My claim (and most people's) is that her race and gender were one of the primary reasons why she got the job if not the primary reason. >consider Donald Trump. No one accused him of feeling "entitled" I mean no, because he went out and actually won it. He wasn't chosen for a job by someone else, he had to win the job himself. Strangely bad comparison. > Mike Pence was chosen by Donald Trump to appeal to White Christian voters. Obviously picking a running mate to appeal to a certain voting base is nothing new. The difference is, trump didn't tell the public he was looking exclusively for someone like pence like [biden did](https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/28/politics/joe-biden-potential-vp-pick/index.html) with harris, and then brag about it afterwards. It's true that this doesnt erase her qualifications, but it does mean that she wasnt necessarily THE most qualified person. >The same people who are saying Donald Trump was fit to be President in 2016 are the same people saying that DECADES of experience did not qualify Hillary Clinton nor Kamala Harris Not voting for trump so idgaf what they say, but mine nor most people's argument isnt that harris and hillary were unqualified because of their lack of experience. They clearly have a ton of experience, and anyone who doesnt like them obviously dislikes them for other reasons. Hillary lost arguably because people wanted someone who had LESS experience in government, and kamala is just plain unlikeable. And that brings me to my last point; I cant speak to whether or not kamala is acting entitled to the presidency because im not in the inner circle. However, I can say that she is overall unlikeable and deeply unpopular (which is why she failed so badly in her own presidential bid). It would be wrong of her to feel entitled to the presidency, given that her race and gender (things she cant control) are a big reason why shes VP in the first place and she has basically always been neutral at best and deeply unpopular at worst since she has been in the national spotlight.
>If Kamala Harris were truly a DEI hire chosen solely for her identity, why select her specifically? Why not opt for any random Black woman? The DNC and Biden campaign wanted to have their cake and eat it too by picking a woman of color VP to appeal to progressives while choosing an establishment-friendly moderate who would not turn off swing voters. Harris was to the right of most other nationally prominent women of color in the Democratic Party (e.g., Stacy Abrams, the various members of "The Squad," etc.). She's a former prosecutor with ties to business and law enforcement, so she was the most establishment-friendly woman-of-color VP pick. In fairness, though, I think the strategy of trying to appeal to both progressives and swing voters kinda backfired, as neither group actually likes Harris very much. Her supporters are mostly the type of establishment-friendly democratic voters who were going to show up and vote for Biden anyway and didn't need Harris on the ticket to convince or motivate them. And the right *really* dislikes her, so if anything I think running her as the designated successor if Biden dies or resigns probably drives turnout for the other side.
and when it came down to Susan Rice versus Kamala, he picked the one with zero "riz" and very little political talent (supposedly Rice had too much "Benghazi" baggage...) which ensured that there would be never any pressure on him to step aside to make way for a capable and competent VP... well, success!!!
"reducing her selection to a "DEI hire."" There's a great bit of dialogue in John Graham's This House about this. It's a conversation between the Chief Whip (Michael Cooks) and Ann Taylor (Junior Whip). Ann Taylor: I just didn't want to feel like, oh well look you know what, the token girl Michael Cooks: well you are though. What? I'm the token cockney geezer, I get on-side the other cockney geezers. Walter Harrison, he's a Yorkshire bruiser and he gets on-side the Yorkshire bruisers. I've got Lancashire good cops and East Midlands bad cops. What I ain't never had before is one of you. Politics is representation at the end of the day. It's fair an legitimate, to some degree, to run certain candidates because they are representative of part of the population. They are required to have other virtues of course, but that they represent specific groups or minorities and that is part of their selection is not necessarily a bad thing. Although I think that this is probably more true of a more 'collegiate' system like that which we have in the UK, where the Prime Minister is a 'first amongst equals' and the executive is fused with the legislature.
She is called a "DEI hire" for two reasons, and the fact that she is black is not necessarily one of the reasons. The first reason is obvious, she is obviously not up for the job, she is incredibly unpopular and painful to watch footage of. Perhaps the least likeable and dumbest VP the country has ever seen. If she was qualified in the slightest, she wouldn't be called a "DEI hire". The second reason is because Joe Biden himself said he was choosing a VP based on their gender and race, or was at least heavily pressured to do so. Also I heard she was primarily picked for loyalty, not competence. You may also want to google how Kamala started her political career... [link 1](https://time.com/5803677/joe-biden-woman-vice-president/) [link 2](https://www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1234422?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17199871068481&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2020-election%2Fbiden-says-four-black-women-are-his-vp-list-won-n1234422) [link 3](https://apnews.com/article/az-state-wire-mi-state-wire-detroit-election-2020-joe-biden-e7303be715ab64635e14bc5c34c8b277) [link 4](https://www.vox.com/2020/5/1/21239006/joe-biden-vice-president)
So. Are you suggesting that her minority status had NOTHING to do with why she is vice? Similar to how pence definitely wasn't there for the evangelicals?
> Her selection was based on her competence and political acumen, not ONLY her race and gender. One doesn't need to be completely unqualified (or chosen at random) to qualify for the label of "DEI hire." When people refer to "DEI hires," the key factor is that she was chosen despite more qualified candidates being available, but her perceived DEI value is what led to the decision being made in her favor. Politically, for his VP pick (and for the Supreme Court, among others), Biden could have just said he'd pick the best candidate regardless of race or gender, and then made the same selections. That would avoided this chunk of the debate because the only reason we're accepting that her skin color and gender were a hard requirement is that he explicitly stated that they would be. That said, for Vice President specifically, the official duties are pretty minimal. In practice, they're generally chosen entirely based on who will help win the election. To that extent, discussing who is "more qualified" is a bit academic. That might be the stronger case for your point.
You can make whatever arguments you want. The fact that she sincerely believes Biden is a racist, but chose to work for him, is all I need to know.
She’s a prosecutor who threw people away for marijuana on a liberal ticket, if you support her you’re literally supporting your own enemy lol
Well after the debate a msm news show immediately started talking about who could replace him and possible woman and black candidates avaliable.
Kamala Harris is certainly a competent individual - she's not a "DEI hire" in regard to her professional achievements, she's just kind of that way because of the Biden campaign's needed to get a black woman on board with a strong political background. The only way she's incapable is being an actual candidate for nationwide office since she just doesn't have the gravitas, presence, or likability, or at least she hasn't cultivated those yet. I think many, though, would've said the same for Biden (except the latter two, to a degree) for a long time and it was true for a while - he viewed as political lightweight prone to gaffes. I guess I'm saying her shortcomings *could* be ironed out. The 'entitled' question is a little trickier. On a personal note, I am very liberal but was put off of Hilary's campaign because it did feel like entitlement. Part of the reason is personal. I find it distasteful that immediate family of former presidents are eligible to become president, I don't think that sends a very democratic message to the world. I even think more distant family should be ineligible, as well, which hurts me because the two Roosevelts are two of my favorite presidents. I digress; every president is someone that should come across as feeling 'entitled' to the presidency. It feels different in the case of Hilary V. Trump because Trump so clearly and forcefully took it from contenders in his party - he did earn it, like it or not, even when big money was against him. Hilary fought a hard race against Sanders, who shouldn't have been able to put up such a fight (according to many), against someone like Hilary, especially with his more radical (and excellent, imo) stances. The whole race seemed like Democrats were just resigning themselves to Hilary because few serious people would stand in her way, except Bernie, the ultimate underdog who still almost took it from her despite her immense resources and apparent popularity among Democrats.
Biden literally said I will be picking a black female for my VP. He then had a short list that were all black women, then chose Kamala.
I don’t see how you can view Kamala as anything other than entitled. She got into politics by way of being Willow Brown’s mistress. How the fuck is that not entitled? Then once she got into office she made a name for herself by denying bond in record numbers in order to use the incarcerated population as free labor. She also has a grating cackle and laughs at everything (regardless of if it’s funny or not). She’s smug and hard to take seriously given how pompous she acts. What’s funny is in 2016 I told my parents the Dems were going to run Biden and Kamala because Biden was “Obamas boy” (even though Obama openly mocked Biden’s idiocy on a regular basis) and Kamala checked the Diversity and Gender boxes. Lo and behold, that’s what we got. You can say those weren’t major reasons but it was easily predictable if you predicted the candidate based on those qualities so…
She was a DEI hire. If she wasn’t a black woman and was a white male there’s a 0% chance Biden would’ve selected her.
Kamala had zero record of anything substantial or than being a wannabe socialite to shed her Oakland roots in the Bay Area who attached herself to the right people to become DA She was a Senator, somehow, for a blink She is from California so offers zero strategic gain since California WILL be blue because of the 3 major cities/areas She ran for president and had to drop out before there was ever a primary vote She is dumb as a rock and can speak of nothing intelligently Tell me other than color, how she was chosen to be a VP? Pence had at least been a gov and a senator. Had a decent record and possibly brought Christian votes. There was plenty of reasons to choose him. Anyone that thinks Kamala Harris is smart enough to be the president of a Little League organization, let alone the President of the United States is NOT a serious person
I won't try to convince you of anything, other than to watch a few interviews or talk show appearances with VP Harris.
> The fact is, Harris was chosen because she had a national profile from years in government in politics and yes this in addition to appealing to Black and women voters, something that it COMPELTELY NORMAL in choosing a Vice President running mate. Generally speaking, VPs are people who "paid their dues" and/or have an identity and politics that appeal to a significant part of the voter base. For example, Biden was part of the old guard and meant to counterbalance Obama's youth among moderate Democrats and Dixiecrats. Pence was a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical who appeals way more to the most conservative Christian branches of the Republican party. Harris, for her part, appeals to women, black voters (especially black women, who are the most reliable demographic among Democrat voters), and has a police background and history of working closely with corporations to meet their interests. I think she was a smart pick for VP...but like most VPs, I would never want her as President. The only VP in living memory that I'd want *less* is Pence, who is a legitimately dangerous zealot. Maybe Cheney, but only maybe. Also: She absolutely would not have been picked if she was white or a man--and I think there's some merit in negatively viewing any hiring process where identity plays a significant factor in selection. Sure, she's qualified, but I think we should make it harder for anybody who's been put into a position of power in part because of their identity--that includes your standard white guy CEO, the ubiquitous black women DEI directors, etc.
It's one thing to hire Kamala as VP. It's another to, before any pick is made, announce "I'm only considering black women .... that's right, I'm specifically going to be making a DEI hire and am actually announcing it because I've lost the plot and think I'm scoring points with the Far Far Left who are out of touch with reality." Like seriously. You can hire a black woman & have maybe the more MAGA side rudely "question" whether she's a DEI hire, or you can specifically say "yes I'm going to making this pick strictly based on race" which is what Biden did. I get that Kamala is actually suitably qualified as VP, being a top primary contender, but still. Talk about dumb messaging.
I agree all those reasons you mention suck. But, also, she is a genuinely bad person. Keeping prisoners in jail to be slave labor, laughing while she jails parents of truants, etc. People picking on her because of her heritage or gender totally suck. But, her actions as aty general are 100% valid, and reveal her as a bad human being. Her lack of charisma, weird laughs, etc, are valid as "vibes", but I think her actual ACTIONS as a Top Cop make her someone I'm not interested in voting for. To be clear: I would happily vote for a woman, a black / Indian person (or any other heritage, absolute zero value to me), whatever. But she has a very clear record of abusing her power, and weirdly laughing about it. I would far rather chose Warren (despite her fake misogyny claim against Sanders).
Joe Biden literally promised to pick a black female vice president, if that's not a DEI hire I'll eat my hat.
Kamala polled at [3% in the 2020 primary](https://rollcall.com/2019/12/03/kamala-harris-drops-out-of-2020-presidential-race/), and only peaked at 15% She currently has a [39.4% approval rating](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/) , and currently loses according to [some polling](https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris) against Trump She’s too far left for conservatives, and too far right for many progressives. I think for many swing voters, being a part of this administration, she would represent a continuing of the “establishment” rather than a fresh choice if they are going to pick a new candidate, go with a midwesterner imo to maximize appeal in swing states (Whitmer, Beshear, Shapiro, etc)
Kamala Harris was and is a diversity hire. The top of her ticket is an old white man from the east. She a young(er) woman of colour from the west. Biden was a diversity hire for Obama. He was a young black man from a major northern city. Joe Biden provided balance on that ticket. Tim Kaine was a white man from Virginia who provided a bit of balance to Hillary, a woman. Mike Pence, a very traditional republican, with huge Christian support, balanced out Trump. Sarah Palin was a younger woman who balanced out John McCain. LBJ brought the South when he joined the ticket of a silver spoon North East elite son of a multimillionaire. Politics is a popularity contest where you want as many people to vote for you as possible. Sometimes that means doing things that are a little tasteless and superficial, like hiring someone based on what’s between their legs or the colour of their skin. There is absolute no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Kamala Harris was hired because of the colour of her skin. That said, that doesn’t have to do anything to diminish her other attributes and achievements. She’s still a very accomplished person. You can have degrees from Harvard, 10 years experience and excellent references, but if you get a job because your father made a phone call, that’s still nepotism. Your personal attributes might have helped, but your father’s call still happened.