In regards to Kamala Harris, I would put her up , if we're doing apples to apples, against whatever ignorant anarchist or flamethrower Trump ends up picking, and as Messina said, it comes down to a choice : Biden vs Trump AND Harris vs. (Lake/Greene wing or generic Trump sycophant wing). From that perspective, Harris is clearly the only …
In regards to Kamala Harris, I would put her up , if we're doing apples to apples, against whatever ignorant anarchist or flamethrower Trump ends up picking, and as Messina said, it comes down to a choice : Biden vs Trump AND Harris vs. (Lake/Greene wing or generic Trump sycophant wing). From that perspective, Harris is clearly the only rational choice for any rational (non-Trumpy) voter. And I also reiterate that pundits overthink this stuff - the typical voter , who doesn't follow politics at all in their normal life, barely thinks about the second name on the ticket when casting their ballot.
I legitimately think the difference between say, Whitmer/Warnock and Kamala/say Tim Walz (current Minnesota Gov) is a lot smaller than people online think.
Truth to tell, the attacks on her that pretend to understand how she would be if president as just pure speculation. What she is getting is some real experience. So she sees how a functional white house runs. That is really all there is.
And let's also get serious about what we really know about anyone who has not been president. Obama, for all his eloquence, simply did not have the relationships or experience to get more done. And Bush II was led by the nose. So I would take my chances with Joe and Kamala.
In regards to Kamala Harris, I would put her up , if we're doing apples to apples, against whatever ignorant anarchist or flamethrower Trump ends up picking, and as Messina said, it comes down to a choice : Biden vs Trump AND Harris vs. (Lake/Greene wing or generic Trump sycophant wing). From that perspective, Harris is clearly the only rational choice for any rational (non-Trumpy) voter. And I also reiterate that pundits overthink this stuff - the typical voter , who doesn't follow politics at all in their normal life, barely thinks about the second name on the ticket when casting their ballot.
I legitimately think the difference between say, Whitmer/Warnock and Kamala/say Tim Walz (current Minnesota Gov) is a lot smaller than people online think.
Truth to tell, the attacks on her that pretend to understand how she would be if president as just pure speculation. What she is getting is some real experience. So she sees how a functional white house runs. That is really all there is.
And let's also get serious about what we really know about anyone who has not been president. Obama, for all his eloquence, simply did not have the relationships or experience to get more done. And Bush II was led by the nose. So I would take my chances with Joe and Kamala.