Biden's VP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's told "closest advisors" it's Kamala.

Yay! She is smart, charismatic and will bring a lot to the ticket. (And she’s not Susan Rice, phew.)

If this is true, Donald trump just won his reelection. Biden. Is. Dunzo.

I mean, but who is this guy?!?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's told "closest advisors" it's Kamala.

Yay! She is smart, charismatic and will bring a lot to the ticket. (And she’s not Susan Rice, phew.)

If this is true, Donald trump just won his reelection. Biden. Is. Dunzo.

Someone offers this up about literally every possible VP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's told "closest advisors" it's Kamala.

Yay! She is smart, charismatic and will bring a lot to the ticket. (And she’s not Susan Rice, phew.)

If this is true, Donald trump just won his reelection. Biden. Is. Dunzo.

Come on, no. Kamala Harris is a relatively safe pick, electorally. The bigger danger with her is possible dysfunction in the cabinet if it’s indeed true that she dropped a bunch of opposition research on the other candidates.

Why do people think she's a safe pick electorally? Serious question. She's in a safe state and ran a disastrous presidential campaign. She doesn't answer questions directly and fumbles her answers all the time. No policy chops. Maybe she could rise to the occasion, but I consider her a very risky pick both in terms of substance and likability. At least Rice has the substance.

She can stay on message. She’s relatively popular with women of all races. She doesn’t get the most hardcore progressives on board, but honestly, nothing would satisfy them so they don’t matter. She doesn’t have the massive BENGHAZIIIIIIII baggage of Susan Rice.

If it’s between her and Susan Rice, I see Kamala as the less damaging pick because it would be so easy for the GOP ghouls to hammer a “Benghazi Clinton emails” message 24/7 and cause some of the lower-information, somewhat Republican leaning women swing voters to stay home or vote Trump again, and that’s a key electoral group this time around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's told "closest advisors" it's Kamala.

Yay! She is smart, charismatic and will bring a lot to the ticket. (And she’s not Susan Rice, phew.)

If this is true, Donald trump just won his reelection. Biden. Is. Dunzo.

Come on, no. Kamala Harris is a relatively safe pick, electorally. The bigger danger with her is possible dysfunction in the cabinet if it’s indeed true that she dropped a bunch of opposition research on the other candidates.

Why do people think she's a safe pick electorally? Serious question. She's in a safe state and ran a disastrous presidential campaign. She doesn't answer questions directly and fumbles her answers all the time. No policy chops. Maybe she could rise to the occasion, but I consider her a very risky pick both in terms of substance and likability. At least Rice has the substance.

She can stay on message. She’s relatively popular with women of all races. She doesn’t get the most hardcore progressives on board, but honestly, nothing would satisfy them so they don’t matter. She doesn’t have the massive BENGHAZIIIIIIII baggage of Susan Rice.

If it’s between her and Susan Rice, I see Kamala as the less damaging pick because it would be so easy for the GOP ghouls to hammer a “Benghazi Clinton emails” message 24/7 and cause some of the lower-information, somewhat Republican leaning women swing voters to stay home or vote Trump again, and that’s a key electoral group this time around.

She also doesn’t have a MAGA son. Joe’s son is all the negative we need

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's told "closest advisors" it's Kamala.

Yay! She is smart, charismatic and will bring a lot to the ticket. (And she’s not Susan Rice, phew.)

If this is true, Donald trump just won his reelection. Biden. Is. Dunzo.

Come on, no. Kamala Harris is a relatively safe pick, electorally. The bigger danger with her is possible dysfunction in the cabinet if it’s indeed true that she dropped a bunch of opposition research on the other candidates.

Why do people think she's a safe pick electorally? Serious question. She's in a safe state and ran a disastrous presidential campaign. She doesn't answer questions directly and fumbles her answers all the time. No policy chops. Maybe she could rise to the occasion, but I consider her a very risky pick both in terms of substance and likability. At least Rice has the substance.

She can stay on message. She’s relatively popular with women of all races. She doesn’t get the most hardcore progressives on board, but honestly, nothing would satisfy them so they don’t matter. She doesn’t have the massive BENGHAZIIIIIIII baggage of Susan Rice.

If it’s between her and Susan Rice, I see Kamala as the less damaging pick because it would be so easy for the GOP ghouls to hammer a “Benghazi Clinton emails” message 24/7 and cause some of the lower-information, somewhat Republican leaning women swing voters to stay home or vote Trump again, and that’s a key electoral group this time around.

This. She was not my first choice, but I think she was safer than Rice or Bass, and it seems like it came down to those 3.

The Veepstakes have gotten me a bit lore excited about the future of women in politics because it gave a number of them more exposure. Outside if Warren, most are in the younger side and have a bright future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's told "closest advisors" it's Kamala.

Yay! She is smart, charismatic and will bring a lot to the ticket. (And she’s not Susan Rice, phew.)

If this is true, Donald trump just won his reelection. Biden. Is. Dunzo.

Come on, no. Kamala Harris is a relatively safe pick, electorally. The bigger danger with her is possible dysfunction in the cabinet if it’s indeed true that she dropped a bunch of opposition research on the other candidates.

Why do people think she's a safe pick electorally? Serious question. She's in a safe state and ran a disastrous presidential campaign. She doesn't answer questions directly and fumbles her answers all the time. No policy chops. Maybe she could rise to the occasion, but I consider her a very risky pick both in terms of substance and likability. At least Rice has the substance.

She can stay on message. She’s relatively popular with women of all races. She doesn’t get the most hardcore progressives on board, but honestly, nothing would satisfy them so they don’t matter. She doesn’t have the massive BENGHAZIIIIIIII baggage of Susan Rice.

If it’s between her and Susan Rice, I see Kamala as the less damaging pick because it would be so easy for the GOP ghouls to hammer a “Benghazi Clinton emails” message 24/7 and cause some of the lower-information, somewhat Republican leaning women swing voters to stay home or vote Trump again, and that’s a key electoral group this time around.

She also doesn’t have a MAGA son. Joe’s son is all the negative we need

She locked up a generation of black men in California enforcing three strikes, then nuked Biden in the debate She’s a cancer.

[Anonymous]

The Obamas better both come out swinging to fight for Biden and his VP. Hopefully it’s Kamala.

[Anonymous]

Any functioning adult, guys. Any functioning adult. Kamala is far from perfect, but it's ridiculous to think she's worse than Trump.

I have zero qualms about voting for Biden/Kamala over Trump. None whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joe please pick Duckworth! So sick of this hate from black woman towards white woman. Please pick Duckworth so we can all move on!

Duckworth is a do-nothing, which fits the stereotype of vice presidents.

The military vet who lost her legs in combat, got a degree online while going through rehab, was elected to the Hoise then Senate from IL and was the first sitting Senator to give birth while in office in her mid 40s? Ran the Illinois VA? Served in Obama’s VA?

Yep. What a lightweight. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's told "closest advisors" it's Kamala.

Yay! She is smart, charismatic and will bring a lot to the ticket. (And she’s not Susan Rice, phew.)

If this is true, Donald trump just won his reelection. Biden. Is. Dunzo.

Come on, no. Kamala Harris is a relatively safe pick, electorally. The bigger danger with her is possible dysfunction in the cabinet if it’s indeed true that she dropped a bunch of opposition research on the other candidates.

Why do people think she's a safe pick electorally? Serious question. She's in a safe state and ran a disastrous presidential campaign. She doesn't answer questions directly and fumbles her answers all the time. No policy chops. Maybe she could rise to the occasion, but I consider her a very risky pick both in terms of substance and likability. At least Rice has the substance.

She can stay on message. She’s relatively popular with women of all races. She doesn’t get the most hardcore progressives on board, but honestly, nothing would satisfy them so they don’t matter. She doesn’t have the massive BENGHAZIIIIIIII baggage of Susan Rice.

If it’s between her and Susan Rice, I see Kamala as the less damaging pick because it would be so easy for the GOP ghouls to hammer a “Benghazi Clinton emails” message 24/7 and cause some of the lower-information, somewhat Republican leaning women swing voters to stay home or vote Trump again, and that’s a key electoral group this time around.

She also doesn’t have a MAGA son. Joe’s son is all the negative we need

She locked up a generation of black men in California enforcing three strikes, then nuked Biden in the debate She’s a cancer.

I'll say it again, unclench your jaw.

It's a bad look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's told "closest advisors" it's Kamala.

Yay! She is smart, charismatic and will bring a lot to the ticket. (And she’s not Susan Rice, phew.)

If this is true, Donald trump just won his reelection. Biden. Is. Dunzo.

Please explain your rationale? She is literally one of the safest picks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's told "closest advisors" it's Kamala.

Yay! She is smart, charismatic and will bring a lot to the ticket. (And she’s not Susan Rice, phew.)

If this is true, Donald trump just won his reelection. Biden. Is. Dunzo.

Come on, no. Kamala Harris is a relatively safe pick, electorally. The bigger danger with her is possible dysfunction in the cabinet if it’s indeed true that she dropped a bunch of opposition research on the other candidates.

Why do people think she's a safe pick electorally? Serious question. She's in a safe state and ran a disastrous presidential campaign. She doesn't answer questions directly and fumbles her answers all the time. No policy chops. Maybe she could rise to the occasion, but I consider her a very risky pick both in terms of substance and likability. At least Rice has the substance.

She can stay on message. She’s relatively popular with women of all races. She doesn’t get the most hardcore progressives on board, but honestly, nothing would satisfy them so they don’t matter. She doesn’t have the massive BENGHAZIIIIIIII baggage of Susan Rice.

If it’s between her and Susan Rice, I see Kamala as the less damaging pick because it would be so easy for the GOP ghouls to hammer a “Benghazi Clinton emails” message 24/7 and cause some of the lower-information, somewhat Republican leaning women swing voters to stay home or vote Trump again, and that’s a key electoral group this time around.

This. She was not my first choice, but I think she was safer than Rice or Bass, and it seems like it came down to those 3.

The Veepstakes have gotten me a bit lore excited about the future of women in politics because it gave a number of them more exposure. Outside if Warren, most are in the younger side and have a bright future.

Only if they are women of color - white women need to stop centering themselves. No room at the table.

Ok Boris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's told "closest advisors" it's Kamala.

Yay! She is smart, charismatic and will bring a lot to the ticket. (And she’s not Susan Rice, phew.)

If this is true, Donald trump just won his reelection. Biden. Is. Dunzo.

Come on, no. Kamala Harris is a relatively safe pick, electorally. The bigger danger with her is possible dysfunction in the cabinet if it’s indeed true that she dropped a bunch of opposition research on the other candidates.

Why do people think she's a safe pick electorally? Serious question. She's in a safe state and ran a disastrous presidential campaign. She doesn't answer questions directly and fumbles her answers all the time. No policy chops. Maybe she could rise to the occasion, but I consider her a very risky pick both in terms of substance and likability. At least Rice has the substance.

She can stay on message. She’s relatively popular with women of all races. She doesn’t get the most hardcore progressives on board, but honestly, nothing would satisfy them so they don’t matter. She doesn’t have the massive BENGHAZIIIIIIII baggage of Susan Rice.

If it’s between her and Susan Rice, I see Kamala as the less damaging pick because it would be so easy for the GOP ghouls to hammer a “Benghazi Clinton emails” message 24/7 and cause some of the lower-information, somewhat Republican leaning women swing voters to stay home or vote Trump again, and that’s a key electoral group this time around.

She also doesn’t have a MAGA son. Joe’s son is all the negative we need

She locked up a generation of black men in California enforcing three strikes, then nuked Biden in the debate She’s a cancer.

You call that piece at the debate a nuke? LOL

[Anonymous]

Harris was such a terrible presidential candidate, I'm having trouble seeing why she'd be a better VP candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's told "closest advisors" it's Kamala.

Yay! She is smart, charismatic and will bring a lot to the ticket. (And she’s not Susan Rice, phew.)

If this is true, Donald trump just won his reelection. Biden. Is. Dunzo.

Come on, no. Kamala Harris is a relatively safe pick, electorally. The bigger danger with her is possible dysfunction in the cabinet if it’s indeed true that she dropped a bunch of opposition research on the other candidates.

Why do people think she's a safe pick electorally? Serious question. She's in a safe state and ran a disastrous presidential campaign. She doesn't answer questions directly and fumbles her answers all the time. No policy chops. Maybe she could rise to the occasion, but I consider her a very risky pick both in terms of substance and likability. At least Rice has the substance.

She can stay on message. She’s relatively popular with women of all races. She doesn’t get the most hardcore progressives on board, but honestly, nothing would satisfy them so they don’t matter. She doesn’t have the massive BENGHAZIIIIIIII baggage of Susan Rice.

If it’s between her and Susan Rice, I see Kamala as the less damaging pick because it would be so easy for the GOP ghouls to hammer a “Benghazi Clinton emails” message 24/7 and cause some of the lower-information, somewhat Republican leaning women swing voters to stay home or vote Trump again, and that’s a key electoral group this time around.

This. She was not my first choice, but I think she was safer than Rice or Bass, and it seems like it came down to those 3.

The Veepstakes have gotten me a bit lore excited about the future of women in politics because it gave a number of them more exposure. Outside if Warren, most are in the younger side and have a bright future.

Only if they are women of color - white women need to stop centering themselves. No room at the table.

Ok Boris.

‘Boris’: the last refuge of the lost+delusional DCUM poster.