I forgot to mention this earlier, but people who want to, or have already chosen to, vote for Biden aren't really going to vote for Biden, per se; rather, they will be voting for the person he chooses as his running mate. Biden's health will deteriorate during the first two years of his Presidency, should he win, and then the 25th Amendment will kick in--he will have to step down due to an inability to discharge the duties of his office.
It is insufficient to be "engaged" or have enthusiasm. Helping to elect a candidate takes *work*, and that may be part of the problem.
I forgot to mention this earlier, but people who want to, or have already chosen to, vote for Biden aren't really going to vote for Biden, per se; rather, they will be voting for the person he chooses as his running mate. Biden's health will deteriorate during the first two years of his Presidency, should he win, and then the 25th Amendment will kick in--he will have to step down due to an inability to discharge the duties of his office.
I forgot to mention this earlier, but people who want to, or have already chosen to, vote for Biden aren't really going to vote for Biden, per se; rather, they will be voting for the person he chooses as his running mate. Biden's health will deteriorate during the first two years of his Presidency, should he win, and then the 25th Amendment will kick in--he will have to step down due to an inability to discharge the duties of his office.
That person, Biden's running mate, will prossibly (probably/possibly) be Stacey Abrams. This was discussed months ago.
That would definitely be a way to lock down and confirm the support of the southern states and the elderly black voter.
If Bernie gets the nomination he should not pick Warren as VP. She has too much baggage too many flubs. I don't know why but she does not get a pass like others do maybe because we expect better from her. She'd be great as majority leader in the Senate if the Senate flips blue. That would be the perfect spot for her.
Stacey Abrams would work as VP for Bernie as well for the same reason she'd work well for Biden.
That person, Biden's running mate, will prossibly (probably/possibly) be Stacey Abrams. This was discussed months ago.
That would definitely be a way to lock down and confirm the support of the southern states and the elderly black voter.
That might have been discussed during one of my periods of self-exile; I do not recall it. Rather than re-litigate that issue, I will state simply that I disagree with her as the choice.
One of the Castro twins might be a better option for Biden to lock up Hispanic Floridians, but seriously, a persons ethnicity shouldn’t play a role.
It shouldn't, I agree, but it does. We must deal with the world as it exists, not as we would like it to exist. I suspect that Robert Francis would be the best option--no, he does not check off any boxes on the "identity politics" bingo card but he would help garner the younger vote, the Hispanic vote, and the anti-gun vote. Plus, he does give off a vague RFK vibe.
That person, Biden's running mate, will prossibly (probably/possibly) be Stacey Abrams. This was discussed months ago.
That would definitely be a way to lock down and confirm the support of the southern states and the elderly black voter.
That might have been discussed during one of my periods of self-exile; I do not recall it. Rather than re-litigate that issue, I will state simply that I disagree with her as the choice.
One of the Castro twins might be a better option for Biden to lock up Hispanic Floridians, but seriously, a persons ethnicity shouldn’t play a role.
It shouldn't, I agree, but it does. We must deal with the world as it exists, not as we would like it to exist. I suspect that Robert Francis would be the best option--no, he does not check off any boxes on the "identity politics" bingo card but he would help garner the younger vote, the Hispanic vote, and the anti-gun vote. Plus, he does give off a vague RFK vibe.
Ya. I added that last bit because it just felt wrong typing it. The Castro’s do have enough merit and experience to go on without playing the race card but race and identity do play into others politics.
I was seething when I was reading that some people voted for Kathleen Wynne for Ontario’s premier just because she was openly gay and and a woman. It was like did you not pay attention to all the corruption she was apart of for the last 8 years? Being gay trumps that in your world? Seriously?
Not really politics, but a little tidbit about Corona virus hysteria. I just got out of my favorite Chinese restaurant. I noticed it wasn't as busy as it usually is so I asked the gal behind the counter if the virus scare was keeping people away. She said it definitely was. Non-chain restaurant owners are not rich folks and don't have huge margins. If maybe y'all could fit an extra stop at your favorite far-eastern establishment, I'm positive they would appreciate it...
That is why identity politics is stupid. Some people voted for Obama solely because of skin color and people voted for Beto O'Rourke because of his *perceived* ethnicity--they thought he was Hispanic because of his nickname. Some people were voting for Warren for the same reason they voted for Hillary--female. That's it. That is as deep as some people go when they think about politics--name/surname, skin color, ethnic background, gender, or orientation. They don't even *try* to look into candidates or the issues.
If Bernie wants to win the nomination with the hallmary VP pick - he would need to use it to broaden his base significantly, rather than consolidate the left.
That is why identity politics is stupid. Some people voted for Obama solely because of skin color and people voted for Beto O'Rourke because of his *perceived* ethnicity--they thought he was Hispanic because of his nickname. Some people were voting for Warren for the same reason they voted for Hillary--female. That's it. That is as deep as some people go when they think about politics--name/surname, skin color, ethnic background, gender, or orientation. They don't even *try* to look into candidates or the issues.
I'd agree Identity politics do not matter as much as all this.
It's more about how comfortable do you feel with this candidate. With Beto, I think that most people appreciated that he was trying to engage with hispanics not that he is hispanic but sure some few people might be stupid.
But overall it's that comfort level thing. This is why it doesn't matter to supporters when Trump and Biden both said dumb shit. They like this guy and feel comfortable with him.
Nobody voted for Trump because they agreed with sexual assaulting women without waiting did they? Everyone sees Trump lying and Biden flubbing but it doesn't matter, It's that uh 'charm', which can be inexplicable to outsiders and people with an outside perspective.
It is true identity politics can be used as a shortcut to try and get that comfort level but that often ends up missing the point - you gotta be comfortable with the candidate.
I don't know much about Abrams but she seems nice, serious, and reasonable so she'd be fine and she happens to be black which could be an added bonus. If she was a pain in the ass with zero charisma then no of course skin color alone should not be relied on.
Hillary was a women (yay) but had charisma as a dump stat (boo) so being a woman alone is not necessarily enough. Of course more Americans did vote for her than her opponent. What I mean is she could have been way more effective if she didn't have the charisma of a wet paper bag and the woman thing could be the thing that put her over the top in people's minds. It does cut both ways though. Because she was a woman, she faced obstacles that men don't face. She's probably close to Ted Cruz in the charisma department but he gets away with things she couldn't.
I won’t go into quotes but I firmly believe Identity politics makes sense. I believe a person’s world view is implicitly formed in part by their identity. For this reason, I do not believe a clone of Elizabeth Warren with all of her policies, but as a man would govern the same way she does.
I’m not saying it is the most important thing, but I don’t think it should be discounted. I believe it should be emphasized.
I won’t go into quotes but I firmly believe Identity politics makes sense. I believe a person’s world view is implicitly formed in part by their identity. For this reason, I do not believe a clone of Elizabeth Warren with all of her policies, but as a man would govern the same way she does.
I’m not saying it is the most important thing, but I don’t think it should be discounted. I believe it should be emphasized.
Easy to talk about indentity politics being meaningless among a group of mostly white males when 98% of our Presidents have been exactly that. The one who wasn't needed a catastrophic war, a drowned American city, and a once in a generation financial collapse on the watch of his predecessor to get there. Then had to spend the next 8 years walking on ice around the issue, being taken to the woodshed for daring to say such things as cops acted stupidly when they arrested a Harvard professor trying to get into his own goddamn house and being forced to invite the cop to the White House because clearly HE was the victim in the whole situation. For daring to say he had genuine empathy for the parents of a teenager murdered by a psychotic vigilante.
I won’t go into quotes but I firmly believe Identity politics makes sense. I believe a person’s world view is implicitly formed in part by their identity. For this reason, I do not believe a clone of Elizabeth Warren with all of her policies, but as a man would govern the same way she does.
I’m not saying it is the most important thing, but I don’t think it should be discounted. I believe it should be emphasized.
Easy to talk about indentity politics being meaningless among a group of mostly white males when 98% of our Presidents have been exactly that. .
This is the function of identity politics, to make people shut up and to determine who is valuable and who is not based on what race they are. It's a half step away from outright discrimination and nearly always results in it in practice. There is no reasoning with those who adopt it, because I'm not the correct race or gender to be capable of possibly being correct in their eyes. I am tainted.
I won’t go into quotes but I firmly believe Identity politics makes sense. I believe a person’s world view is implicitly formed in part by their identity. For this reason, I do not believe a clone of Elizabeth Warren with all of her policies, but as a man would govern the same way she does.
I’m not saying it is the most important thing, but I don’t think it should be discounted. I believe it should be emphasized.
Easy to talk about indentity politics being meaningless among a group of mostly white males when 98% of our Presidents have been exactly that. .
This is the function of identity politics, to make people shut up and to determine who is valuable and who is not based on what race they are. It's a half step away from outright discrimination and nearly always results in it in practice. There is no reasoning with those who adopt it, because I'm not the correct race or gender to be capable of possibly being correct in their eyes. I am tainted.
Speaking as someone who subscribes to idea that there is value in identity in politics, I can say I hold literally none of those views. I don’t technically know anything about your identity.
I think your priors might be off base and/or biased here.
I won’t go into quotes but I firmly believe Identity politics makes sense. I believe a person’s world view is implicitly formed in part by their identity. For this reason, I do not believe a clone of Elizabeth Warren with all of her policies, but as a man would govern the same way she does.
I’m not saying it is the most important thing, but I don’t think it should be discounted. I believe it should be emphasized.
Easy to talk about indentity politics being meaningless among a group of mostly white males when 98% of our Presidents have been exactly that. .
This is the function of identity politics, to make people shut up and to determine who is valuable and who is not based on what race they are. It's a half step away from outright discrimination and nearly always results in it in practice. There is no reasoning with those who adopt it, because I'm not the correct race or gender to be capable of possibly being correct in their eyes. I am tainted.
Speaking as someone who subscribes to idea that there is value in identity in politics, I can say I hold literally none of those views. I don’t technically know anything about your identity.
I think your priors might be off base and/or biased here.
Can a white person have a valid perspective on black issues and vice versa? If the answer is yes you don't really subscribe to identity politics as it is most commonly used.
I agree on the importance of identity, and it's relevance in politics as well as life in general, but we would likely disagree wildly and what that means in practice.
Pelosi blames "misogyny" as to why Warren did not do very well. That's right, Nancy--no males voted for Warren whatsoever. It must be that, because it cannot possibly be the fact that she was throwing around double-digit trillions of dollars as the cost of a program--the entire U. S. GDP is only about $21.4 T. By the same logic, is it "midandry" if we don't vote for a male?
Pelosi also stated that no other women were running for POTUS. *sigh* Gabbard isn't a quitter like Warren, Harris, and Klobuchar are.
I won’t go into quotes but I firmly believe Identity politics makes sense. I believe a person’s world view is implicitly formed in part by their identity. For this reason, I do not believe a clone of Elizabeth Warren with all of her policies, but as a man would govern the same way she does.
I’m not saying it is the most important thing, but I don’t think it should be discounted. I believe it should be emphasized.
Easy to talk about indentity politics being meaningless among a group of mostly white males when 98% of our Presidents have been exactly that. .
This is the function of identity politics, to make people shut up and to determine who is valuable and who is not based on what race they are. It's a half step away from outright discrimination and nearly always results in it in practice. There is no reasoning with those who adopt it, because I'm not the correct race or gender to be capable of possibly being correct in their eyes. I am tainted.
Speaking as someone who subscribes to idea that there is value in identity in politics, I can say I hold literally none of those views. I don’t technically know anything about your identity.
I think your priors might be off base and/or biased here.
Can a white person have a valid perspective on black issues and vice versa? If the answer is yes you don't really subscribe to identity politics as it is most commonly used.
I agree on the importance of identity, and it's relevance in politics as well as life in general, but we would likely disagree wildly and what that means in practice.
Absolutely they can - and I can speak for the company I hold on this issue that most people who believe in identity politics also believe this to be the case. I am thinking you are incorrect about what the majority of those in identity politics believe.
To clarify - while a white man can have a valid perspective on a black issue, the fact that a black man has lived his life as such provides him with a unique and important insight into those issues. Without that additional view point, the White man’s understanding of the issue is incomplete. Not invalid.
Pelosi blames "misogyny" as to why Warren did not do very well. That's right, Nancy--no males voted for Warren whatsoever. It must be that, because it cannot possibly be the fact that she was throwing around double-digit trillions of dollars as the cost of a program--the entire U. S. GDP is only about $21.4 T. By the same logic, is it "midandry" if we don't vote for a male?
Pelosi also stated that no other women were running for POTUS. *sigh* Gabbard isn't a quitter like Warren, Harris, and Klobuchar are.
Tulsi Gabbard is "running" for President in the same way that Buckethead guy in the UK runs for a seat in parliament.
Tulsi Gabbard is "running" for President in the same way that Buckethead guy in the UK runs for a seat in parliament.
I don't disagree, but Pelosi is demonstrably incorrect in her assessment. Gabbard still isn't a quitter like the others are, though. When the going got tough, they dropped out--they wouldn't have the option of "dropping out" if the going gets tough as POTUS. That says a lot about them.
I won’t go into quotes but I firmly believe Identity politics makes sense. I believe a person’s world view is implicitly formed in part by their identity. For this reason, I do not believe a clone of Elizabeth Warren with all of her policies, but as a man would govern the same way she does.
I’m not saying it is the most important thing, but I don’t think it should be discounted. I believe it should be emphasized.
Easy to talk about indentity politics being meaningless among a group of mostly white males when 98% of our Presidents have been exactly that. .
This is the function of identity politics, to make people shut up and to determine who is valuable and who is not based on what race they are. It's a half step away from outright discrimination and nearly always results in it in practice. There is no reasoning with those who adopt it, because I'm not the correct race or gender to be capable of possibly being correct in their eyes. I am tainted.
There are some merits to it but usually only when it relates to the given identity.
For example indigenous issues are better tackled with representation from actual native tribes. If you haven’t experienced having your family ripped apart by residential school system then your voice should be quiet, and listen to those that have been affected.
I do understand some individuals and groups take it too far and you personally have mentioned cases in the past that you’ve experienced it, but IMO, in certain cases it is needed so those voices that never get heard have a chance.
Tulsi Gabbard is "running" for President in the same way that Buckethead guy in the UK runs for a seat in parliament.
I don't disagree, but Pelosi is demonstrably incorrect in her assessment. Gabbard still isn't a quitter like the others are, though. When the going got tough, they dropped out--they wouldn't have the option of "dropping out" if the going gets tough as POTUS. That says a lot about them.
Running a national campaign costs money. You can't raise money to campaign across the country if you aren't winning anything. Tulsi Gabbard doesn't need money because her campaign consists of appearing on FOX News once a week and suing Hillary Clinton for a statement in which she never even mentioned her name. And her one delegate from American Samoa won't get her a cup of coffee at Dunkin' Donuts.
Doesn't matter--she is still running, and that is the important thing. Hillary *did* mention Tulsi Gabbard by name, by the way...but nothing will ever come from that lawsuit. I do have to admit that the circus is fun to watch, though.
Weird: CNN's home page has defaulted back to how it existed on 15 January. It is featuring "live updates" of the House delivering the articles to the Senate. The other pages are up-to-date.
Boo hoo hoo. Rep. Bill Pascrell of the House Ways and Means Committee is crying because Treasury Secretary Mnuchin won't release Trump's tax records. You could always subpoena them, Rep. Pascrell. Oh, wait, that's right--a recent court decision stated that the Executive wouldn't have to comply. I guess you'll just have to do without them, won't you?
edit/add: Apparently we are *this close* to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) expiring. We have been needing that for quite a while--the FISA allowed both the Bush and Obama Administrations to spy on American citizens based on sloppy and/or insufficient evidence, up to and including putting GPS trackers on people's vehicles in driveways because "driveways are public spaces, so we don't need a warrant" (that is a quote from an FBI person several years ago). Now we need to get rid of passive license plate scanners and Stingrays (the devices which mimic cell phone towers, allowing them to capture everything about a call, not just the metadata like they claim).
I forgot to mention this earlier, but people who want to, or have already chosen to, vote for Biden aren't really going to vote for Biden, per se; rather, they will be voting for the person he chooses as his running mate. Biden's health will deteriorate during the first two years of his Presidency, should he win, and then the 25th Amendment will kick in--he will have to step down due to an inability to discharge the duties of his office.
You should play the lottery, what with those psychic powers of foreknowledge you have.
Biden already has the black votes though. There is no need to lock them up more.
One of the Castro twins might be a better option for Biden to lock up Hispanic Floridians, but seriously, a persons ethnicity shouldn’t play a role.
Vice-presidential picks, when the data is examined, rarely matter at all except for a minor uptick in their home state. The occasional exception is when they have a dragging down effect on the campaign (McGovern, arguably McCain).
Biden will likely pick a female VP (so would Sanders, probably), but who it is is unlikely to affect the campaign much.
No, I am much better at the baccarat tables than the lottery--the odds are also better. I am not afraid to make a prediction because I am not personally invested in them--if I wind up being incorrect then I am incorrect, which is no big deal.
What is your assessment of Biden's health, both physically and mentally? Physically he can probably handle it; mentally....I wouldn't bet any money on that one. Too many gaffes as of late. Running for Senate? His son was Attorney General of the U. S.? And, you know, that "thing" from the Declaration of Independence.
Tulsi Gabbard is "running" for President in the same way that Buckethead guy in the UK runs for a seat in parliament.
Balogna. She qualified for several debates, attracted significant donor support and has political credentials. The fact she's running as a protest/for notoriety now doesn't mean she was a joke candidate.
Pelosi blames "misogyny" as to why Warren did not do very well. That's right, Nancy--no males voted for Warren whatsoever. It must be that, because it cannot possibly be the fact that she was throwing around double-digit trillions of dollars as the cost of a program--the entire U. S. GDP is only about $21.4 T. By the same logic, is it "midandry" if we don't vote for a male?
So what's your explanation as to the persistent gap in support where less men than women voted for Warren? Or that she was found to be less "electable" than people with objectively less successful political careers than hers?
Oh, and while we're at it, what's your explanation for why women are routinely found to be considered less qualified and more liberal by the public than men who have similar experience and political positions? This is a very consistent phenomenon, after all.
Ya. I added that last bit because it just felt wrong typing it. The Castro’s do have enough merit and experience to go on without playing the race card but race and identity do play into others politics.
I was seething when I was reading that some people voted for Kathleen Wynne for Ontario’s premier just because she was openly gay and and a woman. It was like did you not pay attention to all the corruption she was apart of for the last 8 years? Being gay trumps that in your world? Seriously?
In the real world, the visible face of your leader does matter. Having a female premier, and having a gay premier, both have positive effects in societal acceptance of them as the norm (especially having more than one, where the effects have been statistically proven as much as these things can be proven).
So there are worse reasons to vote, particularly given who the main alternative to the "corrupt" (every long-lasting government has corruption scandals, part of the nature of the process) Liberals are.
Comments
It is insufficient to be "engaged" or have enthusiasm. Helping to elect a candidate takes *work*, and that may be part of the problem.
I think Jill will pull a Nancy if that happens.
Truthfully, the 25th probably should have been invoked by mid 1986 but I suspect everyone figured "we can tough it out one more year"
That person, Biden's running mate, will prossibly (probably/possibly) be Stacey Abrams. This was discussed months ago.
That would definitely be a way to lock down and confirm the support of the southern states and the elderly black voter.
If Bernie gets the nomination he should not pick Warren as VP. She has too much baggage too many flubs. I don't know why but she does not get a pass like others do maybe because we expect better from her. She'd be great as majority leader in the Senate if the Senate flips blue. That would be the perfect spot for her.
Stacey Abrams would work as VP for Bernie as well for the same reason she'd work well for Biden.
One of the Castro twins might be a better option for Biden to lock up Hispanic Floridians, but seriously, a persons ethnicity shouldn’t play a role.
That might have been discussed during one of my periods of self-exile; I do not recall it. Rather than re-litigate that issue, I will state simply that I disagree with her as the choice.
It shouldn't, I agree, but it does. We must deal with the world as it exists, not as we would like it to exist. I suspect that Robert Francis would be the best option--no, he does not check off any boxes on the "identity politics" bingo card but he would help garner the younger vote, the Hispanic vote, and the anti-gun vote. Plus, he does give off a vague RFK vibe.
Ya. I added that last bit because it just felt wrong typing it. The Castro’s do have enough merit and experience to go on without playing the race card but race and identity do play into others politics.
I was seething when I was reading that some people voted for Kathleen Wynne for Ontario’s premier just because she was openly gay and and a woman. It was like did you not pay attention to all the corruption she was apart of for the last 8 years? Being gay trumps that in your world? Seriously?
Someone like Cory Booker would make sense.
I'd agree Identity politics do not matter as much as all this.
It's more about how comfortable do you feel with this candidate. With Beto, I think that most people appreciated that he was trying to engage with hispanics not that he is hispanic but sure some few people might be stupid.
But overall it's that comfort level thing. This is why it doesn't matter to supporters when Trump and Biden both said dumb shit. They like this guy and feel comfortable with him.
Nobody voted for Trump because they agreed with sexual assaulting women without waiting did they? Everyone sees Trump lying and Biden flubbing but it doesn't matter, It's that uh 'charm', which can be inexplicable to outsiders and people with an outside perspective.
It is true identity politics can be used as a shortcut to try and get that comfort level but that often ends up missing the point - you gotta be comfortable with the candidate.
I don't know much about Abrams but she seems nice, serious, and reasonable so she'd be fine and she happens to be black which could be an added bonus. If she was a pain in the ass with zero charisma then no of course skin color alone should not be relied on.
Hillary was a women (yay) but had charisma as a dump stat (boo) so being a woman alone is not necessarily enough. Of course more Americans did vote for her than her opponent. What I mean is she could have been way more effective if she didn't have the charisma of a wet paper bag and the woman thing could be the thing that put her over the top in people's minds. It does cut both ways though. Because she was a woman, she faced obstacles that men don't face. She's probably close to Ted Cruz in the charisma department but he gets away with things she couldn't.
I’m not saying it is the most important thing, but I don’t think it should be discounted. I believe it should be emphasized.
Easy to talk about indentity politics being meaningless among a group of mostly white males when 98% of our Presidents have been exactly that. The one who wasn't needed a catastrophic war, a drowned American city, and a once in a generation financial collapse on the watch of his predecessor to get there. Then had to spend the next 8 years walking on ice around the issue, being taken to the woodshed for daring to say such things as cops acted stupidly when they arrested a Harvard professor trying to get into his own goddamn house and being forced to invite the cop to the White House because clearly HE was the victim in the whole situation. For daring to say he had genuine empathy for the parents of a teenager murdered by a psychotic vigilante.
This is the function of identity politics, to make people shut up and to determine who is valuable and who is not based on what race they are. It's a half step away from outright discrimination and nearly always results in it in practice. There is no reasoning with those who adopt it, because I'm not the correct race or gender to be capable of possibly being correct in their eyes. I am tainted.
Speaking as someone who subscribes to idea that there is value in identity in politics, I can say I hold literally none of those views. I don’t technically know anything about your identity.
I think your priors might be off base and/or biased here.
Can a white person have a valid perspective on black issues and vice versa? If the answer is yes you don't really subscribe to identity politics as it is most commonly used.
I agree on the importance of identity, and it's relevance in politics as well as life in general, but we would likely disagree wildly and what that means in practice.
Pelosi also stated that no other women were running for POTUS. *sigh* Gabbard isn't a quitter like Warren, Harris, and Klobuchar are.
Absolutely they can - and I can speak for the company I hold on this issue that most people who believe in identity politics also believe this to be the case. I am thinking you are incorrect about what the majority of those in identity politics believe.
To clarify - while a white man can have a valid perspective on a black issue, the fact that a black man has lived his life as such provides him with a unique and important insight into those issues. Without that additional view point, the White man’s understanding of the issue is incomplete. Not invalid.
Tulsi Gabbard is "running" for President in the same way that Buckethead guy in the UK runs for a seat in parliament.
I don't disagree, but Pelosi is demonstrably incorrect in her assessment. Gabbard still isn't a quitter like the others are, though. When the going got tough, they dropped out--they wouldn't have the option of "dropping out" if the going gets tough as POTUS. That says a lot about them.
There are some merits to it but usually only when it relates to the given identity.
For example indigenous issues are better tackled with representation from actual native tribes. If you haven’t experienced having your family ripped apart by residential school system then your voice should be quiet, and listen to those that have been affected.
I do understand some individuals and groups take it too far and you personally have mentioned cases in the past that you’ve experienced it, but IMO, in certain cases it is needed so those voices that never get heard have a chance.
Running a national campaign costs money. You can't raise money to campaign across the country if you aren't winning anything. Tulsi Gabbard doesn't need money because her campaign consists of appearing on FOX News once a week and suing Hillary Clinton for a statement in which she never even mentioned her name. And her one delegate from American Samoa won't get her a cup of coffee at Dunkin' Donuts.
Weird: CNN's home page has defaulted back to how it existed on 15 January. It is featuring "live updates" of the House delivering the articles to the Senate. The other pages are up-to-date.
Boo hoo hoo. Rep. Bill Pascrell of the House Ways and Means Committee is crying because Treasury Secretary Mnuchin won't release Trump's tax records. You could always subpoena them, Rep. Pascrell. Oh, wait, that's right--a recent court decision stated that the Executive wouldn't have to comply. I guess you'll just have to do without them, won't you?
edit/add: Apparently we are *this close* to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) expiring. We have been needing that for quite a while--the FISA allowed both the Bush and Obama Administrations to spy on American citizens based on sloppy and/or insufficient evidence, up to and including putting GPS trackers on people's vehicles in driveways because "driveways are public spaces, so we don't need a warrant" (that is a quote from an FBI person several years ago). Now we need to get rid of passive license plate scanners and Stingrays (the devices which mimic cell phone towers, allowing them to capture everything about a call, not just the metadata like they claim).
You should play the lottery, what with those psychic powers of foreknowledge you have.
Vice-presidential picks, when the data is examined, rarely matter at all except for a minor uptick in their home state. The occasional exception is when they have a dragging down effect on the campaign (McGovern, arguably McCain).
Biden will likely pick a female VP (so would Sanders, probably), but who it is is unlikely to affect the campaign much.
What is your assessment of Biden's health, both physically and mentally? Physically he can probably handle it; mentally....I wouldn't bet any money on that one. Too many gaffes as of late. Running for Senate? His son was Attorney General of the U. S.? And, you know, that "thing" from the Declaration of Independence.
Balogna. She qualified for several debates, attracted significant donor support and has political credentials. The fact she's running as a protest/for notoriety now doesn't mean she was a joke candidate.
So what's your explanation as to the persistent gap in support where less men than women voted for Warren? Or that she was found to be less "electable" than people with objectively less successful political careers than hers?
Oh, and while we're at it, what's your explanation for why women are routinely found to be considered less qualified and more liberal by the public than men who have similar experience and political positions? This is a very consistent phenomenon, after all.
In the real world, the visible face of your leader does matter. Having a female premier, and having a gay premier, both have positive effects in societal acceptance of them as the norm (especially having more than one, where the effects have been statistically proven as much as these things can be proven).
So there are worse reasons to vote, particularly given who the main alternative to the "corrupt" (every long-lasting government has corruption scandals, part of the nature of the process) Liberals are.