Democratic (Party) Direction

She's terrible in public, which means her political skills are in whatever she does behind the scenes — deal-making or placating or kneecapping or combination of all of them. You don't get to be vice president by accident, so she's good at something. But it mostly seems to be elevating her own profile.

speaking of baffling things

Today, we're launching Momentum, a new initiative to help countries around the world learn from our best practices and expertise in planning and modernizing transportation infrastructure. https://t.co/nDH1EJA2Jx pic.twitter.com/A585ZA0Qr0

— TransportationGov (@USDOT) June 27, 2022

lol U.S. is definitely the model country for modern transportation infrastructure.

I liked her tone and crispness in those early '19 appearances without figuring out what the tone and crispness supported.

I thought her decision to give up a lifetime of accruing power in the Senate for a dead-end job like VP was baffling but I guess being Senator from California is unlikely to be all that powerful a job under minority reactionary rule.

I agree that somewhere in there there’s a canny political operator, but she always comes across like she’s gone off that Palin pack

I know the age problem w Democratic leadership is very real and very concerning but I really can’t imagine the last few months going any differently if it were Kamala and Pete or Pete and Klobs or whatever. just deer in headlights inaction and fundraising all the way down

Klobuchar wouldn’t be afraid to turn a CIA wet works team loose on a couple of Supremes. Leave a stapler by the body to warn the others.

lol

haha

She's terrible in public, which means her political skills are in whatever she does behind the scenes — deal-making or placating or kneecapping or combination of all of them. You don't get to be vice president by accident, so she's good at something. But it mostly seems to be elevating her own profile.

I wonder if it is possible for ordinary people outside of government to know what happens behind the scenes. She wasn't always thought terrible in public. Since Biden, I have noticed that line a lot more. I think that everyone in politics, and in any organization, is keen on elevating their own profile to the extent that advancement and ambition warrant it. The label attached to the strategy sometimes seems dependent on the person and acceptance of the tactics used, which may be cultural/social/learned.

VP Harris comes across like someone who hasn't really been elected to this post at all, who is filling in or pretending to be VP for half an hour.

The VP is next in line for POTUS. Perhaps this (inclusive) or the method of selection needs to be amended in the U.S. Constitution. It could be what makes the position seem both a dead end and a cloak for ambiition (and what subjecst the person who accepts the appointment to criticism all around).

I wonder how she would have fared in Garland's current position.

(nomination rather than appointment, although it may seem like an appointment, to the extent that candidates do not decline nominations and their election as part of a ticket is forgotten or not a primary factor in deciding votes)

Bring back making the loser in the Presidential race VP. It's a fun punishment for losing - you have to be the designated dweeb with no real power for four years, you can't rake in money from speaking tours or book deals, you're unlikely to ever become President afterward.

President Obama/VP McCain
Obama/Romney
Trump/Clinton
Biden/Trump

all highly entertaining possibilities and it would have kept McCain and Romney out of the actual Senate.

VP Harris was a serious contender for Presidential nominee. She's not just a second-string person pulled out of obscurity to perform a ceremonial role. She ought to be better at appearing to be able to do her job. This is separate from any issues attached to the post of VP as such.

Poster Table is the only one really to have ventured a specific explanation for how bad she (often?) is: her political ideas are incoherent, and this renders her incoherent.

All true. Add: toeing the administration line renders her more incoherent yet.

The long, long shadow of the Watergate Babies. And this is just the trend at the median of all representatives. The Democratic leadership consists of people in their 80s who have been around for going on 50 years now, and who have been in charge since the turn of the millennium. pic.twitter.com/RBlI3sR9Ba

— Kieran Healy (@kjhealy) June 30, 2022

(xpost) Isn't it somewhat odd to have a conversation that starts with the premise that x is y, where the truth of x is y is uncertain or not known to be accepted, and that asks what are the reasons that x is y? What if your interlocutors do not agree that x is y? Why not start with what do you think of x?

And Kamala’s presidential campaign was notoriously chaotic with a lot of turnover on staff.

VP Harris was a serious contender for Presidential nominee.

ehhhhhhh - given that she dropped out before the first primary, that makes her about as much of a serious contender for President as Jim Webb or Martin O'Malley in the past.

I am still curious about how Harris would have fared as AG or in the Department of Justice. I think it might have been better suited to her. I respect and admire Garland and am glad that he holds the position, but to me, he seems more like a judge than a prosecutor. This might be better anyway.

This is a thread about Democratic (Party) Direction in which a lot of energy seems to be expended on finding fault with Democrats.

*Looks at the last 30 years* yeah why would someone do that

Nancy and Chuck took a knee that one time, what more can you ask really?

This is a thread about Democratic (Party) Direction in which a lot of energy seems to be expended on finding fault with Democrats.

wonder if that has anything to do with the direction

Expending energy on finding faults with a party is being politically responsible.

VHS, how many times are you gonna beat the same drum

I'm saying it's a good thing to criticize political parties.

Maybe if y’all were nicer to Democrats they’d do something nice for you.

anyway, as for direction—maybe the squad could expand their numbers and join forces with big boys Fetterman and Pritzker. Like, that maybe the only shot the party has.

bc people who may be hoping the likes of Kamala, Pete, a revenant Hillary, or the consultant class to counter anything the GOP has in store I think are going to be massively disappointed

"...who have been in charge since the turn of the millennium..."

Define "in charge."

My grandparents lived in Highland Park for all of my childhood, and apparently the shooter was perched on the building that my grandmother had her office in (she was a child psychologist). I was at that building many times, mostly to sit in my grandma's spinning chair and get candy from her office drawer. I guess it always feels unimaginable that this happens anywhere, but it feels insanely unimaginable to me that this happened there.

wrong thread sorry, meant for mass shooting thread

Planning a cookout this year? Ketchup on the news. According to the Farm Bureau, the cost of a 4th of July BBQ is down from last year. It’s a fact you must-hear(d). Hot dog, the Biden economic plan is working. And that’s something we can all relish. pic.twitter.com/7h9qLauIbC

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) July 1, 2021

“great stuff!” — youn

Mustard not heard the news in Chicago.

sic, I have watched you be a complete dick to several posters on ILX over the last few days. The poster you are currently harassing in this thread is a woman of color who is actually subject to US law, unlike you. Your microaggressions are not funny and your edgelord shtick is the type of thing that directly translates to violence against women and minorities in America. Anyone who likes it is just saying that you are just the "right" amount of misogynist and racist for ILX.

No wonder women and people of color don't post here anymore.

why are you posting a tweet from last year? and then being a dick about another poster after this old ass tweet.

lol, jinx.

What the hell is going on pic.twitter.com/absMjWSxvP

— Frosst🇺🇦 (@realFrosst) July 4, 2022

Large Adult Sons for Pritzker coming up next

Apologies for the last post, I hadn’t noticed the year on that tweet, which makes my reply exceptionally dickish.

I had/have no idea about any aspect of youn’s irl identity, though, and was previously sincerely suggesting that perceived criticisms of the democratic party direction itt might be related to said direction, in a similar flat observational tone to (my reading of) youn’s own post.

Always appreciate a call-out, though.

Appreciate that, sic. Now you know.

She ought to be better at appearing to be able to do her job.

I strongly disagree about the truth of appearances in general and as a surrogate for ability or capacity as related to the role of VP or any other leadership position. My experience has been that there are many people qualified for leadership roles with an interest in organizations as systems or as related to human pyschology and with an interest in the people in organizations as individuals who are never considered for such positions because of their fear of and lack of ability related to public speaking.

Appearing on a stage does not come naturally to everyone. Audiences are not neutral.

(I am glad to hear from felicity.)

(I didn't follow any of sic's links and was not in any way offended and did not even feel offended but appreciate the defense.)

(by sic or anyone else ... sorry my previous post was hasty and not well edited)

Biden could have assigned her to work on voting rights; he assigned her to work on immigration from Central and South America during the worst of COVID.

I think it would be difficult for anyone to speak extemporaneously on camera on a topic outside their area of expertise and to receive favorable media coverage in a hostile (primed) environment.

I'd say VP Harris, like Rep. Cheney, is a better lawyer than she is a politician. Their skills would both be better utilized in the courtroom, perhaps even on the defense side.

I have no opinion as to whether she is "good at her job" nor do I know what she does day to day, I just think she is extremely bad on camera and that that doesn't bode well for a presidential run

(sic - I figure you thought I was Scandinavian and one of the BROS and knew what swole means if still used.)

Thanks for striking that note, youn. I was having a slight reaction to the whole "she's not leadership material" theme--an analysis of her stated or presumed ideology might be called for but it's also the office, and there's also no neutral way to say things like that about the first Black/bi-racial woman to hold the office.