VP Chatter

Typically, for the past 200-odd years....whoever was selected as a VP candidate for either party....was mostly an unknown figure in 49 states.

That probably changed when Reagan selected Bush I....with some insiders knowing Bush I's background via the CIA.  Bill Clinton did go with Al Gore, who probably was marginally known throughout the south, but not exactly a national figure.  Bush II with Cheney?  Significantly popular with the Reagan crowd and nationally known.  Hillary Clinton with Senator Tim Kaine?  If you watched C-S**n, you knew the guy but one would imagine fewer than one out of ten voters for Hillary had any real knowledge of Kaine.

You typically pick a person who has no scandals, no negativity, and could bring you their state.  At least that was the set of rules prior to the last decade.

With Harris?  It's a no-gain, no-loss situation.   She's marginally capable at debates....fairly 'wooden'....known as a 'law and order' prosecutor for SF and California.....but beyond that....nothing significant.  In simple terms, it's a resume that fits on a 5x7 inch index card.  On the negative side, she's mostly known in the 'oral-way' for being helpful with the former mayor of SF.  The less said on this matter....the better off.

If Joe Biden is bad-off with dementia....does this add-on of Harris help?  It would be questionable to say that.

So finally, you come to working-class Democrats....beyond the urban zones.  Most would not see Harris in any great positive light, and it probably doesn't guarantee 90-percent of all black votes returning to vote for Joe Biden.  This 36-percent group of blacks for Trump?  You can probably stamp it official now.

I'm more or less sticking with a zero net-gain and zero net-loss.  Joe could have done better, but this is a screwed up year for old-fashioned regular working-class Democrats.