Harris VP pick

[BDKJMU]

So who is it going to be? Most of the talk seems to be of governors

1. Sen Mark Kelly: Could give donks a chance in AZ, where it isn’t looking good for them.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/ ... -vs-harris
Won statewide election in a purple reddish state (part of that was conks owm goaling themselves with a shitty candidate). Would be a more moderate donk to balance out the ticket since Harris is a far left CA liberal. Hitching himself to a losing ticket won’t hurt him if he doesn’t have future presidential aspirations. Plus could help keep a donk seat in what is now a tight AZ Senate race.

2. Gov Josh Shapiro: Popular gov from purple PA. Could give donks a chance in PA, where it isn’t looking good for them.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/ ... -vs-harris
Would be a more moderate donk to balance out the ticket since Harris is a far left CA liberal. Plus could help keep a donk seat in what is now a tight PA Senate race. But having a Jewish VP could hurt the donks in Michigan with the muslim vote (and thats MSM talking heads saying that). And if Shapiro has aspirations for the 28’ ticket he kills them if he hitches himself to a Harris ticket that loses.

3. Gov Roy Cooper: Maybe could give donks a chance in NC. Won statewide election in a purple reddish state. Would be a more moderate donk to balance out the ticket since Harris is a far left CA liberal.

4. Gov Andy Beshear. A donk who won and won re election in a deep red state. Would be a more moderate donk to balance out the ticket since Harris is a far left CA liberal. But Trump is going to romp in KY by 20+, so this pick wouldn’t help with a battleground state or Senate seat.

5. Gov Gretchen Whitmer: already said no, probably because she has aspirations for 2028 and doesn’t want to hitch herself to a losing ticket. So unless she changes her mind. ..Could give donks a win in must win battleground Michigan.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/ ... -vs-harris
Plus could help keep a donk seat in what is now a tight Senate race. But this country isn’t going to elect an all female ticket.

6. Gov Gavin Newsome: Having 2 CA libs on the ticket would get destroyed. Plus there’s that pesky 12th amendment thing.

Betting sotes currently are showing Kelly as the top pick, followed by Shapiro. I’m sure this could fluctuate a lot over the next few weeks..
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detai ... nomination
https://polymarket.com/event/democratic ... 1924731185
https://electionbettingodds.com/

[GannonFan]

I hope it's not Shapiro. The VP gig is pretty much a nothing job, and he could do a lot more staying in PA as the governor. And he's only been governor for less than 2 years, I'd rather him get more experience. I think Harris has a decent shot to win this, but it's likely 50/50 and that means, as you say, a 50/50 shot she loses and he's on a losing ticket. Maybe it doesn't kill his chances but it doesn't help them.

I'd like to see Kelly as the choice. Maybe Arizona isn't as hard to win as PA, but winning AZ is still important to win overall. Kelly still gives you that adult in the room look which may be helpful comparing to Vance. Plus, Kelly has been good in terms of talking up the border so he'd give Harris some protection in what's one of her weaker areas. Additionally, because of the assassination attempt on Kelly's wife, that almost mutes the bounce Trump gets with his own assassination attempt. Morbidly weird, for sure, but probably still a valid point in voters' minds.

[UNI88]

I hope it's not Shapiro. The VP gig is pretty much a nothing job, and he could do a lot more staying in PA as the governor. And he's only been governor for less than 2 years, I'd rather him get more experience. I think Harris has a decent shot to win this, but it's likely 50/50 and that means, as you say, a 50/50 shot she loses and he's on a losing ticket. Maybe it doesn't kill his chances but it doesn't help them.

I'd like to see Kelly as the choice. Maybe Arizona isn't as hard to win as PA, but winning AZ is still important to win overall. Kelly still gives you that adult in the room look which may be helpful comparing to Vance. Plus, Kelly has been good in terms of talking up the border so he'd give Harris some protection in what's one of her weaker areas. Additionally, because of the assassination attempt on Kelly's wife, that almost mutes the bounce Trump gets with his own assassination attempt. Morbidly weird, for sure, but probably still a valid point in voters' minds.

Plus Kelly's military service time as an astronaut has more pop then vance's. He makes the vance pick look even worse (talk about an unbalanced ticket - a far right FL populist & a far right OH populist).

[BDKJMU]

I hope it's not Shapiro. The VP gig is pretty much a nothing job, and he could do a lot more staying in PA as the governor. And he's only been governor for less than 2 years, I'd rather him get more experience. I think Harris has a decent shot to win this, but it's likely 50/50 and that means, as you say, a 50/50 shot she loses and he's on a losing ticket. Maybe it doesn't kill his chances but it doesn't help them.

I'd like to see Kelly as the choice. Maybe Arizona isn't as hard to win as PA, but winning AZ is still important to win overall. Kelly still gives you that adult in the room look which may be helpful comparing to Vance. Plus, Kelly has been good in terms of talking up the border so he'd give Harris some protection in what's one of her weaker areas. Additionally, because of the assassination attempt on Kelly's wife, that almost mutes the bounce Trump gets with his own assassination attempt. Morbidly weird, for sure, but probably still a valid point in voters' minds.

I agree with you about Shapiro.

Shapiro shouldn’t take the role (if he has future POTUS ambitions) because the odds aren’t close to 50/50 now. Not according to both the polls and gambling sites..Gambling has it 57/35 RCP
https://www.realclearpolling.com/bettin ... /president
And that hasn’t been updated as of this posting. For ex RCP lists Polymarket as 57/35, and right now Polymarket is 62/35 (I assume the Trump jump today is due to the national and battleground state polls out today all in Trumpms favor.

[Gil Dobie]

Walz cover-up by his lying party of his DUI is coming to light finally.

AP News

What happened

According to court records, a Nebraska state trooper clocked Walz going 96 mph in a 55-mph zone. The trooper wrote that he detected a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. Walz failed field sobriety and preliminary breath tests.

He was taken to a hospital for a blood test and was booked into the Dawes County Jail. A transcript of his plea hearing on March 13, 1996, quotes the prosecutor as saying his blood test showed an alcohol level of 0.128%, compared with a legal limit of 0.10%.

What the Donk Party said

His campaign manager told the Post-Bulletin of Rochester that he was not drunk. She said Walz couldn’t understand what the trooper was saying to him because he had a hearing loss from his service in an artillery unit in the National Guard, and suggested that he might have had balance issues as a result. She also falsely claimed that the judge who dismissed the drunken driving charge chastised the officer for not realizing that Walz was deaf.

His campaign spokeswoman made similar statements to KEYC-TV and The Journal of New Ulm, saying, “The DUI charge was dropped for a reason: It wasn’t true.” She claimed he failed the field sobriety test because of his deafness, and that the trooper let Walz drive to a police station and leave on his own.

[houndawg]

Walz cover-up by his lying party of his DUI is coming to light finally.

AP News

What happened

According to court records, a Nebraska state trooper clocked Walz going 96 mph in a 55-mph zone. The trooper wrote that he detected a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. Walz failed field sobriety and preliminary breath tests.

He was taken to a hospital for a blood test and was booked into the Dawes County Jail. A transcript of his plea hearing on March 13, 1996, quotes the prosecutor as saying his blood test showed an alcohol level of 0.128%, compared with a legal limit of 0.10%.

What the Donk Party said

His campaign manager told the Post-Bulletin of Rochester that he was not drunk. She said Walz couldn’t understand what the trooper was saying to him because he had a hearing loss from his service in an artillery unit in the National Guard, and suggested that he might have had balance issues as a result. She also falsely claimed that the judge who dismissed the drunken driving charge chastised the officer for not realizing that Walz was deaf.

His campaign spokeswoman made similar statements to KEYC-TV and The Journal of New Ulm, saying, “The DUI charge was dropped for a reason: It wasn’t true.” She claimed he failed the field sobriety test because of his deafness, and that the trooper let Walz drive to a police station and leave on his own.

Pretty weak stuff 28 years later but you might be able to manufacture a bit of outrage if you can find a way to work it in somehow with the so-called "stolen valor" crisis. You can't tell what will get legs..."stolen valor"...tan suit....you never know

[kalm]

Walz cover-up by his lying party of his DUI is coming to light finally.

AP News

What happened

According to court records, a Nebraska state trooper clocked Walz going 96 mph in a 55-mph zone. The trooper wrote that he detected a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. Walz failed field sobriety and preliminary breath tests.

He was taken to a hospital for a blood test and was booked into the Dawes County Jail. A transcript of his plea hearing on March 13, 1996, quotes the prosecutor as saying his blood test showed an alcohol level of 0.128%, compared with a legal limit of 0.10%.

What the Donk Party said

His campaign manager told the Post-Bulletin of Rochester that he was not drunk. She said Walz couldn’t understand what the trooper was saying to him because he had a hearing loss from his service in an artillery unit in the National Guard, and suggested that he might have had balance issues as a result. She also falsely claimed that the judge who dismissed the drunken driving charge chastised the officer for not realizing that Walz was deaf.

His campaign spokeswoman made similar statements to KEYC-TV and The Journal of New Ulm, saying, “The DUI charge was dropped for a reason: It wasn’t true.” She claimed he failed the field sobriety test because of his deafness, and that the trooper let Walz drive to a police station and leave on his own.

Pretty weak stuff 28 years later but you might be able to manufacture a bit of outrage if you can find a way to work it in somehow with the so-called "stolen valor" crisis. You can't tell what will get legs..."stolen valor"...tan suit....you never know

[Gil Dobie]

Walz cover-up by his lying party of his DUI is coming to light finally.

AP News

What happened

According to court records, a Nebraska state trooper clocked Walz going 96 mph in a 55-mph zone. The trooper wrote that he detected a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. Walz failed field sobriety and preliminary breath tests.

He was taken to a hospital for a blood test and was booked into the Dawes County Jail. A transcript of his plea hearing on March 13, 1996, quotes the prosecutor as saying his blood test showed an alcohol level of 0.128%, compared with a legal limit of 0.10%.

What the Donk Party said

His campaign manager told the Post-Bulletin of Rochester that he was not drunk. She said Walz couldn’t understand what the trooper was saying to him because he had a hearing loss from his service in an artillery unit in the National Guard, and suggested that he might have had balance issues as a result. She also falsely claimed that the judge who dismissed the drunken driving charge chastised the officer for not realizing that Walz was deaf.

His campaign spokeswoman made similar statements to KEYC-TV and The Journal of New Ulm, saying, “The DUI charge was dropped for a reason: It wasn’t true.” She claimed he failed the field sobriety test because of his deafness, and that the trooper let Walz drive to a police station and leave on his own.

Pretty weak stuff 28 years later but you might be able to manufacture a bit of outrage if you can find a way to work it in somehow with the so-called "stolen valor" crisis. You can't tell what will get legs..."stolen valor"...tan suit....you never know

Justifying lies does not surprise me coming from a Walz or Trump supporter. Sheep will be sheep.

If you know the facts, the cover up has been going on for 28 years, why didn't you mention that?

[kalm]

Pretty weak stuff 28 years later but you might be able to manufacture a bit of outrage if you can find a way to work it in somehow with the so-called "stolen valor" crisis. You can't tell what will get legs..."stolen valor"...tan suit....you never know

Justifying lies does not surprise me coming from a Walz or Trump supporter. Sheep will be sheep.

If you know the facts, the cover up has been going on for 28 years, why didn't you mention that?

He plead down to reckless (common), quit drinking, resigned as coach, offered to resign as a teacher, and admitted years ago to drinking and driving.

Sounds like a decent outcome and lesson learned from a wake up call.

Why haven’t you mentioned that?

Yet here you are dredging up an old story.

[Gil Dobie]

Justifying lies does not surprise me coming from a Walz or Trump supporter. Sheep will be sheep.

If you know the facts, the cover up has been going on for 28 years, why didn't you mention that?

He plead down to reckless (common), quit drinking, resigned as coach, offered to resign as a teacher, and admitted years ago to drinking and driving.

Sounds like a decent outcome and lesson learned from a wake up call.

Why haven’t you mentioned that?

Yet here you are dredging up an old story.

It's in the article I left the link for, it's more of an attack on the Democrat party for covering up in 2006 and 2018 and 2022. I posted the cover-up statements by the spokesmen in a previous post. They denied he was drinking, they denied it happened, said he was deaf, blamed the police officer, on and on. Sounds very Trumpesque by the party.

[kalm]

He plead down to reckless (common), quit drinking, resigned as coach, offered to resign as a teacher, and admitted years ago to drinking and driving.

Sounds like a decent outcome and lesson learned from a wake up call.

Why haven’t you mentioned that?

Yet here you are dredging up an old story.

It's in the article I left the link for, it's more of an attack on the Democrat party for covering up in 2006 and 2018 and 2022. I posted the cover-up statements by the spokesmen in a previous post. They denied he was drinking, they denied it happened, said he was deaf, blamed the police officer, on and on. Sounds very Trumpesque by the party.

1). It’s a political campaign and these are humans. No one is perfect and campaigns cover-up/minimize personal mistakes.

But as independents we’re not supposed to vote based on party, no? At least Walz had admitted it and more importantly learned from his mistake and became a better human.

This isn’t Chappaquiddick part deux.

[Gil Dobie]

It's in the article I left the link for, it's more of an attack on the Democrat party for covering up in 2006 and 2018 and 2022. I posted the cover-up statements by the spokesmen in a previous post. They denied he was drinking, they denied it happened, said he was deaf, blamed the police officer, on and on. Sounds very Trumpesque by the party.

1). It’s a political campaign and these are humans. No one is perfect and campaigns cover-up/minimize personal mistakes.

But as independents we’re not supposed to vote based on party, no? At least Walz had admitted it and more importantly learned from his mistake and became a better human.

This isn’t Chappaquiddick part deux.

No it's not, but lies by the powers that be, need to be exposed.

[kalm]

1). It’s a political campaign and these are humans. No one is perfect and campaigns cover-up/minimize personal mistakes.

But as independents we’re not supposed to vote based on party, no? At least Walz had admitted it and more importantly learned from his mistake and became a better human.

This isn’t Chappaquiddick part deux.

No it's not, but lies by the powers that be, need to be exposed.

It has been. Years ago. More will come out about every candidate. It’s part of the game.

[Gil Dobie]

No it's not, but lies by the powers that be, need to be exposed.

It has been. Years ago. More will come out about every candidate. It’s part of the game.

No, it was covered up each time by the Democrat Party

The transcript showing that he acknowledged in court that he was drunk apparently didn’t surface until 2022, when the conservative Minnesota site Alpha News reported on it.

[kalm]

It has been. Years ago. More will come out about every candidate. It’s part of the game.

No, it was covered up each time by the Democrat Party

The transcript showing that he acknowledged in court that he was drunk apparently didn’t surface until 2022, when the conservative Minnesota site Alpha News reported on it.

Ok. Well way to do the deep dive into a common mistake, political cover-up, but decent outcome.

[houndawg]

Pretty weak stuff 28 years later but you might be able to manufacture a bit of outrage if you can find a way to work it in somehow with the so-called "stolen valor" crisis. You can't tell what will get legs..."stolen valor"...tan suit....you never know

Justifying lies does not surprise me coming from a Walz or Trump supporter. Sheep will be sheep.

If you know the facts, the cover up has been going on for 28 years, why didn't you mention that?

You never asked.....why didn't you mention that?

Waiting until now makes it seem like your only intention is to manufacture outrage, which isn't really in keeping with the image you normally try to project here.

[Gil Dobie]

Justifying lies does not surprise me coming from a Walz or Trump supporter. Sheep will be sheep.

If you know the facts, the cover up has been going on for 28 years, why didn't you mention that?

You never asked.....why didn't you mention that?

Waiting until now makes it seem like your only intention is to manufacture outrage, which isn't really in keeping with the image you normally try to project here.

You can take it any way you want it.

[GannonFan]

Gil's got a decent point here in this thread. I'm voting for Harris in November myself (Trump is loathsome and there's no way I want him sitting in the White House, for a lame duck term, four years on from when he tried to overturn the Constitution to stay in office - nothing good can come from that).

But even though I'll check the box/fill in the bubble next to her name doesn't mean that I condone or approve of how the Democratic Party plays politics. Even more so than the Republicans since the Dems have most of the media in their corner, there's far more manipulation/twisting of the media and what's made public than the GOP has done, at least recently. If there's any party that tilts towards fascist control of the state and/or Orwellian style machinations, the Dems are the group doing that recently.

Primary-wise, for a party without an incumbent running, they've had 3 straight nomination seasons now (2016, 2020, and 2024) that were manipulated by the powers that be in the party - tilting the nomination to Clinton (super delegates, DNC-supplied debate questions, etc) over Sanders in 2016, consolidating the field to Biden to again stave off Sanders in 2020, and then the current anointment of Harris because Biden wasn't viable (I'll give them a pass on this one, Biden's stubbornness was hard to handle until after the debate performance). And since they had an incumbent in Obama in 2012 and parties don't really contest incumbents, the Dems haven't had a true open primary since 2008 - that's crazy.

Covid was obviously a crazy time, and Trump's pathetic performance during it only made it worse. But there was plenty election year things that didn't help. Why we still don't have definitive proof of the origin of COVID only leads people to believe that we're covering it up. There's a lot of smoke around COVID popping up spontaneously in a city, and very close by to a lab devoted to the study of those viruses, funded by either parts of our government or by people in our government in positions that should know better not to be doing this kind of work. But we didn't hear about that (or we were told not to pay attention to that) and we don't hear about it now because we don't want to distract from the momentously bad job Trump did while presiding over that mess.

And again, even though people pooh-pooh the story because it was about Hunter Biden and not the candidate, one of the more appalling journalistic abdication of duty in our liftetime's was the blatant coverup and falsification of the Hunter laptop story. Kinda like the Watergate coverup, the crime itself was small potatoes - it wasn't really that big of a story and without the coverup it would've just gone away. But we saw at least 50 former national security folks, who either didn't know what they were talking about, or worse, actually knew what they were talking about and willing to lie anyway, tell the American public falsely that it wasn't real. And we had the media go into overdrive to squash it as well. When have we ever seen media go to such lengths to kill an actually true story? News outlets took the cue from the Dem party and all used the same sound bites to shrug it off - social media was pressured to hide the story from views. Think how Orwellian that is, and even worse, think that most people were fine with it and we didn't see an uprising of protest.

And it continues today - the story of how much of America was fed the story that Biden was perfectly fine and had no issues with running for President for another 4 years, when it was already clear that he was having significant problems even completing the first 4 years, is another journalistic failing brought about by journalism siding largely with one political party. Even when there were genuine reports by some news outlets that brought up Biden's inability to do the job of President, they were shouted down and shamed by the Dem party and joined in by most of the media.

As I said, I'm voting for Harris in November, barring something seismic between now and then. She's not a great candidate, but she's not terrible either, and in a divided government there's only so much that can be passed anyway (same thing that kept us from Trump doing what he wanted to - thank you, the Constitution). I'm really voting against Trump, as he'll never be on a ballot I have or ever will submit. But we as a country should also beware of a fawning media that sides largely with one of the two major parties in this country and what that does to the level of journalism that is produced. The GOP, in its current state, could never exert the kind of control and interference that the Dems have today with their coupling with mainstream media. Where this goes in the next 5-10 years will be interesting to watch.

[Caribbean Hen]

Harris is a terrible candidate just like Joey Rotten was

[UNI88]

Harris is a terrible candidate just like Joey Rotten was

Think about how much more turrible trump has to be for Ganny to vote for harris.

[UNI88]

Gil's got a decent point here in this thread. I'm voting for Harris in November myself (Trump is loathsome and there's no way I want him sitting in the White House, for a lame duck term, four years on from when he tried to overturn the Constitution to stay in office - nothing good can come from that).

But even though I'll check the box/fill in the bubble next to her name doesn't mean that I condone or approve of how the Democratic Party plays politics. Even more so than the Republicans since the Dems have most of the media in their corner, there's far more manipulation/twisting of the media and what's made public than the GOP has done, at least recently. If there's any party that tilts towards fascist control of the state and/or Orwellian style machinations, the Dems are the group doing that recently.

Primary-wise, for a party without an incumbent running, they've had 3 straight nomination seasons now (2016, 2020, and 2024) that were manipulated by the powers that be in the party - tilting the nomination to Clinton (super delegates, DNC-supplied debate questions, etc) over Sanders in 2016, consolidating the field to Biden to again stave off Sanders in 2020, and then the current anointment of Harris because Biden wasn't viable (I'll give them a pass on this one, Biden's stubbornness was hard to handle until after the debate performance). And since they had an incumbent in Obama in 2012 and parties don't really contest incumbents, the Dems haven't had a true open primary since 2008 - that's crazy.

Covid was obviously a crazy time, and Trump's pathetic performance during it only made it worse. But there was plenty election year things that didn't help. Why we still don't have definitive proof of the origin of COVID only leads people to believe that we're covering it up. There's a lot of smoke around COVID popping up spontaneously in a city, and very close by to a lab devoted to the study of those viruses, funded by either parts of our government or by people in our government in positions that should know better not to be doing this kind of work. But we didn't hear about that (or we were told not to pay attention to that) and we don't hear about it now because we don't want to distract from the momentously bad job Trump did while presiding over that mess.

And again, even though people pooh-pooh the story because it was about Hunter Biden and not the candidate, one of the more appalling journalistic abdication of duty in our liftetime's was the blatant coverup and falsification of the Hunter laptop story. Kinda like the Watergate coverup, the crime itself was small potatoes - it wasn't really that big of a story and without the coverup it would've just gone away. But we saw at least 50 former national security folks, who either didn't know what they were talking about, or worse, actually knew what they were talking about and willing to lie anyway, tell the American public falsely that it wasn't real. And we had the media go into overdrive to squash it as well. When have we ever seen media go to such lengths to kill an actually true story? News outlets took the cue from the Dem party and all used the same sound bites to shrug it off - social media was pressured to hide the story from views. Think how Orwellian that is, and even worse, think that most people were fine with it and we didn't see an uprising of protest.

And it continues today - the story of how much of America was fed the story that Biden was perfectly fine and had no issues with running for President for another 4 years, when it was already clear that he was having significant problems even completing the first 4 years, is another journalistic failing brought about by journalism siding largely with one political party. Even when there were genuine reports by some news outlets that brought up Biden's inability to do the job of President, they were shouted down and shamed by the Dem party and joined in by most of the media.

As I said, I'm voting for Harris in November, barring something seismic between now and then. She's not a great candidate, but she's not terrible either, and in a divided government there's only so much that can be passed anyway (same thing that kept us from Trump doing what he wanted to - thank you, the Constitution). I'm really voting against Trump, as he'll never be on a ballot I have or ever will submit. But we as a country should also beware of a fawning media that sides largely with one of the two major parties in this country and what that does to the level of journalism that is produced. The GOP, in its current state, could never exert the kind of control and interference that the Dems have today with their coupling with mainstream media. Where this goes in the next 5-10 years will be interesting to watch.

[GannonFan]

Harris is a terrible candidate just like Joey Rotten was

Think about how much more turrible trump has to be for Ganny to vote for harris.

Hey, after I vote for Harris this fall, I will have voted for 4 GOP'ers, 3 Dem's, and 2 Independents in Presidential elections. And out of those 9 votes, I may have only voted for someone (as opposed to against their opponent) twice, tops. I'm very cynical apparently.

[Caribbean Hen]

Harris is a terrible candidate just like Joey Rotten was

Think about how much more turrible trump has to be for Ganny to vote for harris.

Trumps policies weren’t terrible

A lot of Joeys Rottenness was Harris the whole time

No thanks

[UNI88]

Think about how much more turrible trump has to be for Ganny to vote for harris.

Trumps policies weren’t terrible

A lot of Joeys Rottenness was Harris the whole time

No thanks

• Project 2025 is beyond terrible.
• Giving the President more control over the Fed is terrible.
• Obstructing the return of classified documents was terrible.
• The fraudulent slates of electors and attempt to bully state officials into "finding" votes or not certifying results was terrible.
• Disrespect for military veterans, especially those killed or captured, is terrible.
• Attempting to prevent the Constitutional transfer of power on January 6 was terrible.
• trump's handling of the pandemic was terrible.

Proof that "a lot of Joeys Rottenness was Harris the whole time"? Or is it that now biden is out of the race you're trying to transfer all of the rumors and innuendo to harris?

[Caribbean Hen]

Trumps policies weren’t terrible

A lot of Joeys Rottenness was Harris the whole time

No thanks

• Project 2025 is beyond terrible.
• Giving the President more control over the Fed is terrible.
• Obstructing the return of classified documents was terrible.
• The fraudulent slates of electors and attempt to bully state officials into "finding" votes or not certifying results was terrible.
• Disrespect for military veterans, especially those killed or captured, is terrible.
• Attempting to prevent the Constitutional transfer of power on January 6 was terrible.
• trump's handling of the pandemic was terrible.

Proof that "a lot of Joeys Rottenness was Harris the whole time"? Or is it that now biden is out of the race you're trying to transfer all of the rumors and innuendo to harris?

None of that is policy