If you ask me, I’m upset no one picked up that this consideration was sexist and racist, although it is indeed the best choice for her to win, which reflects how bad US can’t get over race and gender.
Yeah, so was Biden when he was VP.
Everyone knows this, I do t know why so many people are treating it like a revelation. Mainstream news was openly saying it as soon as she announced she was running.
Her VP would be an older white guy for “diversity” of the ticket.
Even if you just randomly selected from the available options, 3/4 of them are older white guys.
meanwhile, trump who will claim he’s “most qualified” for the job, REFUSES to let his college transcripts go public. i’m going to go out on a limb (except, not) and say he cheated his way through college, as with everything else, OR he’s a straight D student, hilariously
this is of course ignoring all the lying, raping, treasoning, failed businesses, failed presidencies, and other wannabe con man shit.
but people will still vote for him, because people are stupid gullible suckers
deleted by creator
Maybe, I think, it’s a possibility, that perhaps he is fit to be a VP…
All VPs are basically picked because of what they are more than who they are. Since there aren’t a lot of actual duties assigned by the constitution, VPs are just picked to help win the election. That means their age, gender, skin color, birthplace, etc are more important than their achievements. That means almost all VPs, including Vance, are “DEI hires.”
Polling wise VP’s have historically changed very little in elections.
I’d argue Walz bucks this trend, at least to a certain degree. His progressive policy and seemingly unwavering integrity seems to be a huge reason he was picked. They’ve leaned into his achievements and republicans are desperately grasping at straws trying to criticize him.
It’s still about perception over tangible benefits, though. He’s not chosen because he’ll make progressive decisions, he’s chosen because he helps encourages progressives to vote come November. Just like if he was black or hispanic would help push those demographics to vote in the general election.
Yeah, I kinda wish Walz was the candidate instead, based on his progressivism and integrity.
deleted by creator
Completely agree. He also just seems like a better candidate vibe wise so far, he’s funny and endearing in a way Kamala is not. Although I do vibe with Kamala’s dorky/weird moments that so many seem to criticize.
im honestly not sure, with kamala as the previous VP she has a lot more experience than walz, so it provides a much stronger campaign being the “previous VP” walz being VP also gets him a large in to being a presidential candidate later on, assuming people want another 70-80 year old dude running the country.
8 years of Harris and then 8 years of Walz.
16 years isn’t much in the grand scheme but maybe in that time The Left can wake up and mobilize and actually make some progress towards election reforms so we can start un-fucking the last 50 years of GOP-Heritage Foundation Trickledown Reaganomics Bullshit that’s destroying the country.
Walz Ocasio-Cortez 2032?
I think that VPs are also a deterrent of presidential assassination. If the VP is seen as worse than the president by the opposing party members, then no one will try to assassinate the president. However, if the VP is better, that president’s life can be much shorter.
Would the Republicans prefer Walz as president? If yes, then he is a bad selection for VP. If no, Harris is safer as president.
idk if vance is a DEI hire as much as he is a right hand man hire.
He appeals to the billionaire voting bloc. They have small numbers (larger than I’d like) of direct votes, but for some reason, they sway elections.
i think that might be trump considering how corrupt he seems to be. I think the real reason they sway elections is because they often have a lot of influence through funding and lobbying.
He was picked because he appeals to the wacko maga base while licking Trumps… uhhh… boots.
yeah that. And also fucking couches probably.
All VP picks are DEI hires.
Mike pence?
They went for white instead of orange.
He was to build a bridge to the evangelicals, they were all originally super skeptical of trump and needed pence.
In some circles they were voting for trump, hoping he got impeached so they could have pence.
All of that has shifted and Trump is their second coming, but originally, it was not like this.
Thats fucking goofy. The USA has such stupid politics
Would be interesting to see the GOP try to run with this messaging. As much as they hate “dei hires” they would jump all over that part, but seeing that it benefitted a white male would likely make them short circuit.
Oh gee another funnyboi making ammo for the right wing propaganda machine. Blocking time.
thanks for sharing! ❤️
He’s the token white dude!
I mean he did legalize weed… Token indeed🍃
I wish to have that job one day. I may even be overqualified as I’m quite pale.
Is Trump the DEI hire?
This meme is so inaccurate. Everyone knows he can’t say Kamala. Isn’t it weird people think you should elect someone who can’t even pronounce someone’s name?
deleted by creator
I’ve noticed that too. It was the same with “Hillary.”
Using the last name is a sign of respect that they don’t think women deserve.
deleted by creator
I was having this conversation the other day. Pelosi came up as a counterexample.
Now I’m not sure where the line is between subtle disrespect and simply using the more distinctive part of a candidate’s name.
deleted by creator
Huh, I haven’t really heard people call her “Nancy”. Last time I recall her coming up amongst Republicans, it was “Pelosi” with a reference to the attack on her husband.
“Kamala” is hard to pronounce, yet they never had a problem with “Barack Hussein Obama pause for the scary middle-eastern/Islamic-sounding name to sink into racist audience”
And I love when Palin got called out directly for that and she backpedaled so hard, trying to make it sound like they always do that with everyone and started rattling off republican full names like that made a single bit of difference…
Can we get a truth-o-meter to scrutinize all candidates during debates like they do in futurama?
deleted by creator
The one thing I find difficult about it is that I’ve heard it mispronounced so many times, I have to consciously think about which version is correct. I blame right-wing assholes for that.
deleted by creator
His handlers have just barely managed to stop him from calling her “Kamablack”.
I need more of these critiques to download.
Yes, he was the first orange person to be hired as president. He was hired despite Hillary getting more votes because he was the DEI candidate.
was hired despite Hillary getting more votes because
he was the DEI candidateof special admission processes.orange person
Oh damn, is oompa-loompa no longer considered acceptable?
Only orange people can say that word now.
there are no black people, or white people. just shades of brown from light brown to dark brown.
I can’t believe we still use that antiquated differentiator. there can be both “white” and “black” people in the same ethnic group so it’s means next to nothing
Missing the forest for the trees or whatever. It’s not about skin colour but how society perceives and treats you. If Kamala isn’t black then why is she being called a DEI hire when Hilary Clinton never was?
I don’t know about being called a DEI hire, but I DO remember Hillary being called the worst possible option. I DON’T recall anyone calling Harris the worst possible option. Oddly enough in 2024, that would be Biden.
deleted by creator
My point is that society perceives her as a black women. Saying shit like “there are no black people” is moronic in a society that values and scrutinizes race as much as ours does.
because DEI literally didnt exist in 2016 to the same level it does now?
deleted by creator
That race is nearly meaningless in the rest of the world seems like a very sheltered and privileged viewpoint. There are riots in the UK regarding race and propaganda/misinformation. I’m guessing you live in a fairly homogeneous country if race/ethic background is never specified on various forms.
Vance is also a DEI hire. They didn’t want two geriatrics on the ticket so they chose someone young. Diversity in age. DEI can be spun many ways. It’s not a bad thing.
DEI doesn’t mean diversity in their eyes. It means unqualified.
Almost all VPs are DEI hires.
Trump chose Pence because he had government experience and his religious conservatism helped reassure the GOP’s religious voters.
Biden choosing Harris:
Biden committed to selecting a woman as his running mate … He noted that his selection would likely be younger than he is
Obama choosing Biden:
Obama recalled that he and his advisers Axelrod and Plouffe wondered if voters would accept a ticket of “two relatively young, inexperienced, and liberal civil rights attorneys” and ultimately Obama felt the contrast between him and Biden was a strength, and that Biden being older than Obama would reassure those voters who were concerned that Obama was too young to be president
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection
Bush Jr. choosing Cheney
By picking Cheney, Bush had a running mate who had years of experience as well as an extensive foreign policy expertise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Republican_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection
Clinton was an exception:
In making the selection, Clinton emphasized Gore’s experience with foreign policy and environmental issues.[1] Clinton’s choice of a fellow young southern centrist defied conventional wisdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Democratic_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection
This pattern goes through the years. If the presidential candidate is a northerner, they often pick a southerner. If he’s old, he chooses a younger VP candidate. If he’s from a wealthy background, he chooses someone who has a more humble background. If he lacks political experience, he chooses someone who has it. If he lacks international experience, he chooses someone who has it.
All VPs are DEI hires, at least to some extent. It’s accepted that if the two candidates are too similar that the ticket will fail.
If he lacks political experience, he chooses someone who has it. If he lacks international experience, he chooses someone who has it.
I mean, this just sounds like good teamwork
Fundamentally DEI is about good teamwork. You want a diverse team of people with different backgrounds and experiences.
The repubs have successfully tricked a large number of people (including liberals/centrists) into accepting their premise that DEI is a bad thing. When they accuse someone of being a DEI hire the response shouldn’t have been “nuh-uh, she was chosen for her merits,” it should have been “so what? What makes you think she’s not up to the job?”
Yes because a black woman needs a white man to “balance” the fact… :)
America is a very strange country.
I’m not saying it’s good (because it’s not) but I’m unfortunately pretty certain they’re correct.
There’s a difference in saying something sexist and racist to be sexist and racist vs being practical due to other people’s sexism and racism.
I don’t like it any more than you, but I’m afraid they’re right. While the country might benefit from two women, two POC, two women of color any variation thereupon, they might not have the best chance in certain (usually older) demographics. And unfortunately this isn’t a contest we can pick the morally right choice, lose with dignity, and still come out okay.
“Stand in the ashes of a [Million] dead and ask them if honor matters… Their silence is your answer.”
After going through project 2025, I do not think I am being dramatic or hyperbolic with that video game quote.
Looked at pragmatically, I feel like the more varied viewpoints and ideas you can get about an issue the better solution you can find. It makes sense to surround yourself with advisers who aren’t carbon copies of you. People who’ve had different experiences and can bring additional skills to the table. Advisers that can say “consider it from this angle” or “if we do this thing, the consequences could be…”
When does it get better though? If we’re always tempering the appearance of marginalized people in leadership roles, i fear generations will keep growing up with a prejudice against it
are we though? i’m not sure we are, i literally do not care about the race/ethnicity of either candidate, i only care about how likeable/relatable they are, and how good of a record they have.
Does it help to me as a white Midwesterner that tim walz is also a white Midwesterner, yeah probably, but my state is literally 80% white. And that’s pretty similar across most of the midwest.
You could pick any number of equally good candidates, but a white Midwesterner garnering for the broad Midwesterner population? You’re gonna be hard pressed to find someone like tim walz who’s not white. Even just statistically, not including the likely long standing systemic racism in the government itself.
It gets better when children grow up being taught that bigotry is unacceptable. Ignoring the effects of bigotry isn’t how you do that.
If you had told me in 2008 that electing the first black man President would create racial issues in the US, I would have said, that’s fine, we need to get passed this. If you had told me that electing Obama would have lead to President Trump, I may have voted for McCain. (Assuming I believed the foretelling)
So instead of giving Obama eight years to try to patch things up before another Republican continued the USA’s march to fascism you’d have voted to put another Republican in right away and speed-run the whole process?
I think AOC would have been a safer pick for VP than Walz, what with Walz’ record of deploying the national guard. He’s just a little bit too controversial. Harris needed to pick a running mate who would have given her an easy win. It’s too late to change it now but I’m disappointed she picked the hard route. I’m not sure we can afford to do that this election.
AOC wouldn’t win Harris the swing vote. I love AOC, don’t get me wrong, but with two women on the ticket, it’s too easy for conservatives to paint the duo as “crazy” or “radical.” Sexism remains alive and well here. People still believe the stereotypes and are easily influenced by dog whistles, especially here in the Midwest.
I hope that we get to the point where this isn’t a concern, but as it stands now, we have never had a woman in charge, and a lot of people are afraid of the unknown, so they wouldn’t like the idea of something new on both the presidential front as well as the VP front.
That’s on top of the fact that AOC is from NY and Harris is from CA. We are already irritated that a majority of people in office (and the country) ignore the “flyover” states even though we do a lot for the country (and have really cool cultural and fun places to visit, but this addendum is clearly biased). It really does matter a lot that Walz is one of us. He gets us in a way that people from the coast states don’t. That will influence a lot of votes, and two midwestern states are considered swing states - i.e. states that Harris absolutely NEEDS on her side.
Swing voters here don’t care as much about deploying the national guard. In fact, it’s lauded by a lot of people, including liberals/democrats. Midwesterners are okay with civil disobedience, but only if it’s not unnecessarily destructive or if there isn’t an attempt to gain simply for yourself (ex: looting). I’m not saying that that is what happened when the guard was deployed or that it’s a realistic or correct belief, but in reality, the media painted it that way, so people believe what they were told. So, very few here are holding something like that against him.
I don’t know of anyone in my region who would consider Walz to be truly controversial, and certainly, they think of him as way less controversial than AOC. They might disagree with Walz’s policies or opinions, but they don’t think he’s controversial. Here, AOC’s painted as a pot stirrer and a crazy lady. To reiterate, I don’t agree with this view of AOC, and I respect her immensely, but it would be foolish to ignore the fact that a lot of other people do agree with it. Walz, because of his race, age, cultural background, and experience, is a thousand times more electable than AOC when you’re looking at it from a national perspective.
You shouldn’t eliminate someone just because they are a 60 year old white guy. He has an extensive track record of getting progressive policies passed with a 1 vote majority. By your logic, no one should be touting Bernie who is just as white and older.
He’s not even a boomer, he’s gen x.
It’s politics. People literally make a living polling people about shit like this. It may not be right or even correct.
But it’s just where America is right now.
It’s progress. A little at a time.
It really is. Speaking as someone residing here. Send help pls
i mean, yeah, if you’re trying to balance representation, why wouldn’t you pick a white VP pick as a black candidate. Considering that probably 70% of the US population is white, it seems like a reasonable choice to me.
i’m not sure what the intention of your comment is here, but i’m a little conflicted about it. Maybe i’m missing something.
Holy shit that is a bad take. My god, you hit every single bullet-point of bad takes!
I didn’t consider his gender and race and I liked his policies, until I read about aipac and Palestine.
