I addressed performance by pointing out that too often people's opinion on performance is largely driven by how they feel about the intended policy direction. Most of your post is about how people feel about the intended objectives. The one performance element you mention is immigration but Congress had an immigration bill ready to pass and the other candidate scuttled it. It's crazy to then say that the VP failed at immigration when Congress had a bill ready to go.
And her performance in interviews is absolutely irrelevant to her ability to do a job as an elected politician...unless we're electing people to make pretty speeches and give interviews. And if people are doing that then, imo, they're idiots. 99% of the job isn't public facing.
If you ask me, fixating on campaign performance is worthless. It's like picking your car mechanic because he's a great guy at the bar. I'm a lawyer, I know brilliant lawyers who are terrible in front of juries. The performance element of the job is not one of their strengths. There are brilliant doctors who have very poor bedside manner but they're phenomenal at diagnosing and treating patients.
I know this conversation is about Harris but there is a relevant Trump issue here. A large part of Trump's appeal is how he makes his base feel about him. He's extremely effective at communicating a sense of strength or competence or whatever but many people who have watched him perform the job say he's bad at it. And not bad in the "I don't agree with your choices" way but bad in the "He doesn't actually know what he's doing" way.
I bring it up because it's important to separate one's feelings about the individual from their actual job.
None of your criticisms about Harris are about her failing to do the jobs she was elected to do. They're all about your feelings on the intended objectives of the Democrat administration or her campaigning. Tell me where she failed to do the job itself, not which objectives you disagreed with or that you don't like how she comes across on tv.
Let's do an experiment. Im gonna do the exact same thing you did, but keep the person anonymous. Im sure you can figure out who it is pretty easily but meh. You tell me if they make a good choice for President of the united states. Im just gonna keep the resume you made and alter it slightly for the new prospect. I went ahead and showed the edits with brackets just to demonstrate similarities despite changes.
JUDICIAL SIDE:
[He's] a law school graduate so a more than passing familiarity with the Constitution and the general intent behind our government. [Practiced law and was investigator for the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General], has direct experience with elements of law and order. Enforcement, recidivism, understanding what a populace responds to in that area (which is separate from if everyone agrees with they're conclusions).
[He] was never a judge but [his role as a practicing attorney and working in the Attorney Generals Office] brought [him] pretty close to understanding those responsibilities.
LEGISLATIVE SIDE:
[Elected to the House of Representatives]. [He was also] elected to the Senate. Meaning that [he] has experience in the legislative side of the government. The people who craft the laws of the land.
EXECUTIVE SIDE:
[He] spent years as Vice President. Which means [he] spent years operating on the branch of government responsible for carrying out the laws Congress writes.
[He was head of the Council of Competitiveness and the first chairman of the National Space Council]
If you can look past how we might feel about individual policy choices, [he's] one of the few people I can think of who has publicly elected experience related to all 3 elements of the government. It's hard to say that makes someone a "poor choice" for President.
Now, you tell me if you think this person is a good candidate for President of the United States. As you can see, it's very similar accomplishments to your criteria.
For reference, heres the post of yours Im using as the template:
JUDICIAL SIDE:
She's a law school graduate so a more than passing familiarity with the Constitution and the general intent behind our government. She was an elected Attorney General so she has direct experience with elements of law and order. Enforcement, recidivism, understanding what a populace responds to in that area (which is separate from if everyone agrees with her conclusions).
She was never a judge but her role as an elected AG brought her pretty close to understanding those responsibilities.
LEGISLATIVE SIDE:
She was elected to the Senate for one of the largest states in the country. Meaning that she experience in the legislative side of the government. The people who craft the laws of the land.
EXECUTIVE SIDE:
She spent 4 years as Vice President. Which means she spent 4 years operating on the branch of government responsible for carrying out the laws Congress writes.
She was on the Budget committee, the Judiciary Committee, and Homeland Security.
If you can look past how we might feel about her individual policy choices, she's one of the few people I can think of who has publicly elected experience related to all 3 elements of the government. It's hard to say that makes someone a "poor choice" for President.
I'll answer the rest of your post in greater detail, but let's do this first.
