What makes this nomination interesting is the Democratic electorate is split between the mostly “normal” (mainly black and blue collar voters who aren’t into promoting trans-genderism in kindergarten or for making secularism the state religion), and crazies who currently split their vote on the socialist-secularist candidates.
You have to admire the political jujitsu and Bill Clinton-like theatrics of Kamala in the debate, presenting herself as the adult in the room who will put food on America's tables (missed that role of gov't in the Constitution; must be next to the right to an abortion), and attacking Joe Biden but coming off not as an attacker but seeming to play the victim card. One would think that ol' Biden was at the bus stop making the young Kamala cry.
Perhaps it’s pessimism that fueled my thought months ago that Kamala will win the nomination: she could not only beat Trump, but can appeal to the two wings of the Democrat party. She’s speaks the language of blacks (she plays black on TV though she isn't) while also speaking the elite-speak of the Obamas, Oprah, and the liberal industrial media complex. Given this, she’s a very dangerous candidate. The hope for the GOP and country is that the division in the Democrat party becomes more pronounced, not less.
Part of Hillary’s problem in ’16 was lack of black turnout, particularly in places like Detroit. It’s hard to image that Harris would have that problem. And the only reason Obama hasn’t nominated best bud Biden is he really wants Harris to win.
Obama, who was politically astute enough to win two elections despite having done nothing before the first election and having created unpopular Obamacare before the second, knows that Harris is the way forward for the success of the party. It’s too simplistic perhaps, but maybe you can tell who to be scared of by who Obama promotes.
Another case of Mexicans doing work Americans won’t do, i.e. secure our border:
Who dispensed Jorge Bergoglio from his vows? (Or are vows anachronistic and only for Pharisees?)