It’s crucial to note that our bias scale is calibrated to the political >spectrum of the United States, which may not align with the >political landscapes of other nations.
From their methodology page.
They aren't rating for any and all bias. They are rating for political bias within the context of the US political landscape.
They are being tried in military tribunals so the Defense Secretary is in the position that the Attorney General would be in if it were in civilian courts. He didn't, and can't, override the court. He overrode the military prosecutors who initially agreed to the plea deal and withdrew the deal before it went to court.
He can't be Harris's VP. Two people from the same state can run on the same ticket but electors for the electorial college can't vote for two people from the same state as the elector. That means that no elector from California could vote for a Harris/Newsom ticket. Democrats cannot win in the electorial college without California.
I doubt he'll do anything much different before the election. Harris is going to try to run, at least in part, on the current administration's record so Biden actions will be constrained by the fear of hurting her campaign.
No elector may vote for 2 people from the elector's state. If the ticket is Harris Newsom then no elector from California can vote for that ticket. Dem's cannot win in the electoral college without California.
Until and unless someone steps up to challenge her and we know who is willing to throw their hat in the ring we can't really support a specific candidate. All we have is speculation and who I'd like. Blind loyalty and immediately falling in line obscures the true picture for how much support she has and makes it less likely that a challenger will step forward. We need a real conversation about Harris's candidacy and to know if anyone will challenge her for the nomination. Elizabeth Warren is who I want with Bernie as my second choice but I don't see either of them as a real possibility because of their age. Let's see if someone closer to them is willing to fight for the nomination before falling in line.
So what you're saying is that you already knew she was a problematic and unpopular choice but you are going to accuse anyone who voices that of supporting baby rape because you think any attempt to find a better candidate helps Trump. I think forcing a bad choice without any level of discussion helps Trump but I still don't think you support baby rape.
Elaine Kagen. She can step down from SCOTUS and let Biden nominate her replacement. She has good national name recognition and lots of public writing on every important topic. She would trounce Trump in a debate. It's basically impossible to challenge her qualifications. She is a little older at 64 but much younger than Trump or Biden. She's actually a little short of the normal retirement age. I actually prefer Sotomayor and thought of this for her but she's a little older than Kagen.
I've been shitting on her the same way since Biden picked her for VP. I was hoping for Stacy Abrams then. I don't have a specific candidate I like right now because I think Bernie and Elizabeth Warren both have the same age issue, a younger candidate probably has a better chance. I wouldn't hate Hakeem Jefferies as the nominee, I think Mark Kelly has a good chance of beating Trump. I like Cory Booker and think Tammy Duckworth would be an interesting candidate.
Honestly I super disappointed in Cheney. Don't get me wrong, I never had much of a positive opinion about him, he was Darth Sidious hiding in the shadows and wielding all the power in the service of evil during the Bush presidency, but I did believe he had some version of family values. When, as a former VP and respected elder of the party, he didn't step up to support and defend his daughter after she became a MAGA target I lost what little positive regard I had for him.
Yep, bad choice and worse choice. She hasn't been nominated yet though so there is a slim hope for the Dems choice to improve. Hopefully there will be people vocal about finding someone who's record is more progressive before the convention.
She covered up that a state crime lab employee was falsifying evidence leading to hundreds of false convictions. She opposed police reform including opposing body cameras. Her office, she claims without her knowledge, argued that prisoners eligible for parole shouldn't be released from prisons so overcrowded that a judge ruled them cruel and unusual because it would reduce the availability of prison labor. She argued on two separate occasions that prisoners who had had their convictions overturned on the basis of actual innocence shouldn't be released from prison because they hadn't filed the motion for release quickly enough.
Her record is staunchly pro establishment and she has participated in acts of overt corruption to maintain the status quo.
She wasn't carrying the black vote when she ran in the 2020 primary. Her record shows her to be staunchly pro establishment. She wasn't progressive as a prosecutor or as Attorney General, she opposed and obstructed police reform in California when she was in the best position to get anything done. Maybe black voters will ultimately back her if she gets nominated but her support among black voters isn't a good argument for nominating her because it isn't strong.
Spain supported the colonies in the American Revolution. They were at war with Britain in Europe at the time and they provided money and supplies to the colonies as well as attacking several British positions along the Mississippi River and ramping up the European War. The Fourth of July holiday doesn't even mark a battle, it marks the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the war had been being fought for over a year at that point.
This is a pipe dream but I want Hillbilly Elegy brought up as often as possible. There is a very small chance that Vance could lose Appalachia for Trump.
From their methodology page.
They aren't rating for any and all bias. They are rating for political bias within the context of the US political landscape.