Nope, not at all.  Missed it completely.  

I run an entire research team and still have a lot of career in front of me.  I watch what I say online because you never know who is reading and how it will be interpreted.

There are certain topics that I just will not touch and keep to myself.  

I spoked about this pages ago.  The example I used is there is not a chance I would show up to work with a Trump sticker.  It is just a illustration, but serves the point.  Take Isreal and Palastine....  yep, I will not comment on the topic, regardless of facts.  

Did I focus on his attacks?  Yeah I did.  I won't converse with someone whom has no respect.  

What he did was wrong and everyone knows it.  But it is ok because sides. 

As for your ferocity, lol.  I'm not even sure how you want me to interpret that.  

Eh I disagree pretty heavily with this. 

Plenty of genuinely experienced people overestimate their experiences.

Someone who has gone to the doctor for lots of minor things in different countries, could absolutely make assumptions on what the healthcare differences would be for major things. "Based on my experience, it takes a few hours to get into a clinic for a cold in the US, and several days in the UK. So I'd assume it would be much worse if someone got cancer." People can pretty easily erroneously overestimate how much data they really have. They might not realize how different healthcare systems treat different diseases. Or even how different things could be with different regions. Finding a specialist while living in the middle of North Dakota is going to be a lot harder than finding a specialist in New York City for example.  

Someone who drives a lot for their job across almost every state, might feel like they can make a judgment call on what road conditions are like in each state. Despite the fact that it's going to be extremely difficult to get a typical driving experience in each state. There's hundreds if not thousands of miles of roads going through all kinds of neighborhoods. Those experiences are variable depending on the year with construction, weather, etc. 

To actually get a typical experience, you'd need to set up some standards, figure out some way to do an extensive survey, etc. But people with a million miles on the road would absolutely think they have a pretty good handle on what states have the best/worst roads. 

Plenty of smart people are very clueless outside of their area of expertise. 

Ben Carson, from what I understand is supposed to be an absolutely brilliant neurosurgeon, like one of the best in the entire US. That doesn't mean though that he's familiar with economics or politics. He might not even be familiar with how the healthcare system is for poor people or for middle class people. 

A lot of this is made worse by people assuming that since they're smart, they must understand what these things are like. "I'm really smart so I should be able to understand economics really well, even though I didn't spend 8 years studying it like you did."

Also made worse, because people generally overestimate how much they actually understand and remember things. Lots of studies show that you forget and lose most of your understanding the first time you learn something. Like math students tend to not fully understand basic algebra concepts until they've taken Calculus.

Anecdotally, I had a required class where we learned how to do taxes. I've seen multiple of my high school classmates talk about how we should have had classes like that. 

Plenty of rich people are dumb. 

Elon Musk for example is absolutely rich, and yet it seems like he's taken it upon himself to act like a teenage forum crap poster over the past couple of years.

And every scientist is still human, and a lot of them easily overestimate how things work. Peer review exists for a number of reasons, anyone can make mistakes.

No offence to Chrkeller but the NHS conversation pretty much convinced to me he is rich, Lol.

Good points and I’ll admit I was probably a bit worked up when I wrote that. I try to put time and effort into my responses and try to use data/sources to back up my opinions so it gets frustrating when I make long posts with multiple points and the responses are short, vague and ignore large portions of what I wrote.

Harris is definitely the most common name I keep seeing surface among potential replacements and the polling bears out that she's the most popular Biden alternative the Democrats have at the moment. It's also the easiest and most natural transition to make to have the VP take over the campaign. She has the experience and the name recognition. I see no plausible way in which whatever process is decided on wouldn't result in her being the new candidate. Would anyone even run against her in the "mini-primary" that's being talked about as a possibility?

I don't buy the "there's no time" line of argument here. You're British. The UK recently announced, threw together, and concluded an election in the span of a month, complete with a power transition. That's how much time there is left before the Democratic National Convention. There's plenty of time. What there isn't much time left for is figuring out whether Biden is staying or going. The stupid early virtual delegate vote is scheduled for next week, so if Biden is going to drop out it must be made to happen this week (so you'll forgive my vocalness). The dam must break this week ahead or never. I am fully on board with it happening because frankly, it's obvious there will be no second term for Biden either way. He can drop out or he can lose to Trump, but he cannot get re-elected, that much is exceedingly clear. Any change in the ticket is risky, but leaving it as is portends certain defeat.

If you really think that then you watch way too much Fox News. I'd urge you to go back and rewatch her debate with Mike Pence four years ago. She's absolutely capable of rising to the challenge in terms of communicating effectively.

The polls generally suggest she'd have a better chance than Biden, at least at this point. Besides that though, I can see certain definite advantages that Harris has over Biden, including...

1) The obvious: she's not 81 years old and won't be having any 90-minute senior moments.

2) I've seen her on the campaign trail (on YouTube) and she is a more effective communicator than her boss, which is the metric of efficacy that matters here. AND...

3) Just as importantly really -- and I don't think this point is considered enough -- she approaches the campaign with a different, and better, issue focus. Biden has sought to make this election generally about economic policy, infamously coining and trying in vain to popularize the term "Bidenomics" as the centerpiece thereof, as though the public were happy with the current cost of living. Harris, by contrast, more often has a tendency to center issues like abortion rights and the future of the democratic experiment in this country when she speaks: issues on which the Democratic ticket's stance is actually popular. She centers issues that are winning ones for Democrats more than she tries to persuade people that the rent isn't too damn high. That's just smarter.

The real challenge for Harris, should she become the nominee, will be resisting her natural temptation, as a discernibly stauncher social liberal than Biden (if one pays close attention), to sound like a PBS News Hour broadcast and frame all issues as identity issues and instead embrace a bit more universalism than may be instinctive to her. She can be, in other words, the losing 2020 candidate who didn't even make it to the first primary vote or she can be the woman who made mincemeat out of Mike Pence in the VP debate. That is a choice and a metric of maturity. The point for our purposes here though is that she actually has a path to victory available to her, unlike the current president.

I absolutely agree with everything that you've said in the first paragraph but I still see "rumours" of the Democrats wanting a "mini-primary/convention" and AOC also said that many are also wanting Harris to go as well, so that's where my concern comes from, I need to see all big name politicians come out with "Harris SHOULD be the replacement if Biden steps down", if Schumer/Pelosi/Hakeem back Harris then the rest should fall in line, endorsement from the Obama's wouldn't hurt either and of course, Biden needs to endorse Harris and then we can just move forward united behind Harris.

I really don't want to see a "mini-primary", it would be a waste of everyone's time only for Harris to win anyway, we only have ~4 months left, instead of focusing on Trump, Democrats will be talking shit about each other, media will be labelling it as Democrats in chaos, the talk would become that Biden/Democrats don't even have faith in his own VP and that's why they're running a mini-primary, it just doesn't seem like it has many upsides aside from "hey look, Harris was democratically elected" which I'm not sure many would actually give a shit about at this stage in the game, Lol.

She's the VP. This is what a VP is meant for. People voted for the Biden-Harris ticket already, if Biden steps down then Harris should immediately be the nominee with the backing of everyone, none of this mini-primary nonsense, a united Democrat Party leading into the DNC. People will run against her, politicians, they can't help themselves even when they have no chance, Lol. We can't be licking bitter wounds leading into the DNC from the losers.

That 7 percentage lead, is mostly due to how Biden is handling Israel/Palestine and outside of someone like AOC any democrat candidate is going to face that hurdle. I think come election day, the pro Palestine voters are going to vote for Biden or whoever the nominee is but right this minute they are saying they aren't or are non committed