I would not have. She is doing amazing right now at campaigning, but after her snarky sound-bite 4 years ago she has had little follow-through. e.g. she ran for President, but then when she became VP was told to deal with the border crisis, yet complained that it was "too hard" - like yeah, ofc it is, but you asked for the whole job, yet can't not complain about even one portion of it!?

Then again, there has never been a VP iirc under such pressure to e.g. remain in Washington, D.C. to break every tie vote as Congress was more broken than any previous one. Remember Kevin McCarthy? Yeesh!

And then for whatever reason, we don't hear much about her performance after that. Possibly that's our very broken news system - certainly that's at least one component of it.

Others like Pete Buttigieg come across as much more impressive. Though he's gay so unlikely to have any traction with centrist voters who might otherwise swing to Kamala, or perhaps it's that she as VP has access to all of Biden's billion-dollar campaign chest.

Anyway, ofc I may have voted "for her" in the sense of against the other side, but until the last few weeks I really haven't been impressed by anything that she's done. Still, she's not >80 years old like both of the others were, so that's a STRONG plus. Also, even if she is merely following good advice, that's not nothing: the ability to take direction from experts who truly know their stuff is a great skill!