Again and again. The issue with the VP is that they can be cut off, but it doesn't mean they will be. The utility of a VP is that they have a massive staff to handle alternate issues.

Here's a good example of what should have happened on October 7th. Israel gets attacked by a major terrorist attack. This is bad, but how wide spread is it. Is it just Hamas, or is it a combined irregular warfare operation at multiple targets coordinated by Iran? How far are they getting, how far will they get, what are the markets doing, will Israel launch nukes if some specific thing happens, are government ministers being attacked? At a certain point, the President has to say, "This shit is so serious it requires all of my attention." At that point, he goes to the VP and says, "Normal everyday business: you handle it. I can't worry about anything outside this crisis until nuclear retaliation is off the table. Grant proposals, award ceremonies, negotiations, trade deals, you handle all of it until I'm ready."

In a good situation, the VP and the POTUS are on a 1:1 field and the VP is in regular meetings, and knows when to step in and step off. They should be providing an alternative perspective while having the same agenda. It's actually an important role if you make it one.

However, if you just picked someone for the votes, they become useless because they don't do anything but stand around and look pretty. If that.

If that's the case, then you have to work with what you have.

So when Biden gave her the border, that was her chance to really step up. She didn't do shit because she realized he handed her a shit sandwich he didn't want to take the fall for. She still could have done something and instead she didn't do shit.

When your boss hands you a bad job, you still have to try and make it work.

If not, then fucking resign.