Biden's VP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite it being a gossip site, it’s usually accurate. There are only 2 women that fit in this camp..Obama and Clinton.

https://blindgossip.com/about-the-veep/

This is totally about Trump. And it worries me - having Nikki as VP would most definitely ensure a win for him.

I agree she would help his campaign tremendously, since suburban women could be the key to the next election. Some women moderates who might otherwise be swayed by Biden/female VP would be more comfortable voting for Trump with Hailey on the ticket. If the blind is true, I don't see Trump agreeing or, even if he does, keeping his word though.

I think you're also really under-estimating women if you think they're just going to forget the last four years as soon as there's a vagina standing next to the pssy groper who's ruining their kids' lives - not to mention the economy, etc

Maybe women if your sort who think of women as vaginas. Accomplished women have gotten beyond womyn studies thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite it being a gossip site, it’s usually accurate. There are only 2 women that fit in this camp..Obama and Clinton.

https://blindgossip.com/about-the-veep/

This is totally about Trump. And it worries me - having Nikki as VP would most definitely ensure a win for him.

I agree she would help his campaign tremendously, since suburban women could be the key to the next election. Some women moderates who might otherwise be swayed by Biden/female VP would be more comfortable voting for Trump with Hailey on the ticket. If the blind is true, I don't see Trump agreeing or, even if he does, keeping his word though.

I think you're also really under-estimating women if you think they're just going to forget the last four years as soon as there's a vagina standing next to the pssy groper who's ruining their kids' lives - not to mention the economy, etc

I'm so confused.

With pssy groper ruining kids' lives and the economy, etc, you mean Joe Biden, correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite it being a gossip site, it’s usually accurate. There are only 2 women that fit in this camp..Obama and Clinton.

https://blindgossip.com/about-the-veep/

This is totally about Trump. And it worries me - having Nikki as VP would most definitely ensure a win for him.

I agree she would help his campaign tremendously, since suburban women could be the key to the next election. Some women moderates who might otherwise be swayed by Biden/female VP would be more comfortable voting for Trump with Hailey on the ticket. If the blind is true, I don't see Trump agreeing or, even if he does, keeping his word though.

I think you're also really under-estimating women if you think they're just going to forget the last four years as soon as there's a vagina standing next to the pssy groper who's ruining their kids' lives - not to mention the economy, etc

Well, look at all the white women who voted for him last time. Even if they're wavering this time, a sensible knowledgeable woman VP could help shore him up.

I will never say never, after the shtshow of 2016. But I don't think that having a woman will be enough to win women back, after what we've all seen and experienced under Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/09/trump-enters-2020-general-with-key-demographics-moving-away-him/

One of the most notable changes is that eight-point shift toward Biden among women. That overlaps with the huge 25-point shift seen among whites with a college degree; white women with college degrees have shifted dramatically against Trump, helping to power the Democratic takeover of the House in 2018.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liz Warren seems like a practical choice since we're in a recession. She's also not spotlight-seeking right now; she's laying low, which seems like something you'd do if you thought you had it in the bag. I think Gretchen Whitmer had a chance but blew it.

Anyways, I think Warren shot herself in the foot when she turned on Bernie and people saw through that. Everytime she makes a social media post, that […] emoji comes to play.

Whitmer is garbage and literally has a petition out against her. I don’t think she’ll be going to be selected. When you’re over here banning items from stores for no reason, I don’t think that authoritative image is going to help her.

I can see it going down to Klobuchar easily. Biden can at least pick up the battleground Midwest states like Wisconsin and Iowa with Klobuchar, plus she has that Midwest appeal. She’s also in her early 60s so if Joe croaks, she has some experience but she’s also not too old.

Honestly, if Tulsi played the game and dropped out earlier, she would’ve made a great VP. The right liked her and that could’ve been enough pull to persuade independents to vote for Biden.

But for now the pick is Klobuchar if I had to pick today.

She never turned on Bernie. Bernie misjudged her and he turned on her not thinking she’d call him on it.

Bernie sucks.

I agree.

But short of Biden nominating Satan, or worse, a Republican, I’m voting for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite it being a gossip site, it’s usually accurate. There are only 2 women that fit in this camp..Obama and Clinton.

https://blindgossip.com/about-the-veep/

This is totally about Trump. And it worries me - having Nikki as VP would most definitely ensure a win for him.

LOL at unemployed Nikki “demanding” potus step down after 2 years or she won’t be his VP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rice went on five Sunday shows and blamed a video for Benghazi.

Yup, Benghazi rules her out.

How so? The Secretary of State at the time of Benghazi later won the nomination in 2016 as well as the popular vote. Rice used the best talking points available to her at the time and went on television when no one else would. In contrast, Secretary Clinton was nowhere to be found and dismissive of the entire tragedy when testifying before Congress (e.g., "what difference does it make?"). Rice conveyed the administration's position with much less information available to her and with the appropriate seriousness. If Clinton can be the presidential nominee, why can't Rice be the VP pick?

Why shouldn't Susan Rice deserve the most serious consideration to be Vice President? She has significant experience in two administrations and has done more than just think about international issues for decades. Susan Rice has been in the arena and in the room when tough decisions are made. She has earned another opportunity.

Many of the picks on the short lists have their own political agendas and have been critical of Biden in the past and even to his face. He needs someone who is more loyal and could step in to be president. Susan Rice has been in the Situation Room, and not just on CNN.

LOL! The very fact that she repeated the talking points over and over, denies your facts of support for her. Anyone with a lick of common sense knew that it was not the video--and that included the IC. She took talking points from that fiction writing major Ben Rhodes--likely with the help of John Brennan (who, by the way, was in charge of the plans to keep Americans around the world safe on 9/11/12--he didn't do so well.)

Ben Rhodes and John Brennan are fixtures of the national security establishment. Rice should not be faulted for relying on the information they provided.

More importantly, Susan Rice is a substantive leader who could work very well with a President Biden. Let Trump chase the big crowds and social media; it is pointless to try to compete in those areas, especially with a 78-year old at the top of the ticket who has been out of step for at least a decade. Biden and Rice can actually govern. Independents, suburban women, and people in the Midwest will respect that ticket.

[Anonymous]

Ben Rhodes and John Brennan are fixtures of the national security establishment. Rice should not be faulted for relying on the information they provided.

More importantly, Susan Rice is a substantive leader who could work very well with a President Biden. Let Trump chase the big crowds and social media; it is pointless to try to compete in those areas, especially with a 78-year old at the top of the ticket who has been out of step for at least a decade. Biden and Rice can actually govern. Independents, suburban women, and people in the Midwest will respect that ticket.

Fixtures, yes. Competent, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoops

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ea4988dc5b6d37635909a90/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Joe the Decisive is going to wait till September to have a VP...

This is so complex, folks.

Did you read the article? He’s revealing the pick in July.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The "bull" poster could well be black. There are crazy people who happen to be black too.

True. But most other black people I knew couldn’t stand Kamala. Her record in CA couldn’t be ignored. I didn’t even care about her sleeping her way to get to where she was, but her record was awful.

Also, her debates were ridiculous. I’ll never forget the last debate she had where her main goal wasn’t policy, it was to get Donald trumps twitter account banned.... wth

This is one of the MOST common mistakes. Why do (mostly white) people continue to paint minority groups as monolithic? Blacks are not unanimously for or against Harris. I think there are more that do not approve of her than do approve of her, but I think it is close. And I think that the reason she did poorly in pooling and in support was the same problem that Warren had; there are voters who like her and would support her but voted differently in polls because they didn't think she could go all the way and voted for someone else who they thought was more popular and had greater likelihood of success. In Harris' case, that was Biden (or at the time, Buttigieg or Klobuchar). In Warren's case, it was Sanders.

I think early polling and results from before IA and NH are not particular indicative of support for the candidates. A lot has changed in the political landscape since then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liz Warren seems like a practical choice since we're in a recession. She's also not spotlight-seeking right now; she's laying low, which seems like something you'd do if you thought you had it in the bag. I think Gretchen Whitmer had a chance but blew it.

Personally, I think Warren is a much stronger candidate for Chief of Staff than for VP. I can't see pulling her out of the Senate and risking Baker putting a Republican in her place just to put her on the ticket as VP. She does very little for his ticket; she is close to his age, is just as susceptible to Covid-19 as Biden is, and she will not be a candidate that people can trust to take over the party leadership in 2024 (she would be 76). Additionally, the VP is not nearly as hands-on for running the government as the Chief of Staff is. So, get a younger candidate with executive experience like Whitmer or Lujan Grisham in as VP and get Warren as Chief of Staff. That would solve tons of problems in his ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The "bull" poster could well be black. There are crazy people who happen to be black too.

True. But most other black people I knew couldn’t stand Kamala. Her record in CA couldn’t be ignored. I didn’t even care about her sleeping her way to get to where she was, but her record was awful.

Also, her debates were ridiculous. I’ll never forget the last debate she had where her main goal wasn’t policy, it was to get Donald trumps twitter account banned.... wth

This is one of the MOST common mistakes. Why do (mostly white) people continue to paint minority groups as monolithic? Blacks are not unanimously for or against Harris. I think there are more that do not approve of her than do approve of her, but I think it is close. And I think that the reason she did poorly in pooling and in support was the same problem that Warren had; there are voters who like her and would support her but voted differently in polls because they didn't think she could go all the way and voted for someone else who they thought was more popular and had greater likelihood of success. In Harris' case, that was Biden (or at the time, Buttigieg or Klobuchar). In Warren's case, it was Sanders.

I think early polling and results from before IA and NH are not particular indicative of support for the candidates. A lot has changed in the political landscape since then.

A few pages back a PP posted an article about the VP candidates' negatives. Harris's biggest was her very high negatives in polling, much higher than the other women under consideration. That's a big deal, is what sunk HRC. Hopefully the Dem establishment will learn and not run candidates with high negatives going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The "bull" poster could well be black. There are crazy people who happen to be black too.

True. But most other black people I knew couldn’t stand Kamala. Her record in CA couldn’t be ignored. I didn’t even care about her sleeping her way to get to where she was, but her record was awful.

Also, her debates were ridiculous. I’ll never forget the last debate she had where her main goal wasn’t policy, it was to get Donald trumps twitter account banned.... wth

This is one of the MOST common mistakes. Why do (mostly white) people continue to paint minority groups as monolithic? Blacks are not unanimously for or against Harris. I think there are more that do not approve of her than do approve of her, but I think it is close. And I think that the reason she did poorly in pooling and in support was the same problem that Warren had; there are voters who like her and would support her but voted differently in polls because they didn't think she could go all the way and voted for someone else who they thought was more popular and had greater likelihood of success. In Harris' case, that was Biden (or at the time, Buttigieg or Klobuchar). In Warren's case, it was Sanders.

I think early polling and results from before IA and NH are not particular indicative of support for the candidates. A lot has changed in the political landscape since then.

A few pages back a PP posted an article about the VP candidates' negatives. Harris's biggest was her very high negatives in polling, much higher than the other women under consideration. That's a big deal, is what sunk HRC. Hopefully the Dem establishment will learn and not run candidates with high negatives going forward.

^^and Warren polled higher than Harris with AAs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liz Warren seems like a practical choice since we're in a recession. She's also not spotlight-seeking right now; she's laying low, which seems like something you'd do if you thought you had it in the bag. I think Gretchen Whitmer had a chance but blew it.

Personally, I think Warren is a much stronger candidate for Chief of Staff than for VP. I can't see pulling her out of the Senate and risking Baker putting a Republican in her place just to put her on the ticket as VP. She does very little for his ticket; she is close to his age, is just as susceptible to Covid-19 as Biden is, and she will not be a candidate that people can trust to take over the party leadership in 2024 (she would be 76). Additionally, the VP is not nearly as hands-on for running the government as the Chief of Staff is. So, get a younger candidate with executive experience like Whitmer or Lujan Grisham in as VP and get Warren as Chief of Staff. That would solve tons of problems in his ticket.

Interesting idea, but I'd rather see Klobuchar as COS and Warren as Treasury Sec.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liz Warren seems like a practical choice since we're in a recession. She's also not spotlight-seeking right now; she's laying low, which seems like something you'd do if you thought you had it in the bag. I think Gretchen Whitmer had a chance but blew it.

Personally, I think Warren is a much stronger candidate for Chief of Staff than for VP. I can't see pulling her out of the Senate and risking Baker putting a Republican in her place just to put her on the ticket as VP. She does very little for his ticket; she is close to his age, is just as susceptible to Covid-19 as Biden is, and she will not be a candidate that people can trust to take over the party leadership in 2024 (she would be 76). Additionally, the VP is not nearly as hands-on for running the government as the Chief of Staff is. So, get a younger candidate with executive experience like Whitmer or Lujan Grisham in as VP and get Warren as Chief of Staff. That would solve tons of problems in his ticket.

Interesting idea, but I'd rather see Klobuchar as COS and Warren as Treasury Sec.

I can understand that. But I would be very surprised to see Warren resign her seat in the Senate for the Sec-Treas post. And I would also be surprised that Biden would risk pulling her from the Senate in a state with a Republican governor unless the Mass legislature passed a requirement that the governor must appoint someone of the same party as the departing legislator and overrode the expected governor's veto. Charlie Baker is one of the most reasonable Republican governors in America (along with Larry Hogan), but I would be shocked if he did not appoint a Republican replacement and one that would not be up for reelection until 2024. I could see her resigning for the Chief of Staff, but not for Sec-Treas. And I could see him tapping her for CoS but not willing to pull her for a cabinet position. He has other good options for Sec-Treas.

At least Klobuchar is in a Democratic state with a Democratic governor. Her seat should be safe to stay Democratic should she resign.

[Anonymous]

He should pick Barack Obama