Biden's VP?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It is going to be Gretchen Whitmer. She brings diversity, executive leadership, and excellent retail politician skills.


Nominating the definition of a Karen is not what Biden needs to do in this climate.


Yikes, lobbing racist and sexist slurs is not a good look. Get thee to women's studies 101! Gretchen Whitmer brings executive leadership, and excellent retail politician skills. Biden needs to pick someone experienced on day 1 to lead. She would be an excellent pick.


Didn’t she ban people from buying seeds and tile at Home Depot and ban people from going to a second home while her husband was on his way to there second home? She is a textbook authoritarian and a hypocrite to boot. Picking such a polarizing figure does Biden no good. She’ll cost him with moderates and with the “woke” crowd as well.

Biden should buck convention and pick an Asian or a Latino who isn’t polarizing. Xavier Baccera or a left field pick like Yang. Trump is pulling in 30% of Latinos. Picking a Latino VP helps turn the tide.


Yang is not a woman and out.
Whitmer doesn’t cost moderates, I think she actually adds to them.
The woke crowd is blue no matter who.
Latino/a votes are important especially moving forward and I think Grisham has appeal, but assume lack of depth simply due to the experience.

Will note blue no matter who.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It is going to be Gretchen Whitmer. She brings diversity, executive leadership, and excellent retail politician skills.


Nominating the definition of a Karen is not what Biden needs to do in this climate.


Yikes, lobbing racist and sexist slurs is not a good look. Get thee to women's studies 101! Gretchen Whitmer brings executive leadership, and excellent retail politician skills. Biden needs to pick someone experienced on day 1 to lead. She would be an excellent pick.


Didn’t she ban people from buying seeds and tile at Home Depot and ban people from going to a second home while her husband was on his way to there second home? She is a textbook authoritarian and a hypocrite to boot. Picking such a polarizing figure does Biden no good. She’ll cost him with moderates and with the “woke” crowd as well.

Biden should buck convention and pick an Asian or a Latino who isn’t polarizing. Xavier Baccera or a left field pick like Yang. Trump is pulling in 30% of Latinos. Picking a Latino VP helps turn the tide.


Yang is not a woman and out.
Whitmer doesn’t cost moderates, I think she actually adds to them.
The woke crowd is blue no matter who.
Latino/a votes are important especially moving forward and I think Grisham has appeal, but assume lack of depth simply due to the experience.

Will note blue no matter who.




Karen Bass has a strong relationship with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. As a community activist she mobilized Blacks and Hispanics, her district is 40% Hispanic, and she has four Latinx stepdaughters. Her interest in Cuba now is pro-democracy engagement and could be a plus, despite the opposition spinning it the other way. Other than being a hyper-effective legislator, the main reason she's risen in the search is because she could be the strongest big tent pick. All the Dem constituencies like her.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It is going to be Gretchen Whitmer. She brings diversity, executive leadership, and excellent retail politician skills.


Nominating the definition of a Karen is not what Biden needs to do in this climate.


Yikes, lobbing racist and sexist slurs is not a good look. Get thee to women's studies 101! Gretchen Whitmer brings executive leadership, and excellent retail politician skills. Biden needs to pick someone experienced on day 1 to lead. She would be an excellent pick.


Didn’t she ban people from buying seeds and tile at Home Depot and ban people from going to a second home while her husband was on his way to there second home? She is a textbook authoritarian and a hypocrite to boot. Picking such a polarizing figure does Biden no good. She’ll cost him with moderates and with the “woke” crowd as well.

Biden should buck convention and pick an Asian or a Latino who isn’t polarizing. Xavier Baccera or a left field pick like Yang. Trump is pulling in 30% of Latinos. Picking a Latino VP helps turn the tide.


Not sure what right-wing blogs you are reading, but she did not do that. We get that you hate women, but calling strong women governors "authoritarians" when we have an actual authoritarian in the White House is kinda sick.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It is going to be Gretchen Whitmer. She brings diversity, executive leadership, and excellent retail politician skills.


Nominating the definition of a Karen is not what Biden needs to do in this climate.


Yikes, lobbing racist and sexist slurs is not a good look. Get thee to women's studies 101! Gretchen Whitmer brings executive leadership, and excellent retail politician skills. Biden needs to pick someone experienced on day 1 to lead. She would be an excellent pick.


Didn’t she ban people from buying seeds and tile at Home Depot and ban people from going to a second home while her husband was on his way to there second home? She is a textbook authoritarian and a hypocrite to boot. Picking such a polarizing figure does Biden no good. She’ll cost him with moderates and with the “woke” crowd as well.

Biden should buck convention and pick an Asian or a Latino who isn’t polarizing. Xavier Baccera or a left field pick like Yang. Trump is pulling in 30% of Latinos. Picking a Latino VP helps turn the tide.


Not sure what right-wing blogs you are reading, but she did not do that. We get that you hate women, but calling strong women governors "authoritarians" when we have an actual authoritarian in the White House is kinda sick.


She has an approval rating in the mid-60s. She's doing just fine. The vocal Trumpster minority has not affected her in any meaningful way.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I guarantee if Biden doesn't pick a Black woman, the other side will weaponize it.

I’d like to think that we’re at a point that we know the GOP gets up to sht all the time and to just ignore their idiocy.

I also know that even though Harris isn’t my first choice, if she gets the VP nod, I will become her biggest cheerleader.

If Bass gets the nod, even though she might have ties to Scientology, I’m her strongest supporter.

If it’s Grisham, I will learn more about her and she will become my favorite pol.

Because it doesn’t matter. The choice this time is the GOP and their desire for oligarchy, corruption, authoritarianism, theocracy - basically the end of America - or the Democrats.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Someone really loves Kamala on this thread


Because Black turnout is critical to a win, and could be depressed if disappointment over a non-Black pick.


There are at least 3 other non-polarizing Black women in the running.


Most African-American people polled do not favor using race as a factor in picking a nominee. They don't care. They want to win. Because the cost of not winning - is quite literally death. Picking **ANY PERSON for optics ONLY and losing = death.


Literally. We don’t care about anything but winning and getting crap done once we win.

Why did you vote for Obama then? Serious question.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I guarantee if Biden doesn't pick a Black woman, the other side will weaponize it.

I’d like to think that we’re at a point that we know the GOP gets up to sht all the time and to just ignore their idiocy.

I also know that even though Harris isn’t my first choice, if she gets the VP nod, I will become her biggest cheerleader.

If Bass gets the nod, even though she might have ties to Scientology, I’m her strongest supporter.

If it’s Grisham, I will learn more about her and she will become my favorite pol.

Because it doesn’t matter. The choice this time is the GOP and their desire for oligarchy, corruption, authoritarianism, theocracy - basically the end of America - or the Democrats.



Good lord, she gave remarks approving the use of the term "racial equality" in their charter at a ribbon cutting in her district. Ten years ago, before the expose of the cult abuses. I don't think anyone with a brain believes that constitutes "ties."
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Someone really loves Kamala on this thread


Because Black turnout is critical to a win, and could be depressed if disappointment over a non-Black pick.


There are at least 3 other non-polarizing Black women in the running.


Most African-American people polled do not favor using race as a factor in picking a nominee. They don't care. They want to win. Because the cost of not winning - is quite literally death. Picking **ANY PERSON for optics ONLY and losing = death.


Literally. We don’t care about anything but winning and getting crap done once we win.

Why did you vote for Obama then? Serious question.


I voted for HRC and it took me a long time to warm up to Obama, but of course I voted for Obama because he represented my platform/issues and have never/would never vote Republican. He was an excellent president. And he had been a state senator and a senator. Stacy Abrams has not won state-wide. Karen Bass has not run state-wide. Kamala Harris is qualified. Gretchen Whitmer is qualified. It should be one of these two (or Gina Raimondo).
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Someone really loves Kamala on this thread


Because Black turnout is critical to a win, and could be depressed if disappointment over a non-Black pick.


There are at least 3 other non-polarizing Black women in the running.


Most African-American people polled do not favor using race as a factor in picking a nominee. They don't care. They want to win. Because the cost of not winning - is quite literally death. Picking **ANY PERSON for optics ONLY and losing = death.


Literally. We don’t care about anything but winning and getting crap done once we win.

Why did you vote for Obama then? Serious question.


It was a completely different time, with completely different stakes. The same reason I love Cory Booker but didn’t push him over Warren (at the time). I have continually reminded people that not everyone just hops on a party line, there are a number of people who vote for the person that will be most electable AND effective for their time in office. If Obama were not running, I would have voted for McCain because I think he probably would have picked a different VP. It may have been the wrong vote then (in hindsight) but that possibility was irrelevant since Obama did run, I figured his electability and efficiency in platforms thst would actually be changed for 4-8 years, and I was right, and he did.

Both parties are often guilty of running too many options than singling out the best person in the primaries. It’s annoying.

Biden blue no matter who. But pick the best person for electability and the job. Seems Bass is the broadest brush for both. My bias wants to throw Warren in there or Whitmer/Grisham. Demings is also still a possibility but then we get into different tiers. Never liked Abrams or Mayor Bottoms for this slot. Too green, Mayor Pete.

My two shekels
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Someone really loves Kamala on this thread


Because Black turnout is critical to a win, and could be depressed if disappointment over a non-Black pick.


There are at least 3 other non-polarizing Black women in the running.


Most African-American people polled do not favor using race as a factor in picking a nominee. They don't care. They want to win. Because the cost of not winning - is quite literally death. Picking **ANY PERSON for optics ONLY and losing = death.


Literally. We don’t care about anything but winning and getting crap done once we win.

Why did you vote for Obama then? Serious question.


I voted for HRC and it took me a long time to warm up to Obama, but of course I voted for Obama because he represented my platform/issues and have never/would never vote Republican. He was an excellent president. And he had been a state senator and a senator. Stacy Abrams has not won state-wide. Karen Bass has not run state-wide. Kamala Harris is qualified. Gretchen Whitmer is qualified. It should be one of these two (or Gina Raimondo).


Don’t forget Grisham!
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Biden should buck convention and pick an Asian or a Latino who isn’t polarizing. Xavier Baccera or a left field pick like Yang. Trump is pulling in 30% of Latinos. Picking a Latino VP helps turn the tide.


Yes, like Tammy Duckworth who in addition to being Asian has a 22 year history of military service and combat. She also has experience in both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government so knows Washington.

Or Michelle Lujan Grisham who had three terms in Congress, chaired the Congressional Hispanic caucus, is a very popular governor who has a background as a former secretary of health and is handling the pandemic response better than most of the states surrounding hers.

Both of these candidates are on the short list and would not need to violate his word of picking a woman and would not be completely out of left field, which he really doesn't need to do.
I have been advocating for Lujan Grisham since before she was on the short list. I think she would be a fantastic candidate that would not bring along the negative baggage that any of the forerunners currently brings. Right now, he doesn't need someone who is right for the position; he needs to avoid picking anyone who is wrong for the position and Harris, Warren and probably Rice all have more negatives than positives. Bass is a question, but there are more negatives appearing as more digging is done about her.

So far, Duckworth and Lujan Grisham have avoided the negative publicity, which is good. The question is will that hold up as more digging is done into their past.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Someone really loves Kamala on this thread


Because Black turnout is critical to a win, and could be depressed if disappointment over a non-Black pick.


There are at least 3 other non-polarizing Black women in the running.


Most African-American people polled do not favor using race as a factor in picking a nominee. They don't care. They want to win. Because the cost of not winning - is quite literally death. Picking **ANY PERSON for optics ONLY and losing = death.


Literally. We don’t care about anything but winning and getting crap done once we win.

Why did you vote for Obama then? Serious question.


I voted for HRC and it took me a long time to warm up to Obama, but of course I voted for Obama because he represented my platform/issues and have never/would never vote Republican. He was an excellent president. And he had been a state senator and a senator. Stacy Abrams has not won state-wide. Karen Bass has not run state-wide. Kamala Harris is qualified. Gretchen Whitmer is qualified. It should be one of these two (or Gina Raimondo).


Don’t forget Grisham!



I read she doesn't think she'll be the pick and is angling for Sec HHS.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Someone really loves Kamala on this thread


Because Black turnout is critical to a win, and could be depressed if disappointment over a non-Black pick.


There are at least 3 other non-polarizing Black women in the running.


Most African-American people polled do not favor using race as a factor in picking a nominee. They don't care. They want to win. Because the cost of not winning - is quite literally death. Picking **ANY PERSON for optics ONLY and losing = death.


Literally. We don’t care about anything but winning and getting crap done once we win.

Why did you vote for Obama then? Serious question.


I voted for HRC and it took me a long time to warm up to Obama, but of course I voted for Obama because he represented my platform/issues and have never/would never vote Republican. He was an excellent president. And he had been a state senator and a senator. Stacy Abrams has not won state-wide. Karen Bass has not run state-wide. Kamala Harris is qualified. Gretchen Whitmer is qualified. It should be one of these two (or Gina Raimondo).



Bass has not run state-wide but her colleagues elected her to lead the CA State Assembly which meant she held state-wide leadership. In this capacity, she helped manage the fifth largest world economy. In addition to her current experience, this makes her an excellent governing pick but true it does not help with the question of electability.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Someone really loves Kamala on this thread


Because Black turnout is critical to a win, and could be depressed if disappointment over a non-Black pick.


There are at least 3 other non-polarizing Black women in the running.


Most African-American people polled do not favor using race as a factor in picking a nominee. They don't care. They want to win. Because the cost of not winning - is quite literally death. Picking **ANY PERSON for optics ONLY and losing = death.


Literally. We don’t care about anything but winning and getting crap done once we win.

Why did you vote for Obama then? Serious question.


I voted for HRC and it took me a long time to warm up to Obama, but of course I voted for Obama because he represented my platform/issues and have never/would never vote Republican. He was an excellent president. And he had been a state senator and a senator. Stacy Abrams has not won state-wide. Karen Bass has not run state-wide. Kamala Harris is qualified. Gretchen Whitmer is qualified. It should be one of these two (or Gina Raimondo).



Bass has not run state-wide but her colleagues elected her to lead the CA State Assembly which meant she held state-wide leadership. In this capacity, she helped manage the fifth largest world economy. In addition to her current experience, this makes her an excellent governing pick but true it does not help with the question of electability.


Not really. She had a very safe seat in California - and she lead a state, Democratic assembly. That is not equivalent to running statewide and leading a divided state. She doesn't really have governing chops or electability chops to speak of.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Someone really loves Kamala on this thread


Because Black turnout is critical to a win, and could be depressed if disappointment over a non-Black pick.


There are at least 3 other non-polarizing Black women in the running.


Most African-American people polled do not favor using race as a factor in picking a nominee. They don't care. They want to win. Because the cost of not winning - is quite literally death. Picking **ANY PERSON for optics ONLY and losing = death.


Literally. We don’t care about anything but winning and getting crap done once we win.

Why did you vote for Obama then? Serious question.


I voted for HRC and it took me a long time to warm up to Obama, but of course I voted for Obama because he represented my platform/issues and have never/would never vote Republican. He was an excellent president. And he had been a state senator and a senator. Stacy Abrams has not won state-wide. Karen Bass has not run state-wide. Kamala Harris is qualified. Gretchen Whitmer is qualified. It should be one of these two (or Gina Raimondo).



Bass has not run state-wide but her colleagues elected her to lead the CA State Assembly which meant she held state-wide leadership. In this capacity, she helped manage the fifth largest world economy. In addition to her current experience, this makes her an excellent governing pick but true it does not help with the question of electability.


Not really. She had a very safe seat in California - and she lead a state, Democratic assembly. That is not equivalent to running statewide and leading a divided state. She doesn't really have governing chops or electability chops to speak of.



Sure, no governing chops:
"In 2010, she shared the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award with two Republicans and a Democrat for helping steward California out of its $42 billion budget crisis. Said the former president’s daughter, Caroline Kennedy: The four Legislature leaders “set aside party loyalties and ideological differences and fashioned a solution to rescue California from the brink of financial ruin.”
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: