Biden's VP?

[Anonymous]

I am sure whomever Biden picks will be more than acceptable but the process has been terrible.

First, Biden eliminates 50-70% of candidates out of the gate when all he had to do was say he would strongly consider a diverse choice. This rules out choices like Cory Booker who might have been perfect for this moment in history.

Second, he lets the [women] candidates go out and defend him on the Tara Reade accusations (despite their total lack of personal knowledge one way or the other) instead of coming out much earlier with his denial. That's where you get gems like "Joe Biden is Joe Biden" as a defense strategy.

Third, he engages in a vetting process that is so public that he puts candidates and/or their operatives in a position where they cannot help but attack other candidates either through surrogates or providing the media with opposition research.

Fourth, he does not even bother to interview candidates until the middle of the week when he was supposed to have announced his choice. The unnecessary rush could lead to a big mistake as McCain made with Sarah Palin.

I hope that this is not a preview of how President Biden would make key decisions when in office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

Reeeeeeeach!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sure whomever Biden picks will be more than acceptable but the process has been terrible.

First, Biden eliminates 50-70% of candidates out of the gate when all he had to do was say he would strongly consider a diverse choice. This rules out choices like Cory Booker who might have been perfect for this moment in history.

Second, he lets the [women] candidates go out and defend him on the Tara Reade accusations (despite their total lack of personal knowledge one way or the other) instead of coming out much earlier with his denial. That's where you get gems like "Joe Biden is Joe Biden" as a defense strategy.

Third, he engages in a vetting process that is so public that he puts candidates and/or their operatives in a position where they cannot help but attack other candidates either through surrogates or providing the media with opposition research.

Fourth, he does not even bother to interview candidates until the middle of the week when he was supposed to have announced his choice. The unnecessary rush could lead to a big mistake as McCain made with Sarah Palin.

I hope that this is not a preview of how President Biden would make key decisions when in office.

This probably is a preview of a Biden administration. And it worries me that my perception that Trump is merely a small symptom of our political dysfunction seems more and more accurate. Even if Trump loses (or dies or resigns or whatever) our serious political problems will continue and might just get much, much worse.

[Anonymous]

Harris

Let's just get this going

[Anonymous]

Ok, I think it will be Michelle Obama, if that is how you spell her name. Her kids are out of the house in college. This election is turning into a social justice election vs economy. People on the left want Obama back. I mean, this would make sense and solidify the election. Go ahead and brush me off but I would put money on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

Reeeeeeeach!

Tell me who else on the list has won a prestigious award for bipartisan management of the world's fifth largest economy during a fiscal crisis. I'll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sure whomever Biden picks will be more than acceptable but the process has been terrible.

First, Biden eliminates 50-70% of candidates out of the gate when all he had to do was say he would strongly consider a diverse choice. This rules out choices like Cory Booker who might have been perfect for this moment in history.

Second, he lets the [women] candidates go out and defend him on the Tara Reade accusations (despite their total lack of personal knowledge one way or the other) instead of coming out much earlier with his denial. That's where you get gems like "Joe Biden is Joe Biden" as a defense strategy.

Third, he engages in a vetting process that is so public that he puts candidates and/or their operatives in a position where they cannot help but attack other candidates either through surrogates or providing the media with opposition research.

Fourth, he does not even bother to interview candidates until the middle of the week when he was supposed to have announced his choice. The unnecessary rush could lead to a big mistake as McCain made with Sarah Palin.

I hope that this is not a preview of how President Biden would make key decisions when in office.

What exactly is Cory booker better at than Karen Bass other than sucking on Pfizer’s phallus?

Booker would add nothing to the mix - even kamala is better.

Is it because he’s a light skin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

Reeeeeeeach!

Tell me who else on the list has won a prestigious award for bipartisan management of the world's fifth largest economy during a fiscal crisis. I'll wait.

PP, is your comment meant as satire? It's the silliest thing I've read here in a while and I think virtually everything I read here is silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure whomever Biden picks will be more than acceptable but the process has been terrible.

First, Biden eliminates 50-70% of candidates out of the gate when all he had to do was say he would strongly consider a diverse choice. This rules out choices like Cory Booker who might have been perfect for this moment in history.

Second, he lets the [women] candidates go out and defend him on the Tara Reade accusations (despite their total lack of personal knowledge one way or the other) instead of coming out much earlier with his denial. That's where you get gems like "Joe Biden is Joe Biden" as a defense strategy.

Third, he engages in a vetting process that is so public that he puts candidates and/or their operatives in a position where they cannot help but attack other candidates either through surrogates or providing the media with opposition research.

Fourth, he does not even bother to interview candidates until the middle of the week when he was supposed to have announced his choice. The unnecessary rush could lead to a big mistake as McCain made with Sarah Palin.

I hope that this is not a preview of how President Biden would make key decisions when in office.

What exactly is Cory booker better at than Karen Bass other than sucking on Pfizer’s phallus?

Booker would add nothing to the mix - even kamala is better.

Is it because he’s a light skin?

Obviously it's because he has a phallus. Pure unmitigated sexism. And yes his campaign was even worse than Kamala's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

Reeeeeeeach!

Tell me who else on the list has won a prestigious award for bipartisan management of the world's fifth largest economy during a fiscal crisis. I'll wait.

PP, is your comment meant as satire? It's the silliest thing I've read here in a while and I think virtually everything I read here is silly.

I think you have a reading comprehension problem, but I think I can guess whom you support.

[Anonymous]

Huge mistake n the first place for bidey to commit to naming a woman as vp. Put himself in a corner and did it way too early in the game. Now its become its own issue...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I think it will be Michelle Obama, if that is how you spell her name. Her kids are out of the house in college. This election is turning into a social justice election vs economy. People on the left want Obama back. I mean, this would make sense and solidify the election. Go ahead and brush me off but I would put money on this.

I hope so 2. She would b the “perfect” choice in many ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure whomever Biden picks will be more than acceptable but the process has been terrible.

First, Biden eliminates 50-70% of candidates out of the gate when all he had to do was say he would strongly consider a diverse choice. This rules out choices like Cory Booker who might have been perfect for this moment in history.

Second, he lets the [women] candidates go out and defend him on the Tara Reade accusations (despite their total lack of personal knowledge one way or the other) instead of coming out much earlier with his denial. That's where you get gems like "Joe Biden is Joe Biden" as a defense strategy.

Third, he engages in a vetting process that is so public that he puts candidates and/or their operatives in a position where they cannot help but attack other candidates either through surrogates or providing the media with opposition research.

Fourth, he does not even bother to interview candidates until the middle of the week when he was supposed to have announced his choice. The unnecessary rush could lead to a big mistake as McCain made with Sarah Palin.

I hope that this is not a preview of how President Biden would make key decisions when in office.

This probably is a preview of a Biden administration. And it worries me that my perception that Trump is merely a small symptom of our political dysfunction seems more and more accurate. Even if Trump loses (or dies or resigns or whatever) our serious political problems will continue and might just get much, much worse.

Fair point. Biden should pick someone who is ready to be president now and also not polarizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

Reeeeeeeach!

Tell me who else on the list has won a prestigious award for bipartisan management of the world's fifth largest economy during a fiscal crisis. I'll wait.

PP, is your comment meant as satire? It's the silliest thing I've read here in a while and I think virtually everything I read here is silly.

I think you have a reading comprehension problem, but I think I can guess whom you support.

My reading comprehension is fine, but your understanding of governance and how to persuade people to your position (in short: politics!) is a complete disaster!

And nothing I'm saying is a dismissal or even a criticism of Karen Bass!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure whomever Biden picks will be more than acceptable but the process has been terrible.

First, Biden eliminates 50-70% of candidates out of the gate when all he had to do was say he would strongly consider a diverse choice. This rules out choices like Cory Booker who might have been perfect for this moment in history.

Second, he lets the [women] candidates go out and defend him on the Tara Reade accusations (despite their total lack of personal knowledge one way or the other) instead of coming out much earlier with his denial. That's where you get gems like "Joe Biden is Joe Biden" as a defense strategy.

Third, he engages in a vetting process that is so public that he puts candidates and/or their operatives in a position where they cannot help but attack other candidates either through surrogates or providing the media with opposition research.

Fourth, he does not even bother to interview candidates until the middle of the week when he was supposed to have announced his choice. The unnecessary rush could lead to a big mistake as McCain made with Sarah Palin.

I hope that this is not a preview of how President Biden would make key decisions when in office.

This probably is a preview of a Biden administration. And it worries me that my perception that Trump is merely a small symptom of our political dysfunction seems more and more accurate. Even if Trump loses (or dies or resigns or whatever) our serious political problems will continue and might just get much, much worse.

Fair point. Biden should pick someone who is ready to be president now and also not polarizing.

And in your opinion who is this person?