Biden's VP?

[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.

Trump is far more that a small symptom of our political dysfunction. I wish like hell he were just a small symptom of political dysfunction.

[Anonymous]

Unpopular opinon: The real issue people have with the rumored VEEPs is that they're all female. They would not be nearly as critical of a male.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She's not interested. She's moved on , and so should you.

[Anonymous]

he should pick ginsberg

[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.

Trump is far more that a small symptom of our political dysfunction. I wish like hell he were just a small symptom of political dysfunction.

Which existential problems will suddenly be free of when Trump is gone? Global warming? A bloated and malicious empire? Income and wealth inequality? Militarized police? Etc. etc., etc.

If you care for the future generations, you should be clear we had horrifyingly serious problems before Trump. He might have delayed their solution, but none of our massive problems were caused by him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She's not interested. She's moved on , and so should you.

People don’t just move on from power like that. She might not have fully committed yet, which is why there is a delay in the VP pick. They are trying to finalize things for Michelle. Obama is telling her she got this and he would help her out. It’s.coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.”

Sorry, but while legislative budgeting is very laudable, it is not governing.

Actually taking a passed budget and implementing it and managing state services and response is governing. There is a reason that Senators and Congressional Representatives have a fairly low rate of actually being elected President. The skills that make one a good legislator are often not the same as the skills that make one a good executive. Governors and agency heads have more executive skills as presidents and vice presidents than legislators as a general rule.

That doesn't mean that legislators can't be good Presidents, just that they have to have good executive skills in addition to having good legislative skills.

Look at the most recent POTUSes (last 50 years):
Trump - corporation CEO
Obama - IL Senator (and he beat another US senator)
George W Bush - TX governor
Clinton - AR governor
George HW Bush - director CIA
Reagan - CA governor
Carter - GA governor
Ford - US House of Representatives, minority leader, ONLY POTUS or VPOTUS to have never been elected to either office
Nixon - CA Senator

6 with executive skills (governor, agency director, CEO), 3 with only legislative experience including one that was not actually elected to either executive office, but ascended into the position. The other two (Obama d. Romney, Nixon d. McGovern) won by defeating another legislator.

Conversely look at the opponents who lost over that same span of time:
HR Clinton - Sec of State
Romney - UT Senator
McCain - AZ Senator
Kerry - MA Senator
Gore - incumbent VPOTUS and TN Senator
Dole - KS Senator
George HW Bush - incumbent POTUS, director CIA
Dukakis - MA governor
Mondale - incumbent VPOTUS and MN Senator
Carter - incumbent POTUS and GA Govenor
Ford - incumbent POTUS and MI Congressman
McGovern - SD Senator

Lots and lots of senators defeated.

Biden would do well not to saddle himself with another legislator like Harris, Bass and Warren. He really need to focus on those with executive experience like Whitmer or Lujan Grisham. The US voting public does not side with legislators as a general rule and certainly not a double billing legislative ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She's not interested. She's moved on , and so should you.

People don’t just move on from power like that. She might not have fully committed yet, which is why there is a delay in the VP pick. They are trying to finalize things for Michelle. Obama is telling her she got this and he would help her out. It’s.coming.

Oh please. Her signature issue as First Lady was healthy eating. Her popularity notwithstanding, this is not a choice that makes any sense from a governing perspective. She could not have been more clear in her book: no public office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

For a long time, I thought it should be Susan Rice until the opposition research dump in the last week or two. Now I think Tammy Baldwin would be the best choice. It helps that she has been in Congress for over two decades. She should be in sync with Biden due to their shared professional experience. No one has said anything bad about her either.

A member of Congress or senator who has been in office for less than a decade during highly dysfunctional times is not likely to have learned much about actual legislating at the federal level. Baldwin has been in Congress since Clinton was president. Biden needs someone like that to help him and will still have plenty of allies in Congress among those he did not pick who can do their part also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Interesting. In your opinion, what are the qualities that are right for the position vs acceptable vs wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Interesting. In your opinion, what are the qualities that are right for the position vs acceptable vs wrong?

+1
Because what PP sounds like to me is someone from the school of “just not that woman” sexism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That would be the best.November.surprise.EVER.

But it ain’t happnin’ cap’n

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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...

-1

I highly commend Biden for committing to this stance. This is how progress can be made. Diversity in the ticket is awesome and there is no reason there need to be 2 men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She's not interested. She's moved on , and so should you.

People don’t just move on from power like that. She might not have fully committed yet, which is why there is a delay in the VP pick. They are trying to finalize things for Michelle. Obama is telling her she got this and he would help her out. It’s.coming.

I love her too much to do this to her. She deserved better before and deserves better now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

For a long time, I thought it should be Susan Rice until the opposition research dump in the last week or two. Now I think Tammy Baldwin would be the best choice. It helps that she has been in Congress for over two decades. She should be in sync with Biden due to their shared professional experience. No one has said anything bad about her either.

A member of Congress or senator who has been in office for less than a decade during highly dysfunctional times is not likely to have learned much about actual legislating at the federal level. Baldwin has been in Congress since Clinton was president. Biden needs someone like that to help him and will still have plenty of allies in Congress among those he did not pick who can do their part also.

+1 I think Tammy Baldwin would be a great choice on the ticket.