Biden's VP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Learn to respect her NO. She does not want it, don't try making it happen in your imagination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. I love the people you are suggesting have more risk. From the very beginning I though Whitmer (and Grisham upon learning about her) were a winning ticket. Good VPs? TBD. I suppose we could say that od anyone, but some more than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Learn to respect her NO. She does not want it, don't try making it happen in your imagination.

I’m guessing you’re talking to the first two PPs. I agree. You can’t love someone you don’t respect ya know

[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.

Intéressante. Tell me more.

[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.

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

The question of why Grisham doesn't have a higher profile in the search, despite great qualifications, has come up a few times. I think a PP basically said this a while back but it's because the Southwest would be a more narrow strategy than focusing on AA turnout and swing vote turnout more broadly. And because the question of identity politics is more complicated in her case, and might not help much outside of her region. From a recent US Weekly article:

"She noted the governor’s ethnic heritage does not automatically resonate with all U.S. Latinos — a melting pot in their own right that includes exiled Cuban families, waves of laborers from Mexico and recent refugees from a natural disaster in Puerto Rico, an economic collapse in Venezuela or gang violence in Central America.

Lujan Grisham campaigned for governor as a 12th-generation Latina. Her maiden name ties her to a grandfather on the state Supreme Court and a distant cousin, Manuel Lujan, who served as a Republican congressman and U.S. interior secretary.

“I have no doubt that a Black woman from the South would mobilize the African American vote,” Sierra said. “The Latino angle on that is a lot more complicated and a little more ambiguous.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. I love the people you are suggesting have more risk. From the very beginning I though Whitmer (and Grisham upon learning about her) were a winning ticket. Good VPs? TBD. I suppose we could say that od anyone, but some more than others.

They haven't been publicly vetted. The opposition dumps come fast and furious once prospects rise in the process. Every single candidate will have baggage, trust. We just don't know what theirs is yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can always frame someone that way if you don't ask for their criteria.

For me the qualities that are
right: executive experience (e.g. Whitmer, Lujan Grisham, Duckworth, Raimondo), age < 65 (all short listers except Warren and Bass)
acceptable: health care policy or pandemic response (Lujan Grisham, Whitmer. Raimondo, Bass), foreign policy (Rice), domestic policy (Warren)
wrong: legislative experience (Duckworth, Warren, Baldwin, Harris), more negative polarization than positive (Warren, Harris)

I personally think that any candidate would be good other than Warren. I think that the combination of the polarization from the primaries (she has more negative than positive publicity post-primaries), her politics (her progressive credentials will turn away many moderates and independents who might otherwise vote for Biden as the lesser of two evils) and her age (she is also a septagenarian and is just as at risk as Biden in the current pandemic) are all major problems. She is attractive to the same demographics that already support Biden (primarily educated, white, suburban and urban voters). But she is very weak in the areas where he needs more support.

Along the lines of perfect is the enemy of good, my choices in order are Lujan Grisham, Duckworth and Whitmer.

[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.

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

The question of why Grisham doesn't have a higher profile in the search, despite great qualifications, has come up a few times. I think a PP basically said this a while back but it's because the Southwest would be a more narrow strategy than focusing on AA turnout and swing vote turnout more broadly. And because the question of identity politics is more complicated in her case, and might not help much outside of her region. From a recent US Weekly article:

"She noted the governor’s ethnic heritage does not automatically resonate with all U.S. Latinos — a melting pot in their own right that includes exiled Cuban families, waves of laborers from Mexico and recent refugees from a natural disaster in Puerto Rico, an economic collapse in Venezuela or gang violence in Central America.

Lujan Grisham campaigned for governor as a 12th-generation Latina. Her maiden name ties her to a grandfather on the state Supreme Court and a distant cousin, Manuel Lujan, who served as a Republican congressman and U.S. interior secretary.

“I have no doubt that a Black woman from the South would mobilize the African American vote,” Sierra said. “The Latino angle on that is a lot more complicated and a little more ambiguous.”

So, two things come to mind:

1 - why can’t every VP-elect under consideration agree to get behind the other? Is this too much of an adult thing to do for a band of women breaking the glass? Why not a pact, no matter who, we all vote blue, and get our people to vote blue too. They should pull a Bernie Sanders, which made my respect SOAR for him, eccentricities snafus and all.

2 - This may not be PC to say — but I don’t think a lot of people realize she is Latina. She looks and sounds as White as Whitmer. Is there absolutely no consideration given to her potential appeal to other demographic voters? I don’t think there is any person that can isolate the AA vote at this point, or the never trumpers, or some women. And what about the women that will get behind her because she IS a woman? Even with all of the hate around Hillary, she had a lot of popularity because she was a woman. Why is there no expectation of gender support for this race? There are so many good dialogues that Biden can run on in these coming weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can always frame someone that way if you don't ask for their criteria.

For me the qualities that are
right: executive experience (e.g. Whitmer, Lujan Grisham, Duckworth, Raimondo), age < 65 (all short listers except Warren and Bass)
acceptable: health care policy or pandemic response (Lujan Grisham, Whitmer. Raimondo, Bass), foreign policy (Rice), domestic policy (Warren)
wrong: legislative experience (Duckworth, Warren, Baldwin, Harris), more negative polarization than positive (Warren, Harris)

I personally think that any candidate would be good other than Warren. I think that the combination of the polarization from the primaries (she has more negative than positive publicity post-primaries), her politics (her progressive credentials will turn away many moderates and independents who might otherwise vote for Biden as the lesser of two evils) and her age (she is also a septagenarian and is just as at risk as Biden in the current pandemic) are all major problems. She is attractive to the same demographics that already support Biden (primarily educated, white, suburban and urban voters). But she is very weak in the areas where he needs more support.

Along the lines of perfect is the enemy of good, my choices in order are Lujan Grisham, Duckworth and Whitmer.

I don't agree with you about legislative experience as a negative. If the VP can manage the executive branch's relationship with Congress, and knows the complexities of the legislative process and the Machiavellian dynamics between DC power brokers, that greases the wheels for a smoother process in translating initiatives into legislation. Biden will be busy enough with our mess of a foreign policy situation, would be a boon for him to be able to trust that significant piece was being handled. I wouldn't underestimate the value of DC experience, and believe inexperience there is a significant negative. And legislators have varying degrees of managerial experience, if on a smaller scale.

[Anonymous]

Data point of one again: my Republican uncle in Florida said he's not voting for Trump this time because of how he's handled COVID. Said he's not sure he will vote for Biden either.

My mom asked him what he thinks of various VP candidates. Asked about Rice, the first thing he said was Benghazi. Asked about Harris, first thing he said is he likes her - then that she's pretty.

Anyway, +1 for Harris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Intéressante. Tell me more.

This has been covered before, but she's basically a more progressive Amy Klobuchar. Effective legislator with bipartisan appeal. However, her status as a non-WOC and a single gay woman with no children hurts her prospects.

[Anonymous]

Harris is a repellent. Whitmer is a sorority girl who will appeal to suburban white women. Harris brings literally nothing to the table. Nobody likes her – except her Big Tech puppetmasters.

[Anonymous]

If Biden wins Michigan, the race is over. I personally don't find her very impressive, but it makes Whitmer a no-brainer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Data point of one again: my Republican uncle in Florida said he's not voting for Trump this time because of how he's handled COVID. Said he's not sure he will vote for Biden either.

My mom asked him what he thinks of various VP candidates. Asked about Rice, the first thing he said was Benghazi. Asked about Harris, first thing he said is he likes her - then that she's pretty.

Anyway, +1 for Harris.

I had a similar conversation with my Republican mother who will not be voting for Trump this time. She said she's open to voting for Biden but won't vote if Rice (Benghazi!), Warren (radical!), or Harris (mean and inauthentic!) are on the ticket. She'd vote Biden if it were Duckworth or Whitmer.