Biden's VP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recent polling shows that the VP choice has basically no effect on voting. The slight difference correlates exactly to national name recognition. Joe should choose the one he feels best helps him govern and with whom he feels most comfortable.

https://twitter.com/MorningConsult/status/1290373119228616704/photo/1

This is why I think it will be Susan Rice. Biden has made it clear that one of his top priorities is a simpatico relationship, similar to that of his and President Obamas. No one on the list is closer to him than Rice, given their 8 years of working close in Administration 44. She also handled ebola so she has a foundation of pandemic experience if she were to be tasked with corona virus. She has connections to nearly every world leader and ambassador so she can be tasked with rebuilding the countries relationships and foreign policy while Biden works on domestic issues. Obama's former staff made a great case for her on Pod Save America.

Except she can do most of that as Sec State, and it’s important he has someone he can trust in that role too. Even if he wants to pick her don’t think he will because of Benghazi and her obvious lack of retail political skills. Especially since she seems like the least likely of the Black prospects to connect with regular Black voters who might actually like Warren or Whitmer better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hurts her prospects with whom? Joe Biden seems like a fair-minded guy. I doubt that this would be part of his analysis or be considered by his team. Baldwin has been elected at least a dozen times in Wisconsin (a state that went with Trump last time). Plus, Biden would have two chances to make history instead of one and excite the progressive base by choosing Baldwin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How demeaning. She is a very accomplished woman who's more than held her own during a pandemic and has the death threats to prove it.

And it would be more accurate to say she's a soccer mom type who will appeal to suburban white women. Black MI voters also like her, but don't know how well that would translate outside the state.

She is quite literally a sorority girl. She was the president of her house at Michigan State University.

Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Michelle Grisham, Keisha Lance Bottoms, Karen Bass, Val Demmings, and Stacey Abrams were all in soroities

So were Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Condi Rice, Dianne Feinstein, Lisa Murkowski, Loretta Lynch, Safra Catz, Blanche Lincoln, Shirley Chisholm, and many more female leaders. Let's not reduce successful women to stereotypes just because of an activity they participated in during college.

+1 Agreed. Whitmer is a bright, strong leader who would be a practical choice. No need to be a misogynist.

Get a grip. Everyone uses frat boy to describe "fratty" politicians, too. And please cite a source that all of those women were in rah-rah state school sororities as Gretchen Whitmer was. And were any of them the president of their rah-rah sorority like Whitmer, which means super dedicated a-typical state school sorority girl. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's obviously what helped groom her for politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How demeaning. She is a very accomplished woman who's more than held her own during a pandemic and has the death threats to prove it.

And it would be more accurate to say she's a soccer mom type who will appeal to suburban white women. Black MI voters also like her, but don't know how well that would translate outside the state.

She is quite literally a sorority girl. She was the president of her house at Michigan State University.

Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Michelle Grisham, Keisha Lance Bottoms, Karen Bass, Val Demmings, and Stacey Abrams were all in soroities

So were Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Condi Rice, Dianne Feinstein, Lisa Murkowski, Loretta Lynch, Safra Catz, Blanche Lincoln, Shirley Chisholm, and many more female leaders. Let's not reduce successful women to stereotypes just because of an activity they participated in during college.

+1 Agreed. Whitmer is a bright, strong leader who would be a practical choice. No need to be a misogynist.

Get a grip. Everyone uses frat boy to describe "fratty" politicians, too. And please cite a source that all of those women were in rah-rah state school sororities as Gretchen Whitmer was. And were any of them the president of their rah-rah sorority like Whitmer, which means super dedicated a-typical state school sorority girl. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's obviously what helped groom her for politics.

You need psychiatric help, misogynist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recent polling shows that the VP choice has basically no effect on voting. The slight difference correlates exactly to national name recognition. Joe should choose the one he feels best helps him govern and with whom he feels most comfortable.

https://twitter.com/MorningConsult/status/1290373119228616704/photo/1

This is why I think it will be Susan Rice. Biden has made it clear that one of his top priorities is a simpatico relationship, similar to that of his and President Obamas. No one on the list is closer to him than Rice, given their 8 years of working close in Administration 44. She also handled ebola so she has a foundation of pandemic experience if she were to be tasked with corona virus. She has connections to nearly every world leader and ambassador so she can be tasked with rebuilding the countries relationships and foreign policy while Biden works on domestic issues. Obama's former staff made a great case for her on Pod Save America.

Just because of the Benghazi thing which will bring out every single GOP zombie, she is the only one I really hope he doesn’t select. Lots of negative qualities can turn people away from a VP - Sarah Palin, come through - though I think the link is probably correct that on average NO ONE CARES except those of us who like talking about the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How demeaning. She is a very accomplished woman who's more than held her own during a pandemic and has the death threats to prove it.

And it would be more accurate to say she's a soccer mom type who will appeal to suburban white women. Black MI voters also like her, but don't know how well that would translate outside the state.

Biden is in a bind here. A Whitmer has obvious broad appeal to suburban white women and swing voters but there is just no way he can justify picking her over the talented Black women in his pool. I'm afraid the blowback would be brutal and he doesn't have enough time to manage this problem.

I don't think there will be as much blowback as some here think. While I agree there will be disappointment, the current environment is much more forgiving than it ordinarily would be. With the current racial tensions from police brutality, racial inequality and white supremacists who are encouraged by the current administration, I don't think that there are many black voters who will abandon the Biden ticket to vote for Trump. I also think that many of those who would otherwise be disenchanted are firmly in the Anyone But Trump camp and will vote for Biden through their disappointment. There are not that many who will stay home or vote for Trump because Biden did not promote a black female VP candidate, especially as he has several qualified black women to service in major appointments (Rice as Sec State, several candidates as SCOTUS appointments to replace Bader Ginsburg, and more).

If the opponent were anyone else, this would be a major issue for Biden. This year, with the clearly bigoted and white supremacist supporting Trump as the opponent, I think Biden has more room to avoid that danger than against almost any other candidate that the GOP could put up.

So true. FWIW, in the primaries I was rooting for Bloomberg then Warren. And now I’m ride or die for him. Even though Biden was my last choice! The greater goal for most of us is to remove Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recent polling shows that the VP choice has basically no effect on voting. The slight difference correlates exactly to national name recognition. Joe should choose the one he feels best helps him govern and with whom he feels most comfortable.

https://twitter.com/MorningConsult/status/1290373119228616704/photo/1

This is why I think it will be Susan Rice. Biden has made it clear that one of his top priorities is a simpatico relationship, similar to that of his and President Obamas. No one on the list is closer to him than Rice, given their 8 years of working close in Administration 44. She also handled ebola so she has a foundation of pandemic experience if she were to be tasked with corona virus. She has connections to nearly every world leader and ambassador so she can be tasked with rebuilding the countries relationships and foreign policy while Biden works on domestic issues. Obama's former staff made a great case for her on Pod Save America.

I thought it would be Rice for a long time, but Joe knows her well and worked with her daily. If he thought she was a good fit as Vice President, he would have picked her by today (his earlier self-imposed deadline). There may be something to the stories about Rice not being a good or smart politician (i.e., antagonizing people who should be allies). If Biden wants someone who can talk tough about Trump, he has better choices with Harris and Warren. He can put Rice in a job that involves running a large bureaucracy, which is a better role for her.

[Anonymous]

It feels very late to be picking a VP at this time. He wants to unify the party, but how with only a month and a half before voting starts?

Isn't his bigger issue that he's old like Trump so it's not a benefit? The VP needs to be presidential material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It feels very late to be picking a VP at this time. He wants to unify the party, but how with only a month and a half before voting starts?

Isn't his bigger issue that he's old like Trump so it's not a benefit? The VP needs to be presidential material.

He's coming across as very indecisive and manipulative. Not committed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It feels very late to be picking a VP at this time. He wants to unify the party, but how with only a month and a half before voting starts?

Isn't his bigger issue that he's old like Trump so it's not a benefit? The VP needs to be presidential material.

He's coming across as very indecisive and manipulative. Not committed.

I agree it's a negative and he should have done whatever it took to meet his Aug 1 deadline.
The silver lining is a little less attack time for his pick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It feels very late to be picking a VP at this time. He wants to unify the party, but how with only a month and a half before voting starts?

Isn't his bigger issue that he's old like Trump so it's not a benefit? The VP needs to be presidential material.

While most announce sometime in July, Obama announced Biden as his running mate on August 23, 2008.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It feels very late to be picking a VP at this time. He wants to unify the party, but how with only a month and a half before voting starts?

Isn't his bigger issue that he's old like Trump so it's not a benefit? The VP needs to be presidential material.

He's coming across as very indecisive and manipulative. Not committed.

I agree it's a negative and he should have done whatever it took to meet his Aug 1 deadline.
The silver lining is a little less attack time for his pick.

He didn't have an August 1 deadline

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It feels very late to be picking a VP at this time. He wants to unify the party, but how with only a month and a half before voting starts?

Isn't his bigger issue that he's old like Trump so it's not a benefit? The VP needs to be presidential material.

He's coming across as very indecisive and manipulative. Not committed.

Nah. Anyone that knows him knows better. Trump is an ass. He doesn’t play by any rule just his own, which makes the rules of engagement different. Biden knows what he is doing.

[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.

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.

If Trump is just a small syptom of systemic dysfunction why vote him out? If voting him out will not make adifference and he is not any different from any other president before, why not give him another 4 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hurts her prospects with whom? Joe Biden seems like a fair-minded guy. I doubt that this would be part of his analysis or be considered by his team. Baldwin has been elected at least a dozen times in Wisconsin (a state that went with Trump last time). Plus, Biden would have two chances to make history instead of one and excite the progressive base by choosing Baldwin.

NP. Conservatives, Black women, and Bible Belt voters that were horrified at the gassing to hold up the sign of the antichrist. It sucks but that is the reality.