Biden's VP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The betting markets have kamala harris at 5-2, Stacy abrams 4-1 and klobuchar at 5-1. I think klobuchar is more likely that Stacy Abrams but we’ll see. Harris is in safe senate seat. This is her chance to make history.

Harris didn't endorse Biden before the CA primary and doesn't appeal in the states Biden needs: WI-MI-OH-PA. I like her, but she'd be a poor strategic choice and hasn't earned anything from him (unlike several of the other names proposed).

Yeah I think you absolutely need to be strategic here and pick someone who will help in the swing states.

NP. But who helps most in the swing states (WI, PA, MI, FL, AZ, etc)? Someone like whitmer helps in only one of them. Someone like Harris might help in several if she pulls out blocks of women and AfAms. Julian Castro might help in several of he pulls out blocks of Latinos. Someone closely associated with an issue might help in several too by pulling people associated with that issue (eg, Sherrod Brown).

Not sure what the answer is, but want to push back on the idea of picking a localized VP without broader name recognition or appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t kind of ridiculous that we take such pains to make sure that the process for selecting the Presidential nominee is as democratic as possible, but then we allow the VP to be chosen by *one* person—and we’re all okay with this?

Why shouldn’t the people be allowed to choose the Vice-Presidential nominee as well?

Can someone else deal with this PP? I just can’t.

The answer is Aaron Burr, Sir.

If Hillary Clinton had been required to take Bernie Sanders as her running mate in 2016 she would have pulled more than enough votes that ended up going to Gary Johnson and Jill Stein to beat Trump. Everyone agrees that her choice of Tim Kaine as VP was awful and demoralized the base.

John McCain immensely damaged his campaign and reputation by choosing Sarah Palin as his VP. Imagine what it was like for his supporters to see all of their hard work literally flushed down the toilet with one incredibly foolish and consequential decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t kind of ridiculous that we take such pains to make sure that the process for selecting the Presidential nominee is as democratic as possible, but then we allow the VP to be chosen by *one* person—and we’re all okay with this?

Why shouldn’t the people be allowed to choose the Vice-Presidential nominee as well?

Can someone else deal with this PP? I just can’t.

The answer is Aaron Burr, Sir.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t kind of ridiculous that we take such pains to make sure that the process for selecting the Presidential nominee is as democratic as possible, but then we allow the VP to be chosen by *one* person—and we’re all okay with this?

Why shouldn’t the people be allowed to choose the Vice-Presidential nominee as well?

Can someone else deal with this PP? I just can’t.

The answer is Aaron Burr, Sir.

If Hillary Clinton had been required to take Bernie Sanders as her running mate in 2016 she would have pulled more than enough votes that ended up going to Gary Johnson and Jill Stein to beat Trump. Everyone agrees that her choice of Tim Kaine as VP was awful and demoralized the base.

John McCain immensely damaged his campaign and reputation by choosing Sarah Palin as his VP. Imagine what it was like for his supporters to see all of their hard work literally flushed down the toilet with one incredibly foolish and consequential decision.

Sanders didn’t want it. https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-vp/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t kind of ridiculous that we take such pains to make sure that the process for selecting the Presidential nominee is as democratic as possible, but then we allow the VP to be chosen by *one* person—and we’re all okay with this?

Why shouldn’t the people be allowed to choose the Vice-Presidential nominee as well?

Can someone else deal with this PP? I just can’t.

The answer is Aaron Burr, Sir.

In 1976 Gerald Ford chose *not* to make his closest competitor in the primary, Ronald Reagan, his running mate and narrowly lost the election to Jimmy Carter.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan chose his closest competitor (George H. W. Bush) as his running mate and won two landslide elections.

Why is this such a crazy idea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The betting markets have kamala harris at 5-2, Stacy abrams 4-1 and klobuchar at 5-1. I think klobuchar is more likely that Stacy Abrams but we’ll see. Harris is in safe senate seat. This is her chance to make history.

Harris didn't endorse Biden before the CA primary and doesn't appeal in the states Biden needs: WI-MI-OH-PA. I like her, but she'd be a poor strategic choice and hasn't earned anything from him (unlike several of the other names proposed).

Yeah I think you absolutely need to be strategic here and pick someone who will help in the swing states.

NP. But who helps most in the swing states (WI, PA, MI, FL, AZ, etc)? Someone like whitmer helps in only one of them. Someone like Harris might help in several if she pulls out blocks of women and AfAms. Julian Castro might help in several of he pulls out blocks of Latinos. Someone closely associated with an issue might help in several too by pulling people associated with that issue (eg, Sherrod Brown).

Not sure what the answer is, but want to push back on the idea of picking a localized VP without broader name recognition or appeal.

Harris hasn't succeeded in pulling out blocs of AfAms and helps little in swing states. If she had done the former, she'd still be in the race. Any competent woman will help with female turnout. Castro didn't seem to help Warren's candidacy one bit. He's left of many Americans on key issues and lacks charisma, even within his own community. I'm not saying it has to be Whitmer, but her focus on bread and butter issues like infrastructure and her bi-partisan appeal should play well with swing state white voters, a crucial bloc. Maybe not in AZ, but in the others. She's also above average personable and attractive, which helps across the board. Joe will probably campaign with her before the MI primary, will be interesting to see what their chemistry is like.

[Anonymous]

Go read The Root or other black publications about how African-Americans are voting. Once you get outside the bubble of Black Twitter, it's quite clear that older and working class AA's are voting strategically. They got their eye on the prize - defeating Trump.

I honestly don't think it's necessary that Joe must have a POC as his running mate this year. People are so charged and amped up to knock Trump out of office. If coronavirus gets worse, people have even more reason to vote against him. Biden needs a sensible, pragmatic, and significantly younger VP who can help him deliver FL, PA, WI, and MI.

That's it - this is the strategy. Delivering FL, PA, WI, and MI is the only thing that matters. Joe needs to win 3 out of those 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t kind of ridiculous that we take such pains to make sure that the process for selecting the Presidential nominee is as democratic as possible, but then we allow the VP to be chosen by *one* person—and we’re all okay with this?

Why shouldn’t the people be allowed to choose the Vice-Presidential nominee as well?

Can someone else deal with this PP? I just can’t.

The answer is Aaron Burr, Sir.

If Hillary Clinton had been required to take Bernie Sanders as her running mate in 2016 she would have pulled more than enough votes that ended up going to Gary Johnson and Jill Stein to beat Trump. Everyone agrees that her choice of Tim Kaine as VP was awful and demoralized the base.

John McCain immensely damaged his campaign and reputation by choosing Sarah Palin as his VP. Imagine what it was like for his supporters to see all of their hard work literally flushed down the toilet with one incredibly foolish and consequential decision.

Sanders didn’t want it. https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-vp/index.html

I’m not sure this means much because Sanders knew there was no way in hell Hillary Clinton would offer him the VP job. I think that if Sanders’ supporters understood that the Vice Presidency was his for the taking, and he chose not to take it, they would have been more willing to support the Democratic ticket.

[Anonymous]

31 pages of this and when is somebody going to start a Bernie's VP thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The betting markets have kamala harris at 5-2, Stacy abrams 4-1 and klobuchar at 5-1. I think klobuchar is more likely that Stacy Abrams but we’ll see. Harris is in safe senate seat. This is her chance to make history.

Harris didn't endorse Biden before the CA primary and doesn't appeal in the states Biden needs: WI-MI-OH-PA. I like her, but she'd be a poor strategic choice and hasn't earned anything from him (unlike several of the other names proposed).

Yeah I think you absolutely need to be strategic here and pick someone who will help in the swing states.

NP. But who helps most in the swing states (WI, PA, MI, FL, AZ, etc)? Someone like whitmer helps in only one of them. Someone like Harris might help in several if she pulls out blocks of women and AfAms. Julian Castro might help in several of he pulls out blocks of Latinos. Someone closely associated with an issue might help in several too by pulling people associated with that issue (eg, Sherrod Brown).

Not sure what the answer is, but want to push back on the idea of picking a localized VP without broader name recognition or appeal.

Harris hasn't succeeded in pulling out blocs of AfAms and helps little in swing states. If she had done the former, she'd still be in the race. Any competent woman will help with female turnout. Castro didn't seem to help Warren's candidacy one bit. He's left of many Americans on key issues and lacks charisma, even within his own community. I'm not saying it has to be Whitmer, but her focus on bread and butter issues like infrastructure and her bi-partisan appeal should play well with swing state white voters, a crucial bloc. Maybe not in AZ, but in the others. She's also above average personable and attractive, which helps across the board. Joe will probably campaign with her before the MI primary, will be interesting to see what their chemistry is like.

+1. Plus AAs are already in Bidens corner. As someone who is from the Midwest, I really think that a popular Midwest Democrat on the ticket would make a difference vs. someone like Harris- even if they are from a different state. I don’t know how to explain it. Sherrod Brown of course is amazing but you cannot risk losing that seat. Minnesota senate seat would probably be safe if he picked Klobuchar but I’m really liking the idea of Whitmer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The betting markets have kamala harris at 5-2, Stacy abrams 4-1 and klobuchar at 5-1. I think klobuchar is more likely that Stacy Abrams but we’ll see. Harris is in safe senate seat. This is her chance to make history.

Harris didn't endorse Biden before the CA primary and doesn't appeal in the states Biden needs: WI-MI-OH-PA. I like her, but she'd be a poor strategic choice and hasn't earned anything from him (unlike several of the other names proposed).

Yeah I think you absolutely need to be strategic here and pick someone who will help in the swing states.

NP. But who helps most in the swing states (WI, PA, MI, FL, AZ, etc)? Someone like whitmer helps in only one of them. Someone like Harris might help in several if she pulls out blocks of women and AfAms. Julian Castro might help in several of he pulls out blocks of Latinos. Someone closely associated with an issue might help in several too by pulling people associated with that issue (eg, Sherrod Brown).

Not sure what the answer is, but want to push back on the idea of picking a localized VP without broader name recognition or appeal.

There is a lot more evidence of regional identity having more impact than demographic impact in pulling in voters. There is also not a lot of evidence of Latinos voting as a block, though they tend to have lower voting rates so there could be something there. But we still know what does work and we know that states like MI and FL have a lot of EC delegates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The betting markets have kamala harris at 5-2, Stacy abrams 4-1 and klobuchar at 5-1. I think klobuchar is more likely that Stacy Abrams but we’ll see. Harris is in safe senate seat. This is her chance to make history.

Harris didn't endorse Biden before the CA primary and doesn't appeal in the states Biden needs: WI-MI-OH-PA. I like her, but she'd be a poor strategic choice and hasn't earned anything from him (unlike several of the other names proposed).

Yeah I think you absolutely need to be strategic here and pick someone who will help in the swing states.

NP. But who helps most in the swing states (WI, PA, MI, FL, AZ, etc)? Someone like whitmer helps in only one of them. Someone like Harris might help in several if she pulls out blocks of women and AfAms. Julian Castro might help in several of he pulls out blocks of Latinos. Someone closely associated with an issue might help in several too by pulling people associated with that issue (eg, Sherrod Brown).

Not sure what the answer is, but want to push back on the idea of picking a localized VP without broader name recognition or appeal.

There is a lot more evidence of regional identity having more impact than demographic impact in pulling in voters. There is also not a lot of evidence of Latinos voting as a block, though they tend to have lower voting rates so there could be something there. But we still know what does work and we know that states like MI and FL have a lot of EC delegates.

*demographic identity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:31 pages of this and when is somebody going to start a Bernie's VP thread?

Good question....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The betting markets have kamala harris at 5-2, Stacy abrams 4-1 and klobuchar at 5-1. I think klobuchar is more likely that Stacy Abrams but we’ll see. Harris is in safe senate seat. This is her chance to make history.

Harris didn't endorse Biden before the CA primary and doesn't appeal in the states Biden needs: WI-MI-OH-PA. I like her, but she'd be a poor strategic choice and hasn't earned anything from him (unlike several of the other names proposed).

Yeah I think you absolutely need to be strategic here and pick someone who will help in the swing states.

Unlike Amy and Pete, Kamala has the foresight to drop out and winnow down the field early on. I’m sure Biden was grateful for one fewer competitor. And she has the potential to motivate the black vote without which Biden can’t win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:31 pages of this and when is somebody going to start a Bernie's VP thread?

Good question....

Someone did earlier today. Did it disappear?