Biden's VP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joe needs a VP who can help with 1) Latino voters, 2) young voters, and 3) socialists/progressives. He needs an AOC type of VP. He can have a poor man version of AOC in Andrew Yang.

Yang, like Mayor Pete and Stacy Abrams, is not experienced enough to backstop a 70something President.

I really like Yang, but I have to agree. I’m glad to see he’s dusted himself off and is starting on a new project. Expect to hear from him in the future.

KLOBUCHAR.

And the last 2 times Dems put a Minnesotan on the ticket—Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale—they won.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joe needs a VP who can help with 1) Latino voters, 2) young voters, and 3) socialists/progressives. He needs an AOC type of VP. He can have a poor man version of AOC in Andrew Yang.

No he doesn't. For the thousandth time, he needs PA, WI, MI, FL. Turnout among white suburban and working class voters (and black voters, which he already has) will be the essential. Latino voters don't tend to work as a single bloc and young voters don't turn out. Socialists/progressives are a lost cause and are smaller in number than the first bloc. Hillary came close, only low turnout in a small handful of swing states sealed her fate. Super Tuesday indicates that anti-Trump sentiment will take care of that problem but numbers in swing states remains crucial.

In addition, you can't trust socialists progressives to actually show up come November. There are any number of issues or situations that will make them throw a temper tantrum and just not show up. Much better to concentrate on voters that if you win them, you can count on them to actually show up and vote. The socialists progressives will be very fervently with you and devoted to you...until they aren't. And then they will abandon the ticket and stay home. They are idealogues and not reliable.

+2 and thank you for your reason and sanity. We cannot count on the very left wing of the party. The Warren progressives, yes. The Sanders progressives, no. ANYTHING can turn them off and then they just won’t vote. Believe me, I know these people. Courting them is a mistake because they are so unreliable with actually going to vote. But Black voters and college educated white women will show up, so the key is increasing turnout amongst these groups. Btw that’s where the Clinton campaign failed, as their own internal polling data showed her winning the EC but losing the popular vote. So she abandoned Pa/MI/WI in the last few weeks of her campaign in favor of trying to get more votes out of the South.

Biden WILL absolutely hold all the states Clinton won in 2016. The key is getting those 100,000 votes in PA/MI/WI. Florida and North Carolina are just the icing on the cake, if he can do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joe needs a VP who can help with 1) Latino voters, 2) young voters, and 3) socialists/progressives. He needs an AOC type of VP. He can have a poor man version of AOC in Andrew Yang.

No he doesn't. For the thousandth time, he needs PA, WI, MI, FL. Turnout among white suburban and working class voters (and black voters, which he already has) will be the essential. Latino voters don't tend to work as a single bloc and young voters don't turn out. Socialists/progressives are a lost cause and are smaller in number than the first bloc. Hillary came close, only low turnout in a small handful of swing states sealed her fate. Super Tuesday indicates that anti-Trump sentiment will take care of that problem but numbers in swing states remains crucial.

In addition, you can't trust socialists progressives to actually show up come November. There are any number of issues or situations that will make them throw a temper tantrum and just not show up. Much better to concentrate on voters that if you win them, you can count on them to actually show up and vote. The socialists progressives will be very fervently with you and devoted to you...until they aren't. And then they will abandon the ticket and stay home. They are idealogues and not reliable.

+2 and thank you for your reason and sanity. We cannot count on the very left wing of the party. The Warren progressives, yes. The Sanders progressives, no. ANYTHING can turn them off and then they just won’t vote. Believe me, I know these people. Courting them is a mistake because they are so unreliable with actually going to vote. But Black voters and college educated white women will show up, so the key is increasing turnout amongst these groups. Btw that’s where the Clinton campaign failed, as their own internal polling data showed her winning the EC but losing the popular vote. So she abandoned Pa/MI/WI in the last few weeks of her campaign in favor of trying to get more votes out of the South.

Biden WILL absolutely hold all the states Clinton won in 2016. The key is getting those 100,000 votes in PA/MI/WI. Florida and North Carolina are just the icing on the cake, if he can do it.

Yes to all of this. The strategy should be straightforward, let’s hope they don’t blow it. Biden should and will campaign with several prospective VPs, especially Whitmer and Klobuchar, and should go with the one who polls best with his needed constituencies and has the fewest negatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joe needs a VP who can help with 1) Latino voters, 2) young voters, and 3) socialists/progressives. He needs an AOC type of VP. He can have a poor man version of AOC in Andrew Yang.

No he doesn't. For the thousandth time, he needs PA, WI, MI, FL. Turnout among white suburban and working class voters (and black voters, which he already has) will be the essential. Latino voters don't tend to work as a single bloc and young voters don't turn out. Socialists/progressives are a lost cause and are smaller in number than the first bloc. Hillary came close, only low turnout in a small handful of swing states sealed her fate. Super Tuesday indicates that anti-Trump sentiment will take care of that problem but numbers in swing states remains crucial.

In addition, you can't trust socialists progressives to actually show up come November. There are any number of issues or situations that will make them throw a temper tantrum and just not show up. Much better to concentrate on voters that if you win them, you can count on them to actually show up and vote. The socialists progressives will be very fervently with you and devoted to you...until they aren't. And then they will abandon the ticket and stay home. They are idealogues and not reliable.

+2 and thank you for your reason and sanity. We cannot count on the very left wing of the party. The Warren progressives, yes. The Sanders progressives, no. ANYTHING can turn them off and then they just won’t vote. Believe me, I know these people. Courting them is a mistake because they are so unreliable with actually going to vote. But Black voters and college educated white women will show up, so the key is increasing turnout amongst these groups. Btw that’s where the Clinton campaign failed, as their own internal polling data showed her winning the EC but losing the popular vote. So she abandoned Pa/MI/WI in the last few weeks of her campaign in favor of trying to get more votes out of the South.

Biden WILL absolutely hold all the states Clinton won in 2016. The key is getting those 100,000 votes in PA/MI/WI. Florida and North Carolina are just the icing on the cake, if he can do it.

Yes to all of this. The strategy should be straightforward, let’s hope they don’t blow it. Biden should and will campaign with several prospective VPs, especially Whitmer and Klobuchar, and should go with the one who polls best with his needed constituencies and has the fewest negatives.

At this point, I think I would prefer Klobuchar since she is already battle-tested and has built up a national profile. Plus I think it’s better if the nominee goes with someone he or she competed against in the primary. Helps bring the party together.

[Anonymous]

I hope Warren.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope Warren.

Warren. HRC. Abrams. Klobuchar. Would be happy with any of these.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope Warren.

Her seat is not safe. Won't be Warren (as much as I love her).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Klobuchar for the hundredth time. Their exchange when she endorsed him spoke volumes.

That’s a solid ticket.

Whitmer would be better, so much more appealing. Amy is competent but her personality is a turnoff.

Whitmer will bring voters back to the booths in places like WI and Michigan. HRC caused people to write in. People detested HRC and that is why Trump stole WI.

[Anonymous]

Gotta be Gretchen. We need MI.

[Anonymous]

Only drawback to Whitmer is that she’s unknown on the national stage. On paper she makes sense, but the Biden campaign would have to do some heavy internal polling before pulling the trigger.

[Anonymous]

Whitmer will become nationally known as soon as Biden starts campaigning with her. I feel confident voters will like her, politically and personally.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm...

Doesn't mean it's a foregone conclusion but certainly indicates where her head is at, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Klobuchar for the hundredth time. Their exchange when she endorsed him spoke volumes.

That’s a solid ticket.

Whitmer would be better, so much more appealing. Amy is competent but her personality is a turnoff.

Although I respectfully disagree, I also dont think personality is as big of an issue with VP. But I think either would be a fine choice.

[Anonymous]

Die hard Dem.

And will NEVER EVER vote a ticket with Klobuchar. Ask anyone who works on the hill or has ever worked with her. NEVER.