Biden's VP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs a running mate who can appeal to younger voters. Klobuchar’s base is the 65+ crowd. That doesn’t help him.

I'm a 52 yo male and she was my top pick.

That’s nice but at 52 you’re far from being a “younger voter”.

[Anonymous]

Kamala and Amy have too much baggage as prosecutors. Pete is gay. Warren is needed in the Senate. Maybe Booker but he's so arrogant.I',m going out on a limb and guessing a mid west governor, say, Kelly of Kansas, a woman and can bring in Midwest.

[Anonymous]

already decided. gretchen whitmer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:already decided. gretchen whitmer

Hillary doesn’t agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a Biden/Kobochar ticket would have two very decent people and I think that is what this country needs for Unity.

As a republican who is willing to vote for a democrat, I say Amy Klobuchar. Kamala turns people off in a similar way that Hillary Clinton did. We need a ticket of people who are above name calling and belittling people.

You know what? No, you and every other decent American is voting blue this time, no matter who it is. Be it Warren, Harris, Klobuachar, Buttigieg, Whitmer, or someone else, you don’t get to tell us how to run our party after you ran yours into the ground.

+1. Is also love to hear from PP why s/he thinks Harris turns people off. I hate when people say things like “something about her...” but can’t be specific. What names did she actually use when name calling? Calling someone out in bad prior behavior is not name calling.

My former republican mom adores Harris. She was her #1 pick for president. But unlike OP, my mom also doesn't think she has the right to dictate what are party does simply because her party f'ed up.

I really hate that so many strong, smart women (Clinton, Harris, Warren) are subject to the 'something about them just turns people of' line.

I don't trust them. How's that for an answer? I trust klobuchar even though she's not charismatic. I think she's solid and she can reach those on both sides.

Clinton is a liar, as is Warren. Ok - warren "bends" the truth. Kamala flip flops and is a hypocrite. She now SUPPORTS Biden whom she called a racist? No thanks - since when is hypocrisy a winning trait?

I agree with you.

Klobuchar: Yes.

Warren or Harris: no way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a Biden/Kobochar ticket would have two very decent people and I think that is what this country needs for Unity.

As a republican who is willing to vote for a democrat, I say Amy Klobuchar. Kamala turns people off in a similar way that Hillary Clinton did. We need a ticket of people who are above name calling and belittling people.

You know what? No, you and every other decent American is voting blue this time, no matter who it is. Be it Warren, Harris, Klobuachar, Buttigieg, Whitmer, or someone else, you don’t get to tell us how to run our party after you ran yours into the ground.

+1. Is also love to hear from PP why s/he thinks Harris turns people off. I hate when people say things like “something about her...” but can’t be specific. What names did she actually use when name calling? Calling someone out in bad prior behavior is not name calling.

My former republican mom adores Harris. She was her #1 pick for president. But unlike OP, my mom also doesn't think she has the right to dictate what are party does simply because her party f'ed up.

I really hate that so many strong, smart women (Clinton, Harris, Warren) are subject to the 'something about them just turns people of' line.

I don't trust them. How's that for an answer? I trust klobuchar even though she's not charismatic. I think she's solid and she can reach those on both sides.

Clinton is a liar, as is Warren. Ok - warren "bends" the truth. Kamala flip flops and is a hypocrite. She now SUPPORTS Biden whom she called a racist? No thanks - since when is hypocrisy a winning trait?

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:already decided. gretchen whitmer

Hopefully, yes. She would be good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hilarious, OP. Biden has one risen-from-the-dead good night, and you are ready to start talking about "president" Biden's VP?

A few of your best democratic friends in California probably have some comments for you.

Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Either Whitmer or Abrams would be the best choice. Klobuchar is a snooze-fest. Warren is too old and ideologically different. Harris is too unpopular with AAs and California doesn’t help with the electoral math.

No one has actually provided any proof that Harris is “unpopular with AAs.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abrams would be amazing. Sadly, I'm not sure it helps with the electoral map.

This is how Abrams helps with the electoral map: Joe woos the suburbs in MI, PA, and WI and Abrams turns out the votes in cities and college campuses. This is a base election and Biden's veep needs to fire up the base. Not confident that Harris is that person. And Klobuchar is redundant here as Joe is reaching the same folks.

I agree that Abrams is one of the best choices to gin up young voter support. But Biden is too old and she is too inexperienced on a national level to be VP.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either Whitmer or Abrams would be the best choice. Klobuchar is a snooze-fest. Warren is too old and ideologically different. Harris is too unpopular with AAs and California doesn’t help with the electoral math.

No one has actually provided any proof that Harris is “unpopular with AAs.”

Consistently polling 3rd or 4th with black voters is not exactly a glowing endorsement:
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/kamala-harris-black-voters-2020-075651

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either Whitmer or Abrams would be the best choice. Klobuchar is a snooze-fest. Warren is too old and ideologically different. Harris is too unpopular with AAs and California doesn’t help with the electoral math.

No one has actually provided any proof that Harris is “unpopular with AAs.”

Consistently polling 3rd or 4th with black voters is not exactly a glowing endorsement:
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/kamala-harris-black-voters-2020-075651

3rd or 4th, behind the presumptive nominee and 2nd and 3rd place finishers in a huge field, is not exactly damning evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either Whitmer or Abrams would be the best choice. Klobuchar is a snooze-fest. Warren is too old and ideologically different. Harris is too unpopular with AAs and California doesn’t help with the electoral math.

No one has actually provided any proof that Harris is “unpopular with AAs.”

Yep, ol Kamala is still in the race and riding those crowds of AA voters to victory. Good for her! So popular!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either Whitmer or Abrams would be the best choice. Klobuchar is a snooze-fest. Warren is too old and ideologically different. Harris is too unpopular with AAs and California doesn’t help with the electoral math.

No one has actually provided any proof that Harris is “unpopular with AAs.”

Yep, ol Kamala is still in the race and riding those crowds of AA voters to victory. Good for her! So popular!

Yeah she'd still be in the race if she had substantial AA support. Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either Whitmer or Abrams would be the best choice. Klobuchar is a snooze-fest. Warren is too old and ideologically different. Harris is too unpopular with AAs and California doesn’t help with the electoral math.

No one has actually provided any proof that Harris is “unpopular with AAs.”

Yep, ol Kamala is still in the race and riding those crowds of AA voters to victory. Good for her! So popular!

Yeah she'd still be in the race if she had substantial AA support. Nope.

Take a look at articles on this subject from December 2019. The reason Harris was not getting lots of black votes was not that black voters dislike her, but rather that most black voters stood behind Joe Biden, as they still do.

More importantly, if you are limiting Harris to just “the black VP,” and asking yourself only how many black votes she adds, you’re ignoring all the other strengths she brings to the ticket. There’s a long list on this thread, and her appeal to black voters is only one item among at least 10, and probably one of the least significant in this situation.

If anything, the negative to Harris is not that black voters will reject her, but rather that some racist white voters will be so deranged by their inability to vote for a ticket with a black VP that they’ll stay home. Personally, I’m ok skipping those racist voters, and I wouldn’t want Biden to pass over a black VP in an effort to make those racists happy.