Biden's VP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who TF cares where Whitmer went to school?? Honestly, at some point in your adult life, it ceases to matter for most Americans - except of course in the DC bubble.

Media sure cared about academic pedigree in 2008 when a ditz from Alaska joined McCain...

Sure do not want this happening again.

Whitmer went to one college, not six.

MSU was the top party school in the US in the late 80s, early 90s; she majored in “communications” and was a sorority girl. Then on to the worst law school in Michigan... even though she was born rich and had parents with mucho clout. She’ll make a fine vp... but let’s not pretend there’s nothing to her “Gretchen Half-Whitmer” nickname. Biden is a fool for commiting to a woman vp — Cuomo is the OBVIOUS choice.

Not digging Cuomo after his disastrous handling of the COVID crisis in NYC. Much prefer Klobs. So what if she has a mean streak - she seems like a grounded, Midwestern woman who gets things done and Biden's diplomacy would be a good counterfoil to her mean streak.

She is a graduate of Yale and U.Chicago. Its a +1 from me. Its high time we got some intellect in the White House.

Warren.

The lady who got to Harvard by lying about her race?

No thanks.

Is that any worse than using your father's money to get in? I'm not a Warren fan, btw.

She didn’t actually do that, so this argument is moot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who TF cares where Whitmer went to school?? Honestly, at some point in your adult life, it ceases to matter for most Americans - except of course in the DC bubble.

Media sure cared about academic pedigree in 2008 when a ditz from Alaska joined McCain...

Sure do not want this happening again.

Whitmer went to one college, not six.

MSU was the top party school in the US in the late 80s, early 90s; she majored in “communications” and was a sorority girl. Then on to the worst law school in Michigan... even though she was born rich and had parents with mucho clout. She’ll make a fine vp... but let’s not pretend there’s nothing to her “Gretchen Half-Whitmer” nickname. Biden is a fool for commiting to a woman vp — Cuomo is the OBVIOUS choice.

Not digging Cuomo after his disastrous handling of the COVID crisis in NYC. Much prefer Klobs. So what if she has a mean streak - she seems like a grounded, Midwestern woman who gets things done and Biden's diplomacy would be a good counterfoil to her mean streak.

She is a graduate of Yale and U.Chicago. Its a +1 from me. Its high time we got some intellect in the White House.

Warren.

The lady who got to Harvard by lying about her race?

No thanks.

Is that any worse than using your father's money to get in? I'm not a Warren fan, btw.

She didn’t actually do that, so this argument is moot.

I think that post may have been alluding to Jared Kushner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is Amy. A done deal weeks ago.

Yes, I quite agree.

Not clear, her favorables are not as high as some of the other candidates:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/poll-biden-vice-president-experience-187056

Initially I assumed the strategy would be midwest-focused but the WI primary results suggest Biden might not need help there after all.

I think the fact that Klobuchar does not appeal to AA voters is a problem.

But Biden does — big time!!

+1

Biden needs a solid VP to engage Latinos (his main weakness) and Independents.

Some Governor from a heavy-Hispanic state?

Then your candidate of choice for VP should be Michelle Lujan Grisham. She's a 12th generation American Latina who served as NM secretary of health, then three terms in the US House (including being chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus) and is currently the governor of NM. She's got executive experience, Congressional experience, experience as a secretary of health (useful in the current crisis) and is popular with Latinos. She's currently rated a B-list candidate on Biden's short-list, but I think she deserves a higher ranking. She adds a lot to Biden's ticket.

She sounds awesome!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is Amy. A done deal weeks ago.

Yes, I quite agree.

Not clear, her favorables are not as high as some of the other candidates:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/poll-biden-vice-president-experience-187056

Initially I assumed the strategy would be midwest-focused but the WI primary results suggest Biden might not need help there after all.

I think the fact that Klobuchar does not appeal to AA voters is a problem.

But Biden does — big time!!

And that’s not enough. The AA vote is the backbone of the DNC.

Warren was actually making a lot of inroads with the AA voters. Yvette Nicole Brown, Ashley Nicole Black, Imani Gandy... there were a lot of very committed AA voters for Warren, all of whom are now staunchly pro-Biden. I sincerely hope Biden doesn’t kick them in the teeth with my senator Klobuchar.

there was a great article on how warren attracted the black 'thinker' crowd but not actual voters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-black-vote.html

"Don Calloway, a Democratic strategist specializing in field operations with black voters, said Ms. Warren’s problems winning them over threatened the viability of her campaign moving forward but should also serve as a cautionary tale: The progressive activists who have showered her candidacy with validation have a different electoral lens than the black electorate at large.

That schism is a distinction some have labeled “grass tops vs. the grass roots” — or the belief that the leaders of liberal and progressive organizations have a different political lens than their more working-class members.

Ms. Warren “did a great job of galvanizing internet-savvy, well-known personalities, but unfortunately it doesn’t look like that support has translated into populations on the ground,” Mr. Calloway said."

Warren doesn't have the pulse of the streets -- which is weird because her life story is one of (relative) rags to riches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is Amy. A done deal weeks ago.

Yes, I quite agree.

Not clear, her favorables are not as high as some of the other candidates:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/poll-biden-vice-president-experience-187056

Initially I assumed the strategy would be midwest-focused but the WI primary results suggest Biden might not need help there after all.

I think the fact that Klobuchar does not appeal to AA voters is a problem.

But Biden does — big time!!

And that’s not enough. The AA vote is the backbone of the DNC.

Warren was actually making a lot of inroads with the AA voters. Yvette Nicole Brown, Ashley Nicole Black, Imani Gandy... there were a lot of very committed AA voters for Warren, all of whom are now staunchly pro-Biden. I sincerely hope Biden doesn’t kick them in the teeth with my senator Klobuchar.

there was a great article on how warren attracted the black 'thinker' crowd but not actual voters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-black-vote.html

"Don Calloway, a Democratic strategist specializing in field operations with black voters, said Ms. Warren’s problems winning them over threatened the viability of her campaign moving forward but should also serve as a cautionary tale: The progressive activists who have showered her candidacy with validation have a different electoral lens than the black electorate at large.

That schism is a distinction some have labeled “grass tops vs. the grass roots” — or the belief that the leaders of liberal and progressive organizations have a different political lens than their more working-class members.

Ms. Warren “did a great job of galvanizing internet-savvy, well-known personalities, but unfortunately it doesn’t look like that support has translated into populations on the ground,” Mr. Calloway said."

Warren doesn't have the pulse of the streets -- which is weird because her life story is one of (relative) rags to riches.

I’m aware of how the votes shook out, thanks. And I’ve read the reasons why AA voters went for Biden and they seem like sound reasons to me.

But Warren consistently appeared on top of the Magic Wand list for all voters and I think that included AA voters. She would be a phenomenal pick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is Amy. A done deal weeks ago.

Yes, I quite agree.

Not clear, her favorables are not as high as some of the other candidates:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/poll-biden-vice-president-experience-187056

Initially I assumed the strategy would be midwest-focused but the WI primary results suggest Biden might not need help there after all.

I think the fact that Klobuchar does not appeal to AA voters is a problem.

But Biden does — big time!!

And that’s not enough. The AA vote is the backbone of the DNC.

Warren was actually making a lot of inroads with the AA voters. Yvette Nicole Brown, Ashley Nicole Black, Imani Gandy... there were a lot of very committed AA voters for Warren, all of whom are now staunchly pro-Biden. I sincerely hope Biden doesn’t kick them in the teeth with my senator Klobuchar.

there was a great article on how warren attracted the black 'thinker' crowd but not actual voters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-black-vote.html

"Don Calloway, a Democratic strategist specializing in field operations with black voters, said Ms. Warren’s problems winning them over threatened the viability of her campaign moving forward but should also serve as a cautionary tale: The progressive activists who have showered her candidacy with validation have a different electoral lens than the black electorate at large.

That schism is a distinction some have labeled “grass tops vs. the grass roots” — or the belief that the leaders of liberal and progressive organizations have a different political lens than their more working-class members.

Ms. Warren “did a great job of galvanizing internet-savvy, well-known personalities, but unfortunately it doesn’t look like that support has translated into populations on the ground,” Mr. Calloway said."

Warren doesn't have the pulse of the streets -- which is weird because her life story is one of (relative) rags to riches.

She lost, and badly, both her native state and her adopted one.

She adds little except the "in" academic and media crowd which is voting Biden no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is Amy. A done deal weeks ago.

Yes, I quite agree.

Not clear, her favorables are not as high as some of the other candidates:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/poll-biden-vice-president-experience-187056

Initially I assumed the strategy would be midwest-focused but the WI primary results suggest Biden might not need help there after all.

I think the fact that Klobuchar does not appeal to AA voters is a problem.

But Biden does — big time!!

And that’s not enough. The AA vote is the backbone of the DNC.

Warren was actually making a lot of inroads with the AA voters. Yvette Nicole Brown, Ashley Nicole Black, Imani Gandy... there were a lot of very committed AA voters for Warren, all of whom are now staunchly pro-Biden. I sincerely hope Biden doesn’t kick them in the teeth with my senator Klobuchar.

there was a great article on how warren attracted the black 'thinker' crowd but not actual voters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-black-vote.html

"Don Calloway, a Democratic strategist specializing in field operations with black voters, said Ms. Warren’s problems winning them over threatened the viability of her campaign moving forward but should also serve as a cautionary tale: The progressive activists who have showered her candidacy with validation have a different electoral lens than the black electorate at large.

That schism is a distinction some have labeled “grass tops vs. the grass roots” — or the belief that the leaders of liberal and progressive organizations have a different political lens than their more working-class members.

Ms. Warren “did a great job of galvanizing internet-savvy, well-known personalities, but unfortunately it doesn’t look like that support has translated into populations on the ground,” Mr. Calloway said."

Warren doesn't have the pulse of the streets -- which is weird because her life story is one of (relative) rags to riches.

Black women love Elizabeth Warren, they just didn't think she could win. As a black woman, I've had 20 conversations with random black women, all older and none activists. We all wondered where people got the notion that black women didn't like her.

[Anonymous]

A qualified RN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Black women love Elizabeth Warren, they just didn't think she could win. As a black woman, I've had 20 conversations with random black women, all older and none activists. We all wondered where people got the notion that black women didn't like her.

How about rephrasing it to be black women don't like her enough to vote for her?

The point being that there are no Warren supporters who are likely to vote for Trump. It doesn't add anything to the ticket. Unlike the Sanders supporters who are fanatics, Warren supporters are not going to hold their breath and sit out the election. Warren supporters are educated supporters who know that an abstention is essentially a vote for Trump. Warren supporters will support the Democratic ticket no matter who it is. And there are very few to none in the moderate or Independent camps that will choose Biden because of Warren. Picking Whitmer, Klobuchar or Grisham will sway votes that might have gone to Trump to vote for Biden. At this point, that is the most important demographic to court, the ones that are uncommitted to either party, but can be convinced to vote for the Democratic ticket. And two key demographics that need to be courted are the moderate Midwest which reacted when Clinton decided to cancel campaign tour stops in the Midwest to court other votes and voted for Trump; and the Latino vote which supported Sanders. Unlike the Sanders fanatics, the Latino vote can be swayed to vote for Biden with the right incentives.

Grisham would certainly convince a lot of uncommitted Latino votes to vote for Biden and are also likely to convince a portion of the voters who might otherwise vote for Trump to vote for the Democratic ticket. Whitmer and Klobuchar would help with key battle states that Clinton lost. The main reason I think that Grisham is a better candidate is that the Midwest already leans left. Look at the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election. The liberal challenger upset the incumbent conservative judge even when Trump had lobbied for the incumbent. Trump is not that popular in the Midwest. Clinton's mistake in 2016 was that she canceled key campaign stops in the Midwest to visit other states that she felt were more important. Trump, on the other hand, actively campaigned in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Pundits said that the midwest was reliably Democratic, but when the dust cleared, Trump had narrowly won both Michigan and Wisconsin. It is quite likely that had Clinton campaigned in those states, she would have carried them. I think that Biden can carry those states by just making sure not to repeat Clinton's mistakes and to make sure to stop in the Midwest to consolidate the liberal leanings. It's not as easy to win Latinos over with a ground game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is Amy. A done deal weeks ago.

Yes, I quite agree.

Not clear, her favorables are not as high as some of the other candidates:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/poll-biden-vice-president-experience-187056

Initially I assumed the strategy would be midwest-focused but the WI primary results suggest Biden might not need help there after all.

I think the fact that Klobuchar does not appeal to AA voters is a problem.

But Biden does — big time!!

And that’s not enough. The AA vote is the backbone of the DNC.

Warren was actually making a lot of inroads with the AA voters. Yvette Nicole Brown, Ashley Nicole Black, Imani Gandy... there were a lot of very committed AA voters for Warren, all of whom are now staunchly pro-Biden. I sincerely hope Biden doesn’t kick them in the teeth with my senator Klobuchar.

there was a great article on how warren attracted the black 'thinker' crowd but not actual voters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-black-vote.html

"Don Calloway, a Democratic strategist specializing in field operations with black voters, said Ms. Warren’s problems winning them over threatened the viability of her campaign moving forward but should also serve as a cautionary tale: The progressive activists who have showered her candidacy with validation have a different electoral lens than the black electorate at large.

That schism is a distinction some have labeled “grass tops vs. the grass roots” — or the belief that the leaders of liberal and progressive organizations have a different political lens than their more working-class members.

Ms. Warren “did a great job of galvanizing internet-savvy, well-known personalities, but unfortunately it doesn’t look like that support has translated into populations on the ground,” Mr. Calloway said."

Warren doesn't have the pulse of the streets -- which is weird because her life story is one of (relative) rags to riches.

Black women love Elizabeth Warren, they just didn't think she could win. As a black woman, I've had 20 conversations with random black women, all older and none activists. We all wondered where people got the notion that black women didn't like her.

Are you southern?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A qualified RN.

Like Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-IL)?

[Anonymous]

Warren doesn't have the pulse of the streets -- which is weird because her life story is one of (relative) rags to riches.

Fiction

Her family went through some tough times, but it was not rags to riches.

She drove a little sports car to her senior year in high school. Not too many "rags" stories like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who TF cares where Whitmer went to school?? Honestly, at some point in your adult life, it ceases to matter for most Americans - except of course in the DC bubble.

Media sure cared about academic pedigree in 2008 when a ditz from Alaska joined McCain...

Sure do not want this happening again.

Whitmer went to one college, not six.

MSU was the top party school in the US in the late 80s, early 90s; she majored in “communications” and was a sorority girl. Then on to the worst law school in Michigan... even though she was born rich and had parents with mucho clout. She’ll make a fine vp... but let’s not pretend there’s nothing to her “Gretchen Half-Whitmer” nickname. Biden is a fool for commiting to a woman vp — Cuomo is the OBVIOUS choice.

Not digging Cuomo after his disastrous handling of the COVID crisis in NYC. Much prefer Klobs. So what if she has a mean streak - she seems like a grounded, Midwestern woman who gets things done and Biden's diplomacy would be a good counterfoil to her mean streak.

She is a graduate of Yale and U.Chicago. Its a +1 from me. Its high time we got some intellect in the White House.

Warren.

The lady who got to Harvard by lying about her race?

No thanks.

Is that any worse than using your father's money to get in? I'm not a Warren fan, btw.

She didn’t actually do that, so this argument is moot.

I think that post may have been alluding to Jared Kushner.

Actually, I was alluding to Trump, but Kushner is definitely another one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Warren doesn't have the pulse of the streets -- which is weird because her life story is one of (relative) rags to riches.

Fiction

Her family went through some tough times, but it was not rags to riches.

She drove a little sports car to her senior year in high school. Not too many "rags" stories like that.

Voters saw she was (is) a phony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women love Elizabeth Warren, they just didn't think she could win. As a black woman, I've had 20 conversations with random black women, all older and none activists. We all wondered where people got the notion that black women didn't like her.

How about rephrasing it to be black women don't like her enough to vote for her?

The point being that there are no Warren supporters who are likely to vote for Trump. It doesn't add anything to the ticket. Unlike the Sanders supporters who are fanatics, Warren supporters are not going to hold their breath and sit out the election. Warren supporters are educated supporters who know that an abstention is essentially a vote for Trump. Warren supporters will support the Democratic ticket no matter who it is. And there are very few to none in the moderate or Independent camps that will choose Biden because of Warren. Picking Whitmer, Klobuchar or Grisham will sway votes that might have gone to Trump to vote for Biden. At this point, that is the most important demographic to court, the ones that are uncommitted to either party, but can be convinced to vote for the Democratic ticket. And two key demographics that need to be courted are the moderate Midwest which reacted when Clinton decided to cancel campaign tour stops in the Midwest to court other votes and voted for Trump; and the Latino vote which supported Sanders. Unlike the Sanders fanatics, the Latino vote can be swayed to vote for Biden with the right incentives.

Grisham would certainly convince a lot of uncommitted Latino votes to vote for Biden and are also likely to convince a portion of the voters who might otherwise vote for Trump to vote for the Democratic ticket. Whitmer and Klobuchar would help with key battle states that Clinton lost. The main reason I think that Grisham is a better candidate is that the Midwest already leans left. Look at the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election. The liberal challenger upset the incumbent conservative judge even when Trump had lobbied for the incumbent. Trump is not that popular in the Midwest. Clinton's mistake in 2016 was that she canceled key campaign stops in the Midwest to visit other states that she felt were more important. Trump, on the other hand, actively campaigned in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Pundits said that the midwest was reliably Democratic, but when the dust cleared, Trump had narrowly won both Michigan and Wisconsin. It is quite likely that had Clinton campaigned in those states, she would have carried them. I think that Biden can carry those states by just making sure not to repeat Clinton's mistakes and to make sure to stop in the Midwest to consolidate the liberal leanings. It's not as easy to win Latinos over with a ground game.

I don't disagree with any of this. It seems obvious now though that the economy will be the primary focus. This is where Elizabeth Warren shines, few can compete with her chops there. If not her, then a governor for the same reason: executive experience and focus on the economy. Then there is the crucial intangible, with whom does Biden have great chemistry and who is perceived as likable? My top picks right now, then, are EW, Grisham, and Whitmer. But I'd also like to see him interact with more of his prospects.