Anonymous wrote:Gillum lost in his own state. It would make more sense if he was a wildly popular governor, but he hasn’t been particularly successful.

If she wants an AA, she'll pick Booker

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Castro had not made such an as of himself insulting Biden during the last debate, I thinl Biden/Castro would have been a great ticket. Florida Latinos and Texas in one go.

Too bad Castro spoke to Biden like a petulant child. Booker also tanked himself by attacking Biden in that post-debate interview with CNN.

If you think women are going to turn out with no women on the ticket, you would be very wrong.

you're wrong, it doesn't matter

Anonymous wrote:VPS are also sometimes picked as an acceptable successor if the candidate has some health concerns. I think that's in play with Biden.

I don't view considering race and gender demographics any differently than considering g regional demographics when trying to balance a ticket. Casting affirmative action aspersions at an AA pick is a complete double standard

I don’t know? Does it mean we can start calling Pence the Affirmative Action candidate? If so, I’m all in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Biden, Abrams.

If Warren, Beto. (possible dent in texas)

But she needs more black support - that's the thing

So Abrahms. I’m all for the two woman ticket. If you need a guy, Booker.

Why does the race or ethnicity of the pick matter? Shouldn't we go with the best person for the job?

The best person for the job IS the person who can best reach out to African Americans. That is (at least part of) the job.

Bigoted people never see AAs as an important and underrepresented voting bloc. Any recognition of them as an important group and valued part of America is “pandering” whereas white “Christian” men are the default. Our bigoted friend above needs to seriously sit and think why, in his mind, electing AA or female candidates means we’ve just elected a token, or an affirmative action hire rather than the best person for the job. Listen, we’ve had enough pandering to white men with mediocre to dire candidates. Time to open up the field and let some real excellence result from actual competition rather than the thumb on the scale there has been for several millennia.

DP: I don't know why anyone is concerned about AA at this point because the fastest growing voter demographic is Hispanics. It is almost like white men and African Americans are making their last grasp of power as important minorities in the United States. The future of this county is Hispanic and I don't understand why the AAs remain the "major minority" when their numbers are falling as fast as white voters.

We will be better as a country when we no longer care about voting blocks based on race and gender. The fact is that more African American voters pulled the lever for Trump than they did for Mitt Romney. How does that work into your voting block math?

That would take the destruction of the Republican party as we know it today since its core is the biggest single race & gender voting block in American politics.

Romney was running against Obama so the comparison of AA turnout vs Trump is statistically irrelevant.

And you sound like the sort that says: "I don't see race (or gender), I just see human beings". Of course that would be ideal--but the US is not there yet.

The fact is that we have different experiences. White men have monopolized government since the founding of the country. It has not worked out for our country. We will be better when we have accurate representation by electing women and POC.

VPS are also sometimes picked as an acceptable successor if the candidate has some health concerns. I think that's in play with Biden.

I don't view considering race and gender demographics any differently than considering g regional demographics when trying to balance a ticket. Casting affirmative action aspersions at an AA pick is a complete double standard

Why is that Republicans go all in on their candidates and Dems wring their hands and whine about what Republicans might think or say or do? No one thought Obama could win or this country would elect a black man. Until we did. No one 10 years ago would believe a gay guy and his husband would be running a top campaign.

Why reason with Republicans rather than going all in on someone great?

Anonymous wrote:She needs black voters to win the nomination. How would Gillum help with this? Don’t running mates generally get chosen *after* the nomination?

Nothing stops her from saying that if nominated X is her VP. The only downside is that AA is what she thinks she needs now. It might not be what she needs in six months.

Anonymous wrote:If Castro had not made such an as of himself insulting Biden during the last debate, I thinl Biden/Castro would have been a great ticket. Florida Latinos and Texas in one go.

Too bad Castro spoke to Biden like a petulant child. Booker also tanked himself by attacking Biden in that post-debate interview with CNN.

If you think women are going to turn out with no women on the ticket, you would be very wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats must excite black voters so they turn out and vote. Hillary did not excite black voters. That’s why Democrats must have a black candidate on the ticket. I can’t think of a single white candidate who can motivate enough AA voters to go to the ballot box to vote Orange Pusspile out of office.

Biden

That's the whole thing with Biden - that, and he doesn't scare Republicans who are sick of this shtshow and looking for an alternative

Republicans should be scared.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Biden, Abrams.

If Warren, Beto. (possible dent in texas)

But she needs more black support - that's the thing

So Abrahms. I’m all for the two woman ticket. If you need a guy, Booker.

Why does the race or ethnicity of the pick matter? Shouldn't we go with the best person for the job?

The best person for the job IS the person who can best reach out to African Americans. That is (at least part of) the job.

Bigoted people never see AAs as an important and underrepresented voting bloc. Any recognition of them as an important group and valued part of America is “pandering” whereas white “Christian” men are the default. Our bigoted friend above needs to seriously sit and think why, in his mind, electing AA or female candidates means we’ve just elected a token, or an affirmative action hire rather than the best person for the job. Listen, we’ve had enough pandering to white men with mediocre to dire candidates. Time to open up the field and let some real excellence result from actual competition rather than the thumb on the scale there has been for several millennia.

DP: I don't know why anyone is concerned about AA at this point because the fastest growing voter demographic is Hispanics. It is almost like white men and African Americans are making their last grasp of power as important minorities in the United States. The future of this county is Hispanic and I don't understand why the AAs remain the "major minority" when their numbers are falling as fast as white voters.

AAs vote for Democrats much more reliably and I think their turnout numbers are higher than those for Hispanics.

+1. AA women have the highest voter turnout of any demo. They are always there for the Republican Party. One of their own Is a smart talented Southerner. Why would we not put Abraham’s on the ticket.

I’m over the ticket of fear. With Clinton it was endless corruption. Biden is too old, bad with women, and brings us 13 months of Dem corruption stories. And everything thinks we need him, but nobody really wants him. Just like Hillary I’ll take someone people believe in.

Anonymous wrote:Gillum lost in his own state. It would make more sense if he was a wildly popular governor, but he hasn’t been particularly successful.

It's true. Him having lost isn't a great thing. But he did come close, and he ran a GREAT campaign. And FLorida is important. It's not obviously a good idea but it's not obviously a bad idea to pick him.

Anonymous wrote:She needs black voters to win the nomination. How would Gillum help with this? Don’t running mates generally get chosen *after* the nomination?

Gillum would help with that by letting black voters know that she's choosing a black VP, thereby presumably making her more attractive to black primary voters

Gillum lost in his own state. It would make more sense if he was a wildly popular governor, but he hasn’t been particularly successful.

She needs black voters to win the nomination. How would Gillum help with this? Don’t running mates generally get chosen *after* the nomination?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Biden, Abrams.

If Warren, Beto. (possible dent in texas)

But she needs more black support - that's the thing

So Abrahms. I’m all for the two woman ticket. If you need a guy, Booker.

Why does the race or ethnicity of the pick matter? Shouldn't we go with the best person for the job?

Why are you assuming Abrams wouldn’t be the best? Why, after around 90 white male POTUSes and VPOTUSes shouldn’t we be able to have women and minorities represented?

Your last phrase implies they are Affirmative Action candidates. There are hundreds of very well qualified white women in Congress governorships who actually won ejections and who better qualified than Abrams, They will never be considered because minority representation is the goal.

Let me get this straight: any female or minority pick is necessarily an affirmative action hire in your brain? I’m going to let you sit with that for a few. I’m sure you think every white man is of course the best and most qualified.

(Pssst. You got some strong unconscious biases against women and minorities.)

Not at all. You are the one who said: “shouldn’t we be able to have women and minorities represented.” That is the basis for Affirmative Action.
Perhaps you meant: “shouldn’t we be able to have women and minorities compete.”

Oh come on. You pick a VP to balance the ticket. Trump got Pence to secure the evangelicals. Obama got Biden to make the good ole boy GOP happy, etc.

The VP has like two main purposes. Balance the ticket, and vote in tie breakers in the Senate. Anything else is gravy.

Pence was running Indiana into the ground and about to lose his next election. But, he made the Christian Right happy.

There are two coalitions who really need to feel heard right now in the Dem party. Woman and POC. You can’t win without them. And there will be a revolt if it’s two old white men. Biden would have to get a woman. Especially given his issues with women. AA less important, because he’s riding Obama’s coat tails. Warren would have to get a man, because men have fragile egos. And an AA, because the AA base doesn’t trust her. I think she should choose Obama myself.

But don’t pretend Rs don’t also balance their ticket. It may not be based on gender or skin color. So it’s religion, or a geographic region, or something.

It isn’t pandering. Or affirmative action. It’s reality. You want you base to be as big as possible.