Joe Biden Veepstakes 2020

[tantric superman 4,667]

37 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Why?  What voter will that turn off?

I think it would certainly provide an excuse for the two knuckleheads in my extended family who I know voted for Trump.  I know that if Warren is the pick, they won't even think of voting Dem.  One of the others -- there is a slim shot.

I'm going to rely on the Dem Brain Trust.  I'm voting for whoever they pick.  My gut tells me to stay "conservative" and Warren is not the conservative pick. Who's fourth in line after Biden, Warren and Pelosi all die from the next generation of Covid?

[henrygandorf 29,189]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Why?  What voter will that turn off?  This take makes little sense under scrutiny IMO.

The democratic voters demonstrated they love old white people with Biden/Bernie/Warren coming in 1,2,3 in the primary.

you can play dumb if you want, but you already know the answer.

politics is perception.  the perception is that the gop is a bunch of old, white, rich men, who are out of touch with americans.  the perception that the dems would like to push is that they are more progressive and more representative of what america actually looks like - with new ideas, and who care about equality and people of color and young people and the world they will inherit.  putting two old, rich, white people on the ballot goes against this perception, even if their policies say otherwise.

obviously the policies they're trying to push are more in line with their desired perception, even if the optics aren't.  the bottom line is that politics and politicians generally suck and are uninteresting to a large swath of the american people, especially young people.  so it boils down to a popularity contest, and name recognition is everything (especially when the opponent is trump, and a boring biden candidacy is appealing to so many).

for decades (centuries?) the vp slot has been more of a ceremonial position.  probably the closest thing we have to british royalty.  they're in a high position, but they don't really govern in the current american presidential structure.  one could argue that at least 5-10 people have way more actual power than the vp, including some from the opposing party (pelosi > pence).  so for that reason, this is a chance to make a grand gesture to the chunk of the population that wants to see people in power that look more like them, and (in theory) care about what they care about.

with all that said, this is not the normal vp conversation.  this person needs to be able to be president right away, and at the very latest, by 2024, and for 8 years after that.  i love warren, and i think she's ready to be president tomorrow, but asking her to be president from '24-'32 seems unrealistic.  many people see kamala as someone who satisfies all of the above criteria, regardless of her exact policy positions.  shit, biden has been fairly aggressive putting forth policy at this point in the process, so who knows how much the vp will even weigh in on the front end of this.

from a strictly vote-counting perspective in 2020, no, it won't matter.  any of the top 3-5 candidates will be fine and won't affect anything (maybe val helps win florida).  but we have to think 4-8-12 years down the road.  a free-for-all in 2024 should not be by design.

yes, hugo, it would be better if warren was 60, but she isn't.  it would've been better if pete was 45, but he wasn't.  putting warren on the ticket will be seen as tone-deaf to many, and a lot of the talk will seem hollow.  that's not what we need right now. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

The age issue with Warren has never been a concern except among people looking for something to concern about. It’s ludicrous. 
 

But is she electable? 

But is she too far left? 

But what about her senate seat? 

But is she too old? 

But is she too white? 

No other candidate gets this kind of microscopic scrutiny. 

Edited July 22, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Satchel 6,925]

I was surprised and pleased to learn that Karen Bass is under serious consideration. Looks like Biden is conducting a thorough search.

[Biff Tannen 45,664]

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

I think it would certainly provide an excuse for the two knuckleheads in my extended family who I know voted for Trump.  I know that if Warren is the pick, they won't even think of voting Dem.  One of the others -- there is a slim shot.

I really don't get this.  What is it about her they find so objectionable?

[tantric superman 4,667]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I really don't get this.  What is it about her they find so objectionable?

What they would say:  "She's too far left"

What they think:  "She's a smart woman."

They voted for Trump.  All I can give you is my best abnormal psychology hypothesis.

[Hiphopopotamos 20,869]

8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I really don't get this.  What is it about her they find so objectionable?

I think there is a fear that picking Warren as VP is going to drive away or keep home a bunch of R's who are willing to vote for a conservative Dem like Biden but aren't going to vote for a ticket with a progressive like Warren in the VP slot.

I think its bullshit - and I'm sure Biden is doing a shit-ton of polling to get the answer to just how much of an effect Warren would have on Never-Trumper R's.

[tantric superman 4,667]

23 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

I think its bullshit - and I'm sure Biden is doing a shit-ton of polling to get the answer to just how much of an effect Warren would have on Never-Trumper R's.

Yep.  If he picks Warren, my balls will retract for a few minutes, but then I figure the Dems did their polling/homework, and figure that Warren maximizes Biden's chance of winning. 

[tantric superman 4,667]

My personal opinion - Warren could accomplish a whole fucking lot and drive the Republicans crazy if she had a critical, non-VP role.  I also don't find her appealing as a candidate.  It's not that I don't like her, it's that she's grating.  She's odd in a non-pleasing way, and deep down, she must remind me of a teacher I didn't like because I just don't really want to see or listen to her.  I think this is why she never really caught fire outside of her Washington Square speech.  She doesn't have an overall positive appeal.

And that may be 90% sexism, but I don't think so, because there were plenty of women candidates who are appealing to me. Like every other female candidate on the Dem side and a few on the Repub side.

I don't think I'm being completely patronizing when I say she would be more valuable (and a whole lot freer to speak her mind) outside of the VP role.  She's the smartest Dem there is.

[SydneyCarton 48,054]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The age issue with Warren has never been a concern except among people looking for something to concern about. It’s ludicrous. 
 

But is she electable? 

But is she too far left? 

But what about her senate seat? 

But is she too old? 

But is she too white? 

No other candidate gets this kind of microscopic scrutiny. 

I just wanted to use the new Fuck You rep on your post...but I'm also tired of hearing you blathering about Warren. So, you know, it fits. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Thanks

[tantric superman 4,667]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

I just wanted to use the new Fuck You rep on your post...but I'm also tired of hearing you blathering about Warren. So, you know, it fits. 

Yeah, but what did I do? 

Oh, I blathered about Warren.

[henrygandorf 29,189]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

And that may be 90% sexism, but I don't think so, because there were plenty of women candidates who are appealing to me. Like every other female candidate on the Dem side and a few on the Repub side.

you could argue that sexism is a bigger obstacle than racism when it comes to politics.  hard not to, actually.

women don't like women.  they trust men more as the men get older.  they trust women less.  it's fucked up.

i agree that she could make a huge difference in a non-vp role.  or she could be the first vp to make a huge difference in the vp role.  who knows.

[BradInATX 9,208]

Whatever the Biden team is doing, it definitely appears and feels thorough. I'm pretty sure they're going to make a solid decision. In the primary there were only two candidates who played it steady and never changed who and what they were about. Biden, unlike everyone else except Bernie didn't start blowing around in the wind trying catch the attention of people he was unlikely to ever win over. He's not going to do it here either. He's always been the tortoise. 

I'm not sure what that means in terms of his choice, but I don't think it's going to be Warren. I think it's going to be somebody safe. Demings feels safe to me, but I'm not privy to their data. She's unlikely to turn off the tenuous independents who Trump is targeting with the Socialism and AOC attacks. Her history of a cop isn't going to stop a current Biden voter from voting for him.  Harris feels a bit more dangerous being from California and being a bit of a loose cannon at times. But I'm sure they're doing their research.

I'd probably take the field bet against Harris + Warren for even money, if that was an actual bet. I'd rank them FIELD -> Harris -> Warren in descending likelihood.

Edited July 22, 2020 by BradInATX

[Tom 2,959]

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

She's the smartest Dem there is.

 

Yeah, but her voice is kind of grating. Give her a background role where we don't have to see or hear her and give the 1st in line to the presidency to the second, third, or 24th smartest Dem.  Harris was basically a regressive cop for most of her career, but at least she doesn't remind me of Ms. Thompson from 7th grade Algebra.  

I'm mostly fucking with you and don't really care about the vice presidency, but I honestly don't understand these measuring sticks.  It's like when people were wanting to vote for Bush because he was someone they'd rather have a beer with over nerdy Al Gore.  How about we don't pick our preferred drinking buddies for the most important job in the world over the more qualified?

 

 

[Gil Bang 25,907]

The case for Susan Rice by Jonathon Alter

 

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/07/23/the-case-for-susan-rice/

[Pancho 44,699]

Lots of smoke on twitter that Chris Dodd leaked what he did to signal that it won't be Harris. 

Not sure how much I believe this, but....

 

I read an article on Politico??? that stated the campaign believes since the poll numbers are so big, they might not need a "big name" for the VP slot and have more choices.  I very much disagree with that.  It's the equivalent of Mack being up by 30 on opponents and not going for the jugular and instead playing nice and letting the opponent get back in the game.  If you smell blood, keep going. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

This week is going to be nuts with VP nonsense in the press.  I’m just going to ignore it until the pick is announced.  

[SizzleChest 8,283]

11 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Lots of smoke on twitter that Chris Dodd leaked what he did to signal that it won't be Harris. 

Not sure how much I believe this, but....

 

I read an article on Politico??? that stated the campaign believes since the poll numbers are so big, they might not need a "big name" for the VP slot and have more choices.  I very much disagree with that.  It's the equivalent of Mack being up by 30 on opponents and not going for the jugular and instead playing nice and letting the opponent get back in the game.  If you smell blood, keep going. 

More like that Dodd/Biden agreed to put it out there so they could poll on it as extensively as possible before Biden makes the call.

[Snake Diggity 4,619]

Choosing a running mate without an existing strong national profile carries 2 significant risks. One, swing voters (few as they may be, they still carry high importance) might be swayed away from Biden if they don’t feel comfortable with having a stranger behind 77 year old Biden.  Two, those candidates have not been fully publicly vetted, so there’s increased risk of a gaffe or something uncovered from their past changing the campaigns narrative for the worse.  I think those 2 risks outweigh the potential upside of choosing an underdog.  For that reason, I think it has to be Harris or Warren.  I hope it’s Warren.

[Red Five 40,828]

24 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Lots of smoke on twitter that Chris Dodd leaked what he did to signal that it won't be Harris. 

Not sure how much I believe this, but....

 

I read an article on Politico??? that stated the campaign believes since the poll numbers are so big, they might not need a "big name" for the VP slot and have more choices.  I very much disagree with that.  It's the equivalent of Mack being up by 30 on opponents and not going for the jugular and instead playing nice and letting the opponent get back in the game.  If you smell blood, keep going. 

I'm trying to remember a game where we gave up a 30 point lead. 

[SydneyCarton 48,054]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This week is going to be nuts with VP nonsense in the press.  I’m just going to ignore it until the pick is announced.  

No one believes your capable of sitting quietly without spelling Elizabeth Warren on the wall with your own ejaculate for an entire week. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I’ve made my opinion known.  I have nothing further to add to the conversation. 

[Gatorubet 30,185]

I’ve made my opinion known.  I have nothing further to add to the conversation. 

Any bet takers?

[Pig Bellmont 8,712]

On 7/22/2020 at 6:03 PM, henrygandorf said:

agree that she could make a huge difference in a non-vp role.  or she could be the first vp to make a huge difference in the vp role.  who knows.

[Gatorubet 30,185]

I second Sudan Rice.

[gmr548 16,576]

I'm trying to remember a game where we gave up a 30 point lead. 

It's been so long it's hard to even think of a game where we had a 30 point lead. Outside of some SJSU cupcake thing.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

All I know is we were told repeatedly the democrats need to win back the Midwest (PA, MI, WI, OH) to ensure victory.  It was much of the logic behind Biden.  Go with the best ticket that helps that strategy and doesn’t jeopardize it. 

[SydneyCarton 48,054]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

All I know is we were told repeatedly the democrats need to win back the Midwest (PA, MI, WI, OH) to ensure victory.  It was much of the logic behind Biden.  Go with the best ticket that helps that strategy and doesn’t jeopardize it. 

Congrats. You made it approximately 8 minutes. 

[Hank Kingsley 20,904]

The Twitter tribalism from Warren and Harris supporters is unbearable at this point. Hopefully Joe picks someone soon. Let's get this over with. 

The talks of Susan Rice as a possibility brings up a separate issue that HG and I were discussing last week. Whoever is picked as VP should not be the presumptive nominee in 2024 (if something happens to Joe) or 2028. I'm pretty sure Susan Rice has never run for elected office before.

The Democratic roster is deep with some young, talented politicians. Let's not fall into the same trap when everyone crowned Hillary as the chosen one after Obama's 8 years in office. There needs to be another competitive primary when that day comes. 

[Chooky 13,307]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I have nothing further to add to the conversation. 

This was true at the moment but the issue is fluid.  Brown fluid. 

[lemonlime 5,503]

1 hour ago, Snake Diggity said:

Choosing a running mate without an existing strong national profile carries 2 significant risks. One, swing voters (few as they may be, they still carry high importance) might be swayed away from Biden if they don’t feel comfortable with having a stranger behind 77 year old Biden.  Two, those candidates have not been fully publicly vetted, so there’s increased risk of a gaffe or something uncovered from their past changing the campaigns narrative for the worse.  I think those 2 risks outweigh the potential upside of choosing an underdog.  For that reason, I think it has to be Harris or Warren.  I hope it’s Warren.

I think Duckworth should be added to this. She has experience. And she is a combat veteran with a story, versus a GOP ticket that has zero military experience and apparently is fine with Russian bounties on our troops.

['stache 21,795]

On 7/22/2020 at 12:12 PM, tantric superman said:

I think it would certainly provide an excuse for the two knuckleheads in my extended family who I know voted for Trump.  I know that if Warren is the pick, they won't even think of voting Dem.  One of the others -- there is a slim shot.

I'm going to rely on the Dem Brain Trust.  I'm voting for whoever they pick.  My gut tells me to stay "conservative" and Warren is not the conservative pick. Who's fourth in line after Biden, Warren and Pelosi all die from the next generation of Covid?

 

On 7/22/2020 at 3:13 PM, tantric superman said:

What they would say:  "She's too far left"

What they think:  "She's a smart woman."

They voted for Trump.  All I can give you is my best abnormal psychology hypothesis.

Newsflash, they are voting for trump no matter what. A few more "far left Joe" from trump and they will believe it by November regardless of running mate. They just want to be able to say they question it because of how ridiculous it has become to support that man, but deep down they love it, they just don't like the stigma that is developing.

[TommyGufano 6,021]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

I second Sudan Rice.

Sudan rice. Yum

[LCHorn 2,612]

54 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

I think Duckworth should be added to this. She has experience. And she is a combat veteran with a story, versus a GOP ticket that has zero military experience and apparently is fine with Russian bounties on our troops.

I don't mind Tammy but what does she add?  Or are you making the argument that all the other contenders provide ammo that could be used against the ticket?

This GOP electorate doesn't give a damn about passing some type of military service purity test so she doesn't peel anyone off.  They sure as shit don't prioritize the disabled, minorities, or women's issues, either.  She's basically a tepid bath exciting no one.  If anyone gave a shit about Russian bounties you'd hear an echo of it. 

This election is about two things besides a referendum on the moron in charge; 1) Covid and 2) Economy post-Covid.  BLM/Fed overreach has already become yesterday's news and is going to be secondary to the basic fear that "I'm going to die of this fucking virus" and the federal mismanagement that is to blame. 

I'm an admitted Warren fan because I like it when leaders do non-crazy shit like prepare and use data for making decisions rather than consult a kitchen cabinet consisting of Hannity, family members who work for them, future reality show contestants, and Stephen Miller.  Plus, she's quite comfortable being pissy and I think sells righteous indignation much more personally than Hillary.  Let her go low for a few months while Biden plays sweet Uncle Joe. 

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by LCHorn

[Patrick Bateman 3,910]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The Twitter tribalism from Warren and Harris supporters is unbearable at this point. Hopefully Joe picks someone soon. Let's get this over with. 

The talks of Susan Rice as a possibility brings up a separate issue that HG and I were discussing last week. Whoever is picked as VP should not be the presumptive nominee in 2024 (if something happens to Joe) or 2028. I'm pretty sure Susan Rice has never run for elected office before.

The Democratic roster is deep with some young, talented politicians. Let's not fall into the same trap when everyone crowned Hillary as the chosen one after Obama's 8 years in office. There needs to be another competitive primary when that day comes. 

That's one of the main criticisms of her as VP.  The other is she basically would be another Obama surrogate moving back into the race.  Obama is great for Joe's likeability and in contrast to Donny, but a Rice pick brings up a lot of the holes and failures of his administration.

There's almost no upside to a Rice pick except a women of color and she wouldn't be instantly considered having an inside track on 2024 if/when Biden doesn't run.  I think there are a lot of advocates of competing camps who don't want the usual VP becoming the automatic favorite for a 2024 run and therefore floating Rice as a convenient compromise running mate.

[Hiphopopotamos 20,869]

With all due respect he deserves - fuck Chris Dodd.  He shouldn't be anywhere near this campaign and he sure as hell shouldn't have any say in who the VP is.

[Patrick Bateman 3,910]

2 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

With all due respect he deserves - fuck Chris Dodd.  He shouldn't be anywhere near this campaign and he sure as hell shouldn't have any say in who the VP is.

Absolutely agree with this as well.  It's one of the weaknesses of having an older career politician as the nominee.  Joe needs to leave some of these dinosaurs in the past.

[henrygandorf 29,189]

8 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Absolutely agree with this as well.  It's one of the weaknesses of having an older career politician as the nominee.  Joe needs to leave some of these dinosaurs in the past.

yeah, i had a similar thought a couple weeks ago concerning the hodge-podge of assembled staffers, managers, and operatives.  there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason, other than they seem to always add people when stories come out about how they need to add people.

makes me think of "primary colors" when maura tierney is talking to henry about the stantons (clintons) and trying to explain all the weirdos and goofballs at their annual picnic.  she's like, "he's been holding onto all of them forever so he can take them all with him when he wins...and some of them really suck."

back to the topic, as much as i'd like to have someone regardless of "what the republicans will attack", part of me still likes that kamala/demings have law enforcement backgrounds, which kinda shreds trump's entire attack right now.  a vp should be selected to offset one of biden's weaknesses, either in policy or in perceived electability/palatability on a ticket.  a woman of color makes sense, with warren somewhere in the admin.

susan rice does bring up more problems than she solves i think.

[lemonlime 5,503]

3 hours ago, LCHorn said:

I don't mind Tammy but what does she add?  Or are you making the argument that all the other contenders provide ammo that could be used against the ticket?

This GOP electorate doesn't give a damn about passing some type of military service purity test so she doesn't peel anyone off.  They sure as shit don't prioritize the disabled, minorities, or women's issues, either.  She's basically a tepid bath exciting no one.  If anyone gave a shit about Russian bounties you'd hear an echo of it. 

This election is about two things besides a referendum on the moron in charge; 1) Covid and 2) Economy post-Covid.  BLM/Fed overreach has already become yesterday's news and is going to be secondary to the basic fear that "I'm going to die of this fucking virus" and the federal mismanagement that is to blame. 

I'm an admitted Warren fan because I like it when leaders do non-crazy shit like prepare and use data for making decisions rather than consult a kitchen cabinet consisting of Hannity, family members who work for them, future reality show contestants, and Stephen Miller.  Plus, she's quite comfortable being pissy and I think sells righteous indignation much more personally than Hillary.  Let her go low for a few months while Biden plays sweet Uncle Joe. 

 

She provides a contrast with the GOP.   Most people have made up their mind, so I'm not sure it matters.  But for those that voted trump last time, but don't like him (and while he has his cult of about 40% of voters, there are another 8-10% who are traditional Republican, but don't like trump), putting her on the ticket provides a clear contrast.  You have the draft dodger, Putin controlled ticket versus a ticket of real patriots.

I think she adds at least as much to the ticket as Harris.  And Warren's my favorite, but she should be at the top of the ticket.  I'm not sure she adds much as a running mate.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,111]

4 hours ago, Red Five said:

I'm trying to remember a game where we gave up a 30 point lead. 

As soon as you said that I immediately thought of Tom Penders.  Different sport, but god damn he was famous for it.

[Pancho 44,699]

Politico article on Rice states other VP contenders are nervous about how high Rice has shot up the list lately. 

I didn’t know Rice’s son is an out and proud Republican. 

[Hiphopopotamos 20,869]

 

[henrygandorf 29,189]

 

first time i can remember with only 2 candidates over a dime.  lots of action today.

[Aqua Buddha 14,582]

Republicans having a collective orgasm over Benghazi if Rice were picked would be the perfect bait.

[Chuckie Finster 22,694]

Hmmm

[totallynotabuttpirate 5,395]

16 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Hmmm
 

Hugo rn 

 

[Gil Bang 25,907]

On 7/27/2020 at 5:47 PM, Pancho said:

Politico article on Rice states other VP contenders are nervous about how high Rice has shot up the list lately. 

I didn’t know Rice’s son is an out and proud Republican. 

Is that the John Alter piece?  He made a compelling case for Rice. 

[henrygandorf 29,189]

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

 

first time i can remember with only 2 candidates over a dime.  lots of action today.

3 hours later and kamala is up to $0.62.

[totallynotabuttpirate 5,395]

Nice, she's my #1 choice. Experienced and will be a great bad cop (literally) to Biden's compassionate grandpa personality. Also nicely setup for 2024. The fuck would Susan Rice run for in 2024.