Author Topic: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden  (Read 15183 times)

Ogaju, GreenEnvy, Neurotic Guy, jambr380, blink and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden
« Reply #60 on: May 24, 2020, 01:50:22 PM »

Online Ogaju

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12255
  • Tommy Points: 1283
This one is easy because he has already said it is going to be a woman.

I already posted here that my choice for his VP is HRC but after testing this choice I have learned how unforgiving of 'losers' the country seems to be even when that 'loser' has 60 million votes in the bag and a three million vote majority in the last election. Most people I sampled would not even consider HRC. If that is the case perhaps neither will Biden.

The name that keeps coming up is Kamala Harris. Folks, she is fails the most important test for a Biden VP - ready on day 1. Biden's VP for obvious reasons must be ready on day 1. She most like will be the de facto president. This is why I believe HRC to be the natural choice, but I have stopped believing that will happen. It will be a pleasant surprise if it does, but I have moved on to the next natural choice - Stacey Abram. That woman is smart and she will be a quick study. I cannot say she will be ready on day 1, but she checks a lot of boxes.

Who are your choices?
Just FYI, my opinions below are based on electoral strategy, not the potential VPs skills or how good a job they would do.

The problem with HRC isn't that she's a 'loser'. The most important rule for choice of VP, from an strategic standpoint, is 'do no harm'. Obviously one needs to choose someone that can fulfill the duties of president if called upon. But from the standpoint of the election a candidate needs to choose a VP that doesn't hurt the ticket. All the talk of who can help the ticket is really overblown. The VP choice has essentially no positive effect on a candidate's chance of winning, but a flawed candidate can hurt.

Hilary's main problem is that Republicans hate her as much as Democrats hate Trump, which means she fires up their base and helps them get the vote out. A less divisive candidate like Klobuchar or Harris won't have that problem. Warren might make liberals happy, but in truth liberals will hold their noses and vote for Biden anyways and while she doesn't have Hilary's negatives, she is also disliked by Republicans so she is not a great choice. Biden shouldn't worry about who can help the ticket and focus instead on who is least likely to hurt. People vote for the presidential candidate not the VP candidate.

Great post, but you miss a very crucial point in this case. Biden is 78 and because of that he needs a VP that does more than just 'do no harm'. This choice is different for that reason.  Regarding your rationale against Clinton and Warren, dont you think that rationale means that you are given Republicans a major say in your ticket. That is playing defense and not offense. Al Gore picked Lieberman to assuage Republicans, how did that work out for him? It is time for Democrats to stop ceding issues to Republicans. If Republicans paid any thought to what Democrats want or do not want, they would drop Trump from their ticket. The Biden choice of VP must be someone who is ready on day one. He is also picking the presumptive nominee for 2024. It is a different choice from past choices. Republicans have already won by making the Democrats eliminate the best candidate for the pick. A candidate that has 68 million votes in the bag. Keep those 68 million and all Joe has to do is win the mid-west which he is capable of. You get a woman that is prepared for the job and can take over at anytime. Very easy choice if you ask me, but Democrats are always prone to electoral malpractice. When Bill Clinton left office he had a high approval rating, but the Republicans forced Al Gore to fumble by naming Clinton's first Senate critic as his running mate, and then making him run away from Clinton (as popular as Clinton was). how did that work out for Gore? You cannot keep appeasing folks that will NEVER vote for you.

Re: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden
« Reply #61 on: May 24, 2020, 02:01:17 PM »

Offline celts10

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 448
  • Tommy Points: 21
I think based on current US trends, if Biden wants to win, he should pick either Michelle Obama or Oprah. You need celebrity status, name recognition above all else unfortunately. Those two have it, along with a broad level of respect from the US population. Also, a Biden-Obama ticket would be VERY impactful.

Black activists warn Biden: Don't pick Klobuchar as VP
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/23/black-activists-joe-biden-amy-klobuchar-vice-president-275326

Quote from: Politico
But more than a dozen black and Latino strategists and activists warned in interviews that selecting Klobuchar would not help Biden excite black voters — and might have the opposite effect. Klobuchar would “risk losing the very base the Democrats need to win,” said Aimee Allison, founder of She the People, which promotes women of color in politics.

It's going to be interesting to see the different factions of the Democratic base whine and throw hissy fits when they don't get what they want.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2020, 02:12:21 PM by celts10 »

Re: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden
« Reply #62 on: May 24, 2020, 02:07:05 PM »

Online Ogaju

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12255
  • Tommy Points: 1283
Biden has inadvertently created an 'NFL' problem for himself. You know, that NFL edict that teams MUST interview a minority for every HFC opening. A lot is said about Biden gaffes, but no one wants to consider that his declaration that the next veep must be a woman was another of his 'foot in mouth' gaffes. How could a deliberative mind make such a statement in the middle of a campaign unless he was desperately pandering. If it was pandering and everyone knew that his firewall in the primaries was South Carolina, then it is not far fetched that when people heard him declare his running mate would be a woman, they automatically thought 'black woman' since that was the key constituency in the SC Democratic primary. If that is the case, how does he leave a black woman off his ticket without taking a hit.

Biden just created an 'NFL PROBLEM' for his campaign. Just interviewing alone does not solve the problem that you created. As evidenced in the NFL case they now realize that considering blacks for the job is not enough that they are now proposing punishing teams for not selecting black candidates. Well, the question is will Biden be punished for not selecting a black woman? He was elevated by the first black president, his campaign was saved by blacks in SC, he is under serious pressure now with #youaintblack, the black lobby is not letting up. The more I think of it, I am going with my first choice.. I think Biden avoids his NFL problem and picks SUSAN RICE.

She is credentialed, Stanford, Oxford education. She has executive experience she ran the US delegation to the UN. She has national security experience, she was National Security Adviser. She could have been Sec of State but for Mitch McConnell.  She worked with Biden in Obama Administration for 8 years. No apologies, she is black. She is an Obama loyalist.

Ladies and Gentlemen I present the Democratic Party nominee for VP of the USA, Susan Rice.

Ladies

Re: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden
« Reply #63 on: May 24, 2020, 03:11:36 PM »

Offline wiley

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4126
  • Tommy Points: 318
I don't know if she wants the job, but I hope it's Michelle Obama.  Second choice Elizabeth Warren, though that will hurt the black vote for sure, so I don't know if it's doable.  In general I doubt Michelle wants to be VP.  But, in this case, very likely she could be president in 4 years.  Maybe that would make the situation appeal to her.  Definitely not Klobuchar.  That won't get it done at all. 

Re: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden
« Reply #64 on: May 24, 2020, 05:27:44 PM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16380
  • Tommy Points: 1768
I prefer Amy, but Susan Rice is a reasonable choice.

I am definitely not big on Elizabeth as she will scare potential swing voters — big mistake to pick her IMO.   With that said, Warren is by far the most nimble verbal adversary for Trump and Pence.  She would make it all more interesting, but I suspect will lose more votes than she gains in key battleground states. 

Re: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden
« Reply #65 on: May 24, 2020, 05:32:50 PM »

Online Ogaju

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12255
  • Tommy Points: 1283
I dont think Biden needs his VP's help in the battle ground states. All he needs to do is pick a VP that can be seen to be ready on day 1. That is how the electorate and the press  are going to  vet his choice.

Re: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden
« Reply #66 on: May 24, 2020, 05:36:59 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41882
  • Tommy Points: -27134
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I don't know if she wants the job, but I hope it's Michelle Obama.  Second choice Elizabeth Warren, though that will hurt the black vote for sure, so I don't know if it's doable.  In general I doubt Michelle wants to be VP.  But, in this case, very likely she could be president in 4 years.  Maybe that would make the situation appeal to her.  Definitely not Klobuchar.  That won't get it done at all.

What’s wrong with Klobuchar?  Ideology aside, she’s one of the few names bandied about who might make a good president in my opinion.  I like her demeanor. 

Michelle Obama has no qualifications other than being married to Barack.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden
« Reply #67 on: May 24, 2020, 05:58:51 PM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16380
  • Tommy Points: 1768
I dont think Biden needs his VP's help in the battle ground states. All he needs to do is pick a VP that can be seen to be ready on day 1. That is how the electorate and the press  are going to  vet his choice.

I am not in disagreement with this.  I think #1 probably is VP who seems ready.  But given that a cluster of states appear to hold the cards in November, it won't hurt if you also get someone who may help swing MI, PA, FL, Ohio to Biden. Amy fits the bill of "ready on Day 1" pretty well I think.  Rice is probably as "ready" as anyone, but if Biden's campaign is planning to run a "unifier v. divider" campaign Rice may make that a tougher sell. Fox I think is licking it's lips hoping to get Susan and her Obama connection on the ticket.


Also, I agree with Roy about Michelle Obama.  She's not a politician and really has no resume for the position as far as I can see.  I like her a lot, but she would not be a smart selection. 

Re: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden
« Reply #68 on: May 24, 2020, 06:03:34 PM »

Online blink

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10714
  • Tommy Points: 754
I don't know if she wants the job, but I hope it's Michelle Obama.  Second choice Elizabeth Warren, though that will hurt the black vote for sure, so I don't know if it's doable.  In general I doubt Michelle wants to be VP.  But, in this case, very likely she could be president in 4 years.  Maybe that would make the situation appeal to her.  Definitely not Klobuchar.  That won't get it done at all.

Michelle Obama has no qualifications other than being married to Barack.

I am not so sure about that...

Princeton Grad - Cum Laude
Harvard Law School Grad
Associate Sidley & Austin, Chicago
Assistant to the Mayor City of Chicago
Assistant Comissioner of Planning and Development City of Chicago
Assistant Dean of Student Services University of Chicago
Vice President for Community and External Affairs, University of Chicago Hospitals
Board of Directors - Chicago Council of Global Affairs
First Lady - 8 years

There is more community service, education, and government experience in her resume than our current president.

I am not saying she is a perfect fit as a VP, but to say she has no experience is kind of silly.  She would also roast Pence in any debates, and would probably drop the death hammer on any chance Trump has of being reelected.....BUT

She doesn't want to do it.  All the reason to think that she would be good at it.

Re: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden
« Reply #69 on: May 24, 2020, 06:09:09 PM »

Online blink

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10714
  • Tommy Points: 754
I dont think Biden needs his VP's help in the battle ground states. All he needs to do is pick a VP that can be seen to be ready on day 1. That is how the electorate and the press  are going to  vet his choice.

I am not in disagreement with this.  I think #1 probably is VP who seems ready.  But given that a cluster of states appear to hold the cards in November, it won't hurt if you also get someone who may help swing MI, PA, FL, Ohio to Biden. Amy fits the bill of "ready on Day 1" pretty well I think.  Rice is probably as "ready" as anyone, but if Biden's campaign is planning to run a "unifier v. divider" campaign Rice may make that a tougher sell. Fox I think is licking it's lips hoping to get Susan and her Obama connection on the ticket.


Also, I agree with Roy about Michelle Obama.  She's not a politician and really has no resume for the position as far as I can see.  I like her a lot, but she would not be a smart selection.

Seriously, how does she have less of a resume for the job than Trump had?  She was had jobs within City government, large Universities, and large hospital organizations.  As someone who has worked for all three, those are leadership skills that have a direct relation to public policy and important issues that the federal government deals with every day.

But we get the guy who inherited millions of dollars from dad, ran casinos into the ground, got popular from a dumb reality show, and had ZERO, repeat ZERO public service experience.

Re: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden
« Reply #70 on: May 24, 2020, 06:20:04 PM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16380
  • Tommy Points: 1768
I dont think Biden needs his VP's help in the battle ground states. All he needs to do is pick a VP that can be seen to be ready on day 1. That is how the electorate and the press  are going to  vet his choice.

I am not in disagreement with this.  I think #1 probably is VP who seems ready.  But given that a cluster of states appear to hold the cards in November, it won't hurt if you also get someone who may help swing MI, PA, FL, Ohio to Biden. Amy fits the bill of "ready on Day 1" pretty well I think.  Rice is probably as "ready" as anyone, but if Biden's campaign is planning to run a "unifier v. divider" campaign Rice may make that a tougher sell. Fox I think is licking it's lips hoping to get Susan and her Obama connection on the ticket.


Also, I agree with Roy about Michelle Obama.  She's not a politician and really has no resume for the position as far as I can see.  I like her a lot, but she would not be a smart selection.

Seriously, how does she have less of a resume for the job than Trump had?  She was had jobs within City government, large Universities, and large hospital organizations.  As someone who has worked for all three, those are leadership skills that have a direct relation to public policy and important issues that the federal government deals with every day.

But we get the guy who inherited millions of dollars from dad, ran casinos into the ground, got popular from a dumb reality show, and had ZERO, repeat ZERO public service experience.

I'll provide the obvious answer:  He absolutely did NOT have a resume for the job.  And he has been an abomination.  So... his lack of resume does not provide a rationale for her being qualified.

Look -- she's more qualified than Trump, I'll buy that.  But I don't see either of them as qualified. And again -- I am a big fan of hers.


I'll add that it wouldn't surprise me if she were to feel she isn't qualified.    And I'll add that her husband could have used about 10 more years of seasoning himself.

Re: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden
« Reply #71 on: May 24, 2020, 07:03:35 PM »

Online tstorey_97

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2461
  • Tommy Points: 369
Political science class Dickinson College (1970's). I started to follow presidential campaign politics with Nixon, whom I disliked a great deal. I do not follow any other politics. When people vote for president it is different. Research it.

We all know this stuff. When the primaries are over, the candidates will do what they can to arrive at the "center." This is where they have the highest probability of winning. With study, you will discover that vice presidential candidates mean little beyond assisting the president in "getting to the center."

Nixon and Kennedy was about as close as can be for reasons you can study on your own, but, the Kennedy camp picked Johnson for VP and managed to get Jack closer to the center than Nixon (a "sitting" vice president). Nixon would, eventually, be a two term president who ran strong approval ratings until he got run out of town for "not being a crook."

Carter came out of nowhere, but please, he was perceived as "centrist" in contrast to Ford who couldn't shake the Nixon era.
Carter, a Georgian, selected Mondale, a Minnesotan and won the electoral college 297 to 240. They won all of the traditional democratic eastern states.

Look at the map, every state west of Texas and Minnesota went to Ford and Dole.

Don't get overly bogged down with Republican or Democratic stuff, a presidential election is different and the leaders of both parties know this. They know it so well it scares the daylights out of them.

If you don't agree with me? What about the last election? A TV personality with little interest in actually winning, won the election against the candidate who kissed all the Democratic interest's rear ends to the last day. People like underdogs don't they?

Truman was picked as the "loser" against Wallace. How did that work out?

In close ones? An awful lot of people vote for under dogs....look at the stats. Under dog has nothing to do with what some branch of the party wants, nothing.

Carter a Navy officer, businessman and deep south governor with a brother famous for drinking too much beat Gerald Ford another Navy officer, A center for the Michigan Wolverines football team, 14 year member of the house of representatives and a 7 year house minority leader. Ford was the "sitting" vice president.

If, for one moment, you think that being "in line with your party's ideals" matters in this election? Get your history book out.

Gallup just sent this out to us (Feb. 2020):

Democrat 29%
Republican 30%
Independent 39%

Whom exactly is "living in the center?"

Voters who decide presidential elections that's who.

Who knows this?

Republican and Democratic party operatives and vice presidential candidates that scream "democrat" might just not be on the menu.

How did Obama win? The folks in the center voted for him and those folks aren't Democrats or Republicans, they vote for the candidate they perceive as "closest to the center."

Bernie is "on the left"...that formula won't win.

Hilary Clinton lost all those votes from the independents....all of them.

You want Clinton as VP? This election looks like it might be close?

Perhaps they will pick a conservative midwesterner that gets Biden where he needs to be...the center. The electoral college serves a purpose, study history. 


Re: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden
« Reply #72 on: May 24, 2020, 07:54:54 PM »

Online blink

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10714
  • Tommy Points: 754
I dont think Biden needs his VP's help in the battle ground states. All he needs to do is pick a VP that can be seen to be ready on day 1. That is how the electorate and the press  are going to  vet his choice.

I am not in disagreement with this.  I think #1 probably is VP who seems ready.  But given that a cluster of states appear to hold the cards in November, it won't hurt if you also get someone who may help swing MI, PA, FL, Ohio to Biden. Amy fits the bill of "ready on Day 1" pretty well I think.  Rice is probably as "ready" as anyone, but if Biden's campaign is planning to run a "unifier v. divider" campaign Rice may make that a tougher sell. Fox I think is licking it's lips hoping to get Susan and her Obama connection on the ticket.


Also, I agree with Roy about Michelle Obama.  She's not a politician and really has no resume for the position as far as I can see.  I like her a lot, but she would not be a smart selection.

Seriously, how does she have less of a resume for the job than Trump had?  She was had jobs within City government, large Universities, and large hospital organizations.  As someone who has worked for all three, those are leadership skills that have a direct relation to public policy and important issues that the federal government deals with every day.

But we get the guy who inherited millions of dollars from dad, ran casinos into the ground, got popular from a dumb reality show, and had ZERO, repeat ZERO public service experience.

I'll provide the obvious answer:  He absolutely did NOT have a resume for the job.  And he has been an abomination.  So... his lack of resume does not provide a rationale for her being qualified.

Look -- she's more qualified than Trump, I'll buy that.  But I don't see either of them as qualified. And again -- I am a big fan of hers.


I'll add that it wouldn't surprise me if she were to feel she isn't qualified.    And I'll add that her husband could have used about 10 more years of seasoning himself.

Ok, sorry about that, looking back my tone may have been a little rough there. 

I guess what my point was, and I didn't make it very well, is that in the era of Trump, to maybe a lot of voters the amount they value experience is less than other umm 'intangibles'.  that is why Clinton, as an extremely qualified person for president, could lose to Trump who wasn't qualified at all.

I also don't think that an 'unqualified' in the traditional sense - person will always be a bad president.  If they have a lot of brains, organizational skills, leadership skills, the desire to learn immense amounts of information and have the good of the country as a focus at all times, someone who hasn't been a senator, congressperson, governor, or the like could still be a great president. 

The qualities that make a great president certainly aren't 'only' found it people who have been senators, congresspersons, and governors.   In fact they may be less likely to be found in those people.

All of this is a mute point anyways, Michelle Obama isn't going to be Biden's VP.


Re: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden
« Reply #73 on: May 24, 2020, 08:24:27 PM »

Online Ogaju

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12255
  • Tommy Points: 1283
Political science class Dickinson College (1970's). I started to follow presidential campaign politics with Nixon, whom I disliked a great deal. I do not follow any other politics. When people vote for president it is different. Research it.

We all know this stuff. When the primaries are over, the candidates will do what they can to arrive at the "center." This is where they have the highest probability of winning. With study, you will discover that vice presidential candidates mean little beyond assisting the president in "getting to the center."

Nixon and Kennedy was about as close as can be for reasons you can study on your own, but, the Kennedy camp picked Johnson for VP and managed to get Jack closer to the center than Nixon (a "sitting" vice president). Nixon would, eventually, be a two term president who ran strong approval ratings until he got run out of town for "not being a crook."

Carter came out of nowhere, but please, he was perceived as "centrist" in contrast to Ford who couldn't shake the Nixon era.
Carter, a Georgian, selected Mondale, a Minnesotan and won the electoral college 297 to 240. They won all of the traditional democratic eastern states.

Look at the map, every state west of Texas and Minnesota went to Ford and Dole.

Don't get overly bogged down with Republican or Democratic stuff, a presidential election is different and the leaders of both parties know this. They know it so well it scares the daylights out of them.

If you don't agree with me? What about the last election? A TV personality with little interest in actually winning, won the election against the candidate who kissed all the Democratic interest's rear ends to the last day. People like underdogs don't they?

Truman was picked as the "loser" against Wallace. How did that work out?

In close ones? An awful lot of people vote for under dogs....look at the stats. Under dog has nothing to do with what some branch of the party wants, nothing.

Carter a Navy officer, businessman and deep south governor with a brother famous for drinking too much beat Gerald Ford another Navy officer, A center for the Michigan Wolverines football team, 14 year member of the house of representatives and a 7 year house minority leader. Ford was the "sitting" vice president.

If, for one moment, you think that being "in line with your party's ideals" matters in this election? Get your history book out.

Gallup just sent this out to us (Feb. 2020):

Democrat 29%
Republican 30%
Independent 39%

Whom exactly is "living in the center?"

Voters who decide presidential elections that's who.

Who knows this?

Republican and Democratic party operatives and vice presidential candidates that scream "democrat" might just not be on the menu.

How did Obama win? The folks in the center voted for him and those folks aren't Democrats or Republicans, they vote for the candidate they perceive as "closest to the center."

Bernie is "on the left"...that formula won't win.

Hilary Clinton lost all those votes from the independents....all of them.

You want Clinton as VP? This election looks like it might be close?

Perhaps they will pick a conservative midwesterner that gets Biden where he needs to be...the center. The electoral college serves a purpose, study history.

So who is your choice T Storey. Perhaps that will make me understand your position a little bit better. You are right there is usually a race to the center, but Trump did not race to the center when he picked Pence. Hillary, I have no idea what she did when she picked Kane. That single decision may have cost her the election, a boring candidate chose an even more boring running mate. Biden does not need to run to the center. He is already a centrist. Biden was Obama's 'center' remember? Why would he need a center. If anything, Biden needs to give a nod to the Democratic base so they do not sit out the election. Hillary lost because she did not campaign in the mid-west. She trounced Trump by three million votes. And yes the electoral college has a purpose - to save the electorate from itself.

Re: Time to handicap potential VEEP candidates for Biden
« Reply #74 on: May 24, 2020, 10:07:27 PM »

Offline wiley

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4126
  • Tommy Points: 318
I don't know if she wants the job, but I hope it's Michelle Obama.  Second choice Elizabeth Warren, though that will hurt the black vote for sure, so I don't know if it's doable.  In general I doubt Michelle wants to be VP.  But, in this case, very likely she could be president in 4 years.  Maybe that would make the situation appeal to her.  Definitely not Klobuchar.  That won't get it done at all.

What’s wrong with Klobuchar?  Ideology aside, she’s one of the few names bandied about who might make a good president in my opinion.  I like her demeanor. 

Michelle Obama has no qualifications other than being married to Barack.

But she has a living ex president to guide her...and is popular, and highly educated.  I see her as more qualified than Trump was when he entered office.  She would most likely be vice president for 4 years, at least,  to gain the experience she needs to take over, but even 2 years would be enough.

My only problem with Klobuchar is that I don't think she'll bring in many voters, especially against a guy like Donald.  Nothing personal against her other than the Dems are going to need either some star power or a powerhouse debater like Warren (who will also get a bunch of Bernie voters).  Or an inspiring African American (Abrams would be perfect if she had more experience) who can excite people (need more black votes than Hillary got).  Klobuchar is very solid, but imo she'll add about as many votes as Tim Kaine.