The NEW Biden VP discussion thread

Smedley said:

Who Biden “should” pick is just our opinion of who would be best. Isn’t that fair game for an online discussion forum rather than presumptuous? I for one don’t believe I, or anyone else who has offered an opinion, has failed to observe the limits of what is permitted or appropriate.

 it's not inappropriate or not permitted.  And my opinion on all of your opinions is just my opinion.  

Sheldon Cooper: Evolution is not an opinion, it's a fact.

Sheldon's Mom: And that is your opinion.

ml1 said:

PVW said:

If posting strong opinions on the internet with absolutely no background, understanding, or expertise is sufficient qualification for the presidency, then surely it's sufficient for deciding who the VP should be.

 to be fair, that's roughly 99.9% of the internet.  People having strong opinions about stuff on which they have no expertise.

Of course, we all believe we're the other 0.1%

PVW said:

Of course, we all believe we're the other 0.1%

 That's just your opinion.

PVW said:

Of course, we all believe we're the other 0.1%

Sure.  And before someone calls me on the 99.9% number it was an exaggeration for effect.  I have no knowledge or expertise regarding what percentage of people on internet do or don't know what they don't know.

ml1 said:

PVW said:

Of course, we all believe we're the other 0.1%

Sure.  And before someone calls me on the 99.9% number it was an exaggeration for effect.  I have no knowledge or expertise regarding what percentage of people on internet do or don't know what they don't know.

 No, no, you're doing it wrong. You need to insist that you know, and then insist louder.

STANV said:

Having a woman on the ticket, no matter her race, will not alienate more than a handful of woman of another race. Having a woman "of color" might bring out women of color who might otherwise not vote at all out of apathy.

The voters you had in mind in the first sentence: Whatever the Central Park dog walker’s politics are aside, you’re confident that there are only a handful of women like Amy Cooper in the Democratic Party?

The voters you had in mind in the second sentence: Ousting Trump wouldn’t be enough to motivate them to vote, but electing a black V.P. would?

I don't know enough to say whom Biden "should" pick as VP.  And I sure as hell don't know whom he will choose.  But here are things I would hope (and assume) the campaign is doing:

• Seriously in-depth oppo research to vet the potential VPs
• Doing polling in battleground states to determine a) to what degree a VP choice will influence voters' likelihood to vote for Biden, and b) which of the potential picks adds the most potential vote conversions

IMHO, anything beyond that regarding speculation about demographics like gender and age, or geographic balance seems trivial.  I don't think anyone should be guessing that a Latin American, or African-American, or younger or older VP will automatically bring in a certain voting demographic.  I have to assume the campaign is going to base their choice on talking to actual voters instead of relying on gut.

My amateur opinion -

When Obama selected Biden as his VP, it was seen as reassurance to some potentially wavering voter groups that Obama would "get" their concerns.

So Biden's choice should serve the same purpose for this election.

ml1 said:

I have to assume the campaign is going to base their choice on talking to actual voters instead of relying on gut.

Voters won’t tell the campaign whom Biden would work with best over the next four years. 

ml1 said:

I don't know enough to say whom Biden "should" pick as VP.  And I sure as hell don't know whom he will choose.  But here are things I would hope (and assume) the campaign is doing:

• Seriously in-depth oppo research to vet the potential VPs
• Doing polling in battleground states to determine a) to what degree a VP choice will influence voters' likelihood to vote for Biden, and b) which of the potential picks adds the most potential vote conversions

IMHO, anything beyond that regarding speculation about demographics like gender and age, or geographic balance seems trivial.  I don't think anyone should be guessing that a Latin American, or African-American, or younger or older VP will automatically bring in a certain voting demographic.  I have to assume the campaign is going to base their choice on talking to actual voters instead of relying on gut.

 You seem to be hung up on the word “should”, so let me rephrase without that word: which woman paired with Biden (because he said he’ll pick a woman) do you think would make for the strongest ticket to go up against trump in November? 

If you have no opinion that’s fine, but I don’t see how/why engaging in this exercise is distasteful, as you seem to believe. In the other thread you expressed your opinion that warren was the best candidate for president —how does that differ from expressing an opinion on this thread re: who would be the best veep?

DaveSchmidt said:

Voters won’t tell the campaign whom Biden would work with best over the next four years. 

isn't it more important that Biden be elected in the first place?  And would Biden really even know for sure who would turn out to perform best as VP?  

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

I don't know enough to say whom Biden "should" pick as VP.  And I sure as hell don't know whom he will choose.  But here are things I would hope (and assume) the campaign is doing:

• Seriously in-depth oppo research to vet the potential VPs
• Doing polling in battleground states to determine a) to what degree a VP choice will influence voters' likelihood to vote for Biden, and b) which of the potential picks adds the most potential vote conversions

IMHO, anything beyond that regarding speculation about demographics like gender and age, or geographic balance seems trivial.  I don't think anyone should be guessing that a Latin American, or African-American, or younger or older VP will automatically bring in a certain voting demographic.  I have to assume the campaign is going to base their choice on talking to actual voters instead of relying on gut.

 You seem to be hung up on the word “should”, so let me rephrase without that word: which woman paired with Biden (because he said he’ll pick a woman) do you think would make for the strongest ticket to go up against trump in November? 

If you have no opinion that’s fine, but I don’t see how/why engaging in this exercise is distasteful, as you seem to believe. In the other thread you expressed your opinion that warren was the best candidate for president —how does that differ from expressing an opinion on this thread re: who would be the best veep?

here's what I wrote:

If Biden chose a VP who was a proponent of the GND and/or single payer health insurance, that would be reaching out to the progressive wing. And he may do that by picking Warren. But I don't think any of the other names being tossed about are proponents of anything as progressive as the GND. I'd like to be wrong on this and see Biden choose someone ideologically similar to Sanders. And we'll find out in due time.

That picking a progressive VP would be reaching out to progressive voters.  Which it would be.  I think it might broaden his appeal, but I don't know that it's something he must or should do.  I'd like to see it though.  

But what I'd like to see most is his campaign basing the choice as best they can on surveying voters regarding both what type of person (in terms of issues) and what specific persons are under consideration.

DaveSchmidt said:

STANV said:

Having a woman on the ticket, no matter her race, will not alienate more than a handful of woman of another race. Having a woman "of color" might bring out women of color who might otherwise not vote at all out of apathy.

The voters you had in mind in the first sentence: Whatever the Central Park dog walker’s politics are aside, you’re confident that there are only a handful of women like Amy Cooper in the Democratic Party?

The voters you had in mind in the second sentence: Ousting Trump wouldn’t be enough to motivate them to vote, but electing a black V.P. would?

 Women like Amy Cooper will not be turned off by having a Black or Latina women on the ticket. Their racism is a subconscious fear of Black men. They probably subconsciously or consciously compensate for their racism by supporting minority candidates. Amy Cooper's problem was "entitlement" and consciously or unconsciously she was relying on her view of the Police as racist by mentioning the man's race.

Second question: Yes.

Of course the foregoing is just my extreme non-expert, really don't know ****, opinion.

No one, and I don't mean those just posting here but NO ONE at all is an expert at picking a VP candidate but of everyone who is not an expert Joe Biden and Barack Obama come closest.

Of course I'm no expert on who is or isn't an expert. 

ml1 said:

isn't it more important that Biden be elected in the first place? And would Biden really even know for sure who would turn out to perform best as VP?

Here are the results of my mind meld with Joe Biden: A running mate has little effect on Election Day, and if my aides think my chances hinge on whoever it is, we’ve got bigger problems. Where the veep really has an impact is in our governing relationship, and I want my choice to be for me what I was to Barack. No, even my good pal Barack didn’t know for sure how I’d do, but he made a wise decision. That’s where I’m channeling my wisdom in making mine.

STANV said:

No one, and I don't mean those just posting here but NO ONE at all is an expert at picking a VP candidate but of everyone who is not an expert Joe Biden and Barack Obama come closest.

Of course I'm no expert on who is or isn't an expert. 

in retrospect, if Clinton had chosen my guy Sherrod Brown in '16, it might have been sufficient to tip enough votes in MI, PA and WI for her to win.  But that doesn't mean I knew what I was talking about then. It's not as though I had a crystal ball that told me if Clinton could have flipped 100,000 Stein voters in those states she would have own.  The only thing we know for sure is that nobody knows anything for sure.

All I know is what kind of candidate I'd like based on the issues she supports.  But I don't know if that would be best from an electoral standpoint.  And neither does anyone else.

DaveSchmidt said:

Morganna said:

I haven't seen a good source to link to.

I haven’t found a good article yet, either. I’m avoiding any that say Klobuchar was the state’s top prosecutor; inflating the job she held is a bad omen.

 Via Slate, I came across this article from MPR:

Klobuchar didn't prosecute controversial police killings or brutality cases as a county prosecutor

Early on I thought Klobuchar a strong contender for the VP slot. I've changed my mind in the last few weeks. Even before Floyd's death, I felt her odds were sinking -- I feel that the pandemic has been shifting the political space for Biden away from the centrist positioning he held during the primary (even if not as fast, or as far, as progressive Democrats would wish). Now, though, I think her odds have fallen even farther.

DaveSchmidt said:

Here are the results of my mind meld with Joe Biden: A running mate has little effect on Election Day, and if my aides think my chances hinge on whoever it is, we’ve got bigger problems. Where the veep really has an impact is in our governing relationship, and I want my choice to be for me what I was to Barack. No, even my good pal Barack didn’t know for sure how I’d do, but he made a wise decision. That’s where I’m channeling my wisdom in making mine.

 that goes back to my point a -- do some research to find out if the VP pick has any effect at all on Election Day.  The political scientists who've studied past elections say it's negligible.  But in an election between two septuagenarians, should anyone assume it won't influence a not-insignifcant bloc of voters?  I wouldn't leave it up to my assumptions, and I'm not a campaign manager with my career potentially riding on the result.

ml1 said:

that goes back to my point a -- do some research to find out if the VP pick has any effect at all on Election Day.

No, Biden’s brainwaves told me, it’s entirely separate from your point a. Even if polling shows a potential influence this time, the synapses said, he should be able to win anyway, or else something more fundamental is wrong. And once he wins, he needs a solid No. 2, not a sop to demographics or ideology who turns into furniture, or a Waldorf salad, after Nov. 3.

DaveSchmidt said:

No, Biden’s brainwaves told me, it’s entirely separate from your point a. Even if polling shows a potential influence this time, the synapses said, he should be able to win anyway, or else something more fundamental is wrong. And once he wins, he needs a solid No. 2, not a sop to demographics or ideology who turns into furniture, or a Waldorf salad, after Nov. 3.

 oy.  I hope Biden wouldn't toss out any possible campaign choice that would have a positive influence on his vote total.  After 2016 I thought we learned not to take any votes for granted.  But it wouldn't surprise me that you have nailed Biden's thinking.

ml1 said:

But it wouldn't surprise me that you have nailed Biden's thinking.

It’s weird, because this mind-reading thing is supposed to be a Delaware birth right. All those Amtrak rides home to Wilmington must’ve gotten something into his Pennsylvania blood.

PVW said:

 Via Slate, I came across this article from MPR:

Klobuchar didn't prosecute controversial police killings or brutality cases as a county prosecutor

Early on I thought Klobuchar a strong contender for the VP slot. I've changed my mind in the last few weeks. Even before Floyd's death, I felt her odds were sinking -- I feel that the pandemic has been shifting the political space for Biden away from the centrist positioning he held during the primary (even if not as fast, or as far, as progressive Democrats would wish). Now, though, I think her odds have fallen even farther.

 Thanks for this. It was a better source. I struggled in all of the articles to clarify if she avoided prosecuting Chavin and saw reference in another article, to the fact that she was running for the Senate. Last night I commented on a friend's FB post that I wanted to make sure it wasn't click bait, as that article could have led one to believe that she was too busy pursuing her political career. The above article does point to a history that is perceived to be soft on the police.

But I just caught Klobuchar on Andrea Mitchell's interview, and she said that she had already been sworn in to the Senate when the case was being investigated. She looked and sounded emotional as Mitchell flat out asked her if she thought she should withdraw as a contender for the VP spot. And so it begins. I feel bad for her. She seemed to want the Presidency so much, and then was the first to endorse Biden, I thought,to get a shot at VP. She's a fighter but the timing of this tragedy, in her home state, could not have hurt her more.

Putting aside who Biden should pick since none of us agree, I guess it's down to who I want him to pick and that gets into weird terrain. 

Is it about who I like? And what does that mean? Is it the person I want to have a beer with? Is it that thing we call charisma? And if someone "charises" me, do they have that effect on you? Is it identity politics? Is it chemistry?

I suspect there is a lot of that. I know my favorite President was Barack Obama. And a lot of it had to do with the fact that I loved the guy, but why?  Just did. OK, he cracked me up. He was wonderful to listen to. He was a braniac. He laughed at his own jokes.  Did I think he could have done some things differently, sure. But you love who you love.

So, at the end of the day, I have found likeable, if not lovable qualities in these women: Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and I could support Amy Klobuchar, Tammy Duckworth, Val Demings, Kristen Gillibrand and Gretchen Whitmer. Dream pick Michelle Obama.

I have spent my voting lifetime waiting for a female President, now I'm looking at a pick for VP. I'd like to like her. More than her age or race, I'd like to think WOW she is so cool. Beyond a strategic pick, I want to say, "Look at her! She represents 50% of the population. It only took us 100 years after getting the right to vote. She is the first!  

ml1 said:

oy. I hope Biden wouldn't toss out any possible campaign choice that would have a positive influence on his vote total. After 2016 I thought we learned not to take any votes for granted.

It’s not necessarily an either/or choice, but if you want to make it one: Say you’re a presidential nominee. Your team gives you two top recommendations for your running mate. One boosts your vote by a few percentage points in polling in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, even Ohio. (Let’s bear in mind that the results are within the margin for error, unless you believe there’s a sidekick who’d move the needle more than four or five points.) She doesn’t come close to bringing to the governing table, however, the simpatico but complementary set of experience and skills that the second one does, in your opinion (there’s a margin for error here, too).

No way you’re going with the second one, right?

DaveSchmidt said:

No way you’re going with the second one, right?

 By that criteria Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle were better picks than Joe Biden and Al Gore

DaveSchmidt said:

It’s weird, because this mind-reading thing is supposed to be a Delaware birth right. All those Amtrak rides home to Wilmington must’ve gotten something into his Pennsylvania blood.

 I didn't think it was a Delaware thing. I just thought you had special insight into stubborn old Democrats. 

DaveSchmidt said:

It’s not necessarily an either/or choice, but if you want to make it one: Say you’re a presidential nominee. Your team gives you two top recommendations for your running mate. One boosts your vote by a few percentage points in polling in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, even Ohio. (Let’s bear in mind that the results are within the margin for error, unless you believe there’s a sidekick who’d move the needle more than four or five points.) She doesn’t come close to bringing to the governing table, however, the simpatico but complementary set of experience and skills that the second one does, in your opinion (there’s a margin for error here, too).

No way you’re going with the second one, right?

 I never suggested I would. But if your polling shows that one or two choices give you a significant boost in one or two states, would you toss that aside for someone you think will be a better partner? Because if you're wrong and you lose, you and your great partner get the consolation prize of maybe appearing together on MSNBC once in a while. 

ml1 said:

 I never suggested I would. But if your polling shows that one or two choices give you a significant boost in one or two states, would you toss that aside for someone you think will be a better partner? 

Me? I wouldn’t toss it aside. I’d give that midsummer, statistically insignificant polling precisely as much consideration as it warranted while reaching my decision.

DaveSchmidt said:

Me? I wouldn’t toss it aside. I’d give that midsummer, statistically insignificant polling precisely as much consideration as it warranted while reaching my decision.

So would I. But that's not what I wrote 

But if your polling shows that one or two choices give you a significant boost