Biden VP news megathread (pg 286 - been selected, announcement could be today)

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Why do so many people think that Duckworth is a good pick? What does she bring to the table?

Racial diversity, Midwestern and a veteran who lost her two legs in sacrifice for her country. Republicans can't paint her as unpatriotic, and if they do, it would backfire. However, I think there are better picks.

John Kerry won three Purple Hearts, and the GOP proceeded to turn that into his biggest weakness. Next. Trying to "out-militarize" the GOP is a dumb, dumb move that never works.

Exactly. Most Republicans think of Democratic military veterans as being "weak" or "not really patriotic".

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Pressure has been growing on Mr. Biden to choose a black woman to inspire black turnout this fall and not take it for granted. The Rev. Al Sharpton, for instance, who speaks to Mr. Biden regularly, is to announce his support for Ms. Abrams as vice president as soon as next week, according to those familiar with his plans.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has encouraged allies to float names of House members like Representatives Val Demings of Florida and Marcia Fudge of Ohio, according to people familiar with those conversations, in part to reward members of her caucus with a higher profile.

Several leaders in the Congressional Black Caucus, an organization steeped in tradition, have preferred Ms. Harris, who is a member.

A recent comment from Mr. Clyburn publicly undercut Ms. Abrams in favor of Ms. Bottoms. Mr. Clyburn, who declined an interview request for this article, said Ms. Abrams lacked sufficient experience.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/us/politics/joe-biden-vice-president-black-candidates.html

Who would be "inspired" to turn out because of Marcia Fudge? LOL, c'mon Nancy.

Also, Stacey Abrams just doesn't have enough experience to be VP.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Don't know if others brought it up but Sinema to try and flip Arizona?

STOP IT!

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Politico says that the Biden inner circle is divided on the relative merits of picking an African American running mate and picking someone who’s ideologically on the left:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/28/biden-vice-president-2020-elections-212555

Joe Biden’s advisers and allies have become torn over whether it is more important to choose an African American or a progressive running mate.

While the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, there is an ongoing debate about whether Biden “has the black vote locked up” or “whether the bigger need we have is to put someone left-leaning” on the ticket, a strategist familiar with discussions said.

The story also notes the lobbying efforts going on, including Abrams calling up Dem. power borkers and asking them to tell the Biden people that she should be veep:

Stacey Abrams, a former Georgia lawmaker and unsuccessful candidate for governor, has been privately calling Democratic power brokers, asking them to tell Biden campaign officials that she should be vice president, according to multiple labor leaders familiar with the discussions.

Elizabeth Warren is cranking up her small-dollar machine. The Biden campaign has noticed that in media appearances, Warren, the progressive senator from Massachusetts, consistently plugged JoeBiden.com and urged people to donate — an appeal that a Biden adviser said did not come from the campaign.

There’s also an oppo war going on:

With the Biden campaign’s vetting process soon to begin, supporters of potential running mates are also getting involved: opposition research that was shelved at the end of the presidential primary is now starting to recirculate in an effort to stealthily drag down prospective vice presidential rivals. Harris, Warren and to a lesser extent Klobuchar — who gained traction relatively late in the campaign — all faced intense scrutiny during the presidential primary. Now, in conversations with reporters, Democrats working to hobble them are reupping old criticisms about their records.

“There are definitely internal and external battles over who’s going to leak the most s#!t on people,” one Democratic strategist said.

Stacey Abrams is so desperate, ugh.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Rooting for Catherine Cortez Masto! Go CCM!

Being Head of the DSCC is no small feat! The woman is overseeing the strategic and financial efforts to take back the Senate. People may say she has no personality, but she's young, quick, smart, media-trained, sits on the Banking Committee and is a progressive on banking issues (Warren approved).

And maybe people say her being light skinned and not speaking Spanish will hurt her with Latinos. As a 28 year-old Latino gay man from California, I'm so proud of what she's accomplished. When you come from a line of people who risked everything to give their children a better shot at a future, and your grandchild becomes the first Latina elected Senator, and possibly VP? There are so many Latino families who would be so proud of her story. She's one of us, and is absolutely kicking ass.

She would put Arizona and possibly even Texas into play.

The average age of the U.S. House of Representatives is just shy of 58 years old. In the Senate, it's nearly 63 years.

CCM is 56 years old. In what world, is a 56 year old considered "young" lol? Yeah, she's much younger than Biden but she's not young. CCM is right at the average for a person in Congress. If she's young then so is Kamala who is the same age.

Anyways, CCM would be a very milquetoast pick. However, I do appreciate what CCM is doing with the DSCC, she's being a great senator overall.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Catherine Cortez Masto would also be the first Italian-American to be VP or president, so she’d be breaking barriers for white people too lmao

Exactly lol. CCM is about as Hispanic as Ted Cruz.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Catherine Cortez Masto would also be the first Italian-American to be VP or president, so she’d be breaking barriers for white people too lmao

Exactly lol. CCM is about as Hispanic as Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz is actually fluent in Spanish, though.

No, he isn't lol.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

A Latino is a must.
Biden already has black support and he can get Kamala and Obama to campaign for him. He lacked Latino support in the primary (relative to Hillary) and needs to be aware of this weak spot. If Biden loses, it will be because he doesn’t listen/takes-for-granted Latino voters in the same way Hillary ignored some of her base.

Does an English-speaking half-Italian Senator whose paternal grandfather happened to immigrate from Mexico solve that problem?

Does a half-white guy who grew up in Hawaii with his white grandparents from Kansas appeal to blacks?

You can't compare Obama to Cortez-Masto.

Even though, Obama did grow up with his White grandparents, when he got older he moved to NYC and then Chicago. He lived and made a name for himself in the South Side of Chicago is which a predominately Black area. He was a community organizer as well, he made personal connections with Black Chicagoans and ended up marrying one (Michelle). Also, many Black people would not have been as enthusiastic about Obama if he was married to a White woman.

Furthermore, if President Obama grew up in Wichita, KS he probably wouldn't have made it far. Being connected to Chicago helped BO a whole lot.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Klobuchar should be VP of the Milquetoast Association™. Not VP of the United States.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1256665689676550144

It’s just the NY Post so take it for what it is, but that story also says that Gillibrand is angling to be Secretary of Defense:

Gillibrand, who has spent years focusing on military issues as a senior member of the Armed Services committee, is looking to become a #MeToo reformer in the Department of Defense.

“She wants to completely restructure the DoD, the military org chart, and overhaul the way complaints against those in power are handled, particularly as it relates to sexual assaults,” a Capitol Hill insider with knowledge of Gillibrand’s thinking told The Post.

NY Post should ONLY be used as toilet paper.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Susan Rice would be a terrible choice for VP. She literally excites basically no one and the fact that her son is a Trump supporter would be highly embarrassing.

I've seen a few moderate Democratic women on Twitter suggest her to be VP and all I can do is shake my damn head.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

WaPo article speculating about the pick.  Nothing super interesting but a few notable tidbits.

Our Revolution just completed a survey of its members that it said showed 62 percent favoring Warren as Biden’s running mate and 22 percent wanting Abrams. Harris, Klobuchar and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, all more moderate, didn’t break 10 percent ... “The overwhelming majority of the board is enthusiastic about Warren,” said Larry Cohen, who leads Our Revolution.

Liberal groups were dismayed that Biden’s vice-presidential vetting panel, which he announced last week, included no names close to their movement ... Black interests, by contrast, have been incorporated into the campaign.

Abrams’s open campaigning has caused some eyerolls, but several around Biden say it has not necessarily damaged her chances.

Probably because she had no chance to start with, lol.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/joe-biden-is-looking-for-a-running-mate-many-democrats-have-strong-ideas-%e2%80%94-and-few-agree/ar-BB13Dttl?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

Since when is Kamala a moderate? Just because she was a prosecutor? SMH.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I think there is little evidence Harris makes a difference, you saw how bad her campaign was. Biden should just pick whoever he thinks will help him win and then govern. If his heart is Whitmer, go there.

And how will Whitmer make a difference?

Additionally, can we let Whitmer at least serve a full first term as governor?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

When Obama picked Biden everyone thought that he was too old to ever run for president again.
And yet here we are.

And we’re not necessarily better off. Biden and Bernie effectively shut out every other candidate in the race. We’ll not have had anything near a wide-open primary in 16 years come 2024. I’d prefer a candidate secure the nomination on their own strengths (Obama ‘08, Clinton ‘92) than on de-facto incumbency (Gore ‘00, Clinton ‘16, Biden ‘20).

You can call it de-facto if you want, but the three candidates listed (Gore, Clinton, Biden) were also the most experienced candidates in their respective fields.  Like it or not, experience is a strength.  

Actually it’s usually a weakness. This is the only cycle since probably ‘68 where experience has been a positive.

Was HRC really the most experienced candidate? She spent 8 years in the Senate and then 4 as SoS sure that seems like a lot but Biden was a Senator for 36 years and then Vice President for another 8 years, Gore was a Congressman for 15 years and then VP for 8. Not to mention his service in Vietnam and his political father. In 2016 Bernie was a Congressman for 25 years and then a Mayor for 8 years before that, O'Malley spent 8 years as Mayor and 8 years as Governor, Chafee spent 8 years in the Senate, 4 years as Governor, and 6 years as Mayor, and was also the son of a prominent politician.


If you want to compare that to the least experienced Democratic nominees since 1968, before their nomination.

George McGovern, US Representative from South Dakota 4 years, US Senator from South Dakota 9 years, Director of "Food for Peace" 2 years, WW2 Veteran

Michael Dukakis, 9 years as Governor of Massachusetts, 8 years in the Massachusetts State Assembly, US Army Veteran

Jimmy Carter, 4 years in the Georgia State Senate, 4 years as Governor of Georgia, Navy Veteran

John Kerry, 2 years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, 19 years US Senator from Massachusetts, Vietnam Veteran

So the only Democratic nominee since 1968  that HRC had more experience then was Jimmy Carter, but if you exclude legislature time then Dukakis as well.

This is all quantitative, completely ignoring the qualitative element. Being a senator for more years doesn't necessarily mean you're more prepared for the presidency because you've been in a lot of leadership roles or anything like that. Bernie for example ranks near dead last for actual leadership in Congress according to measures of how often the bills he sponsors get to the floor and gets passed, etc.

Hillary was a pretty active senator even though she wasn't there as long as some of these others, and moreover four years as SoS is EXTREMELY valuable foreign policy experience that NONE of these others could compare to. And considering the most power the president directly has is probably in the field of foreign policy, that's pretty damn significant.

Plus, being First Lady can't simply be brushed off either. She had an active office in the White House and was tasked with more responsibility as First Lady than any other in history with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. Had more power and influence too. She and Bill were partners in just about everything they did. I mean for Christ's sake, she was in charge of one of the most significant and difficult tasks of his presidency -- healthcare reform. It didn't work out, but not for lack of trying on her part. She not only took an active role in Congress, she toured the country trying to sell the legislation to the public.

So when you take 8 years of being almost co-president, plus 8 years in the Senate, plus 4 years as SoS -- that's a damn impressive resume. The important thing was we all knew she would know exactly what she was doing from day one when she entered the White House. She knew everything that had to be done and everybody that had to be talked to. Hell, she knew exactly where to go in the White House itself. It's hard to beat that kind of experience. Just sitting in the Senate for a while isn't quite the same.

The only person who I think is about as experienced as her is John Kerry, due to his time as both a Senator and SoS. They are quite literally the two most qualified people on Earth to be president.

And if you want to talk about being a Mayor of a small town as relevant experience to the presidency... No. Just no. This is why Buttigieg was a non-starter for me. South Bend might as well be on a different planet from Washington, same with Burlington.

When Obama picked Biden everyone thought that he was too old to ever run for president again.
And yet here we are.

And we’re not necessarily better off. Biden and Bernie effectively shut out every other candidate in the race. We’ll not have had anything near a wide-open primary in 16 years come 2024. I’d prefer a candidate secure the nomination on their own strengths (Obama ‘08, Clinton ‘92) than on de-facto incumbency (Gore ‘00, Clinton ‘16, Biden ‘20).

You can call it de-facto if you want, but the three candidates listed (Gore, Clinton, Biden) were also the most experienced candidates in their respective fields.  Like it or not, experience is a strength. 

Actually it’s usually a weakness. This is the only cycle since probably ‘68 where experience has been a positive.

Was HRC really the most experienced candidate? She spent 8 years in the Senate and then 4 as SoS sure that seems like a lot but Biden was a Senator for 36 years and then Vice President for another 8 years, Gore was a Congressman for 15 years and then VP for 8. Not to mention his service in Vietnam and his political father. In 2016 Bernie was a Congressman for 25 years and then a Mayor for 8 years before that, O'Malley spent 8 years as Mayor and 8 years as Governor, Chafee spent 8 years in the Senate, 4 years as Governor, and 6 years as Mayor, and was also the son of a prominent politician.


If you want to compare that to the least experienced Democratic nominees since 1968, before their nomination.

George McGovern, US Representative from South Dakota 4 years, US Senator from South Dakota 9 years, Director of "Food for Peace" 2 years, WW2 Veteran

Michael Dukakis, 9 years as Governor of Massachusetts, 8 years in the Massachusetts State Assembly, US Army Veteran

Jimmy Carter, 4 years in the Georgia State Senate, 4 years as Governor of Georgia, Navy Veteran

John Kerry, 2 years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, 19 years US Senator from Massachusetts, Vietnam Veteran

So the only Democratic nominee since 1968  that HRC had more experience then was Jimmy Carter, but if you exclude legislature time then Dukakis as well.

This is all quantitative, completely ignoring the qualitative element. Being a senator for more years doesn't necessarily mean you're more prepared for the presidency because you've been in a lot of leadership roles or anything like that. Bernie for example ranks near dead last for actual leadership in Congress according to measures of how often the bills he sponsors get to the floor and gets passed, etc.

Hillary was a pretty active senator even though she wasn't there as long as some of these others, and moreover four years as SoS is EXTREMELY valuable foreign policy experience that NONE of these others could compare to. And considering the most power the president directly has is probably in the field of foreign policy, that's pretty damn significant.

Plus, being First Lady can't simply be brushed off either. She had an active office in the White House and was tasked with more responsibility as First Lady than any other in history with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. Had more power and influence too. She and Bill were partners in just about everything they did. I mean for Christ's sake, she was in charge of one of the most significant and difficult tasks of his presidency -- healthcare reform. It didn't work out, but not for lack of trying on her part. She not only took an active role in Congress, she toured the country trying to sell the legislation to the public.

So when you take 8 years of being almost co-president, plus 8 years in the Senate, plus 4 years as SoS -- that's a damn impressive resume. The important thing was we all knew she would know exactly what she was doing from day one when she entered the White House. She knew everything that had to be done and everybody that had to be talked to. Hell, she knew exactly where to go in the White House itself. It's hard to beat that kind of experience. Just sitting in the Senate for a while isn't quite the same.

The only person who I think is about as experienced as her is John Kerry, due to his time as both a Senator and SoS. They are quite literally the two most qualified people on Earth to be president.

And if you want to talk about being a Mayor of a small town as relevant experience to the presidency... No. Just no. This is why Buttigieg was a non-starter for me. South Bend might as well be on a different planet from Washington, same with Burlington.

Agreed with most of this (barring the bit about Sanders not being qualified because he couln't get bills passed in the Senate), but Biden has more experience by time in the federal executive and legislature positions alone, although she has a greater breadth of it. Let's not forget that the deal he struck with Obama made him one of the most influential VPs of the modern era, even if their working relationship seemed relatively normal compared after Bush and Cheney.

If the standard is a decent amount of federal legislative and executive experience and at least ~6 years of both, then Kerry didn't meet it at the time of his candidacy, though he did in subsequent speculated bids that never came to fruition. Al Gore also did, with 24 years (8 in the House/8 in the Senate/8 as VP) to Clinton's 20 (8 as First Lady/8 in the Senate/4 as Sec. of State). From what I can tell, no other Democrat who openly considered a presidential bid post-Carter was as qualified as these three on the criteria above (barring Carter himself being a subject of speculation in 1984).

George H.W. Bush also was very qualified to be President.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Would Kamala Harris be at the top of the list if she wasn’t black? I’m not saying she hasn’t gotten into the AG’s office and Senate on anything but her own hard work and political talent. But the #1 reason that people keep giving for her to be the VP isn’t her record or anything, but because she’d “help with black voters” AKA she’s black.

Then what are you saying? You literally just said that she has a lot of talent outside her race, so. This comment is so horrific it hurts.

Her leg up over Klobuchar and Whitmer is that she’s black. Both of these women have a lot of talent, but they’re not being boosted by their perceived ability to turn out a racial group.

Klobuchar is bland. Also, Whitmer is a first term governor. She's only been a governor for 1.5 years. It would be kind of trashy to just ditch her state so soon to be VP.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Awful. Harris does not help with progressives, is not from a swing state, doesn't help appeal to Latinos, has a weak electoral record, failed miserably in the primaries, and yeah she's a cop with some smelly corruption issues swirling in her past. Polls of African American voters show they are more enthusiastic about Abrams and even Warren. Please anyone else.

Most of what you said is false.

None of the VPs except Warren would help with progressives. None of the VPs except...maybe...maybe Cortez-Masto would "help" with Latinos. "She's a cop" is a stupid insult that makes no sense when practically every female VP candidate has worked in the legal/law enforcement field.

Her campaign failed because of staff problems and Black voters thinking that a Black woman couldn't beat Trump in the general and that Biden was the "safe" choice. Black voters by and large don't hate Kamala. That's just a progressive fallacy.

Kamala would be both a great VP AND President.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Has anyone thought about Tulsi Gabbard for VP? Popular among Republicans, woman of color, great biography. I know she’s not liked by a lot of the party, but isn’t that kind of the point? She would bring the other side in without alienating the base.

The base, and I mean the volunteer base of the Democratic Party who will GOTV are Black women. We need to cater to them not weak kneed Republicans. Screw Tulsi.

We actually don’t need to cater to them. They got their choice of nominee already. Throw a bone to another important part of the party so we can have a united front.

Hmm. Biden won white voters in the Midwest and I’ve seen folks be persistent that it be a folksy, authentic, aw shucks, gee golly wow white woman from Winnetka, Minnesota so....

Kamala has experience turning out and serving constituencies of Black, AAPI, and Latino* people (*votes Biden struggled w/ in some states). Kamala should be the pick.

I’m pretty anti-VP Klobuchar as well. Biden occupies the “working-class Moderate” lane already, no need to double down on that with the running-mate selection.

He needs to throw a bone to the progressives who feel shut out of the process by Biden and whoever he might pick to “succeed him”. That means a Tammy Baldwin or Liz Warren.

And Kamala’s electoral record is pretty unremarkable, running behind Jerry Brown in both her elections to AG. That’s not to say Warren’s is, but I’m not holding her’s up as why she should be the pick.

Picking Tammy Baldwin would jeopardize her seat and we shouldn't do that. Also, as the primaries have shown, most progressives live in cities and/or states that are already heavily Democratic. It wouldn't have an effect for Biden in the electoral college. It would just increase his popular vote margin.

I would be mostly fine with Warren but she is 70 years old. So it wouldn't be the best look having two White 70+ year olds being the "leaders" of the Democratic Party.

Anyways, beyond everything, what would your reaction be if Biden chose Harris to be his VP?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Has anyone thought about Tulsi Gabbard for VP? Popular among Republicans, woman of color, great biography. I know she’s not liked by a lot of the party, but isn’t that kind of the point? She would bring the other side in without alienating the base.

The base, and I mean the volunteer base of the Democratic Party who will GOTV are Black women. We need to cater to them not weak kneed Republicans. Screw Tulsi.

We actually don’t need to cater to them. They got their choice of nominee already. Throw a bone to another important part of the party so we can have a united front.

Hmm. Biden won white voters in the Midwest and I’ve seen folks be persistent that it be a folksy, authentic, aw shucks, gee golly wow white woman from Winnetka, Minnesota so....

Kamala has experience turning out and serving constituencies of Black, AAPI, and Latino* people (*votes Biden struggled w/ in some states). Kamala should be the pick.

I’m pretty anti-VP Klobuchar as well. Biden occupies the “working-class Moderate” lane already, no need to double down on that with the running-mate selection.

He needs to throw a bone to the progressives who feel shut out of the process by Biden and whoever he might pick to “succeed him”. That means a Tammy Baldwin or Liz Warren.

And Kamala’s electoral record is pretty unremarkable, running behind Jerry Brown in both her elections to AG. That’s not to say Warren’s is, but I’m not holding her’s up as why she should be the pick.

Where are people basing this from her '16 race against another Democrat? Or in '14 when she ran behind Brown? Her '16 race just doesn't factor for me when I look at her electoral record.

She's never lost a general election going back to 2003 when she first ran for San Francisco District Attorney.

In order to win in SF, she definitely had to win a large percentage of the Asian vote. In 2016, she won 47% of the Latino vote against Loretta Sanchez which is pretty decent. Kamala also won 79% of the Black vote in 2016.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Biden should pick Warren.

Harris and Abrams are not presidential material, Klobuchar would be good as AG or Chief of Staff.

How is Kamala Harris not "presidential material"? She's literally one of, if not, the most qualified among the prospective VP candidates.

You literally like to speak a bunch of nonsense 95% of the time.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Biden should pick Warren.

Harris and Abrams are not presidential material, Klobuchar would be good as AG or Chief of Staff.

How is Kamala Harris not "presidential material"? She's literally one of, if not, the most qualified among the prospective VP candidates.

You literally like to speak a bunch of nonsense 95% of the time.

She could not last until Iowa, some black voters don't like her, she is not ADOS

You've been hanging around too much Black conservatives and other idiots on Twitter lol.

Just stop it.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Can anyone make a clear argument why London Breed is not at the top of the list? Because she seems perfect

nothing helps win the rust belt better than a super liberal (socially) San Francisco mayor  

I just think she has all the benefits of kamala Harris (youth, Black woman) without the negatives such as the Terrible presidential campaign, da and AG record) where am I wrong?

She doesn't have a national profile or DC connections. Also, no one has ever made the major leap from Mayor to Vice President. That would be an extraordinary and unprecedented ascendance.

It would also be troubling because Biden will be in his late 70s/early 80s and we'll need a VP who will be ready to be President at any time. Additionally, Biden wants a VP who he is close with. A best friend-like relationship President Obama and him have together. Biden doesn't have a personal connection to Mayor Breed.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

If you think Kamala is going to win over voters your deluded. She was the Scott Walker of 2020. She went down like a Led Zeppelin long before Biden's campaign was revitalized by South Carolina.

Sir, please believe me when I say I really don't care what you think. Her being picked is not for you.

I, my family, and my friends are in the demographic that’s supposed to be “motivated” and “excited” by her selection.

None of us are. We don’t dislike her, but the idea that she’ll turn out black voters just by looking black isn’t a thing.

I understand what you're saying. However, I'm Black and my entire family is Black and we'd be excited if he picked Kamala.

My parents would be OK with Klobuchar because "she can help Biden in the Midwest" lol. I definitely disagree with them there.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Can anyone make a clear argument why London Breed is not at the top of the list? Because she seems perfect

nothing helps win the rust belt better than a super liberal (socially) San Francisco mayor  

I just think she has all the benefits of kamala Harris (youth, Black woman) without the negatives such as the Terrible presidential campaign, da and AG record) where am I wrong?

She doesn't have a national profile or DC connections. Also, no one has ever made the major leap from Mayor to Vice President. That would be an extraordinary and unprecedented ascendance.

It would also be troubling because Biden will be in his late 70s/early 80s and we'll need a VP who will be ready to be President at any time. Additionally, Biden wants a VP who he is close with. A best friend-like relationship President Obama and him have together. Biden doesn't have a personal connection to Mayor Breed.

Well wait a second.  Didn't FDR go from being mayor of Manhattan to being the president? But much more recently, in the 2020 primaries, the mayor of a very small college town fund raised like a sitting senator and even managed to eke out an Iowa win.  

I think the new conventional wisdom believes the best combo is very little record with very high name recognition.  Mayor Breed obviously doesn't fire on all of those cylinders, but still--little or no political experience = less oppo research and material to distort.  If Stacy Abrams is a top tier contender, then the candidate whose name sounds like a line from BEST IN SHOW should not be dismissed out of hand.  

Nope. First of all, it's Mayor of NEW YORK CITY (not just Manhattan). Second of all, FDR was NEVER mayor of NYC (or any city lol). You're probably thinking about Fiorello LaGuardia. Finally, FDR was the incumbent Governor of New York State when he was elected President in 1932. New York State was the most populous state in the country at the time, so it was a big position to hold (it still is obviously but less so than in 1932).

Furthermore, Pete's campaign was doomed once the primaries went past IA & NH. He had no real chance of winning the nomination.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I know absolutely nothing about Val Demings, but I checked her Wikipedia page.

Interesting.

I thought "Val" stands for "Valerie", but in fact it's short for "Valdez Venita" Demings (born Butler).

Valdez Venita sounds kinda Latino too ... is part of her ancestry also Mexican or something ?

That would be amazing.

She also worked as a Social Worker and comes from a poor working-class family and later on was a cop. That's ideal for a Democratic candidate.

She would be a great pick for VP.

No, she is not Hispanic.

It's actually fairly common within the African-American community to give children French, Islamic, & sometimes Spanish first names. The names: Monique, Chantal, Andre, Antoine, Lamar, Jamal, Malik, Aisha, Aaliyah, Kareem, Khalil, Antonio, Lorenzo, Alonzo, Mario, Maya, Savannah, Sierra, Alicia, etc are all of French, Arabic/Islamic or Spanish origin.

It stems from the 1960s & 1970s because of the rise of Black consciousness and Black power movements like the Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam. Many African-Americans wanted to get away from British/Anglo-Saxon/"white" names.

In Val Demings case (she was born in the '50s), Priest of Moloch explained how she got her name.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Not that it means anything, but my Dad (who was a Republican voter until Trump, and preferred Bernie to Biden in the primaries) thinks Susan Rice should be the VP choice since Biden needs to emphasize experience and competence. I did bring up the Benghazi interviews, but he claimed political memories are so short nowadays no one will care about what happened in late 2012.

Well, I'm sorry to inform your father that Susan Rice would be a horrendous VP pick.