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

[Heebie Jeebie]

Yeah, she doesn't have Obama's skills at all though.

She doesn't have Obama's luck.

Obama was politically shrewd, intellectually flexible, and resolute, but like any skilled politician he capitalized on events--he did not drive them.  There's no reason to think Harris couldn't do the same.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Duckworth will be a perfect running mate for Harris in 2024.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I wonder if Warren being in the veepstakes makes it more likely she'll be offered Treasury.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I wonder if Warren being in the veepstakes makes it more likely she'll be offered Treasury.

There is no chance she gives up her Senate seat unless she's going for VP. I also don't feel like Biden would offer her that post.

I dunno.  The position may not get as much media coverage, but with the President's backing a talented Treasury Secretary can get a lot more done than a single Senator can, even one who commands the limelight.  Treasury is a powerful department.  Plus, there's gotta be something appealing about being America's first female Treasury Secretary.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I wonder if Warren being in the veepstakes makes it more likely she'll be offered Treasury.

There is no chance she gives up her Senate seat unless she's going for VP. I also don't feel like Biden would offer her that post.

I dunno.  The position may not get as much media coverage, but with the President's backing a talented Treasury Secretary can get a lot more done than a single Senator can, even one who commands the limelight.  Treasury is a powerful department.  Plus, there's gotta be something appealing about being America's first female Treasury Secretary.

Yeah but the operative phrase is "with the President's backing." You're talking about Joe Biden, who ran as an unabashed fiscal moderate--he was talking about not soaking the rich and falling on his sword about not passing any policy that was too expensive. Putting Warren in charge of Treasury seems like a significant departure from those statements.

Biden has a plan to increase taxes on the rich that would raise $4 trillion over a decade--one of the largest wealth transfers in American history.  He's proposing more generous subsidies and Medicaid funding along with a public option to achieve universal healthcare.  He's proposing a combination of $1.7 trillion in clean energy investment and a suite of tighter regulation to bring emissions to zero by 2050.  He's proposing a combined $2 trillion in new spending on early education, post-secondary education, and housing.  He's got a $1.3 trillion infrastructure plan.

He's got an ambitious, progressive agenda and he's going to want ambitious progressives in his administration to help him accomplish those goals, in the vice presidency, the Treasury, and everywhere else.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I wonder if Warren being in the veepstakes makes it more likely she'll be offered Treasury.

There is no chance she gives up her Senate seat unless she's going for VP. I also don't feel like Biden would offer her that post.

I dunno.  The position may not get as much media coverage, but with the President's backing a talented Treasury Secretary can get a lot more done than a single Senator can, even one who commands the limelight.  Treasury is a powerful department.  Plus, there's gotta be something appealing about being America's first female Treasury Secretary.

I'd be inclined to say that Warren doesn't get it but I think she'll be a kingmaker of sorts in terms of whom Biden picks for Treasury. Richard Cordray is my bet on who gets it due to his Warren ties plus the optics of being the former head of the CFPB.

I hadn't considered Cordray, but he would be an excellent choice for the job.

[Heebie Jeebie]

https://twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1275108270743715840

[Heebie Jeebie]

https://mobile.twitter.com/dick_nixon/status/1275498116511383552

[Heebie Jeebie]

https://mobile.twitter.com/dick_nixon/status/1275498116511383552

Oh god this is embarrassing. Please just pick Duckworth

what is embarrassing about it? it was a debate. what is she supposed to say? after 2008 and 2016, people need to stop taking tiffs in debates so seriously later on

The debate moment was fine. What's concerning us how she"s completely unprepared to respond to a predictable line if questioning.

[Heebie Jeebie]

If folks would read the Nixon tweet,  One of the replies captures what she should’ve said

Seriously.  It's not that hard.

https://twitter.com/itnor1/status/1275499949095038977

Anyway, I want to be clear that I like Harris and I hope Biden picks her as his running mate.  But I also agree with Nixon--Harris just isn't that quick on her feet, and isn't a natural politician like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or even Joe Biden.  She's more like Hillary.  Which is fine!  I love Hillary and think she would have been a superb president.  Campaigning and governing are just two different skill sets, and it's rare for a politician to excel at both. 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Can someone give me a reasonable reason why Ayanna Pressley isn’t being considered? She’s worked in a Senate office, she’s worked on a presidential campaign, she defeated an incumbent. She is the true Unity pick and I see no excuse why she isn’t running away with it.

She's a first-term Congressional rep, i.e. she's unqualified.  The veep pick should be and will be a Senator, Governor, high-level Cabinet official, or prominent member of House leadership.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Any female politician that you don't like is not "like Hillary" you guys. Stop it.

Kamala is NOTHING like Hillary.

Hey, I said Kamala is like Hillary because I like Hillary Clinton.  I'm stickin' to my guns on this one.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Personally I'm rooting for Demings.

as am I

So is Marco Rubio.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Here's a fun hypothetical I posed to myself:  If I knew nothing at all about how the veepstakes had played out over the last few months, who would I guess was in the running?  Knowing nothing about how the competition has been covered, I think my top ten would be...

1. Kamala Harris
2. Kirsten Gillibrand
3. Tammy Duckworth
4. Maria Cantwell
5. Amy Klobuchar
6. Kate Brown
7. Catherine Cortez Masto
8. Michelle Lujan Grisham
9. Maggie Hassan
10. Gina Raimondo

I'm genuinely surprised that some of these names seemingly haven't received any public consideration at all.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Kamala voted against cutting military spending by 10%. Can someone please remind me why so many people want her as VP?

Because cutting military spending is bad.

We spend more than the next top 10 countries combined... Why do we need to spend so much?

Our military investments pay off in more ways than war-making capacity (r&d, social progress, etc.), but even if we limit ourselves to just investments in fighting capacity, well...someone has to stand as a deterrent to Russia, China, and other aggressive, semi-fascist states.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Kamala voted against cutting military spending by 10%. Can someone please remind me why so many people want her as VP?

Because cutting military spending is bad.

We spend more than the next top 10 countries combined... Why do we need to spend so much?

Our military investments pay off in more ways than war-making capacity (r&d, social progress, etc.), but even if we limit ourselves to just investments in fighting capacity, well...someone has to stand as a deterrent to Russia, China, and other aggressive, semi-fascist states.

If we’re looking to reduce the influence of “aggressive semi-fascist states” I think it’d be a good idea to look in the mirror first. And if we want to invest in social progress and R&D we can just do those directly instead of funneling more money into the Pentagon to figure out how to build more fighter jets.

Re:  "looking in the mirror"-- We already are.  Republicans are going to be trounced in November.  In what way does that preclude robust military funding, though?  Given the choice of fighting fascism at home or abroad, why not both?  Regarding the notion of direct spending on social progress and R&D, well, the average American trusts the military a lot more than it trusts almost any other public institution.  It's not optimal, but in politics you have to play to the electorate you have, not the one you want.

Anyway, to tie this back to the veep discussion, these are two big points in favor of Tammy Duckworth.  She's Asian American, so what better spokesperson for democracy to offer the peoples of East Asia?  And her military background should be highly appealing to America's swing voters.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Bernie bros are going to Bernie Bro.

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1286462426142187525

Honestly, this makes me favor Harris and Duckworth even more.  I love Warren, but if the Bernie bros think she'd be an acceptable running mate that's a good sign she'd be a bad pick.

[Heebie Jeebie]

The Post still has Warren as the best non-Harris pick:

I'd like to add it's not just about what percentage of people say they'll support Biden, but enthusiasm for the ticket from those who supported a more progressive candidate and how genuine Biden's policy proposals (in which there are things for progressives to like) are seen. With Warren on the ticket, it definitely adds credibility to the notion that he'll actually try to do the things he lists.

The problem is that Warren would motivate the right more than she would the left.

[Heebie Jeebie]

The Post still has Warren as the best non-Harris pick:

I'd like to add it's not just about what percentage of people say they'll support Biden, but enthusiasm for the ticket from those who supported a more progressive candidate and how genuine Biden's policy proposals (in which there are things for progressives to like) are seen. With Warren on the ticket, it definitely adds credibility to the notion that he'll actually try to do the things he lists.

The problem is that Warren would motivate the right more than she would the left.

The right is going to be super motivated no matter what.

Have you seen the national polling?  A lot of the right/center-right don't currently seem very motivated to vote against Biden, but it's easy to imagine then enthused to vote against Warren.

[Heebie Jeebie]

KLB would be very smart to aim for GA-GOV

Abrams is getting another shot at GA-GOV in 2022. KLB should go for GA-AG.

[Heebie Jeebie]

The Post still has Warren as the best non-Harris pick:

I'd like to add it's not just about what percentage of people say they'll support Biden, but enthusiasm for the ticket from those who supported a more progressive candidate and how genuine Biden's policy proposals (in which there are things for progressives to like) are seen. With Warren on the ticket, it definitely adds credibility to the notion that he'll actually try to do the things he lists.

The problem is that Warren would motivate the right more than she would the left.

The right is going to be super motivated no matter what.

Have you seen the national polling?  A lot of the right/center-right don't currently seem very motivated to vote against Biden, but it's easy to imagine then enthused to vote against Warren.

The types that would be enthused against Warren are going to come out for Trump regardless. Any woman Biden picks will be relentlessly demonized and you're naive if you're not counting on that.

And I'd say you're being naive if you think Warren doesn't occupy a special place in the right's fevered dreams (along with Sanders and the squad).

[Heebie Jeebie]

The Post still has Warren as the best non-Harris pick:

I'd like to add it's not just about what percentage of people say they'll support Biden, but enthusiasm for the ticket from those who supported a more progressive candidate and how genuine Biden's policy proposals (in which there are things for progressives to like) are seen. With Warren on the ticket, it definitely adds credibility to the notion that he'll actually try to do the things he lists.

The problem is that Warren would motivate the right more than she would the left.

The right is going to be super motivated no matter what.

Have you seen the national polling?  A lot of the right/center-right don't currently seem very motivated to vote against Biden, but it's easy to imagine then enthused to vote against Warren.

The types that would be enthused against Warren are going to come out for Trump regardless. Any woman Biden picks will be relentlessly demonized and you're naive if you're not counting on that.

And I'd say you're being naive if you think Warren doesn't occupy a special place in the right's fevered dreams (along with Sanders and the squad).

She (and they) do now because they are more known. But if you think a different woman Biden picks will be treated like him (an old white guy) you're naive.

No, you're naive.

Seriously, though, I'm not arguing that any woman would be treated like Biden--she won't.  The sexism that characterized Clinton's treatment will still be there whether Biden picks Warren, Harris, Duckworth, or whomever.  But it's not just sexism I'm talking about--Warren is an avatar of the Left in a way that other potential running mates aren't, and those kinds of narratives take time to establish.  Put Warren on the ticket and all those "Biden is just a Trojan Horse for the extremists" takes suddenly have a lot more heft with voters.  

[Heebie Jeebie]

The Post still has Warren as the best non-Harris pick:

I'd like to add it's not just about what percentage of people say they'll support Biden, but enthusiasm for the ticket from those who supported a more progressive candidate and how genuine Biden's policy proposals (in which there are things for progressives to like) are seen. With Warren on the ticket, it definitely adds credibility to the notion that he'll actually try to do the things he lists.

The problem is that Warren would motivate the right more than she would the left.

The right is going to be super motivated no matter what.

Have you seen the national polling?  A lot of the right/center-right don't currently seem very motivated to vote against Biden, but it's easy to imagine then enthused to vote against Warren.

The types that would be enthused against Warren are going to come out for Trump regardless. Any woman Biden picks will be relentlessly demonized and you're naive if you're not counting on that.

And I'd say you're being naive if you think Warren doesn't occupy a special place in the right's fevered dreams (along with Sanders and the squad).

She (and they) do now because they are more known. But if you think a different woman Biden picks will be treated like him (an old white guy) you're naive.

No, you're naive.

Seriously, though, I'm not arguing that any woman would be treated like Biden--she won't.  The sexism that characterized Clinton's treatment will still be there whether Biden picks Warren, Harris, Duckworth, or whomever.  But it's not just sexism I'm talking about--Warren is an avatar of the Left in a way that other potential running mates aren't, and those kinds of narratives take time to establish.  Put Warren on the ticket and all those "Biden is just a Trojan Horse for the extremists" takes suddenly have a lot more heft with voters.  

You forget how well Sanders was polling in the GE. Having someone as "an avatar of the Left" means nothing by itself when Biden when the platform doesn't support the most scary policies. If the argument is "well he just can't pick a progressive, period", I would disagree. And Warren is not seen as far left as Sanders, AOC, or the rest of the squad.

Harris, Duckworth, et. al. are all plenty progressive and would be fine choices, so there's no reason to think that progressive values alone are enough to make someone ineligeable.  But Biden's whole campaign strategy is "don't antagonize or alienate moderates," and Warren has built her entire career on antagonizing and alienating moderates in ways the others just haven't.  Which works just fine in many contexts--it's made her a very effective reformer and Senator. But it would be a handicap in a presidential campaign.  Right now, Biden is winning and winning big. Why would he pick Warren and risk totally upending a winning strategy?

[Heebie Jeebie]

Honestly, this makes me favor Harris and Duckworth even more.  I love Warren, but if the Bernie bros think she'd be an acceptable running mate that's a good sign she'd be a bad pick.

Imagine abandoning all your principles to trigger the Berners.

It's not about triggering anyone.  The people represented in that tweet are, by their own acknowledgement, at the edge of what is politically salient in this country--they're out far past the center-left.  You don't win a wide majority or form a governing coalition by veering so far from the center--not at the presidential level.  Warren, Sanders, and their ilk obviously have what it takes to be highly successful Senators and legislators, but there are different constraints on presidential aspirants. 

[Heebie Jeebie]

The Post still has Warren as the best non-Harris pick:

I'd like to add it's not just about what percentage of people say they'll support Biden, but enthusiasm for the ticket from those who supported a more progressive candidate and how genuine Biden's policy proposals (in which there are things for progressives to like) are seen. With Warren on the ticket, it definitely adds credibility to the notion that he'll actually try to do the things he lists.

The problem is that Warren would motivate the right more than she would the left.

The right is going to be super motivated no matter what.

Have you seen the national polling?  A lot of the right/center-right don't currently seem very motivated to vote against Biden, but it's easy to imagine then enthused to vote against Warren.

The types that would be enthused against Warren are going to come out for Trump regardless. Any woman Biden picks will be relentlessly demonized and you're naive if you're not counting on that.

And I'd say you're being naive if you think Warren doesn't occupy a special place in the right's fevered dreams (along with Sanders and the squad).

She (and they) do now because they are more known. But if you think a different woman Biden picks will be treated like him (an old white guy) you're naive.

No, you're naive.

Seriously, though, I'm not arguing that any woman would be treated like Biden--she won't.  The sexism that characterized Clinton's treatment will still be there whether Biden picks Warren, Harris, Duckworth, or whomever.  But it's not just sexism I'm talking about--Warren is an avatar of the Left in a way that other potential running mates aren't, and those kinds of narratives take time to establish.  Put Warren on the ticket and all those "Biden is just a Trojan Horse for the extremists" takes suddenly have a lot more heft with voters.  

You forget how well Sanders was polling in the GE. Having someone as "an avatar of the Left" means nothing by itself when Biden when the platform doesn't support the most scary policies. If the argument is "well he just can't pick a progressive, period", I would disagree. And Warren is not seen as far left as Sanders, AOC, or the rest of the squad.

Harris, Duckworth, et. al. are all plenty progressive and would be fine choices, so there's no reason to think that progressive values alone are enough to make someone ineligeable.  But Biden's whole campaign strategy is "don't antagonize or alienate moderates," and Warren has built her entire career on antagonizing and alienating moderates in ways the others just haven't.  Which works just fine in many contexts--it's made her a very effective reformer and Senator. But it would be a handicap in a presidential campaign.  Right now, Biden is winning and winning big. Why would he pick Warren and risk totally upending a winning strategy?

She has "built her entire career on antagonizing and alienating moderates"? That's a really objective characterization... Not. She's built her entire career fighting for the middle class against billionaires and fighting against corruption. Those are generally popular causes and moderates aren't going to be scared off by them. Most people know that there are deep problems with the way the country is run and Biden will do best by honestly running on the fact that structural change is needed. That will give him a substantive message to hang onto during a rocky campaign more than just "not Trump" and it will help him more in the long run.

Biden and pretty much every prominent Democratic office-holder have also "built entire careers fighting for the middle class against billionaires and fighting corruption."  I'm not here to slag Warren's ideology or motives--I'm just talking about affect.  Warren is confrontational and aggressive.  She's a fighter.  I love that about her and think it serves her really well as a legislator in a coalition-oriented body like Congress.  But it's a counterproductive trait as a presidential, or vice presidential, candidate.  I'm talking basic negative polarization:  mobilization is the flip side of polarization--when party activists are sharply divided by ideology and demography, what excites your side will be the very thing that energizes the other side.