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

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Harris has an ideology out of line with most moderates, far left on social issues but centrist on economics with a heavy dose of identity politics.

What is identity politics? Acknowledging the very real consequences of racism and racial bias?

But crickets when identity politics focuses on fake white moderates in that proverbial diner in Bumblef***, Wisconsin.

Identity politics - at the most basic level, the politics of specific communities as interest groups (this can be class, race, etc.) - is not an inherently negative term and has played an important role in securing rights, but it is usually divisive and electorally controversial in that it splits people into an in-group and an out-group, or can be easily portrayed as doing this. The most successful advocates tend to achieve their goals by pooling their efforts with others of different identities, uniting behind a much more pluralist front with shared goals (e.g. the early 1900s labour movement in the UK, which grew well beyond the initial working class in-group - when it failed to do this in the late '70s and early '80s, it suffered a steep decline).

I try to keep an open mind about all this as I'm hardly as familiar with the American cultural context as most of you, but it seems to me that championing HR40 is approaching a form of essentialist identity politics that suggests that recipients of hypothetical reparations are not deserving of support because it's right to help the disadvantaged, but because of who their ancestors were (and, in the case of those not paid cash reparations for slavery, they are not paying taxes because it's right to help those in need, but because of the sins of their forefathers).

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Bernie Sanders doesn't seem too keen on Elizabeth Warren as Biden's running-mate:

Sanders not urging Biden to pick Warren as running mate: report

The article I posted stated --

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.

Given that Warren is the overwhelming preferred choice of Our Revolution, the fact Sanders is not advocating for her is notable.  

Previous VP articles have talked about 'the business community' etc. favouring candidate X or Y. Biden appears much more willing to work with progressives in certain policy areas, but when it comes to VP selection it seems like he's taking advice mostly from moderate party insiders, more so than in any other major part of his team.

Would a Sanders endorsement actually help win over these powerbrokers (as opposed to voters in a primary/GE)? Perhaps, but a Bernie endorsement could put the endorsee in the sights of the #NeverBernie grouping as a proxy villain, and the negatives here might well outweigh the positives (which would not be true within the wider democratic electorate). I'm not saying this is certain, but he - or any potential VP he's been talking to about an endorsement - might deem an endorsement in this situation to be a net negative.

An undeniable upshot to him endorsing prior to them being selected is that it makes Biden seem more receptive to the progressive camp and potentially brings a few more floating lefties on board. However, this is worth less than nothing if they aren't actually selected.

Edit: the Our Revolution poll was a closed poll with only 5 candidates (Abrams, Harris, Klobuchar Warren and Whitmer). I suspect Tammy Baldwin might poll better with them than Warren, though that'd be a critical risk to her Senate seat.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

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).

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

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.

I was only referring to Democratic candidates. The list expands a fair bit when you include Republicans.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

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?

The most tangible electoral effect most VPs apply is the home state boost. Baldwin won Wisconsin by 10 points while Walker lost by 1, so she'd clearly bring that to the table. Taking a wider view, cities that are heavily Democratic can exist in states that are not and juicing turnout amongst urban progressives can be helpful there, and it arguably makes more sense to court progressives even where there's a lower distribution of them if the top of the ticket is already well-suited to moderates.

I don't think Baldwin would be picked (despite being the strongest VP candidate, IMO) because of the Senate loss, but in any timeline where there's a decent chance of a male VP pick, Feingold would be a serious contender.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Ro Khanna doubling down on Warren as the VP choice with an op-ed in the Boston Globe today, saying that by choosing her Biden can "channel FDR".

https://twitter.com/BostonGlobe/status/1262454665989566477?s=20

She will be a distraction. She is a hard no.

It could be argued every VP, especially Kamala, could be a distraction. You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think Trumpists would go as far as they could to attack and troll the first black woman on a national ticket. They’d all outshine Biden just based on their youth and dynamism. 

Not "all", but most would fail (through no fault of their own) to avoid becoming a target of "It's progressive Cheney!" concern trolling. The easiest way to avoid that would be to pick a candidate seen as boring, but that comes with a risk of making Biden look out-of-touch etc.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Her DNA test and relentless woke politics is already a needless distraction Biden doesn't need.

Yeah, not like the Trump campaign won't make stupid issues out of any of the potential VP candidates.

Attacking Tammy Duckworth is a lot harder than attacking Warren, and Duckworth holds a similar progressive score.

Those scores don't really matter. It's all about perception. Booker and Harris have consistently been ranked as top 5 most progressive senators by basically every ranking system, yet many progressives don't like either of them at all.

Duckworth is also largely unknown and unvetted on the national stage. We know for almost a fact that the worst attack Republicans have against Warren is the “Pocahontas” smear and attacking her as too left. We know what we’re getting with her, Harris, & Klobuchar.

I’d say it’s more of a risk to pick someone who didn’t run for President (Duckworth, Whitmer, Demings) than one of the former 3.

I think what's appealing about Duckworth though is that she is inherently sympathetic in being a wounded veteran. It would be hard to negatively characterize her in the face of that, and anything the Republicans try could backfire hard.

They've already succeeded in this at the national level. Even if you leave out attacks on the characters of veterans which do not highlight what they lost (e.g. swiftboating), "I like people who weren't captured" can easily be repurposed to fit Duckworth's case. She's harder to attack than Warren, but being a veteran is hardly an insurmountable advantage.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

What exactly is wrong with having a Governor?? I think people would enjoy seeing someone competently do their job.

It's fuel for near-constant Fox concern trolling about how the VP-nominee isn't doing enough to fight the coronavirus in their state, right before cutting to a Trump rally.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I wonder how far Hilda Solis' stock has risen since CCM's exit and the de facto departure of Grisham.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

No way in hell Klobuchar gets nominated now.

Why?

Because her candidacy is attached to a live political scandal. Whether that's fair or not, picking her would be a free hit for the Republicans, and I think it's overwhelmingly likely the Biden campaign would want to avoid this.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Harris just seems like such a cold oatmeal kind of choice. I'd almost rather Cory Booker.

Sadly not possible (as a Booker fan) because it would represent a massive u-turn from the 'woman VP' stance.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Why is the list of black women so short? Why not look at someone like Tish James, Who has won a state wide election, and is a former public defender? There are plenty of black women Who were not corrupt prosecutors . And don’t give me that “nobody knows them“ Argument. This election is a referendum between decency and chaos. The majority of voters don’t even watch the primary anyway. They’re not gonna be overly familiar with whoever he selects, and that will not make a difference. Well will make amThis selection is a referendum between decency and chaos. Good majority of voters don’t even watch the primary anyway. They’re not going to be overly familiar with whoever he pigs in the beginning. And that confusion is not going to matter. What is going to matter is what the media digs up on the record a month, two months into the Campaign. And that’s where Harris will unravel. Why settle for her?

State-level elected officials below Governor are simply never considered for VP, ever.

Given that Biden clearly wants a Veep with at least some experience, he's only looking at candidates who are in the House, Senate or have held a cabinet position

There are still plenty of black women within that category who we've never or rarely heard touted.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Why is the list of black women so short? Why not look at someone like Tish James, Who has won a state wide election, and is a former public defender? There are plenty of black women Who were not corrupt prosecutors . And don’t give me that “nobody knows them“ Argument. This election is a referendum between decency and chaos. The majority of voters don’t even watch the primary anyway. They’re not gonna be overly familiar with whoever he selects, and that will not make a difference. Well will make amThis selection is a referendum between decency and chaos. Good majority of voters don’t even watch the primary anyway. They’re not going to be overly familiar with whoever he pigs in the beginning. And that confusion is not going to matter. What is going to matter is what the media digs up on the record a month, two months into the Campaign. And that’s where Harris will unravel. Why settle for her?

State-level elected officials below Governor are simply never considered for VP, ever.

Given that Biden clearly wants a Veep with at least some experience, he's only looking at candidates who are in the House, Senate or have held a cabinet position

There are still plenty of black women within that category who we've never or rarely heard touted.

Which ones?

Sticking to candidates younger than Biden and not counting House members: Carol Moseley-Braun, Alexis Herman, Loretta Lynch and Lisa Jackson don't seem to have been mentioned at all.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Susan Rice apparently went on CNN to talk about how the riots are a Russian operation. Sure.

Automatic VP vetting? Nice!

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Larry Sabato has Crystal Ball's ranking of possible VP picks up.  

1. Sen. Kamala Harris
2. Rep. Val Demings
3. Sen. Tammy Duckworth
4. Sen. Elizabeth Warren
5. Sen. Tammy Baldwin
6. Gov. Gina Raimondo
7. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham
8. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer
9. Sen. Maggie Hassan
10. Stacy Abrams

Raimondo being ranked No. 6 is a joke.  The rest looks at least somewhat plausible.

Sabato notes:

When we compiled this list, the three of us each did separate rankings independently of one another, which we then used as the basis for our collective list. While the lists differed substantially in many ways, all three of us had Harris listed in the top position.

http://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-veepstakes-handicapping-bidens-choices/

After her coronavirus jewellery stunt, Lujan Grisham is an even worse choice than Raimondo.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

If we could appoint someone Vice President, I'd probably pick Susan Rice.

But alas, electability is important. And so is experience.

And the only person who fits both is Kamala Harris.

Biden/Harris 2020

How is Rice, someone who was at Cabinet level for 8 years, less experienced than a former state AG who has only been in the Senate minority for 4? How is Harris "the only person" who is both electable (this is questionable in her case anyway) and sufficiently experienced?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

3) I’d say Harris dropping out before Iowa shows that Democratic voters don’t want her as President. Demings is a complete unknown, which no, isn’t a good thing. We don’t have the time to define a VP candidate. Of the 2 I’d pick Harris because she already has an identity in national politics, albeit a polarizing one.

Her dropping out because the white donor class decided to go with Pete means the average voter doesn't want her as President? Oh ok...

Her poll numbers were also garbage and she collapsed she went from polling in the midteens in the summer to polling at 3% in Iowa by the time she left the race, here numbers in Nevada were also 3%, here numbers in South Carolina weren't much better at 4%, and in New Hampshire, she only was bringing in 3.5%.

For someone who was supposed to be a top-flight candidate for the nomination she faded, and she faded fast. Probably one of the more disappointing campaigns of the 2020 cycle much like Beto.

Hell by the time she dropped out she was polling in 5th place in her own home state.

Joe Biden had dwindled down to the low teens before black people saved him in SC. Kamala was a terrible fit for the vote suppressing caucuses in IA PERIOD. Like look how fast Pete and Amy flamed out when Black people started voting. IA is NOT representative of what Dems want. Kamala was f-cked by a primary system set up to benefit candidates with white bases. She probably still would have lost the primary to Biden but wouldn’t have been forced out before people started voting.

Kamala had the largest field team in SC and most extensive volunteer database. That’s why Tom Steyer stole her SC data with his fraudulent ass.

She wasn’t polling that well in SC or CA either... Iowa and New Hampshire are sh!tyy states to vote first in the primary, but let’s stop pretending it was the calendar and not her own inept campaign that did her in.

And let’s not forget that she was the candidate of the ”white donor base” first. Her base wasn’t minority voters (though they did give her a look in the beginning after her rally in Oakland), it was affluent white liberals. If she had run as well as Pete then maybe that “white donor base” wouldn’t have abandoned her for him.

The problem for Harris in the primary was that the 'white donor base" was split between too many candidates, and most of that base liked Harris a lot but was scared, after 2016, to vote for her. Same with a lot of the black vote as well. Harris was also trying to jockey between the progressive and moderate sides and people were "picking" lanes and it was hard for Harris since she's a mix of both. This is not to say that her campaign didn't have flaws - but there is a lot of clear reasons why she couldn't break thru that were out of her control.

I hear this a fair bit, but you'd expect that to show up in her favourability ratings if not VI polls; by the end of her campaign, she was trailing Booker, Buttigieg, Biden, Warren and Sanders on these. Even if you argue that was just a function of significantly higher name recognition for all of these in September-November 2019 (debatable), you have to consider that by the end of her own campaign, Klobuchar had a higher favourability than Harris did by the end of hers, and that other Dems might well have reached her baseline had they managed the initial breakout as Harris (to her credit) did. FWIW I think Klobuchar would be a significantly worse VP pick than Harris, but I'm just not sure Harris' hype died because people were too scared to vote for her (but not Warren who was even more risky according to conventional wisdom, and to whom many of Harris' early backers switched).

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I hear this a fair bit, but you'd expect that to show up in her favourability ratings if not VI polls; by the end of her campaign, she was trailing Booker, Buttigieg, Biden, Warren and Sanders on these. Even if you argue that was just a function of significantly higher name recognition for all of these in September-November 2019 (debatable), you have to consider that by the end of her own campaign, Klobuchar had a higher favourability than Harris did by the end of hers, and that other Dems might well have reached her baseline had they managed the initial breakout as Harris (to her credit) did. FWIW I think Klobuchar would be a significantly worse VP pick than Harris, but I'm just not sure Harris' hype died because people were too scared to vote for her (but not Warren who was even more risky according to conventional wisdom, and to whom many of Harris' early backers switched).

I have not seen a comparison of approval ratings but in terms of the regular polling Harris never trailed Booker prior to her dropping out:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-6824.html

Yes, she did poll ahead of him in VI. His candidacy was badly suited to the moment although primary voters seemed to still think highly of him.

Favourability ratings can be found here. The data is not conclusive, but is perhaps indicative of Booker being a less (internally) controversial, well-known and well-liked figure.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Yep - MC in Late Nov:

Sanders 75/19% for +56%
Biden 68/23% for +45%
Warren 63/19% for +44%
Buttigieg 49/14% for +35%
Harris 53/21% for +32%
Booker 48/16% for +32%
Yang 43/15% for +28%
Klobuchar 36/18% for +18%

Harris was always way above Klobuchar and usually around Pete/Booker.  Warren had the help of better name recognition.

That is only one pollster. Looking at a list from late October to early December:

Oct 28 - Nov 3 (MC) - Sanders 56, Biden 54, Warren 50, Harris 36, Buttigieg 33, Booker 32
Oct 30 - Nov 3 (Monmouth) - Warren 70, Biden 57, Sanders 47, Buttigieg/Harris 33
Oct 31 - Nov 3 (Change Research) - Warren 63, Sanders 48, Biden 42, Buttigieg 46, Harris 35
Nov 3 - 5 (YouGov) - Warren 64, Sanders 50, Biden 42, Buttigieg 39, Booker 37, Harris 36
Nov 4 - 10 (MC) - Sanders 56, Biden 54, Warren 50, Harris 36, Buttigieg 32, Booker 16
Nov 10 - 12 (YouGov) - Warren 58, Sanders 52, Booker 44, Harris 41, Buttigieg 38, Biden 37
Nov 11-17 (MC) - Sanders 57, Biden 52, Warren 48, Buttigieg 34, Booker 31, Harris 29
Nov 14-18 (Ipsos) - Biden 48, Warren 46, Sanders 43, Buttigieg 34, Booker/Harris 25
Nov 17-19 (YouGov) - Warren 59, Biden 50, Sanders 45, Buttigieg 46, Booker 39, Harris 37
Nov 20-21 (Ipsos) - Warren 49, Biden 45, Sanders 44, Buttigieg 37, Booker/Harris 26
Nov 21-24 (MC) - Sanders 56, Biden 45, Warren 44, Buttigieg 35, Booker/Harris 32
Nov 24-26 (YouGov) - Warren 52, Sanders 51, Biden/Booker 46, Buttigieg 38, Harris 37
Nov 25 - Dec 1 (MC) - Sanders 54, Biden 50, Warren 42, Buttigieg 34, Booker/Harris 28
Dec 1 - 3 (YouGov) - Warren 53, Sanders 48, Biden/Booker 43, Buttigieg/Harris 37

Where Yang was included, she was more often than not ahead of him, but not always. Booker's numbers rose towards the end of his campaign, as did Klobuchar's (they eventually surpassed Harris' final numbers). This doesn't mean Harris would be a worse pick than any of these or that they're bound to be more popular than Harris in the constituencies where they need to be, but I think it suggests that the constituency of Harris fans too scared to opt for her was not, if sizeable, unique within the field.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I'm still mad Barbra Lee wasn't on the shortlist

Probably deemed too old unless Biden is planning a one-term presidency.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/politics/biden-kamala-harris-keisha-lance-bottoms-val-demings/index.html

Top 5 on the List:
1.) Kamala Harris
2.) Keisha Lance Bottoms
3.) Val Demings
4.) Michelle Lujan Grisham
5.) Elizabeth Warren

I suspect Biden makes his choice the last week of July right before August 1st. Maybe August 1st, since it does fall on a Saturday. Allows for that weeks news cycle to get the puff pieces ready to pump out the VP nominee.

I'm really happy to see MLG so high on the list. Two years as governor is kind of thin, but Biden is showing some real weakness with Latinos and he really needs to be thinking about Texas in 2024/28, a state where Lujan Grisham should play well.

Her rise was helped by Sen. Cortez Masto dropping out.  As a former House member she has federal experience and probably could get up to speed in the short time needed.  However, she was dented by jewelry shopping during the quarantine.

"Dented?" That should have been the end of her pseudo-candidacy in this VP selection.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Just pick Harris so we can have the Biden/Harris ticket everyone has been predicting since January 2018.

I've said this before, but I do think that's going to end up being the case. It's a similar situation to Clinton picking Tim Kaine in 2016: there was a lot of speculation leading up to her choice, but everyone knew deep down inside that it was always going to be Kaine who was chosen.

Let's hope whatever choice is made doesn't get panned quite as badly as 2016's after the fact.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I mean as in Biden would be wise to tone down the culture wars as President. Harris comes off as more concerned about that stuff than anything.

Ending systemic racism that is literally killing whole communities is culture wars I guess.

Shutting down Trump's twitter would have been a distraction.

That said, her healthcare plan was one of the best in the primary field.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I’m actually fine with Harris. I never really saw the charisma people always claims she has, but I respect her skills on the debate stage, the stump, and her work on CJ reform these last few weeks.

Again, my only complaint is that I don’t want her running in 2024 as the de-facto incumbent like Gore & Hillary. We’ll arguably not have had a truly competitive primary in 16 years by that time.

Eh I don't really care about that, I just want a good, qualified liberal President and Harris gets me that.

Competitive primaries tend to promote stronger candidates. Harris needs to be elected to be president (though being VP will probably help her with this - to an extent - in a GE, as well as winning her the primary).

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

So, spoiler alert: turns out Klobuchars statement was 100% planned.

https://twitter.com/CGasparino/status/1273965231182667778?s=20

But Demmings' record as Orlando police chief won't be attacked? Gimme a break.

If the far left goes on about KaMaLa iS a CoP, what would they do with an actual cop?

It's the far left we're talking about. They will be mad if its a black person in general.

Remember when they supported Pete Buttigieg to stop Keith Ellison becoming chair of the DNC?