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

[tmthforu94]

I know he said he wanted to run with Warren back in the 2016 cycle, but I just don't think Biden will pick a VP who will greatly outshine him - I could see her requiring certain concessions from Biden in order to accept the nomination and being a thorn in his side throughout the administration. Plus, I don't think she adds much more to the ticket than others do and the DNA scandal will continue to hurt her credibility.

Klobuchar still makes the most sense to me, followed by Cortez Mastro or Harris. I still like Val Demings as a darkhorse pick, but I highly doubt it happens.

[Rookie Yinzer]

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.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

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. 

[wbrocks67]

There is no way Biden is going to pick Warren. Again, she is too old, doesn't represent the "bridge" to the new generation he was speaking of, and she's way too polarizing (for better or for worse)

[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.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

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.

[Ogre Mage]

Warren is so popular with the Democratic base that Biden almost has to vet and seriously consider her.  But I think he ultimately chooses someone else.
  

[Blair]

I read a good piece about how the Democrats always tend to pick the least offensive choice who the republicans would hate the least (Kaine, Biden, Lieberman, Gore etc etc) while the republicans just seem to pick whoever they need to appease whatever donor wing is having a hissy fit.

I mean would you say that Mike Pence, Dick Cheney, Dan Qualye or George H.W Bush were exactly popular choices?

[Ogre Mage]

The political environment is so hyper-polarized there is a strong argument that the nominee should pick a running mate which unites the base.  But the Democratic Party is a coalition party with so many constituencies it is impossible to cover all of them with the running mate.  The nominee has to decide which base constituencies to focus on with the pick.

[Canis]

I read a good piece about how the Democrats always tend to pick the least offensive choice who the republicans would hate the least (Kaine, Biden, Lieberman, Gore etc etc) while the republicans just seem to pick whoever they need to appease whatever donor wing is having a hissy fit.

I mean would you say that Mike Pence, Dick Cheney, Dan Qualye or George H.W Bush were exactly popular choices?

So Klobuchar or Harris?

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/1262490603801260032

[Orwell]

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.

[Mr. Morden]

I mean would you say that Mike Pence, Dick Cheney, Dan Qualye or George H.W Bush were exactly popular choices?

To be fair, in 2016, all of the most obvious potential picks (like Rubio and Haley) refused to be vetted for veep, as they were worried that being Trump's running mate could destroy their career.  So if not Pence, it would have been someone like Gingrich or Sessions.  Compared to them, I don't think Pence is a particularly edgy choice. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

I mean would you say that Mike Pence, Dick Cheney, Dan Qualye or George H.W Bush were exactly popular choices?

To be fair, in 2016, all of the most obvious potential picks (like Rubio and Haley) refused to be vetted for veep, as they were worried that being Trump's running mate could destroy their career.  So if not Pence, it would have been someone like Gingrich or Sessions.  Compared to them, I don't think Pence is a particularly edgy choice. 

Actually it's been pretty well-documented that Trump had settled on Christie but was talked out of it by Janavka and some other Republican bigwigs.

[7,052,770]

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.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

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.

[Progressive Pessimist]

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.

[Bidenworth2020]

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.

This. I, for one, would love to see republicans try to attack her on being an amputee.

[Roll Roons]

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.

Exactly. Mark Kirk unfortunately learned this the hard way, and I'm sure it would look even worse for Trump if he tried to insult her.

[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.

[Spiffy]

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.

Exactly. Mark Kirk unfortunately learned this the hard way, and I'm sure it would look even worse for Trump if he tried to insult her.

Not quite sure about this. Just look at Trump and John McCain.

[Orwell]

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.

Exactly. Mark Kirk unfortunately learned this the hard way, and I'm sure it would look even worse for Trump if he tried to insult her.

I feel with an utmost certainty we'll hear Trump say "I prefer veterans who weren't injured" people will be all up in arms for a few days but then forget

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

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.

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.

Exactly. Mark Kirk unfortunately learned this the hard way, and I'm sure it would look even worse for Trump if he tried to insult her.

LOL, the same Trump that attacked John McCain and the Khan family? The same Trump that mocked a disabled reporter?

C'mon, y'all should know better than this by now, it's been almost 5 years since he announced his candidacy.

Trump will say something like "She's a phony veteran. Phony! I like people that weren't injured." Trump is a scumbag.

[brucejoel99]

In other news, this is gold.

[Ogre Mage]

While picking a running mate who is not hugely vulnerable to incoming attacks is a consideration, I think the ability be the ticket's "attack dog" is as important, perhaps even more so.  Biden performed solidly in this role during his VP days, particularly in his 2012 debate with Paul Ryan:  "Malarkey!"  "That's a bunch of sh*t stuff."  "Now you're Jack Kennedy?"

Warren and Harris stand out for making tough attacks both during the primary and outside of it.  Some of these attacks were directed at Trump, others at primary opponents.  Some have happened during Senate hearings.

Not sure about Klobuchar.  She might be too "Minnesota Nice" to really throw red meat to the base in this way.

Hard to judge Cortez Masto or Duckworth on this front.  I haven't seen enough of them in a debate situation.