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

[wbrocks67]

New Yahoo/YouGov poll has Kamala Harris as the top choice for VP pick, among Democrats, Black voters, and Hispanic voters (and 65+ voters)

Among Democrats:
Kamala Harris 31%
Elizabeth Warren 30%
Stacey Abrams 16%
Amy Klobuchar 8%
Keisha Lance Bottoms 7%
Val Demmings 6%
Gretchen Whitmer 3%

Black Voters
Kamala Harris 25%
Stacey Abrams 22%
Keisha Lance Bottoms 16%
Elizabeth Warren 15%
Val Demmings 9%
Amy Klobuchar 7%
Gretchen Whitmer 6%

Hispanic Voters
Kamala Harris 33%
Elizabeth Warren 29%
Amy Klobuchar 18%
Stacey Abrams 9%
Gretchen Whitmer 7%
Val Demmings 2%
Keisha Lance Bottoms 1%

[Ferguson97]

New Yahoo/YouGov poll has Kamala Harris as the top choice for VP pick, among Democrats, Black voters, and Hispanic voters (and 65+ voters)

Among Democrats:
Kamala Harris 31%
Elizabeth Warren 30%
Stacey Abrams 16%
Amy Klobuchar 8%
Keisha Lance Bottoms 7%
Val Demmings 6%
Gretchen Whitmer 3%

Black Voters
Kamala Harris 25%
Stacey Abrams 22%
Keisha Lance Bottoms 16%
Elizabeth Warren 15%
Val Demmings 9%
Amy Klobuchar 7%
Gretchen Whitmer 6%

Hispanic Voters
Kamala Harris 33%
Elizabeth Warren 29%
Amy Klobuchar 18%
Stacey Abrams 9%
Gretchen Whitmer 7%
Val Demmings 2%
Keisha Lance Bottoms 1%

Link?

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/business/status/1271403134804525057

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

How the race is rn isn’t necessarily how it’ll look next month and definitely isn’t how it’ll look on November 3rd. Biden shouldn’t cave to pressure to pick a black woman VP right now. Wait till the end of July and pick someone that’ll make a good governing partner and a strong campaigner. But picking Val Demings just because there happened to be an issue galvanizing young blacks in June doesn’t mean she’d be a good pick on Election Day (she honestly isn’t even a good pick for today).

[DisneyDem]

 Y’all are like Sandra Bullock in bird box ignoring all of Harris’s obvious problems. Let me pose a hypothetical to you. Suppose there was another black woman in the Senate with a different background and less baggage. Is there any doubt that she would be the leading contender instead of Harris? Y’all have a real  bias towards senators and it shows

[Del Tachi]

Y’all are like Sandra Bullock in bird box ignoring all of Harris’s obvious problems. Let me pose a hypothetical to you. Suppose there was another black woman in the Senate with a different background and less baggage. Is there any doubt that she would be the leading contender instead of Harris? Y’all have a real  bias towards senators and it shows

An undersold aspect of Harris' appeal to Team Biden has got to be her California connections.  She's got a huge network of Golden State fundraisers and media moguls to tap into, and her selection would be a huge nod to Newsom and the CA House delegation.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The problem with Harris is that we had Valarie Jarrett and Susan Rice already during the Obama administration.  He did enough to keep the status quo but didnt shake up DC like he needed to.  Biden is almost certain to get a SCOTUS pick and an African American woman is likely to be picked there.

There isnt a dime's worth of difference between Warren and Harris. I think Biden picks Warren

[Heebie Jeebie]

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.

She's also been in congress for six years. Don't think experience is much of an issue here if Val Demings is in the mix, too.

I dunno how MLG does on the trail and whether she would create enough excitement. Voters don't just vote because the VP is of the same background. Especially if we're talking about Hospanics, who are a far less homogeneous voter block as opposed to AAs. I think Kamala Harris is the best choice to VP, followed by Val Demings.

My impression of Hispanic voters is that older ones are somewhat socially conservative and economically progressive, while younger ones are basically like young voters everywhere--socially and economically liberal, but unreliable as a voting bloc.  The catch, of course, is that the Hispanic population is significantly younger on average than other Democratic constituencies.  

[wbrocks67]

New Yahoo/YouGov poll has Kamala Harris as the top choice for VP pick, among Democrats, Black voters, and Hispanic voters (and 65+ voters)

Among Democrats:
Kamala Harris 31%
Elizabeth Warren 30%
Stacey Abrams 16%
Amy Klobuchar 8%
Keisha Lance Bottoms 7%
Val Demmings 6%
Gretchen Whitmer 3%

Black Voters
Kamala Harris 25%
Stacey Abrams 22%
Keisha Lance Bottoms 16%
Elizabeth Warren 15%
Val Demmings 9%
Amy Klobuchar 7%
Gretchen Whitmer 6%

Hispanic Voters
Kamala Harris 33%
Elizabeth Warren 29%
Amy Klobuchar 18%
Stacey Abrams 9%
Gretchen Whitmer 7%
Val Demmings 2%
Keisha Lance Bottoms 1%

Link?

https://twitter.com/notcapnamerica/status/1271222869524131841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpulsemusic.proboards.com%2Fthread%2F186166%2F2020-election-season-discussion%3Fpage%3D437

[Devils30]

It's all name recognition, Biden is foolish to choose just based on this.

[DisneyDem]

It's all name recognition, Biden is foolish to choose just based on this.

Yep yep yep

[Roronoa D. Law]

Amazing how Harris is leading even with Demings, Bottoms, and Abrams still in the mix.

[DisneyDem]

Amazing how Harris is leading even with Demings, Bottoms, and Abrams still in the mix.

Yep. I guess the vetting team is really sleeping on the job if the reporting is accurate. Her record is on par with Klobuchar

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Amazing how Harris is leading even with Demings, Bottoms, and Abrams still in the mix.

Yep. I guess the vetting team is really sleeping on the job if the reporting is accurate. Her record is on par with Klobuchar

Nope, not true. Also, your anti-Kamala hate is excessive. At the end of the day as long as Biden doesn't pick a Republican to be his running mate (which is not going to happen), I'm voting for him regardless of his VP pick. There is too much at stake to be silly & petty.

[Ogre Mage]

Y’all are like Sandra Bullock in bird box ignoring all of Harris’s obvious problems. Let me pose a hypothetical to you. Suppose there was another black woman in the Senate with a different background and less baggage. Is there any doubt that she would be the leading contender instead of Harris? Y’all have a real  bias towards senators and it shows

It isn't fair to compare Harris to some imaginary idealized black female U.S. Senator.  In reality, that person would have had to make some compromises to rise that high in the ranks too.  And if she ran for president we would hear about them.  The fact that no other black women are in the Senate now illustrates the challenges.

It's not just us who has a bias toward U.S. Senators as running mate.  The entire Democratic Party does.  Look at who has been selected as the Democratic running mate going all the way back to 1944.  It was always a U.S. Senator except for 1972 (Shriver, because McGovern was such a terrible general election candidate no one else would join) and 1984 (Geraldine Ferraro).  Both of those tickets lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_major_party_presidential_tickets

[Roll Roons]

Y’all are like Sandra Bullock in bird box ignoring all of Harris’s obvious problems. Let me pose a hypothetical to you. Suppose there was another black woman in the Senate with a different background and less baggage. Is there any doubt that she would be the leading contender instead of Harris? Y’all have a real  bias towards senators and it shows

It isn't fair to compare Harris to some imaginary idealized black female U.S. Senator.  In reality, that person would have had to make some compromises to rise that high in the ranks too.  And if she ran for president we would hear about them.  The fact that no other black women are in the Senate now illustrates the challenges.

It's not just us who has a bias toward U.S. Senators as running mate.  The entire Democratic Party does.  Look at who has been selected as the Democratic running mate going all the way back to 1944.  It was always a U.S. Senator except for 1972 (Shriver, because McGovern was such a terrible general election candidate no one else would join) and 1984 (Geraldine Ferraro).  Both of those tickets lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_major_party_presidential_tickets

Even then, Shriver was an emergency replacement. The initial pick, Tom Eagleton, was a Senator who had to drop out because of mental health issues.

[DisneyDem]

Y’all are like Sandra Bullock in bird box ignoring all of Harris’s obvious problems. Let me pose a hypothetical to you. Suppose there was another black woman in the Senate with a different background and less baggage. Is there any doubt that she would be the leading contender instead of Harris? Y’all have a real  bias towards senators and it shows

It isn't fair to compare Harris to some imaginary idealized black female U.S. Senator.  In reality, that person would have had to make some compromises to rise that high in the ranks too.  And if she ran for president we would hear about them.  The fact that no other black women are in the Senate now illustrates the challenges.

It's not just us who has a bias toward U.S. Senators as running mate.  The entire Democratic Party does.  Look at who has been selected as the Democratic running mate going all the way back to 1944.  It was always a U.S. Senator except for 1972 (Shriver, because McGovern was such a terrible general election candidate no one else would join) and 1984 (Geraldine Ferraro).  Both of those tickets lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_major_party_presidential_tickets

Sorry I guess I should give a bit of context. I am a Hillary voter. I am all for compromise. I just don’t see allowing your office to defend wrongful convictions, And refuse to investigate police shootings as The same things as voting for a huge defense bill with some bad stuff in it for example. This is not a purity test for me. In fact, Amy, Bloomberg, and Harris were the only ones with anything like it on the record, which is why I said I’d be happy with literally anyone else is the nominee
And I understand that history favors senators normally I would too.  I’m just saying Because of moment We are in. I would prefer a black woman, and I don’t want the history of senators being pegged to override the aforementioned issues. The real moral of all this is that we need more black woman in the Senate. I’m sorry if this seems petty to all of you, I sincerely don’t mean it that way how much and I promise I would have the same concerns if Amy or Bloomberg were the front runner. I’m not demanding perfection, I just want basic decency. I get a little too passionate sometimes, and my positions come across. Less nuanced than they actually are.

[wbrocks67]

Y’all are like Sandra Bullock in bird box ignoring all of Harris’s obvious problems. Let me pose a hypothetical to you. Suppose there was another black woman in the Senate with a different background and less baggage. Is there any doubt that she would be the leading contender instead of Harris? Y’all have a real  bias towards senators and it shows

It isn't fair to compare Harris to some imaginary idealized black female U.S. Senator.  In reality, that person would have had to make some compromises to rise that high in the ranks too.  And if she ran for president we would hear about them.  The fact that no other black women are in the Senate now illustrates the challenges.

It's not just us who has a bias toward U.S. Senators as running mate.  The entire Democratic Party does.  Look at who has been selected as the Democratic running mate going all the way back to 1944.  It was always a U.S. Senator except for 1972 (Shriver, because McGovern was such a terrible general election candidate no one else would join) and 1984 (Geraldine Ferraro).  Both of those tickets lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_major_party_presidential_tickets

Sorry I guess I should give a bit of context. I am a Hillary voter. I am all for compromise. I just don’t see allowing your office to defend wrongful convictions, And refuse to investigate police shootings as The same things as voting for a huge defense bill with some bad stuff in it for example. This is not a purity test for me. In fact, Amy, Bloomberg, and Harris were the only ones with anything like it on the record, which is why I said I’d be happy with literally anyone else is the nominee
And I understand that history favors senators normally I would too.  I’m just saying Because of moment We are in. I would prefer a black woman, and I don’t want the history of senators being pegged to override the aforementioned issues. The real moral of all this is that we need more black woman in the Senate. I’m sorry if this seems petty to all of you, I sincerely don’t mean it that way how much and I promise I would have the same concerns if Amy or Bloomberg were the front runner. I’m not demanding perfection, I just want basic decency. I get a little too passionate sometimes, and my positions come across. Less nuanced than they actually are.

Honestly it sounds like you've just read Rose Twitter's "50 worst things that Kamala Harris has done" without actually investigating a lot of them or reading into the context. Not to mention, you're literally focusing on just negative stories about her and not the (many) other positive things that she did:

https://medium.com/@blackwomenviews/50-criminal-justice-reforms-accomplishments-by-kamala-harris-cf314eeaad2e?source=rss-------1

[DisneyDem]

Y’all are like Sandra Bullock in bird box ignoring all of Harris’s obvious problems. Let me pose a hypothetical to you. Suppose there was another black woman in the Senate with a different background and less baggage. Is there any doubt that she would be the leading contender instead of Harris? Y’all have a real  bias towards senators and it shows

It isn't fair to compare Harris to some imaginary idealized black female U.S. Senator.  In reality, that person would have had to make some compromises to rise that high in the ranks too.  And if she ran for president we would hear about them.  The fact that no other black women are in the Senate now illustrates the challenges.

It's not just us who has a bias toward U.S. Senators as running mate.  The entire Democratic Party does.  Look at who has been selected as the Democratic running mate going all the way back to 1944.  It was always a U.S. Senator except for 1972 (Shriver, because McGovern was such a terrible general election candidate no one else would join) and 1984 (Geraldine Ferraro).  Both of those tickets lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_major_party_presidential_tickets

Sorry I guess I should give a bit of context. I am a Hillary voter. I am all for compromise. I just don’t see allowing your office to defend wrongful convictions, And refuse to investigate police shootings as The same things as voting for a huge defense bill with some bad stuff in it for example. This is not a purity test for me. In fact, Amy, Bloomberg, and Harris were the only ones with anything like it on the record, which is why I said I’d be happy with literally anyone else is the nominee
And I understand that history favors senators normally I would too.  I’m just saying Because of moment We are in. I would prefer a black woman, and I don’t want the history of senators being pegged to override the aforementioned issues. The real moral of all this is that we need more black woman in the Senate. I’m sorry if this seems petty to all of you, I sincerely don’t mean it that way how much and I promise I would have the same concerns if Amy or Bloomberg were the front runner. I’m not demanding perfection, I just want basic decency. I get a little too passionate sometimes, and my positions come across. Less nuanced than they actually are.

Honestly it sounds like you've just read Rose Twitter's "50 worst things that Kamala Harris has done" without actually investigating a lot of them or reading into the context. Not to mention, you're literally focusing on just negative stories about her and not the (many) other positive things that she did:

https://medium.com/@blackwomenviews/50-criminal-justice-reforms-accomplishments-by-kamala-harris-cf314eeaad2e?source=rss-------1

No I really like the back on track program, as well as some of the other things she did. I think it’s reasonable for me or anyone else to say somethings are deal breakers, without saying everything they did was bad. I mean Amy has worked on prescription drug prices, and Bloomberg invested in education. Does that mean it’s wrong to call about other parts of the record? Look, if those 50 things are enough for you, that’s legitimately wonderful. But some people might still find some deal breakers, and I think that’s OK too.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Harris needs to be the pick.

I don’t care what smears and disinformation is posted. No one in the running can match her resume, fundraising prowess, energy, intersectionality, or grit. Period.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

I wish Biden would just pick Harris already so we can put an end to all the "Kamala Harris would be the perfect running mate" comments.

I got the message the first 10 times it was said here. No use dragging it out further & I don't know if I can take another month or two of it

[Bidenworth2020]

Harris needs to be the pick.

I don’t care what smears and disinformation is posted. No one in the running can match her resume, fundraising prowess, energy, intersectionality, or grit. Period.

I can think of at least 2-3 picks who can compete with Harris in this regard.

[DisneyDem]

All preferences aside, am I the only one who wants to be placed in cryogenic sleep until August 1?  I find this horse race exhausting

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Harris needs to be the pick.

I don’t care what smears and disinformation is posted. No one in the running can match her resume, fundraising prowess, energy, intersectionality, or grit. Period.

I'd be totally sold on Harris, and it's clear most of the negative things said after her didn't withstand the scrutiny of facts, but her stances such as stopping short of trust-busting with only some vague hint at strengthening regulations makes me worry whether she'd turn out to be another mild-and-toast reformer variety, rather than someone interested in fundamentally changing things that need changing. She's someone strongly on the left on social issues, that's for sure (always liked her for  refusing to seek the death penalty as the DA), but still too moderate and vague on economic issues.

I invite everybody to point out something I may be missing or I may be wrong about.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Harris needs to be the pick.

I don’t care what smears and disinformation is posted. No one in the running can match her resume, fundraising prowess, energy, intersectionality, or grit. Period.

If no one could match it....she would be the nominee for President....

That being said, I do think she will be the pick