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

[Devils30]

Harris has the same negative polarization trait as Warren. She’s very pugnacious and a great attorney but it’s counterproductive for what Biden needs. Duckworth just fits the moment for a landslide much better.

[BidenHarris2020]

Harris has the same negative polarization trait as Warren. She’s very pugnacious and a great attorney but it’s counterproductive for what Biden needs. Duckworth just fits the moment for a landslide much better.

You're obsessed.

[Devils30]

Harris has the same negative polarization trait as Warren. She’s very pugnacious and a great attorney but it’s counterproductive for what Biden needs. Duckworth just fits the moment for a landslide much better.

You're obsessed.

Her base is the same media people who we're convinced Hillary was their savior in 2016.

[Horus]

Susan Rice biggest problem is she is too elite to connect with the average voter.

Nice way of saying "uppity black woman"...

Most of the candidates are black women yet he only called Rice elite. Very stupid comment.

[Morning in Atlas]

Bernie bros are going to Bernie Bro.

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

Sexists are going to sexist.

You mean the people who called Warren a "snake" and Harris a "cop"?
Absolutely agree.

Not particularly. You see, men who otherize women as male-adjacent for disagreeing with them are being sexist. I'd personally argue that's more sexist than calling someone a snake or a cop.

Then again, one statement doesn't make you a misogynist. Dismissing the paternalistic effects/origin of the term is a pretty strong indicator, though, given what I've seen. And if there's still a question, men who downplay the effects of sexual assault definitely are sexist.

[Morning in Atlas]

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. 

Right, because continuing to fight the left and sow disunity to chase the #NeverTrump dragon worked out so well in 2016.

Again, it's this type of thinking that's why I have no attachment to the party. Why be a part of a party that's made it clear it doesn't want me?

[Beet]

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.  

The other side is either excited by things that would apply to any of Biden's nominees--sexism and identity politics, or other social issues. The other side isn't motivated by outrage that progressives are, as you say, fighters or aggressive over economic inequality and anti-corruption, as Warren is. One of the major planks of Warren's that Biden adopted in part was her buy America plan-- that actually got praise from Tucker Carlson last year. It's not a 'progressive vs. conservative' dichotomy but a matter of which issues have broader appeal. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people have felt that the country is headed in the wrong direction for 15 years now. There is still deep dissatisfaction with the status quo, that was there pre-pandemic. Biden can coast on being moderate for a while but at some point--whether in getting elected or governing, if he doesn't confront the deeper issues that got us to Trump in the first place he won't succeed. Fortunately, he's shown some sensitivity to these issues in his campaign so far, he just needs someone who will help shore up his branding on that front.

[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. 

Right, because continuing to fight the left and sow disunity to chase the #NeverTrump dragon worked out so well in 2016.

Again, it's this type of thinking that's why I have no attachment to the party. Why be a part of a party that's made it clear it doesn't want me?

Because the alternative is Republican governance?

Besides, the Democratic party very clearly does want you in its coalition.  Party leaders like Clinton, Biden, Obama, etc. bend over backwards trying to appease the left, but it always seems like nothing short of war on the center/center-left will do.

[Heebie Jeebie]

There's a passage from a recent piece by Ezra Klein that has really shaped my view of what makes Biden such a successful nominee, and what he should be looking for in a running mate:

"Biden’s theory of wavering Trump voters is the same as his theory of wavering Republican senators: He thinks they want to vote with him but need help getting over their political hang-ups about voting for a Democrat. And so he is trying to give them that help. He praises the old Republican Party, refuses to pick a side in American politics’ hottest fights. Biden has resisted calls to abolish private insurance, ban fracking, decriminalize immigration, and defund the police. It’s cost him enthusiasm on the left, but it has denied Trump the clear foil he needs. That’s left Trump confused, pathetically insisting Biden holds positions Biden doesn’t hold and getting fact-checked live on Fox.

Biden is treating Trump voters not as a monolith but as a coalition — a coalition that can be broken...

That doesn’t mean Biden is taking base mobilization entirely for granted. But he’s doing it through the patient work of coalitional politics, not through public, polarizing stands on symbolic issues. The 100-plus page Sanders-Biden task force recommendations moved the substance of Biden’s agenda significantly to the left without tying Biden to any of the lightning rod issues that animate cable news conflict...

All this has given Biden the opportunity to run the campaign he’s most comfortable with, and most suited to run. A campaign that’s more about giving people who don’t agree with him on everything permission to vote for him, rather than a campaign about mobilizing his own base. It might not work in every year, against every opponent, but it’s working this year, against this one."

Biden's choice of running mate should be in keeping with this basic theme of his campaign.  Basically, he should pick Harris or Duckworth.

[Devils30]

Yes, and Duckworth really is the perfect fit for this nudging reluctant Rs toward the Dems. Harris is too aggressive and if he wants an African American, Demings fits this message better. I still think if Duckworth has strong interview this week with Biden it’s hers to lose.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

What even is this thread anymore?

[Morning in Atlas]

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.  

Right, because continuing to fight the left and sow disunity to chase the #NeverTrump dragon worked out so well in 2016.

Again, it's this type of thinking that's why I have no attachment to the party. Why be a part of a party that's made it clear it doesn't want me?

Because the alternative is Republican governance?

Besides, the Democratic party very clearly does want you in its coalition.  Party leaders like Clinton, Biden, Obama, etc. bend over backwards trying to appease the left, but it always seems like nothing short of war on the center/center-left will do.

I certainly wouldn't put Clinton in that same group as Obama and Biden. She's waged a personal war against Bernie in the media for daring to run against her in 2016! There's a massive difference between publicly and personally disparaging him in the media and embracing him in defense of her.

And don't even give me that horse**** about him not defending his "toxic supporters". Considering how Kamala's inner circle has embraced the most toxic elements of the #KHive to deafening silence, y'all never cared about civility.

Joe Biden will never be a "lefist" or a Berniecrat. Expecting him to flip-flop would be a joke. But he has done a great job at appealing to disaffected Democrats like me. I'm voting for Democrats not because I'm forced to, but because I feel genuine enthusiasm. Unfortunately, there's still a huge amount of progress to go in changing the culture of the party.

There's a non-significant amount of people who, for lack of a better word, see my wing of the party as an equal threat as Trump. These are the people who tend to erase, marginalize, and otherize women and people of color who don't agree with them. They're the people who exploit real issues of racism and sexism to defend their political beliefs, even as the evidence sits in their face. They're not interested in carrying out Joe Biden's mission. They're not interested in healing the wounds of 2016. The KYWildmans of the party aren't interested in unity. They want the left to submit at any cost - even if it means extending our long national nightmare for another four years.

[Ogre Mage]

Harris has the same negative polarization trait as Warren. She’s very pugnacious and a great attorney but it’s counterproductive for what Biden needs. Duckworth just fits the moment for a landslide much better.

More Harris and Warren hating, eh?

[Beet]

https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/1287081231126077440?s=20

[Morning in Atlas]

As a quick aside, I definitely wouldn't characterize Harris as above all the cable news conflict. I don't think she's all that far from Warren on social issues - remember the kerfuffle about Trump's Twitter? (And this is coming from someone who has never really been one for the "Kamala is a cop" meme)

Obviously, I'm not going to downplay her true appeal to the ticket, which is why I won't be too upset if she gets the nod, but she's certainly different than Duckworth.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I certainly wouldn't put Clinton in that same group as Obama and Biden. She's waged a personal war against Bernie in the media for daring to run against her in 2016!

Clinton didn't air a single negative ad against Sanders in 2016.

[Morning in Atlas]

No, no she didn't.

But she certainly did her fair share of publicly bashing him in 2020.

[brucejoel99]

No, no she didn't.

But she certainly did her fair share of publicly bashing him in 2020.

Then you should correct your previous post which refers to 2016.

The post does not need to be "correct[ed]" because it's not incorrect. It refers to her reaction to Bernie's 2016 campaign against her, not to a reaction that itself took place in 2016.

Stop giving a sh*t about meaningless & trivial sh*t.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The main problem I'd have with a Biden/Bass ticket is all the stupid memes using stills from Rankin/Bass Productions cartoons.

[Joe Haydn]

I actually think Bass would be quite the good pick since she's uncontroversial and has no ambitions of her own. We the voters of the Democratic party deserve an open primary in 2024 to choose our own nominee rather than having an anointed successor like Kamala imposed upon us.

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1287137812236689408

[Mr. Morden]

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1286624753026039808

The relevant excerpts from that article on Bass, and her standing the VP vetting process:

Her standing in the VP search has improved based on private assessments shared with Biden’s team.

And then:

She’s already undergone intense scrutiny from the campaign — including a half-day interview with Biden representatives that a friend described as “invasive” — and has advanced deep into the vice presidential process, according to three people familiar with the vetting.
.
.
.
Bass is stepping up her presence in the Biden campaign. On July 30, she's scheduled to take part in a campaign event alongside Biden, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn and Rep. Cedric Richmond. An invitation to the event shows Bass will help Biden launch the African American Leadership Finance Council.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

That Hill article doesn't say anything that wasn't already known

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I actually think Bass would be quite the good pick since she's uncontroversial and has no ambitions of her own. We the voters of the Democratic party deserve an open primary in 2024 to choose our own nominee rather than having an anointed successor like Kamala imposed upon us.

This makes no sense. There was an open primary this year and Democratic voters CHOSE to nominate a 77 year old man to be the President - Biden would be the oldest president ever. Of course, Biden's VP is most likely going to be the Democratic nominee in 2024, that's just how it works.

You're just saying this because you don't like Kamala. I still have yet to understand why Kamala is so hated on this forum.

[ShadowRocket]

That Hill article doesn't say anything that wasn't already known

For the most part but Rice purportedly being the other most likely non-Harris pick alongside Warren stood out to me. I haven't seen her as a serious contender and have been thinking that Duckworth and Demmings would round out the finalists with Harris and Warren.

But then again, I always take these kind of reports on VP selection with a grain of salt.