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

[Mr. Morden]

I'm not sure if this morning's story from The Hill has been posted in the thread yet, since the last 5 pages have been people debating their own VP preferences rather than VP news, and there's too much to wade through to find the news, but it mentions that Harris is doing some behind the scenes maneuvering:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/509483-vp-hopefuls-jockey-for-position-as-bidens-final-decision-nears

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who has been seen as the front-runner, has been working the phones behind the scenes to underscore her desire to get the job, sources say, even as she has played it cool in front of television cameras.

Also:

Harris, Bass, Rice and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) remain in the top tier of the pool of candidates, sources say, but there remains a certain fluidity in the process and a certain guessing game — even for the contenders themselves.

[Ferguson97]

It pisses me off that people are talking about Kamala being too ambitious. Almost every Democratic Vice President in the past 80 years has ran for the Presidency (except Alben W. Barkely):


Henry A. Wallace - ran for the presidency in 1948.

Harry Truman - ran for for a full-term after FDR's death. Would have ran again in 1952 but Korean War soured his approvals.

Lyndon B. Johnson - ran for a full-term after JFK's death. Would have ran again in 1968 but Vietnam War soured his approvals.

Hubert H. Humphrey - ran for the presidency twice (1968 & 1972).

Walter Mondale - ran for the presidency in 1984.

Al Gore - ran for the presidency in 2000 (and in 1988 before becoming the VP).

Joe Biden - ran for the presidency in 2020 (and in 1988 and 2008 before becoming the VP).

Hmmm, I wonder what the difference between Kamala and these 7 men are?

You guys want the people that dislike Kamala to be racist/sexist so bad that you seemed to overlook a super important detail about VP’s that run for President: THEY USUALLY LOSE.

The winner of a competitive and open primary in 2024 is way more likely to (potentially) hold the White House for us than the sitting VP who cleared the field like Gore and Clinton.

"They usually lose" isn't an argument because the sample size is so small. And let's look at the examples.

Biden: likely winning in November

Gore: pretty much did win, got screwed by the SCOTUS - either way it was a very narrow "loss"

Mondale: Nobody was beating Reagan in 1984

Humphrey: I'll give you this one

LBJ: Won in a landslide in 1964, chose not to run in 1968 because of low approvals

Truman: see above

Wallace: did not win primary

Look it's fine if you don't want Kamala or think that the primary should be more open, but using "when vice presidents are nominated the usually lose" is a bad argument.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/jomalleydillon/status/1288664987817381888

[Non Swing Voter]

I started out thinking it would be Kamala then switched to Val Demings and then Keisha Lance Bottoms.  But I am thinking he's just going to go with Kamala as the safe pick.  It seems like all the rumors circling around DC say it's her.

[brucejoel99]

Duckworth & KLB have been named the permanent co-chairs of the convention, so I'd presume that this implicitly confirms that they're no longer in contention for VP anymore:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-announce-convention-schedule-party-officers-2020-gathering/story?id=72061818

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

It pisses me off that people are talking about Kamala being too ambitious. Almost every Democratic Vice President in the past 80 years has ran for the Presidency (except Alben W. Barkely):


Henry A. Wallace - ran for the presidency in 1948.

Harry Truman - ran for for a full-term after FDR's death. Would have ran again in 1952 but Korean War soured his approvals.

Lyndon B. Johnson - ran for a full-term after JFK's death. Would have ran again in 1968 but Vietnam War soured his approvals.

Hubert H. Humphrey - ran for the presidency twice (1968 & 1972).

Walter Mondale - ran for the presidency in 1984.

Al Gore - ran for the presidency in 2000 (and in 1988 before becoming the VP).

Joe Biden - ran for the presidency in 2020 (and in 1988 and 2008 before becoming the VP).

Hmmm, I wonder what the difference between Kamala and these 7 men are?

You guys want the people that dislike Kamala to be racist/sexist so bad that you seemed to overlook a super important detail about VP’s that run for President: THEY USUALLY LOSE.

The winner of a competitive and open primary in 2024 is way more likely to (potentially) hold the White House for us than the sitting VP who cleared the field like Gore and Clinton.

"They usually lose" isn't an argument because the sample size is so small. And let's look at the examples.

Biden: likely winning in November

Gore: pretty much did win, got screwed by the SCOTUS - either way it was a very narrow "loss"

Mondale: Nobody was beating Reagan in 1984

Humphrey: I'll give you this one

LBJ: Won in a landslide in 1964, chose not to run in 1968 because of low approvals

Truman: see above

Wallace: did not win primary

Look it's fine if you don't want Kamala or think that the primary should be more open, but using "when vice presidents are nominated the usually lose" is a bad argument.

LBJ and Truman didn’t win as VP’s, they won as incumbent Presidents running for re-election.

My point isn’t that VP’s always lose, it’s that the party suffers from a weaker nominee when a VP runs and clears the field. VP Harris would have that kinda effect and likely lose 2024 because she’s proven she can’t be trusted to run a winning campaign.

I’d just much prefer someone without the ambition of being President (Bass). This isn’t saying I don’t like ambitious women, I love Warren and want her as VP more than anyone. But I just don’t want Kamala, Demings, or anyone else running in ‘24 and drawing token opposition that they steamroll past with establishment support and lose to Tom Cotton in the General.

[BidenHarris2020]

https://twitter.com/jomalleydillon/status/1288664987817381888

This is a start. They should boot that Dodd(ering fool) off the vetting committee, but I'm guessing their work is all but done.

[Rookie Yinzer]

It pisses me off that people are talking about Kamala being too ambitious. Almost every Democratic Vice President in the past 80 years has ran for the Presidency (except Alben W. Barkely):


Henry A. Wallace - ran for the presidency in 1948.

Harry Truman - ran for for a full-term after FDR's death. Would have ran again in 1952 but Korean War soured his approvals.

Lyndon B. Johnson - ran for a full-term after JFK's death. Would have ran again in 1968 but Vietnam War soured his approvals.

Hubert H. Humphrey - ran for the presidency twice (1968 & 1972).

Walter Mondale - ran for the presidency in 1984.

Al Gore - ran for the presidency in 2000 (and in 1988 before becoming the VP).

Joe Biden - ran for the presidency in 2020 (and in 1988 and 2008 before becoming the VP).

Hmmm, I wonder what the difference between Kamala and these 7 men are?

You guys want the people that dislike Kamala to be racist/sexist so bad that you seemed to overlook a super important detail about VP’s that run for President: THEY USUALLY LOSE.

The winner of a competitive and open primary in 2024 is way more likely to (potentially) hold the White House for us than the sitting VP who cleared the field like Gore and Clinton.

Chris Dodd and John Morgan who have been behind the anti-Kamala smears this week are racist and sexist. And that’s just that on that.

[South Dakota Democrat]

I hate people who, as State AG, locked up women for being sex workers and people for smoking marijuana.

You're taking valid concern with one's political past and conflating it with people judging Harris by her race, to pimp the racial tensions of the current time because you have no valid argument as to why a former State AG who locked up Sex Workers and Smokers (in an extremely progressive state, even by 2010s standards) should be VP.

This line of logic, a sort of passive-aggressive pseudo-intellectualism, is why the KHive flopped last time.

Their candidate is currently favored to become Vice President and inherit the Democratic Party. Please explain how they failed.

Kamala is a progressive on the issues, she was a prosecutor in the past. She's never given any indication she wants to legislative like a prosecutor.

Vice President is not President.

She ran for President and got humiliated. Nobody, even in the Clinton/Obamaworld core, deeply admires her. There were more reports of them wanting to help Biden, Warren, and Deval Patrick than Kamala. It's part of the reason why you're looking at Joe running right now.

When Tulsi Gabbard and Michael Bloomberg get more delegates than you, you know you have a problem with your political reputation.

I only like Harris more than Rice because I'd rather a politically-ambitious career politician with a horrible fanbase over someone who ran a foreign policy which helped destroy the world.

Fairly certain neither the UN ambassador nor the national security advisor "run" foreign policy.

[Yoda]

Can we all agree nobody wants Abrams?

As VP, definitely agree. I want her to be the next governor of Georgia.

[wbrocks67]

Next week The convention can't come soon enough. I'm tired of the Pro vs Anti Kamala camps bickering about which one is more irritating. You both are!

I don't get the hype around her, nor do I get the disdain. Kamala is very generic center left Dem

Exactly!  And that's why she'd be such a good pick.

Remember the last time we did that?

Kaine was a good pick.  One of the main reasons (perhaps the main reason) Clinton lost is because voters saw her as being farther from the center than Trump.  If anything, having Kaine on the ticket helped address that liability (though obviously not enough).

Kaine proved that going with the surest, most popular pick may not always be the best decision.

Biden going with Harris strikes a strong resemblance to that Clinton/Kaine ticket.

So a black woman who has never been VP is the same as picking a generic white guy? You're anti-Harris BS is clouding your judgement. You're just being ridiculous at this point

[GoTfan]

Next week The convention can't come soon enough. I'm tired of the Pro vs Anti Kamala camps bickering about which one is more irritating. You both are!

I don't get the hype around her, nor do I get the disdain. Kamala is very generic center left Dem

Exactly!  And that's why she'd be such a good pick.

Remember the last time we did that?

Kaine was a good pick.  One of the main reasons (perhaps the main reason) Clinton lost is because voters saw her as being farther from the center than Trump.  If anything, having Kaine on the ticket helped address that liability (though obviously not enough).

Kaine proved that going with the surest, most popular pick may not always be the best decision.

Biden going with Harris strikes a strong resemblance to that Clinton/Kaine ticket.

So a black woman who has never been VP is the same as picking a generic white guy? You're anti-Harris BS is clouding your judgement. You're just being ridiculous at this point

Oh come on.

That's what you got from that post?

[wbrocks67]

Next week The convention can't come soon enough. I'm tired of the Pro vs Anti Kamala camps bickering about which one is more irritating. You both are!

I don't get the hype around her, nor do I get the disdain. Kamala is very generic center left Dem

Kamala is very left-wing. It's scary how fast American politics has shifted, lol. I feel like "moderate" voters like me are being force fed a bunch of leftwing gobbledygook just because we think Trump and the current GOP are garbage. I really want Trump and the GOP eliminated, but I'm skeptical of a lot of the proposals coming from Kamala and other dems. Just because she isn't as fanatical as Bernie/Warren doesn't mean Kamala is "center left"

Harris' biggest "sin' was that she ran against God King Emperor Sanders. Had she stayed put, the usual suspects wouldn't have whipped themselves into a frenzy against her.

Progressives disliked Kamala when she did that whole "prosecute marijuana smokers in an extremely progressive state" thing.

Has nothing to do with her campaigning against Bernie, though that certainly helped show her true colors.

Marijuana convictions went down every year she was AG and to assert that she personally prosecuted every marijuana case is completely absurd. Y’all don’t even know how the office she held works.

People keep pulling a Tulsi on here and it's getting really annoying. You can tell it's the same exact talking points every single time that aren't based in reality.

[wbrocks67]

Next week The convention can't come soon enough. I'm tired of the Pro vs Anti Kamala camps bickering about which one is more irritating. You both are!

I don't get the hype around her, nor do I get the disdain. Kamala is very generic center left Dem

Exactly!  And that's why she'd be such a good pick.

Remember the last time we did that?

Kaine was a good pick.  One of the main reasons (perhaps the main reason) Clinton lost is because voters saw her as being farther from the center than Trump.  If anything, having Kaine on the ticket helped address that liability (though obviously not enough).

Kaine proved that going with the surest, most popular pick may not always be the best decision.

Biden going with Harris strikes a strong resemblance to that Clinton/Kaine ticket.

So a black woman who has never been VP is the same as picking a generic white guy? You're anti-Harris BS is clouding your judgement. You're just being ridiculous at this point

Oh come on.

That's what you got from that post?

Comparing Kaine and Harris is not a good comparison. There really isn't anything similar about them, other than that they were the 'expected' choices, but at the end of the day, that has nothing to do with anything, really

[wbrocks67]

https://twitter.com/jomalleydillon/status/1288664987817381888

Yeah, safe to say all of these "shadow" comments are completely backfiring

[Lord Halifax]

Can we all agree nobody wants Abrams?

As VP, definitely agree. I want her to be the next governor of Georgia.

Hopefully that'll be KLB.

[wbrocks67]

https://twitter.com/jomalleydillon/status/1288664987817381888

Yeah, safe to say all of these "shadow" comments are completely backfiring

.... which makes me think... was this whole thing some 4D chess move for Democrats to rally around Harris? (esp towards some Dems who may not be happy about her being the choice?)

[DisneyDem]

These idiots turned a legitimate debated about her into sexist BS, thereby giving her the nomination. I hate it here so much.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

The annoying part about the “pro-Harris” posts are that the posters are trying to a) create a unified “anti-Harris” opposition and b) paint them as racist/sexist because we make legitimate criticisms about her.

Now Dodd, I 100% believe his comments might be shrouded in sexism due to his history. But the rest of us on this board? No. Many of us don’t want Harris and yet support other women and black women for the job. Have any of you KHive stans ever thought that maybe we have legitimate issues with possibly handing the party over to her just because Biden picked her?

[wbrocks67]

The annoying part about the “pro-Harris” posts are that the posters are trying to a) create a unified “anti-Harris” opposition and b) paint them as racist/sexist because we make legitimate criticisms about her.

Now Dodd, I 100% believe his comments might be shrouded in sexism due to his history. But the rest of us on this board? No. Many of us don’t want Harris and yet support other women and black women for the job. Have any of you KHive stans ever thought that maybe we have legitimate issues with possibly handing the party over to her just because Biden picked her?

I don't think anyone here is saying other members are being sexist or racist. I think most of us who have had issues with comments have had issues with the "advisers" comments from all of these articles, because most of those comments ARE shrouded in sexism and racism.

However, my issue with the "Anti-Harris" cohord here is, can't you just say you'd be fine with her even if she wasn't your first choice?

I'm admittedly pro-Harris, but I can still tell you that I'll support Biden no matter what and ultimately be fine with whoever he choices, even if they aren't my favorite. THAT is what is bugging me about some of the people here. Even if you don't love her, you can't even give an inch and say that at the end of the day, she's not your first choice, but she'd still be fine?

[Rookie Yinzer]

The annoying part about the “pro-Harris” posts are that the posters are trying to a) create a unified “anti-Harris” opposition and b) paint them as racist/sexist because we make legitimate criticisms about her.

Now Dodd, I 100% believe his comments might be shrouded in sexism due to his history. But the rest of us on this board? No. Many of us don’t want Harris and yet support other women and black women for the job. Have any of you KHive stans ever thought that maybe we have legitimate issues with possibly handing the party over to her just because Biden picked her?

You are truly trying to twist criticism at the “allies” and “advisers” and making it about you. Like... nobody is talking about people on this board being racist and sexist. When people on this board have said things like she’s too ambitious, or too aggressive, or she slept with Willie Brown for clout that has absolutely warranted that response but “I want Warren to be VP” has never been met with “you’re racist”. Period.

[Devils30]

I just am not convinced that it is really Harris or Rice as the only finalists or even if they are. Rice really has no charisma, seems like a mistake pick and Harris might really have trust issues. They might not want to touch the policing issue with Demings and lets face it, Bass really doesn't have the profile of someone for this high of a level.

As I've said and against the belief of others here, I would not be 100% shocked if in two weeks, Whitmer was selected in a surprise. Trump could try a last minute stunt, a Supreme Court vacancy could put Harris at the center of things in Congress. Biden might just want someone who shows strong leadership skills and won't have to take any controversial votes over the next few months.

[wbrocks67]

I just am not convinced that it is really Harris or Rice as the only finalists or even if they are. Rice really has no charisma, seems like a mistake pick and Harris might really have trust issues. They might not want to touch the policing issue with Demings and lets face it, Bass really doesn't have the profile of someone for this high of a level.

As I've said and against the belief of others here, I would not be 100% shocked if in two weeks, Whitmer was selected in a surprise. Trump could try a last minute stunt, a Supreme Court vacancy could put Harris at the center of things in Congress. Biden might just want someone who shows strong leadership skills and won't have to take any controversial votes over the next few months.

Whitmer is still dealing with the virus in Michigan. I don't think it would make sense for her (and would be a bad look) if she got called to something else - especially not even 2 years after she just got elected.

[DisneyDem]

I just am not convinced that it is really Harris or Rice as the only finalists or even if they are. Rice really has no charisma, seems like a mistake pick and Harris might really have trust issues. They might not want to touch the policing issue with Demings and lets face it, Bass really doesn't have the profile of someone for this high of a level.

As I've said and against the belief of others here, I would not be 100% shocked if in two weeks, Whitmer was selected in a surprise. Trump could try a last minute stunt, a Supreme Court vacancy could put Harris at the center of things in Congress. Biden might just want someone who shows strong leadership skills and won't have to take any controversial votes over the next few months.

Whitmer is still dealing with the virus in Michigan. I don't think it would make sense for her (and would be a bad look) if she got called to something else - especially not even 2 years after she just got elected.

I agree with both of you. Wouldn’t Duckworth have the same benefit without the negative? I know people are saying she’s off the list because of the DNC, but I don’t know why people are acting like that news. We have known for a week’s including well before her burst of Momentum. I think it could still be her

[BidenHarris2020]

I just am not convinced that it is really Harris or Rice as the only finalists or even if they are. Rice really has no charisma, seems like a mistake pick and Harris might really have trust issues. They might not want to touch the policing issue with Demings and lets face it, Bass really doesn't have the profile of someone for this high of a level.

As I've said and against the belief of others here, I would not be 100% shocked if in two weeks, Whitmer was selected in a surprise. Trump could try a last minute stunt, a Supreme Court vacancy could put Harris at the center of things in Congress. Biden might just want someone who shows strong leadership skills and won't have to take any controversial votes over the next few months.

Whitmer is still dealing with the virus in Michigan. I don't think it would make sense for her (and would be a bad look) if she got called to something else - especially not even 2 years after she just got elected.

I agree with both of you. Wouldn’t Duckworth have the same benefit without the negative? I know people are saying she’s off the list because of the DNC, but I don’t know why people are acting like that news. We have known for a week’s including well before her burst of Momentum. I think it could still be her

She herself said she hasn't heard from Biden's campaign in weeks. Which could only mean she hasn't progressed to the final stage.