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

[Adam Griffin]

Stac[e]y Abrams, a rising Democratic star who lost the Georgia governor’s race in 2018, has also come up in conversations, the sources say, though not as much as some of the others.

Very unfair!

[Senator Spark]

It better be Harris, Baldwin, or Klobuchar. If it's not one of those three, I'll be shocked.

[GeorgiaModerate]

It better be Harris, Baldwin, or Klobuchar. If it's not one of those three, I'll be shocked.

Add Duckworth to the list and I think it's covered.

[Bidenworth2020]

Stac[e]y Abrams, a rising Democratic star who lost the Georgia governor’s race in 2018, has also come up in conversations, the sources say, though not as much as some of the others.

Very unfair!

Adam, why do you think Abrams would be the best choice? While she would undoubtedly bring some desperately needed enthusiasm to the campaign, IDK if people will trust her experience enough to be VP considering Biden is pushing 80.

[Inmate Trump]

I’m betting Klobuchar.

I think she’d be fantastic but I also worry about minority turnout, which needs to be bigger this year.

[Adam Griffin]

Stac[e]y Abrams, a rising Democratic star who lost the Georgia governor’s race in 2018, has also come up in conversations, the sources say, though not as much as some of the others.

Very unfair!

Adam, why do you think Abrams would be the best choice? While she would undoubtedly bring some desperately needed enthusiasm to the campaign, IDK if people will trust her experience enough to be VP considering Biden is pushing 80.

She's the only black candidate in the 21st century besides Barack Obama who has shown an ability to elevate turnout and support among black voters above/beyond the very predictable 89-92% D support and [BVAP 5-7 points lower than WVAP] turnout. Literally the only reason for picking Harris is rooted in one or more variants of "she's a black woman - she'll turn out the black vote!" (whether people own up to it explicitly, or want to use some variant of "she's articulate!", "she's professional", or any other number of tropes designated for black people who don't fulfill negative stereotypes). Do keep in mind that almost every single black statewide candidate across the nation has generated the exact amount of support and turnout as non-black statewide candidates over the past 20 years. People need to abandon the tropes.

Harris hasn't demonstrated any capacity to elevate black turnout or support in her own races. She barely won her first statewide race, and ran against a fellow Democrat, loser and serial dabber in 2016 - big whoop.

Abrams also doesn't have any preexisting issues with any aspect of the Democratic base, unlike Harris. She's younger, more dynamic and a better speaker if you're looking at ability to persuade or entertain (Harris is basically the black female equivalent of Buttigieg when you get down to brass tacks; stiff, boring, wants people to project their beliefs onto her rather than the other way around).

Let's be real: everybody - from Biden and the DNC, all the way down to random voters - wants a black female VP specifically for the electoral benefits. Harris has no history of showing she can deliver. A half-Indian, half-Jamaican non-ADOS descendant not being the best choice for this task in the United States of America shouldn't be all that surprising to people who aren't wrapped up in thinking black voters are a monolith and will just respond with enthusiasm regardless of the face so long as there's enough melanin. Abrams is a far better pick along the lines of why people are considering Harris in the first place.

Personally, I have many criticisms of Abrams as a candidate in the gubernatorial election of 2018, but in a national race, nah: she's the best choice if you're looking to mobilize black voters in a post-Obama world.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Stac[e]y Abrams, a rising Democratic star who lost the Georgia governor’s race in 2018, has also come up in conversations, the sources say, though not as much as some of the others.

Very unfair!

Adam, why do you think Abrams would be the best choice? While she would undoubtedly bring some desperately needed enthusiasm to the campaign, IDK if people will trust her experience enough to be VP considering Biden is pushing 80.

She's the only black candidate in the 21st century besides Barack Obama who has shown an ability to elevate turnout and support among black voters above/beyond the very predictable 89-92% D support and [BVAP 5-7 points lower than WVAP] turnout. Literally the only reason for picking Harris is rooted in one or more variants of "she's a black woman - she'll turn out the black vote!" (whether people own up to it explicitly, or want to use some variant of "she's articulate!", "she's professional", or any other number of tropes designated for black people who don't fulfill negative stereotypes). Do keep in mind that almost every single black statewide candidate across the nation has generated the exact amount of support and turnout as non-black statewide candidates over the past 20 years. People need to abandon the tropes.

Harris hasn't demonstrated any capacity to elevate black turnout or support in her own races. She barely won her first statewide race, and ran against a fellow Democrat, loser and serial dabber in 2016 - big whoop.

Abrams also doesn't have any preexisting issues with any aspect of the Democratic base, unlike Harris. She's younger, more dynamic and a better speaker if you're looking at ability to persuade or entertain (Harris is basically the black female equivalent of Buttigieg when you get down to brass tacks; stiff, boring, wants people to project their beliefs onto her rather than the other way around).

Let's be real: everybody - from Biden and the DNC, all the way down to random voters - wants a black female VP specifically for the electoral benefits. Harris has no history of showing she can deliver. A half-Indian, half-Jamaican non-ADOS descendant not being the best choice for this task in the United States of America shouldn't be all that surprising to people who aren't wrapped up in thinking black voters are a monolith and will just respond with enthusiasm regardless of the face so long as there's enough melanin. Abrams is a far better pick along the lines of why people are considering Harris in the first place.

Personally, I have many criticisms of Abrams as a candidate in the gubernatorial election of 2018, but in a national race, nah: she's the best choice if you're looking to mobilize black voters in a post-Obama world.

I'm skeptical a lot of these supposed Abrams benefits with AAs would show up outside of Georgia. Abrams had a very high profile and ran a very good campaign inside GA, but is her 2018 strength repeatable in Detroit or Philadelphia? I'm not so sure.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I highly doubt Abrams, with no natl security experience is selected Veep and they have to negotiate with nations abroad

[Ogre Mage]

Not sure why more governors haven't been picked over the years.

I think it has to do with immediate readiness for the presidential campaign.  A presidential candidate has as much time as they need to prepare before they begin their campaign.  But a running mate is thrown into the scrum at the last minute and has to get up to speed on federal issues VERY fast.

For senators, this is relatively easy -- they are already steeped in federal issues from their day job.  But many governors have never had federal experience.  Some have -- Mike Pence, for instance, served in the U.S. House for a decade before becoming governor.  But a governor lacking that experience is put in a massively high pressure cooker having to bone up on a huge amount of new material in a very short amount of time.  It is often a recipe for failure (see Sarah Palin).

[Adam Griffin]

Stac[e]y Abrams, a rising Democratic star who lost the Georgia governor’s race in 2018, has also come up in conversations, the sources say, though not as much as some of the others.

Very unfair!

Adam, why do you think Abrams would be the best choice? While she would undoubtedly bring some desperately needed enthusiasm to the campaign, IDK if people will trust her experience enough to be VP considering Biden is pushing 80.

She's the only black candidate in the 21st century besides Barack Obama who has shown an ability to elevate turnout and support among black voters above/beyond the very predictable 89-92% D support and [BVAP 5-7 points lower than WVAP] turnout. Literally the only reason for picking Harris is rooted in one or more variants of "she's a black woman - she'll turn out the black vote!" (whether people own up to it explicitly, or want to use some variant of "she's articulate!", "she's professional", or any other number of tropes designated for black people who don't fulfill negative stereotypes). Do keep in mind that almost every single black statewide candidate across the nation has generated the exact amount of support and turnout as non-black statewide candidates over the past 20 years. People need to abandon the tropes.

Harris hasn't demonstrated any capacity to elevate black turnout or support in her own races. She barely won her first statewide race, and ran against a fellow Democrat, loser and serial dabber in 2016 - big whoop.

Abrams also doesn't have any preexisting issues with any aspect of the Democratic base, unlike Harris. She's younger, more dynamic and a better speaker if you're looking at ability to persuade or entertain (Harris is basically the black female equivalent of Buttigieg when you get down to brass tacks; stiff, boring, wants people to project their beliefs onto her rather than the other way around).

Let's be real: everybody - from Biden and the DNC, all the way down to random voters - wants a black female VP specifically for the electoral benefits. Harris has no history of showing she can deliver. A half-Indian, half-Jamaican non-ADOS descendant not being the best choice for this task in the United States of America shouldn't be all that surprising to people who aren't wrapped up in thinking black voters are a monolith and will just respond with enthusiasm regardless of the face so long as there's enough melanin. Abrams is a far better pick along the lines of why people are considering Harris in the first place.

Personally, I have many criticisms of Abrams as a candidate in the gubernatorial election of 2018, but in a national race, nah: she's the best choice if you're looking to mobilize black voters in a post-Obama world.

I'm skeptical a lot of these supposed Abrams benefits with AAs would show up outside of Georgia. Abrams had a very high profile and ran a very good campaign inside GA, but is her 2018 strength repeatable in Detroit or Philadelphia? I'm not so sure.

Say for a second that that's the case. Winning GA makes it incredibly easy for any competent Democrat to win nationally. I'm not going to bother to list all of the combos, but with GA, either 2 of the Rust Belt states or 1 of them + 1 of AZ/NC/FL ends the ballgame.

It's also worth noting that there are baseline turnout expectations regardless of the choice or climate; meaning that (in this case) black voters are going to show up in sufficient numbers regardless of what happens not to make or break the overall outcomes in most states.

There are really only 3 states at this point where a big difference in black turnout can reliably change the overall outcome: GA, FL & NC. Just as one example that you mentioned, MI isn't going to be won based on this (while black turnout cratered in the Rust Belt, black voters weren't responsible for us losing 10 points in the margin in MI between 2012 and 2016); furthermore, the black share of MI's population declined from 15% to 13% between 2010-2016 (Wayne County alone has lost 70k black residents over those 6 years; MI has lost 143k black residents despite the state growing by 25k people overall). In PA, it's going to come down more to whether the Rendells and Schumers of the world from 2016 were right about those Philly suburbs making up the difference.

I definitely believe that if Biden is very close in any/all of NC, GA & FL, then Abrams being VP can carry him across the finish line. The blacklash will hurt in other parts of the country (including the Rust Belt), but that'll be the case with Harris as well - and Abrams might just offset enough of that among northern black voters to pull out wins there regardless.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Stac[e]y Abrams, a rising Democratic star who lost the Georgia governor’s race in 2018, has also come up in conversations, the sources say, though not as much as some of the others.

Very unfair!

Adam, why do you think Abrams would be the best choice? While she would undoubtedly bring some desperately needed enthusiasm to the campaign, IDK if people will trust her experience enough to be VP considering Biden is pushing 80.

She's the only black candidate in the 21st century besides Barack Obama who has shown an ability to elevate turnout and support among black voters above/beyond the very predictable 89-92% D support and [BVAP 5-7 points lower than WVAP] turnout. Literally the only reason for picking Harris is rooted in one or more variants of "she's a black woman - she'll turn out the black vote!" (whether people own up to it explicitly, or want to use some variant of "she's articulate!", "she's professional", or any other number of tropes designated for black people who don't fulfill negative stereotypes). Do keep in mind that almost every single black statewide candidate across the nation has generated the exact amount of support and turnout as non-black statewide candidates over the past 20 years. People need to abandon the tropes.

Harris hasn't demonstrated any capacity to elevate black turnout or support in her own races. She barely won her first statewide race, and ran against a fellow Democrat, loser and serial dabber in 2016 - big whoop.

Abrams also doesn't have any preexisting issues with any aspect of the Democratic base, unlike Harris. She's younger, more dynamic and a better speaker if you're looking at ability to persuade or entertain (Harris is basically the black female equivalent of Buttigieg when you get down to brass tacks; stiff, boring, wants people to project their beliefs onto her rather than the other way around).

Let's be real: everybody - from Biden and the DNC, all the way down to random voters - wants a black female VP specifically for the electoral benefits. Harris has no history of showing she can deliver. A half-Indian, half-Jamaican non-ADOS descendant not being the best choice for this task in the United States of America shouldn't be all that surprising to people who aren't wrapped up in thinking black voters are a monolith and will just respond with enthusiasm regardless of the face so long as there's enough melanin. Abrams is a far better pick along the lines of why people are considering Harris in the first place.

Personally, I have many criticisms of Abrams as a candidate in the gubernatorial election of 2018, but in a national race, nah: she's the best choice if you're looking to mobilize black voters in a post-Obama world.

I'm skeptical a lot of these supposed Abrams benefits with AAs would show up outside of Georgia. Abrams had a very high profile and ran a very good campaign inside GA, but is her 2018 strength repeatable in Detroit or Philadelphia? I'm not so sure.

Say for a second that that's the case. Winning GA makes it incredibly easy for any competent Democrat to win nationally. I'm not going to bother to list all of the combos, but with GA, either 2 of the Rust Belt states or 1 of them + 1 of AZ/NC/FL ends the ballgame.

It's also worth noting that there are baseline turnout expectations regardless of the choice or climate; meaning that (in this case) black voters are going to show up in sufficient numbers regardless of what happens not to make or break the overall outcomes in most states.

There are really only 3 states at this point where a big difference in black turnout can reliably change the overall outcome: GA, FL & NC. Just as one example that you mentioned, MI isn't going to be won based on this (while black turnout cratered in the Rust Belt, black voters weren't responsible for us losing 10 points in the margin in MI between 2012 and 2016); furthermore, the black share of MI's population declined from 15% to 13% between 2010-2016 (Wayne County alone has lost 70k black residents over those 6 years; MI has lost 143k black residents despite the state growing by 25k people overall). In PA, it's going to come down more to whether the Rendells and Schumers of the world from 2016 were right about those Philly suburbs making up the difference.

I definitely believe that if Biden is very close in any/all of NC, GA & FL, then Abrams being VP can carry him across the finish line. The blacklash will hurt in other parts of the country (including the Rust Belt), but that'll be the case with Harris as well - and Abrams might just offset enough of that among northern black voters to pull out wins there regardless.

Perhaps. Even so, I'm not convinced that Abrams has unique appeal to NC and FL African-Americans. Despite running a fantastic campaign, she did at best 1 point better than another candidate strongly contesting the state would just given how GA has moved left each election. I certainly admire her and I don't think she's a bad pick, but I do question whether Abrams really has the potential to boost black turnout nationwide in a way another VP couldn't.

[OneJ]

Stac[e]y Abrams, a rising Democratic star who lost the Georgia governor’s race in 2018, has also come up in conversations, the sources say, though not as much as some of the others.

Very unfair!

Adam, why do you think Abrams would be the best choice? While she would undoubtedly bring some desperately needed enthusiasm to the campaign, IDK if people will trust her experience enough to be VP considering Biden is pushing 80.

She's the only black candidate in the 21st century besides Barack Obama who has shown an ability to elevate turnout and support among black voters above/beyond the very predictable 89-92% D support and [BVAP 5-7 points lower than WVAP] turnout. Literally the only reason for picking Harris is rooted in one or more variants of "she's a black woman - she'll turn out the black vote!" (whether people own up to it explicitly, or want to use some variant of "she's articulate!", "she's professional", or any other number of tropes designated for black people who don't fulfill negative stereotypes). Do keep in mind that almost every single black statewide candidate across the nation has generated the exact amount of support and turnout as non-black statewide candidates over the past 20 years. People need to abandon the tropes.

Harris hasn't demonstrated any capacity to elevate black turnout or support in her own races. She barely won her first statewide race, and ran against a fellow Democrat, loser and serial dabber in 2016 - big whoop.

Abrams also doesn't have any preexisting issues with any aspect of the Democratic base, unlike Harris. She's younger, more dynamic and a better speaker if you're looking at ability to persuade or entertain (Harris is basically the black female equivalent of Buttigieg when you get down to brass tacks; stiff, boring, wants people to project their beliefs onto her rather than the other way around).

Let's be real: everybody - from Biden and the DNC, all the way down to random voters - wants a black female VP specifically for the electoral benefits. Harris has no history of showing she can deliver. A half-Indian, half-Jamaican non-ADOS descendant not being the best choice for this task in the United States of America shouldn't be all that surprising to people who aren't wrapped up in thinking black voters are a monolith and will just respond with enthusiasm regardless of the face so long as there's enough melanin. Abrams is a far better pick along the lines of why people are considering Harris in the first place.

Personally, I have many criticisms of Abrams as a candidate in the gubernatorial election of 2018, but in a national race, nah: she's the best choice if you're looking to mobilize black voters in a post-Obama world.

Really this. It honestly puzzles me to see people here arguing against Abrams being on the ticket with Biden and support Harris instead when Harris has demonstrated less ability in doing particularly well among Black voters and has shown that she possesses quite a few flaws that Abrams either doesn't have or has to a lesser degree.

I'm skeptical a lot of these supposed Abrams benefits with AAs would show up outside of Georgia. Abrams had a very high profile and ran a very good campaign inside GA, but is her 2018 strength repeatable in Detroit or Philadelphia? I'm not so sure.

In the case of Detroit, it'll be especially challenging due to the declining Black population there.

It's also worth noting that Philly wasn't really a cause of why Pennsylvania flipped. In fact, turnout there in 2016 was very similar to 2012 (~709,000 in '16 vs. ~690,000 in '12). The real problem was all of those rural/exurban counties across the state swinging so hard against Hillary.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The case against Abrams has been done a thousand times and it has to do with her experience and the fact that the highest office she held was state house minority leader. People might perceive her as unprepared and accuse Biden of tokenism.
We saw how suburban voters reacted unfavorably in 2008 to Palin and while Abrams is much more qualified the risk for this to happen again is real.

[Ogre Mage]

The case against Abrams has been done a thousand times and it has to do with her experience and the fact that the highest office she held was state house minority leader. People might perceive her as unprepared and accuse Biden of tokenism.
We saw how suburban voters reacted unfavorably in 2008 to Palin and while Abrams is much more qualified the risk for this to happen again is real.

In my view the coronavirus crisis has increased these concerns.  With a deadly virus on the loose, people will want an experienced, steady hand in the No. 2 spot in case something happens to 77 year-old Biden.

[Adam Griffin]

The case against Abrams has been done a thousand times and it has to do with her experience and the fact that the highest office she held was state house minority leader. People might perceive her as unprepared and accuse Biden of tokenism.

Most of our modern-day Presidents have been completely unprepared for the office by some arbitrary standard of "experience". Trump had zero political experience, running against the most experienced candidate in decades. Obama had 2 years of national experience before he started running for President (his state-level experience was arguably less meaningful than Abrams'), again running against somebody far more experienced. Bush was a Governor, but can anybody realistically argue he was "experienced" or "qualified"? Even Clinton's decade-plus governance of a podunk state provided no meaningful frame of reference for what the Presidency would entail.

Even somebody like Harris - who had approximately 0 minutes of national experience before beginning her underground campaign for President - wouldn't be remotely "experienced" or "prepared" for the role. And if she is picked, those claims of tokenism are going to be just as palpable (but with even more built-in disdain for her).
 

We saw how suburban voters reacted unfavorably in 2008 to Palin and while Abrams is much more qualified the risk for this to happen again is real.

People didn't have a problem with Palin because she was inexperienced: they had a problem with her because she couldn't string a complete sentence together and sounded uninformed at every turn. To even mildly imply that Abrams is in the same ballpark as this is absurd. Abrams is quick on her feet and can talk about any issue coherently.

[Adam Griffin]

The case against Abrams has been done a thousand times and it has to do with her experience and the fact that the highest office she held was state house minority leader. People might perceive her as unprepared and accuse Biden of tokenism.
We saw how suburban voters reacted unfavorably in 2008 to Palin and while Abrams is much more qualified the risk for this to happen again is real.

In my view the coronavirus crisis has increased these concerns.  With a deadly virus on the loose, people will want an experienced, steady hand in the No. 2 spot in case something happens to 77 year-old Biden.

This is unsettling for me. Is there any circumstance post-2016 where Democrats can be proactive rather than reactive, or is this just a side-effect of our swallowing of suburbia? First it was Trump ("we can't take chances, Trump is the enemy and we must defeat him at all costs, even if it costs us our soul") and now it's coronavirus. The current mindset of the party would have never nominated or elected Barack Obama in 2008, because the recession was just too big of a crisis and the stakes were too high, we need Hillary Clinton's experience in a time like this, etc.

Generally speaking, America hasn't elected Democratic Presidents when the party "plays it safe" or whatever people want to call it. We can stuff as many white educated suburbrons into the fold as we like, but the party is still disproportionately reliant upon groups that need to feel like even a modicum of change and progress is possible (or they simply won't show).

[Landslide Lyndon]

The case against Abrams has been done a thousand times and it has to do with her experience and the fact that the highest office she held was state house minority leader. People might perceive her as unprepared and accuse Biden of tokenism.

Most of our modern-day Presidents have been completely unprepared for the office by some arbitrary standard of "experience". Trump had zero political experience, running against the most experienced candidate in decades. Obama had 2 years of national experience before he started running for President (his state-level experience was arguably less meaningful than Abrams'), again running against somebody far more experienced. Bush was a Governor, but can anybody realistically argue he was "experienced" or "qualified"? Even Clinton's decade-plus governance of a podunk state provided no meaningful frame of reference for what the Presidency would entail.

All of them won because they were running in "Change" years where voters wanted a fresh face to lead the country in a new direction.
This year OTOH might be the first one where being boring is actually an asset after four years full of Trump drama and chaos. Voters want a steady hand that will provide competent leadership, and given Biden's age he needs to choose someone whose credentials can't be questioned, someone that will be ready to take over in a moment's notice. Abrams might be the smartest woman alive but her thin resume will cause questions that will dog the campaign and dilute its message of "return to normalcy" and "meritocracy".

[Edmundd]

Biden has already pledged to name a black woman as his first Supreme Court nominee and a Supreme Court justice is more powerful and influential than a Vice President and their decisions can affect us for years or decades.  Therefore I see Klobuchar as the most likely veep pick.

[Adam Griffin]

The case against Abrams has been done a thousand times and it has to do with her experience and the fact that the highest office she held was state house minority leader. People might perceive her as unprepared and accuse Biden of tokenism.

Most of our modern-day Presidents have been completely unprepared for the office by some arbitrary standard of "experience". Trump had zero political experience, running against the most experienced candidate in decades. Obama had 2 years of national experience before he started running for President (his state-level experience was arguably less meaningful than Abrams'), again running against somebody far more experienced. Bush was a Governor, but can anybody realistically argue he was "experienced" or "qualified"? Even Clinton's decade-plus governance of a podunk state provided no meaningful frame of reference for what the Presidency would entail.

All of them won because they were running in "Change" years where voters wanted a fresh face to lead the country in a new direction.
This year OTOH might be the first one where being boring is actually an asset after four years full of Trump drama and chaos. Voters want a steady hand that will provide competent leadership, and given Biden's age he needs to choose someone whose credentials can't be questioned, someone that will be ready to take over in a moment's notice. Abrams might be the smartest woman alive but her thin resume will cause questions that will dog the campaign and dilute its message of "return to normalcy" and "meritocracy".

I would think aiming to get rid of the most dangerous President in American history - the incumbent - would be the epitome of a "change" election.

Ultimately, nobody truly knows "what the voters want" because primary voters are not at all reflective of the other 50-60% of voters who only show in general elections, no matter how much we measure them along various socioeconomic lines. Primary voters said they wanted the same thing more or less in 2016 as you're describing now, only for significant shares of non-primary Democrats and independents to tear that concept to shreds in the general.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Biden has already pledged to name a black woman as his first Supreme Court nominee and a Supreme Court justice is more powerful and influential than a Vice President and their decisions can affect us for years or decades. 

Both can and should be black women.

I don't want to hear "It should be the person most qualified". A VP pick is always about pandering or doubling down on a message. And there are multiple qualified and capable black women who can be chosen as VP.

[Mr. Morden]

A common approach for presumptive presidential nominees is to "test out" prospective VP candidates by doing campaign events with them during the spring/summer.  Traditional campaign events aren't happening right now for obvious reasons, but Biden has just done a virtual event with Whitmer, by having her as the guest on the second episode of his podcast:

https://joebiden.com/Heres-The-Deal/

[brucejoel99]

A common approach for presumptive presidential nominees is to "test out" prospective VP candidates by doing campaign events with them during the spring/summer.  Traditional campaign events aren't happening right now for obvious reasons, but Biden has just done a virtual event with Whitmer, by having her as the guest on the second episode of his podcast:

https://joebiden.com/Heres-The-Deal/

Yeah, this confirms that she's DEFINITELY a top contender for Veep. (Also, a great episode too!)

[OkThen]

Probably reading way too much into this, but this tweet made me pause for a moment. He doesn't usually say much about specific political figures on his personal account.

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1247233987304660993?s=20

[Pheurton Skeurto]

Probably reading way too much into this, but this tweet made me pause for a moment. He doesn't usually say much about specific political figures on his personal account.

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1247233987304660993?s=20

NUT

[Illiniwek]

Biden has already pledged to name a black woman as his first Supreme Court nominee and a Supreme Court justice is more powerful and influential than a Vice President and their decisions can affect us for years or decades. 

Both can and should be black women.

I don't want to hear "It should be the person most qualified". A VP pick is always about pandering or doubling down on a message. And there are multiple qualified and capable black women who can be chosen as VP.

How'd that work out for John McCain?