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

[Ogre Mage]

It's a tossup between Klobuchar and Warren

Warren will not be picked...wishful thinking on your behalf.

More likely it's a Toss Up between Klobuchar, Harris and Abrams.

Abrams won't be picked either, lol.

[JRP1994]

FWIW, current price on PredictIt for female running mates:

K. Harris: 28¢
A. Klobuchar: 21¢

E. Warren: 15¢

G. Whitmer: 8¢
S. Abrams: 7¢
C. Cortez Masto: 7¢
M. Obama: 6¢

H. Clinton: 4¢
V. Demings: 4¢
T. Duckworth: 4¢
M. Lujan Grisham: 4¢
S. Rice: 3¢
T. Baldwin: 2¢

T. Gabbard: 1¢
M. Hassan: 1¢
L. Kelly: 1¢
K. Lance Bottoms: 1¢
T. Sewell: 1¢
N. Turner: 1¢
S. Yates: 1¢

[Rookie Yinzer]

snip

He said most experienced in their respective fields. Hillary Clinton was more experienced than the scrubs who ran in 2016 by leaps and bounds.

[MRS DONNA SHALALA]

FWIW, current price on PredictIt for female running mates:

K. Harris: 28¢
A. Klobuchar: 21¢

E. Warren: 15¢

G. Whitmer: 8¢
S. Abrams: 7¢
C. Cortez Masto: 7¢
M. Obama: 6¢

H. Clinton: 4¢
V. Demings: 4¢
T. Duckworth: 4¢
M. Lujan Grisham: 4¢
S. Rice: 3¢
T. Baldwin: 2¢

T. Gabbard: 1¢
M. Hassan: 1¢
L. Kelly: 1¢
K. Lance Bottoms: 1¢
T. Sewell: 1¢
N. Turner: 1¢
S. Yates: 1¢

Duckworth seems underpriced

[Devils30]

Warren, Abrams are overpriced and Whitmer is underpriced

[Alben Barkley]

When Obama picked Biden everyone thought that he was too old to ever run for president again.
And yet here we are.

And we’re not necessarily better off. Biden and Bernie effectively shut out every other candidate in the race. We’ll not have had anything near a wide-open primary in 16 years come 2024. I’d prefer a candidate secure the nomination on their own strengths (Obama ‘08, Clinton ‘92) than on de-facto incumbency (Gore ‘00, Clinton ‘16, Biden ‘20).

You can call it de-facto if you want, but the three candidates listed (Gore, Clinton, Biden) were also the most experienced candidates in their respective fields.  Like it or not, experience is a strength.  

Actually it’s usually a weakness. This is the only cycle since probably ‘68 where experience has been a positive.

Was HRC really the most experienced candidate? She spent 8 years in the Senate and then 4 as SoS sure that seems like a lot but Biden was a Senator for 36 years and then Vice President for another 8 years, Gore was a Congressman for 15 years and then VP for 8. Not to mention his service in Vietnam and his political father. In 2016 Bernie was a Congressman for 25 years and then a Mayor for 8 years before that, O'Malley spent 8 years as Mayor and 8 years as Governor, Chafee spent 8 years in the Senate, 4 years as Governor, and 6 years as Mayor, and was also the son of a prominent politician.


If you want to compare that to the least experienced Democratic nominees since 1968, before their nomination.

George McGovern, US Representative from South Dakota 4 years, US Senator from South Dakota 9 years, Director of "Food for Peace" 2 years, WW2 Veteran

Michael Dukakis, 9 years as Governor of Massachusetts, 8 years in the Massachusetts State Assembly, US Army Veteran

Jimmy Carter, 4 years in the Georgia State Senate, 4 years as Governor of Georgia, Navy Veteran

John Kerry, 2 years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, 19 years US Senator from Massachusetts, Vietnam Veteran

So the only Democratic nominee since 1968  that HRC had more experience then was Jimmy Carter, but if you exclude legislature time then Dukakis as well.

This is all quantitative, completely ignoring the qualitative element. Being a senator for more years doesn't necessarily mean you're more prepared for the presidency because you've been in a lot of leadership roles or anything like that. Bernie for example ranks near dead last for actual leadership in Congress according to measures of how often the bills he sponsors get to the floor and gets passed, etc.

Hillary was a pretty active senator even though she wasn't there as long as some of these others, and moreover four years as SoS is EXTREMELY valuable foreign policy experience that NONE of these others could compare to. And considering the most power the president directly has is probably in the field of foreign policy, that's pretty damn significant.

Plus, being First Lady can't simply be brushed off either. She had an active office in the White House and was tasked with more responsibility as First Lady than any other in history with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. Had more power and influence too. She and Bill were partners in just about everything they did. I mean for Christ's sake, she was in charge of one of the most significant and difficult tasks of his presidency -- healthcare reform. It didn't work out, but not for lack of trying on her part. She not only took an active role in Congress, she toured the country trying to sell the legislation to the public.

So when you take 8 years of being almost co-president, plus 8 years in the Senate, plus 4 years as SoS -- that's a damn impressive resume. The important thing was we all knew she would know exactly what she was doing from day one when she entered the White House. She knew everything that had to be done and everybody that had to be talked to. Hell, she knew exactly where to go in the White House itself. It's hard to beat that kind of experience. Just sitting in the Senate for a while isn't quite the same.

The only person who I think is about as experienced as her is John Kerry, due to his time as both a Senator and SoS. They are quite literally the two most qualified people on Earth to be president.

And if you want to talk about being a Mayor of a small town as relevant experience to the presidency... No. Just no. This is why Buttigieg was a non-starter for me. South Bend might as well be on a different planet from Washington, same with Burlington.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

When Obama picked Biden everyone thought that he was too old to ever run for president again.
And yet here we are.

And we’re not necessarily better off. Biden and Bernie effectively shut out every other candidate in the race. We’ll not have had anything near a wide-open primary in 16 years come 2024. I’d prefer a candidate secure the nomination on their own strengths (Obama ‘08, Clinton ‘92) than on de-facto incumbency (Gore ‘00, Clinton ‘16, Biden ‘20).

You can call it de-facto if you want, but the three candidates listed (Gore, Clinton, Biden) were also the most experienced candidates in their respective fields.  Like it or not, experience is a strength.  

Actually it’s usually a weakness. This is the only cycle since probably ‘68 where experience has been a positive.

Was HRC really the most experienced candidate? She spent 8 years in the Senate and then 4 as SoS sure that seems like a lot but Biden was a Senator for 36 years and then Vice President for another 8 years, Gore was a Congressman for 15 years and then VP for 8. Not to mention his service in Vietnam and his political father. In 2016 Bernie was a Congressman for 25 years and then a Mayor for 8 years before that, O'Malley spent 8 years as Mayor and 8 years as Governor, Chafee spent 8 years in the Senate, 4 years as Governor, and 6 years as Mayor, and was also the son of a prominent politician.


If you want to compare that to the least experienced Democratic nominees since 1968, before their nomination.

George McGovern, US Representative from South Dakota 4 years, US Senator from South Dakota 9 years, Director of "Food for Peace" 2 years, WW2 Veteran

Michael Dukakis, 9 years as Governor of Massachusetts, 8 years in the Massachusetts State Assembly, US Army Veteran

Jimmy Carter, 4 years in the Georgia State Senate, 4 years as Governor of Georgia, Navy Veteran

John Kerry, 2 years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, 19 years US Senator from Massachusetts, Vietnam Veteran

So the only Democratic nominee since 1968  that HRC had more experience then was Jimmy Carter, but if you exclude legislature time then Dukakis as well.

This is all quantitative, completely ignoring the qualitative element. Being a senator for more years doesn't necessarily mean you're more prepared for the presidency because you've been in a lot of leadership roles or anything like that. Bernie for example ranks near dead last for actual leadership in Congress according to measures of how often the bills he sponsors get to the floor and gets passed, etc.

Hillary was a pretty active senator even though she wasn't there as long as some of these others, and moreover four years as SoS is EXTREMELY valuable foreign policy experience that NONE of these others could compare to. And considering the most power the president directly has is probably in the field of foreign policy, that's pretty damn significant.

Plus, being First Lady can't simply be brushed off either. She had an active office in the White House and was tasked with more responsibility as First Lady than any other in history with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. Had more power and influence too. She and Bill were partners in just about everything they did. I mean for Christ's sake, she was in charge of one of the most significant and difficult tasks of his presidency -- healthcare reform. It didn't work out, but not for lack of trying on her part. She not only took an active role in Congress, she toured the country trying to sell the legislation to the public.

So when you take 8 years of being almost co-president, plus 8 years in the Senate, plus 4 years as SoS -- that's a damn impressive resume. The important thing was we all knew she would know exactly what she was doing from day one when she entered the White House. She knew everything that had to be done and everybody that had to be talked to. Hell, she knew exactly where to go in the White House itself. It's hard to beat that kind of experience. Just sitting in the Senate for a while isn't quite the same.

The only person who I think is about as experienced as her is John Kerry, due to his time as both a Senator and SoS. They are quite literally the two most qualified people on Earth to be president.

And if you want to talk about being a Mayor of a small town as relevant experience to the presidency... No. Just no. This is why Buttigieg was a non-starter for me. South Bend might as well be on a different planet from Washington, same with Burlington.

Agreed with most of this (barring the bit about Sanders not being qualified because he couln't get bills passed in the Senate), but Biden has more experience by time in the federal executive and legislature positions alone, although she has a greater breadth of it. Let's not forget that the deal he struck with Obama made him one of the most influential VPs of the modern era, even if their working relationship seemed relatively normal compared after Bush and Cheney.

If the standard is a decent amount of federal legislative and executive experience and at least ~6 years of both, then Kerry didn't meet it at the time of his candidacy, though he did in subsequent speculated bids that never came to fruition. Al Gore also did, with 24 years (8 in the House/8 in the Senate/8 as VP) to Clinton's 20 (8 as First Lady/8 in the Senate/4 as Sec. of State). From what I can tell, no other Democrat who openly considered a presidential bid post-Carter was as qualified as these three on the criteria above (barring Carter himself being a subject of speculation in 1984).

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

When Obama picked Biden everyone thought that he was too old to ever run for president again.
And yet here we are.

And we’re not necessarily better off. Biden and Bernie effectively shut out every other candidate in the race. We’ll not have had anything near a wide-open primary in 16 years come 2024. I’d prefer a candidate secure the nomination on their own strengths (Obama ‘08, Clinton ‘92) than on de-facto incumbency (Gore ‘00, Clinton ‘16, Biden ‘20).

You can call it de-facto if you want, but the three candidates listed (Gore, Clinton, Biden) were also the most experienced candidates in their respective fields.  Like it or not, experience is a strength.  

Actually it’s usually a weakness. This is the only cycle since probably ‘68 where experience has been a positive.

Was HRC really the most experienced candidate? She spent 8 years in the Senate and then 4 as SoS sure that seems like a lot but Biden was a Senator for 36 years and then Vice President for another 8 years, Gore was a Congressman for 15 years and then VP for 8. Not to mention his service in Vietnam and his political father. In 2016 Bernie was a Congressman for 25 years and then a Mayor for 8 years before that, O'Malley spent 8 years as Mayor and 8 years as Governor, Chafee spent 8 years in the Senate, 4 years as Governor, and 6 years as Mayor, and was also the son of a prominent politician.


If you want to compare that to the least experienced Democratic nominees since 1968, before their nomination.

George McGovern, US Representative from South Dakota 4 years, US Senator from South Dakota 9 years, Director of "Food for Peace" 2 years, WW2 Veteran

Michael Dukakis, 9 years as Governor of Massachusetts, 8 years in the Massachusetts State Assembly, US Army Veteran

Jimmy Carter, 4 years in the Georgia State Senate, 4 years as Governor of Georgia, Navy Veteran

John Kerry, 2 years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, 19 years US Senator from Massachusetts, Vietnam Veteran

So the only Democratic nominee since 1968  that HRC had more experience then was Jimmy Carter, but if you exclude legislature time then Dukakis as well.

This is all quantitative, completely ignoring the qualitative element. Being a senator for more years doesn't necessarily mean you're more prepared for the presidency because you've been in a lot of leadership roles or anything like that. Bernie for example ranks near dead last for actual leadership in Congress according to measures of how often the bills he sponsors get to the floor and gets passed, etc.

Hillary was a pretty active senator even though she wasn't there as long as some of these others, and moreover four years as SoS is EXTREMELY valuable foreign policy experience that NONE of these others could compare to. And considering the most power the president directly has is probably in the field of foreign policy, that's pretty damn significant.

Plus, being First Lady can't simply be brushed off either. She had an active office in the White House and was tasked with more responsibility as First Lady than any other in history with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. Had more power and influence too. She and Bill were partners in just about everything they did. I mean for Christ's sake, she was in charge of one of the most significant and difficult tasks of his presidency -- healthcare reform. It didn't work out, but not for lack of trying on her part. She not only took an active role in Congress, she toured the country trying to sell the legislation to the public.

So when you take 8 years of being almost co-president, plus 8 years in the Senate, plus 4 years as SoS -- that's a damn impressive resume. The important thing was we all knew she would know exactly what she was doing from day one when she entered the White House. She knew everything that had to be done and everybody that had to be talked to. Hell, she knew exactly where to go in the White House itself. It's hard to beat that kind of experience. Just sitting in the Senate for a while isn't quite the same.

The only person who I think is about as experienced as her is John Kerry, due to his time as both a Senator and SoS. They are quite literally the two most qualified people on Earth to be president.

And if you want to talk about being a Mayor of a small town as relevant experience to the presidency... No. Just no. This is why Buttigieg was a non-starter for me. South Bend might as well be on a different planet from Washington, same with Burlington.

When Obama picked Biden everyone thought that he was too old to ever run for president again.
And yet here we are.

And we’re not necessarily better off. Biden and Bernie effectively shut out every other candidate in the race. We’ll not have had anything near a wide-open primary in 16 years come 2024. I’d prefer a candidate secure the nomination on their own strengths (Obama ‘08, Clinton ‘92) than on de-facto incumbency (Gore ‘00, Clinton ‘16, Biden ‘20).

You can call it de-facto if you want, but the three candidates listed (Gore, Clinton, Biden) were also the most experienced candidates in their respective fields.  Like it or not, experience is a strength. 

Actually it’s usually a weakness. This is the only cycle since probably ‘68 where experience has been a positive.

Was HRC really the most experienced candidate? She spent 8 years in the Senate and then 4 as SoS sure that seems like a lot but Biden was a Senator for 36 years and then Vice President for another 8 years, Gore was a Congressman for 15 years and then VP for 8. Not to mention his service in Vietnam and his political father. In 2016 Bernie was a Congressman for 25 years and then a Mayor for 8 years before that, O'Malley spent 8 years as Mayor and 8 years as Governor, Chafee spent 8 years in the Senate, 4 years as Governor, and 6 years as Mayor, and was also the son of a prominent politician.


If you want to compare that to the least experienced Democratic nominees since 1968, before their nomination.

George McGovern, US Representative from South Dakota 4 years, US Senator from South Dakota 9 years, Director of "Food for Peace" 2 years, WW2 Veteran

Michael Dukakis, 9 years as Governor of Massachusetts, 8 years in the Massachusetts State Assembly, US Army Veteran

Jimmy Carter, 4 years in the Georgia State Senate, 4 years as Governor of Georgia, Navy Veteran

John Kerry, 2 years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, 19 years US Senator from Massachusetts, Vietnam Veteran

So the only Democratic nominee since 1968  that HRC had more experience then was Jimmy Carter, but if you exclude legislature time then Dukakis as well.

This is all quantitative, completely ignoring the qualitative element. Being a senator for more years doesn't necessarily mean you're more prepared for the presidency because you've been in a lot of leadership roles or anything like that. Bernie for example ranks near dead last for actual leadership in Congress according to measures of how often the bills he sponsors get to the floor and gets passed, etc.

Hillary was a pretty active senator even though she wasn't there as long as some of these others, and moreover four years as SoS is EXTREMELY valuable foreign policy experience that NONE of these others could compare to. And considering the most power the president directly has is probably in the field of foreign policy, that's pretty damn significant.

Plus, being First Lady can't simply be brushed off either. She had an active office in the White House and was tasked with more responsibility as First Lady than any other in history with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. Had more power and influence too. She and Bill were partners in just about everything they did. I mean for Christ's sake, she was in charge of one of the most significant and difficult tasks of his presidency -- healthcare reform. It didn't work out, but not for lack of trying on her part. She not only took an active role in Congress, she toured the country trying to sell the legislation to the public.

So when you take 8 years of being almost co-president, plus 8 years in the Senate, plus 4 years as SoS -- that's a damn impressive resume. The important thing was we all knew she would know exactly what she was doing from day one when she entered the White House. She knew everything that had to be done and everybody that had to be talked to. Hell, she knew exactly where to go in the White House itself. It's hard to beat that kind of experience. Just sitting in the Senate for a while isn't quite the same.

The only person who I think is about as experienced as her is John Kerry, due to his time as both a Senator and SoS. They are quite literally the two most qualified people on Earth to be president.

And if you want to talk about being a Mayor of a small town as relevant experience to the presidency... No. Just no. This is why Buttigieg was a non-starter for me. South Bend might as well be on a different planet from Washington, same with Burlington.

Agreed with most of this (barring the bit about Sanders not being qualified because he couln't get bills passed in the Senate), but Biden has more experience by time in the federal executive and legislature positions alone, although she has a greater breadth of it. Let's not forget that the deal he struck with Obama made him one of the most influential VPs of the modern era, even if their working relationship seemed relatively normal compared after Bush and Cheney.

If the standard is a decent amount of federal legislative and executive experience and at least ~6 years of both, then Kerry didn't meet it at the time of his candidacy, though he did in subsequent speculated bids that never came to fruition. Al Gore also did, with 24 years (8 in the House/8 in the Senate/8 as VP) to Clinton's 20 (8 as First Lady/8 in the Senate/4 as Sec. of State). From what I can tell, no other Democrat who openly considered a presidential bid post-Carter was as qualified as these three on the criteria above (barring Carter himself being a subject of speculation in 1984).

George H.W. Bush also was very qualified to be President.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

When Obama picked Biden everyone thought that he was too old to ever run for president again.
And yet here we are.

And we’re not necessarily better off. Biden and Bernie effectively shut out every other candidate in the race. We’ll not have had anything near a wide-open primary in 16 years come 2024. I’d prefer a candidate secure the nomination on their own strengths (Obama ‘08, Clinton ‘92) than on de-facto incumbency (Gore ‘00, Clinton ‘16, Biden ‘20).

You can call it de-facto if you want, but the three candidates listed (Gore, Clinton, Biden) were also the most experienced candidates in their respective fields.  Like it or not, experience is a strength.  

Actually it’s usually a weakness. This is the only cycle since probably ‘68 where experience has been a positive.

Was HRC really the most experienced candidate? She spent 8 years in the Senate and then 4 as SoS sure that seems like a lot but Biden was a Senator for 36 years and then Vice President for another 8 years, Gore was a Congressman for 15 years and then VP for 8. Not to mention his service in Vietnam and his political father. In 2016 Bernie was a Congressman for 25 years and then a Mayor for 8 years before that, O'Malley spent 8 years as Mayor and 8 years as Governor, Chafee spent 8 years in the Senate, 4 years as Governor, and 6 years as Mayor, and was also the son of a prominent politician.


If you want to compare that to the least experienced Democratic nominees since 1968, before their nomination.

George McGovern, US Representative from South Dakota 4 years, US Senator from South Dakota 9 years, Director of "Food for Peace" 2 years, WW2 Veteran

Michael Dukakis, 9 years as Governor of Massachusetts, 8 years in the Massachusetts State Assembly, US Army Veteran

Jimmy Carter, 4 years in the Georgia State Senate, 4 years as Governor of Georgia, Navy Veteran

John Kerry, 2 years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, 19 years US Senator from Massachusetts, Vietnam Veteran

So the only Democratic nominee since 1968  that HRC had more experience then was Jimmy Carter, but if you exclude legislature time then Dukakis as well.

This is all quantitative, completely ignoring the qualitative element. Being a senator for more years doesn't necessarily mean you're more prepared for the presidency because you've been in a lot of leadership roles or anything like that. Bernie for example ranks near dead last for actual leadership in Congress according to measures of how often the bills he sponsors get to the floor and gets passed, etc.

Hillary was a pretty active senator even though she wasn't there as long as some of these others, and moreover four years as SoS is EXTREMELY valuable foreign policy experience that NONE of these others could compare to. And considering the most power the president directly has is probably in the field of foreign policy, that's pretty damn significant.

Plus, being First Lady can't simply be brushed off either. She had an active office in the White House and was tasked with more responsibility as First Lady than any other in history with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. Had more power and influence too. She and Bill were partners in just about everything they did. I mean for Christ's sake, she was in charge of one of the most significant and difficult tasks of his presidency -- healthcare reform. It didn't work out, but not for lack of trying on her part. She not only took an active role in Congress, she toured the country trying to sell the legislation to the public.

So when you take 8 years of being almost co-president, plus 8 years in the Senate, plus 4 years as SoS -- that's a damn impressive resume. The important thing was we all knew she would know exactly what she was doing from day one when she entered the White House. She knew everything that had to be done and everybody that had to be talked to. Hell, she knew exactly where to go in the White House itself. It's hard to beat that kind of experience. Just sitting in the Senate for a while isn't quite the same.

The only person who I think is about as experienced as her is John Kerry, due to his time as both a Senator and SoS. They are quite literally the two most qualified people on Earth to be president.

And if you want to talk about being a Mayor of a small town as relevant experience to the presidency... No. Just no. This is why Buttigieg was a non-starter for me. South Bend might as well be on a different planet from Washington, same with Burlington.

When Obama picked Biden everyone thought that he was too old to ever run for president again.
And yet here we are.

And we’re not necessarily better off. Biden and Bernie effectively shut out every other candidate in the race. We’ll not have had anything near a wide-open primary in 16 years come 2024. I’d prefer a candidate secure the nomination on their own strengths (Obama ‘08, Clinton ‘92) than on de-facto incumbency (Gore ‘00, Clinton ‘16, Biden ‘20).

You can call it de-facto if you want, but the three candidates listed (Gore, Clinton, Biden) were also the most experienced candidates in their respective fields.  Like it or not, experience is a strength. 

Actually it’s usually a weakness. This is the only cycle since probably ‘68 where experience has been a positive.

Was HRC really the most experienced candidate? She spent 8 years in the Senate and then 4 as SoS sure that seems like a lot but Biden was a Senator for 36 years and then Vice President for another 8 years, Gore was a Congressman for 15 years and then VP for 8. Not to mention his service in Vietnam and his political father. In 2016 Bernie was a Congressman for 25 years and then a Mayor for 8 years before that, O'Malley spent 8 years as Mayor and 8 years as Governor, Chafee spent 8 years in the Senate, 4 years as Governor, and 6 years as Mayor, and was also the son of a prominent politician.


If you want to compare that to the least experienced Democratic nominees since 1968, before their nomination.

George McGovern, US Representative from South Dakota 4 years, US Senator from South Dakota 9 years, Director of "Food for Peace" 2 years, WW2 Veteran

Michael Dukakis, 9 years as Governor of Massachusetts, 8 years in the Massachusetts State Assembly, US Army Veteran

Jimmy Carter, 4 years in the Georgia State Senate, 4 years as Governor of Georgia, Navy Veteran

John Kerry, 2 years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, 19 years US Senator from Massachusetts, Vietnam Veteran

So the only Democratic nominee since 1968  that HRC had more experience then was Jimmy Carter, but if you exclude legislature time then Dukakis as well.

This is all quantitative, completely ignoring the qualitative element. Being a senator for more years doesn't necessarily mean you're more prepared for the presidency because you've been in a lot of leadership roles or anything like that. Bernie for example ranks near dead last for actual leadership in Congress according to measures of how often the bills he sponsors get to the floor and gets passed, etc.

Hillary was a pretty active senator even though she wasn't there as long as some of these others, and moreover four years as SoS is EXTREMELY valuable foreign policy experience that NONE of these others could compare to. And considering the most power the president directly has is probably in the field of foreign policy, that's pretty damn significant.

Plus, being First Lady can't simply be brushed off either. She had an active office in the White House and was tasked with more responsibility as First Lady than any other in history with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. Had more power and influence too. She and Bill were partners in just about everything they did. I mean for Christ's sake, she was in charge of one of the most significant and difficult tasks of his presidency -- healthcare reform. It didn't work out, but not for lack of trying on her part. She not only took an active role in Congress, she toured the country trying to sell the legislation to the public.

So when you take 8 years of being almost co-president, plus 8 years in the Senate, plus 4 years as SoS -- that's a damn impressive resume. The important thing was we all knew she would know exactly what she was doing from day one when she entered the White House. She knew everything that had to be done and everybody that had to be talked to. Hell, she knew exactly where to go in the White House itself. It's hard to beat that kind of experience. Just sitting in the Senate for a while isn't quite the same.

The only person who I think is about as experienced as her is John Kerry, due to his time as both a Senator and SoS. They are quite literally the two most qualified people on Earth to be president.

And if you want to talk about being a Mayor of a small town as relevant experience to the presidency... No. Just no. This is why Buttigieg was a non-starter for me. South Bend might as well be on a different planet from Washington, same with Burlington.

Agreed with most of this (barring the bit about Sanders not being qualified because he couln't get bills passed in the Senate), but Biden has more experience by time in the federal executive and legislature positions alone, although she has a greater breadth of it. Let's not forget that the deal he struck with Obama made him one of the most influential VPs of the modern era, even if their working relationship seemed relatively normal compared after Bush and Cheney.

If the standard is a decent amount of federal legislative and executive experience and at least ~6 years of both, then Kerry didn't meet it at the time of his candidacy, though he did in subsequent speculated bids that never came to fruition. Al Gore also did, with 24 years (8 in the House/8 in the Senate/8 as VP) to Clinton's 20 (8 as First Lady/8 in the Senate/4 as Sec. of State). From what I can tell, no other Democrat who openly considered a presidential bid post-Carter was as qualified as these three on the criteria above (barring Carter himself being a subject of speculation in 1984).

George H.W. Bush also was very qualified to be President.

I was only referring to Democratic candidates. The list expands a fair bit when you include Republicans.

[Orwell]

When Obama picked Biden everyone thought that he was too old to ever run for president again.
And yet here we are.

And we’re not necessarily better off. Biden and Bernie effectively shut out every other candidate in the race. We’ll not have had anything near a wide-open primary in 16 years come 2024. I’d prefer a candidate secure the nomination on their own strengths (Obama ‘08, Clinton ‘92) than on de-facto incumbency (Gore ‘00, Clinton ‘16, Biden ‘20).

You can call it de-facto if you want, but the three candidates listed (Gore, Clinton, Biden) were also the most experienced candidates in their respective fields.  Like it or not, experience is a strength.  

Actually it’s usually a weakness. This is the only cycle since probably ‘68 where experience has been a positive.

Was HRC really the most experienced candidate? She spent 8 years in the Senate and then 4 as SoS sure that seems like a lot but Biden was a Senator for 36 years and then Vice President for another 8 years, Gore was a Congressman for 15 years and then VP for 8. Not to mention his service in Vietnam and his political father. In 2016 Bernie was a Congressman for 25 years and then a Mayor for 8 years before that, O'Malley spent 8 years as Mayor and 8 years as Governor, Chafee spent 8 years in the Senate, 4 years as Governor, and 6 years as Mayor, and was also the son of a prominent politician.


If you want to compare that to the least experienced Democratic nominees since 1968, before their nomination.

George McGovern, US Representative from South Dakota 4 years, US Senator from South Dakota 9 years, Director of "Food for Peace" 2 years, WW2 Veteran

Michael Dukakis, 9 years as Governor of Massachusetts, 8 years in the Massachusetts State Assembly, US Army Veteran

Jimmy Carter, 4 years in the Georgia State Senate, 4 years as Governor of Georgia, Navy Veteran

John Kerry, 2 years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, 19 years US Senator from Massachusetts, Vietnam Veteran

So the only Democratic nominee since 1968  that HRC had more experience then was Jimmy Carter, but if you exclude legislature time then Dukakis as well.

This is all quantitative, completely ignoring the qualitative element. Being a senator for more years doesn't necessarily mean you're more prepared for the presidency because you've been in a lot of leadership roles or anything like that. Bernie for example ranks near dead last for actual leadership in Congress according to measures of how often the bills he sponsors get to the floor and gets passed, etc.

Hillary was a pretty active senator even though she wasn't there as long as some of these others, and moreover four years as SoS is EXTREMELY valuable foreign policy experience that NONE of these others could compare to. And considering the most power the president directly has is probably in the field of foreign policy, that's pretty damn significant.

Plus, being First Lady can't simply be brushed off either. She had an active office in the White House and was tasked with more responsibility as First Lady than any other in history with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. Had more power and influence too. She and Bill were partners in just about everything they did. I mean for Christ's sake, she was in charge of one of the most significant and difficult tasks of his presidency -- healthcare reform. It didn't work out, but not for lack of trying on her part. She not only took an active role in Congress, she toured the country trying to sell the legislation to the public.

So when you take 8 years of being almost co-president, plus 8 years in the Senate, plus 4 years as SoS -- that's a damn impressive resume. The important thing was we all knew she would know exactly what she was doing from day one when she entered the White House. She knew everything that had to be done and everybody that had to be talked to. Hell, she knew exactly where to go in the White House itself. It's hard to beat that kind of experience. Just sitting in the Senate for a while isn't quite the same.

The only person who I think is about as experienced as her is John Kerry, due to his time as both a Senator and SoS. They are quite literally the two most qualified people on Earth to be president.

And if you want to talk about being a Mayor of a small town as relevant experience to the presidency... No. Just no. This is why Buttigieg was a non-starter for me. South Bend might as well be on a different planet from Washington, same with Burlington.

When Obama picked Biden everyone thought that he was too old to ever run for president again.
And yet here we are.

And we’re not necessarily better off. Biden and Bernie effectively shut out every other candidate in the race. We’ll not have had anything near a wide-open primary in 16 years come 2024. I’d prefer a candidate secure the nomination on their own strengths (Obama ‘08, Clinton ‘92) than on de-facto incumbency (Gore ‘00, Clinton ‘16, Biden ‘20).

You can call it de-facto if you want, but the three candidates listed (Gore, Clinton, Biden) were also the most experienced candidates in their respective fields.  Like it or not, experience is a strength. 

Actually it’s usually a weakness. This is the only cycle since probably ‘68 where experience has been a positive.

Was HRC really the most experienced candidate? She spent 8 years in the Senate and then 4 as SoS sure that seems like a lot but Biden was a Senator for 36 years and then Vice President for another 8 years, Gore was a Congressman for 15 years and then VP for 8. Not to mention his service in Vietnam and his political father. In 2016 Bernie was a Congressman for 25 years and then a Mayor for 8 years before that, O'Malley spent 8 years as Mayor and 8 years as Governor, Chafee spent 8 years in the Senate, 4 years as Governor, and 6 years as Mayor, and was also the son of a prominent politician.


If you want to compare that to the least experienced Democratic nominees since 1968, before their nomination.

George McGovern, US Representative from South Dakota 4 years, US Senator from South Dakota 9 years, Director of "Food for Peace" 2 years, WW2 Veteran

Michael Dukakis, 9 years as Governor of Massachusetts, 8 years in the Massachusetts State Assembly, US Army Veteran

Jimmy Carter, 4 years in the Georgia State Senate, 4 years as Governor of Georgia, Navy Veteran

John Kerry, 2 years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, 19 years US Senator from Massachusetts, Vietnam Veteran

So the only Democratic nominee since 1968  that HRC had more experience then was Jimmy Carter, but if you exclude legislature time then Dukakis as well.

This is all quantitative, completely ignoring the qualitative element. Being a senator for more years doesn't necessarily mean you're more prepared for the presidency because you've been in a lot of leadership roles or anything like that. Bernie for example ranks near dead last for actual leadership in Congress according to measures of how often the bills he sponsors get to the floor and gets passed, etc.

Hillary was a pretty active senator even though she wasn't there as long as some of these others, and moreover four years as SoS is EXTREMELY valuable foreign policy experience that NONE of these others could compare to. And considering the most power the president directly has is probably in the field of foreign policy, that's pretty damn significant.

Plus, being First Lady can't simply be brushed off either. She had an active office in the White House and was tasked with more responsibility as First Lady than any other in history with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. Had more power and influence too. She and Bill were partners in just about everything they did. I mean for Christ's sake, she was in charge of one of the most significant and difficult tasks of his presidency -- healthcare reform. It didn't work out, but not for lack of trying on her part. She not only took an active role in Congress, she toured the country trying to sell the legislation to the public.

So when you take 8 years of being almost co-president, plus 8 years in the Senate, plus 4 years as SoS -- that's a damn impressive resume. The important thing was we all knew she would know exactly what she was doing from day one when she entered the White House. She knew everything that had to be done and everybody that had to be talked to. Hell, she knew exactly where to go in the White House itself. It's hard to beat that kind of experience. Just sitting in the Senate for a while isn't quite the same.

The only person who I think is about as experienced as her is John Kerry, due to his time as both a Senator and SoS. They are quite literally the two most qualified people on Earth to be president.

And if you want to talk about being a Mayor of a small town as relevant experience to the presidency... No. Just no. This is why Buttigieg was a non-starter for me. South Bend might as well be on a different planet from Washington, same with Burlington.

Agreed with most of this (barring the bit about Sanders not being qualified because he couln't get bills passed in the Senate), but Biden has more experience by time in the federal executive and legislature positions alone, although she has a greater breadth of it. Let's not forget that the deal he struck with Obama made him one of the most influential VPs of the modern era, even if their working relationship seemed relatively normal compared after Bush and Cheney.

If the standard is a decent amount of federal legislative and executive experience and at least ~6 years of both, then Kerry didn't meet it at the time of his candidacy, though he did in subsequent speculated bids that never came to fruition. Al Gore also did, with 24 years (8 in the House/8 in the Senate/8 as VP) to Clinton's 20 (8 as First Lady/8 in the Senate/4 as Sec. of State). From what I can tell, no other Democrat who openly considered a presidential bid post-Carter was as qualified as these three on the criteria above (barring Carter himself being a subject of speculation in 1984).

George H.W. Bush also was very qualified to be President.

I was only referring to Democratic candidates. The list expands a fair bit when you include Republicans.

Why did Reagan pick Bush to be VP in 1980, like he had a respectable show in the primary sure, but nothing more. Like I would have thought Howard Baker or someone of the like would be a better VP, I guess Bush's FOPO was a big deal I would have rather had Baker at VP then Bush at State

[President Johnson]

When Obama picked Biden everyone thought that he was too old to ever run for president again.
And yet here we are.

And we’re not necessarily better off. Biden and Bernie effectively shut out every other candidate in the race. We’ll not have had anything near a wide-open primary in 16 years come 2024. I’d prefer a candidate secure the nomination on their own strengths (Obama ‘08, Clinton ‘92) than on de-facto incumbency (Gore ‘00, Clinton ‘16, Biden ‘20).

You can call it de-facto if you want, but the three candidates listed (Gore, Clinton, Biden) were also the most experienced candidates in their respective fields.  Like it or not, experience is a strength.  

Actually it’s usually a weakness. This is the only cycle since probably ‘68 where experience has been a positive.

Was HRC really the most experienced candidate? She spent 8 years in the Senate and then 4 as SoS sure that seems like a lot but Biden was a Senator for 36 years and then Vice President for another 8 years, Gore was a Congressman for 15 years and then VP for 8. Not to mention his service in Vietnam and his political father. In 2016 Bernie was a Congressman for 25 years and then a Mayor for 8 years before that, O'Malley spent 8 years as Mayor and 8 years as Governor, Chafee spent 8 years in the Senate, 4 years as Governor, and 6 years as Mayor, and was also the son of a prominent politician.


If you want to compare that to the least experienced Democratic nominees since 1968, before their nomination.

George McGovern, US Representative from South Dakota 4 years, US Senator from South Dakota 9 years, Director of "Food for Peace" 2 years, WW2 Veteran

Michael Dukakis, 9 years as Governor of Massachusetts, 8 years in the Massachusetts State Assembly, US Army Veteran

Jimmy Carter, 4 years in the Georgia State Senate, 4 years as Governor of Georgia, Navy Veteran

John Kerry, 2 years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, 19 years US Senator from Massachusetts, Vietnam Veteran

So the only Democratic nominee since 1968  that HRC had more experience then was Jimmy Carter, but if you exclude legislature time then Dukakis as well.

This is all quantitative, completely ignoring the qualitative element. Being a senator for more years doesn't necessarily mean you're more prepared for the presidency because you've been in a lot of leadership roles or anything like that. Bernie for example ranks near dead last for actual leadership in Congress according to measures of how often the bills he sponsors get to the floor and gets passed, etc.

Hillary was a pretty active senator even though she wasn't there as long as some of these others, and moreover four years as SoS is EXTREMELY valuable foreign policy experience that NONE of these others could compare to. And considering the most power the president directly has is probably in the field of foreign policy, that's pretty damn significant.

Plus, being First Lady can't simply be brushed off either. She had an active office in the White House and was tasked with more responsibility as First Lady than any other in history with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. Had more power and influence too. She and Bill were partners in just about everything they did. I mean for Christ's sake, she was in charge of one of the most significant and difficult tasks of his presidency -- healthcare reform. It didn't work out, but not for lack of trying on her part. She not only took an active role in Congress, she toured the country trying to sell the legislation to the public.

So when you take 8 years of being almost co-president, plus 8 years in the Senate, plus 4 years as SoS -- that's a damn impressive resume. The important thing was we all knew she would know exactly what she was doing from day one when she entered the White House. She knew everything that had to be done and everybody that had to be talked to. Hell, she knew exactly where to go in the White House itself. It's hard to beat that kind of experience. Just sitting in the Senate for a while isn't quite the same.

The only person who I think is about as experienced as her is John Kerry, due to his time as both a Senator and SoS. They are quite literally the two most qualified people on Earth to be president.

And if you want to talk about being a Mayor of a small town as relevant experience to the presidency... No. Just no. This is why Buttigieg was a non-starter for me. South Bend might as well be on a different planet from Washington, same with Burlington.

When Obama picked Biden everyone thought that he was too old to ever run for president again.
And yet here we are.

And we’re not necessarily better off. Biden and Bernie effectively shut out every other candidate in the race. We’ll not have had anything near a wide-open primary in 16 years come 2024. I’d prefer a candidate secure the nomination on their own strengths (Obama ‘08, Clinton ‘92) than on de-facto incumbency (Gore ‘00, Clinton ‘16, Biden ‘20).

You can call it de-facto if you want, but the three candidates listed (Gore, Clinton, Biden) were also the most experienced candidates in their respective fields.  Like it or not, experience is a strength. 

Actually it’s usually a weakness. This is the only cycle since probably ‘68 where experience has been a positive.

Was HRC really the most experienced candidate? She spent 8 years in the Senate and then 4 as SoS sure that seems like a lot but Biden was a Senator for 36 years and then Vice President for another 8 years, Gore was a Congressman for 15 years and then VP for 8. Not to mention his service in Vietnam and his political father. In 2016 Bernie was a Congressman for 25 years and then a Mayor for 8 years before that, O'Malley spent 8 years as Mayor and 8 years as Governor, Chafee spent 8 years in the Senate, 4 years as Governor, and 6 years as Mayor, and was also the son of a prominent politician.


If you want to compare that to the least experienced Democratic nominees since 1968, before their nomination.

George McGovern, US Representative from South Dakota 4 years, US Senator from South Dakota 9 years, Director of "Food for Peace" 2 years, WW2 Veteran

Michael Dukakis, 9 years as Governor of Massachusetts, 8 years in the Massachusetts State Assembly, US Army Veteran

Jimmy Carter, 4 years in the Georgia State Senate, 4 years as Governor of Georgia, Navy Veteran

John Kerry, 2 years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, 19 years US Senator from Massachusetts, Vietnam Veteran

So the only Democratic nominee since 1968  that HRC had more experience then was Jimmy Carter, but if you exclude legislature time then Dukakis as well.

This is all quantitative, completely ignoring the qualitative element. Being a senator for more years doesn't necessarily mean you're more prepared for the presidency because you've been in a lot of leadership roles or anything like that. Bernie for example ranks near dead last for actual leadership in Congress according to measures of how often the bills he sponsors get to the floor and gets passed, etc.

Hillary was a pretty active senator even though she wasn't there as long as some of these others, and moreover four years as SoS is EXTREMELY valuable foreign policy experience that NONE of these others could compare to. And considering the most power the president directly has is probably in the field of foreign policy, that's pretty damn significant.

Plus, being First Lady can't simply be brushed off either. She had an active office in the White House and was tasked with more responsibility as First Lady than any other in history with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. Had more power and influence too. She and Bill were partners in just about everything they did. I mean for Christ's sake, she was in charge of one of the most significant and difficult tasks of his presidency -- healthcare reform. It didn't work out, but not for lack of trying on her part. She not only took an active role in Congress, she toured the country trying to sell the legislation to the public.

So when you take 8 years of being almost co-president, plus 8 years in the Senate, plus 4 years as SoS -- that's a damn impressive resume. The important thing was we all knew she would know exactly what she was doing from day one when she entered the White House. She knew everything that had to be done and everybody that had to be talked to. Hell, she knew exactly where to go in the White House itself. It's hard to beat that kind of experience. Just sitting in the Senate for a while isn't quite the same.

The only person who I think is about as experienced as her is John Kerry, due to his time as both a Senator and SoS. They are quite literally the two most qualified people on Earth to be president.

And if you want to talk about being a Mayor of a small town as relevant experience to the presidency... No. Just no. This is why Buttigieg was a non-starter for me. South Bend might as well be on a different planet from Washington, same with Burlington.

Agreed with most of this (barring the bit about Sanders not being qualified because he couln't get bills passed in the Senate), but Biden has more experience by time in the federal executive and legislature positions alone, although she has a greater breadth of it. Let's not forget that the deal he struck with Obama made him one of the most influential VPs of the modern era, even if their working relationship seemed relatively normal compared after Bush and Cheney.

If the standard is a decent amount of federal legislative and executive experience and at least ~6 years of both, then Kerry didn't meet it at the time of his candidacy, though he did in subsequent speculated bids that never came to fruition. Al Gore also did, with 24 years (8 in the House/8 in the Senate/8 as VP) to Clinton's 20 (8 as First Lady/8 in the Senate/4 as Sec. of State). From what I can tell, no other Democrat who openly considered a presidential bid post-Carter was as qualified as these three on the criteria above (barring Carter himself being a subject of speculation in 1984).

George H.W. Bush also was very qualified to be President.

I was only referring to Democratic candidates. The list expands a fair bit when you include Republicans.

Why did Reagan pick Bush to be VP in 1980, like he had a respectable show in the primary sure, but nothing more. Like I would have thought Howard Baker or someone of the like would be a better VP, I guess Bush's FOPO was a big deal I would have rather had Baker at VP then Bush at State

Poppy had some "counter experience" to Reagan. As two term governor of California, Reagan didn't have experience in foreign policy and in Washington. Of course, he made some international trips as head of the most populous state and expressed his opinions, but he did not make or execute any foreign policy for the federal government. HW Bush served in congress and had foreign policy credentials in numerous roles during the Nixon and Ford presidencies. Furthermore, he was some sort of bridge to the more moderate Republican establishment, which wasn't thrilled about Reagan in the beginning. Poppy's selection for the second spot wasn't actually the worst move.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I would also stress that Hillary's work before 1993, before and during Bill's stints as governor, were positive experiences that bolstered Hillary's legitimacy (and dare I say authenticity) as someone who cares about marginalized people. Not every politician has those kinds of early, significant experiences. It's why I really don't understand the constant criticisms. In broad strokes, she has lived some pretty consistent values.

[Kleine Scheiße]

When Obama picked Biden everyone thought that he was too old to ever run for president again.
And yet here we are.

And we’re not necessarily better off. Biden and Bernie effectively shut out every other candidate in the race. We’ll not have had anything near a wide-open primary in 16 years come 2024. I’d prefer a candidate secure the nomination on their own strengths (Obama ‘08, Clinton ‘92) than on de-facto incumbency (Gore ‘00, Clinton ‘16, Biden ‘20).

You can call it de-facto if you want, but the three candidates listed (Gore, Clinton, Biden) were also the most experienced candidates in their respective fields.  Like it or not, experience is a strength. 

Actually it’s usually a weakness. This is the only cycle since probably ‘68 where experience has been a positive.

Was HRC really the most experienced candidate? She spent 8 years in the Senate and then 4 as SoS sure that seems like a lot but Biden was a Senator for 36 years and then Vice President for another 8 years, Gore was a Congressman for 15 years and then VP for 8. Not to mention his service in Vietnam and his political father. In 2016 Bernie was a Congressman for 25 years and then a Mayor for 8 years before that, O'Malley spent 8 years as Mayor and 8 years as Governor, Chafee spent 8 years in the Senate, 4 years as Governor, and 6 years as Mayor, and was also the son of a prominent politician.


If you want to compare that to the least experienced Democratic nominees since 1968, before their nomination.

George McGovern, US Representative from South Dakota 4 years, US Senator from South Dakota 9 years, Director of "Food for Peace" 2 years, WW2 Veteran

Michael Dukakis, 9 years as Governor of Massachusetts, 8 years in the Massachusetts State Assembly, US Army Veteran

Jimmy Carter, 4 years in the Georgia State Senate, 4 years as Governor of Georgia, Navy Veteran

John Kerry, 2 years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, 19 years US Senator from Massachusetts, Vietnam Veteran

So the only Democratic nominee since 1968  that HRC had more experience then was Jimmy Carter, but if you exclude legislature time then Dukakis as well.

This is all quantitative, completely ignoring the qualitative element. Being a senator for more years doesn't necessarily mean you're more prepared for the presidency because you've been in a lot of leadership roles or anything like that. Bernie for example ranks near dead last for actual leadership in Congress according to measures of how often the bills he sponsors get to the floor and gets passed, etc.

Hillary was a pretty active senator even though she wasn't there as long as some of these others, and moreover four years as SoS is EXTREMELY valuable foreign policy experience that NONE of these others could compare to. And considering the most power the president directly has is probably in the field of foreign policy, that's pretty damn significant.

Plus, being First Lady can't simply be brushed off either. She had an active office in the White House and was tasked with more responsibility as First Lady than any other in history with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. Had more power and influence too. She and Bill were partners in just about everything they did. I mean for Christ's sake, she was in charge of one of the most significant and difficult tasks of his presidency -- healthcare reform. It didn't work out, but not for lack of trying on her part. She not only took an active role in Congress, she toured the country trying to sell the legislation to the public.

So when you take 8 years of being almost co-president, plus 8 years in the Senate, plus 4 years as SoS -- that's a damn impressive resume. The important thing was we all knew she would know exactly what she was doing from day one when she entered the White House. She knew everything that had to be done and everybody that had to be talked to. Hell, she knew exactly where to go in the White House itself. It's hard to beat that kind of experience. Just sitting in the Senate for a while isn't quite the same.

The only person who I think is about as experienced as her is John Kerry, due to his time as both a Senator and SoS. They are quite literally the two most qualified people on Earth to be president.

And if you want to talk about being a Mayor of a small town as relevant experience to the presidency... No. Just no. This is why Buttigieg was a non-starter for me. South Bend might as well be on a different planet from Washington, same with Burlington.

When Obama picked Biden everyone thought that he was too old to ever run for president again.
And yet here we are.

And we’re not necessarily better off. Biden and Bernie effectively shut out every other candidate in the race. We’ll not have had anything near a wide-open primary in 16 years come 2024. I’d prefer a candidate secure the nomination on their own strengths (Obama ‘08, Clinton ‘92) than on de-facto incumbency (Gore ‘00, Clinton ‘16, Biden ‘20).

You can call it de-facto if you want, but the three candidates listed (Gore, Clinton, Biden) were also the most experienced candidates in their respective fields.  Like it or not, experience is a strength. 

Actually it’s usually a weakness. This is the only cycle since probably ‘68 where experience has been a positive.

Was HRC really the most experienced candidate? She spent 8 years in the Senate and then 4 as SoS sure that seems like a lot but Biden was a Senator for 36 years and then Vice President for another 8 years, Gore was a Congressman for 15 years and then VP for 8. Not to mention his service in Vietnam and his political father. In 2016 Bernie was a Congressman for 25 years and then a Mayor for 8 years before that, O'Malley spent 8 years as Mayor and 8 years as Governor, Chafee spent 8 years in the Senate, 4 years as Governor, and 6 years as Mayor, and was also the son of a prominent politician.


If you want to compare that to the least experienced Democratic nominees since 1968, before their nomination.

George McGovern, US Representative from South Dakota 4 years, US Senator from South Dakota 9 years, Director of "Food for Peace" 2 years, WW2 Veteran

Michael Dukakis, 9 years as Governor of Massachusetts, 8 years in the Massachusetts State Assembly, US Army Veteran

Jimmy Carter, 4 years in the Georgia State Senate, 4 years as Governor of Georgia, Navy Veteran

John Kerry, 2 years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, 19 years US Senator from Massachusetts, Vietnam Veteran

So the only Democratic nominee since 1968  that HRC had more experience then was Jimmy Carter, but if you exclude legislature time then Dukakis as well.

This is all quantitative, completely ignoring the qualitative element. Being a senator for more years doesn't necessarily mean you're more prepared for the presidency because you've been in a lot of leadership roles or anything like that. Bernie for example ranks near dead last for actual leadership in Congress according to measures of how often the bills he sponsors get to the floor and gets passed, etc.

Hillary was a pretty active senator even though she wasn't there as long as some of these others, and moreover four years as SoS is EXTREMELY valuable foreign policy experience that NONE of these others could compare to. And considering the most power the president directly has is probably in the field of foreign policy, that's pretty damn significant.

Plus, being First Lady can't simply be brushed off either. She had an active office in the White House and was tasked with more responsibility as First Lady than any other in history with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. Had more power and influence too. She and Bill were partners in just about everything they did. I mean for Christ's sake, she was in charge of one of the most significant and difficult tasks of his presidency -- healthcare reform. It didn't work out, but not for lack of trying on her part. She not only took an active role in Congress, she toured the country trying to sell the legislation to the public.

So when you take 8 years of being almost co-president, plus 8 years in the Senate, plus 4 years as SoS -- that's a damn impressive resume. The important thing was we all knew she would know exactly what she was doing from day one when she entered the White House. She knew everything that had to be done and everybody that had to be talked to. Hell, she knew exactly where to go in the White House itself. It's hard to beat that kind of experience. Just sitting in the Senate for a while isn't quite the same.

The only person who I think is about as experienced as her is John Kerry, due to his time as both a Senator and SoS. They are quite literally the two most qualified people on Earth to be president.

And if you want to talk about being a Mayor of a small town as relevant experience to the presidency... No. Just no. This is why Buttigieg was a non-starter for me. South Bend might as well be on a different planet from Washington, same with Burlington.

Agreed with most of this (barring the bit about Sanders not being qualified because he couln't get bills passed in the Senate), but Biden has more experience by time in the federal executive and legislature positions alone, although she has a greater breadth of it. Let's not forget that the deal he struck with Obama made him one of the most influential VPs of the modern era, even if their working relationship seemed relatively normal compared after Bush and Cheney.

If the standard is a decent amount of federal legislative and executive experience and at least ~6 years of both, then Kerry didn't meet it at the time of his candidacy, though he did in subsequent speculated bids that never came to fruition. Al Gore also did, with 24 years (8 in the House/8 in the Senate/8 as VP) to Clinton's 20 (8 as First Lady/8 in the Senate/4 as Sec. of State). From what I can tell, no other Democrat who openly considered a presidential bid post-Carter was as qualified as these three on the criteria above (barring Carter himself being a subject of speculation in 1984).

George H.W. Bush also was very qualified to be President.

I was only referring to Democratic candidates. The list expands a fair bit when you include Republicans.

Why did Reagan pick Bush to be VP in 1980, like he had a respectable show in the primary sure, but nothing more. Like I would have thought Howard Baker or someone of the like would be a better VP, I guess Bush's FOPO was a big deal I would have rather had Baker at VP then Bush at State

Poppy had some "counter experience" to Reagan. As two term governor of California, Reagan didn't have experience in foreign policy and in Washington. Of course, he made some international trips as head of the most populous state and expressed his opinions, but he did not make or execute any foreign policy for the federal government. HW Bush served in congress and had foreign policy credentials in numerous roles during the Nixon and Ford presidencies. Furthermore, he was some sort of bridge to the more moderate Republican establishment, which wasn't thrilled about Reagan in the beginning. Poppy's selection for the second spot wasn't actually the worst move.

Agreed.

[Holmes]

I hate to be that guy but can we keep this thread for VP news and move the discussion and huge quote pyramid to another thread?

[Mr. Morden]

The Guardian on the behind the scenes push and pull from Biden allies:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/10/joe-biden-vice-president-woman-running-mate-democrats

Other major Democratic party figures have been pushing Biden to consider other candidates. The former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has strongly encouraged Biden to consider Senator Cortez-Masto, a favorite for some Hispanic Democrats, according to two Democrats with knowledge of those conversations.

Congressman Jim Clyburn has encouraged Biden to pick an African American woman like Harris or a lesser-known figure like the former Obama administration national security adviser Susan Rice. Influential Democratic donors have voiced support for Harris or Demmings. Harris allies have also been pushing Biden aides and allies to consider Harris.

Meanwhile, Jerry Demings (husband of Val Demings) says he’s hopeful that his wife will become veep, but that he wouldn’t give up his job as Orange County mayor to join her in DC:

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-val-demings-biden-vice-president-20200509-mtfwavyhr5dtnjpbnmzhkkaggy-story.html

“I definitely will stay on as Orange County mayor and would just leverage my relationship on behalf of the residents and taxpayers of Orange County,” he said.

“Leverage my relationship” doesn’t sound like a great way to put it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Warren and Klobuchar are still the favorites. CCM is already DSCc chairperson and Val Demings is from the House. Senators deal with foreign policy and treaties, both Warren and Klobuchar are legsup to Val Demings whom nobody knows.

As far as me saying Val Demings will be a good HUD secretary Urban League deal with homelessness and most African Americans do run HUD when it comes to Dems

[Mr. Morden]

This is from a week ago, but Susan Rice was asked last week if she knows whether she’s being vetted by the Biden campaign, and she said at that time that she didn’t know:

https://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/coronavirus-pandemic-tump-biden-vp-pick-discussed-by-susan-rice-82962501953

[Blue3]

CCM is already DSCc chairperson a

I don't think she'll be the running mate pick either, but this is not a reason why not. There's no reason why this would stop Biden from offering it to her if he thought she was best for the ticket, and there's no reason this would stop her from accepting it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

CCM is already DSCc chairperson a

I don't think she'll be the running mate pick either, but this is not a reason why not. There's no reason why this would stop Biden from offering it to her if he thought she was best for the ticket, and there's no reason this would stop her from accepting it.

Another reason why other than Warren and Klobuchar have been mentioned as Veeps, they have been already exposed to coronovirus.  Today, Pence, whom says he has tested negative have been exposed to coronovirus since he has visited that med facility and wont be traveling with Trump; consequently Warren or Klobuchar have immunity from coronavirus and Harris, Abrams, Val Demings dont. That's why Harris and Abrams have pulled back from Veep consideration, while Warren hasnt

[Ogre Mage]

Rahm Emanuel argues the running mate will be the person that Biden trusts and admires most:

To this day, choosing a running mate remains an explicitly political decision. But, more than most people realize, it is, above all, a very personal choice. A ticket’s chemistry is among the most important (if underappreciated) factors in determining electoral success. More importantly, vice presidents now wield real power in the West Wing. For that reason, my bet is that however much his choice helps him politically, Joe Biden, a former vice president himself, will select the person he admires most, trusts most deeply and gets along with best.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/09/why-joe-bidens-vp-will-be-person-he-trusts-admires-most/

If this is true, who does it help?  Probably Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Catherine Cortez Masto.  Biden has known them for some time and they seem to get along well.

Not sure about Elizabeth Warren.  Biden has known her a long time and respects her.  But they have a long history of conflict on the issues.

It hurts Gretchen Whitmer.  Biden doesn't know her that well.

[2016]

CCM is already DSCc chairperson a

I don't think she'll be the running mate pick either, but this is not a reason why not. There's no reason why this would stop Biden from offering it to her if he thought she was best for the ticket, and there's no reason this would stop her from accepting it.

Another reason why other than Warren and Klobuchar have been mentioned as Veeps, they have been already exposed to coronovirus.  Today, Pence, whom says he has tested negative have been exposed to coronovirus since he has visited that med facility and wont be traveling with Trump; consequently Warren or Klobuchar have immunity from coronavirus and Harris, Abrams, Val Demings dont. That's why Harris and Abrams have pulled back from Veep consideration, while Warren hasnt

The little stranger Cory Booker is back saying strange things.

I for once one-thousand percent agree with Jim Clyburn. Biden should pick an African-American. Black Voters are the reason he beat Sanders so handily in the south and won the Nomination. AA Voters might view this as a slap in the face if Biden picks a White Woman as Veep.
Warren & Klobuchar are bringing nothing to the table. Both States are safe D.
If Biden doesn't pick an AA he will lose NC and GA. At least in case of Demings and Abrams it can make a Difference in GA and FL and if Harris gets picked it will make Difference in a number of States.

Also, Biden needs to think beyond 2020. He needs to pick someone who can win in 2024. Does anyone believe Klobuchar or Warren can beat Pence, Haley among other Republicans in 2024. I don't see it.

[2016]

Rahm Emanuel argues the running mate will be the person that Biden trusts and admires most:

To this day, choosing a running mate remains an explicitly political decision. But, more than most people realize, it is, above all, a very personal choice. A ticket’s chemistry is among the most important (if underappreciated) factors in determining electoral success. More importantly, vice presidents now wield real power in the West Wing. For that reason, my bet is that however much his choice helps him politically, Joe Biden, a former vice president himself, will select the person he admires most, trusts most deeply and gets along with best.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/09/why-joe-bidens-vp-will-be-person-he-trusts-admires-most/

If this is true, who does it help?  Probably Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Catherine Cortez Masto.  Biden has known them for some time and they seem to get along well.

Not sure about Elizabeth Warren.  Biden has known her a long time and respects her.  But they have a long history of conflict on the issues.

It hurts Gretchen Whitmer.  Biden doesn't know her that well.

Well, the only two Woman who can probably hold the WH for Democrats in 2024 if Biden doesn't run for Reelection (He will be 81 years old in 2024) are Whitmer and Harris.

Harris has not only good chemistry with Biden himself but also she got along well with his late son Beau. Both were AG's at the same time while they were in Office.

[Ogre Mage]

Rahm Emanuel argues the running mate will be the person that Biden trusts and admires most:

To this day, choosing a running mate remains an explicitly political decision. But, more than most people realize, it is, above all, a very personal choice. A ticket’s chemistry is among the most important (if underappreciated) factors in determining electoral success. More importantly, vice presidents now wield real power in the West Wing. For that reason, my bet is that however much his choice helps him politically, Joe Biden, a former vice president himself, will select the person he admires most, trusts most deeply and gets along with best.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/09/why-joe-bidens-vp-will-be-person-he-trusts-admires-most/

If this is true, who does it help?  Probably Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Catherine Cortez Masto.  Biden has known them for some time and they seem to get along well.

Not sure about Elizabeth Warren.  Biden has known her a long time and respects her.  But they have a long history of conflict on the issues.

It hurts Gretchen Whitmer.  Biden doesn't know her that well.

Well, the only two Woman who can probably hold the WH for Democrats in 2024 if Biden doesn't run for Reelection (He will be 81 years old in 2024) are Whitmer and Harris.

Harris has not only good chemistry with Biden himself but also she got along well with his late son Beau. Both were AG's at the same time while they were in Office.

Based on the reading I have done, Harris does seem to be in the pole position for the nomination.  As of now, I would guess she will be the pick.  But we are at least 2 months away from a running mate announcement and the vetting process by Biden's team is still in the relatively early stages.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

CCM is already DSCc chairperson a

I don't think she'll be the running mate pick either, but this is not a reason why not. There's no reason why this would stop Biden from offering it to her if he thought she was best for the ticket, and there's no reason this would stop her from accepting it.

Another reason why other than Warren and Klobuchar have been mentioned as Veeps, they have been already exposed to coronovirus.  Today, Pence, whom says he has tested negative have been exposed to coronovirus since he has visited that med facility and wont be traveling with Trump; consequently Warren or Klobuchar have immunity from coronavirus and Harris, Abrams, Val Demings dont. That's why Harris and Abrams have pulled back from Veep consideration, while Warren hasnt

This is one of your greatest hits.

[Devils30]

Biden goes back fairly far with Whitmer...endorsed her back in 2018.