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

[Rookie Yinzer]

If the Democrats nominate Harris they can never talk about prosecutorial misconduct ever again.

Please provide receipts of KAMALA HARRIS, not one of the thousands of lawyers who worked under her, engaging in prosecutorial misconduct or applying the law in a way that was inequitable. I’m waiting.

[DisneyDem]

If the Democrats nominate Harris they can never talk about prosecutorial misconduct ever again.

Please provide receipts of KAMALA HARRIS, not one of the thousands of lawyers who worked under her, engaging in prosecutorial misconduct or applying the law in a way that was inequitable. I’m waiting.

Deliberately misunderstanding how DA/AG offices Work To own the libs

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Biden should pick Demings and get it over with, some people arent that fond of Kamala Harris since she dropped out her bid for Prez.

Abrams is viable for SOS or HUD with Urban League

[Sir Mohamed]

Biden should pick Demings and get it over with, some people arent that fond of Kamala Harris since she dropped out her bid for Prez.

Abrams is viable for SOS or HUD with Urban League

Usually I don't respond seriously to posts like these, but anyway: How is Abrams viable for SoS or even HUD? She has 0 (zero!) credentials with for said positions. Stop pretending Biden fills cabinet posts with only 2020 contenders and other famous candidates from 2018. He will pick 2-3 of them and the rest gets filled with experts who are capable of cleaning up the mess the current Admin is leaving behind.

Abrams should run 4 gov in 2022 again. She could have gone for senate his year, but declined.

[Morning in Atlas]

You’re usually right in your assessments and I generally agree with you, but this ain’t it. Her endorsements have gone to a slew of progressive candidates (Booker, Bowman, Eastman, Stephen Smith) but she has also endorsed candidates on the more moderate side of things plenty of times. Her organization is about coalition building. I also think it’s strange that she endorsed Hick but I’m not going to act like this is a knock against her progressive bonafides because she’s been endorsing plenty of candidates who align with her values. I think she might’ve endorsed Hick from an electability POV, as polls have shown him crushing Gardner so he seems like the safest bet to flip that seat. This doesn’t bother me and it doesn’t undo everything else she’s done for progressives both before and after her run for POTUS. One bad endorsement does not a snake make.

The problem with this is that you're operating under the assumption that Hickenlooper is a moderate. Hickenlooper is a Blue Dog. He's definitely on the moderate side of the economy question, and his climate record as governor is outright conservative. Colorado isn't a purple state anymore - it's got a decidedly blue tint to it now, and we can do better than someone like Hickenlooper there.

My issue isn't that she endorsed Hickenlooper, but the timing of the endorsement. If she endorsed earlier like Harris did, I'd be fine with it. I'd be a bit disappointed, but I wouldn't be angry. It's different than Jeff Merkley endorsing the DSCC slate or Kamala Harris backing her. It's different from Bernie staying out. She openly attempted to paint Hickenlooper as the progressive candidate despite his actual conservative positions. You know it's bad when her own supporters are dragging her for it.

Her putting her thumb on the scale just as Romanoff is starting to gain steam and traction is what pissed me off. This isn't, say, Yang or Tulsi deciding to endorse Biden over Bernie after Super Tuesday. Sure, Bernie was more aligned with them, but the guy's campaign was dead in the water. Romanoff probably won't win, and a Warren endorsement wouldn't have closed the gap between them. But the momentum is undeniably heavily in Romanoff's direction right now, and a Warren endorsement would have brought a lot of enthusiasm towards his campaign. Her endorsement, to say the very least, stifles that momentum. At best, it's a misjudgment of the race, and at worst it's a calculated political move to shut down a progressive challenger to a conservative Democrat in a blue state. With the timing of the endorsement, I'm more inclined to believe it's the latter.

One endorsement does not make a snake, but this endorsement is part of a greater pattern. Going along with her team's dubious accusations of sexism, staying in for Super Tuesday, this... some of that might be exaggerated, but all that shows that Elizabeth Warren is more interested in being a "player in the game" than pushing a progressive agenda. We don't need another Barack Obama who will use us to get elected and sell us down the river when they get in power. We need someone who we can trust to fight for us.

And as sad as it is, Elizabeth Warren has broken that trust with me.

[Ferguson97]

The KHive is extremely toxic. They deserve no support - zero.

"A couple people are nasty on Twitter so we're not gonna pick you, sorry Kamala."

[RI]

I know it seems unlikely now, but if Biden picks Harris, he will find a way to lose. If he picks Duckworth, I'd say he's almost guaranteed to win. Anyone else doesn't really mean as much.

I say this not because the picks are the deciding factor one way or another, but because of what they signal in terms of Biden's seriousness, strategic thinking, intended message, concern for base vs broader electorate, and willingness to learn from Clinton's mistakes and unify.

[wbrocks67]

I know it seems unlikely now, but if Biden picks Harris, he will find a way to lose. If he picks Duckworth, I'd say he's almost guaranteed to win. Anyone else doesn't really mean as much.

I say this not because the picks are the deciding factor one way or another, but because of what they signal in terms of Biden's seriousness, strategic thinking, intended message, concern for base vs broader electorate, and willingness to learn from Clinton's mistakes and unify.

This makes no sense. Harris has been out there the past 3 weeks trying to do work on what's happening our country right now. With all due respect, Duckworth hasn't. How is Harris not serious, strategic, or having a concern for a broad electorate? Harris has always appealed to a pretty large swath of the electorate.

It's not like super progressives are gonna fall over and bow down for a Tammy Duckworth pick. If anything, that's less unifying to that base than picking Harris.

[Devils30]

I know it seems unlikely now, but if Biden picks Harris, he will find a way to lose. If he picks Duckworth, I'd say he's almost guaranteed to win. Anyone else doesn't really mean as much.

I say this not because the picks are the deciding factor one way or another, but because of what they signal in terms of Biden's seriousness, strategic thinking, intended message, concern for base vs broader electorate, and willingness to learn from Clinton's mistakes and unify.

This makes no sense. Harris has been out there the past 3 weeks trying to do work on what's happening our country right now. With all due respect, Duckworth hasn't. How is Harris not serious, strategic, or having a concern for a broad electorate? Harris has always appealed to a pretty large swath of the electorate.

It's not like super progressives are gonna fall over and bow down for a Tammy Duckworth pick. If anything, that's less unifying to that base than picking Harris.

Harris has not had wide appeal, please don't tell me this is not a giant caution sign.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2010&fips=6&f=0&off=0&elect=0&type=state&all=1

[Da2017]

I know it seems unlikely now, but if Biden picks Harris, he will find a way to lose. If he picks Duckworth, I'd say he's almost guaranteed to win. Anyone else doesn't really mean as much.

I say this not because the picks are the deciding factor one way or another, but because of what they signal in terms of Biden's seriousness, strategic thinking, intended message, concern for base vs broader electorate, and willingness to learn from Clinton's mistakes and unify.

No the only that could hurt is Susan Rice. If you look closely she has easily exploitable baggage. Yes she has solid foreign policy credentials, but Biden does not need that.

[Bidenworth2020]

I know it seems unlikely now, but if Biden picks Harris, he will find a way to lose. If he picks Duckworth, I'd say he's almost guaranteed to win. Anyone else doesn't really mean as much.

I say this not because the picks are the deciding factor one way or another, but because of what they signal in terms of Biden's seriousness, strategic thinking, intended message, concern for base vs broader electorate, and willingness to learn from Clinton's mistakes and unify.

Obviously Duckworth is my preferred VP, but it would be quite hyperbolic to say "he will find a way to lose" if he picks Harris or anyone else really, especially considering the kind of lead he is sitting on and how that lead has been unchanged for the past year.

[DisneyDem]

The KHive is extremely toxic. They deserve no support - zero.

"A couple people are nasty on Twitter so we're not gonna pick you, sorry Kamala."

If he were in a position to be pegged Would you give Bernie the same benefit? Honest question. I would not. I am with Elizabeth and Hillary on this one. You are responsible for creating a culture around you, and those two groups are uniquely bad

[Landslide Lyndon]

I understand that the veepstakes are fun and all, but people are once again vastly overestimating how influential Biden's pick regarding the election. At the end of the day this is a referendum about Trump and Biden choosin Harris, Demmings, Warren, or Duckworth, won't change that.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I know it seems unlikely now, but if Biden picks Harris, he will find a way to lose. If he picks Duckworth, I'd say he's almost guaranteed to win. Anyone else doesn't really mean as much.

I say this not because the picks are the deciding factor one way or another, but because of what they signal in terms of Biden's seriousness, strategic thinking, intended message, concern for base vs broader electorate, and willingness to learn from Clinton's mistakes and unify.

This makes no sense. Harris has been out there the past 3 weeks trying to do work on what's happening our country right now. With all due respect, Duckworth hasn't. How is Harris not serious, strategic, or having a concern for a broad electorate? Harris has always appealed to a pretty large swath of the electorate.

It's not like super progressives are gonna fall over and bow down for a Tammy Duckworth pick. If anything, that's less unifying to that base than picking Harris.

Harris has not had wide appeal, please don't tell me this is not a giant caution sign.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2010&fips=6&f=0&off=0&elect=0&type=state&all=1

This is a dumb metric. Using the results of the 2010 election makes no sense. 2010 was a GOP wave year nationally and Kamala was not well-known statewide in California at that point. Why not use the 2014 election results? (Also, "she ran behind Jerry Brown" is just an excuse).

Furthermore, she wouldn't have won her Senate election in such a convincing manner if she didn't have wide appeal. You guys just hate Kamala and can't give her credit for anything.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

The KHive is extremely toxic. They deserve no support - zero.

"A couple people are nasty on Twitter so we're not gonna pick you, sorry Kamala."

If he were in a position to be pegged Would you give Bernie the same benefit? Honest question. I would not. I am with Elizabeth and Hillary on this one. You are responsible for creating a culture around you, and those two groups are uniquely bad

I've seen a few Biden supporters be toxic and annoying towards progressives and Bernie supporters. Should Biden not have gotten the nomination?

Just say that you hate Kamala and go. Stop beating around the bush.

*writes down names*
*closes book*

[Devils30]

I know it seems unlikely now, but if Biden picks Harris, he will find a way to lose. If he picks Duckworth, I'd say he's almost guaranteed to win. Anyone else doesn't really mean as much.

I say this not because the picks are the deciding factor one way or another, but because of what they signal in terms of Biden's seriousness, strategic thinking, intended message, concern for base vs broader electorate, and willingness to learn from Clinton's mistakes and unify.

This makes no sense. Harris has been out there the past 3 weeks trying to do work on what's happening our country right now. With all due respect, Duckworth hasn't. How is Harris not serious, strategic, or having a concern for a broad electorate? Harris has always appealed to a pretty large swath of the electorate.

It's not like super progressives are gonna fall over and bow down for a Tammy Duckworth pick. If anything, that's less unifying to that base than picking Harris.

Harris has not had wide appeal, please don't tell me this is not a giant caution sign.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2010&fips=6&f=0&off=0&elect=0&type=state&all=1

This is a dumb metric. Using the results of the 2010 election makes no sense. 2010 was a GOP wave year nationally and Kamala was not well-known statewide in California at that point. Why not use the 2014 election results? (Also, "she ran behind Jerry Brown" is just an excuse).

Furthermore, she wouldn't have won her Senate election in such a convincing manner if she didn't have wide appeal. You guys just hate Kamala and can't give her credit for anything.

You didn’t even click on that link! It showed how much WORSE than the rest of the Dems she did. Like 10% and 1 million votes worse! She faced a Democrat in 2016

[Roll Roons]

I know it seems unlikely now, but if Biden picks Harris, he will find a way to lose. If he picks Duckworth, I'd say he's almost guaranteed to win. Anyone else doesn't really mean as much.

I say this not because the picks are the deciding factor one way or another, but because of what they signal in terms of Biden's seriousness, strategic thinking, intended message, concern for base vs broader electorate, and willingness to learn from Clinton's mistakes and unify.

This makes no sense. Harris has been out there the past 3 weeks trying to do work on what's happening our country right now. With all due respect, Duckworth hasn't. How is Harris not serious, strategic, or having a concern for a broad electorate? Harris has always appealed to a pretty large swath of the electorate.

It's not like super progressives are gonna fall over and bow down for a Tammy Duckworth pick. If anything, that's less unifying to that base than picking Harris.

Harris has not had wide appeal, please don't tell me this is not a giant caution sign.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2010&fips=6&f=0&off=0&elect=0&type=state&all=1

This is a dumb metric. Using the results of the 2010 election makes no sense. 2010 was a GOP wave year nationally and Kamala was not well-known statewide in California at that point. Why not use the 2014 election results? (Also, "she ran behind Jerry Brown" is just an excuse).

Furthermore, she wouldn't have won her Senate election in such a convincing manner if she didn't have wide appeal. You guys just hate Kamala and can't give her credit for anything.

She won her Senate race against another Democrat who was a total joke of a candidate. The 2010 wave also missed California, since Republicans didn't pick up any seats in Congress or the state legislature. Yes, she was facing a very good opponent in Steve Cooley, but her performance was by far the worst of any statewide Democrat that year. Biden could definitely do worse than her, but she's definitely not an electoral juggernaut.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I know it seems unlikely now, but if Biden picks Harris, he will find a way to lose. If he picks Duckworth, I'd say he's almost guaranteed to win. Anyone else doesn't really mean as much.

I say this not because the picks are the deciding factor one way or another, but because of what they signal in terms of Biden's seriousness, strategic thinking, intended message, concern for base vs broader electorate, and willingness to learn from Clinton's mistakes and unify.

This makes no sense. Harris has been out there the past 3 weeks trying to do work on what's happening our country right now. With all due respect, Duckworth hasn't. How is Harris not serious, strategic, or having a concern for a broad electorate? Harris has always appealed to a pretty large swath of the electorate.

It's not like super progressives are gonna fall over and bow down for a Tammy Duckworth pick. If anything, that's less unifying to that base than picking Harris.

Harris has not had wide appeal, please don't tell me this is not a giant caution sign.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2010&fips=6&f=0&off=0&elect=0&type=state&all=1

This is a dumb metric. Using the results of the 2010 election makes no sense. 2010 was a GOP wave year nationally and Kamala was not well-known statewide in California at that point. Why not use the 2014 election results? (Also, "she ran behind Jerry Brown" is just an excuse).

Furthermore, she wouldn't have won her Senate election in such a convincing manner if she didn't have wide appeal. You guys just hate Kamala and can't give her credit for anything.

You didn’t even click on that link! It showed how much WORSE than the rest of the Dems she did. Like 10% and 1 million votes worse! She faced a Democrat in 2016

It doesn't matter that she ran against a Democrat in 2016. If she didn't have wide appeal as you claimed, she would have lost.

Also, yes, she did the worse out of all those statewide Dems. However, that's not due to a lack of wide appeal.

Here's the reason why her race was so close:

The fact that the race is this tight, strategists say, is, in large part, thanks to Cooley’s unconventional profile. Cooley has broken with his party to criticize California’s three-strikes rule, which mandates long prison sentences for any criminal convicted of a third felony. Unlike gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman and Senate candidate Carly Fiorina — both wealthy political newcomers who lost by wide margins — Cooley had a long, largely popular record to run on.

Despite his party affiliation, Cooley has a base of support in populous Los Angeles, where he currently trails by just under 300,000 votes, according to the secretary of state’s website. That’s less than half the huge deficit Republicans faced there in the Senate and gubernatorial races.

“He’s someone who has served in public office. He’s someone who had more of a base in that area,” said Chuck Idelson, a spokesman for the Democrat-friendly California Nurses Association. “If you look at Whitman and Fiorina, they were both pretty damaged by their lack of experience, by their lack of record.”

SOURCE: https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/californias-high-stakes-ag-race-045300

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I know it seems unlikely now, but if Biden picks Harris, he will find a way to lose. If he picks Duckworth, I'd say he's almost guaranteed to win. Anyone else doesn't really mean as much.

I say this not because the picks are the deciding factor one way or another, but because of what they signal in terms of Biden's seriousness, strategic thinking, intended message, concern for base vs broader electorate, and willingness to learn from Clinton's mistakes and unify.

This makes no sense. Harris has been out there the past 3 weeks trying to do work on what's happening our country right now. With all due respect, Duckworth hasn't. How is Harris not serious, strategic, or having a concern for a broad electorate? Harris has always appealed to a pretty large swath of the electorate.

It's not like super progressives are gonna fall over and bow down for a Tammy Duckworth pick. If anything, that's less unifying to that base than picking Harris.

Harris has not had wide appeal, please don't tell me this is not a giant caution sign.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2010&fips=6&f=0&off=0&elect=0&type=state&all=1

This is a dumb metric. Using the results of the 2010 election makes no sense. 2010 was a GOP wave year nationally and Kamala was not well-known statewide in California at that point. Why not use the 2014 election results? (Also, "she ran behind Jerry Brown" is just an excuse).

Furthermore, she wouldn't have won her Senate election in such a convincing manner if she didn't have wide appeal. You guys just hate Kamala and can't give her credit for anything.

She won her Senate race against another Democrat who was a total joke of a candidate. The 2010 wave also missed California, since Republicans didn't pick up any seats in Congress or the state legislature. Yes, she was facing a very good opponent in Steve Cooley, but her performance was by far the worst of any statewide Democrat that year. Biden could definitely do worse than her, but she's definitely not an electoral juggernaut.

She won the jungle primary by a very convincing margin. Also, she won all but 5 counties in the primary. Additionally, even if Loretta Sanchez was a joke (she was), if Kamala was widely hated (as Devils30 is claiming) then the race would have been much closer than it was. Simple.

Also, look at my previous post as to why her 2010 AG race was so close.

[Devils30]

Again, for Biden the question is "is this my BEST option?"

To me, Harris appeals a lot to the urban, highly educated crowd that chose Warren in the primary but ultimately was swamped by regular suburbanites and minorities. This crowd sees America in the lens of sexism and identity and not in class based politics.

Demings, Duckworth and even Whitmer all would have much broader appeal.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Again, for Biden the question is "is this my BEST option?"

To me, Harris appeals a lot to the urban, highly educated crowd that chose Warren in the primary but ultimately was swamped by regular suburbanites and minorities. This crowd sees America in the lens of sexism and identity and not in class based politics.

Demings, Duckworth and even Whitmer all would have much broader appeal.

To WHOM does Demings have greater appeal than Harris?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Again, for Biden the question is "is this my BEST option?"

To me, Harris appeals a lot to the urban, highly educated crowd that chose Warren in the primary but ultimately was swamped by regular suburbanites and minorities. This crowd sees America in the lens of sexism and identity and not in class based politics.

Demings, Duckworth and even Whitmer all would have much broader appeal.

To WHOM does Demings have greater appeal than Harris?

Harris haters.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Again, for Biden the question is "is this my BEST option?"

To me, Harris appeals a lot to the urban, highly educated crowd that chose Warren in the primary but ultimately was swamped by regular suburbanites and minorities. This crowd sees America in the lens of sexism and identity and not in class based politics.

Demings, Duckworth and even Whitmer all would have much broader appeal.

To WHOM does Demings have greater appeal than Harris?

Harris haters.

You mean leftists who call Kamala a cop? Yeah, they’ll love *checks notes* the former Orlando police chief.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Again, for Biden the question is "is this my BEST option?"

To me, Harris appeals a lot to the urban, highly educated crowd that chose Warren in the primary but ultimately was swamped by regular suburbanites and minorities. This crowd sees America in the lens of sexism and identity and not in class based politics.

Demings, Duckworth and even Whitmer all would have much broader appeal.

To WHOM does Demings have greater appeal than Harris?

Harris haters.

You mean leftists who call Kamala a cop? Yeah, they’ll love *checks notes* the former Orlando police chief.

They hate Warren even more, so don't try to explain logically their preferences.

[DisneyDem]

The KHive is extremely toxic. They deserve no support - zero.

"A couple people are nasty on Twitter so we're not gonna pick you, sorry Kamala."

If he were in a position to be pegged Would you give Bernie the same benefit? Honest question. I would not. I am with Elizabeth and Hillary on this one. You are responsible for creating a culture around you, and those two groups are uniquely bad

I've seen a few Biden supporters be toxic and annoying towards progressives and Bernie supporters. Should Biden not have gotten the nomination?

Just say that you hate Kamala and go. Stop beating around the bush.

*writes down names*
*closes book*

I’ve been very clear that I don’t Like her, but I also think it true that she has a unique cult Around her, comparable only to Trump and Bernie. I base that on my experiences and those of my friends. That’s one of the reasons I don’t like her. Not the other way around