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

[Da2017]

I would put Duckworth, Warren, Abrams, and probably even bass A head of rice, but I understand the argument for her. It’s a doubling down on your brand. Like Al Gore.

Abrams would be a Palin esque mistake. She has already shown herself not to be ready for prime time. Don't think she is being considered anymore.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Serious question: do you think anyone on the fence is going to flip to Trump because Duckworth is VP?

No, if anything the vitriol Tucker is spewing will flip some traditionally-R veterans towards a Biden/Duckworth ticket.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Biden will probably pick Sen. Kamala Harris - who few people are enthusiastic about

This is not true but okay. Harris had the biggest % of "excited" votes in the USA Today/Suffolk poll.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-white-people-most-excited-about-kamala-harris-for-vp-and-most-likely-to-find-elizabeth-warren-unacceptable/ar-BB16fPZG

Yeah, bad take by Torrain.

Tbf if "excitement" about Harris has risen only after she's been talked up by a fairly large group of high-profile elected Democrats (more so than anyone else), that has more to do with her attracting establishment support than personal strengths and would probably transfer to any VP pick around whom ranks closed. It's a measure of success in that she's far from radioactive (i.e. she can successfully be talked up and there are presumably some for whom that wouldn't be possible - probably Klobuchar at this point).

[Rookie Yinzer]

Susan Rice has never held elected office. What is her purpose as VP? Foreign policy is what the State, Homeland Security, and Defense Departments are for.

[wbrocks67]

Biden will probably pick Sen. Kamala Harris - who few people are enthusiastic about

This is not true but okay. Harris had the biggest % of "excited" votes in the USA Today/Suffolk poll.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-white-people-most-excited-about-kamala-harris-for-vp-and-most-likely-to-find-elizabeth-warren-unacceptable/ar-BB16fPZG

Yeah, bad take by Torrain.

Tbf if "excitement" about Harris has risen only after she's been talked up by a fairly large group of high-profile elected Democrats (more so than anyone else), that has more to do with her attracting establishment support than personal strengths and would probably transfer to any VP pick around whom ranks closed. It's a measure of success in that she's far from radioactive (i.e. she can successfully be talked up and there are presumably some for whom that wouldn't be possible - probably Klobuchar at this point).

I mean, the excitement is coming from voters, who most of which probably dont know who the Dem establishment insiders are pushing.

Harris has been really out front in the past couple months on a couple different issues, so I think that more than anything has made her stock rise. Her favorables have also improved since doing that.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Biden will probably pick Sen. Kamala Harris - who few people are enthusiastic about

This is not true but okay. Harris had the biggest % of "excited" votes in the USA Today/Suffolk poll.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-white-people-most-excited-about-kamala-harris-for-vp-and-most-likely-to-find-elizabeth-warren-unacceptable/ar-BB16fPZG

Yeah, bad take by Torrain.

Tbf if "excitement" about Harris has risen only after she's been talked up by a fairly large group of high-profile elected Democrats (more so than anyone else), that has more to do with her attracting establishment support than personal strengths and would probably transfer to any VP pick around whom ranks closed. It's a measure of success in that she's far from radioactive (i.e. she can successfully be talked up and there are presumably some for whom that wouldn't be possible - probably Klobuchar at this point).

I mean, the excitement is coming from voters, who most of which probably dont know who the Dem establishment insiders are pushing.

The push has been pretty public. It is normal for voters to follow politicians they trust when a large number of them push a certain viewpoint or candidate, especially the latter (at the most extreme end, the "endorsement wave" phenomenon is the basis of the Party Decides effect in presidential nominations).

Harris has been really out front in the past couple months on a couple different issues, so I think that more than anything has made her stock rise. Her favorables have also improved since doing that.

Yes, but a large part of the reason she's been getting more coverage is because of her role as the most likely VP-nominee. It's a virtuous media cycle that inflates her numbers in a way other potential nominees' numbers could be inflated (in theory). However, it is also a sign that her pseudo-candidacy is healthy, because this doesn't work for every politician (some are really rather toxic and the sort of boosts/coverage she is getting can't help them as much).

[Sir Mohamed]

Susan Rice has never held elected office. What is her purpose as VP? Foreign policy is what the State, Homeland Security, and Defense Departments are for.

Yup, foreign policy expertise can be helpful in a VP candidate though, when the nominee him-/herself doesn't have a ton of experience here. Biden's 2008 selection gave Obama gravitas on foreign policy and defense issues, but this isn't the case in 2020. Biden is one of the most experienced candidates, so he can afford having someone who has "just" been a senator or rep for a few years. Overall, Kamala Harris today is still more experienced than Obama was at the time of his first run, since she's been AG of the nation's largest state as opposed to being a state senator.

[DisneyDem]

Did anyone see George will‘s article on bass.. I know he’s far from the pulse of the party, but he correctly points out she has worked on the national endowment for democracy which is given 6 million to Cuban freedom efforts, neutralizing her biggest weakness. Clybourn also told him she has three big advantages. Legislative skill, foreign policy experience, and no ambition to be president. In other words, she’s qualified but won’t be trying to elevate herself at every turn in a way that someone like Harris might.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Did anyone see George will‘s article on bass.. I know he’s far from the pulse of the party, but he correctly points out she has worked on the national endowment for democracy which is given 6 million to Cuban freedom efforts, neutralizing her biggest weakness. Clybourn also told him she has three big advantages. Legislative skill, foreign policy experience, and no ambition to be president. In other words, she’s qualified but won’t be trying to elevate herself at every turn in a way that someone like Harris might.

TIL
Karen Bass -> Karen Based.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I really don't understand how Susan Rice is #2 on betting sites with nearly 20% chance.

IMO she would be a poor choice.  She's already been defined by the GOP as a controversial figure and throwback to their favorite Obama-era scandals.  She's not particularly charismatic.  She is associated with the Obama foreign policy, which is a mixed bag.  The GOP can argue that she let Russia and ISIS gain power and turn the Iran nuclear agreement into a campaign issue.  She has never held elected office.

The main thing she brings to the ticket is foreign policy expertise.  If that's true, make her Secretary of State, like Obama originally wanted to.  Biden has enough foreign policy experience (although this is one area where I consider his judgment questionable).  He doesn't need a VP to shore that up.  He needs a VP who's going to cover bases he isn't currently covering.  Get voters of color enthusiastic, and bring in moderate future-former-Republican groups like suburban women, veterans, and hispanics.

[xavier110]

good point

https://twitter.com/AsteadWesley/status/1280892548370829313

Maybe not

https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1280935345022894080

This doesn't make much sense though. Almost half the party supported Bernie in '16. He had, at most, what? 20% of the party in 2020? It's a similar percentage -- but of a way smaller sliver.

[Gracile]

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.

Wasn't Romanoff running in 2010 to the right of Michael Bennet? He even had a Clinton endorsement. It's pretty clear that all of these folks are just playing the game.

What I've noticed is that it's much easier being accepted by the left if you're a white man, even if you've had a more conservative past. To the left, that's "growth". Women like Warren and Harris, who have been consistently progressive throughout their careers, were shunned because they weren't perfectly progressive. When they pivoted to the left, they were called "phony" and "inauthentic" and "opportunistic". You're not hearing any of this being said about Romanoff. I wonder why.

This isn't entirely accurate from an electoral perspective. Most of the left-insurgent wing's biggest success stories in primaries have been with candidates who are women and/or people of color (AOC, Newman, Bowman, several members of city councils and state legislative seats in Chicago/Philadelphia/NYC metro, etc.). Leftists are more than willing to support women candidates and candidates of color. In fact, you could even argue the opposite - that leftists see a benefit to running women/POC candidates as they have more of a reach to communities than a white male candidate.

Romanoff, of course, was not an ideal candidate to take down Hickenlooper, but most of the support for him was because he at least seemed like an acceptable alternative to Hickenlooper based on his expressed support for M4A and GND. So it was more based on the issues than anything related to him being a white man (which seems a bit odd to point out since his opponent was also white and male).

[Roblox]

Casting progressives as racist, when it comes from centrist types, is almost 100% bad faith. It's a cynical weaponization of identity politics to make it seem shameful and reactionary to back left wing candidates and policies. The fact that they propagate these narratives even as many of the left's most high profile victories in recent years come from people, especially women, of color is only more evidence of this. Perhaps the most sinister part of all this is the straight up erasure of non white (like myself!) or female supporters of said progressive politics.

Is there racism on the left? Definitely, as there is in literally any political ideology. However, the idea that the left is uniquely racist is a cynical political narrative that can be traced back to the 2016 primary and Clinton surrogates, and lingers to this day.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Susan Rice has never held elected office. What is her purpose as VP?

Biden of all people doesn't need to balance the ticket with "foreign affairs experience".

[Bidenworth2020]

Duckworth's Response to the Carlson Attacks:

https://t.co/CFRHGdQcn1?amp=1

[Devils30]

Duckworth is definitely moving up on the list, the upside is higher than the others and the downside is much less.

[GoTfan]

Duckworth is definitely moving up on the list, the upside is higher than the others and the downside is much less.

Exactly. I'd love to see Trump try to attack a veteran when he's a draft dodger.

[wbrocks67]

Duckworth is definitely moving up on the list, the upside is higher than the others and the downside is much less.

Again, for the 50th time: you really can't say this, b/c we don't know as much about Duckworth and what's in her vetting and her past/history as we likely do about the other candidates who have had more public vetting done in plain sight out in the open.

[Bidenworth2020]

Duckworth is definitely moving up on the list, the upside is higher than the others and the downside is much less.

Again, for the 50th time: you really can't say this, b/c we don't know as much about Duckworth and what's in her vetting and her past/history as we likely do about the other candidates who have had more public vetting done in plain sight out in the open.

I have full trust in Biden's team to put an extra burden on Duckworth and others who haven't been vetted in the public eye to let them know of anything that might be an issue. This is what a vetting team does.

[Rookie Yinzer]

If it's not Harris, I would be very pleased with Duckworth. Hopefully it's between these two.

[GoTfan]

If it's not Harris, I would be very pleased with Duckworth. Hopefully it's between these two.

They seem to be the most logical choices. I do tend to favour Duckworth a bit more though. Not out of her past, but I think because she brings a lot of upsides to the table electorally and likely is less ambitious than Harris. I might be completely wrong on this, but Harris seems like the type who desperately wants to be President at all costs, and that is not going to lead to a healthy working relationship.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Casting progressives as racist, when it comes from centrist types, is almost 100% bad faith. It's a cynical weaponization of identity politics to make it seem shameful and reactionary to back left wing candidates and policies. The fact that they propagate these narratives even as many of the left's most high profile victories in recent years come from people, especially women, of color is only more evidence of this. Perhaps the most sinister part of all this is the straight up erasure of non white (like myself!) or female supporters of said progressive politics.

Is there racism on the left? Definitely, as there is in literally any political ideology. However, the idea that the left is uniquely racist is a cynical political narrative that can be traced back to the 2016 primary and Clinton surrogates, and lingers to this day.

It can be traced back a fair bit further, but was especially blatant then. This probably isn't the thread to go too far into it, but the false understanding of diversity as an inevitable atomisation of society into specific groups that can share few common experiences or goals outside of The Party is very useful to certain parts of the social elite. It facilitates the discrediting of calls to unified action or universal justice as bigoted and in bad faith and thereby keeps people divided and untrusting, which in turn helps to protect and reinforce divisions needed to sustain unpopular political structures.

[Progressive Pessimist]

If it's not Harris, I would be very pleased with Duckworth. Hopefully it's between these two.

Agreed. And I'm honestly under the impression that they are both at the top of the list at this point.

[Devils30]

Duckworth is definitely moving up on the list, the upside is higher than the others and the downside is much less.

Again, for the 50th time: you really can't say this, b/c we don't know as much about Duckworth and what's in her vetting and her past/history as we likely do about the other candidates who have had more public vetting done in plain sight out in the open.

I would bet that Duckworth’s biggest skeleton isn’t as much as Willie Brown and lying about Native American heritage. The point of the game is to win votes!

[dirks]

Duckworth is definitely moving up on the list, the upside is higher than the others and the downside is much less.

Again, for the 50th time: you really can't say this, b/c we don't know as much about Duckworth and what's in her vetting and her past/history as we likely do about the other candidates who have had more public vetting done in plain sight out in the open.

I would bet that Duckworth’s biggest skeleton isn’t as much as Willie Brown and lying about Native American heritage. The point of the game is to win votes!

Devils 30...NJ fan? What do you think of Ruff?