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

[President Johnson]

My first choice for his running mate would California Representative Nanette Barragan. She's progressive, but not too far left either, latina and would be 44 years young on election day. I've seen her in some interviews and was impressed.

Stacey Abrams better runs for governor again in 2022, if Joe Biden wants a black woman, I think Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is a solid pick. Not the classic vice presidential candidate, but she could bring in new perspectives. My opinion of Kamala Harris has dropped, I'm not sure she would be the best choice for him.

Gretchen Whitmer would be an excellent pick as well, even though she's just in her first term as governor.

I'd like Mayor Pete, too, but he's better for a cabinet appointment. Sally Yates should be appointed Secretary of Homeland Security. Would also make a good attorney general, but I prefer Andrew Cuomo or Doug Jones, respectively. Please not Hassan or Shaheen.

[President Johnson]

No rancor, he's being classy. This is why he has the character to be president.

[President Johnson]

Well, Joe Biden/Charlie Baker would be a great ticket, but won't happen, what he basically said. He won't pick a Republican for vice president, though some moderate Republicans might end up in cabinet posts or ambassadorships (what would be a good thing). I think Kamala Harris is most likely to become Joe Biden's running mate if he gets the nomination.

With that being said, I'm still rooting for Biden/Barragan or Biden/Whitmer.

[President Johnson]

I'm guessing the whole "agrees on issues/gets along with" for a VP means Warren is not in contention?

Pretty much yes. I think he operates under the assumption that his vice president is more likely than previous officeholders to become president (probably through election in 2024 or maybe 2028). And he wants to make sure this woman is someone who doesn't go too far to the left. It may be a different story if Joe Biden was 57 years old instead of 77. It's certainly very likely his vice president will be the Democratic nominee whenever he decides to leave, in one cycle or two.

[President Johnson]

Cortez-Masto makes the most sense to me pre- and post-COVID19 pandemic politics.

Biden is underperforming with Latino voters, not black voters. Cortez-Masto helps in a critical swing state and the wider Sun Belt (Arizona particularly), speaks Spanish obviously and has a historic career, and in my view is a more charismatic speaker than a number of other potential running mates (Duckworth, Baldwin).

I think all sitting Governors are out. Nobody can afford to abandon their state when COVID flares up again in the fall. The bench wasn't strong in the first place.

Klobuchar and Harris don't add much to the ticket in my view. There is a reason they lost. Harris has a horrendous campaign and clearly was a micro-manager, completely shooting herself in the foot. Klobuchar couldn't beat Pete for grabbing moderate + Trump county voters. Granted, Joe Biden did horrible in the 2008 primary and still ended up on the winning ticket.

Bringing someone outside of the 2020 field of candidates can also be beneficial to unity because then other supporters don't feel jipped if it's not their candidate. If you pick Klobuchar or Harris, how do Warren supporters feel motivated? A "fresh" face can be more unifying and drive up enthusiasm.

She would be a strong pick, I agree.

I would strongly argue against Liz Warren. First rule for vice presidential picks is "do no harm". Liz is controversial, might alienate suburban voters and doesn't turn out a huge constituency Biden needs very badly. Not even the Bernie people are thrilled about her. She's more effective to stay in the senate. Biden should go with CCM, Kamala, Val Demings or Amy Klobuchar. My personal favorite remains Nanette Barragan, but I can't see her being picked.

[President Johnson]

I even don't get the Kamala criticism for having law enforcement background. That often helps in a general election where Biden is trying to convince moderate voters and some Republicans to abandon Trump. She may have some issues in her record, but heck, who hasn't? It's peanuts compared to others, especially on the other side. I don't need to list Trump's endless list of disgraceful stuff, just look at Pence. The guy promoted state mandatory discrimination of LGBT people and didn't even apologize when courts intervened. In California, Kamala Harris enforced the law even at times when she held different personal opinions such as the death penalty. Otherwise, she brings a ton of pros to the ticket beyond age, race, gender and geographical balance. She's actually qualified to assume the Oval Office if (god forbid) circumstances arrive. Furthermore, she doesn't put a senate seat in danger of losing and is battle tested (and well known) on the national stage. I'm confident she has learned from her failed presidential bid.

Aside from that, I actually find her likeable. Only thing I didn't like was the cheap shot on Uncle Joe during the first debate, but that's politics. I think it's no longer a big deal for Joe Biden. He knows the game better than anybody.

[President Johnson]

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

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

To be honest, I was disappointed he didn't speak up for Joe Biden during Ukraine. He should have defended Biden, who did nothing wrong.

Liz would be a bad pick. She doesn't add a lot to ticket, but is polarizing. Kamala, Klobuchar, Demings, Whitmer or CCM are much better.

[President Johnson]

Hopefully Abrams isn't being picked. She adds nothing to ticket another than racial and gender balance. While my first choice technically is still Nanatte Barragan, I doubt she's picked or even in the conversation. I hope it's going to be Kamala Harris, Gretchen Whitmer, CCM or Amy Klobuchar (in that order). All four of them are awesome and bring individual strengths to the Biden campaign.

[President Johnson]

Cuomo says he’s “staying here” [in New York], and isn’t running to be Biden’s running mate (nor to replace him on the ticket):

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/cuomo-rules-out-replacing-joe-biden-as-democratic-presidential-candidate-says-no-to-vp-position-i-am-staying-here/ar-BB12udlM

“That is on one hand flattering," Cuomo said. "On the other hand, it is irrelevant.”

He brushed off rumors that some Democratic insiders believe he could be a stronger candidate than Biden to oust President Trump in November.

“I’m not running for president. I’m not running for vice president,” he said. “I am staying here.”

He should be Chief of Staff or Attorney General.

[President Johnson]

Abrams is beyond delusional now. Hope Joe Biden doesn't pick her (which I doubt). Let it be Kamala, CCM, Whitmer or Klobuchar.

[President Johnson]

My rankings is such (tentative)

1. Elizabeth Warren
2. Tammy Baldwin
3. Tammy Duckworth
4. Catherine Cortez Masto
5. Gretchen Whitmer or Kamala Harris


6. Amy Klobuchar
7. Stacey Abrams





8.. Tulsi Gabbard

Hillary?

Why do you have such an obsession with Hilldog?

[President Johnson]

honestly, realistically, I think it's down to Harris or Klob. No one else IMO, if we're being real here, has a realistic shot

They're among the most likely, yes. I'd add CCM and Gretchen Whitmer, maybe Val Demings.

[President Johnson]

I doubt some random guy on Twitter is a credible source. There isn't even a full vice presidential vetting team in place. Anyway, Liz would be a bad pick. She's too controversial among the general electorate. I'm afraid the few additional left-wing voters she brings in might not be enough to compensate suburbanites and moderate Republicans who are willing to vote Democratic. She's even not that popular among the Bernie crowd. And she does not add any diversity to the ticket other than being a woman.

Furthermore, she's not someone younger who can lead the party in a post-Biden world. Unlike he has already decided to run for reelection and with it eliminate Warren's path to the presidency.

He should pick Kamala Harris, CCM or Amy Klobuchar. The latter might be the best in helping to govern, while Kamala and CCM would be more exciting on the campaign trail. All three are old enough for experience, but can still run after one or two terms of Joe Biden.

[President Johnson]

Biden is never going to pick someone else who is 70+ years old. What are people not getting about this?

None of the candidates are perfect.

- Kamala draws the ire of the left, and seems better on paper than she ever has in real life.
- Klobuchar is moderate, white, and boring. Helps with the midwest but not young people, progressives, or black or latino voters.
- Whitmer is Midwestern but inexperienced, and elevating her at this moment could backfire depending on how coronavirus plays out.
- Abrams is wildly inexperienced.

Warren may be 70 but she's already shown that she can appear vital. We all remember the constant jogging and waving videos. She is as sharp as ever mentally.

My point here is that some demographic sacrifice has to be made. I wouldn't trust anyone who claims to know which it's going to be.

Actually fair points. Only one you missed is CCM. I don't see any downside by picking her. But a lot of the opposite: Will help with Hispanics, with whom Uncle Joe may need more help than with African Americans, has enough experience to be vice president, her replacement would be picked by Democratic governor Steve Sisolak and stay on until the regular term is up in 2022 and is neither too old nor has any known baggage. Plus, she brings geographical balance.

[President Johnson]

Why do so many people think that Duckworth is a good pick? What does she bring to the table?

Racial diversity, Midwestern and a veteran who lost her two legs in sacrifice for her country. Republicans can't paint her as unpatriotic, and if they do, it would backfire. However, I think there are better picks.

[President Johnson]

Biden should go bold and pick Lauren Underwood or Val Demings for VP.  Kamala can be AG.

Lauren Underwood is much more likable than Stacey Abrams. 

Val Demings is one of my favorite House members and would be a good pick, but has little experience in congress. Having been there just since 2017. Laureen Underwood is 33 years and therefore ineligible to run for and serve as vice president. Also has not much experience. Joe Biden's number two needs to be ready to be president from Day 1.

Kamala should stay in the senate if not picked as his running mate. Attorney General should be saved for Doug Jones. He would be an A+ choice who can clean up the mess of Trump lapdog Barr and restore integrity to the Justice Department, which is deeply needed.

[President Johnson]

Sixty-seven percent of registered Latino voters would be more likely to support him if he picks Cortez Masto for the number two slot; 22% would be less likely to support him. Asked another way, 72% said they would be more likely to turn out and actually vote for Biden if he selected the Nevada senator; 17% would be less likely to do so.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-poll-latino-voters/

CCM is the candidate with least downsides, but a lot of pros: Critical demographic, age, senate control, experience, baggage or lack there of.

Abrams is not vice presidential material.

[President Johnson]

Don't know if others brought it up but Sinema to try and flip Arizona?

Terrible idea. Sinema is too far to the right on the Democratic spectrum and would do more harm than good. Polls also indicate Joe Biden can win Arizona on his own. For a Westerner, CCM is obviously a much better choice (actually the best at all).

The senate seat wouldn't be lost though, because Arizona law requires the governor to appoint a senator from the previous one's party.

[President Johnson]

https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/1255532322440577037

Bad sign for Harris

This is what I thought... maybe Clyburn heard some things and is trying to downplay expectations of a black VP.

Hopefully he jumps on the CCM train.

[President Johnson]

Its Warren, Biden isn't picking someone with no foreign policy knowledge and Warren, Klobuchar and Harris have foreign policy knowledge.  Its traditional to pick Senators as Veeps as they will break ties in the Senate. If the Dems net 50 seats, it should be Harris, Klobuchar or Warren breaking those ties

Warren has too many flaws for the second spot. She's too controversial with moderate swing voters, doesn't add much geographical and age balance and not even all Bros are wild about her. Joe Biden said he will pick someone he agrees with and has good personal chemistry. I'm not even sure the latter is the case. Of course, they don't hate each other, but I would argue Biden has a better personal relationship with Bernie, let alone some of the other candidates. It's likely going to be Kamala, CCM, Klobuchar or Whitmer. And all four of them would be fantastic.

[President Johnson]

I like Susan Rice, but she has never run for elected official and might have create an opening for Republicans for smear attacks. There is a reason Obama didn't nominate her as secretary of state in 2013. However, I'd like to see her join a Biden Administration on one position or another.

[President Johnson]

Val Demings appeared on Morning Joe today. Starting at 6:55, Willie Geist asked her about the vice presidential considerations and she said if asked "to be honored to serve alongside Joe Biden to get this nation back on track..."

[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.

[President Johnson]

S Tier:
Catherine Cortez-Masto

A Tier:
Kamala Harris
Gretchen Whitmer
Val Demings

B Tier:
Amy Klobuchar
Hilda Solis
Michelle Lujan-Grisham

C Tier:
Keisha Lance-Bottoms
Sally Yates

D Tier:
Stacey Abrams
Elizabeth Warren

[President Johnson]

Someone go check on Stacey Abrams.

https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/1260581705456500744?s=20

Believeable, since Joe Biden repeatedly said his running mate should be in line with him on most issues. Warren for that matter isn't being chosen. Although my first choice is CCM, I'd be very satisfied with Kamala or Amy. Latter is probably the most qualified for the job, but Kamala has a strong case to make as well. She's also qualified, but brings more diversity to the ticket.