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

[Progressive Pessimist]

I always thought that she would at least be considered by Biden or another white male nominee.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I really think this would be a killer ticket. Biden is arguably the strongest Dem already on his own, and Kamala has so much appeal. There's no way she's not at or near the top of his VP list. The most loyal Democratic voter group is African American women, so the party kind of "owes" it to black women at this point to have one on the ticket. I could also see Kamala the prosecutor destroying Mike Pence in the VP debate. There's also the added benefit of not having to worry about her safe Senate seat.

My only worry is that her prosecutor background combined with Biden's role in crafting the 1994 Crime Bill could cause Trump to outflank them on criminal justice reform. That possibly could diminish turnout among some black voters.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I really think this would be a killer ticket. Biden is arguably the strongest Dem already on his own, and Kamala has so much appeal. There's no way she's not at or near the top of his VP list. The most loyal Democratic voter group is African American women, so the party kind of "owes" it to black women at this point to have one on the ticket. I could also see Kamala the prosecutor destroying Mike Pence in the VP debate. There's also the added benefit of not having to worry about her safe Senate seat.

My only worry is that her prosecutor background combined with Biden's role in crafting the 1994 Crime Bill could cause Trump to outflank them on criminal justice reform. That possibly could diminish turnout among some black voters.

Biden’s involvement in the crime bill has not penetrated at all and don’t expect it to happen in the general. He is a man and will simply skate on things that Clinton could not.

Harris was not a tough on crime, War on Drugs Democrat. I believe she can articulate this to the general election electorate without obsessing over the Bernie Twitter Nazis.

I hope you're right. If Biden gets nominated, and manages to beat Trump, I agree with you that it will almost certainly be due to him being a mostly inoffensive, boring white man who is considered more tolerable than Trump by the electorate even in spite of his faults. That's a large part of why he is doing the best in early general election polls which in turn may also be fueling his primary support.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I really think this would be a killer ticket. Biden is arguably the strongest Dem already on his own, and Kamala has so much appeal. There's no way she's not at or near the top of his VP list. The most loyal Democratic voter group is African American women, so the party kind of "owes" it to black women at this point to have one on the ticket. I could also see Kamala the prosecutor destroying Mike Pence in the VP debate. There's also the added benefit of not having to worry about her safe Senate seat.

My only worry is that her prosecutor background combined with Biden's role in crafting the 1994 Crime Bill could cause Trump to outflank them on criminal justice reform. That possibly could diminish turnout among some black voters.

Trump won't outflank them. He wanted the Central Park five killed.

Very true, there are numerous other examples of his overt bigotry that can be cited, but too many Americans didn't care about those back in 2016 and they probably will care even less in 2020.

[Progressive Pessimist]

As naive as it may sound, this is just him setting himself up to have crossover appeal to a general election electorate. I don't necessarily like it, but I think he know what he's doing. He is aware that he is one of the few Democrats running who anti-Trump Republicans (as few of them as there are) will wholeheartedly support in the general election.

Honestly, Biden's answer from the last debate on the question of working with Republicans probably summed it up the best where he said something along the lines of: "if anyone should be upset with Republicans, it's me, but I have to work with them as much as possible if I want to accomplish my goals for the sake of the American people." That seems to be his schtick, and it's honestly not a bad one for a general election, and for supporting his electability based appeal for the primary. It also instills the necessity of keeping a Democratic House and gaining a Democratic Senate so that this prospect doesn't necessarily have to come to fruition. He's essentially running against Trump and his ilk in the best way possible so as to not alienate or ostracize other Republicans. It can work.

I honestly don't think that he is really going to select a Republican running mate anyway. I really don't think this is worth making a big deal out of. Without a doubt he will select a female Democrat.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Klobuchar is too unexciting and too moderate to really add anything to the ticket. She would have been a near-perfect running mate for Sanders, but not for Biden.

I think it's only going to be one of these three: Baldwin, Duckworth, or Harris.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Yeah, Whitmer's state needs her. I don't usually think that Governors are worth being running mates.

I'm still partial to Baldwin, Duckworth, or Harris.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Has there been anything to suggest that Biden is considering Katie Porter for VP? Not only would I consider her qualified and competent, with a pretty good story to tell as a single mom.

Also could be a nice bridge between progressives and resistance moms.

I've seen Porter mentioned as a possibility by a few people, notably Bill Kristol (although he's not someone who would be expected to know what Biden is thinking; he's just speculating).  IMO Porter is a very impressive representative and someone with a great future in politics.  But I don't think she meets the criterion of someone with enough experience in government to step in and assume the Presidency if something happened to Biden.

Porter has a very bright future in the Democratic Party, just not on a national ticket (yet). I could definitely see her as a future California Senator, though she will have some stiff competition considering how many rising stars are in that state.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Eh, I don't think the VP pick will have much of an impact.

It will if Biden's age becomes a big enough liability. Honestly, this might be the most consequential running mate selection since McCain's in 2008.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Accomodation is a two-way street. The Bernie wing lost. They should act like it. From a risk-reduction perspective they are obliged to vote for Joe Biden, especially since he's done more than what is necessary to "earn" their vote.

That’s nice to say but doesn’t mean much, especially when the Democratic Party packs up and doesn’t support left-wing candidates that defeat their endorsed candidates in the primary.

The left doesn't get to shove its policy down the throats of the party on basis of consistent, laughable claims that Biden hasn't done enough to "earn" their vote.

This is a weird post. Because the Democratic party is (or pretends to be) a left-wing party!

But no, Biden hasn't really done much to earn people's votes, has he? From complaining about young people to outright telling people at rallies and events to vote for his opponents, he's been pretty bad at giving people a reason to vote for him.

In all honesty, Biden and his campaign has gotten their s*** together. I don't really like holding those early mistakes against them now.

[Progressive Pessimist]

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

She is more of a "do-no-harm," "jack-of-all-trades" pick. If Biden feels like prioritizing his running mate's need to be qualified in the event hat she succeeds him and feels pretty confident in most other area of his campaign, that's how she could be chosen.

I do feel like the VP choice will be announced sooner rather than later considering what is going on in the world and the primary already being over. With little (or no?) rallies this campaign season, Dems are going to want the VP pick out early enough so people have time to get to know them amidst all the coronavirus coverage.

I personally expect the announcement around June.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Did Kamala Harris ever answer for the Mnuchin business while she was in the primaries?

I don't think so, but can we really expect Trump to try and grill his opponent's running mate on something that also reflects negatively on a member of his Cabinet?

[Progressive Pessimist]

I still love her and think she'd make an excellent Vice President, but I feel that CCM is a safer choice. Kamala is like #2 on my list.

Is this the time to play it safe though? Does CCM excite... anyone? She strikes me as a VP choice that makes sense on paper, but could land with a thud.

It is not the VP nominee's job to excite people.

Certainly not, but they are almost entirely considered by what they add to a ticket's electoral chances and sometimes excitement can be part of that. With someone like Biden he could possibly use someone "exciting" on his ticket.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I don't think she's worth picking. She's too old and will do nothing to ease any potential apprehensions about Biden's age, her Senate seat will be succeeded by Baker's replacement, and for as much as she may excite some on the left there are others on the left who dislike her and waaay more on the right who do too and may become galvanized in turn.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Joe Biden seems a lil dumb for putting Chris Dodd on his team when he was a (shaky, non-credible) allegation on his hands.

Yeah, this is bad optics. Though in fairness, people like us may know who Chris Dodd is and his background, but most laymen probably don't. It may not matter.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I hope he picks Harris if it comes down to those two. I really don't see any upside to Klobuchar, other than being from the Midwest, she's too redundant with him and not exciting enough.

[Progressive Pessimist]

It won't be Warren, Biden won't want to deal with all the drama surrounding her and she'd hurt the ticket even if she is a great policymaker.

That's the curious and unfortunate dilemma with Warren. She'd be an excellent Vice President, but not an excellent running mate.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Her DNA test and relentless woke politics is already a needless distraction Biden doesn't need.

Yeah, not like the Trump campaign won't make stupid issues out of any of the potential VP candidates.

Attacking Tammy Duckworth is a lot harder than attacking Warren, and Duckworth holds a similar progressive score.

Those scores don't really matter. It's all about perception. Booker and Harris have consistently been ranked as top 5 most progressive senators by basically every ranking system, yet many progressives don't like either of them at all.

Duckworth is also largely unknown and unvetted on the national stage. We know for almost a fact that the worst attack Republicans have against Warren is the “Pocahontas” smear and attacking her as too left. We know what we’re getting with her, Harris, & Klobuchar.

I’d say it’s more of a risk to pick someone who didn’t run for President (Duckworth, Whitmer, Demings) than one of the former 3.

I think what's appealing about Duckworth though is that she is inherently sympathetic in being a wounded veteran. It would be hard to negatively characterize her in the face of that, and anything the Republicans try could backfire hard.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Her DNA test and relentless woke politics is already a needless distraction Biden doesn't need.

Yeah, not like the Trump campaign won't make stupid issues out of any of the potential VP candidates.

Attacking Tammy Duckworth is a lot harder than attacking Warren, and Duckworth holds a similar progressive score.

Those scores don't really matter. It's all about perception. Booker and Harris have consistently been ranked as top 5 most progressive senators by basically every ranking system, yet many progressives don't like either of them at all.

Duckworth is also largely unknown and unvetted on the national stage. We know for almost a fact that the worst attack Republicans have against Warren is the “Pocahontas” smear and attacking her as too left. We know what we’re getting with her, Harris, & Klobuchar.

I’d say it’s more of a risk to pick someone who didn’t run for President (Duckworth, Whitmer, Demings) than one of the former 3.

I think what's appealing about Duckworth though is that she is inherently sympathetic in being a wounded veteran. It would be hard to negatively characterize her in the face of that, and anything the Republicans try could backfire hard.

Her DNA test and relentless woke politics is already a needless distraction Biden doesn't need.

Yeah, not like the Trump campaign won't make stupid issues out of any of the potential VP candidates.

Attacking Tammy Duckworth is a lot harder than attacking Warren, and Duckworth holds a similar progressive score.

Those scores don't really matter. It's all about perception. Booker and Harris have consistently been ranked as top 5 most progressive senators by basically every ranking system, yet many progressives don't like either of them at all.

Duckworth is also largely unknown and unvetted on the national stage. We know for almost a fact that the worst attack Republicans have against Warren is the “Pocahontas” smear and attacking her as too left. We know what we’re getting with her, Harris, & Klobuchar.

I’d say it’s more of a risk to pick someone who didn’t run for President (Duckworth, Whitmer, Demings) than one of the former 3.

I think what's appealing about Duckworth though is that she is inherently sympathetic in being a wounded veteran. It would be hard to negatively characterize her in the face of that, and anything the Republicans try could backfire hard.

Exactly. Mark Kirk unfortunately learned this the hard way, and I'm sure it would look even worse for Trump if he tried to insult her.

LOL, the same Trump that attacked John McCain and the Khan family? The same Trump that mocked a disabled reporter?

C'mon, y'all should know better than this by now, it's been almost 5 years since he announced his candidacy.

Trump will say something like "She's a phony veteran. Phony! I like people that weren't injured." Trump is a scumbag.

I think it's a little different with Duckworth having a very obvious physical handicap unlike Kerry. And the comparison with the Khans and McCain isn't quite that accurate either to me, Trump and his party weren't running against them so there was significantly less risk by being shameless. She also wouldn't be afraid to throw Trump's Vietnam draft-dodging back in his face, she coined the term "Cadet Bone-Spurs" after all. I still think she'd be a fairly safe choice.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Her DNA test and relentless woke politics is already a needless distraction Biden doesn't need.

Yeah, not like the Trump campaign won't make stupid issues out of any of the potential VP candidates.

Attacking Tammy Duckworth is a lot harder than attacking Warren, and Duckworth holds a similar progressive score.

Those scores don't really matter. It's all about perception. Booker and Harris have consistently been ranked as top 5 most progressive senators by basically every ranking system, yet many progressives don't like either of them at all.

Duckworth is also largely unknown and unvetted on the national stage. We know for almost a fact that the worst attack Republicans have against Warren is the “Pocahontas” smear and attacking her as too left. We know what we’re getting with her, Harris, & Klobuchar.

I’d say it’s more of a risk to pick someone who didn’t run for President (Duckworth, Whitmer, Demings) than one of the former 3.

I think what's appealing about Duckworth though is that she is inherently sympathetic in being a wounded veteran. It would be hard to negatively characterize her in the face of that, and anything the Republicans try could backfire hard.

Her DNA test and relentless woke politics is already a needless distraction Biden doesn't need.

Yeah, not like the Trump campaign won't make stupid issues out of any of the potential VP candidates.

Attacking Tammy Duckworth is a lot harder than attacking Warren, and Duckworth holds a similar progressive score.

Those scores don't really matter. It's all about perception. Booker and Harris have consistently been ranked as top 5 most progressive senators by basically every ranking system, yet many progressives don't like either of them at all.

Duckworth is also largely unknown and unvetted on the national stage. We know for almost a fact that the worst attack Republicans have against Warren is the “Pocahontas” smear and attacking her as too left. We know what we’re getting with her, Harris, & Klobuchar.

I’d say it’s more of a risk to pick someone who didn’t run for President (Duckworth, Whitmer, Demings) than one of the former 3.

I think what's appealing about Duckworth though is that she is inherently sympathetic in being a wounded veteran. It would be hard to negatively characterize her in the face of that, and anything the Republicans try could backfire hard.

Exactly. Mark Kirk unfortunately learned this the hard way, and I'm sure it would look even worse for Trump if he tried to insult her.

LOL, the same Trump that attacked John McCain and the Khan family? The same Trump that mocked a disabled reporter?

C'mon, y'all should know better than this by now, it's been almost 5 years since he announced his candidacy.

Trump will say something like "She's a phony veteran. Phony! I like people that weren't injured." Trump is a scumbag.

I think it's a little different with Duckworth having a very obvious physical handicap unlike Kerry. And the comparison with the Khans and McCain isn't quite that accurate either to me, Trump and his party weren't running against them so there was significantly less risk by being shameless. She also wouldn't be afraid to throw Trump's Vietnam draft-dodging back in his face, she coined the term "Cadet Bone-Spurs" after all. I still think she'd be a fairly safe choice.

And what about the disabled reporter that Trump mocked?

Anyways, stop thinking that Trump has a bottom. Trump has NONE. He will say anything, even if it is disgusting and crass.

They weren't running against the disabled reporter, he wouldn't get any sympathy votes.

And I am well aware that Trump has no shame at all but it doesn't mean that there won't be backlash to them. Let's not forget that there is backlash to everything he says, it just doesn't often yield consequences. In an election it could. I don't know if it will, but it's a much different circumstance than him just getting into a fight with some random private citizen. That's all I'm trying to point out here.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Her DNA test and relentless woke politics is already a needless distraction Biden doesn't need.

Yeah, not like the Trump campaign won't make stupid issues out of any of the potential VP candidates.

Attacking Tammy Duckworth is a lot harder than attacking Warren, and Duckworth holds a similar progressive score.

Those scores don't really matter. It's all about perception. Booker and Harris have consistently been ranked as top 5 most progressive senators by basically every ranking system, yet many progressives don't like either of them at all.

Duckworth is also largely unknown and unvetted on the national stage. We know for almost a fact that the worst attack Republicans have against Warren is the “Pocahontas” smear and attacking her as too left. We know what we’re getting with her, Harris, & Klobuchar.

I’d say it’s more of a risk to pick someone who didn’t run for President (Duckworth, Whitmer, Demings) than one of the former 3.

I think what's appealing about Duckworth though is that she is inherently sympathetic in being a wounded veteran. It would be hard to negatively characterize her in the face of that, and anything the Republicans try could backfire hard.

Her DNA test and relentless woke politics is already a needless distraction Biden doesn't need.

Yeah, not like the Trump campaign won't make stupid issues out of any of the potential VP candidates.

Attacking Tammy Duckworth is a lot harder than attacking Warren, and Duckworth holds a similar progressive score.

Those scores don't really matter. It's all about perception. Booker and Harris have consistently been ranked as top 5 most progressive senators by basically every ranking system, yet many progressives don't like either of them at all.

Duckworth is also largely unknown and unvetted on the national stage. We know for almost a fact that the worst attack Republicans have against Warren is the “Pocahontas” smear and attacking her as too left. We know what we’re getting with her, Harris, & Klobuchar.

I’d say it’s more of a risk to pick someone who didn’t run for President (Duckworth, Whitmer, Demings) than one of the former 3.

I think what's appealing about Duckworth though is that she is inherently sympathetic in being a wounded veteran. It would be hard to negatively characterize her in the face of that, and anything the Republicans try could backfire hard.

Exactly. Mark Kirk unfortunately learned this the hard way, and I'm sure it would look even worse for Trump if he tried to insult her.

LOL, the same Trump that attacked John McCain and the Khan family? The same Trump that mocked a disabled reporter?

C'mon, y'all should know better than this by now, it's been almost 5 years since he announced his candidacy.

Trump will say something like "She's a phony veteran. Phony! I like people that weren't injured." Trump is a scumbag.

I think it's a little different with Duckworth having a very obvious physical handicap unlike Kerry. And the comparison with the Khans and McCain isn't quite that accurate either to me, Trump and his party weren't running against them so there was significantly less risk by being shameless. She also wouldn't be afraid to throw Trump's Vietnam draft-dodging back in his face, she coined the term "Cadet Bone-Spurs" after all. I still think she'd be a fairly safe choice.

And what about the disabled reporter that Trump mocked?

Anyways, stop thinking that Trump has a bottom. Trump has NONE. He will say anything, even if it is disgusting and crass.

They weren't running against the disabled reporter, he wouldn't get any sympathy votes.

And I am well aware that Trump has no shame at all but it doesn't mean that there won't be backlash to them. Let's not forget that there is backlash to everything he says, it just doesn't often yield consequences. In an election it could. I don't know if it will, but it's a much different circumstance than him just getting into a fight with some random private citizen. That's all I'm trying to point out here.

In the primaries, Trump made of Marco Rubio ("Little Marco"), he called Ted Cruz's wife "ugly", he said that America wouldn't elect Carly Fiorina because "Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?"

In the general, Trump said that Hillary "should be in jail" and brought some accusers of Bill Clinton to one of the debates among many other things. Also, don't forget that the Access Hollywood tape leaked and he still won.

Sen. Duckworth would NOT be immune to Trump's crassness and shenanigans. The impact on the election would remain to be seen until Election Day as most people are solidified on their opinion of Trump already.

Anyways, Sen. Duckworth has a <1% of chance of being selected as Biden's VP.

For his Republican Party primary it was clearly beneficial for him to be as petty and personal as possible, but his rivals clearly didn't have much of a chance when they divided the opposition to him anyway.

I would argue that the Clinton "you should be in jail" comments did cause a backlash but not one that was enough to last until election day. Same with Access Hollywood. If the tape had come out a week before election day it would have taken attention away from Clinton's email investigation being reopened and probably led to a surge in support for her, as the polls indicated when it did actually come out. Clinton probably would have been President. It's all about timing. An insult on Duckowrth well before the election indeed probably wouldn't hurt him too much, but then again a poorly timed insult, closer to election day, to Duckworth by Trump or a Republican could hurt. I am insistent on that.

But yeah, it doesn't seem like she is being very highly considered, which I am somewhat surprised about. Then again, I'm not part of the campaign, so who knows?

[Progressive Pessimist]

She isn't a bad choice, but I've never really cared for Governors being removed from their position just to take a mostly ceremonial one like Vice President instead.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Klobuchar being considered doesn't mean she's officially getting picked. The process is still ongoing. People need to calm down. I agree though that she wouldn't be a great pick. I really don't think she offers much. She would have been perfect for a nominee like Sanders, but not so much for Biden.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Huh - i had no idea. This gives a lot more credibility to the argument that the far-left is overblowing Kamala's alleged "bad" past regarding criminal justice

https://twitter.com/BrianDMcBride/status/1269004600125898753

This guy's credibility almost certainly has gone up, I can imagine that this can help Harris, at least somewhat.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I doubt these names would be out there if Biden was truly happy with Harris as an option.

Nah, he's probably just keeping his options open. He has plenty of time to pick a running mate, so why not vet as many people as possible? Maybe the campaign will come across something they weren't expecting.