Democratic VP candidates - Kamala Harris Is The Choice (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'll say this knowing it'll probably fail but my feeling is Biden takes the VP slot very seriously and so he will want someone who will be a real, substantive, capable partner in the WH, so someone with serious legislative and foreign policy capabilities and experience, and someone who can seriously run for office as President if he does not run for a 2nd term or who at least will reassure people that she can step in as president should his health falter in office.

Oh, crap, no.

No, no, please no.

Not Hillary Clinton.

 

[BladeRunner]

Oh, crap, no.

No, no, please no.

Not Hillary Clinton.

That would guarantee a Trump win.

Also, Biden is stepping down shortly after he gets elected (within a year at most).  No way Biden is running for POTUS - simply using his name to get his VP nominee as President.

 

[The General]

Oh, crap, no.

No, no, please no.

Not Hillary Clinton.

 

[the moops]

That would guarantee a Trump win.

Also, Biden is stepping down shortly after he gets elected (within a year at most).  No way Biden is running for POTUS - simply using his name to get his VP nominee as President.

You sure do have an interesting take on everything regarding democrats

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Harris now the odds on favorite.

Bovada:

Kamala Harris -105

Susan Rice +375

Val Demings +750

Tammy Duckworth +1100

Elizabeth Warren +1500

Michelle Obama +1600

Keisha Lance Bottoms +2800

Michelle Lujan Grisham +4000

Stacey Abrams +4000

 

[James Daulton]

I bet they're taking all this time trying to convince Michelle O to agree.  The Biden win would be a landslide with her on the ticket. 

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Harris now the odds on favorite.

Bovada:

Kamala Harris -105

Susan Rice +375

Val Demings +750

Tammy Duckworth +1100

Elizabeth Warren +1500

Michelle Obama +1600

Keisha Lance Bottoms +2800

Michelle Lujan Grisham +4000

Stacey Abrams +4000

Grisham and Bottoms seem like good bets at those odds.

 

[AAABatteries]

Grisham and Bottoms seem like good bets at those odds.

I think this latest murder rules out Bottoms and she still needs some experience, IMO.

 

[KiddLattimer]

I wonder if they're considering any republicans for the position... Someone like Condoleezza Rice. Choosing someone like that might present an "all of us against him" appearance. 

Of course that's the marketing strategist side of me, personally I'm still hoping for a one in a billion Tulsi or Nina which of course is never going to happen.

 

[the moops]

I am still way on the Duckworth train

Tammy Duckworth

@SenDuckworth

Does @TuckerCarlson want to walk a mile in my legs and then tell me whether or not I love America?

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I think this latest murder rules out Bottoms and she still needs some experience, IMO.

She has the virus now, too. :(

 

[TheMagus]

I wonder if they're considering any republicans for the position... Someone like Condoleezza Rice. Choosing someone like that might present an "all of us against him" appearance. 

Of course that's the marketing strategist side of me, personally I'm still hoping for a one in a billion Tulsi or Nina which of course is never going to happen.

The secret sauce to this election is going to be keeping Democrats motivated to vote, not necessarily bringing in Republicans so I think this would be a bad idea and I don't think will be considered. 

On another note,  I was thinking a bit about this the other day and I really like Susan Rice for the pick. Of course there is BENGHAZI!!! but the people that will make that an issue for 2020 wouldn't vote for Biden anyway. Basically I think the entire Biden administration is going to be spent putting our government institutions back together again  so executive experience feels very important to me here, especially considering Biden's age. 

 

[The General]

The secret sauce to this election is going to be keeping Democrats motivated to vote, not necessarily bringing in Republicans so I think this would be a bad idea and I don't think will be considered. 

On another note,  I was thinking a bit about this the other day and I really like Susan Rice for the pick. Of course there is BENGHAZI!!! but the people that will make that an issue for 2020 wouldn't vote for Biden anyway. Basically I think the entire Biden administration is going to be spent putting our government institutions back together again  so executive experience feels very important to me here, especially considering Biden's age. 

I agree it's going to be Kamala or Rice. 

 

[James Daulton]

I agree it's going to be Kamala or Rice. 

I think Kam's got it locked up...unless Michelle decides to do her country a massive favor.

 

[James Daulton]

For real though, how massive would voter turnout be with Michelle O on the ticket?

I think it would destroy 2008 levels after the nightmare of these last 4 years. 

 

[KiddLattimer]

The secret sauce to this election is going to be keeping Democrats motivated to vote, not necessarily bringing in Republicans so I think this would be a bad idea and I don't think will be considered. 

On another note,  I was thinking a bit about this the other day and I really like Susan Rice for the pick. Of course there is BENGHAZI!!! but the people that will make that an issue for 2020 wouldn't vote for Biden anyway. Basically I think the entire Biden administration is going to be spent putting our government institutions back together again  so executive experience feels very important to me here, especially considering Biden's age. 

It's funny you say that because to me (a lefty) it feels like they're doing the exact opposite with welcoming in the Bush era republicans as much as possible.

I think Susan Rice would be a good pick also, though Ive thought it will be Kamala all along. If the DNC could have skipped the primary charade and chosen a candidate from the jump I believe it would have been her. I'm sure they'd love to get her in there now.

 

[Slapdash]

I know there might be BENGHAZI! concerns, but my pick is Susan Rice.

I'm not a fan of this idea.

 

[supermike80]

Harris now the odds on favorite.

Bovada:

Kamala Harris -105

Susan Rice +375

Val Demings +750

Tammy Duckworth +1100

Elizabeth Warren +1500

Michelle Obama +1600

Keisha Lance Bottoms +2800

Michelle Lujan Grisham +4000

Stacey Abrams +4000

I'm really surprised Gretchen Whitmer isn't even listed here.  I mean I know she embarrassed herself pretty frequently in Michigan recently, but she can't even make it above Stacey?  Wow.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I'm really surprised Gretchen Whitmer isn't even listed here.  I mean I know she embarrassed herself pretty frequently in Michigan recently, but she can't even make it above Stacey?  Wow.

She has gone on record as not being interested, plus Michigan being a swing state would be taking the chance on a special election going GOP.  Harris is safe because California would just elect another Dem senator automatically. 

One has to look at their entire strategy, not just the VP slot.

 

[supermike80]

She has gone on record as not being interested, plus Michigan being a swing state would be taking the chance on a special election going GOP.  Harris is safe because California would just elect another Dem senator automatically. 

One has to look at their entire strategy, not just the VP slot.

Good points for sure.  i don't remember her publicly coming out against it though.  Shes done the "I am focused on Michigan right now" game, but I haven't see a direct rebuttal

 

[James Daulton]

C'mon Michelle.  If you're reading this, your country needs you!

 

[song]

She's been mentioned a lot.  She's terrific.  And I found Frank Bruni's opinion piece a week or so ago to be compelling.

thanks. wanted more people to see your link.

 

[song]

I am still way on the Duckworth train

Tammy Duckworth

@SenDuckworth

Does @TuckerCarlson want to walk a mile in my legs and then tell me whether or not I love America?

fierce. perfect. breast fed on the senate floor.

probly won't get the nom.

 

[the moops]

My not very tolerant aunt, who is a facebook meme/conspiracy theory fiend has her new favorite that involves the danger of voting for Biden because he is only president in name and his VP and whoever her handlers are will secretly be running the country

 

[Murph]

For those who think Michelle is the savior, can you elaborate on why? I have no political/policy agenda here, just purely interested in the horse race aspect. Under her husbands presidency Democrats lost the House, the Senate, and over 1,000 state legislative seats and then handed the keys over to Trump who beat his favored successor.

So why do we think the Obamas are electoral magic?

(And yes, I understand she's her own woman, but if you're going to claim the "package deal" element isn't part of it then I'm calling BS)

 

[huthut]

She has also stated numerous times she has no interest in politics and actively despises it. 

 

[timschochet]

She has also stated numerous times she has no interest in politics and actively despises it. 

Which is a big part of her allure. 
 

Im surprised the odds are so long against Abrams. 

 

[Slapdash]

Really think it could be Duckworth.

 

[zftcg]

Harris now the odds on favorite.

Bovada:

Kamala Harris -105

Susan Rice +375

Val Demings +750

Tammy Duckworth +1100

Elizabeth Warren +1500

Michelle Obama +1600

Keisha Lance Bottoms +2800

Michelle Lujan Grisham +4000

Stacey Abrams +4000

Not meant as a criticism of you for posting this -- it does provide a good overview of the likely candidates -- but VP odds are pretty meaningless. When you talk about odds for, say, a football game, it's the sum of every sportsbook analyzing publicly available information to determine the likely outcome of the game. But a VP pick is based almost entirely on information privately held by the campaign. Even the publicly available information is leaks that may have an ulterior motive. Odds are really just guesswork piled on top of more guesswork.

I do remember the Obama team leaking that it was likely Biden a few days before he was announced, which in retrospect was clearly a trial balloon. But I doubt any of the leaks we've heard so far are that.

 

[zftcg]

Which is a big part of her allure. 
 

Im surprised the odds are so long against Abrams. 

I really like Abrams, and I think she could well end up being our first African-American female president, but I can definitely see the argument against Biden picking her. Given the crises a Biden Administration would face right off the bat, together with the likelihood of him only serving one term, whoever he picks has to be an instantly plausible president. A woman whose biggest electoral win was a state legislative seat doesn't pass the plausibility threshold.

I really think it has to be a governor or senator.

 

[timschochet]

I really like Abrams, and I think she could well end up being our first African-American female president, but I can definitely see the argument against Biden picking her. Given the crises a Biden Administration would face right off the bat, together with the likelihood of him only serving one term, whoever he picks has to be an instantly plausible president. A woman whose biggest electoral win was a state legislative seat doesn't pass the plausibility threshold.

I really think it has to be a governor or senator.

I think it needs to be a black woman otherwise some black voters are going to feel a little demoralized. But beyond that I don’t think it matters in terms of this election. Biden is a lock to be our next President. So he can choose whomever he likes best. 

 

[zftcg]

I think it needs to be a black woman otherwise some black voters are going to feel a little demoralized. But beyond that I don’t think it matters in terms of this election. Biden is a lock to be our next President. So he can choose whomever he likes best. 

Well I sure hope Biden isn’t approaching the choice under the assumption that the race is in the bag

 

[timschochet]

Well I sure hope Biden isn’t approaching the choice under the assumption that the race is in the bag

He isn’t. I am though. 

 

[zftcg]

Not meant as a criticism of you for posting this -- it does provide a good overview of the likely candidates -- but VP odds are pretty meaningless. When you talk about odds for, say, a football game, it's the sum of every sportsbook analyzing publicly available information to determine the likely outcome of the game. But a VP pick is based almost entirely on information privately held by the campaign. Even the publicly available information is leaks that may have an ulterior motive. Odds are really just guesswork piled on top of more guesswork.

I do remember the Obama team leaking that it was likely Biden a few days before he was announced, which in retrospect was clearly a trial balloon. But I doubt any of the leaks we've heard so far are that.

When it comes to actual election results, betting  markets should work more like they do a football game, but even there, the evidence shows they are more reactive than predictive. Without even looking it up, I guarantee you that none of them were showing a Biden trend after the IA caucuses

 

[johnnycakes]

I think it needs to be a black woman otherwise some black voters are going to feel a little demoralized. But beyond that I don’t think it matters in terms of this election. Biden is a lock to be our next President. So he can choose whomever he likes best. 

But Trump has a large base of followers....  followers who would still vote for him even if he were to stand out in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone.  

 

[the moops]

Wonder when we will get an announcement. For reference

Trump announced his choice on July 15
Hillary July 22
Romney August 11

Obama August 23
McCain August 29

 

[The General]

Wonder when we will get an announcement. For reference

Trump announced his choice on July 15
Hillary July 22
Romney August 11

Obama August 23
McCain August 29

I wonder when these were in relation to the conventions? We are a little over a month out now.

 

[the moops]

I wonder when these were in relation to the conventions? We are a little over a month out now.

Trump announced Pence on July 15 - convention July 18
Hillary on July 22 - convention July 25
Romney August 11 - convention August 27
McCain Aungust 29 - convention September 1
Obama August 23 - convention August 25

Looks like in general it is just a a few days before, with only Romney choosing Ryan more than 2 weeks out.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I read somewhere that Biden plans to announce "around August 1."

 

[The General]

Trump announced Pence on July 15 - convention July 18
Hillary on July 22 - convention July 25
Romney August 11 - convention August 27
McCain Aungust 29 - convention September 1
Obama August 23 - convention August 25

Looks like in general it is just a a few days before, with only Romney choosing Ryan more than 2 weeks out.

Thanks. That's the way I remember it but wasn't for sure.

No real advantage to do it early so we are probably looking at another couple weeks. Definetly seems like they are down to Kamala, Rice, Demmings, and Duckworth.

Risk adverse pick is Kamala IMO. Biden seems like a non-risky type guy.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

As long as he still has a lead not sure why not wait until closer to election day when the announcement is more fresh. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

As long as he still has a lead not sure why not wait until closer to election day when the announcement is more fresh. 

I sorta think these things are B.S. but I think the common political wisdom is that you announce a couple weeks before the convention so you can get a "VP bounce", and the candidate and V.P. can do a bunch of events together and media appearances and stuff.  Then in theory you get another "convention bounce" when the convention happens.  If you wait until just before the convention to announce the VP, it all gets mixed in together.  

That's an argument I've heard anyway.  I don't really think there's any validity to it.  Democratic convention is August 17 so that's the latest he could wait.

 

[The Dude]

Not meant as a criticism of you for posting this -- it does provide a good overview of the likely candidates -- but VP odds are pretty meaningless. When you talk about odds for, say, a football game, it's the sum of every sportsbook analyzing publicly available information to determine the likely outcome of the game. But a VP pick is based almost entirely on information privately held by the campaign. Even the publicly available information is leaks that may have an ulterior motive. Odds are really just guesswork piled on top of more guesswork.

I do remember the Obama team leaking that it was likely Biden a few days before he was announced, which in retrospect was clearly a trial balloon. But I doubt any of the leaks we've heard so far are that.

Don't disagree wit you at all but I think the odds can be developed using logic - most appeal to the base or expanding the base, who can help win a state or two.  The negative I have on Harris is i don;t think she brings a sate.

If Val Demmings could bring Florida, she would be my pick.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Which of these characters would you say is most likeable (sans Michelle O)?  I don't know much about Demmings or Duckworth.  Abrams is so-so.  My reservation with Kamala is she isn't the most charismatic, likeable personality which I think will be important as voters consider she could be our president in 2025.  Policy and experience matter but not as much as personality and charisma when it comes to getting elected.  

 

[zftcg]

Don't disagree wit you at all but I think the odds can be developed using logic - most appeal to the base or expanding the base, who can help win a state or two.  The negative I have on Harris is i don;t think she brings a sate.

If Val Demmings could bring Florida, she would be my pick.

I read something once saying that the idea that a VP can "deliver a state" is one  of those widely accepted political truisms that has never actually been proven true. Apparently even in the most famous example (JFK picking LBJ), the numbers show that Johnson can't be said to have delivered Texas for Kennedy.

I suspect it's mostly a function of the VP pick having a lot less impact than most people realize. Sarah Palin was the most impactful (in a bad way) pick of my lifetime -- I was born a year after the McGovern/Eagleton fiasco -- and as I recall she cost McCain around 2% of the vote

 

[krista4]

If we're having a Duckworth lovefest in here (no objection from me), then I present her NYT opinion piece addressing Tucker Carlson et al., which is sizzling IMO:

A little over 240 years ago, two of my ancestors put on the uniform of George Washington’s Continental Army and marched into battle, willing to die if it meant bringing their fledgling nation inches closer to independence. Centuries later, in 1992, I followed in their footsteps and joined the Army.

Even knowing how my tour in Iraq would turn out, even knowing that I’d lose both my legs in a battlefield just north of Baghdad in late 2004, I would do it all over again. Because if there’s anything that my ancestors’ service taught me, it’s the importance of protecting our founding values, including every American’s right to speak out. In a nation born out of an act of protest, there is nothing more patriotic than standing up for what you believe in, even if it goes against those in power.

Our founders’ refusal to blindly follow their leader was what I was reflecting on this Fourth of July weekend, when some on the far right started attacking me for suggesting that all Americans should be heard, even those whose opinions differ from our own. Led by the Fox News host Tucker Carlson and egged on by President Trump, they began questioning my love for the country I went to war to protect, using words I never actually said and ascribing a position to me that I do not actually hold.

Mr. Carlson disingenuously claimed that because I expressed an openness to “a national dialogue” about our founders’ complex legacies, people like me “actually hate America.” One night later, he claimed that I called George Washington a traitor even though I had unambiguously answered no when asked whether anyone could justify saying that he was. Then he argued that changes to monuments of our founders “deserve a debate,” which, somehow, was different and more acceptable to him than the “national dialogue” that led him to question my patriotism just 24 hours earlier.

Setting aside the fact that the right wing’s right to lie about me is one of the rights I fought to defend, let me be clear: I don’t want George Washington’s statue to be pulled down any more than I want the Purple Heart that he established to be ripped off my chest. I never said that I did.

But while I would risk my own safety to protect a statue of his from harm, I’ll fight to my last breath to defend every American’s freedom to have his or her own opinion about Washington’s flawed history. What some on the other side don’t seem to understand is that we can honor our founders while acknowledging their serious faults, including the undeniable fact that many of them enslaved Black Americans.

Because while we have never been a perfect union, we have always sought to be a more perfect union — and in order to do so, we cannot whitewash our missteps and mistakes. We must learn from them instead.

But what I actually said isn’t the reason Mr. Carlson and Mr. Trump are questioning my patriotism, nor is it why they’re using the same racist insults against me that have been slung my way time and again in years past, though they have never worked on me.

They’re doing it because they’re desperate for America’s attention to be on anything other than Donald Trump’s failure to lead our nation, and because they think that Mr. Trump’s electoral prospects will be better if they can turn us against one another. Their goal isn’t to make — or keep — America great. It’s to keep Mr. Trump in power, whatever the cost.

It’s better for Mr. Trump to have you focused on whether an Asian-American woman is sufficiently American than to have you mourning the 130,000 Americans killed by a virus he claimed would disappear in February. It’s better for his campaign to distract Americans with whether a combat veteran is sufficiently patriotic than for people to recall that this failed commander in chief has still apparently done nothing about reports of Russia putting bounties on the heads of American troops in Afghanistan.

Mr. Trump and his team have made the political calculation that, no matter what, they can’t let Americans remember that so many of his decisions suggest that he cares more about lining his pockets and bolstering his political prospects than he does about protecting our troops or our nation.

They should know, though, that attacks from self-serving, insecure men who can’t tell the difference between true patriotism and hateful nationalism will never diminish my love for this country — or my willingness to sacrifice for it so they don’t have to. These titanium legs don’t buckle.

The hateful vision for America parroted by Mr. Trump and Mr. Carlson will not win. Their relentless efforts to drive wedges between us will not work forever. We are too resilient a nation, too diverse a people, to let them.

In his farewell address, George Washington not only recognized his own imperfections, he also urged Americans to “guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism” and be wary of excessive partisanship. In the generations since, too many patriots, including many in my own family, have sacrificed too much to let our guard down now.

So when Tucker Carlson questions the patriotism of those willing to sacrifice for his freedom, or when Donald Trump promotes those smears — after having threatened to veto a pay raise for our troops to try to ensure the military continues honoring Confederate traitors who took up arms against our Union — remember Washington’s words.

Remember that part of what has always made America not just great but good is that every American has the right to question those in charge. Anyone claiming to stand up for “patriotic” values should recognize that, because, without it, the country these impostor patriots claim to love so much would not exist.

Our nation deserves leaders mature and secure enough not to race-bait or swift-boat anyone who dares disagree with them. After these past four years, and especially after these past four months, it’s clearer than ever that we must choose public servants who will focus on the serious issues facing our country — from the spread of the coronavirus to systemic racism to foreign adversaries threatening our troops’ lives — rather than cynical bullies who use schoolyard tactics to distract from their own shortcomings.

So while I would put on my old uniform and go to war all over again to protect the right of Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump to say offensive things on TV and Twitter, I will also spend every moment I can from now until November fighting to elect leaders who would rather do good for their country than do well for themselves.

 

[song]

If we're having a Duckworth lovefest in here (no objection from me), then I present her NYT opinion piece addressing Tucker Carlson et al., which is sizzling IMO:

she is fierce, and i do kind of love her

more important i think she probably helps the ticket most

maybe wrong skin color for 2020?

 

[krista4]

she is fierce, and i do kind of love her

more important i think she probably helps the ticket most

maybe wrong skin color for 2020?

Could be; hope not.

 

[zftcg]

Risk adverse pick is Kamala IMO.

I get what you're saying, and I kinda feel that way, too, but at the same time, Harris is a half-black, half-Asian woman who has been in the Senate for four years. In any election before this one, a choice like that would have been seen as both groundbreaking and very risky.

 

[Ben & Jerry's]

I think the choice will be made for him. Biden isn't calling the shots here.