Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Give me Demmings.  She has no baggage that I'm aware of, she comes off as likeable and has a good backstory, is not a polarizing candidate, and electorally it's impossible to argue against her.

Her district is right in that crucial I-4 corridor between Orlando & Tampa.

Flipping Florida means Trump would have to win each and every one of NC, PA, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona to get to 270.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Give me Demmings. 

Who?

Spoiler

joking, of course, but name recognition is definitely an issue for Val. I like her a lot, however.

 

Edited by washparkhorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

joking, of course, but name recognition is definitely an issue for Val. I like her a lot, however.

People outside of Florida probably don't know her (which can be a good thing). 

But if it flips Florida (for all the hand-wringing that Florida is a lost cause, HRC lost 48.6 to 47.4 with Johnson taking 2.2 percent) it'll be worth it.  And she's a decent person who has presidential timbre to boot.

Edited by Message Board User

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TexArcher said:

Warren has Secretary of Education written all over her.

Kamala for AG.

Think he'll pick Abrams for VP.  And it'll be fun to watch Fox News talking heads try to imply the n word without actually saying it for 4 to 8 years.

Quote

For vice president, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala or Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island; for Treasury secretary, Mike Bloomberg; health and human services secretary, Bill Gates; secretary of oversight for the trillions of dollars in emergency coronavirus spending, to make sure it’s done fairly and productively, Elizabeth Warren.

Attorney general, Merrick Garland; homeland security secretary, Andrew Cuomo; secretary of state, Mitt Romney; defense secretary, Michèle Flournoy; labor secretary, Ro Khanna (who co-chaired Sanders’s campaign).

Secretary of national infrastructure rebuild, a new cabinet post, Walmart C.E.O. Doug McMillon; commerce secretary, former American Express C.E.O. Ken Chenault; O.M.B. director, Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio; education secretary, Laurene Powell Jobs; U.N. ambassador, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

HUD secretary, Ford Foundation chief Darren Walker; Interior secretary, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico; energy secretary, Andy Karsner (a green Republican who led renewable energy for George W. Bush); E.P.A. administrator, Al Gore.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/opinion/biden-campaign-covid.html

I have to say I like Kamala ripping some new assholes as AG. Starting with Barr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever can deliver PA, MI, OH, NC, WI, and maybe AZ and (dare to dream) FL is the pick.  

That looks to me like Witmer or Klobs.  Agreed that Joe has the black vote.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Whoever can deliver PA, MI, OH, NC, WI, and maybe AZ and (dare to dream) FL is the pick.  

That looks to me like Witmer or Klobs.  Agreed that Joe has the black vote.  

No VP nominee can deliver even a few of those states.  Maybe one if they're from that state.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Why is Florida seen as unattainable?

Corrupt elections. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patrick Bateman said:

So, the counter argument to this is, if Baker does appoint, even a Mod GOP'er, and let's say it ends up being a 50/50 split in the Senate after election day and Warren had to resign from her position...... How long you think RGB gonna hold out?  Another 5 months?  And yes, the first 100 days will be incredibly important in trying to unfuck everything Trump has destroyed in his term.  Markey's done if he loses the nomination.  I get the arguments for Warren and frankly, I think she was the best candidate.....for President, so if she gets the nod for VP, then cool.  Strategically, she doesn't do anything as Mass isn't really a swing state and her sway with Progressives probably offset by how much the corporatists in the party loathe (are afraid) of her, but she may be the most deserving.  But I wonder, would she be better served making real change as the VP or as a Senate Majority leader or a powerful cabinet position after a year?  I don't know.

 

Doubtful.

 

I disagree on Warren not bringing anyone. Warren brings Progressives and Young people who are not enthusiastic about Biden. Bernie supporters by and large have Warren as second best option even with all the bullshit snake twitter messages that some people are happy to propagate. I wouldn’t classify Corporatists as a large voting segment, they are more of the traditional donor class that has to grease the wheels for both parties, but even that is getting rewritten at this time in favor of massive donor outreach to individuals for smaller sums. Senate Majority leader would be great for her, and would not upset me. I think she presents a much safer option as second in command should anything happen to Biden, IMO.

Nobody has a good read on RBGs health or the severity of each hospitalization except her and the people she communicates with. While it sucks to hear someone’s in a hospital the last visit wasn’t really a major scare, compared to earlier cancer diagnoses and her recovery.

To unfuck Trumps impact, look to Executive Orders. That’s how he has largely operated and won’t take much to undue as he hasn’t passed much of anything except for more tax cuts, unless I’m missing something large. I’ve been day drinking, so I’ll put the chances pretty high at missing something. The courts unfortunately can’t get unfucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Florida is refilled and refueled every year with old conservatives from across the nation flocking to their retirement. Will be interesting see how it pans out with Puerto Ricans moving in after the hurricane.

Edited by StassneyHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Whoever can deliver PA, MI, OH, NC, WI, and maybe AZ and (dare to dream) FL is the pick.  

That looks to me like Witmer or Klobs.  Agreed that Joe has the black vote.  

Does the VP ever really deliver states, other than their own? 

Joe can get those midwestern states back.  The blue collar white working class folks will at least listen to what he has to say (unlike Hillary), and he's a good talker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren would be much more effective as head of any department or Senate Majority leader than a glorified ribbon cutter as VP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Who?

  Hide contents

joking, of course, but name recognition is definitely an issue for Val. I like her a lot, however.

 

Seriously this. I would consider myself hyper aware and I’d never heard of her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Seriously this. I would consider myself hyper aware and I’d never heard of her. 

Then you're not hyper aware.  Sorry to be the one to make you aware of this personal phenomenon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2020 at 4:05 PM, Message Board User said:

is not a polarizing candidate

Maybe not polarizing politically, but you can be damn sure Rush, Fox News and OAN will turn her into a polarizing figure, because well you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2020 at 4:05 PM, Message Board User said:

Give me Demmings.  She has no baggage that I'm aware of, she comes off as likeable and has a good backstory, is not a polarizing candidate, and electorally it's impossible to argue against her.

Her district is right in that crucial I-4 corridor between Orlando & Tampa.

Flipping Florida means Trump would have to win each and every one of NC, PA, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona to get to 270.

I'll pass on a third way centrist, career cop, 60+ year old VP. But, like every other voter in America, it ultimately isn't impacting my decision at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, TexArcher said:

Does the VP ever really deliver states, other than their own? 

No, and still actually no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like Warren would give him the biggest boost, even if relatively small. In a “look we know what we’re doing, ok?” kind of way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Red Five said:

I feel like Warren would give him the biggest boost, even if relatively small. In a “look we know what we’re doing, ok?” kind of way.

I agree. Warren would bring progressives, like me, to the table. I mean, there is no way in shit I would vote for trump. but there are a lot of other progressives that need convincing that this is the WRONG election to vote 3rd party

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Warren will bring progressives - she alienated them in the primaries. She was the darling of the progressives (and me) when she took on finance, insurance, and real estate sectors after the 2008 Great Recession (the effects of which were not repaired as of 2020 pre-virus). This next big financial swoon is going to cause a lot of pain for those less well off (i.e., 75-90% of Americans). Kamala sees the next big crisis and worked with Sanders and Markey on bold legislation that will hem in the Trump Administration. People will be hurting in November if Repubs don't pass that emergency legislation. That would guarantee a Trump loss - if his base is seriously worried about hunger. I think there is enough votes in the Senate to pass it, which would leave it up to Trump. Sign it and have a chance to win. Veto it and get an endless stream of messaging that he betrayed his base. When they needed him, he turned his back.

Harris can deliver that message, has a tough on crime background, is being backed by elite donors (who have spent money on people like Bill, Al, John, Barrack, and Hillary). They want a winner. And a temporary emergency stimulus to citizens does not worry them - since in the end, all of that money trickles up to people like them. 

Trumpkins will have their barbs, but the Willie Brown meme will backfire on them. Kamala has the "it" factor that none of the other potential VP candidates have. Whitmer will end up an ambassador when she is done with Michigan. Abrams needs time. 

Elizabeth and Joe are a lot alike - despite the ravings of Never-Trumpers and Trumpers alike that she is a scary liberal. She is extremely Centrist to Centrist right on policies in the real world not hemmed into media silos. She was great in 2008 with her progressive economic views of the importance of Main Street in this economy. But she lost her way from a policy perspective. Kamala is out there still learning and growing as a leader. She is building a following with the voices that will decide the VP issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't see how it's anyone but Kamala tbh. Her quick decision to drop her campaign was a signal at the time, I thought, and while I don't really buy the idea that the VP needs to be ready to step in from day 1, I think a lot of people do. Kamala (and Warren, certainly) ticks that box, from an optics perspective.

I don't love her by any stretch of the imagination, but I think she's the best choice for VP and it's not really even close.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I agree. Warren would bring progressives, like me, to the table. I mean, there is no way in shit I would vote for trump. but there are a lot of other progressives that need convincing that this is the WRONG election to vote 3rd party

Sounds like there are a lot of progressives that need to get their head out of their ass.  

 

Warren as VP positives: 

- She's smart/awesome

- She possibly secures voters like Longhorn_Fan68

Warren as VP negatives: 

- She's old

- She's white

- Lose her in the Senate

- More Pocahontas bullshit 

- I don't think her overall message is very compatible with Biden's

- The inevitable push from progressives for Warren to be the "behind the scenes" President and dictate policy, which will create friction within Dem party and be weaponized by Trump/GOP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with either of them and most of the others, really. All of the candidates have some pluses and minuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I'm fine with either of them and most of the others, really. All of the candidates have some pluses and minuses.

biggest plus: not Trump/Pence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching folks play pundit on this and ignore the hard data on voter preferences is rather amusing. 

Like, y’all know the goal here is to win and get the most votes right?  If you want to win, Warren is the clear easy choice, and the data clearly supports that opinion.

If you want good optics while ignoring voter preferences, pick someone else.  There is no competitive advantage any option has over Warren and the “lose her Senate seat“ is bullshit.  It doesn’t permanently fall into Republican hands if she’s the VP.  That’s just what folks that don’t want her as VP are peddling because it’s easy to mislead people with that.

Biden will probably pick Harris because the big donors approve. Just more fucking soft corruption people are tired of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Like, y’all know the goal here is to win and get the most votes right?  If you want to win, Warren is the clear easy choice, and the data clearly supports that opinion.

 

Clear based off what exactly? 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. Warren would bring progressives, like me, to the table. I mean, there is no way in shit I would vote for trump. but there are a lot of other progressives that need convincing that this is the WRONG election to vote 3rd party
When a 300 pound 40 year old comes into the ER with a heart attack, doctors don't sit down next to them and outline a plan for dietary changes and exercise to improve long term health. They treat the heart attack and deal with that stuff later.

Look around at what's going on in the executive branch and in the GOP. America is a 300 pound 40 year old having a heart attack. I'm as progressive as anyone on here, but we need to treat that shit. Biden's ceiling is probably an average President, and I'll likely be on board with primarying him in 2024 if he wants to run for re-election. But he represents such a monumental improvement that it's not even a question.

He is an emergency intervention. He can't fundamentally alter the country's long term health outlook, but he can prevent the republic from keeling over in front of our eyes. You can't call yourself a progressive and not directly oppose Donald Trump. There's no progress made by doing that.
I don't think Warren will bring progressives - she alienated them in the primaries. She was the darling of the progressives (and me) when she took on finance, insurance, and real estate sectors after the 2008 Great Recession (the effects of which were not repaired as of 2020 pre-virus). This next big financial swoon is going to cause a lot of pain for those less well off (i.e., 75-90% of Americans). Kamala sees the next big crisis and worked with Sanders and Markey on bold legislation that will hem in the Trump Administration. People will be hurting in November if Repubs don't pass that emergency legislation. That would guarantee a Trump loss - if his base is seriously worried about hunger. I think there is enough votes in the Senate to pass it, which would leave it up to Trump. Sign it and have a chance to win. Veto it and get an endless stream of messaging that he betrayed his base. When they needed him, he turned his back.
Harris can deliver that message, has a tough on crime background, is being backed by elite donors (who have spent money on people like Bill, Al, John, Barrack, and Hillary). They want a winner. And a temporary emergency stimulus to citizens does not worry them - since in the end, all of that money trickles up to people like them. 
Trumpkins will have their barbs, but the Willie Brown meme will backfire on them. Kamala has the "it" factor that none of the other potential VP candidates have. Whitmer will end up an ambassador when she is done with Michigan. Abrams needs time. 
Elizabeth and Joe are a lot alike - despite the ravings of Never-Trumpers and Trumpers alike that she is a scary liberal. She is extremely Centrist to Centrist right on policies in the real world not hemmed into media silos. She was great in 2008 with her progressive economic views of the importance of Main Street in this economy. But she lost her way from a policy perspective. Kamala is out there still learning and growing as a leader. She is building a following with the voices that will decide the VP issue. 

Warren won't bring anyone because VP doesn't bring anyone. Nothing more needs to be said. You can put anyone else's name in there too. I think the only argument you can legitimately make for a VP driving turnout is the potential for a black VP candidate to drive black turnout, and I'd be skeptical of that. But we haven't seen that particular theory tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Red Five said:

I feel like Warren would give him the biggest boost, even if relatively small. In a “look we know what we’re doing, ok?” kind of way.

Also in an ‘if Joe kicks the can, we are in good hands’ way...because that’s kind of a real possibility...And she would absolutely destroy VP penis.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Watching folks play pundit on this and ignore the hard data on voter preferences is rather amusing. 

Like, y’all know the goal here is to win and get the most votes right?  If you want to win, Warren is the clear easy choice, and the data clearly supports that opinion.

If you want good optics while ignoring voter preferences, pick someone else.  There is no competitive advantage any option has over Warren and the “lose her Senate seat“ is bullshit.  It doesn’t permanently fall into Republican hands if she’s the VP.  That’s just what folks that don’t want her as VP are peddling because it’s easy to mislead people with that.

Biden will probably pick Harris because the big donors approve. Just more fucking soft corruption people are tired of.

What I think pisses me off the most is the polls show to me that she was everyone's second choice and if we had ranked choice voting, she'd probably be the nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good read on Harris/VP possibility from Astead Herndon (who, btw, is a fantastic journalist and has really separated himself as one of the best over the last year or two)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clear based off what exactly? 
 
 
 
 
 

She usually polls the highest in terms of who people want to see as VP. It makes sense, she's always had very high favorability and she has the highest name recognition of any candidate.

I think it's likely that she's at the top of the heap for VP precisely because of name recognition. Because what the data has shown, election after election, is that VP has basically no impact on voter preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also in an ‘if Joe kicks the can, we are in good hands’ way...because that’s kind of a real possibility...And she would absolutely destroy VP penis.  
If Warren was the VP I'd consider Biden Rushmore-worthy if he just resigned on day one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Biff Tannen said:

What I think pisses me off the most is the polls show to me that she was everyone's second choice and if we had ranked choice voting, she'd probably be the nominee.

This isn't really based in any kind of reality. 

Warren finished 3rd or 4th in most Super Tuesday primaries.

She finished behind Buttigieg in each of the first 4 states when they were both still in the race. 2 of them were caucuses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

This isn't really based in any kind of reality. 

Warren finished 3rd or 4th in most Super Tuesday primaries.

She finished behind Buttigieg in each of the first 4 states when they were both still in the race. 2 of them were caucuses. 

I'm well aware.  I don't think that refutes my theory.  I said she was most people's second choice.  Do you not think it's reasonable to extrapolate this when most of the VP polls have her at the top by a mile?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

This isn't really based in any kind of reality. 

Warren finished 3rd or 4th in most Super Tuesday primaries.

She finished behind Buttigieg in each of the first 4 states when they were both still in the race. 2 of them were caucuses. 

What does it matter that she came in behind them? 

My understanding of how ranked choice works is that you literally rank them in order of preference, with a point value associated with each place.  Once all the points are tallied the delegates would be awarded on a pro rata basis. 

If so, his point is still valid, because he's suggesting that she would be most people's second choice.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm well aware.  I don't think that refutes my theory.  I said she was most people's second choice.  Do you not think it's reasonable to extrapolate this when most of the VP polls have her at the top by a mile?

By a mile? I haven't seen these polls. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

By a mile? I haven't seen these polls. 

 

Literally the first post in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Literally the first post in this thread.

My bad. Ok, so one YouGov Poll of 1600 people. Anything else that shows her as the clear preference? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

What does it matter that she came in behind them? 

My understanding of how ranked choice works is that you literally rank them in order of preference, with a point value associated with each place.  Once all the points are tallied the delegates would be awarded on a pro rata basis. 

If so, his point is still valid, because he's suggesting that she would be most people's second choice.  

There was ranked choice voting in Nevada for early voters, which were about 70% of final results. 

She's finished 4th behind Bernie, Biden and Buttigieg. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

There was ranked choice voting in Nevada for early voters, which were about 70% of final results. 

She's finished 4th behind Bernie, Biden and Buttigieg. 

 

Doesn't Nevada have a caucus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DixonHur said:

Doesn't Nevada have a caucus?

Yes, they have a caucus on voting day. But their early voting was a ranked choice system, and those early voters made up about 70% of the Nevada results. 

I think some people forget that Warren's campaign tanked in the last 2-3 months before Iowa. Her poll numbers consistently went down, and then the actual results were even more disappointing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

My bad. Ok, so one YouGov Poll of 1600 people. Anything else that shows her as the clear preference? 

 

Ugh, this one from Politico actually shows Klobuchar in the lead in most categories overall.  Gross.  But Warren with the edge in net favorability.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/poll-biden-vice-president-experience-187056

ETA: this poll was from April 10-12, so maybe doesn't mean much now.

 

Quote

Warren (plus-48 percentage points) edges out Harris (44 points) and Klobuchar (38 points) in net favorability among Democrats. The Massachusetts senator also leads the other two in the category among self-identified liberals (plus-53 points to Harris' 46 points and Klobuchar's 40 points); African Americans (plus-29 points to Harris' 20 and Klobuchar's 17); and voters with an unfavorable view of President Donald Trump (plus-38 points to Harris' 34 and Klobuchar's 33).

But Klobuchar enjoys higher net marks in the most categories overall, including several key ones. The Minnesota senator bested her two colleagues among all voters and in every region of the country — the Midwest, Northeast, South and the West. And Klobuchar had a stronger image among white voters, independents, Republicans, moderates and conservatives and those with a favorable view of Trump.

Harris, a California senator, follows closely Warren among Latino voters and trails Klobuchar slightly in the West.

The survey of 1,990 registered voters was conducted April 10-12 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. The subsamples have higher margins of error.

 

Edited by Biff Tannen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think it's a little silly to look at polling for who Biden should pick. 

IMO there isn't any VP candidate that will significantly improve his chances of winning the election. But I do think there are choices that could hurt him. The worst would be Klobuchar. She should be scratched off the list. I'd be fine with Warren, but I think it could create a messy situation. And I'd rather have her in the Senate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I just think it's a little silly to look at polling for who Biden should pick. 

IMO there isn't any VP candidate that will significantly improve his chances of winning the election. But I do think there are choices that could hurt him. The worst would be Klobuchar. She should be scratched off the list. I'd be fine with Warren, but I think it could create a messy situation. And I'd rather have her in the Senate. 

And that's fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
 
 
1
 
 
 
 
Spoiler

The implicit approval from Clyburn could be especially telling; it was the influential South Carolina Democrat’s endorsement in February that reinvigorated his then-sputtering campaign, propelling him to primary victories in the Palmetto State and beyond. He has made clear that he believes Biden should not only pick a woman as his running mate, as the candidate has pledged, but a black woman. “I think it’s necessary for it to be a woman,” Clyburn has said, “and I prefer an African-American woman.” Selecting Harris might not shore up the support he’s seeking from progressives, some of whom regard her with skepticism thanks to her prosecutorial record, but could help him further shore up support among the black women who make up the backbone of the Democratic base. “The Democratic nominee needs to make it completely clear that they understand that black women are the foundation of a successful Democratic Party at every level,” political analyst Zerlina Maxwell, former director of progressive media for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, told the Times recently.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...