Mister Tee wrote:That's the NY Post, not the Washington Post. The chances that any Dem strategist who truly knew anything would go first thing to a Murdoch paper are punishingly small.
Thanks for giving me my first laugh of the day.
The Democratic strategist quoted is James Carville, so take it with a grain of salt.
All political considerations aside, Biden seems to really like Harris as a person. Of course the usual suspects on the alt-left continue to badmouth her as a "corporate sellout" and a "cop" but thankfully they have become totally irrelevant. We are talking after all about people who consider anyone to the right of Lenin as centrist.
That's the NY Post, not the Washington Post. The chances that any Dem strategist who truly knew anything would go first thing to a Murdoch paper are punishingly small.
BIDEN VEEP RACE ODDS
Senior Democratic party insiders gave The Post the following odds:
• Amy Klobuchar 5 to 2
• Gretchen Whitmer 4 to 1
• Kamala Harris 9 to 1
• Tammy Duckworth 9 to 1
• Michelle Obama 15 to 1
• Elizabeth Warren 20 to 1
• Stacey Abrams 25 to 1
• Catherine Cortez Masto 25 to 1
• Michelle Lujan Grisham 33 to 1
• Hillary Clinton 100 to 1
• Andrew Cuomo 500 to 1
OscarGuy wrote
Biden would be a fool to pick someone who isn't a woman. If he has any common sense, he'll go for a woman whose absence wouldn't cause a Republican replacement. That eliminates Elizabeth Warren for sure. He will know that he needs all the votes in the Senate he can get.
Yes, I forgot to mention that in the minuses. That likely rules her out. I'll adjust in my rundown.
Biden would be a fool to pick someone who isn't a woman. If he has any common sense, he'll go for a woman whose absence wouldn't cause a Republican replacement. That eliminates Elizabeth Warren for sure. He will know that he needs all the votes in the Senate he can get.
Kamala Harris, though a choice that could take over on Day 1, would also anger progressives. He doesn't have a lot of good choices in the progressive department, though. Whitmer might be the choice as her Lt. Gov. is a Democrat (Garlin Gilchrist). That will help with crucial state Michigan and might just bring that state back into the fold. I suspect that might, ultimately, be Joe's best choice. While Whitmer isn't as far left as progressives would like, it would help keep Republican women who are leaving that party in droves interested.
Young progressives are probably a lost cause. If Sanders couldn't get them to turn out to the polls, no one will.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
We know Biden promised to pick a woman and probably will, but that promise was made pre-pandemic when that was the smartest move he could have made. No one at the time could have predicted the emergence of certain Democratic governors as national heroes.
That emergence bodes well for Whitmer, but it also bodes well for Cuomo and Newsom. Harris and Newsom are buddies, their political fortunes rose at the same time when he was mayor of San Francisco and she was its district attorney. She would be a fierce proponent and supporter of him as the VP pick if by some chance public support leans that way by the time of the convention.
A Newsom candidacy would really stick in Trump's craw. He's Nancy Pelosi's nephew. His first wife is Don Jr.'s current squeeze.
Now that Joe Biden is officially, officially the presumptive nominee, the question is who will he pick as his running mate. He's said that he wants to ensure that his choice will have the experience to serve on day one. So, far the only definitive we know is that he will select a woman.
Pretty much every short list consists of Stacey Abrams, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, and now Gretchen Whitmer. I've seen Tammy Baldwin, Tammy Duckworth, Val Demmings, Catherine Cortez Masto, and Michelle Lujan Grisham but I'd imagine it's going to be one of the top six.
STACEY ABRAMS
(+) Biden owes his campaign revival to Jim Clyburn and South Carolina. Abrams might not be from South Carolina but Georgia is a similarly a southern state. Choosing Abrams would be thanking that community.
(+) Biden has a problem with Gen Zs and Millennials and Abrams is very popular with them (and won't turn off progressives).
(+) By choosing Abrams, he would be righting a perceived injustice.
(-) Abrams has never held statewide elected office. Considering Biden's age, the idea of a sudden Abrams Presidency could scare voters.
(-) She's very young.
(-) She may have been victim of voter suppression (or outright thievery) but any way you look at it, she lost her only race thus far.
KAMALA HARRIS
(+) Harris has been a national star in the making from before her Senate career. Eyes have been on her throughout Trump's Presidency.
(+) Choosing her would reaffirm Biden's support for the African-American community.
(+) Harris has lots of fundraising power to her credit.
(+) Harris has been Biden's perceived running mate from day one.
(-) She attacked Biden on the public stage. Those ads are certain to make the rounds... and make make some white voters uncomfortable.
(-) She has some baggage from her history as a prosecutor. Also, progressives don't like her.
AMY KLOBUCHAR
(+) Trump's victory in the Midwest shocked the Democratic establishment. Klobuchar made Midwest appeal the cornerstone of her campaign.
(+) Klobuchar is ideologically aligned with Biden.
(+) She did better than anticipated in the primary only to drop out the day before her possible victory in her home-state. Maybe Biden will return the favor?
(+) Biden has signaled he wants someone with the experience to lead on day one. Klobuchar has been in national government since 2006.
(-) Progressives don't like her.
(-) She's probably the least exciting pick he could make.
ELIZABETH WARREN
(+) She's Elizabeth Warren. By choosing the one-time front-runner, Biden would be signaling that he's not just looking for a running mate. He wants a partner in government.
(+) Warren may be a polarizing figure (some Bernie people hate her), but it would be his move to unify with progressives.
(+) Biden has signaled he wants someone with the experience to lead on day one. Warren may only have been in national government since 2012 but it feels like she's been in our lives forever.
(+) Once again, Warren didn't endorse Bernie Sanders. That's gotta pay off for her sometime, right?
(+) Obama has been praising her policies recently. Is that a signal?
(-) Biden and Warren have a contentious history.
(-) Warren may be popular within the Democratic Party but not with the donors. Wall Street hates her.
(-) Trump's Pocahontas attacks hurt Warren. A lot. And she botched her response horribly. Whatever one thinks about it, she is more politically damaged than any other selection.
(-) Some Bernie supporters hate her.
(-) (EDIT) Her selection would lose a Senate seat.
GRETCHEN WHITMER
(+) COVID looks to define the election and the Governors are becoming the public faces of the response. Whitmer is one of those public faces.
(+) She's from Michigan, a state that Dems narrowly lost.
(+) If Dems want to replicate their remarkable Midterm turnout, why not go with one who won?
(+) She's ideologically aligned with Biden.
(-) She's only one year into her first term and doesn't fit the experience bill.
(-) She's an unknown quantity.
(-) She's said she's not interested in taking the job.
Intermittently, I've thought perhaps Biden might end up choosing Abrams or Whitmer. Only twice in the last thirty years has a candidate chosen someone was in the race themselves (Edward, Biden) but the sense I get from Biden is that he sees himself as a kingmaker (Queenmaker) as a bridge to the future of the party. There's nothing I would love to see more than for Warren to be chosen but the two are so ideologically opposed that only a crisis like this could bring them together. I think Harris or Klobuchar are the likeliest. Harris' recent fundraising indicates that she's gearing up for something. Even though a Klobuchar running mate pushes towards a focus on the Midwest and does nothing to agitate Republicans, I think it'll be Kamala Harris if only for this reason: if somehow after this ridiculous primary we end up with the likeliest nominee (Biden), why not also the likeliest running mate (Harris) to truly drive a nail in the coffin of all my wasted speculation time?
Last edited by Sabin on Fri Apr 10, 2020 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sabin wrote
I get it. Joe Biden is making appearances left and right from his media bunker. They’re all disastrous. The other day on MSNBC, he lost his train of thought, looked at his notes, and said, “Look, he’s gotta get in place things where shortages of.”
Are you talking about that interview with whoever substituted for Katie Tur? I thought he was fine, actually. That interviewer, OTOH, was a dipshit. In fact, half the time I see a clip of Biden supposedly having a senior moment, I see an incompetent interviewer instead. Though I will admit that whenever Biden has a successful interview, I feel a huge wave of relief, because that's no sure thing. But you're right, he's no leader. What the Democratic party needs is someone to bring the two warring factions together and create a united front, and this is where Biden will fail spectacularly. I don't know if he's capable of it or not. Either way, I doubt he gives a shit. (Not that Bernie would have been any better.... but Elizabeth would have been.)
The one with Yasmin Vossoughian. I watched it with my fingers crossed... and then he started reading from his notes. It's not that bad but we're in a crisis. I'd rather my party's candidate not need his notes. I'd rather my party's candidate have actual ideas of what we need to do.
I think Joe Biden has no interest in unifying the party but in the wake of this crisis I don't think it entirely matters as in years past -- or, as I would've thought, a few weeks ago.
It hit me the other day that there's literally no Democrat I'd prefer not to be the face of this crisis -- and this generation election -- than Joe Biden. I think Beto O'Rourke was embarrassing, but I'd prefer he be the nominee. Simply in terms of being the opposition party's public face to Coronavirus, Bernie Sanders would be preferable talking about a single-payer system, Elizabeth Warren would be preferable talking about new plans every day, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, literally anybody. What would Joe Biden have done differently if he was the President? Implement The Defense Production Act earlier. And, of course, be a better President. He's built his campaign on the notion that Donald Trump is doing harm to our democracy by not "acting" like a President. Well, Joe Biden isn't either.
I get it. Joe Biden is making appearances left and right from his media bunker. They’re all disastrous. The other day on MSNBC, he lost his train of thought, looked at his notes, and said, “Look, he’s gotta get in place things where shortages of.”
Are you talking about that interview with whoever substituted for Katie Tur? I thought he was fine, actually. That interviewer, OTOH, was a dipshit. In fact, half the time I see a clip of Biden supposedly having a senior moment, I see an incompetent interviewer instead. Though I will admit that whenever Biden has a successful interview, I feel a huge wave of relief, because that's no sure thing. But you're right, he's no leader. What the Democratic party needs is someone to bring the two warring factions together and create a united front, and this is where Biden will fail spectacularly. I don't know if he's capable of it or not. Either way, I doubt he gives a shit. (Not that Bernie would have been any better.... but Elizabeth would have been.)
Sonic Youth wrote
If I could add one more wrinkle to this discussion, it's this poll measuring enthusiasm. It does seem noteworthy, maybe even significant, that Biden's supporters are only 24% very enthusiastic compared to 53% of Trump supporters. That worries me, not only because it compares poorly with Trump but also with Hillary Clinton, who had 32% four years ago, and that in itself was dire.
I can’t imagine why.
I am concerned that the 2020 election can be framed in the minds of the voters as a choice between someone who screwed up and a guy who wasn’t there.
I get it. Joe Biden is making appearances left and right from his media bunker. They’re all disastrous. The other day on MSNBC, he lost his train of thought, looked at his notes, and said, “Look, he’s gotta get in place things where shortages of.”
And I get it. The lack of enthusiasm doesn’t take into account the desire of Dems to just get Trump out of there.
I don’t think Trump is winning any leadership contests but Biden sure isn’t either. If I needed information about the current crisis, I would never turn to Joe Biden. Why would I?
I just went through a disastrous election that pivoted on false equivalencies. I don’t want to do it again. But he has a new podcast.
If I could add one more wrinkle to this discussion, it's this poll measuring enthusiasm. It does seem noteworthy, maybe even significant, that Biden's supporters are only 24% very enthusiastic compared to 53% of Trump supporters. That worries me, not only because it compares poorly with Trump but also with Hillary Clinton, who had 32% four years ago, and that in itself was dire. I remember four years ago, I kept saying "Her poll numbers look pretty solid, but I don't get it. Shouldn't they be EVEN HIGHER?? She's running against Donald Trump!" I remember all the explanations back then about how every indicator showed this was Hillary's to lose. Well, her support needed to be much higher to withstand any campaign body blows, and they weren't. Biden had better lift that enthusiasm gap before I feel comfortable about this race.
ETA: Conversely, I remember people saying in 2017 that Trump will be such a disaster, he will lose support from his cult, resulting in an easy win for his Democratic opponent. This is also not happening, and I'm not going to count on a theoretical drop in the polls to happen just because a few hundred thousand people may die.
Tee, I would highly recommend the guys at electoral-vote.com. Today they even excoriated two CNN contributors over their "Trump's numbers are on the rise" fawning and lay out how ephemeral the crisis bump can be.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Interrupting this all-Corona all the time binge to note:
You can tell a lot about whether a political analyst is worth your attention by how ooh-ah-y he or she gets over Trump's current small rise in approval.
If this person points you to Jimmy Carter or both Bushes as caveat, follow him/her.
If, on the other hand, this person acts as if "this totally means Bush is likely to win", delete him/her from your timeline.
