Poll: Biden's VP

[Im_on_dsp]

Klobuchar is the best choice but I have zero faith in the Democratic party to make the best choice. They're too in love with political correctness and "making a statement". Since there aren't any viable transgender picks they'll step down to the next most politically correct choice and go with an African-American woman. That means Stacy Abrams.

 

[Rolltide51]

Klobuchar is the best choice but I have zero faith in the Democratic party to make the best choice. They're too in love with political correctness and "making a statement". Since there aren't any viable transgender picks they'll step down to the next most politically correct choice and go with an African-American woman. That means Stacy Abrams.

well this is politically incorrect but i'm gonna say it anyway.... stacey looks transgender.

 

[92tide]

well this is politically incorrect but i'm gonna say it anyway.... stacey looks transgender.

that's not politically incorrect, that's just mean.

 

[81usaf92]

I really don’t see any value of Klob. The only reason she had any name recognition in the race is because Iowa is a landlocked rural white state that no one cares about after the Caucas. Iowa gave Huckabee and Ron Paul wins for crying out loud. It’s a weird state. Her only other pickup was in NH, another white state where she was basically the alternative pick.

Really she offers nothing. If we are basing this race off Wisconsin then the Democrats have already lost. An upper Midwest white woman is going to get you killed slightly slower than a New England one. Minnesota is already a win for Biden, and there is no guarantee that Klob makes any difference anywhere else. Really if it has to be an upper MW White woman then it might as well be Baldwin or Whitmer since they do add some value to the position. Klob is basically Tim Kaine 2.0.

Personally I think all of the names being floated around are risky picks but Klob and Warren are far and away the riskiest ones out of all of them.

 

[81usaf92]

Klobuchar is the best choice but I have zero faith in the Democratic party to make the best choice. They're too in love with political correctness and "making a statement". Since there aren't any viable transgender picks they'll step down to the next most politically correct choice and go with an African-American woman. That means Stacy Abrams.

Baldwin is LGBT

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I really don’t see any value of Klob. The only reason she had any name recognition in the race is because Iowa is a landlocked rural white state that no one cares about after the Caucas. Iowa gave Huckabee and Ron Paul wins for crying out loud. It’s a weird state. Her only other pickup was in NH, another white state where she was basically the alternative pick.

Really she offers nothing. If we are basing this race off Wisconsin then the Democrats have already lost. An upper Midwest white woman is going to get you killed slightly slower than a New England one. Minnesota is already a win for Biden, and there is no guarantee that Klob makes any difference anywhere else. Really if it has to be an upper MW White woman then it might as well be Baldwin or Whitmer since they do add some value to the position. Klob is basically Tim Kaine 2.0.

Personally I think all of the names being floated around are risky picks but Klob and Warren are far and away the riskiest ones out of all of them.

This is one of those rare instances where you and I disagree but that's okay - I'll protect your freedom to be wrong.

Warren? Absolutely. A polarizing figure with bunch of money who talks about income inequality and once pretended to be a Native American is too easy of a target for Cheeto Jeezus.

Klobuchar, however, actually sounded during the debates (at least from the minimal clips I saw) to come across as the sort of person who could manage a crisis. And her willingness to actually say "no" to a few big government ideas was refreshing. And I also suspect her husband having come down with Covid actually helps her chances since she can pull the old, "I've seen this firsthand."

There's one other thing that deep down I'm wondering this time: will the VP choice REALLY make any difference in how people vote? Historically, it does not. Not one VP candidate selected ever spun the election away from "well, that person would have won but he picked so and so." Granted, the candidacies of Quayle and Palin may have hurt their standard bearers slightly but never enough to say "well, if he'd not chosen X, he would have won" (Bush won a 40-state landslide despite Quayle's having the same public office experience as Jack Kennedy).

We have not had a President die in office now in 57 years. We've had one other case since then of the sudden ending of a Presidential tenure, Nixon's resignation. Probably 90% (or more?) has never lived through the sudden loss of the leader of the USA, so they don't take it into account.

But let's be honest and say they should. They ALWAYS should. But most selections are about, "Who can help me carry state X that helps me win?"

I don't think Biden is wrong for picking a woman; I think he was wrong to promise to do so because he himself imposed a restraint on his options that he never had to do. Now he has no choice without disappointing some vocal activists, who by nature are already perpetually disappointed anyway.

 

[81usaf92]

This is one of those rare instances where you and I disagree but that's okay - I'll protect your freedom to be wrong.

Warren? Absolutely. A polarizing figure with bunch of money who talks about income inequality and once pretended to be a Native American is too easy of a target for Cheeto Jeezus.

Klobuchar, however, actually sounded during the debates (at least from the minimal clips I saw) to come across as the sort of person who could manage a crisis. And her willingness to actually say "no" to a few big government ideas was refreshing. And I also suspect her husband having come down with Covid actually helps her chances since she can pull the old, "I've seen this firsthand."

There's one other thing that deep down I'm wondering this time: will the VP choice REALLY make any difference in how people vote? Historically, it does not. Not one VP candidate selected ever spun the election away from "well, that person would have won but he picked so and so." Granted, the candidacies of Quayle and Palin may have hurt their standard bearers slightly but never enough to say "well, if he'd not chosen X, he would have won" (Bush won a 40-state landslide despite Quayle's having the same public office experience as Jack Kennedy).

We have not had a President die in office now in 57 years. We've had one other case since then of the sudden ending of a Presidential tenure, Nixon's resignation. Probably 90% (or more?) has never lived through the sudden loss of the leader of the USA, so they don't take it into account.

But let's be honest and say they should. They ALWAYS should. But most selections are about, "Who can help me carry state X that helps me win?"

I don't think Biden is wrong for picking a woman; I think he was wrong to promise to do so because he himself imposed a restraint on his options that he never had to do. Now he has no choice without disappointing some vocal activists, who by nature are already perpetually disappointed anyway.

Well to 1 point- the last time I remember a VP actually made a difference in a race was actually Biden in 2012. Obama’s first debate really gave Romney some serious momentum that looked like was leading to a neck and neck race. Biden slapping around Ryan really killed whatever Chance of winning Romney had.

As for Klob- I think if you are looking for a well spoken person that doesn’t make a lot of people’s skin boil then yes she is a good pick. But the problem is she really brings nothing to the table in terms of swinging states. A lot of folks seem to believe that she can produce Wisconsin because it’s a neighboring state. The problem is Wisconsin is more like Michigan, and Minnesota is more like Iowa politically. If you go up there you can see a massive difference between Wisconsin people and Minnesota people. Wisconsin has shifted more to the center politically while both Iowa and Minnesota have shifted further to the left.

Whitmer probably offers more strategic value than Klob imo. But Whitmer’s problem is that she has done some very questionable practices while doing an overall good job as governor.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Well to 1 point- the last time I remember a VP actually made a difference in a race was actually Biden in 2012. Obama’s first debate really gave Romney some serious momentum that looked like was leading to a neck and neck race. Biden slapping around Ryan really killed whatever Chance of winning Romney had.

As for Klob- I think if you are looking for a well spoken person that doesn’t make a lot of people’s skin boil then yes she is a good pick. But the problem is she really brings nothing to the table in terms of swinging states. A lot of folks seem to believe that she can produce Wisconsin because it’s a neighboring state. The problem is Wisconsin is more like Michigan, and Minnesota is more like Iowa politically. If you go up there you can see a massive difference between Wisconsin people and Minnesota people. Wisconsin has shifted more to the center politically while both Iowa and Minnesota have shifted further to the left.

Whitmer probably offers more strategic value than Klob imo. But Whitmer’s problem is that she has done some very questionable practices while doing an overall good job as governor.

I mean, I "get" what you're saying, and I don't even disagree with the data you cite. But using the "first do no harm" mentality, I think she's a fine choice and she has another advantage - she's competed in the primaries. This is not someone who has never at least tried a national race.

As far as Romney in 2012, I worked that night and didn't see that debate, but I heard about it. When even Bill Maher is saying that Obama is making great points but they're all for Romney, it must've been bad.

Except - that's pretty normal. Incumbent Presidents notoriously do poorly in the first debate of the new cycle as Reagan 84, Bush 92, Clinton 96, and Bush 04 all showed. Reagan came off the stage with two complaints: 1) I was terrible; and 2) I never understood how much easier it was to be on the other side. Make no mistake - I think Biden was the right choice in 2008 for one major reason - he wasn't Hillary Clinton and (a second one) he was generally well-liked and respected on both sides of the aisle.

I think Whitmer was going to be the choice, but I think her bad press on the Covid isn't going to help.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I mean, I "get" what you're saying, and I don't even disagree with the data you cite. But using the "first do no harm" mentality, I think she's a fine choice and she has another advantage - she's competed in the primaries. This is not someone who has never at least tried a national race.

As far as Romney in 2012, I worked that night and didn't see that debate, but I heard about it. When even Bill Maher is saying that Obama is making great points but they're all for Romney, it must've been bad.

Except - that's pretty normal. Incumbent Presidents notoriously do poorly in the first debate of the new cycle as Reagan 84, Bush 92, Clinton 96, and Bush 04 all showed. Reagan came off the stage with two complaints: 1) I was terrible; and 2) I never understood how much easier it was to be on the other side. Make no mistake - I think Biden was the right choice in 2008 for one major reason - he wasn't Hillary Clinton and (a second one) he was generally well-liked and respected on both sides of the aisle.

I think Whitmer was going to be the choice, but I think her bad press on the Covid isn't going to help.

I missed that. What happened?

 

[92tide]

Well to 1 point- the last time I remember a VP actually made a difference in a race was actually Biden in 2012. Obama’s first debate really gave Romney some serious momentum that looked like was leading to a neck and neck race. Biden slapping around Ryan really killed whatever Chance of winning Romney had.

As for Klob- I think if you are looking for a well spoken person that doesn’t make a lot of people’s skin boil then yes she is a good pick. But the problem is she really brings nothing to the table in terms of swinging states. A lot of folks seem to believe that she can produce Wisconsin because it’s a neighboring state. The problem is Wisconsin is more like Michigan, and Minnesota is more like Iowa politically. If you go up there you can see a massive difference between Wisconsin people and Minnesota people. Wisconsin has shifted more to the center politically while both Iowa and Minnesota have shifted further to the left.

Whitmer probably offers more strategic value than Klob imo. But Whitmer’s problem is that she has done some very questionable practices while doing an overall good job as governor.

it always amazed me that people continued to take ryan seriously after he got drug like that in his debate with biden.

 

[81usaf92]

I missed that. What happened?

She went overboard with some of her orders. Such as “You can’t buy seeds at the Grocery store”.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I missed that. What happened?

Keep in mind I'm not in Michigan (nor am I referring to the self-appointed colonists/Minutemen there). But from what I've been reading from multiple sources, she (apparently) went a tad bit too far in some of the specifics for the quarantine, got some negative coverage for it (not just from the usual suspects), and it runs the risk of coming across as over-reaching.

 

[B1GTide]

Keep in mind I'm not in Michigan (nor am I referring to the self-appointed colonists/Minutemen there). But from what I've been reading from multiple sources, she (apparently) went a tad bit too far in some of the specifics for the quarantine, got some negative coverage for it (not just from the usual suspects), and it runs the risk of coming across as over-reaching.

I am not one of her supporters but the people who participated in the protest last week in MI are the worst part of our society. These are the people that America would be better served with them gone. They carried signs with swastikas, they carried confederate flags, they carried nooses. These people are the ones that we sow hatred everywhere they walk on this planet. If they were to all die tomorrow, the world would be a better place.

And those who chose to walk with them deserve to be painted with the same brush. Would any of us participate in a protest with people openly doing these racist things, even if we believed in the cause?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I am not one of her supporters but the people who participated in the protest last week in MI are the worst part of our society. These are the people that America would be better served with them gone. They carried signs with swastikas, they carried confederate flags, they carried nooses. These people are the ones that we sow hatred everywhere they walk on this planet. If they were to all die tomorrow, the world would be a better place.

And those who chose to walk with them deserve to be painted with the same brush. Would any of us participate in a protest with people openly doing these racist things, even if we believed in the cause?

No I'm with you there, and I cannot distance myself enough from that.

But I wasn't referring to that, either. I was seeing negative press - and not just from the right - on Whitmer a couple of weeks ago. 81 covered it some with the grass seeds.

I'm not taking a side because I don't know enough about it up there. But I DO know that the two most important POLITICAL things regarding VP selection are: 1) don't start the campaign with something you have to explain; 2) don't have taken a recent position that can easily be caricatured. Enough of both is going to happen without starting that way.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

No I'm with you there, and I cannot distance myself enough from that.

But I wasn't referring to that, either. I was seeing negative press - and not just from the right - on Whitmer a couple of weeks ago. 81 covered it some with the grass seeds.

I'm not taking a side because I don't know enough about it up there. But I DO know that the two most important POLITICAL things regarding VP selection are: 1) don't start the campaign with something you have to explain; 2) don't have taken a recent position that can easily be caricatured. Enough of both is going to happen without starting that way.

I went back and reviewed. It was made into a bigger deal than I remembered. When you are a leading VP candidate, each and every move is under a magnifying glass...

 

[Padreruf]

I went back and reviewed. It was made into a bigger deal than I remembered. When you are a leading VP candidate, each and every move is under a magnifying glass...

Since Bill Clinton every candidate for national office has been subjected to incredible scrutiny over every last part of their life. IF you made a questionable decision as a 19-22 year old in college, you will be hung out to dry. I know gifted ministers of highest integrity who could never be called to pastor a church with the kind of scrutiny we have now.

 

[92tide]

Since Bill Clinton every candidate for national office has been subjected to incredible scrutiny over every last part of their life. IF you made a questionable decision as a 19-22 year old in college, you will be hung out to dry. I know gifted ministers of highest integrity who could never be called to pastor a church with the kind of scrutiny we have now.

unfortunately, that scrutiny didn't matter one damned bit for mango mussolini