2020 US General Election Thread VII: Summer of Discontent

[Zurkerx]

Biden says he'll name his VP sometime next week: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrat-biden-says-he-will-name-running-mate-in-first-week-of-august/ar-BB17hZKY?li=BBnb7Kz

So, somewhere between the 2nd to the 8th then. More likely, I feel he'll announce on a Friday or Saturday for that week: that's when VP choices are usually announced. But to be honest, as much as Harris is the front runner, anyone could get the nod.

[Ngelmish]

Somehow I have a sinking feeling that he's probably not going to make the best, or even one of the better, choices... based on absolutely nothing. Suppose next week isn't too long to wait, at this point.

[United States of Devonta]

Biden says he'll name his VP sometime next week: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrat-biden-says-he-will-name-running-mate-in-first-week-of-august/ar-BB17hZKY?li=BBnb7Kz

So, somewhere between the 2nd to the 8th then. More likely, I feel he'll announce on a Friday or Saturday for that week: that's when VP choices are usually announced. But to be honest, as much as Harris is the front runner, anyone could get the nod.

Please, be Tammy, not Harris.

[Zurkerx]

So, somewhere between the 2nd to the 8th then. More likely, I feel he'll announce on a Friday or Saturday for that week: that's when VP choices are usually announced. But to be honest, as much as Harris is the front runner, anyone could get the nod.

Please, be Tammy, not Harris.

Baldwin I'm assuming? Well, we haven't heard much though Biden's Notes seem to show he doesn't have any qualms with Harris. So, it seems she's up there, along with some other names. Either way, as much as I'm not fond of Harris, I'll begrudgingly vote Biden still. After all, Harris can't be worst than Trump, right? Hopefully...

But who knows who he'll pick: his lips are sealed.

Somehow I have a sinking feeling that he's probably not going to make the best, or even one of the better, choices... based on absolutely nothing. Suppose next week isn't too long to wait, at this point.

You're probably not wrong with that assessment, and I think it'll be because Biden leads comfortably right now against Trump, which is a tactic I wouldn't advise.

[United States of Devonta]

Please, be Tammy, not Harris.

Baldwin I'm assuming? Well, we haven't heard much though Biden's Notes seem to show he doesn't have any qualms with Harris. So, it seems she's up there, along with some other names. Either way, as much as I'm not fond of Harris, I'll begrudgingly vote Biden still. After all, Harris can't be worst than Trump, right? Hopefully...

But who knows who he'll pick: his lips are sealed.

Somehow I have a sinking feeling that he's probably not going to make the best, or even one of the better, choices... based on absolutely nothing. Suppose next week isn't too long to wait, at this point.

You're probably not wrong with that assessment, and I think it'll be because Biden leads comfortably right now against Trump, which is a tactic I wouldn't advise.

I meant Duckworth lol. Baldwin would be better, but she's not in a Safe Dem senate seat.

[Zurkerx]

Baldwin I'm assuming? Well, we haven't heard much though Biden's Notes seem to show he doesn't have any qualms with Harris. So, it seems she's up there, along with some other names. Either way, as much as I'm not fond of Harris, I'll begrudgingly vote Biden still. After all, Harris can't be worst than Trump, right? Hopefully...

But who knows who he'll pick: his lips are sealed.



You're probably not wrong with that assessment, and I think it'll be because Biden leads comfortably right now against Trump, which is a tactic I wouldn't advise.

I meant Duckworth lol. Baldwin would be better, but she's not in a Safe Dem senate seat.

Ohh, I see. As much as Baldwin would be a good choice, she is from a not a safe Dem Seat as you mentioned though as I would like to say: go big or go home. Sometimes one has to take risks. However, Duckworth is honestly my pick personally: it would make the ticket more prestigious in my view.

[Trollgaard]

Aren't vice presidential picks announced by now normally? The election is just a few months away now!

[United States of Devonta]

I meant Duckworth lol. Baldwin would be better, but she's not in a Safe Dem senate seat.

Ohh, I see. As much as Baldwin would be a good choice, she is from a not a safe Dem Seat as you mentioned though as I would like to say: go big or go home. Sometimes one has to take risks. However, Duckworth is honestly my pick personally: it would make the ticket more prestigious in my view.

Tammy Duckworth has a bad ass background story. I think she could give Biden a big bump in the polls tbh. His lead is already large.

[Zurkerx]

Aren't vice presidential picks announced by now normally? The election is just a few months away now!

They're usually announced a few days before the convention so this timeline isn't completely out of line; the Democrats' is from the 17th to the 20th. Biden knows he has to pick the person that fits him the best: he's been through that rodeo himself, after all.

Ohh, I see. As much as Baldwin would be a good choice, she is from a not a safe Dem Seat as you mentioned though as I would like to say: go big or go home. Sometimes one has to take risks. However, Duckworth is honestly my pick personally: it would make the ticket more prestigious in my view.

Tammy Duckworth has a bad ass background story. I think she could give Biden a big bump in the polls tbh. His lead is already large.

Indubitably. Sure, she's a moderate and I'm not sure how younger Americans and African Americans would react, but she certainly would help Biden out bigly. Not to mention, it would show a ticket of integrity given her military background. And the woman had a kid at 50 (or 52) in her first term as a Senator. How I see it, I think Biden is down to his Top Five (in no order):

Kamala Harris
Elizabeth Warren
Susan Rice
Tammy Duckworth
Karen Bass

[Ngelmish]

Please, be Tammy, not Harris.

Baldwin I'm assuming? Well, we haven't heard much though Biden's Notes seem to show he doesn't have any qualms with Harris. So, it seems she's up there, along with some other names. Either way, as much as I'm not fond of Harris, I'll begrudgingly vote Biden still. After all, Harris can't be worst than Trump, right? Hopefully...

But who knows who he'll pick: his lips are sealed.

Somehow I have a sinking feeling that he's probably not going to make the best, or even one of the better, choices... based on absolutely nothing. Suppose next week isn't too long to wait, at this point.

You're probably not wrong with that assessment, and I think it'll be because Biden leads comfortably right now against Trump, which is a tactic I wouldn't advise.

It's just an instinct, and I may still be pleasantly surprised or even ecstatic when he actually announces, so we'll see. Obviously I've been vocal that I'd prefer to see a more progressive VP, so my top three is weighted toward Warren, Bass or Baldwin. But, assuming alternately that he has to pick a more moderate running mate, I think I've narrowed it down to Duckworth, Raimondo or Whitmer as the closest he can get to "do no harm."

Granted, I actually like a few of the other names floating around, at least on a personal level, but I wouldn't want him to pick any of them. Out of my finalist spread, unlike you, Duckworth is probably narrowly the choice I'd be least excited about (Whitmer barely edges her out for the second to last ranking there).

[Zurkerx]

Baldwin I'm assuming? Well, we haven't heard much though Biden's Notes seem to show he doesn't have any qualms with Harris. So, it seems she's up there, along with some other names. Either way, as much as I'm not fond of Harris, I'll begrudgingly vote Biden still. After all, Harris can't be worst than Trump, right? Hopefully...

But who knows who he'll pick: his lips are sealed.



You're probably not wrong with that assessment, and I think it'll be because Biden leads comfortably right now against Trump, which is a tactic I wouldn't advise.

It's just an instinct, and I may still be pleasantly surprised or even ecstatic when he actually announces, so we'll see. Obviously I've been vocal that I'd prefer to see a more progressive VP, so my top three is weighted toward Warren, Bass or Baldwin. But, assuming alternately that he has to pick a more moderate running mate, I think I've narrowed it down to Duckworth, Raimondo or Whitmer as the closest he can get to "do no harm."

Granted, I actually like a few of the other names floating around, at least on a personal level, but I wouldn't want him to pick any of them. Out of my finalist spread, unlike you, Duckworth is probably narrowly the choice I'd be least excited about (Whitmer barely edges her out for the second to last ranking there).

And that's understandable: a more Progressive choice would bring balance and unite the party. It would also show Biden has an emphasis on Progressive Ideals. I'm a little surprise you would say Duckworth could be the least inspiring choice, but practicality does come into place, especially the "do not harm" mantra; Palin is a prime example of that.

But I think regardless of who he choices, said VP pick could take a while for some people to warm up to. After all, besides Harris and Warren, the other choices aren't known too much by the public so this could be a factor as well: does Biden pick someone lesser known- someone that can be molded into a positive image but your opponents can do the same (the GOP have made clear of their intentions there)? Or, does he pick someone that's well-known, well-defined where people know said candidate and it's difficult for the opposition to label them? I think I'll put money on the later though I'll throw some money to the former.

Hopefully by the weekend, we'll have a clearer idea of who his Top 3 are.

[Kings Gil Drum]

You'd be surprised. Like, I don't want to get overly-optimistic, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility.

Beto O'Rourke very nearly beat Ted Cruz, which says something given how loved and revered Ted Cruz is among conservatives in Texas. Since 2018, the Texan population has gotten more diverse, and there is a large group of newly-eligible voters who lean pretty overwhelmingly liberal. Combine that with the incompetence of the coronavirus response in the state and it's a real possibility if the Democrats push hard enough.

Make no mistake, Texas is purple this year. Republicans may speak in public as if they're confident that Texas will stay red and chuckle at any suggestion otherwise, but the party knows that it's in the air. Ted Cruz and many other Texas Republican leaders said it at their convention, and they've consistently been using the hashtag #KeepTexasRed; they know that Texas swinging is a real possibility.

Ted Cruz isn’t loved or revered. He’s highly disliked

Among Texas conservatives, he is definitely very well-liked.

[Ngelmish]

It's just an instinct, and I may still be pleasantly surprised or even ecstatic when he actually announces, so we'll see. Obviously I've been vocal that I'd prefer to see a more progressive VP, so my top three is weighted toward Warren, Bass or Baldwin. But, assuming alternately that he has to pick a more moderate running mate, I think I've narrowed it down to Duckworth, Raimondo or Whitmer as the closest he can get to "do no harm."

Granted, I actually like a few of the other names floating around, at least on a personal level, but I wouldn't want him to pick any of them. Out of my finalist spread, unlike you, Duckworth is probably narrowly the choice I'd be least excited about (Whitmer barely edges her out for the second to last ranking there).

And that's understandable: a more Progressive choice would bring balance and unite the party. It would also show Biden has an emphasis on Progressive Ideals. I'm a little surprise you would say Duckworth could be the least inspiring choice, but practicality does come into place, especially the "do not harm" mantra; Palin is a prime example of that.

But I think regardless of who he choices, said VP pick could take a while for some people to warm up to. After all, besides Harris and Warren, the other choices aren't known too much by the public so this could be a factor as well: does Biden pick someone lesser known- someone that can be molded into a positive image but your opponents can do the same (the GOP have made clear of their intentions there)? Or, does he pick someone that's well-known, well-defined where people know said candidate and it's difficult for the opposition to label them? I think I'll put money on the later though I'll throw some money to the former.

Hopefully by the weekend, we'll have a clearer idea of who his Top 3 are.

I have two reservations about Duckworth, one being that, in spite of the generally good press she got over her kerfuffle with Tucker Carlson, I wasn't all that impressed with how she handled the (loaded) question about taking down George Washington's statues. It was a clumsy answer that raises the (potential) red flag that she may simply not have the oratorical chops to avoid damaging lines of attack. But the main thing (and this is true of many candidates Biden is known to have vetted) is that when people talk about Duckworth's value to the ticket, it's always, and exclusively couched in terms of who she is superficially as person (combat veteran, Asian-American, disabled etc.) not what she's done in politics or what she might want to do in the future. Biography and character matter in elections of course, but that line of argument is squarely about symbolism over substance and I don't like it.

For years now I've been tilting at the windmill that VP's should be chosen primarily because they would not only be capable of being a good president, but, because they are quite simply the literal best available substitute to be president should it come to that. Obviously, raw politics drives the decision making more often than not (occasionally that's resulted in good choices, like Gore or Biden) and just as obviously most presidential nominees aren't going to make that their preeminent deciding factor, because they are going to be president and they don't want someone they have to constantly look over their shoulders at simply because the other person, they know, is at least as qualified and at least as good at the job description as they are. I get that. But the centrality of the raw politics approach has resulted in a lot of the worst choices (Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Sarah Palin to name just a few) being made. And sure, people don't vote for the Vice President (somewhere, Dan Quayle is probably still crying about that). But, dammit, the VP we deserve should be the best available substitute. And Biden really shouldn't have ruled out a male running mate right out the gate; that was politics, and he said to win just as much as he earnestly believed it -- but it's also ended us up in a situation where we know for a fact that he's been considering some people he really shouldn't be.

[San Lumen]

And that's understandable: a more Progressive choice would bring balance and unite the party. It would also show Biden has an emphasis on Progressive Ideals. I'm a little surprise you would say Duckworth could be the least inspiring choice, but practicality does come into place, especially the "do not harm" mantra; Palin is a prime example of that.

But I think regardless of who he choices, said VP pick could take a while for some people to warm up to. After all, besides Harris and Warren, the other choices aren't known too much by the public so this could be a factor as well: does Biden pick someone lesser known- someone that can be molded into a positive image but your opponents can do the same (the GOP have made clear of their intentions there)? Or, does he pick someone that's well-known, well-defined where people know said candidate and it's difficult for the opposition to label them? I think I'll put money on the later though I'll throw some money to the former.

Hopefully by the weekend, we'll have a clearer idea of who his Top 3 are.

I have two reservations about Duckworth, one being that, in spite of the generally good press she got over her kerfuffle with Tucker Carlson, I wasn't all that impressed with how she handled the (loaded) question about taking down George Washington's statues. It was a clumsy answer that raises the (potential) red flag that she may simply not have the oratorical chops to avoid damaging lines of attack. But the main thing (and this is true of many candidates Biden is known to have vetted) is that when people talk about Duckworth's value to the ticket, it's always, and exclusively couched in terms of who she is superficially as person (combat veteran, Asian-American, disabled etc.) not what she's done in politics or what she might want to do in the future. Biography and character matter in elections of course, but that line of argument is squarely about symbolism over substance and I don't like it.

For years now I've been tilting at the windmill that VP's should be chosen primarily because they would not only be capable of being a good president, but, because they are quite simply the literal best available substitute to be president should it come to that. Obviously, raw politics drives the decision making more often than not (occasionally that's resulted in good choices, like Gore or Biden) and just as obviously most presidential nominees aren't going to make that their preeminent deciding factor, because they are going to be president and they don't want someone they have to constantly look over their shoulders at simply because the other person, they know, is at least as qualified and at least as good at the job description as they are. I get that. But the centrality of the raw politics approach has resulted in a lot of the worst choices (Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Sarah Palin to name just a few) being made. And sure, people don't vote for the Vice President (somewhere, Dan Quayle is probably still crying about that). But, dammit, the VP we deserve should be the best available substitute. And Biden really shouldn't have ruled out a male running mate right out the gate; that was politics, and he said to win just as much as he earnestly believed it -- but it's also ended us up in a situation where we know for a fact that he's been considering some people he really shouldn't be.

What was wrong with ruling out a male running mate?

[Neutraligon]

Apparently Trump is confused why Fauci has high approval but he does not.

[San Lumen]

https://www.essence.com/feature/alissia ... al-change/

Missouri has the potential to elect its first African American to statewide office this year in Alissia Canady. She serves on the Kansas City Council and is running for Lieutenant Governor. She faces a primary next week but its highly likely she will get the Democratic nomination. her opponent is a some dude whose lost primaries for the state legislature twice.

Missouri is one of a few states that elects its Governor and Lt. Governor in separate elections. For those who do not know the Lt. Governor is in most states the equivalent of Vice President. In the event the Governor dies, resigns or is removed from office they are first in line to assume the office.

[Genivaria]

Apparently Trump is confused why Fauci has high approval but he does not.

Yes and apparently Trump has endorsed an utter quack of a doctor who believes "gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are in fact caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/stella-im ... hloroquine

[Ngelmish]

I have two reservations about Duckworth, one being that, in spite of the generally good press she got over her kerfuffle with Tucker Carlson, I wasn't all that impressed with how she handled the (loaded) question about taking down George Washington's statues. It was a clumsy answer that raises the (potential) red flag that she may simply not have the oratorical chops to avoid damaging lines of attack. But the main thing (and this is true of many candidates Biden is known to have vetted) is that when people talk about Duckworth's value to the ticket, it's always, and exclusively couched in terms of who she is superficially as person (combat veteran, Asian-American, disabled etc.) not what she's done in politics or what she might want to do in the future. Biography and character matter in elections of course, but that line of argument is squarely about symbolism over substance and I don't like it.

For years now I've been tilting at the windmill that VP's should be chosen primarily because they would not only be capable of being a good president, but, because they are quite simply the literal best available substitute to be president should it come to that. Obviously, raw politics drives the decision making more often than not (occasionally that's resulted in good choices, like Gore or Biden) and just as obviously most presidential nominees aren't going to make that their preeminent deciding factor, because they are going to be president and they don't want someone they have to constantly look over their shoulders at simply because the other person, they know, is at least as qualified and at least as good at the job description as they are. I get that. But the centrality of the raw politics approach has resulted in a lot of the worst choices (Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Sarah Palin to name just a few) being made. And sure, people don't vote for the Vice President (somewhere, Dan Quayle is probably still crying about that). But, dammit, the VP we deserve should be the best available substitute. And Biden really shouldn't have ruled out a male running mate right out the gate; that was politics, and he said to win just as much as he earnestly believed it -- but it's also ended us up in a situation where we know for a fact that he's been considering some people he really shouldn't be.

What was wrong with ruling out a male running mate?

There are plenty of men who have the potential to be excellent Vice Presidents and they shouldn't have been rejected out of hand without a hearing.

I mean, you literally already know this.

[Major-Tom]

Apparently Trump is confused why Fauci has high approval but he does not.

Yes and apparently Trump has endorsed an utter quack of a doctor who believes "gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are in fact caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/stella-im ... hloroquine

Maybe she took a page from

[San Lumen]

What was wrong with ruling out a male running mate?

There are plenty of men who have the potential to be excellent Vice Presidents and they shouldn't have been rejected out of hand without a hearing.

I mean, you literally already know this.

Its long past time we had a woman as vice president and Im glad he made such a commitment

[Farnhamia]

Apparently Trump is confused why Fauci has high approval but he does not.

Yes and apparently Trump has endorsed an utter quack of a doctor who believes "gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are in fact caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/stella-im ... hloroquine

[Kowani]

Politico out here with a time machine

[Nobel Hobos 2]

What was wrong with ruling out a male running mate?

There are plenty of men who have the potential to be excellent Vice Presidents and they shouldn't have been rejected out of hand without a hearing.

I mean, you literally already know this.

I don't think so either. I don't mind that it's affirmative action, it's that it demonstrates the negative discrimination inherent in AA. (Can't apply positive discrimination without causing some negative discrimination). Biden should have kept his motive under his hat, then he could announce a female VP pick as the best person available.

As you note in the previous post of this strand, political considerations often come before picking the best available replacement for the President. But of course the VP pick is touted as the best available, it's not even properly a lie, only an extension of the fact-free self promotion voters expect of any candidate. Announcing in advance that the VP will be selected from a third or a quarter of the plausible Democrats makes it too clear that "best available" wasn't the main criterion.

Something else you said is relevant. The VP candidate will need to be able to stand up for herself verbally. She will come under attack for not being smart enough, not being qualified enough, and anything else playing to the narrative sketched out already: "second best".

[United States of Devonta]

Politico out here with a time machine

Fuck, this better not be a leak. I will really be disappointed if some lousy liberal California cop gets the pick

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Politico out here with a time machine

Fuck, this better not be a leak. I will really be disappointed if some lousy liberal California cop gets the pick

Being a former prosecutor would likely play better with the voters, than with you or I.
For the other important part of the VP's role, being replacement/successor to Biden, she would be pretty bad.