Octopus Overlords

This may be totally out of left field, but how about Gabrielle Giffords? Her views are similar to Biden's. She's a woman, as he promised he'd pick.
I believe she's more than recovered enough to be capable of accepting the job. And think of what it would do to Trump...one remark making fun
of her shooting, or disability, and Trump would be finished. And you KNOW he'd want to go there.

I would like to see Kamala Harris a heartbeat from the Presidency.

Darkstar One wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:11 pm This may be totally out of left field, but how about Gabrielle Giffords? Her views are similar to Biden's. She's a woman, as he promised he'd pick.
I believe she's more than recovered enough to be capable of accepting the job. And think of what it would do to Trump...one remark making fun
of her shooting, or disability, and Trump would be finished. And you KNOW he'd want to go there.

She wouldn't want to be involved in a presidential campaign while her husband is running for Senate. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, but it's an exhausting process, where you want your spouse by your side, supporting you. Last thing you'd want is two spouses each running for different office.

The main reason to pick Giffords would be if Biden wanted to run hard on gun control. Which wouldn't be the worst idea ever, since that's generally popular, but it's probably not ideal electoral college wise.

I think the front runners right now are Klobuchar, Harris, and maybe Abrams.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:14 pmI would like to see Kamala Harris a heartbeat from the Presidency.

She was my pick for President before the crowd started getting trimmed down. I'd love to see her there too. It wasn't so much her policies, but how she handles herself in the Senate when she's grilling people.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:45 pm The main reason to pick Giffords would be if Biden wanted to run hard on gun control. Which wouldn't be the worst idea ever, since that's generally popular, but it's probably not ideal electoral college wise.

I think the front runners right now are Klobuchar, Harris, and maybe Abrams.

Running hard on gun control would be the worst idea ever. That's a huge contingent of single issue voters while pro-gun control is moderate.

LA Times

Politicians — mainly Republicans and moderate Democrats in Congress — don’t feel constant pressure from gun control supporters. These voters have been firing with cap pistols.

But the other side is rigidly committed. The gun zealots — those mesmerized by the power of firearms — tend to be “single-issue” voters who are inspired by the National Rifle Assn. Their No. 1 litmus test for any candidate is the politician’s position on gun rights.

Most Republicans and many moderate Democrats are scared silly and timidly vote against virtually all meaningful gun controls. That is, unless the congressional leader is a Republican, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Then the frightened politicians are spared from voting at all because the leader blocks the bill from the floor.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:45 pm I think the front runners right now are Klobuchar, Harris, and maybe Abrams.

I really hope he doesn't pick Klobuchar. She just screams Tim Kaine to me; a boring, middle of the road VP pick who won't scare anyone off but also won't excite anyone.

I would be much more excited with Harris or Abrams or even Warren, but I imagine he'll want to pick someone younger.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:24 ama boring, middle of the road ... pick who won't scare anyone off but also won't excite anyone.

Agreed - Biden & Biden is a pretty flavorless ticket.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:15 am
Running hard on gun control would be the worst idea ever. That's a huge contingent of single issue voters while pro-gun control is moderate.

Totally agree. that's a no brainer, IMO.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 9:15 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 9:45 pm The main reason to pick Giffords would be if Biden wanted to run hard on gun control. Which wouldn't be the worst idea ever, since that's generally popular, but it's probably not ideal electoral college wise.

I think the front runners right now are Klobuchar, Harris, and maybe Abrams.

Running hard on gun control would be the worst idea ever. That's a huge contingent of single issue voters while pro-gun control is moderate.

LA Times

Politicians — mainly Republicans and moderate Democrats in Congress — don’t feel constant pressure from gun control supporters. These voters have been firing with cap pistols.

But the other side is rigidly committed. The gun zealots — those mesmerized by the power of firearms — tend to be “single-issue” voters who are inspired by the National Rifle Assn. Their No. 1 litmus test for any candidate is the politician’s position on gun rights.

Most Republicans and many moderate Democrats are scared silly and timidly vote against virtually all meaningful gun controls. That is, unless the congressional leader is a Republican, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Then the frightened politicians are spared from voting at all because the leader blocks the bill from the floor.

I mostly agree, because of the asymmetrical intensity on the issue (as you say). I think it's not the absolute worst idea ever, because it is generally popular, so there are worse ideas.

Anyhow, it's not going to happen.

You don't want to give MAGA-heads an existential reason to get out and vote. Gun control is an issue who defines who they are and if they think the dems are coming to take their guns away, they will turn out. If it's not an issue, it'll be much harder to excite them.

The other thing is that gun control is an issue in the rear view mirror right now due to the shelter in place. Zero school shootings in months due to the school closures, and likely to continue.

Michigan's Gov. Whitmer is a more likely left-field pick. From the area where Clinton screwed the pooch and lost the electoral college, and with strong anti-Trump/pro-competence credentials, particularly with regards to the Pandemic. Also hearing idle speculation about Michelle Obama.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 11:14 am The other thing is that gun control is an issue in the rear view mirror right now due to the shelter in place. Zero school shootings in months due to the school closures, and likely to continue.

Michigan's Gov. Whitmer is a more likely left-field pick. From the area where Clinton screwed the pooch and lost the electoral college, and with strong anti-Trump/pro-competence credentials, particularly with regards to the Pandemic. Also hearing idle speculation about Michelle Obama.

I really don't get Michele Obama. Biden's already loaded up on the Obama nostalgia - not sure whether he has much room to gain among the "think positively about the Obama administration" group of voters.

Re: Michelle - I doubt she would do it (she would have to feel a serious calling to do it in these times, IMHO), but she would be the one VP candidate that any of Trump's 5th grade taunts/attacks would backfire on him incredibly.

She could likely go out and be a huge attack dog with +20 Plate Mail which damages any attackers. She would the be the ultimate Tank in the Party.

Michelle’s armor comes from her pointedly avoiding the political dirt-fighting. She’s stood by her man and defended herself as needed. The glow would start to fade as she became political — but she’s a very smart, capable and eloquent woman.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 5:31 pm Michelle’s armor comes from her pointedly avoiding the political dirt-fighting. She’s stood by her man and defended herself as needed. The glow would start to fade as she became political — but she’s a very smart, capable and eloquent woman.

She was more than her husband's supporting cast, and would do quite well in her own right. Other analysts have said if she would run as VEEP, Biden would be a slam-dunk.

I haven't looked terribly hard, but are there any polls out there predicting the outcome of a Biden/[insert contender here] ticket vs. Trump? It would be interesting to see what combo is polling the best (and which the worst).

I'm too lazy to look it up, but there's a bunch of research showing that the impact of a VP pick is pretty minimal in most cases. (Someone like Palin would probably be an exception.)

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:09 pm I'm too lazy to look it up, but there's a bunch of research showing that the impact of a VP pick is pretty minimal in most cases. (Someone like Palin would probably be an exception.)

I think that's less true when the nominee is 78 years old, not in the most robust condition, and lacking in charisma. He needs someone young-ish and inspiring because there is a higher-than-usual chance that the VP will ascend.

Do you think the evangelicals would've been behind Trump without Pence?

Yes?

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:38 pm

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:09 pm I'm too lazy to look it up, but there's a bunch of research showing that the impact of a VP pick is pretty minimal in most cases. (Someone like Palin would probably be an exception.)

I think that's less true when the nominee is 78 years old, not in the most robust condition, and lacking in charisma. He needs someone young-ish and inspiring because there is a higher-than-usual chance that the VP will ascend.

Do you think the evangelicals would've been behind Trump without Pence?

I think so. They voted for Trump because they specifically wanted him. They sure as hell weren't going to vote for Hilary, even if Pence wasn't on the ticket. Not everyone thinks about an older candidate not being able to live long enough to serve out their term. If most people felt that way then a person that old wouldn't get the nomination to start with. I suspect that won't change until one day a President dies in office due to age related reasons. Then maybe more people will start to judge candidates on longevity.

I don't think age is Biden's weak point. I think his personality is his weak point. He seems to me to be the type of person that would probably do well in a group, as a member of the group. He doesn't seem to be the type you'd want to lead the group. He reminds me of Uncle Junior on the Sopranos.

At the risk of piling on, evangelicals would have been behind Trump if the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse were co-VPs to Trump.

It's kind of an interesting story. Per Politico, Trump was wavering between Pence, Christie and Gingrich even in the days before the RNC Convention. A fortuitous bit of plane trouble trapped Trump in Indianapolis overnight, giving Pence's people the chance to influence Trump's campaign.

Even after picking Pence (and offering him VP), Trump wavered and thought about reneging on the offer. He actually left Pence hanging until just minutes before it would have been too late for him to remove his name from the ballot for Indiana governor.

All in all, it seems like Trump would actually have preferred Christie or Gingrich. And there have never been any signs that he really likes Pence, even now.

I'm still not sure I would bet high odds that Pence will be on the ballot in November. Trump likes surprises.

Paving the way for Roy Moore.

so I am thinking, its not the "undecided" that need to be reached. There are other types of voters that can be reached based on Bidens VP selection.
many folks don't even bother to vote. I know its shocking but true. Welcome to America folks. Trump, for all his flaws, is a very charismatic person. Thats why he had his own TV show. Biden needs somebody with charisma on his team, somebody with some razzle dazzle that makes normal people excited. Biden needs to have a VP pick that will engage folks who don't normally pay attention to politics. He needs star power.

Secondly, Trump, Pence, and Biden are all white male baby boomers. There are some people of the mindset that, when everyone on the ticket is a white man over 60, why even bother to vote? Biden could use some diversity on the ticket. He needs to look at somebody younger, less white, and less male, and find a running mate with at least 2 of those qualities, who has enough charisma to attract viewers and attention.


Trump is running based on egomania, pandering, and lies. And thats been working really well for him. Biden won't be able to defeat that with good grammer and well reasoned arguments. its been proven over the past few years that the voting public is not responding to well reasoned arguments. the voting public is responding to razzle, shine, memebites, clickbait headlines. Biden needs some excitement on his team, and he has got to pick a running mate that provides that.

Because from what I see, Bidens idea of excitement is to put 2 scoops of raisins in his oatmeal instead of 1.

But a little good grammar might work.

Jaymon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 12:08 pm Trump, for all his flaws, is a very charismatic person. Thats why he had his own TV show.

I'm incapable of understanding this. I find him repugnant on every level. If he comes on the TV or radio, I turn it off or change the station. He's the opposite of charisma. He's a cartoon villain. And yet, many millions of Americans obviously disagree. I imagine they must have the same reaction to Hillary (also zero charisma) as I have to trump.

I also don't understand the appeal of Trump, but I also don't understand the appeal of kardashians, duck dynasty, real housewives, bachelor, jersey shore, and other popular (or formerly popular) tv shows. Some of these shows have massive popular appeal, and Trump knows how to attain that kind of popular appeal. That is what Biden is up against.

It's not that Trump is charismatic, it's that he's a media magnet. Whether it's natural or cultivated, Trump knows how to suck the oxygen out of the room by saying outrageous stuff that gets eyeballs, and that therefore draws a disproportionate amount of free media coverage.

In theory Biden could use someone like this as his VP, someone who is such a media story that they draw media coverage wherever they go (which Biden certainly does not). AOC would actually be 100% perfect for this, but she's ineligible.

Of course, as Sarah Palin showed, there can be real downsides to a VP who draws lots of media attention by saying crazy things.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 2:59 pm
In theory Biden could use someone like this as his VP, someone who is such a media story that they draw media coverage wherever they go (which Biden certainly does not). AOC would actually be 100% perfect for this, but she's ineligible.

Is she ?
For VP?

Yes, it is the same requirement as President - 35 years old.

I always assumed it wasn’t the same, but that having a VP ineligible to ‘take the stick’ was seen as a misstep

Shows what I know.

Actually. I probably assumed 35+ at first, then thought: but why?

Biden's VP is very definitely being put forward as the next POTUS. AOC is way too controversial for the position.

The most likely picks are probably Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and (suddenly) Gretchen Whitmer.

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 7:59 pm Biden's VP is very definitely being put forward as the next POTUS. AOC is way too controversial for the position.

The most likely picks are probably Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and (suddenly) Gretchen Whitmer.

Without knowing a lot about Abrams and Whitmer, I'd be cool with any of those as the first female POTUS. Be a sad day if she gets it because Biden dies in office, though. Much happier day if he grooms her for the job and doesn't run for re-election.

Unagi wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:31 pm I always assumed it wasn’t the same, but that having a VP ineligible to ‘take the stick’ was seen as a misstep

Shows what I know.

Actually. I probably assumed 35+ at first, then thought: but why?

There's a clause that says that anyone ineligible to be president (for whatever reason) is also ineligible to be vice president.

Biden - Fauci ?

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:30 pm Biden - Fauci ?

Well. Not really.

But it strikes me that he isn’t very political, and that a lot of people are happy with him.

I’m probably being naive to think he isn’t that political ?

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:53 pm Well. Not really.

But it strikes me that he isn’t very political, and that a lot of people are happy with him.

I’m probably being naive to think he isn’t that political ?

I think he's trying to not be political, but it's impossible to not be entirely. But as long as he's gainfully employed within the Trump administration, it's a non-starter - I don't think Fauci would want to leave the role and the work, and it would look both nakedly political and an interference in the federal government's work (such as it is). Even after he were fired, it would look a little gimicky.

If Biden really wants to go hard on coronavirus response issues, I think a governor would be a much better choice, such as Cuomo or That Woman From Michigan.

Also Biden's committed to picking a woman. So... Biden / That Woman From Michigan 2020.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 6:24 pm But as long as he's gainfully employed within the Trump administration, it's a non-starter - I don't think Fauci would want to leave the role and the work, and it would look both nakedly political and an interference in the federal government's work (such as it is). Even after he were fired, it would look a little gimicky.

I will give you that, 100%. But perhaps in a world where he was fired in a major rift with Trump under some horrible misstep that Fauci was trying hard to keep from happening... I dunno.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 6:24 pm If Biden really wants to go hard on coronavirus response issues, I think a governor would be a much better choice, such as Cuomo or That Woman From Michigan.
Also Biden's committed to picking a woman. So... Biden / That Woman From Michigan 2020.

Yeah, that one is looking like a clear option, at least. While, I know hardly anything about her.

And I do love the misstep (IMO) in Trump's highlight of her. Being key in 2016, MI is not a state for Trump to be shitting on.

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 6:36 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 6:24 pm But as long as he's gainfully employed within the Trump administration, it's a non-starter - I don't think Fauci would want to leave the role and the work, and it would look both nakedly political and an interference in the federal government's work (such as it is). Even after he were fired, it would look a little gimicky.

I will give you that, 100%. But perhaps in a world where he was fired in a major rift with Trump under some horrible misstep that Fauci was trying hard to keep from happening... I dunno.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 6:24 pm If Biden really wants to go hard on coronavirus response issues, I think a governor would be a much better choice, such as Cuomo or That Woman From Michigan.
Also Biden's committed to picking a woman. So... Biden / That Woman From Michigan 2020.

Yeah, that one is looking like a clear option, at least. While, I know hardly anything about her.

And I do love the misstep (IMO) in Trump's highlight of her. Being key in 2016, MI is not a state for Trump to be shitting on.

I'd really rather see Kamala Harris get the nod because I'd like to think Trump would have a more difficult time shitting on a Woman of Color, plus, PLUS Kamala would not take that shit lightly and will punch back.

That and I don't want to lose Whitmer for us here in MI. She still has work to do here.