Veepstakes 2020

This message isn't gonna go away, it's gonna be a major driver for GOP this election

Cornyn shares an insane conspiracy theory that the left is plotting a coup, where they place a socialist as Vice President and then declare the 25th Amendment on Biden.

In other news multiple consultants told me Cornyn is "quietly in trouble" in Texas. https://t.co/SF00mjNB1F https://t.co/PoyidSdxwd

— Tim Miller (@Timodc) July 8, 2020

 

In 2020, the GOP is all-in on racism and tin foil hattery. Those are its defining features, as much as any.

 

Truth is, most Democrats would be fine with this deal. I know I would.

 

I suppose so. If she really did not want it, she could just put an end to any speculation.

 

Pretty sure I cited her.

And hows that working out so far?

Part of the subjective measure of "competence" is having proven oneself at a level nearer to the level of VP/potential POTUS.

Sorry, but despite all their talent stack, winning a (snicker) state rep slot in a completely safe district doesnt measure up. Nor does being mayor of Atlanta.

Putting Abrams and Bottoms into the same conversation with Harris and Duckworth isn't a good thing, IMO. One could even call it the "subtle sexism of lowered expectations" to put the Georgia JV Squad at a comparable level to a US Senator. Would you consider a Male (snicker) state rep or mayor to be up to the task? I liked Mayor Pete's politics, but part of him losing the nomination race was his lack of experience. (Among other reasons.)

And while we might like Abrams & Bottoms, they just havent earned it yet, IMO. As always, YMMV.

 

Could she even win a political race?

While I like Rice, if shes such a political genius, why hasn't she run for a single political office, and won?

Sorry, but when your nominee is 76 years old, and is a gaffe machine, do you REALLY want to introduce an additional variable of an inexperienced candidate as running mate?

Sure, shes got an impressive talent stack, and shes smart, and many of us like her politics. How do we know she wont shit the bed in her first political campaign? And again, why hasn't she run for anything before?

To me, Rice fits better as a policymaker as an adviser/cabinet member moreso than politician. When you've already got Grandpa Joe atop the ticket, why have a neophyte in what will surely be a bruising fight?

That's why I dont see Rice as a better fit than Harris or Duckworth.

 

Rice, OTOH, has demonstrated ability at the Federal level.

And how's that working out so far is precisely my point; the other side offers proven failure; to refuse to vote for someone else for lack of proven success is-- peculiar... it is bad arithmetic, basically...

 

1. I don't think a career national security officer would "sh*t the bed"...ever. The long, day-to-day drudgery of governing, on the other hand...?
2. I agree about a political "neophyte" (as in not having been an elected official). But she would be a damned site better as a political neophyte than the asshat in the White House.
3. I agree that I would rather have Senator Harris or Senator Duckworth. I have made no bones about that. That being said, if it were Ms. Rice, count me in.

 

To those of us who follow politics closely, it is indeed simple arithmetic.

To those who do not, a (snicker) state rep ain't quite ready to be Leader of The Free World. And guess what, those people have the same right to vote as you or I do. And when your nominee is 76 (going on 77), the qualifications of the VP can matter.

Introducing even a modicum of doubt about the line of succession isn't a good idea. The drumpf campaign will surely try to make Bidens age an issue. Bidens gaffes will become an issue. Why have a JV wannabe (such as Abrams or Bottoms) as the successor to the POTUS? Why not pick fron the big girl group on the Varsity squad instead?

 

How do we know this?

And why hasn't she run for anything?

To me, there are just too many questions when there are clearly qualified options on offer, AND the nominee is who he is. I think you and I are in agreement, in that I would crawl over broken glass to vote for a hypothetical Biden/Rice ticket.

But part of being POTUS is winning the election to be POTUS. If your running mate hasn't run and won anything, that would give me reason to pause.

 

I guarantee you every one of those women is much "bigger" than Pence.

Or you for that matter. Estrogen is way heavier than testosterone in this context...

I am bitterly disappointed that the nominee will be Biden, and more so that he is way too old. But you go to the polls with the candidate you have, not the one you wish you had.

And no modicum of doubt is being introduced, BTW-- it is there right now. Trump is really even less likely to survive a second term, and Pence is manifestly unfit to succeed.

And keep in mind, the best president we ever had had only one term as a federal rep, otherwise had only been a state rep himself.

But the real point is-- whaddya gonna do about it? Vote for Trump rather than a "girl?" Good luck with that.

 

Not even a full term, to be clear.

 

This is a cogent point. McCain found himself in a similar position then as Biden today. Both face(d) questions about their age and about any age-related decline.

While I felt then that McCain was correct to choose a woman as his running mate, a massive blunder was to choose someone who was horribly unqualified for the role. I think it would be correct for Biden to choose a woman as his running mate. I think it would be a blunder to choose a running mate who is unqualified for the role.

 

I think I understand your view now:

For the bolded, your view is "Well, Trump/Pence are unqualified, so why not also run an unqualified candidate as VP with Biden?"

I happen to disagree with that. I also think that the VP should be qualified in his/her own right.

For the references back to a time when women couldn't vote, and most black and brown people couldn't vote, I dont think that really registers in today's day and age. No one can disagree that Lincoln was probably the best POTUS in our history. But his day and age have long gone.

 

We don't "know" that, hence my saying "I think."

I suspect she has a steely disposition and would be up for the fight.

Again, we are largely in agreement, no need to disagree about semantics.

 

Umm, please see Trump, Donald J. No "argument" about it.
Lincoln had been a Rep in the Illinois legislature for 8 years, a Rep in Congress (admittedly only one term), was a lawyer who argued 175 times before the Illinois Supreme Court.
Trump...? He was a real estate developer and a reality tv "star."

I will agree with Lincoln as one of the "least experienced" Presidents.

Definitely agree with all of this.

I actually think the "trouble" with a less than very qualified VP is that I suspect the VP will be running "some" things and pretty soon.
I suspect Biden will have a very active VP.
I also suspect that Biden will be a one term president, so the VP needs to be ready to "step up" by 2023.


I said this a couple of months ago and I will say it again:
The fact that the Democrats have a number of excellent VP picks who are also "African American woman"/"woman of color" is fantastic.
The fact that we are having this discussion is fantastic.

We all have our preferred candidate.
We all have reasons for our preferred candidate.

However, I think just about all of the candidates being vetted are good choices.
I want Joe Biden to pick the candidate who he thinks will best complement his candidacy, at least I hope so.

 

Not really.

Mc Cain did not want Caribou Barbie, she was foisted on him, much as Nixon on Ike. McCain wanted Joe Lieberman...

My point is more that the paper qualifications are far less important than the story they actually tell. Condi Rice would have had all the drawbacks you say you see on this list, but would have been a superb choice for McCain.

Susan Rice hasn't failed to run for anything because she's not capable, but because it hasn't been the thing in front of her at any point. She has demonstrated competence all the way through her career.

She's capable of the job, as was Eisenhower, as was Grant, as was Washington, as was Hoover. Like Mel Ott, none of them had any need to win in the minor leagues first.

Requiring boxes be checked just creates Nixons and Buchanans, feverishly running around getting boxes checked without developing the competences needed for the goal.

My point is really twofold--
.1. All these women, simply by virtue of getting to where they are, have demonstrated far more ability than most or any man in the same place, and

2. This is not a normal election, and casting it as one and looking for reasons to be dissatisfied is a waste of time and resolution. Those making the choice are far better positioned to judge the abilities of the possibilities than we, and have freely admitted the necessity of choosing someone capable of stepping in to the big job at any moment.

At some point it always comes down to trusting the guy in the room, no matter how hard the other team tries to sell the notion that none of them can be trusted.

Way back in college in the early 70's a group of us used to speak of "Joni Mitchell Disease," she being the major exemplar in public life of a not altogether common, but still observable condition. Sufferers strike up a relationship with, to all appearances, a perfectly acceptable significant other-- and then, because of previous bitter experience start looking to find out what's wrong with them. Joni, being uncommonly intelligent and uncommonly perceptive, would always find something sooner or later, and, being seriously perfectionist would so make the perfect the enemy of any good in her life, over and over.

I think you are suffering from "Joni Mitchell disease of the VP candidates"-- and I'm not sure you have Joni's perceptivity... I suspect your life would be better if you found a way to shake the pathology.

 

I dont have any familiarity with Joni Mitchell's issues; I also dont think the way you describe them as being applicable here.

I simply think that some are more qualified than others, among the choices on offer. I also think it to be subtly sexist to lower standards on a VP candidate, simply because you "like her." Or to have lower standards for a VP choice, simply because of their gender. We can, and SHOULD expect the same from any/all candidates for such a role, irrespective of who or what they are.

And again, I've spoken to all of the choices as being intelligent and impressive, BUT that some are more impressive than others. This is not picking nits (as in your description of whatever was going on with Joni Mitchell), this is an open acknowledgment of who is a better choice than others.

Kinda like Harris and Duckworth are to Abrams and Bottoms in terms of readiness as Podolski is to Wondolowski in international soccer.

 

For all of the handwringing in this thread about Biden's VP choosing, I'm sure half of you weren't alive the last time a VP succeeded the President in the middle of a term.

 

It was not about Palin being unqualified -- the problem was that she had the brainpower of a flea. McCain could have picked several other women who would have been worthier choices, but the campaign went with the shiny looking toy. Sounds bad, but that is what they were going for. Susan Rice has a depth to her that makes comparisons to Palin appear quite insulting.