I think I am in this camp but I would not be shocked if Abrams or Bottoms gets it though. Georgia is in play this year and the down ticket benefit of 2 Senate seats is a pretty big prize. I know they are both relative inexperienced compared to the names above, but flipping Georgia would be amazing. The other benefit of those two may be increased scrutiny on the outright blatant disenfranchisement of black voters in Georgia.
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
I think I am in this camp but I would not be shocked if Abrams or Bottoms gets it though. Georgia is in play this year and the down ticket benefit of 2 Senate seats is a pretty big prize. I know they are both relative inexperienced compared to the names above, but flipping Georgia would be amazing. The other benefit of those two may be increased scrutiny on the outright blatant disenfranchisement of black voters in Georgia.
Bottoms has charisma and a bright future, but this is too soon for her as well as Abrams. And even if you are confident in a VP pick swaying any votes, Florida is far more important as well as having a higher probability of success according to current polling.
In the end, I’m feeling like this speculation is increasingly less interesting because it will just be Kamala unless something wild happens.
Oh, I don't disagree with you on Bottoms. I lived right across the border in Alabama until recently and I have been impressed with her. Is it too soon? I think so, but if she navigates the situation in Atlanta right now deftly I think her star will soar. I also think Georgia is more in play than people might think. It really comes down to how fair the voting situation is. What happened to Abrams was f-ing criminal. Same for the primary this year. It's the same shit they pulled in Alabama, but to an infinitely greater extent. Southern politics is depressing and we were ecstatic to get out.
None would change the math much imo. Ultimately, Biden has to select someone who could actually become President of the United States, and among those being considered, only Warren and Harris would be in that caliber. So Harris would likely be the front runner at this time.
I think you have to go Harris because she's vastly more experienced than the other two - and let's face it, the whole 'heartbeat away from the Presidency' is most definitely the number 1 concern.
Plus a Harris v. Pence debate is the stuff of dreams.
Sucks for Warren, who is, imo, far and away the best pick and should have been the nominee.
Plus a Harris v. Pence debate is the stuff of dreams.
Sucks for Warren, who is, imo, far and away the best pick and should have been the nominee.
Yes agreed. In terms of quality, Warren wipes the floor with everyone else. That said, I wouldn't at all be shocked if Biden still selects her because he gets along with her better than anyone else.
Agreed, and personally I don't really see that as an issue. That's a pretty crucial aspect to running any organisation - how well you get on and can work with your 'second in command' is really important.
Just hope he doesn't get blowback if he goes that road. I guess he could also name her to a very prominent cabinet seat.
Warren can bring the attitude in debates too as we’ve seen how she roasted Bloomberg. Ultimately the debates let alone VP debates shouldn’t matter much because most voters already made their mind up. Like imagine sitting on the fence for this.
I think it ultimately comes down to getting out the vote and minimizing the amount of voter suppression by the GOP.
Absolutely. We proved in the past that we can be utterly stupid in our voting patterns.
Last edited:
You don't think Warren will turn independents away? Trump probably relishes the idea of targeting her. Harris is the only real option in my opinion and she's smarter and more competent than Warren anyways.
Trump and his goons are going to go after whoever Biden selects, so he may as well select someone he's comfortable with. The only reason to not select Warren is because Mass has a GOP Governor who would appoint a Republican until a special election is held, which could destabilize Biden's (assuming he wins) policy agenda should the GOP maintain the Senate. Warren is by a country mile the best option, but obviously, Biden is under a lot of pressure to pick a non-white VP, so the compromise may well end up being Harris.
Fair enough, looks like much of the votes with Trump had to do with cabinet appointments from the couple of years I looked at, she has opposed him on all the major topics based on my brief view.
Their current governor is a democrat. How the feck can he allow this?
Age should be a factor as well, right? A 78 year old president with a 70 year old VP doesn’t seem like the best idea. Harris, at 55, is still fairy young while experienced. I certainly like what little I’ve been reading about her.
I don't think it would be end of the world if he winds up with Harris (a distinct possibility), but she has nothing on Warren in terms of policy, which showed during the campaign. Warren was constantly pro-active with churning out new policy ideas that straddled progressive interests. Harris was sort of neither here nor there and seemed to mainly rely on MSM hype and debate zingers. Also, assuming a hypothetical that if Biden were to die in office, I would feel infinitely more comfortable with Warren taking over than any of the others.
I think Biden will in the end use Warren as the face of his economic recovery plan. No one is better with ‘plans’, and they need something front and center in an election that will center around jobs even more than usual.
I also think Kamala is just about the pick already but there’s no need to rush it and give Donny more time to attack her.
I also think Kamala is just about the pick already but there’s no need to rush it and give Donny more time to attack her.
How much would Trump's attacks on Warren on the "pocahantas" end hurt their campaign?
With Harris he'll bring up her criticism on Biden's record with the busing situation.
Both of them will be effective I think during the debates against Pence and will articulate better than Biden I feel but I just feel that polls in swing states are within striking range should there be effective attack ads or gaffes.
Trump will almost surely bring up that Harris slept her way to the top by shagging Willie Brown (a popular right wing meme of Harris). The Pocahontas thing would also be brought up but it’s a bit expired at this point and certainly wouldn’t sway independents to vote against Biden (although it would play well in his redneck base) . Ultimately they would both be attacked, which is why Biden should just go with a combination of who is best qualified and who he is most comfortable with.
Last edited:
I would fill rooms up with people that have legitimate beef with the trumps and let them tell their stories one after the other. Imagine a town hall with sexual assault victims, people who've been defrauded and people with other stories to tell. It would be glorious watching his meltdown and it would also be the right time for these people, especially woman who've been subjected to him to come out and tell their stories where it matters.
Never heard of Val Demmings. But both have terrible police records.
This dude is a Fox pundit who is apparently using his Fox producer as a source. They know feck all of Biden's internal deliberations.
Demmings is a relatively obscure Congresswoman from the Orlando area. She used to be Chief of Police there, a job her husband now holds. Would be a fairly pointless pick for Biden. I can't see him not having it down to Harris and Warren. If this wasn't the case, Warren would've already come out and done a Klobuchar and said "I am taking myself out of the running because I believe we need a woman of color on the ticket". The fact that she hasn't and continues to say she would accept the job if offered, suggests she is still in it.
The odds on Demings and the Atlanta Mayor Bottoms rocketed up after the riots started. They weren’t even in the discussion until then, which tells me it was likely just people looking for a story.
The thing about Kamala’s track record is it’s already out there, as the primaries are sort of a public vetting. All that is already baked into public opinion more or less, which is not true with Demings.
I don't share your optimism about pocahontas not having an impact on independent voters but its probably a moot point now.
Tulsa Rally does not bode well for the idiot. Could not even fill a small venue in Oklahoma after apparently selling "millions of tickets" and cancelled speaking to the overflow crowd because there wasn't one. 
The voter suppression is so crazy. I pass like 25 places to vote on my way to work and I can use all of them. Belgium goes even further, they don't have the right to vote, but duty to vote, so you simply have to.
The land of the free my arse.
The land of the free my arse.
Normalisation of relations with Cuba, extra funding to Palestine, condemnation of Israel's settlement program, and the Iran deal. More examples of token, populist, appeals made by the Obama administration at a time when they could be certain all would be reversed with either Clinton or Trump.
Biden is worth voting for this cycle because of how far right the republicans have allowed themselves to go, but long-term the US should be looking for a viable third party option. A labour party would be best.
Some good points made here. Engel has ran a shocking primary with all the blunders he made recently, but sadly still expect him to win the primary.
Did you see the shameful attack ad that a pro-Israel PAC (who endorsed Engel) aired a few days ago targeting Bowman? It was pretty despicable and even Engel asked for the ad to be taken down.
Last edited:
It won't, at least not without changing the election system. A third major party would essentially make it almost impossible for the president to be elected in this way. Which will put the presidential election to the House of representatives.
More realistically, a third (relatively) major party, will just spoil things. If it is left-wing, then it would ensure Republican presidents. If it is far-right (or even a libertarian party that appeals to may Republicans) it will ensure Democrat presidents. This is not accepting the status quo, it is literally as it is.
The best solution would be to change the constitution. The winner takes all is total nonsense. If the US changes to a proportional system of elections, then that would make the viability of third (and fourth and fifth) parties much higher. Unfortunately, that is very hard to happen, cause the two main parties would lose power, so they would agree to not allow it to happen. So, I guess, 50 years from now, people would still be looking at a third party as the solution.
May I ask why this is allowed? What's the legal argument Kentucky can use to do this?
I thought Warren was supposed to be a fake progressive
USUSUSUS
The evangelicals that voted happily for a cheating, abortion seeking, casino owning grifter?
They will vote for anyone that promises theocratic policy. Which is likely to be the Republican 9/10 times.
- Status