In 2016 I was with HRC

[xmas74]

The moment she declared. This time around I haven't made a decision. There are so many fine candidates that I can't decide.

My personal hope is if Biden wins the nomination he picks Harris. If Warren wins she picks Castro, the person I wanted Clinton to pick in 2016. I'm still trying to decide on a good choice for Harris, though I think I'd reach outside of the candidate pool and make an unconventional choice.

No matter what happens, I will be content with the nomination.

[lapfog_1]

1. no way is Biden picking Harris now

but that was my hope too

[xmas74]

3. Never say never.

We have a year and he's clever enough to have such a long career. If he realizes what side his bread is buttered is her side he'll do it. He'll do what needs done to get to the dream he's wanted for decades: the presidency.

[IluvPitties]

5. Exactly. This is politics.

Anything can happen.

[xmas74]

6. They had a tiff.

If it benefits them to work together they will. They can spin it into how she will give him a different vision when needed and hold him accountable if need be-something not seen in this administration.

Warren was incredibly savvy when she congratulated Castro. She knows now is the time to shine but also to build allies.

[AlexSFCA]

54. easly

most of us who like biden also like Harris (2nd choice in most polls). Biden still likes Harris, it’s just politics.

[JI7]

7. not really, most candidates understand political campaigning

they will get over it . and if biden is the nominee and he thinks harris would be the best running mate he will pick her without any hesitation.

and ugly primary wars will continue which will include other candidates also.

what's going on right now will be nothing compared to what will come as we get closer to voting.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. Running mates are selected mainly on the basis of whether they help the ticket.

Very few presidents and vice presidents in recent memory have actually even liked each other very much. JFK and Johnson could barely stand each other. Johnson and Humphrey weren't friends. Nixon didn't like Agnew and he barely knew Ford. Reagan and Bush I didn't get along well at all. Bush II was pretty much owned by Cheney but they weren't particularly friendly. Edwards didn't like Kerry. McCain soon learned that Palin was a disaster. It wasn't until Obama and Biden that the two running mates actually liked each other and became friends.

The selection is made on the basis of electability. If Biden is nominated and the polls suggest Harris would be the most effective running mate, that's who it will be. Anyhow, it isn't the first rodeo for Biden; and they're both professionals and they won't take the normal knees in the groin of a primary campaign personally.

[lapfog_1]

11. you all might be right... but I prefer a close partnership

like Obama / Biden.

It's hard to fake that.

Stacey Abrams brings more things to a Biden ticket than Harris. So does Beto (except we would once again be putting 2 white men on the ticket). Maybe Biden / Castro.

[xmas74]

13. I don't see Castro with the same dynamic

On a ticket with Biden. I see Castro as an almost natural fit with Warren.

Biden needs someone on the Veep slot that will outwardly fight. Harris can fill that.

[MoonchildCA]

16. Don't stop thinkin' about tomorrow...

Clinton and Gore were an exciting combination, at least while they were campaigning.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. They had a difficult relationship, though.

https://www.politico.com/story/2009/09/clinton-and-gore-still-the-odd-couple-026785

[cyndensco]

39. I don't know...

Obama picked Biden even after Biden described him as "articulate" and "clean". If Obama was okay with Biden, Biden should be okay with Harris.

[Honeycombe8]

52. That's what I think. A line was crossed. Like Clinton & Sanders.

If he did, she'd be relegated to a far off office with no good duties, like JFK did to LBJ, who he picked for political reasons despite not liking him.

Biden has a lot of choices to represent the progressive end of the liberal spectrum. It'll be interesting to see.

As for me, I don't like either Biden or Harris. But Biden is the pick to appeal to independents and disaffected Republicans.

[gopiscrap]

2. that's interesting because Castro

was the person I wanted Clinton to pick also

[xmas74]

4. I like Castro.

I think a nice tenure as a veep would give him the spotlight he needs.

[elleng]

9. Ditto

[gopiscrap]

12. I agree plus he would really make the repukes

spend a pile of cash in Texas

[MBS]

40. I've also been thinking he would be a good VP

He's a thoughtful guy, and, from what I can tell, a good man. I can see him working successfully with a number of presidential candidates, and contributing substantively to numerous initiatives.

[thesquanderer]

58. Do you think Castro would have made the difference in Wisconsin, Michigan, PA?

I wonder what VP could really have helped her win. I doubt her choice of Kaine got her anything.

[PatSeg]

8. Yes

That is what I looking for "Biden/Harris or Warren/Castro", two dynamic combinations.

[Still In Wisconsin]

14. Mayor Pete with Harris?

Midwestern, smart as hell, great speaker, would annihilate Pence in a debate.

Just a thought...

[tishaLA]

17. I don't see any way he'd help Sen Harris

in fact, I don't see any way she'd help Biden, either.

The rationale for a VP would be to bring something into play, either geographically or demographically; I don't see how either of those pairings does it. IMO the better pairing for Biden would be, say, Stacy Abrams and the better pairing for Harris would be someone like Sherrod Brown ( but not Sherrod Brown because we can't lose that seat).

[leftofcool]

21. I do

18-26 year old and the LGBTQ community but to get those you will need Mayor Pete at the top of the ticket.

[Honeycombe8]

27. I see Pete as a help ...

with the midwest, with the gay community, with the more moderate voters (and they are the majority). I don't think she would pick him, which would be a mistake, IMO.

[xmas74]

19. I want him back in Indiana.

He needs to run for governor or ready himself for Senate. He now has the name recognition and a better chance of other Dems in the next few years. I think he can do so much more as governor than veep.

He's so young he can give 6-10 years to the party in a desperately needed office. We'll be waiting for him especially if he excels at it.

[leftofcool]

22. Nope

He better be the nominee or we stand to lose about 3 million votes

[Skya Rhen]

23. If those 3 million refuse to vote, just watch how quickly LGBQ protections (the same ones that Biden

championed into legislation) end up being eliminated by Trump.

I would think that the rights of tens of millions being safeguarded is much bigger than the victory of one preferred candidate. But then again, i might have it all wrong...

[Meadowoak]

56. I hoping for a Buttigeig/Castro ticket.

[Honeycombe8]

28. Not Senator. Senators are rarely elected President.

As we are seeing, there's too much to attack. And it's not executive experience. Governors are by far the preference.

[xmas74]

44. And I think he would make a fantastic governor.

It's nothing against him. He's in a state where we desperately need some high quality Dems. I'm in Missouri. In 2016 people were calling Kander one of the future stars and wanted him to set his sights high. I wanted him to stay in Missouri and do the hard work for a few years.

I really have nothing against any of our candidates, though I think some could better serve fighting in their states and pushing them to something resembling purple. That's the tough fight and if they can accomplish it they can do anything.

[Gothmog]

15. I also like a Biden/Harris ticket

[Honeycombe8]

29. She's been pretty clear...she's not in it for the VP slot. She's running only for President. nt

[Gothmog]

42. Everyone says that at this stage

[Honeycombe8]

48. Not like she's done. She's insulted & attacked him.

When asked what she thought of a ticket with her and Biden, she was snarky, saying she thought that would be a good idea; after all, he's proven he can do fine as a VP.

Then she attacked his record.

That's not the normal M.O. of someone who would consider being the VP.

[Gothmog]

49. After the nomination is decided, I still believe that Biden will offer the VP slot to Harris

The key thing is to be trump and this would be a very strong ticket

[Honeycombe8]

51. Maybe...like Clinton would offer it to Sanders. It could happen. nt

[Gothmog]

53. sanders was not taken seriously by the press last cycle and was not vetted

There is a ton of oppo on sanders https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/28/why-bernie-sanders-has-an-uphill-climb-ahead/?utm_term=.1b4f90c2a717

Finally, what happens when the oppo dump on Sanders comes? We have no idea, because it never happened in 2016. Clinton was so terrified of alienating his supporters and seeing them vote for Jill Stein in the general election (or not vote at all) that she tiptoed around him for pretty much the entirety of the primary campaign. That doesn’t mean that he’ll be destroyed when stories about the more colorful aspects of his history start cropping up, but there’s just no way to know.

Which is what we could say about the Sanders candidacy as a whole: There’s no way to know how it’s going to go. But he’s got his work cut out for him.

See also https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-campaign-donald-trump/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2019-02-20T14%3A52%3A07&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social%C2%A0

2. How will he withstand more scrutiny and more attacks?
One of the secrets to Sanders' success in 2016 was that no one -- most especially Clinton -- thought he had any chance of going anywhere in the race. Clinton largely ignored him for the better part of 2015, allowing some problematic parts of Sanders' record for Democrats -- most notably his voting record on guns -- to go unnoticed. (When the race began to tighten, Clinton gently prodded Sanders on guns and health care.) Sanders, too, largely flew under the radar of investigative reporters for major news outlets who were busy looking into Clinton, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and others seen as more viable candidates. (That reality clearly benefited Donald Trump in the early days of the campaign, as well.)

Sanders will get no pass -- from either the media or his fellow candidates -- this time around. He is among the frontrunners -- and will be treated as such. His wife's time as president of Burlington College could well come up. And his opponents will do a deep dive into his nearly 30 years of votes as a member of the House and Senate. This is all very normal stuff in a campaign. But not for Sanders.

sanders would have hurt the ticket if he was the VP due to the oppo

[xmas74]

47. And I'd lose all respect for her at this stage

If she said she wanted a veep slot. That's not the sign of a fighter. If she doesn't win the nomination but is offered the veep I think she'll accept if she sees it as a winning ticket. It's a good progression for her and fits beautifully with her storyline and her life.

Imagine her telling the story again of being bussed and then addressing how that access helped her to become vice president. It's pretty powerful and I think she can recognize the power and symbol she would become in either slot on a ticket.

[Honeycombe8]

50. I don't think that'll happen any more than Clinton offering VP slot to Sanders.

There's a line that was crossed. Just my opinion. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

[Celerity]

24. Trying to paint a discussion about racial equality, justice, fairplay, (plus the pushback against

problematic verbiage) as 'identity politics' (a very much negatively co-opted-by-the-right term) is not a good look. What's next, a rousing take-down of the plazzy, RW-fostered boogeyman that is 'cultural Marxism' after other of our candidates (who do not have the favoured initials) have been falsely accused of that particular heresy?


Over the past several months I have seen a pervasive (from certain quarters)...........

.........defence of state's rights arguments and the multi-decade old de jure versus de facto gamesmanship played by the non-southern cities as a bulwark against having to work to eradicate systemic and pervasive racism and segregation (both far beyond being just an education-only issue)

The rationalisation and minimising of the very much racially loaded terms 'boy' versus' son' (and in regards to relationships with detestable racist segregationists) and then doubling down and demanding a black man apologise to a white man for the black man simply taking umbrage with that

The defence and rationalisation of the characterisation of the radical, culture-of-gun-death promoting, Rethug pushing (not to mention Russian money laundering racket) NRA as somehow 'NOT the enemy'

The defence or minimisation of the reduction of black kids wearing hoodies to a very problematic dichotomy of poet laureate and not a gangbanger.

The absolutely misogynistic attacks on female candidates, with a circa-2004, 20,000 post member outright saying Harris is on the Russian payroll and her bank account is being filled with roubles

Also, albeit somewhat tangentially, some even going so far to say we cannot even have a female VP (let alone a woman at the top of the ticket) or we will lose the general election

Twisted pretzel logic trying to rationalise the denial of potentially vital abortion rights for poor women due to a blockage of any federal funding (you know....'moderates' and indies might take issue with their precious tax dollars going to quite possibly saving the life or health of a poor woman, ffs)

etc etc......



This past few months here has really led me to question at times if I am still at liberal and/or progressive Democratic chatroom, you know, one that actually espouses what is in our Democratic platform


last time I checked, state's rights as a foundational legislative bedrock for certain very questionable stances was NOT in that platform

[Turin_C3PO]

34. Every primary season

people twist themselves into pretzels defending their candidate of choice, even if it means spewing right wing talking points. It’s sad but the fever usually breaks once we have a nominee and people return to their previously held progressive values.

[Celerity]

35. seeing as this is my first primary season here, I will defer to you and truly hope you are correct

[tymorial]

36. Oh? And how often were threads locked or posters banned for firefighting the primary?

Hell it was going on up to Sanders announcing for 2020.

People get way too hot over their candidate.

[Turin_C3PO]

37. Yes, people get too emotionally attached.

What I’m saying is that people will go to great lengths to defend their candidate even if said candidate says or does something contrary to progressive values. I’m not necessarily talking just about this cycle but about previous primary seasons also.

[Honeycombe8]

30. "Governmental experience" is meaningless. Look at our history of electing Presidents.

How many long-term Senators were elected? How many with "governmental experience"? How many had been Governors?

Almost none were long term Senators, who weren't incumbents when re-elected (like LBJ). None with "governmental experience." MOST had been Governors (because that is EXECUTIVE experience).

VP doesn't normally mean much, so not sure it matters. But in this case, because of Biden's age (if it's Biden), it matters a LOT who is VP. It ain't gonna be Susan Rice, that's for sure. She doesn't help the ticket one bit.

[Skya Rhen]

38. She would definitely help with the AA and women votes, as well as moderates. Plus she is very well

respected so would not drive away many voters. Lastly, she and Joe would work extremely well together - lots of trust between the two.

BTW, she and Kamala are the same age.

As an AA woman, this ticket would absolutely excite me...

[Honeycombe8]

41. The public doesn't know who she is.

Look at prior winning VPs. What they brought to the ticket. They have to bring a political advantage. A known name, or bringing in an important state, recognition of an area that we need to win (like the south). Voters don't know who she is, and we don't even know if she can campaign. Has she ever run for anything?

Biden has the AA vote. That's not what's needed.

He may need help with the progressive vote. He may need help with the southern or midwest/southwest vote. Rice doesn't help with those things. He may need help with the female vote, but frankly, he already has the female vote, I think.

[samnsara]

33. oh! Great suggestion!

[SouthernProgressive]

25. I think a Harris/Crowley ticket would be great.

Not only the ticket, but the power that comes with it when working with congress after the win.

[xmas74]

45. I'll have to look further at the Crowley demographic

I really think if Biden gets it that Harris could set off his ticket in a way few could, while if Harris picks it up she needs to think out of the box for a ticket that will wow people. Why? Because she's an accomplished, intriguing woman who would be setting a number of "firsts" with her nomination. I feel that she deserves someone who will garner excitement and compliment her.

Warren/Castro is a ready made complimentary ticket.

[Ohiogal]

26. IMO

A Warren/Castro ticket would be awesome.

[samnsara]

31. any of our candidates will be a better prez than trump...hell my 2 yr old Golden....

...retriever can make better decisions than trump. Im at the point of going with elect-ability now. A couple candidates i will support, but not love as they appear to be willing to sacrifice others for their own ambitions, and that part bothers me. But I will vote for the Dem nom no matter what my personal feelings are. Country First in this case also means Party First.

[mainstreetonce]

32. If Warren or Harris need a VP choice

Joe KennedyIII

[question everything]

43. Rarely do nominees pick one of their former rivals

First, the others are strong and are not ready to be anyone's second. Especially since sitting V.P.s do not win elections. They have to both distance and embrace the administration where they have been a part.

[xmas74]

46. That's true, they usually don't

But this cycle might prove unique. The makeup of candidates is already historical in nature. If the nominee picks up a candidate that makes people excited? No surprise at all.

I'm waiting until March. By then we will have a good idea of who it will be. I do believe there are a few on stage that are being groomed as future superstars and I wouldn't be surprised to see the party push one in a veep slot.

Just wanted to add: Klobucher might look South or West. If she were to win the nomination I'd think her veep would be from one of those regions.

[AlexSFCA]

55. Dream ticket

Warren - president, Biden - VP again to help with transition and ‘electability’. Cabinet: Pete - SoC, Harris - AG, etc.

[blm]

57. I expected Clinton to pick Castro, too. Or Wes Clark.