Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Actinguy

Who should each candidate choose as VP?

Recommended Posts

Independent of whether you actually support them...if you were hired as the campaign manager for any of the following candidates, who would you recommend they choose as their Vice Presidential candidate?

Joe Biden:

Cory Booker:

Pete Buttigieg:

Julian Castro:

Tulsi Gabbard:

Kirsten Gillibrand:

Kamala Harris:

John Hickenlooper

Jay Inslee:

Amy Klobuchar:

Beto O'Rourke

Bernie Sanders

Elizabeth Warren

(Yes, I left out some declared candidates -- mostly because I believe they'll have trouble getting past 0%.  Feel free to add them in your response, if you're so inclined.)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Independent of whether you actually support them...if you were hired as the campaign manager for any of the following candidates, who would you recommend they choose as their Vice Presidential candidate?

Joe Biden: Beto O'Rourke

Cory Booker: Elizabeth Warren

Pete Buttigieg: Maria Cantwell

Julian Castro: Bill Nelson (unsure about entirely, but I'm just unsure on Castro I guess?)

Tulsi Gabbard: Mark Warner

Kirsten Gillibrand: Beto O'Rourke

Kamala Harris: John Hickenlooper

John Hickenlooper: Tulsi Gabbard

Jay Inslee: Al Gore

Amy Klobuchar: Doug Jones

Beto O'Rourke: Tulsi Gabbard

Bernie Sanders: Tusli Gabbard

Elizabeth Warren: Pete Buttigieg
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Independent of whether you actually support them...if you were hired as the campaign manager for any of the following candidates, who would you recommend they choose as their Vice Presidential candidate?

Joe Biden: Elizabeth Warren 

Cory Booker: Bernie Sanders 

Pete Buttigieg: Stacey Abrams

Julian Castro: Jeff Merkley

Tulsi Gabbard: Bill De Blasio

Kirsten Gillibrand: Richard Ojeda

Kamala Harris: Tim Ryan

John Hickenlooper: Andrew Gillum

Jay Inslee: Pete Buttigieg

Amy Klobuchar: Beto O'Rourke 

Beto O'Rourke: Bernie Sanders 

Bernie Sanders: Tulsi Gabbard 

Elizabeth Warren: Cory Booker 

(Yes, I left out some declared candidates -- mostly because I believe they'll have trouble getting past 0%.  Feel free to add them in your response, if you're so inclined.)
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Biden: Amy Klobuchar 

Cory Booker: Amy Klobuchar

Pete Buttigieg: Kamala Harris

Julian Castro: Amy Klobuchar

Tulsi Gabbard: Julian Castro

Kirsten Gillibrand: Julian Castro

Kamala Harris: Beto O'Rourke

John Hickenlooper: Kamala Harris

Jay Inslee: Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar: Cory Booker

Beto O'Rourke: Kamala Harris

Bernie Sanders: Kamala Harris

Elizabeth Warren: Julian Castro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Biden: Stacey Abrams

Cory Booker: John Hickenlooper

Pete Buttigieg: Terry McAuliffe

Julian Castro: Stacey Abrams

Tulsi Gabbard: Doug Jones


Kirsten Gillibrand: Beto O'Rourke

Kamala Harris: Beto O'Rourke

John Hickenlooper: Maria Cantwell

Jay Inslee: Cory Booker

Amy Klobuchar: Terry McAuliffe

Beto O'Rourke: Tim Ryan

Bernie Sanders: Stephanie Murphy

Elizabeth Warren: Steve Bullock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Independent of whether you actually support them...if you were hired as the campaign manager for any of the following candidates, who would you recommend they choose as their Vice Presidential candidate?

Joe Biden:

Cory Booker:

Pete Buttigieg:

Julian Castro:

Tulsi Gabbard:

Kirsten Gillibrand:

Kamala Harris:

John Hickenlooper

Jay Inslee:

Amy Klobuchar:

Beto O'Rourke

Bernie Sanders

Elizabeth Warren

(Yes, I left out some declared candidates -- mostly because I believe they'll have trouble getting past 0%.  Feel free to add them in your response, if you're so inclined.)
 

I'm starting to think that Sanders should be the VP for everyone, just to keep 25% of his supporters voting Democrat. If Sanders is the nominee, then he should O'Rourke or Buttigieg or Harris or Klobuchar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm starting to think that Sanders should be the VP for everyone, just to keep 25% of his supporters voting Democrat. If Sanders is the nominee, then he should O'Rourke or Buttigieg or Harris or Klobuchar. 

I know we have this discussion every day, but I think Sanders is a Clinton-esque (or worse) boogeyman who would scare Republicans to the polls even if they're done with Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

I know we have this discussion every day, but I think Sanders is a Clinton-esque (or worse) boogeyman who would scare Republicans to the polls even if they're done with Trump.

Yet another good reason why more than two viable choices in the GE would be of immense benefit to American political health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Yet another good reason why more than two viable choices in the GE would be of immense benefit to American political health.

Ok.  You mention this a lot.  How would you propose we achieve it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

Ok.  You mention this a lot.  How would you propose we achieve it?

The Electoral College is probably the biggest instrument of enforcement of a political Duopoly. Abolishing it, and going to a system of electing a President more akin to France, Poland, Mexico, Brazil, or the Philippines (which, I might point out, are NOT in constant anarchy and political paralysis) would allow a viable multi-party system to emerge. Given the tension of the various camps in both the Republican and Democratic Parties, and acrimonious Primaries, what incentive would they have to retain the illusion of party cohesion and not break their own ways as separate parties if the practical, de facto necessity of the Electoral College and major party nomination wasn't hanging over their heads like a damacles blade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I like the Biden/Warren idea.

Even though I'm a huge Bernie Sanders supporter I think that that is potentially one of the strongest tickets against Donald Trump. Again this is just my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Biden: Elizabeth Warren

Cory Booker: Elizabeth Warren

Pete Buttigieg: Elizabeth Warren

Julian Castro: Cory Booker

Tulsi Gabbard: Amy Klobuchar

Kirsten Gillibrand: Tulsi Gabbard

Kamala Harris: Elizabeth Warren

John Hickenlooper: Tulsi Gabbard

Jay Inslee: Pete Buttigieg

Amy Klobuchar: Pete Buttigieg

Beto O'Rourke: Elizabeth Warren

Bernie Sanders: Stacey Abrams

Elizabeth Warren: Stacey Abrams
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Patine said:

The Electoral College is probably the biggest instrument of enforcement of a political Duopoly. Abolishing it, and going to a system of electing a President more akin to France, Poland, Mexico, Brazil, or the Philippines (which, I might point out, are NOT in constant anarchy and political paralysis) would allow a viable multi-party system to emerge. Given the tension of the various camps in both the Republican and Democratic Parties, and acrimonious Primaries, what incentive would they have to retain the illusion of party cohesion and not break their own ways as separate parties if the practical, de facto necessity of the Electoral College and major party nomination wasn't hanging over their heads like a damacles blade?

I (think) I understand what you're saying.  I'm just not sure I reach the same conclusion.

Okay, you ban the electoral college.  Move strictly to the popular vote.  Fine.

But how does this lead to viable third, fourth, and fifth parties?

We've been conditioned over the past 237 years...and especially after the 12th amendment passed in 1804...to think in terms of two parties.  Sure, you may not love your party's candidate, but he's sure as hell better than the OTHER guy!

There have occasionally been viable third party candidates over the past 237 years -- even a former President (Teddy Roosevelt).  But in every example I can think of, the third party achieved nothing better than playing "spoiler" to the party they would have otherwise preferred be the winner.

I don't think banning electoral college alone is enough to defeat a 237-year mindset of "we must unite together to beat the other guy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Patine said:

The Electoral College is probably the biggest instrument of enforcement of a political Duopoly. Abolishing it, and going to a system of electing a President more akin to France, Poland, Mexico, Brazil, or the Philippines (which, I might point out, are NOT in constant anarchy and political paralysis) would allow a viable multi-party system to emerge. Given the tension of the various camps in both the Republican and Democratic Parties, and acrimonious Primaries, what incentive would they have to retain the illusion of party cohesion and not break their own ways as separate parties if the practical, de facto necessity of the Electoral College and major party nomination wasn't hanging over their heads like a damacles blade?

 

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

I (think) I understand what you're saying.  I'm just not sure I reach the same conclusion.

Okay, you ban the electoral college.  Move strictly to the popular vote.  Fine.

But how does this lead to viable third, fourth, and fifth parties?

We've been conditioned over the past 237 years...and especially after the 12th amendment passed in 1804...to think in terms of two parties.  Sure, you may not love your party's candidate, but he's sure as hell better than the OTHER guy!

There have occasionally been viable third party candidates over the past 237 years -- even a former President (Teddy Roosevelt).  But in every example I can think of, the third party achieved nothing better than playing "spoiler" to the party they would have otherwise preferred be the winner.

I don't think banning electoral college alone is enough to defeat a 237-year mindset of "we must unite together to beat the other guy."

Maaaaybe if we abolished the electoral college "and" introduced ranked-choice voting.  I could see that possibly working.

But it simply takes so many resources to run for President.  The benefit of a party is that they have those resources to consolidate around a single candidate.  Get rid of the party, and it would seem only the wealthiest could run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

 

Maaaaybe if we abolished the electoral college "and" introduced ranked-choice voting.  I could see that possibly working.

But it simply takes so many resources to run for President.  The benefit of a party is that they have those resources to consolidate around a single candidate.  Get rid of the party, and it would seem only the wealthiest could run.

 Thank you for bringing up ranked  choice voting. I agree with your point 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I (think) I understand what you're saying.  I'm just not sure I reach the same conclusion.

Okay, you ban the electoral college.  Move strictly to the popular vote.  Fine.

But how does this lead to viable third, fourth, and fifth parties?

We've been conditioned over the past 237 years...and especially after the 12th amendment passed in 1804...to think in terms of two parties.  Sure, you may not love your party's candidate, but he's sure as hell better than the OTHER guy!

There have occasionally been viable third party candidates over the past 237 years -- even a former President (Teddy Roosevelt).  But in every example I can think of, the third party achieved nothing better than playing "spoiler" to the party they would have otherwise preferred be the winner.

I don't think banning electoral college alone is enough to defeat a 237-year mindset of "we must unite together to beat the other guy."

 

10 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

 

Maaaaybe if we abolished the electoral college "and" introduced ranked-choice voting.  I could see that possibly working.

But it simply takes so many resources to run for President.  The benefit of a party is that they have those resources to consolidate around a single candidate.  Get rid of the party, and it would seem only the wealthiest could run.

The acrimony and sharp divisions between camps within the two main parties - you can see their vicious, divisive lines every contested Primary, and in Congressional caucuses quite clearly - are the obvious faultlines I speak of. It would just the unchaining of the electoral mechanisms by the abolition of the EC, and don't imagine the two main parties COULD even stay together long if they didn't have to to have a chance of winning. Plus, most of the major camps in each current main party could levy very impressive electoral resources, each of their own, in such a political environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

Joe Biden: Amy Klobuchar 

Cory Booker: Amy Klobuchar

Pete Buttigieg: Kamala Harris

Julian Castro: Amy Klobuchar

Tulsi Gabbard: Julian Castro

Kirsten Gillibrand: Julian Castro

Kamala Harris: Beto O'Rourke

John Hickenlooper: Kamala Harris

Jay Inslee: Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar: Cory Booker

Beto O'Rourke: Kamala Harris

Bernie Sanders: Kamala Harris

Elizabeth Warren: Julian Castro

I agree, except that Biden should choose Harris, and Buttigieg should choose Klobuchar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...