Jump to content
270soft Forum
billay

Did Biden make a mistake by committing to picking a woman as VP?

Recommended Posts

Atleast so early on. I get it Hillary lost the white woman vote to Trump but I think that had more to do with who she is as a person.

The way I see it is I dont think someone like Kamala Harris does much for the ticket infact could be a negative. Cal Demming sp? Is a good choice but is widely unknown, I really dont think Warren is in consideration but who knows.

 

I think Sherrod Brown would be an excellent VP pick. While Biden is ahead in the rust belt I cant help but think how much further he would be ahead with a guy like Brown who is also popular in progressive circles and could help fill a void.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, billay said:

Atleast so early on. I get it Hillary lost the white woman vote to Trump but I think that had more to do with who she is as a person.

The way I see it is I dont think someone like Kamala Harris does much for the ticket infact could be a negative. Cal Demming sp? Is a good choice but is widely unknown, I really dont think Warren is in consideration but who knows.

 

I think Sherrod Brown would be an excellent VP pick. While Biden is ahead in the rust belt I cant help but think how much further he would be ahead with a guy like Brown who is also popular in progressive circles and could help fill a void.

 

Thoughts?

Well, at least he's named actual, known possibilities for the role, and hinted at others for Cabinet and other positions more obliquely and by intimation, even if some, like Harris, are REALLY bad ideas - in contrast to Romney in 2012 and his infamous "folders full of women," - which sounds suspiciously like admitting to frequenting "escort services," and "gentleman's clubs."

Share this post


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

Well, at least he's named actual, known possibilities for the role, and hinted at others for Cabinet and other positions more obliquely and by intimation, even if some, like Harris, are REALLY bad ideas - in contrast to Romney in 2012 and his infamous "folders full of women," - which sounds suspiciously like admitting to frequenting "escort services," and "gentleman's clubs."

Do people outside of the Ron Paul supporters and maybe Bernie Sanders supporters actually care about cabinet positions though? I mean I find it hard to believe the deciding vote for Biden will be because Brown will have a cabinet position. I think he has much less baggage among hot button issues than Harris does. Gabbard who's a no name candidate pretty much destroyed her on some pretty important issues to progressives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Committing to a woman VP early unified the Democratic Party post-primary and has kept activist women members of the party engaged, such as Warren supporters.

Also, it's just the right thing to do.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it was a mistake. Before you make such a decision, you should vet all options you consider the best. The most qualified person might not necessarily be a (black) woman.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Yes it was a mistake. Before you make such a decision, you should vet all options you consider the best. The most qualified person might not necessarily be a (black) woman.

Yeah anything short of Michelle Obama seems like a liability. Like I said Demmings is an unknown, Harris has a controversial background,  Warren might be looked at as too far left.

 

Brown makes the most sense. Hell 5-10% of Republicans would vote Biden if John Kaisch was the guy. It would turn off the far left but win said Republicans and he would win independents.  

 

To me the pledge to nominating a woman was a reach but was said because he was down 0-3 with super tuesday looming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, billay said:

Yeah anything short of Michelle Obama seems like a liability. Like I said Demmings is an unknown, Harris has a controversial background,  Warren might be looked at as too far left.

 

Brown makes the most sense. Hell 5-10% of Republicans would vote Biden if John Kaisch was the guy. It would turn off the far left but win said Republicans and he would win independents.  

 

To me the pledge to nominating a woman was a reach but was said because he was down 0-3 with super tuesday looming.

It seems that your criticism of his pledge is that a female running mate will be inherently much more likely to be an inferior choice. Although you haven't directly out and said that, the intimation seems to be there, subtly.

7 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Yes it was a mistake. Before you make such a decision, you should vet all options you consider the best. The most qualified person might not necessarily be a (black) woman.

And you also seem to share, a bit less subtly, @billay's seemingly intimated concern - and seem to read a specific promise of a race of said running mate that wasn't specifically made, but that you also, nonetheless see as an inherent impediment to actual qualification. Ultimately, Biden literally has TONNES of potential candidates he could potentially tap without such pledge, like most major party Presidential candidates - and immense number, really - that declaring a pledged gender doesn't really hamstring him as much as you might think - unless, of course, you have other reasons to think a pledged female running mate would be a liability by gender ALONE, that you aren't admitting to.

Share this post


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

It seems that your criticism of his pledge is that a female running mate will be inherently much more likely to be an inferior choice. Although you haven't directly out and said that, the intimation seems to be there, subtly.

And you also seem to share, a bit less subtly, @billay's seemingly intimated concern - and seem to read a specific promise of a race of said running mate that wasn't specifically made, but that you also, nonetheless see as an inherent impediment to actual qualification. Ultimately, Biden literally has TONNES of potential candidates he could potentially tap without such pledge, like most major party Presidential candidates - and immense number, really - that declaring a pledged gender doesn't really hamstring him as much as you might think - unless, of course, you have other reasons to think a pledged female running mate would be a liability by gender ALONE, that you aren't admitting to.

My point is just arguing against limiting oneself by making such a pledge. Committing to nominate a (white) male would not be a better pledge at all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

My point is just arguing against limiting oneself by making such a pledge. Committing to nominate a (white) male would not be a better pledge at all.

The pledge was made for "party unity," purposes - something I personally think is low priority, but you often harp on about how essential, admirable, and great it is. Although it seems to only be a noble gesture if a Republican makes such a "unity," gesture - then it's practically worth swooning over to you. But Democrats making similar gestures - ideological and political differences aside - is not even recognized as such, but seen as "artificial limits for no reason." This is why the current state of American politics is caustic, self-destructive, and a clear sign of a once great civilization and empire in deep decline - the stage where many such empires (Rome as a good case study) were still unchallengeable militarily and economically, but internal social, political, cultural rot is killing it from within - the proverbial old oak - still strong and solid on the outside, but rotting and dying within. The American political divide, almost to the level of an Abraham Lincoln "House Divided that Cannot Stand," (even if the will for armed civil war is not war, Americans are destroying themselves and their nation and it's future along their political divide in other ways) is firmly at the level of a professional team sport, where only "scoring goals and stopping the other sides' goals," rather than serving and bettering their people and nation - completely in abdication and violation of their mandate of office and unworthy to govern, but the system is rigged so only these two corrupt criminal traitor parties can EVER WIN - and thus the system is a complete, except for the corrupt plutocrats who literally bribe government to do their bidding. You, in Austria, have firmly take a side in this WW1 socio-political trench warfare quagmire and fully drank the Kool-Aid despite your outside perspective. I have not succumbed to that distorted point-of-view, and have fully taken stock of my outside perspective for a REAL sense of perspective and proportion.

Share this post


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

The pledge was made for "party unity," purposes - something I personally think is low priority, but you often harp on about how essential, admirable, and great it is. Although it seems to only be a noble gesture if a Republican makes such a "unity," gesture - then it's practically worth swooning over to you. But Democrats making similar gestures - ideological and political differences aside - is not even recognized as such, but seen as "artificial limits for no reason."

I am not sure why committing to pick a woman as VP was a sign of party unity. If Klobuchar or Hillary Clinton had ended up as VP, it would not have been about fostering of party unity at all - despite the fact they are women. Sanders was the main rival. It wasn't a situation in which all female voters backed a female candidate. The matter of the fact is the objective of party unity would have been reached by committing to pick a progressive (which could be a male politician as well).

The equivalent might be a moderate winning the GOP primary and committing to pick a Tea Party VP. You are insinuating I'd support this move, but in fact I would not be excited. It eliminates half of the party or even more to get on the ticket. If a Tea Party guy committed to an Establishment VP I'd be perhaps a little bit more excited, as I am somewhat skeptical towards the whole Tea Party movement. However, I'd still be no fan of limiting oneself when it comes to such a critical decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I am not sure why committing to pick a woman as VP was a sign of party unity. If Klobuchar or Hillary Clinton had ended up as VP, it would not have been about fostering of party unity at all - despite the fact they are women. Sanders was the main rival. It wasn't a situation in which all female voters backed a female candidate. The matter of the fact is the objective of party unity would have been reached by committing to pick a progressive (which could be a male politician as well).

The equivalent might be a moderate winning the GOP primary and committing to pick a Tea Party VP. You are insinuating I'd support this move, but in fact I would not be excited. It eliminates half of the party or even more to get on the ticket. If a Tea Party guy committed to an Establishment VP I'd be perhaps a little bit more excited, as I am somewhat skeptical towards the whole Tea Party movement. However, I'd still be no fan of limiting oneself when it comes to such a critical decision. 

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. But, since I am not a member nor solid supporter of the Democratic Party of the United States (and CERTAINLY NOT the Republican Party of the United States), and do not receive their newsletters or attend their local committees, I am not fully versed enough to argue the full nuances of why this is viewed as a "party unity," scheme, and why locking out Sanders and his core supporters is viewed as essential. This is just declared to be a "party unity," tactic among Democrats, and it seems to have plurality support, AT LEAST, possibly majority support, in the party as such,

Share this post


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

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. But, since I am not a member nor solid supporter of the Democratic Party of the United States (and CERTAINLY NOT the Republican Party of the United States), and do not receive their newsletters or attend their local committees, I am not fully versed enough to argue the full nuances of why this is viewed as a "party unity," scheme, and why locking out Sanders and his core supporters is viewed as essential. This is just declared to be a "party unity," tactic among Democrats, and it seems to have plurality support, AT LEAST, possibly majority support, in the party as such,

Yeah I am likewise not saying my assumptions are right, but it's how I think about the whole issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eliminating half the field for something immaterial to the ability to do the job before you start searching is a poor way to choose a candidate

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it was a mistake, because I think ultimately even if he didn't he would pick a woman VP anyway. I think no matter what if the nominee was a male, they would be inclined to pick a woman VP, it just makes sense when a big problem in politics is women being underrepresented. Though I will say that had Biden not committed to a woman, Castro would (or at least should) have been a top pick for his VP. Helps with Biden's struggle wit hispanic voters, and Castro is one of the strongest politicians when it comes to police reform. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, pilight said:

Eliminating half the field for something immaterial to the ability to do the job before you start searching is a poor way to choose a candidate

Well, every modern Presidential candidate with a viable chance of winning already does it by being nominated on a major party ticket, realistically and plausibly, right? Just a different sort of elimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, billay said:

Yeah anything short of Michelle Obama seems like a liability. Like I said Demmings is an unknown, Harris has a controversial background,  Warren might be looked at as too far left.

 

Brown makes the most sense. Hell 5-10% of Republicans would vote Biden if John Kaisch was the guy. It would turn off the far left but win said Republicans and he would win independents.  

 

To me the pledge to nominating a woman was a reach but was said because he was down 0-3 with super tuesday looming.

Biden will be the oldest President we’ve ever had (three years older than Trump).

Choosing a Republican VP would be insanely short-sighted in that scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, billay said:

Yeah anything short of Michelle Obama seems like a liability. Like I said Demmings is an unknown, Harris has a controversial background,  Warren might be looked at as too far left.

 

Brown makes the most sense. Hell 5-10% of Republicans would vote Biden if John Kaisch was the guy. It would turn off the far left but win said Republicans and he would win independents.  

 

To me the pledge to nominating a woman was a reach but was said because he was down 0-3 with super tuesday looming.

 

8 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

My point is just arguing against limiting oneself by making such a pledge. Committing to nominate a (white) male would not be a better pledge at all.

 

5 hours ago, pilight said:

Eliminating half the field for something immaterial to the ability to do the job before you start searching is a poor way to choose a candidate

 

5 hours ago, MysteryKnight said:

I don't know if it was a mistake, because I think ultimately even if he didn't he would pick a woman VP anyway. I think no matter what if the nominee was a male, they would be inclined to pick a woman VP, it just makes sense when a big problem in politics is women being underrepresented. Though I will say that had Biden not committed to a woman, Castro would (or at least should) have been a top pick for his VP. Helps with Biden's struggle wit hispanic voters, and Castro is one of the strongest politicians when it comes to police reform. 

 

19 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Biden will be the oldest President we’ve ever had (three years older than Trump).

Choosing a Republican VP would be insanely short-sighted in that scenario.

I might also like to add, on that last point, that a bipartisan Presidential ticket, even against an absolute ogre of an incumbent, like the National Union ticket of 1864, is EXTREMELY unlikely (like the proverbial snowball's chance in Hell) of actually realistically happening in the current U.S. political zeitgeist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't help but get flashbacks to McCain/Palin in 2008 for some reason lol.  Yeah, the move reeks of identity politics to be honest.  We will see what the voters think in a few months.

Share this post


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

Can't help but get flashbacks to McCain/Palin in 2008 for some reason lol.  Yeah, the move reeks of identity politics to be honest.  We will see what the voters think in a few months.

His reasons for his choice of running were not at all the same. After the 2008 Republican Presidential Primaries, there was so much bad blood between the Primary candidates and their core supporters, and the party unity so badly damaged beyond an easy solution, that McCain choosing a rival, or a strong member of a rival's camp, would only exacerbate the so issue. So, he chose to move on, and select an outlier within the party, but one who still had a significant elected office. He was hastily given a short list by an aide, and chose Palin hurriedly without much vetting at all. Not the same situation in the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2020 at 10:47 PM, billay said:

 

 

I think Sherrod Brown would be an excellent VP pick. While Biden is ahead in the rust belt I cant help but think how much further he would be ahead with a guy like Brown who is also popular in progressive circles and could help fill a void.

 

Thoughts?

Even had Biden not made that pledge, Brown would be a risky VP pick. Brown, I believe, was the only Democrat to win statewide in 2018(despite it being a strong Democratic year). I state that because I believe DeWine is not obligated to appoint a Democrat to fill Brown's seat. 

 

Given Bidens strong appeal in the midwest, doubling down on a seat that could be lost after the election is a hard sell(especially when the Democrats aren't in the majority in the Senate).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Even had Biden not made that pledge, Brown would be a risky VP pick. Brown, I believe, was the only Democrat to win statewide in 2018(despite it being a strong Democratic year). I state that because I believe DeWine is not obligated to appoint a Democrat to fill Brown's seat. 

 

Given Bidens strong appeal in the midwest, doubling down on a seat that could be lost after the election is a hard sell(especially when the Democrats aren't in the majority in the Senate).

 

On ‎7‎/‎10‎/‎2020 at 8:47 PM, billay said:

Atleast so early on. I get it Hillary lost the white woman vote to Trump but I think that had more to do with who she is as a person.

The way I see it is I dont think someone like Kamala Harris does much for the ticket infact could be a negative. Cal Demming sp? Is a good choice but is widely unknown, I really dont think Warren is in consideration but who knows.

 

I think Sherrod Brown would be an excellent VP pick. While Biden is ahead in the rust belt I cant help but think how much further he would be ahead with a guy like Brown who is also popular in progressive circles and could help fill a void.

 

Thoughts?

Also, Sherrod Brown would be doubling down on the Establishment wing of the party, and showing a deliberate gesture to exclude the more Progressive and other unsatisfied-with-the-status-quo parts of the party (like Sanders-style Social Democrats), and basically giving a "victory spoils," attitude in the ticket. Then again, choosing Klobuchar or Harris, despite them being women, would ultimately give that attitude, as well, admittedly. Choosing Clinton would flamboyantly give that message, and outright give the finger to the more dissatisfied and less established parts of the party. Castro, however, might be more of a concession to those branches. So, thus, the binary is not purely on gender, but Brown would be a bad idea, especially because the more reformist branches are not small in number, and the Establishment branch is not as large as it once was. The GOP will likely have to go to extreme efforts to gain any sort of unity after Trump leaves politics, and that may get quite ugly. Of course I, for one, would love to these two parties the natural and appropriate fates that happen to political parties that repeated fail and cheat their constituents and show constant lack of unity or purpose (or very questionable and/or repugnant purpose) in healthier and more functional political systems where real choice exists - that is a political demise of some sort or another, and new parties taking the field - but since the corrupt and rigged won't ALLOW that in the U.S., such compromises for "unity and vision," must be made instead - as a political consolation, or "boobie," prize.

Share this post


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

Also, Sherrod Brown would be doubling down on the Establishment wing of the party, and showing a deliberate gesture to exclude the more Progressive and other unsatisfied-with-the-status-quo parts of the party (like Sanders-style Social Democrats), and basically giving a "victory spoils," attitude in the ticket.

Sherrod Brown, is a Progressive though, and I think most progressives would see his selection as a sort of olive branch. I certainly would, at least. I don't know where you got the idea Brown was a member of the 'Clintonite' establishment wing of the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

Sherrod Brown, is a Progressive though, and I think most progressives would see his selection as a sort of olive branch. I certainly would, at least. I don't know where you got the idea Brown was a member of the 'Clintonite' establishment wing of the party.

Brown was in the Senate with Clinton 😉. Let's ignore Brown's voting record or his history of supporting progressive causes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

Sherrod Brown, is a Progressive though, and I think most progressives would see his selection as a sort of olive branch. I certainly would, at least. I don't know where you got the idea Brown was a member of the 'Clintonite' establishment wing of the party.

 

19 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Brown was in the Senate with Clinton 😉. Let's ignore Brown's voting record or his history of supporting progressive causes. 

I might be thinking of another candidate who often comes up for running mate or other suggestions in these matters on these forums. I admit, my knowledge of the many, many lists of names of modern U.S. politicians being bandied about does get confused at times, and I have probably honestly mistook him for someone else. My apologies.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...