Jump to content
270soft Forum

Klobuchar being vetted to be VP


Recommended Posts

Biden is apparently vetting Klobuchar to be VP.........ugh. He's Hillary-Clintoning it with a Tim-Kaine-VP choice. 

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

Biden is apparently vetting Klobuchar to be VP.........ugh. He's Hillary-Clintoning it with a Tim-Kaine-VP choice. 

It's to show a "triumph," in the Roman definition, over the Sanders and other more Progressive branches demanding real change, reform, accountability, improvement, justice, and better economic conditions and improving labour and living standards while calling out and restricting abusive and exploitative and corporate power and firmly solidifying "Establishment," power and pretending it's victory and supremacy is now final (or will be with a hoped for defeat of Trump), and that the belief that the "Establishment," will be able to continue governing, without needing to acknowledge or change the odious, corrupt, power-abusive, unaccountable, non-transparent, and criminal style of governance it's become used to, complete with rigged elections, kowtowing to plutocrats over their own constituents, "emergency measures," to perennially strip citizens of their right and violate Constitutional limits on the Government, and illegal wars to enrich big corporations, as well funding foreign bloody-handed, human-rights-abusin regimes, terrorist organizations, and secret police agencies, while fervently denouncing all three concepts vehemently, in principle. This arrogant notion, I prognosticate, will reap a very bitter harvest in the long run - and maybe not that long...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Klobuchar, and still hardly know who Tim Kaine is beyond being a Virginia Senator who was Hillary's running mate.

 

This is nowhere near a "Tim Kaine" situation, as:

 

A. She is a she.

B. She is from a battleground region.

C. She had nationwide exposure campaigning.

D. She has already been involved with the media.

E. She is, for a moderate, progressive in areas usually unheard of in the mainstream: unions, labor, etc.

F. People from outside the Democrats know who she is and like her.

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

It's to show a "triumph," in the Roman definition, over the Sanders and other more Progressive branches demanding real change, reform, accountability, improvement, justice, and better economic conditions and improving labour and living standards while calling out and restricting abusive and exploitative and corporate power and firmly solidifying "Establishment," power and pretending it's victory and supremacy is now final (or will be with a hoped for defeat of Trump), and that the belief that the "Establishment," will be able to continue governing, without needing to acknowledge or change the odious, corrupt, power-abusive, unaccountable, non-transparent, and criminal style of governance it's become used to, complete with rigged elections, kowtowing to plutocrats over their own constituents, "emergency measures," to perennially strip citizens of their right and violate Constitutional limits on the Government, and illegal wars to enrich big corporations, as well funding foreign bloody-handed, human-rights-abusin regimes, terrorist organizations, and secret police agencies, while fervently denouncing all three concepts vehemently, in principle. This arrogant notion, I prognosticate, will reap a very bitter harvest in the long run - and maybe not that long...

I don't think it's to show "triumph." I think it's because Biden thinks she'll help in her region and help in keeping moderate independents with him over Trump. It's a failed strategy, and it's one that hurt Clinton. He's basically playing it safe. Klobuchar doesn't excite the opposition like Warren would. I think you have to go bold to take on Trump. Klobuchar is not bold. I'd even prefer Kamala Harris, who I also wouldn't want to see as VP. At least Harris is an aggressive debater. Taking Klobuchar out of the Senate also makes it easier for the GOP to win that seat. Harris's seat is safe if she's taken out. This said, if Warren (my preferred choice) wasn't going to be vetted, I'd much rather have had Stacey Abrams or Gretechen Whitmer if a VP-able woman was going to be name as VP. 

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

I love Klobuchar, and still hardly know who Tim Kaine is beyond being a Virginia Senator who was Hillary's running mate.

 

This is nowhere near a "Tim Kaine" situation, as:

 

A. She is a she.

B. She is from a battleground region.

C. She had nationwide exposure campaigning.

D. She has already been involved with the media.

E. She is, for a moderate, progressive in areas usually unheard of in the mainstream: unions, labor, etc.

F. People from outside the Democrats know who she is and like her.

Tim Kaine

A: True. He's a he, but his gender was the designated gender of the 2016 VP because the she was the presidential nominee. 

B: Also from a battleground state (although less battleground state in 2020 than it was in 2016)

C . He campaigned nation-wide when he was the head of the DNC

D. Same for Kaine

E. Kaine and Klobuchar are about ideologically identical for the same reasons. 

F: I can't speak for non-Democrats on Kaine as I can't speak for them on Klobuchar. My guess is that Republicans wouldn't dislike either of them so much because they're both fairly boring and bipartisan. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Klobuchar is made the VP that's an easy sign to support Biden and not the Libertarian Party. If it's someone revolting like Stacy Abrams I can't do that. If it's someone middle of the road like Tammy Duckworth, I could see may way through supporting that.

Klobuchar is easily the best choice and I hope he picks her and combines the Joementum and Klobucharge, forming the much needed JOEBUCHARGE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

If Klobuchar is made the VP that's an easy sign to support Biden and not the Libertarian Party. If it's someone revolting like Stacy Abrams I can't do that. If it's someone middle of the road like Tammy Duckworth, I could see may way through supporting that.

Klobuchar is easily the best choice and I hope he picks her and combines the Joementum and Klobucharge, forming the much needed JOEBUCHARGE.

I notice the politicians who most often call the worst purjoratives (like "revolting,") - outside Third World tyrants and butchers - are the ones who believe that governments should actually devote public resources to actually *gasp* help and improve the lives of the citizenry, especially those who are disadvantaged due to existing economic and social factors, and not leave such improvement - or theoretical improvement - to "private solutions" (basically sociopathic, soulless mega-corporations driven only greed and with absolutely no care for the little people, and willing to bribe government to get around legal limitations on driving up huge, empty profit margins - like labour laws, consumer protection and product and service quality laws, and land and resource usage laws, etc.), and that laws that de facto favour those already prosperous over those struggling are just and equitable, and to be encouraged - even demanded. This tendency disturbs me.

"How you treat the lest amongst you is how you treat Me," Jesus Christ

That quote was NOT just referring to the unborn, before you make your retort.

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

I notice the politicians who most often call the worst purjoratives (like "revolting,") - outside Third World tyrants and butchers - are the ones who believe that governments should actually devote public resources to actually *gasp* help and improve the lives of the citizenry, especially those who are disadvantaged due to existing economic and social factors, and not leave such improvement - or theoretical improvement - to "private solutions" (basically sociopathic, soulless mega-corporations driven only greed and with absolutely no care for the little people, and willing to bribe government to get around legal limitations on driving up huge, empty profit margins - like labour laws, consumer protection and product and service quality laws, and land and resource usage laws, etc.), and that laws that de facto favour those already prosperous over those struggling are just and equitable, and to be encouraged - even demanded. This tendency disturbs me.

"How you treat the lest amongst you is how you treat Me," Jesus Christ

That quote was NOT just referring to the unborn, before you make your retort.

I had no idea that Donald Trump was one "who believe that governments should actually devote public resources to actually *gasp* help and improve the lives of the citizenry, especially those who are disadvantaged due to existing economic and social factors, and not leave such improvement - or theoretical improvement - to "private solutions" (basically sociopathic, soulless mega-corporations driven only greed and with absolutely no care for the little people, and willing to bribe government to get around legal limitations on driving up huge, empty profit margins - like labour laws, consumer protection and product and service quality laws, and land and resource usage laws, etc.), and that laws that de facto favour those already prosperous over those struggling are just and equitable, and to be encouraged - even demanded."

 

There, and entire retort not mentioning the unborn 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Klobuchar is easily the best choice and I hope he picks her and combines the Joementum and Klobucharge, forming the much needed JOEBUCHARGE.

I can't tell if this is satire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

I can't tell if this is satire.

No this is just how I feel about the candidates.

I love Amy, I think she'd make a terrific Vice President and she ought to be the 46th President given our current situation. She's easily one of the best Democrats out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I had no idea that Donald Trump was one "who believe that governments should actually devote public resources to actually *gasp* help and improve the lives of the citizenry, especially those who are disadvantaged due to existing economic and social factors, and not leave such improvement - or theoretical improvement - to "private solutions" (basically sociopathic, soulless mega-corporations driven only greed and with absolutely no care for the little people, and willing to bribe government to get around legal limitations on driving up huge, empty profit margins - like labour laws, consumer protection and product and service quality laws, and land and resource usage laws, etc.), and that laws that de facto favour those already prosperous over those struggling are just and equitable, and to be encouraged - even demanded."

 

There, and entire retort not mentioning the unborn 😉

Donald Trump I'll admit I forgot - but you're stated reason for detesting him are quite unique - or at least very rare to levy such charges at. Like in many other areas, he's a political anomaly. He is an exception to many American political trends, and using him in this way is as disingenuous as when I called @Actinguy recently on his utter lack of ability or desire to call high-level American political leaders to justice for their high and serious crimes and breaches of trust and blatant violations the laws and mandates that enable the very legitimacy of their offices, and even defends them as being above any indictment, investigation, or trial - or even any consideration of wrongdoing - and he too used his desire to drag Trump to justice as a retort. But, indeed, Trump is anomalous, and that DOESN'T change the fact that both you, and @Actinguy, knew EXACTLY what I was referring to, and just disingenuously used the exception, rather than the rule, of Donald Trump as a diversionary tactic - and a flimsy one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

I love Amy, I think she'd make a terrific Vice President and she ought to be the 46th President given our current situation. She's easily one of the best Democrats out there.

OK. A 'JOEBUCHARGE' sounds like something you call your credit card company to get reversed. ;) I've tried to make the case for a Klobuchar candidacy before on this board. I think she's a decent VP choice. She lacks charisma, but that's not what you want in a VP.

Requirements for VP, in order of importance, IMO.

1. Can this person credibly step in and be President at any point?

2. Will they help in governing?

3. Will they be a competent campaigner (no hidden skeletons, major gaffes, and so on - Pence was an awesome choice for this in 2016, BTW)?

4. Could they win in the next contested election (more important given Biden would most likely be a one-term President if he wins)?

My guess is that Klobuchar would be good for 3., perhaps decent for 2., could do worse with 1., a question mark for 4.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Biden is apparently vetting Klobuchar to be VP.........ugh. He's Hillary-Clintoning it with a Tim-Kaine-VP choice. 

I disagree that it's  Kaine-like choice. You can tell obviously that she is a better campaigner than he is. 20% in NH? Kaine couldn't have managed that. Klobuchar also has exposure with working on voting rights since the primary.

 

3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

OK. A 'JOEBUCHARGE' sounds like something you call your credit card company to get reversed. ;) I've tried to make the case for a Klobuchar candidacy before on this board. I think she's a decent VP choice. She lacks charisma, but that's not what you want in a VP.

Requirements for VP, in order of importance, IMO.

1. Can this person credibly step in and be President at any point?

2. Will they help in governing?

3. Will they be a competent campaigner (no hidden skeletons, major gaffes, and so on - Pence was an awesome choice for this in 2016, BTW)?

4. Could they win in the next contested election (more important given Biden would most likely be a one-term President if he wins)?

My guess is that Klobuchar would be good for 3., perhaps decent for 2., could do worse with 1., a question mark for 4.

I think definitely #1, probably for 2 (though Biden has a lot of legislative experience and executive, I'm not sure how much he'd need in that department), #3 is a maybe as well, who knows, #4 is always going to be a question mark for everyone.

 

I prefer others (Duckworth, Lujan Grisham), but I don't think Klobuchar would be an inherently bad choice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

OK. A 'JOEBUCHARGE' sounds like something you call your credit card company to get reversed. ;) I've tried to make the case for a Klobuchar candidacy before on this board. I think she's a decent VP choice. She lacks charisma, but that's not what you want in a VP.

Requirements for VP, in order of importance, IMO.

1. Can this person credibly step in and be President at any point?

2. Will they help in governing?

3. Will they be a competent campaigner (no hidden skeletons, major gaffes, and so on - Pence was an awesome choice for this in 2016, BTW)?

4. Could they win in the next contested election (more important given Biden would most likely be a one-term President if he wins)?

My guess is that Klobuchar would be good for 3., perhaps decent for 2., could do worse with 1., a question mark for 4.

This list would be reordered or different on campaign, however. The first two points don't matter on the campaign. I'm more critical of Klobuchar as a campaign asset than as someone that could be VP

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the sane politicians out there and therefore I really hope she is picked, but I think many voters will view her as boring and not energetic enough.

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

This list would be reordered or different on campaign, however. The first two points don't matter on the campaign. I'm more critical of Klobuchar as a campaign asset than as someone that could be VP

Ya, gotta get elected first, so 3. is important. But the first 2 points matter even there, because voters typically realize the VP will be first in line to take over the Presidency and a probably important part of the Cabinet.

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

One of the sane politicians out there and therefore I really hope she is picked, but I think many voters will view her as boring and not energetic enough.

How are you defining "sane," here, if I may ask?

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

This list would be reordered or different on campaign, however. The first two points don't matter on the campaign. I'm more critical of Klobuchar as a campaign asset than as someone that could be VP

Sarah Palin?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Sarah Palin?

What about her? Palin has no comparison among any of the potential Dem VP picks. 

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

What about her? Palin has no comparison among any of the potential Dem VP picks. 

Exactly. You said that the first 2 points don't matter. She failed because she failed #1. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Exactly. You said that the first 2 points don't matter. She failed because she failed #1. 

What? No. She failed because of #3 clearly. Although, I don't think she'd have been good at #1 either.

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

What? No. She failed because of #3 clearly. Although, I don't think she'd have been good at #1 either.

She failed because no one could see her stepping in as President. At least, that's what I've always been told.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

She failed because no one could see her stepping in as President. At least, that's what I've always been told.

I don't know how old you were then, but I I had just moved to NYC after finishing grad school earlier that year. I was following it fairly closely. I remember where I was and what I was doing when she was announced as his VP. There was initial excitement, but she soon became a campaign liability with a series of bad interviews and occasional loose-cannon episodes on campaign. People were equally concerned with her Tea Party association, which helped Obama with moderates in places like IA, IN, NC, FL, and such. She was a campaign liability more than she was a bad potential VP. She had been governor of a state, which was one of the reasons for McCain picking her. Thus, at least on paper, she had some experience (she never finished her term). It was her personality on campaign that hurt McCain more than it was the perception of her not being a good VP. This was captured routinely on SNL I can't think of SNL using the hypothetical of her become president if McCain was ever elected. 

I remember all of the elections well going back to 2004. I first voted in 2000, but I didn't keep up with day-to-day election stuff until 2004. The earliest election I remember casually keeping up with was 1988. I was a live for 1980 (barely) and 1984, but I don't remember those elections at the time at all. I just remember the president was "President Reagan" (I don't think I knew his first name when I was a kid), and he was on TV all the time. Probably the first political event I remember well was the Challenger disaster, Black Monday (stock market crash), or Iran-Contra. I forget which came first, probably the Challenger disaster. 

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

I don't know how old you were then, but I I had just moved to NYC after finishing grad school earlier that year. I was following it fairly closely. I remember where I was and what I was doing when she was announced as his VP. There was initial excitement, but she soon became a campaign liability with a series of bad interviews and occasional loose-cannon episodes on campaign. People were equally concerned with her Tea Party association, which helped Obama with moderates in places like IA, IN, NC, FL, and such. She was a campaign liability more than she was a bad potential VP. She had been governor of a state, which was one of the reasons for McCain picking her. Thus, at least on paper, she had some experience (she never finished her term). It was her personality on campaign that hurt McCain more than it was the perception of her not being a good VP. This was captured routinely on SNL I can't think of SNL using the hypothetical of her become president if McCain was ever elected. 

I remember all of the elections well going back to 2004. I first voted in 2000, but I didn't keep up with day-to-day election stuff until 2004. The earliest election I remember casually keeping up with was 1988. I was a live for 1980 (barely) and 1984, but I don't remember those elections at the time at all. I just remember the president was "President Reagan" (I don't think I knew his first name when I was a kid), and he was on TV all the time. Probably the first political event I remember well was the Challenger disaster, Black Monday (stock market crash), or Iran-Contra. I forget which came first, probably the Challenger disaster. 

Was it Melissa McCarthy or Tina Fey that played Palin on SNL?

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

Was it Melissa McCarthy or Tina Fey that played Palin on SNL?

Tina Fey

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...