Jump to content
270soft Forum

Potential VP picks helping/hurting the ticket


Recommended Posts

I watched an interesting YouTube video (channel is Let's Talk Elections - I quite like it actually, I encourage all of you to check it out) about where and how much each VP pick would help the ticket (I think it's based on betting odds, but don't quote me on that, it wasn't really stated). 

First up is Sen. Klobuchar (Red is Hurting, Blue helping)

image.thumb.png.bca59fd6778bcc9406c810c2bed1d661.png

I was previously rather ambivalent to Klobuchar's chances as a VP. I didn't care much either way. But looking at this map - she really only helps in battlegrounds of Ohio, Iowa, and Minnesota. If this is true, I am actively rooting against her. I think with the protests in Minneapolis it will only hurt her chances going through. Maybe a Cabinet slot, but I don't think the VP is in the cards for her anymore.

Second is Sen. Harris

image.thumb.png.cf1ac3a50b8dae0e80ebb7dbb38f5e9c.png

This looks good for Kamala Harris. But the thing I am most concerned about is look at all of those states. They're not darker blue. They're the light shade of blue, which means it isn't a huge help. It's probably simply because they have a name to associate with VP. Her help in Arizona would be good, but look at NH. If that is replicated in places like Wisconsin and Minnesota, there's risks there too.

Third is Rep. Demings

image.thumb.png.b5bd876794827bdc3cde7a9a48fceaae.png

The good thing for Val Demings is the dark blue in Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. The not-so-great part is the red in Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Iowa, and dark red in Minnesota. That could be poor name recognition, and it likely is, but if that pans out to be something other than that, I don't think Democrats should put all of our cards into the south, and hope that we win one state, versus drowning the Midwest in cash. 

Fourth is Stacey Abrams

image.thumb.png.c1107442e1c9e53857bf953b3f55aaeb.png

I have to admit, her map looks better than I thought it might. There's obvious bonuses in NC and GA, but as I said earlier, I don't think Democrats should put a bunch of cash into still likely Republican states, and take hits in Maine, Minnesota, and Iowa. She does good in PA too, which is something to watch for, but the light shade of blue in WI and MI could easily turn red with a bit of effort from the GOP. 

Fifth is Sen. Elizabeth Warren

image.thumb.png.c74bd45f8be72831e13a197ec035b695.png

(I think the color palette may have changed a bit too...) But regardless of that, WI, MI, AZ,  NH, and even TX are dark blue. That means Warren is a significant help in those states. I have to be honest, on the flip side of Klobuchar, I thought Warren would alienate moderates who wouldn't vote Biden if she were VP. But I think we're starting to see that Never Trumpers aren't horribly concerned about the VP slot, whereas leftist Democrats are. This is pulling me back towards Warren again. This kind of help would be a crushing win for Biden, if this pans out in the end. 

That's why Elizabeth Warren should be on the ticket. And I don't doubt Biden is paying attention. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The VP ticket generally doesn’t help much more than in the home state, to a lesser extent, the home region, unless there is a strong 2nd wing of the party that requires representation. For this, the Warren effect is there. I don’t think the Harris has any effect. Klobuchar will help secure MN and could possible help in MI and OH. Warren might help in NH and ME but since she’s very ideologically different she’ll turn out more votes. People don’t often stop supporting a candidate because of a VP choice. Warren isn’t a Palin either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was originally a strong Warren supporter for VP and a strong Klobuchar detractor (though I would vote for Biden regardless).

However, with recent events being what they are, Demings (a black woman who was a former patrol officer who worked her way up to Chief of Police -- and married a man who is also a black former patrol officer who worked his way up to Chief of Police in a different precinct) is really feeling like the right person in the right moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is really having a moment here. I also don't give much stock to what LTE has to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been hopeful of Demings from the get go. She seems ready to step into the role of the president if need be and a good candidate to succeed Biden in 4 years time. Sure, she’d be pretty old and that’s a turn off, but I can see her being someone that both younger liberals like myself could support and older liberals that support Biden could get behind after 4 years in office. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I just went to watch the video and it's only worth taking with a mine of salt. I don't think there's much value here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Klobuchar's chances have been shot with all that is going on now. She will not help at all.

Harris probably helps a bit and I think at this point is one of the most likely choices. Demings is a good possibility as well, but I think name recognition will make Harris be a bigger help. 

Warren has always been my top choice and I think she is the most popular among these choices, and can help get some of the progressive wing on board. And if you look at the voting demographics Warren did well with, it definitely looks to balance out the ticket pretty good. 

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

Harris probably helps a bit and I think at this point is one of the most likely choices. Demings is a good possibility as well, but I think name recognition will make Harris be a bigger help. 

I still find Harris to be morally repugnant. Then again, the last U.S. Presidential election candidate for a major party I think that either didn't start out as, or end up as, being morally repugnant was Michael Dukakis, frankly...

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

I still find Harris to be morally repugnant. Then again, the last U.S. Presidential election candidate for a major party I think that either didn't start out as, or end up as, being morally repugnant was Michael Dukakis, frankly...

What candidates in the past half a century have you actually felt were morally upstanding? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

What candidates in the past half a century have you actually felt were morally upstanding? 

Of major party candidate? Only McGovern, Carter, and Dukakis, really.

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

Running mates don't matter

With most elections, I might agree.  I certainly think regional balance doesn't matter.  But there is a degree of party healing that can come from VP choices.  Choosing Mike Pence put the "religious right" more at ease with a President who is seemingly the opposite of everything they claimed to stand for, while Clinton's choice of Tim Kaine did nothing for her own party's rifts.

Likewise, relative newbie Obama chose the Chair of the Foreign Affairs committee, Joe Biden, on experience.  While McCain chose a fellow free-wheeling "maverick", Sarah Palin, with disastrous results.  

Much like Obama & Biden, W Bush was an outsider bringing in the experienced Cheney.  Clinton and Gore were of the same age and region, but Clinton seemed fun and Gore seemed all business.  Outsider Reagan brought insider HW Bush.  etc.

But regardless of whether you feel running mates usually matter or not, there's the simple fact that Biden will be our oldest President ever -- on the backs of someone who is already our oldest President ever.

That alone makes the VP choice matter a lot. 

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

My first response is: these are made up numbers.

Yeah, I agree. It doesn't make sense. Alternatively, they're using numbers that might apply to these states in some way, but weren't intended to judge support for a VP. 

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

With most elections, I might agree.  I certainly think regional balance doesn't matter.  But there is a degree of party healing that can come from VP choices.  Choosing Mike Pence put the "religious right" more at ease with a President who is seemingly the opposite of everything they claimed to stand for, while Clinton's choice of Tim Kaine did nothing for her own party's rifts.

Likewise, relative newbie Obama chose the Chair of the Foreign Affairs committee, Joe Biden, on experience.  While McCain chose a fellow free-wheeling "maverick", Sarah Palin, with disastrous results.  

Much like Obama & Biden, W Bush was an outsider bringing in the experienced Cheney.  Clinton and Gore were of the same age and region, but Clinton seemed fun and Gore seemed all business.  Outsider Reagan brought insider HW Bush.  etc.

But regardless of whether you feel running mates usually matter or not, there's the simple fact that Biden will be our oldest President ever -- on the backs of someone who is already our oldest President ever.

That alone makes the VP choice matter a lot. 

Religious right... 😒😒

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...