RugbyRebels

We know it's a woman but who?

CNN pick their runners and riders here: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/09/poli ... index.html

My pick for him is Tammy Duckworth. https://www.biography.com/political-fig ... -duckworth

Solidly liberal, next generation, hard for the GOP to attack without looking even more like massive bellends.

One thing to add. i'm not absolutely certain that she's eligible given her birth in Thailand. I had thought her dad was American and in the military so she might have been born on a military base but that doesn't seem to be the case according to that biography. I'd have thought CNN would have checked her eligibility, but...

This is a tacit acknowledgement of the sisters in the game being the most competent available options. Whoever it is will need to be more than meat in the room in order to deal with the massive task of fixing fuck up after fuck up, and will be tasked with real responsibility over and above stopping Joe from drinking the hand sanitizer. It’s interesting in that the dearth of cpmetence in leaders is clearly the most acutely relevant issue, pundits still focus on optics and effects thereof on polling data rather than something more relevant to the need to have someone capable of handling the massive task ahead. All of those women have a case for being a better head of state than the actual nominee.

She might but it's untested as to whether she'd qualify. The other thing is what does she offer in terms of winning Illinois that Biden can't get from Obama? Another candidate might not want to mention Obama but at times it'd been the only word he seems to remember. So would he do better searching for someone who can add a few votes in Florida or Texas?

I thought someone, back before it was clear it would be Biden, might take Kamala Harris, but she did go after Biden in a big way, maybe they could sell that as a virtue on her part and that it shows Biden can take it rather than whine like a spoilt toddler

The thing that Biden needs most is to enthuse and turn out the liberal base. Fail to pick a liberal and he'll just confirm everything the Bernie Bros are already saying about him - that he'll talk a good game but be fundamentally centrist. He'll play well enough in Florida himself, and Texas is still unwinnable so not worth spending money or time on. For reasons I think are wrong-headed I don't think Kamala or Stacy Abrams will turn out the base. I'd piss myself laughing if he appointed Kamala to the SC. She's no more a partisan than Brett Kavanaugh.

He also needs whoever is his running mate to be a viable president. One heartbeat from the Presidency has rather more punch when the President is a man in his late 70s. All the candidates listed by CNN are fine in that respect. I worry a bit about Stacy Abrams in that she's never held office higher than state government but luckily the one President who cannot make that argument is the guy they're up against.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The thing that Biden needs most is to enthuse and turn out the liberal base. Fail to pick a liberal and he'll just confirm everything the Bernie Bros are already saying about him - that he'll talk a good game but be fundamentally centrist. He'll play well enough in Florida himself, and Texas is still unwinnable so not worth spending money or time on. For reasons I think are wrong-headed I don't think Kamala or Stacy Abrams will turn out the base. I'd piss myself laughing if he appointed Kamala to the SC. She's no more a partisan than Brett Kavanaugh.

He also needs whoever is his running mate to be a viable president. One heartbeat from the Presidency has rather more punch when the President is a man in his late 70s. All the candidates listed by CNN are fine in that respect. I worry a bit about Stacy Abrams in that she's never held office higher than state government but luckily the one President who cannot make that argument is the guy they're up against.

What is there about Trump that makes you think he's opposed to hypocrisy?

It would seem in simple terms Biden can play on being a centrist and force Trump to campaign hard in places like Texas (allowing Trump to alienate centrists) or Biden can go for being more liberal and looking to raise turnout. He could try both but so far Biden has looked inept on the campaign trail and needed to DNC to get him past a field that largely nobody had heard of and two of the more progressive candidates

Digby wrote:It would seem in simple terms Biden can play on being a centrist and force Trump to campaign hard in places like Texas (allowing Trump to alienate centrists) or Biden can go for being more liberal and looking to raise turnout. He could try both but so far Biden has looked inept on the campaign trail and needed to DNC to get him past a field that largely nobody had heard of and two of the more progressive candidates

He didn't need the DNC to get him past that field. That narrative is nonsense. He won handsomely in S Carolina from which point it was clear that no other centrist had a path to victory so they pulled out.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:It would seem in simple terms Biden can play on being a centrist and force Trump to campaign hard in places like Texas (allowing Trump to alienate centrists) or Biden can go for being more liberal and looking to raise turnout. He could try both but so far Biden has looked inept on the campaign trail and needed to DNC to get him past a field that largely nobody had heard of and two of the more progressive candidates

He didn't need the DNC to get him past that field. That narrative is nonsense. He won handsomely in S Carolina from which point it was clear that no other centrist had a path to victory so they pulled out.

He was on the verge of having no money but that ship was stabilised for him, if not by magic then by the DNC. And the other centrists were leant heavily on to withdraw, which I don't object to, if you can stand up to some heavy leaning you shouldn't get the job, but that also came from the big names in the DNC (and Obama if one considers him a big name inside the DNC)

And I get South Carolina is a big indication of where the black voters will be going, but that's a state the Dems lost by a bigger margin than Texas and it seemed you were happy to say Texas wasn't that contestable. There was more to the likes of Klobuchar and Buttigieg withdrawing than the South Carolina result, one might as well say it was Bloomberg in isolation as South Carolina

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:It would seem in simple terms Biden can play on being a centrist and force Trump to campaign hard in places like Texas (allowing Trump to alienate centrists) or Biden can go for being more liberal and looking to raise turnout. He could try both but so far Biden has looked inept on the campaign trail and needed to DNC to get him past a field that largely nobody had heard of and two of the more progressive candidates

He didn't need the DNC to get him past that field. That narrative is nonsense. He won handsomely in S Carolina from which point it was clear that no other centrist had a path to victory so they pulled out.

He was on the verge of having no money but that ship was stabilised for him, if not by magic then by the DNC. And the other centrists were leant heavily on to withdraw, which I don't object to, if you can stand up to some heavy leaning you shouldn't get the job, but that also came from the big names in the DNC (and Obama if one considers him a big name inside the DNC)

And I get South Carolina is a big indication of where the black voters will be going, but that's a state the Dems lost by a bigger margin than Texas and it seemed you were happy to say Texas wasn't that contestable. There was more to the likes of Klobuchar and Buttigieg withdrawing than the South Carolina result, one might as well say it was Bloomberg in isolation as South Carolina

Again nonsense.

Klobuchar and Buttigeig had problem attracting black voters. They (well Pete as Amy had precious little money) threw money and time at S Carolina in an effort to do just that because without attracting large numbers of black voters you simply cannot win the democratic nomination. How the Dems do in the general in S Carolina is completely irrelevant

Biden's money issues haven't gone away and no one fixed it for him - how on earth you think that happens god only knows. He got a funding boost from winning, because that's what happens.

Every single candidate stayed in until it became clear that they didn't have a path to victory. The moderates paths to victory were predicated on Biden stumbling and his support amongst black voters falling. It didn't so they had no path. Warren was the only liberal other than Sanders who has ever looked like having a prayer and (despite being clearly the best candidate) withdrew when it was clear that she couldn't win having lost even her home state.

All of which has little if anything to do with the VP selection, so I'll stop arguing about it.

Which Tyler wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The thing that Biden needs most is to enthuse and turn out the liberal base. Fail to pick a liberal and he'll just confirm everything the Bernie Bros are already saying about him - that he'll talk a good game but be fundamentally centrist. He'll play well enough in Florida himself, and Texas is still unwinnable so not worth spending money or time on. For reasons I think are wrong-headed I don't think Kamala or Stacy Abrams will turn out the base. I'd piss myself laughing if he appointed Kamala to the SC. She's no more a partisan than Brett Kavanaugh.

He also needs whoever is his running mate to be a viable president. One heartbeat from the Presidency has rather more punch when the President is a man in his late 70s. All the candidates listed by CNN are fine in that respect. I worry a bit about Stacy Abrams in that she's never held office higher than state government but luckily the one President who cannot make that argument is the guy they're up against.

What is there about Trump that makes you think he's opposed to hypocrisy?

Nothing but he's going to find it hard to land it. The MAGA faithful will of course lap it up but he probably needs more than that to win.

If ever we needed a sister with skillz, now is the time.

morepork wrote:If ever we needed a sister with skillz, now is the time.

Been hearing rumblings of him pickng Michelle Obama.

That’s not an option. Skillz not celebrity. I mean, is a Kardashian available?

Is Trump for sure keeping Pence? In as much as one can be sure Trump will not change course tomorrow

Digby wrote:Is Trump for sure keeping Pence? In as much as one can be sure Trump will not change course tomorrow

... a few rumors of Pence stepping aside for Nikki Haley.

morepork wrote:That’s not an option. Skillz not celebrity. I mean, is a Kardashian available?

Yeh Im pretty sure Kanye is available.

Coco wrote:

Digby wrote:Is Trump for sure keeping Pence? In as much as one can be sure Trump will not change course tomorrow

... a few rumors of Pence stepping aside for Nikki Haley.

They should have lunch together to discuss it. No, wait...

Coco wrote:

morepork wrote:That’s not an option. Skillz not celebrity. I mean, is a Kardashian available?

Yeh Im pretty sure Kanye is available.

Careful folks . Now Trump has opened the door to reality stars, how long before those seem like viable options?

Buggaluggs wrote:

Coco wrote:

Digby wrote:Is Trump for sure keeping Pence? In as much as one can be sure Trump will not change course tomorrow

... a few rumors of Pence stepping aside for Nikki Haley.

They should have lunch together to discuss it. No, wait...

He'd only fail to wear his mask in her presence so he can look her in the eye

Seems a relevant enough thread to post this.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/29/poli ... index.html

Mikey Brown wrote:Seems a relevant enough thread to post this.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/29/poli ... index.html

Abrams may have killed her chances there. The Biden campaign line stopped just short of claiming that the NY Times had cleared him - which was silly in the first place as it was bound to get push back in some quarters. In going to whole hog Abrams makes things worse rather than better which is the last thing you want from a Veep.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Seems a relevant enough thread to post this.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/29/poli ... index.html

Abrams may have killed her chances there. The Biden campaign line stopped just short of claiming that the NY Times had cleared him - which was silly in the first place as it was bound to get push back in some quarters. In going to whole hog Abrams makes things worse rather than better which is the last thing you want from a Veep.

You’ve reminded me to give this a rewatch. Assuming satire can still any sort of impact at all at this point.

Haha.

Somehow found my way here.

http://www.aimeebrodbeck.com/biden

I understand it's likely got absolutely nothing to do with Biden but some of that copy is mind-blowing. The whole thing is a fucking circus.

The Times is reporting this morning that many younger Dems are likely to deserve Biden over the allegations of sexual assault.

I’m starting to get the feeling that we will have four more years of this Trumpian comic opera.