2020 Presidential Election

[bundabergdevil]

Not to get too far ahead of ourselves but in addition to Abrams, there are countless other possibilities for VP on the Dem side who are not in the pool of people running for president. In fact, I think you could get fairly good odds that the person chosen is not one of the countless current presidential candidates.

I'd agree with this. So, conventional VP-picking wisdom (which I am not saying is right) goes something like this:

1. Serviceable surrogate for the president at rallies and - once elected - certain domestic and foreign events
2. Can be reasonably seen as stepping into the presidency in the event of an emergency
3. Does not attract unwanted negative attention to the candidate's decision-making
4. Perceived as helping mobilize/deliver key constituency set or geography that is a gap for the candidate (Pence's selection providing cover to Trump with white evangelicals, eg)


If you're looking for potential VP candidates that are NOT dem presidential candidates, I'd look to very popular blue collar Democratic politicians (or ex) in states up for grabs...particularly the states like Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan that Trump barely turned red in 2016. If I'm Warren or Harris and I win the nomination, this is almost certainly where I'd go. Folks have already mentioned minority candidates that might help mobilize those constituencies and there are plenty of options that tick those boxes that are not running.

I actually don't think '4' has great data to back up the idea that VP matters all that much...

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I'd agree with this. So, conventional VP-picking wisdom (which I am not saying is right) goes something like this:

1. Serviceable surrogate for the president at rallies and - once elected - certain domestic and foreign events
2. Can be reasonably seen as stepping into the presidency in the event of an emergency
3. Does not attract unwanted negative attention to the candidate's decision-making
4. Perceived as helping mobilize/deliver key constituency set or geography that is a gap for the candidate (Pence's selection providing cover to Trump with white evangelicals, eg)


If you're looking for potential VP candidates that are NOT dem presidential candidates, I'd look to very popular blue collar Democratic politicians (or ex) in states up for grabs...particularly the states like Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan that Trump barely turned red in 2016. If I'm Warren or Harris and I win the nomination, this is almost certainly where I'd go. Folks have already mentioned minority candidates that might help mobilize those constituencies and there are plenty of options that tick those boxes that are not running.

I actually don't think '4' has great data to back up the idea that VP matters all that much...

To your point, someone who quickly pops to mind for me is former Philly mayor Michael Nutter. I believe he was generally quite well-liked in Philadelphia, he is African-American, Penn grad (that impresses me, though I think there is a growing group of voters who are anti-education). Doing some googling, it looks like he is pretty closely aligning himself to Biden, but things change. Former Philly mayor and PA governor Ed Rendell also could have been good but I unfortunately just read that he has Parkinson's.

Sherrod Brown of Ohio is also a good one (many thought he would run for President), though there is a pretty good chance that he would end up being succeeded in his Senate seat by a Republican.

[JasonEvans]

There are currently 17... 17!!... Democratic women in the Senate. There are another 6 female Democratic governors. There are several former members of Obama's cabinet who were women. There are many others (like Abrams or Sally Yates) who have a strong profile and accomplishments that could make them formidable VP contenders. The idea that there is a limited pool of women in the Democratic party who would be viable VP candidates is laughable.

[mattman91]

To your point, someone who quickly pops to mind for me is former Philly mayor Michael Nutter. I believe he was generally quite well-liked in Philadelphia, he is African-American, Penn grad (that impresses me, though I think there is a growing group of voters who are anti-education). Doing some googling, it looks like he is pretty closely aligning himself to Biden, but things change. Former Philly mayor and PA governor Ed Rendell also could have been good but I unfortunately just read that he has Parkinson's.

Sherrod Brown of Ohio is also a good one (many thought he would run for President), though there is a pretty good chance that he would end up being succeeded in his Senate seat by a Republican.

That is a bold statement. Care to elaborate?

[CrazyNotCrazie]

That is a bold statement. Care to elaborate?

By anti-education I mean not impressed by traditional academic credentials, not against education in general. Trump has made a point of railing against the coastal elites. Degrees from schools like Penn, Duke, Harvard, Yale have historically been signaling devices of intellect, and there are many people who, all things being equal, want someone who is very smart running the country. Of course, we all know there are countless brilliant people who did not attend "elite" schools, and there are plenty of people who attended "elite" schools who aren't that bright.

Here is an article that sums it up well - it is from what I believe is a fairly neutral source, though I could see how the tone could be perceived as somewhat partisan. I found it via Google - there are numerous other articles that make the same point and I think it is generally a pretty universally accepted point by now. So to revert to my original point - the fact that Nutter went to Penn impresses me, but there are plenty of people who either don't care or might even think of it as a bad thing (though ironically it is also the alma mater of Trump and most of his family).

https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-...e-donald-trump

Mods - please take down his post if I have jumped the shark in any way.

[dudog84]

This is THE key wrinkle. HRC received more votes than anyone for anything not named Barack Obama in the United States history.

I don't think she wants to be known for that trivia answer.

[Acymetric]

There are currently 17... 17!!... Democratic women in the Senate. There are another 6 female Democratic governors. There are several former members of Obama's cabinet who were women. There are many others (like Abrams or Sally Yates) who have a strong profile and accomplishments that could make them formidable VP contenders. The idea that there is a limited pool of women in the Democratic party who would be viable VP candidates is laughable.

I don't think anyone has suggested there is a limited pool? Abrams had even already been mentioned by name.

[dudog84]

I lived in Delaware not too long ago and was taking the train to DC from the Joe Biden train station on a regular basis...still have a lot of friends with deep roots in Delaware. It's amazing in such a compact state how accessible the politicians are. The two Senators and single DE rep were always on the trains back and forth to DC --- and always talking to people who knew them. Various Bidens are often out and about and I have several friends who do yoga with Governor Carney. So, what I'm trying to say, is be careful what you wish for because in small states an awful lot of your constituents actually know you. Might actually have to be accountable!

Wyoming then, or maybe Alaska! I just want to get in with as few votes as possible. Fewer babies to kiss (are they still allowed to do that?).

[JasonEvans]

I don't think anyone has suggested there is a limited pool? Abrams had even already been mentioned by name.

Sorry. When someone commented that the VP pick would be a woman if the nominee was a man, you wrote:

In that event if Harris or Warren aren't interested in taking the VP role I don't see that person coming from the current crop of candidates and I'm not sure who else would be in line.

I took your comment to mean you were unsure where the Dems would find some other woman besides Harris or Warren. I just wanted to point out there are quite literally dozens of very qualified and capable female Democrats with a national profile who are worthy of serious consideration. But, I clearly misunderstood the point you were making. Sorry about that.

[Acymetric]

Sorry. When someone commented that the VP pick would be a woman if the nominee was a man, you wrote:



I took your comment to mean you were unsure where the Dems would find some other woman besides Harris or Warren. I just wanted to point out there are quite literally dozens of very qualified and capable female Democrats with a national profile who are worthy of serious consideration. But, I clearly misunderstood the point you were making. Sorry about that.

No, I was saying that I have no idea who would have the inside track, not that that there weren't any women to be found. This is partly because, as you say, there is a fairly large pool to choose from (23 senators and governors not counting the 4 senators already in the race by my count), and partly because only a small handful of those stand out as having any real name recognition outside their home states (which isn't necessarily a requirement for a VP pick, but would be required for me to be able to identify specific person as a likely potential nominee, hence not being sure about who is next in line).

[dudog84]

There are currently 17... 17!!... Democratic women in the Senate. There are another 6 female Democratic governors. There are several former members of Obama's cabinet who were women. There are many others (like Abrams or Sally Yates) who have a strong profile and accomplishments that could make them formidable VP contenders. The idea that there is a limited pool of women in the Democratic party who would be viable VP candidates is laughable.

This post and the subsequent discussion triggered a memory of something that I had recently read, that there are only 13 R women in the House of Representatives. That is an incredible discrepancy.

So it's more than a perception that the R party is predominantly white and male. That does not bode well for them in this climate and the future.

13!! (Sorry Jason )

[Indoor66]

Wyoming then, or maybe Alaska! I just want to get in with as few votes as possible. Fewer babies to kiss (are they still allowed to do that?).

I lived and practiced in Cheyenne, WY and often had lunch at a table that included the Governor, Supreme Court Justices and, on occasion, a U. S. Senator or Congressman if they were in town.

[bundabergdevil]

I think recent elections at local, state and federal levels have shown that if a competent woman is running for office they'll win as often as any competent man. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/repor...b06ad4d25a0dce I do not think there is any electability gap these days. Give the public a decent candidate and they have a decent shot at winning.

Recent is they key term here because, as your article notes, 2018 was the first time women were elected at the same rates as white men. There are plenty of polls all over the political spectrum to suggest that voters prefer candidates with certain demographic profiles or would not vote for others, women among them. These polls look at various religious affiliations, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, etc and, while the country has been trending in a direction where these demographic attributes are of less consequence (remember, there was a time a big part of the electorate thought JFK's allegiance would be to the pope because he was Catholic), there are still some latent biases against women as commander in chief/president or other elected official for some. There is also a healthy gap in how the respective parties perceive women in office and the proof is in the pudding on that one:

660px-Women_Serving_in_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_by_Party_through_2019.jpg

To your point, someone who quickly pops to mind for me is former Philly mayor Michael Nutter. I believe he was generally quite well-liked in Philadelphia, he is African-American, Penn grad (that impresses me, though I think there is a growing group of voters who are anti-education). Doing some googling, it looks like he is pretty closely aligning himself to Biden, but things change. Former Philly mayor and PA governor Ed Rendell also could have been good but I unfortunately just read that he has Parkinson's.

Sherrod Brown of Ohio is also a good one (many thought he would run for President), though there is a pretty good chance that he would end up being succeeded in his Senate seat by a Republican.

Agree with you on Sherrod Brown. Have to imagine he'd be on a lot of short lists. Hadn't thought about Nutter but, you're right, he'd be on some lists, too.

Wyoming then, or maybe Alaska! I just want to get in with as few votes as possible. Fewer babies to kiss (are they still allowed to do that?).

Now we're cooking with gas! Alaska and Wyoming each have two senators (duh) and 1 representative --- they are the 1st/10th largest states and among the most scarcely populated. No babies to kiss, just good ol' fashion moose spooning.

EDIT: Well, shoot, I see Indoor's comment so you may be out of luck unless you stay out of the capitals...

EDIT 2: When I worked on the hill, the Montana State Society and delegation used to host an annual Rocky Mountain Oyster fest with very punny names. So, you could always attend make an appearance at that. Ah, they still do it --- Testy Fest!

[budwom]

Wyoming then, or maybe Alaska! I just want to get in with as few votes as possible. Fewer babies to kiss (are they still allowed to do that?).

Vermont is pretty much the same way, just one rep, and much of the population centers on Chittenden County, so ambling about in summer months I frequently come across our trio of Washingtonians...and due to a low birth rate, fewer icky babies to kiss, too. May have to pet a cow...two senators in their late 70s, opportunity looms.

[dudog84]

Vermont is pretty much the same way, just one rep, and much of the population centers on Chittenden County, so ambling about in summer months I frequently come across our trio of Washingtonians...and due to a low birth rate, fewer icky babies to kiss, too. May have to pet a cow...two senators in their late 70s, opportunity looms.

I like cows. Tasty! (actually, I had almost cut beef completely out of my diet when my doctor told me I needed more red meat, so I buy Maverick Ranch/Strauss Farms type at the market)

So tonight is kinda the official start of the race. Though I doubt there will be much viewership. I heard a good point recently, that a candidate has 3 big moments to make a splash (they'll have a bigger audience than normal):

1) when they announce
2) debates
3) the convention

Since only #2 has them all together, the next two nights are pretty important.

[PackMan97]

So tonight is kinda the official start of the race.

It will be interesting to see how the two night approach works.

I expect Warrent to be attcked tonight as the only candidate with some serious proposals. I expect her to fire back that she's the only ones with proposals. You can't make change with just promises.

I also imagine that candidates tomorrow night will jump on anyone that makes a gaffe tonight.

[budwom]

as much as I enjoy (maybe that's the wrong word) politics, I just can't bear to sit thru what I expect to be a bunch of mini speeches...for me, it's like the nfl playoffs, I don't pay much attention until you get down to at least the final four or eight...

[CrazyNotCrazie]

as much as I enjoy (maybe that's the wrong word) politics, I just can't bear to sit thru what I expect to be a bunch of mini speeches...for me, it's like the nfl playoffs, I don't pay much attention until you get down to at least the final four or eight...

I will try to watch it but I agree. It will just be all pre-scripted speeches. If, for example, someone goes after Warren, she might feel the need to go off script to defend herself, but otherwise, I expect there to be almost no "debating."

It has become kind of a running joke here in NYC that the mayor is off at these types of events, campaigning, when there is plenty going on here that theoretically need his attention. It is made worse by the fact that it is generally assumed that he has 0% chance of winning. Then again, there are many who think the city runs much better when he is in Iowa, Florida or South Carolina...

[OldPhiKap]

as much as I enjoy (maybe that's the wrong word) politics, I just can't bear to sit thru what I expect to be a bunch of mini speeches...for me, it's like the nfl playoffs, I don't pay much attention until you get down to at least the final four or eight...

I will try to watch it but I agree. It will just be all pre-scripted speeches. If, for example, someone goes after Warren, she might feel the need to go off script to defend herself, but otherwise, I expect there to be almost no "debating."

It has become kind of a running joke here in NYC that the mayor is off at these types of events, campaigning, when there is plenty going on here that theoretically need his attention. It is made worse by the fact that it is generally assumed that he has 0% chance of winning. Then again, there are many who think the city runs much better when he is in Iowa, Florida or South Carolina...

USMNT plays at 9. If that information is helpful to you. (It will be to me).

[CrazyNotCrazie]

USMNT plays at 9. If that information is helpful to you. (It will be to me).

I love the song but obviously I am rooting for the US!