U.S. Democratic Primary

[MigL]

There are at least three Republican groups ( one of the best known is the Lincoln Project ) who are actively campaigning against D Trump.
They are actually raising money for J Biden's campaign, and are trying to get an endorsement for J Biden from G W Bush, who has publicly stated he will not vote for D Trump.
I have even heard talk of J Biden picking a Republican woman of color as his VP.
I don't think it will ever happen, although it would be a great way to end the polarization in American politics.
Condolezza Rice was mentioned quite seriously, although if something were to happen to J Biden, the President would then be a Republican, so it will obviously never happen.
It would be nice to have some sane Republicans become dominant again, instead of the nut-jobs and ass-kissers who are in control of the party now.

Edited July 1, 2020 by MigL

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

There are at least three Republican groups ( one of the best known is the Lincoln Project ) who are actively campaigning against D Trump.
They are actually raising money for J Biden's campaign, and are trying to get an endorsement for J Biden from G W Bush, who has publicly stated he will not vote for D Trump.
I have even heard talk of J Biden picking a Republican woman of color as his VP.
I don't think it will ever happen, although it would be a great way to end the polarization in American politics.
Condolezza Rice was mentioned quite seriously, although if something were to happen to J Biden, the President would then be a Republican, so it will obviously never happen.
It would be nice to have some sane Republicans become dominant again, instead of the nut-jobs and ass-kissers who are in control of the party now.

Condy for prez!

[Curious layman]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I have even heard talk of J Biden picking a Republican woman of color as his VP.
I don't think it will ever happen, although it would be a great way to end the polarization in American politics.

I never knew you could do this. Do you think that changing the law so you have to have a VP of the opposite party would help keep both party's working together. If something happened to the president and it changed party's, wouldn't them having to pick a VP of the other party help keep it balanced.

Seems like a really good way to keep them on more sociable terms.

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

I have even heard talk of J Biden picking a Republican woman of color as his VP.
I don't think it will ever happen, although it would be a great way to end the polarization in American politics.

Lol. You're adorable sometimes, MigL. Love ya, brother

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Condolezza Rice was mentioned quite seriously

If this were to happen, it'd be far more likely IMO that she'd play a key role in his cabinet overseeing some important international relations rebuilding work,. It's not necessary to only consider these folks for potential VP picks.

 

22 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

I never knew you could do this. Do you think that changing the law so you have to have a VP of the opposite party would help keep both party's working together.

When the US was first founded, there was no "VP pick." Whomever came in 2nd place (the runner up) was automatically the VP.

There's no law preventing a VP from the other party now, either. The only thing preventing it is politics. It would alienate far more voters than it would attract.

John McCain famously considered picking Democrat Joe Lieberman to be his VP (in fact, it was his first choice), but then he decided he needed someone more serious as a running mate and picked Sarah Palin instead.

 

boom... /rimshot

Edited July 1, 2020 by iNow

[Endy0816]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

When the US was first founded, there was no "VP pick." Whomever came in 2nd place (the runner up) was automatically the VP.

It'd almost be worth bringing it back for the entertainment factor.

"I know you just lost to that guy, but guess who your new boss is?"

Always wonder what the Founding Fathers' thought process was on that one.

[iNow]

33 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

Always wonder what the Founding Fathers' thought process was on that one.

I suspect there are different interpretations, but mine is that they focused first on competence and representation of the voting public.

Basically, if these 2 people were qualified enough to be at the top of the pile for consideration, then they were also qualified to lead and would have the support of the people. 

Also, there weren’t parties back then so it’s not quite a 1-to-1 comparison with the situation today (today having the runner up be VP would make Trump have to be Biden’s backup). 

[MigL]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

but then he decided he needed someone more serious as a running mate and picked Sarah Palin instead.

I don't think J McCain picked her; the choice was likely forced on him by the GOP.
He would have done much better with J Lieberman. My choice would have been C Rice or C Powell as his running mate.
Any one of those three might have gained him the Presidency.

 

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

the choice was likely forced on him by the GOP.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/10/27/the-insiders

McCain’s top aides, including Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis, converged on Palin. Ed Rogers, the chairman of B.G.R., a well-connected, largely Republican lobbying firm, said, “Her criteria kept popping out. She was a governor—that’s good. The shorter the Washington résumé the better. A female is better still. And then there was her story.” He admitted, “There was concern that she was a novice.” In addition to Schmidt and Davis, Charles R. Black, Jr., the lobbyist and political operative who is McCain’s chief campaign adviser, reportedly favored Palin. Keene said, “I’m told that Charlie Black told McCain, ‘If you pick anyone else, you’re going to lose. But if you pick Palin you may win.’ ” (Black did not return calls for comment.) Meanwhile, McCain’s longtime friend said, “Kristol was out there shaking the pom-poms.”

[StringJunky]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't think J McCain picked her; the choice was likely forced on him by the GOP.
He would have done much better with J Lieberman. My choice would have been C Rice or C Powell as his running mate.
Any one of those three might have gained him the Presidency.

 

One of the things I look for in choosing a politician is gravitas; both Powell and Rice had it in spades.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

One of the things I look for in choosing a politician is gravitas; both Powell and Rice had it in spades.

Powell looked great up to the point he was the spokesman for US intelligence on the weapons of mass destruction Iraq supposedly had.

[iNow]

Today, Andrew Yang came and had an hour long remote chat with the employees at my work. It was super chill and laid back. He was in front of his laptop in what looked to be his bedroom, and he was talking about education, and healthcare, and freedom dividends. One of the attendees asked him if he’d consider running as a 3rd party candidate and he all but said, “oh hell no. That’d just lead to trump winning. I support Joe and will do what I can to help him get elected.” Another person asked what he plans to do next in politics and he said, “I’m much less interested in being a professional politician than I a. in helping improve the important things.” It was cool. He’s super down to earth. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 7/16/2020 at 9:16 PM, iNow said:

Today, Andrew Yang came and had an hour long remote chat with the employees at my work. It was super chill and laid back. He was in front of his laptop in what looked to be his bedroom, and he was talking about education, and healthcare, and freedom dividends. One of the attendees asked him if he’d consider running as a 3rd party candidate and he all but said, “oh hell no. That’d just lead to trump winning. I support Joe and will do what I can to help him get elected.” Another person asked what he plans to do next in politics and he said, “I’m much less interested in being a professional politician than I a. in helping improve the important things.” It was cool. He’s super down to earth. 

Clearly he or Tulsi Gabbard would be my pick for VP but obviously he is "ineligible" due to sexism regardless if he would be the best potential VP for women. (and Tulsi as VP ain't going to happen)

Andrew Yang would however be Bret Weinstein's preferred choice for the Democratic half of his "Unity Campaign"

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/unity2020

As it is, Biden is smart holding off on picking his VP candidate as whoever she is will probably be more "progressive" than he is and would likely have more to say than Biden himself on many issues, some of them likely not in line with Biden's more central ones. This would give Trump and the GOP an easy target, especially given that she would necessarily have a substantial role as VP and quite plausibly become President given Biden's age.

[CharonY]

On 7/16/2020 at 6:16 PM, iNow said:

“I’m much less interested in being a professional politician than I a. in helping improve the important things.” 

I think that is a very "tech" way of thinking and perhaps paradoxically what I did not like him as a candidate. Many folks like him think that that all problems are just like a difficult equation and thinking very hard about it will solve them. Moreover, they think that they are qualified to do so, even if it is way outside of their expertise. A professional politician on the other hand is not an expert except in the political arena (which includes governing and/or lawmaking), which are the important skills (and ideally backed up by experts to figure the right policies out). 

The issue is that many problems we have is because things are stuck in politics, not because we do not know the solutions. The war on drugs, for example is a massive failure on almost all metrics. Yet there is political unwillingness to move from there. Likewise, the health system and so on.

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 7/28/2020 at 1:27 AM, CharonY said:

I think that is a very "tech" way of thinking and perhaps paradoxically what I did not like him as a candidate. Many folks like him think that that all problems are just like a difficult equation and thinking very hard about it will solve them. Moreover, they think that they are qualified to do so, even if it is way outside of their expertise. A professional politician on the other hand is not an expert except in the political arena (which includes governing and/or lawmaking), which are the important skills (and ideally backed up by experts to figure the right policies out). 

The issue is that many problems we have is because things are stuck in politics, not because we do not know the solutions. The war on drugs, for example is a massive failure on almost all metrics. Yet there is political unwillingness to move from there. Likewise, the health system and so on.

That's certainly one of the attractions of Yang for some, including myself. Others certainly prefer the "gut feel" approach where they feel know what's best for everyone and don't need to overthink it. Your current President comes to mind. Most "politicians" don't fall in either category. They're too busy thinking hard about the political implications.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That's certainly one of the attractions of Yang for some, including myself.

Actually, the issue is that he says that he wants to solve the problem.. but he is not qualified to do so. What I prefer is a politician who a) surrounds her/himself with competence and b) has the political acumen to implement the suggestion they receive.

Trump currently does neither. And Yang is not selling me on that part, either. If he learns how to navigate politics and at least organizes his ideas so that it becomes clear what he intends to do politically. That being said, it is of course difficult to convey that in a typical primary- there sky high promises are being made and with no track record it is difficult to assess what happens.