Scrutable

Who should it be? And why?

Would Obama be eligible? He's served two terms as President, so I'd have thought he wouldn't be allowed another go if Biden pops his clogs, and taking over being President seems to be a big part of being VP.

My money's on Biden using the position to unite the Democrats, but Sanders would be too much for him, so I'm going to guess at Warren.

Michelle Obama's husband is perhaps eligible. It's ambiguous. He cannot be elected President, but the law is unclear on whether he can be elected VP and then become President.

Key priority is 2024 after 1 term of Biden. Rules out Sanders and probably Warren, Buttigieg is too risky.

Leaves only two choices. Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar.

Castro and Booker are the other possibles, if you deem penis ownership essential. Or Beto - a good attack dog?

lpm wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 1:56 pm Michelle Obama's husband is perhaps eligible. It's ambiguous. He cannot be elected President, but the law is unclear on whether he can be elected VP and then become President.

That's enough to rule him out, I reckon. The conspiracy theorists at Fox would love it. You don't want to spend your campaign arguing about whether your VP will be legitimate or not.

lpm wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 1:56 pm Michelle Obama's husband is perhaps eligible. It's ambiguous. He cannot be elected President, but the law is unclear on whether he can be elected VP and then become President.

Key priority is 2024 after 1 term of Biden. Rules out Sanders and probably Warren, Buttigieg is too risky.

Leaves only two choices. Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar.

I think one of those two as well. Warren and Sanders are needed in the Senate to push Biden leftwards.

lpm wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 1:56 pm Michelle Obama's husband is perhaps eligible. It's ambiguous. He cannot be elected President, but the law is unclear on whether he can be elected VP and then become President.

Key priority is 2024 after 1 term of Biden. Rules out Sanders and probably Warren, Buttigieg is too risky.

Leaves only two choices. Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar.

Why would Buttigied be riskier than Kamala "we need to keep people incarcerated when they ought to be released because the state needs to exploit them for cheap labour" Harris, or Amy "I like to belittle and abuse the people who work for me" Klobuchar?

He did radically better than both in the primary, and showed he was able to appeal to people other than preexisting Democrat loyalists.

Because he's gay in the most homophobic nation in the western world.

lpm wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:15 pm Because he's gay in the most homophobic nation in the western world.

That's probably a safer choice than a black woman in many of the swing states.

But 4, or maybe 8, years of people acclimatising to a VP. I think that works for a black woman, partly riding on Michelle's coat tails. But a VP and his husband? In a country of religious extremists?

lpm wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:25 pm But 4, or maybe 8, years of people acclimatising to a VP. I think that works for a black woman, partly riding on Michelle's coat tails. But a VP and his husband? In a country of religious extremists?

If you are looking for the next President, yes, that makes sense. But I'm not sure it works exactly the same for beating Trump.

dyqik wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:17 pm

lpm wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:15 pm Because he's gay in the most homophobic nation in the western world.

That's probably a safer choice than a black woman in many of the swing states.

I had a half-baked theory during the early stages of the primary that he might hit a progressive sweet spot in that he scored a diversity metric but not one that voters would be reminded of every time they saw or heard him. Female candidate - name, voice, and appearance all non-vanilla. A candidate of colour would be obvious in every photo or video clip. You only get reminded that Buttigieg is lgbtiq when Chasten is standing next to him, and he looks like a stereotypical politician the rest of the time.

Anf he did get further than most but the primary eventually came down to two straight white old guys (though I note that one was Jewish, which is relatively unusual in a US presidential candidate).

My money’s on Stacy Abrams.

She’s not a threat to Biden’s policy goals, but she’s an amazing campaigner, grassroots activist and is a woman of colour, which would bring the left vote out massively.

ETA: She’s also running a campaign to prevent voter suppression, which has raised $ms

I really hope it's Warren out of the candidates available. She has good policy positions and I suspect would work more effectively with Biden than Sanders would

Dyqik - is it likely that Mass. would elect somebody much further to the right as her replacement in the senate?

I have a suspicion that Biden has promised the VP slot to a lot of other candidates in return for their endorsements.

There was a hilarious tweet from Yang where he basically admitted he'd been mugged off like that.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:49 pm I really hope it's Warren out of the candidates available. She has good policy positions and I suspect would work more effectively with Biden than Sanders would

Dyqik - is it likely that Mass. would elect somebody much further to the right as her replacement in the senate?

It's plausible. Right now the other pretty leftish MA senator Ed Markey is struggling to get the signatures to get on the ballot for the primary in September (probably due to coronavirus rather than popularity), while he's being challenged in the primary by Joe Kennedy Jr Jr Jr (or whatever he styles himself), who has got the signatures. Also, remember that we have a Republican governor (re-elected in 2018), who I think would appoint a replacement until a special election could be held. Usually there's an incumbency advantage in the special election that follows that, so there's a real risk of very centrist Republican winning and holding the seat until 2024.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:51 pm I have a suspicion that Biden has promised the VP slot to a lot of other candidates in return for their endorsements.

There was a hilarious tweet from Yang where he basically admitted he'd been mugged off like that.

I think there's a pretty good chance of it not being any of the senators who stood. The need to take the majority Senate is too strong.

Interesting, thanks.

lpm wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 1:56 pm Key priority is 2024 after 1 term of Biden. Rules out Sanders and probably Warren, Buttigieg is too risky.

Leaves only two choices. Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar.

Key priority is winning 2020 - I'm not convinced it's in the bag. Biden reminds me too much of Clinton, though at least he has a penis.

AOC will be old enough in 2035 so we won't need Harris or Klobuchar anyway.

The WaPo had an article earlier this week ranking the 11 most logical picks. All 11 were female.

Several serving senators were on the list, but I tend to agree with dyqik that with the Senate margin so important, Biden will avoid picking a Senator.

If forced, I'd guess Gretchen Whitmer or Michelle Lujan Grisham, but I think the field is pretty wide open.

Who?

And who?

lpm wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 7:34 pm Who?

And who?

I'm surprised someone of your obvious taste and current affairs knowledge would require links.

Boris Johnson's got US citizenship hasn't he? Can't we just send him over there? He'd be in excellent spirits about it.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:50 pm Boris Johnson's got US citizenship hasn't he? Can't we just send him over there? He'd be in excellent spirits about it.

He gave it up to avoid a tax bill.

dyqik wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 10:03 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:50 pm Boris Johnson's got US citizenship hasn't he? Can't we just send him over there? He'd be in excellent spirits about it.

He gave it up to avoid a tax bill.

But he was (a) born there (b) white & (c) rich, so he could no doubt get it back in no time and be welcomed into the fold. Given how f.cked yankee politics is, he would be seen as a reasonably centrist candidate