on this.

I'm not even gonna vent about names right now, I'm gonna vent about CRITERIA.


Like, first of all, just to remind everybody what Dems are up against:


*Repubs are more unified now than they were in '16

*45 is a stronger opponent now than he was in '16 (i.e. has his party's full backing this time)

*As of 02/20, 45 had raised ~$253M and had ~109M on hand (http://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/candidate?id=N00023864); Biden had raised ~$76M and had ~$8M on hand (http://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/candidate?id=N00001669). MSM reported Biden got a post-SC + post-ST windfall, but I doubt it's anywhere near $100M

*45 is building out a nationwide network of *2 MILLION* volunteers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PGBPBrFxAo ; https://youtu.be/_fE57e7afHk?t=219); Biden has, to date, had a notoriously weak ground game (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/us/politics/joe-biden-california-super-tuesday.html)


Is this really a time for: "oh wouldn't it be delightful if Biden ran with a woman?" "yes darling, a black one would be divine"

..? I mean, come on yall. Condoleeza Rice??? This identity politics stuff is gonna lead everybody off a cliff.


ANYBODY NOT BRINGING ORGANIZED INFRASTRUCTURE - i.e SUPPORTERS. VOLUNTEERS. DONORS - ALONG WITH MAJOR CAMPAIGN MUSCLE AND EXECUTIVE/GOVERNING EXPERIENCE IS WASTING SPACE. PERIOD.



I DONT WANT TO SEE somebody who DIDNT RESONATE OR WIN ANYWHERE running for pres in the current climate (sorry Beto! Castro! Deval! And anyone who polled below them! https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html) .

I DONT WANT TO SEE somebody whose PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IMPLODED/DEMONSTRATED WEAK EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP (sorry Kamala! https://www.businessinsider.com/kamala-harriss-campaign-is-facing-an-internal-revolt-2019-11, https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/kamala-harris-campaign-2020-071105, https://nypost.com/2019/11/29/kamala-harris-2020-campaign-is-falling-apart-from-the-inside-report/)

I DONT WANT TO SEE somebody who STRUGGLED TO FUNDRAISE/BEGGED FOR MONEY ON LIVE TV AND STILL FAILED to meet funding/individual donor targets (sorry Booker! https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/lacking-money-votes-cory-booker-fails-break-through-crowded-democratic-n1114826)

I DONT WANT TO SEE somebody who HOLDS A RECENTLY FLIPPED OR OTHERWISE VULNERABLE SEAT in the House or Senate (sorry Delmings! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s_10th_congressional_district)

I DONT WANT TO SEE somebody who HOLDS A RECENTLY FLIPPED OR OTHERWISE VULNERABLE GOVERNORSHIP in a swing or traditionally red state (sorry Gretchen! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_Michigan)

I DONT WANT TO SEE some RANDO FROM POLITICS PAST that'll leave half the electorate scratching their heads asking wtf is that (Sorry Condi! Susan!)

I DONT WANT TO SEE some RANDO FROM POLITICS PRESENT that'll have leave the electorate scratching their heads asking wtf is that (Sorry Sherrod!)



Imho Biden needs a fucking *GLADIATOR* vp. He's an aging, fading, general in need of a lieutenant w/ starpower and (happy) troops on the ground. I'm talking somebody with AOC level (or close) exposure, base enthusiasm, and fundraising capacity. Somebody with a STRONG *PROVEN* APPEAL to folks in Obama-Trump areas because these are the constituents Dems recently lost and NEED TO COURT BACK FOR AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE MAJORITY:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election#/media/File:United_States_presidential_election_results_by_county,_2016.svg

Somebody YOUNG enough, HEALTHY enough, ENERGETIC enough, and UNRESTRAINED (eg. by current responsibilities in Congress, as Governor, etc) enough to CAMPAIGN FEROCIOUSLY - like several counties and/or states in a day if need be - bc not only is 45 an exhaustive campaigner and outcampaigned HRC in '16 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trumps-campaigns-numbers/story), but Biden's campaigning has slowed considerably due to low funds/poor organization and concerns about covid19 (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/487115-biden-to-hold-virtual-campaign-events-amid-coronavirus-outbreak)... issues that could persist through the GE. Somebody GOOD AT RETAIL POLITICS to detract from Biden's frequent gaffes on the trail (and perhaps in office). Somebody EXCELLENT AND AT EASE WITH MEDIA whether on-the-spot, long-form, or debate format since this is an area Biden has been weak (https://www.thedailybeast.com/bidens-media-strategy-duck-the-press-unless-youre-under-duress) and will likely weaken further during his administration (I sincerely hope they'd roll with an elder statesman comms strategy too... like we only hear from Biden for major addresses and poignant remarks Queen Elizabeth style, while the media pro VP doubles as a chief surrogate for more regular media availabilities, press conferences, etc).

Additionally, something I didn't even consider until I watched Biden interact recently with a former frontrunner: at his age I believe he needs somebody with very well-developed senses of empathy, duty, and above average EQ. If America's set on electing its most geriatric president in history, then imho it should prepare for some of the less glamorous things that begin to ramp up at that age. Fatigue. Memory and attention lapses. Restrictive joint pains and aches. Mood swings. Loss of balance/increased fall risk. Hearing degradation. Maybe even incontinence. I'm not suggesting a VP is the pres' nurse/doctor by any means, but there may/will be instances where geriatric issues compromise high-level meetings, joint appearances, speaking engagements etc at the last minute. I believe it's critical the VP have the temperament, agility, patience, compassion, and - again - ABOVE AVERAGE EQ to swiftly mitigate embarassments and cover for the pres on a dime, perhaps with little preparation/notice, to project continuity of leadership not just to subordinates but the american people and the world stage. I say all this as someone who's been a caregiver for folks I love in Biden's age range, and having spent more time than I'd like in nursing homes around people that age as well. It's a lot of extra mental, emotional, and sometimes even physical labor just to love/care for somebody in that age corridor talk more of working alongside them in one of the most stressful high-stakes jobs on the planet. I just don't think anybody short-tempered, volatile/easily flustered, or entitled/gloryhound-ish is a good match for a geriatric president and the nuances involved (SORRY AMY! https://www.scribd.com/document/399214761/AFSCME-Letter-on-Amy-Klobuchar-2006, https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/senator-klobuchar-temper-rumors).

Bottom line: I think being Biden's VP would be ATYPICAL. More hands-on than usual. More travel than usual. More visibility than usual. And he/she may even have to lead the nation through poignant bereavement if Biden succumbs to old age/poor health during his term(s). I really, really, *really* don't think the appropriate running mate is somebody who just checks a box. Like I said in another post, warm fuzzies might've helped Biden hold black voters in the south... but is representation really enough to deal with all his baggage PLUS make gains in Trump country?? Remember we're talking Middle America. Rust Belt. The bulk of Obama-Trump counties are in states like IA, WI, IN, etc (https://ballotpedia.org/Pivot_Counties_by_state). That's your auto workers. Your rural folks - farmers, teachers, small business owners, housewives. Your VETERANS (making up ~10% of the adult populations in swing states like FL + NC, that Dems won in '08 but have lost since https://www.census.gov/content/census/en/library/visualizations/2018/comm/percentage-veterans/jcr:content/map.detailitem.950.high.jpg/1539725329299.jpg )
Recall that 45 won in '16 with like 2% less of the total vote than HRC but like over 15% more white voters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics), who'll comprise 66% of the 2020 electorate (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/PSDT_2020electorate-00.png). Also recall that Biden performed POORLY with this demographic in early states compared to his competitors(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Contest_schedule_and_results), even with comparable exposure (https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidate_campaign_travel,_2020). Who performed WELL with this type of voter? Spoke to their issues? Could help Biden win people back to the Dem coalition, I repeat, WHERE ITS ACTUALLY NEEDED (https://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-election-state-winners)? Furthermore, has anyone actually considered the optics of the first ever female/black female VP having to shoulder the inevitable behind-the-scenes labor of supporting a geriatric pres?? Bc I have and I'm so good on that shit. I actually think it's extremely unfair to saddle the first female and/or woman of color VP with a loaded clean-up role like that. It'd basically elevate all the un(der)compensated labor extraction women (and WOC in particular) get burdened with in the workforce already (https://www.fastcompany.com/3058388/why-the-gender-leadership-gap-is-so-much-worse-for-women-of-color). I'd prefer a woman/WOC on the ticket either earn her nomination outright by voter mandate or be selected to serve as vice (for a more normal pres) in the way the role was designed.


Anyway, whatever. I can think of 1 person that meets 100% of what I'm talking about and another who meets maybe 75%; both are to the left of Biden in some areas (eg.Tuition-free public college), and both are white. 1 is a woman. *shrug* Maybe there's others I'd like that could also meet these quotas everyone seems to want to talk about but, tbh, I just feel like if the person who can bring the infrastructure/ support Biden needs* to succeed happens to be white or male so be it. Based on how the Dem primary went, voters don't seem to care. If there was an overwhelming appetite for a woman and/or non-white representation on the Dem 2020 ticket I believe the *unprecedented* selection of women and non-white primary candidates would have recieved a lot more support than they did financially, in the polls, and at the ballot box. Dems ran a mixed-race ticket in '08 and '12 and a mixed-gender ticket in '16; a quota pick would be nice but I don't think it's necessary. Voters seem to be prioritizing results (i.e. Beat 45) over representation.


*and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn the malarkey camp is focusing on typical Dem box-checking instead of actual on-the-ground infrastructure/support to increase competitiveness bc... its the Dems *shrug*