2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by molson

Do you consider the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, etc, as being "involved in politics?" Wherever the line is drawn, do you think it should be the same for those organizations as churches?

I'm trying to figure out if we're talking about organizations endorsing candidates and starting political parties, or if it's just speech and expressing positions that could resemble political opinions (which I think is pretty impossible to avoid if the non-profit has any purpose at all).

Tax them all and let God sort them out.

[NobodyHere]

I just saw my first Bloomberg ad!!!!!!!*squee*

[cuervo72]

I've seen like ten already.

[thesloppy]

I had deluded myself into believing some fairy tale that Bloomberg was running purely to run negative ads about Trump in battleground states, and less about necessarily promoting himself. That does not appear to be the case.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

Do you consider the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, etc, as being "involved in politics?" Wherever the line is drawn, do you think it should be the same for those organizations as churches?

As has been pointed out, there's a difference between a political lobby and a church. Legally, even. Political lobbies play under different rules. 501(c)(3)s are even supposed to be primarily apolitical. That doesn't mean they can't engage in political activity, but it isn't supposed to be their primary focus.

That's where a bunch of those "Tea Party" 501 (c)(3)s got into trouble under the Obama Administration. They were improperly registered political groups that were trying to take advantage of the rules surrounding 501(c)(3) organizations to keep their donors secret while engaging in primarily political activity.

But even above and beyond that, the Catholic Church, the Latter-Day Saints, etc, can certainly set up political lobbies separate from the pulpit. A church lobbying the government, while I find that somewhat distasteful, is different from, say, a public pronouncement that adherents who are pro-choice should be denied Holy Communion, or a prelate using his pulpit to tell his flock "If you vote for Bob on Tuesday, you're probably going to hell."

There's a difference between lobbying the government and using your tax-advantaged bullhorn to tell millions of Americans on Fridays, Saturdays, or Sundays that God Will Smite You if you Vote Democratic (or Republican, if the congregation is more liberally-minded).

[GrantDawg]

Mayor Pete continues to get bludgeoned on twitter, mostly from the AA community. Primaries really are a game of whack-a-mole. Once someones head pops up, they get hammered.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Mayor Pete continues to get bludgeoned on twitter, mostly from the AA community. Primaries really are a game of whack-a-mole. Once someones head pops up, they get hammered.

Just read that essay, man did that eviscerate him.

We need a candidate who with get the AA community to vote. If they stay home it is 4 more years of Trump. I would imagine this severely damages his chances.

curios to see how he spins it. If he doubles down or if he says that was a long time ago and his perspective has changed.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

As has been pointed out, there's a difference between a political lobby and a church. Legally, even. Political lobbies play under different rules. 501(c)(3)s are even supposed to be primarily apolitical. That doesn't mean they can't engage in political activity, but it isn't supposed to be their primary focus.

That's where a bunch of those "Tea Party" 501 (c)(3)s got into trouble under the Obama Administration. They were improperly registered political groups that were trying to take advantage of the rules surrounding 501(c)(3) organizations to keep their donors secret while engaging in primarily political activity.

But even above and beyond that, the Catholic Church, the Latter-Day Saints, etc, can certainly set up political lobbies separate from the pulpit. A church lobbying the government, while I find that somewhat distasteful, is different from, say, a public pronouncement that adherents who are pro-choice should be denied Holy Communion, or a prelate using his pulpit to tell his flock "If you vote for Bob on Tuesday, you're probably going to hell."

There's a difference between lobbying the government and using your tax-advantaged bullhorn to tell millions of Americans on Fridays, Saturdays, or Sundays that God Will Smite You if you Vote Democratic (or Republican, if the congregation is more liberally-minded).

That may be the current law, I'm asking about the perspectives expressed here that the tax exemption for churches should be removed entirely, or removed if the church "is involved with politics", and what the scope of that was. And mostly what the root of the difference in these opinions is between a church and another inherently non-political non-profit that may engage in some kind of speech that touches upon politics, based on its mission. Obviously that's a different answer for every person.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But even above and beyond that, the Catholic Church, the Latter-Day Saints, etc, can certainly set up political lobbies separate from the pulpit. A church lobbying the government, while I find that somewhat distasteful, is different from, say, a public pronouncement that adherents who are pro-choice should be denied Holy Communion, or a prelate using his pulpit to tell his flock "If you vote for Bob on Tuesday, you're probably going to hell."

There's a difference between lobbying the government and using your tax-advantaged bullhorn to tell millions of Americans on Fridays, Saturdays, or Sundays that God Will Smite You if you Vote Democratic (or Republican, if the congregation is more liberally-minded).

I understand what you're saying but that's also kind of the point of the church isn't it?

Why should the church not tell its members that the church says abortion is wrong and that those who are pro-choice are not in line with teachings of the church? That's not a political statement - its the truth. Abortion is not a grey area in the church or an opinion by the priest of that parish - the church should absolutely be saying this from the pulpit and not just during an election cycle. The faithful of the church should be reminded constantly just what exactly their faith represents and stands for.

You can't tell the church that it doesn't have the right to teach its doctrine (or be penalized with what essentially will shut down many churches) just because that doctrine is the opposite of what virtually every candidate on one side stands for and that's what the issue really is. It's that an issue like abortion is almost always a dividing line in politics and one side proclaims they agree with the church and one side doesn't. It's not the church opposing a political party - its a political party opposing the church. Do you really think that if the democratic party suddenly gave up certain stances that the church would start speaking out against medicare for all or something simply to oppose the democratic party?

The church is not an arm of the republican party - the church is what it is. The doctrines do not change based on who's running for office. It does not matter if one declares themselves a republican, democrat or anything else. Unlike a political party it's core beliefs are not changed based on who's at the top of the ticket nor are they meant to change to fit what people in society feel like doing today.

If the church was simply endorsing one party (which it doesn't do) just because it felt like it or got money from a candidate that would be wrong and I would agree with you but that's not what is going on. The church should have every right to speak out against issues that oppose it's beliefs and allow its members to let those beliefs weigh in their decision of who they vote for.

[JPhillips]

This has nothing to do with the taxation issue, but...

There isn't one church and there isn't one set of beliefs.

There are plenty of more progressive churches.

[Warhammer]

Are we talking churches or religions?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Just read that essay, man did that eviscerate him.

We need a candidate who with get the AA community to vote. If they stay home it is 4 more years of Trump. I would imagine this severely damages his chances.

curios to see how he spins it. If he doubles down or if he says that was a long time ago and his perspective has changed.

There is definitely an effort (probably a funded effort) to keep AA riled against Pete. It may be the same money working against Warren (Warren had several paid AA protesters working against her while in Atlanta). It is a smart tactic. Without the AA vote, you are really crippled in the primaries. It is where Biden's strength is. The first person to erode that strength is going to be in the best position to win.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

There is definitely an effort (probably a funded effort) to keep AA riled against Pete. It may be the same money working against Warren (Warren had several paid AA protesters working against her while in Atlanta). It is a smart tactic. Without the AA vote, you are really crippled in the primaries. It is where Biden's strength is. The first person to erode that strength is going to be in the best position to win.

Wouldn't be surprised, after all entities like Russia helped spur the growth of groups like BLM.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Are we talking churches or religions?

Churches.

Presumably (most) people don't want to tax private religious worship, just when people get together to do it.

Edit: Oh, maybe you were responding to JPhillips. There's plenty of progressive churches. Mine back home does gay weddings, has gay pastors, and supports refugees (politics!!) I know of a couple of town in Boise that seem to be primarily service-based - a place and community to organize outreach and service projects. I don't know if that makes them progressive, but I know they have plenty of gay members and don't preach traditional politically conservative values. But, like any mission-based organizations, they can't help but be occasionally political.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Are we talking churches or religions?

I was responding to Gary's insinuation that the church is conservative in its beliefs. In the sense of modern American politics, it is far from monolithic.

[Surtt]

Nice to see Obama crawl out from under his stack Of Wall Street money to defend "hope and change". Opps.. Defeat hope and change...

Krystal Ball: What will Obama do to stop Bernie Sanders - YouTube

I'll show myself out...

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Nice to see Obama crawl out from under his stack Of Wall Street money to defend "hope and change". Opps.. Defeat hope and change...

Krystal Ball: What will Obama do to stop Bernie Sanders - YouTube

I'll show myself out...

I know you love Bernie, but the democrats best hope is closer to center.

[EagleFan]

1st Democrat I'll say this about...

Tulsi 2020

She at least says all the right things. She seems to be the closest to a non-establishment dem candidate with legit experience.

[cuervo72]

Tulsi is essentially playing the role in this primary that Trump did in the 2016 R primary. Will attack all of the other candidates, doesn't really go along with any of the party line, has her greatest fans among a) the fringe of the party, b) disaffected younger men, or c) those who aren't actually part of the party. She's the chaos candidate. Oh, and the Russians love her because again, chaos.

[EagleFan]

If chaos is doing your job for the people, then give me chaos. It's rather sad if that is considered chaos. Get rid of both parties. No party money. Clean house and get rid of corporate and party shills like that moron Graham.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I understand what you're saying but that's also kind of the point of the church isn't it?

Why should the church not tell its members that the church says abortion is wrong and that those who are pro-choice are not in line with teachings of the church? That's not a political statement - its the truth. Abortion is not a grey area in the church or an opinion by the priest of that parish - the church should absolutely be saying this from the pulpit and not just during an election cycle. The faithful of the church should be reminded constantly just what exactly their faith represents and stands for.

The faithful of the Catholic church should probably study the Bible a little more closely. Catholic dogma may currently hold that life begins at conception and all that jazz and that babies are super precious in the sight of the Lord, but, uh...

well, the Old Testament talks about God wiping out EVERYONE in "Jerusalem and all the towns of Judah" - including infants and children - because adults were worshiping other gods.

Hosea 9 talks about God punishing idolaters by making the women barren and killing any children they DO happen to conceive.

Hosea 13 says "welp, the unfaithful are going to have their infants' brains dashed against the stones and their pregnant women eviscerated."

Numbers 5 says that women suspected of infidelity should be fed an abortifacient tea, and if they miscarry, it's proof of infidelity and they'll be cursed etc. Note that they're to be made to take that "purity test" even if the husband has no proof of his claim. All he has to be is jealous, and she has to bear the entire burden. The faithful might say "well clearly God would only allow her to miscarry if the child were not her husband's," but even if you could guarantee that, that's certainly not an unquestioned "right to life."

That's the sins of the father being visited on his offspring (but as far as the OT is concerned, it's the sins of the mother; she has to take the purity test, but Numbers hasn't a thing to say about the man with whom she was unfaithful).

Isaiah has a prophecy about dudes God is pissed at falling by the sword, their infants being murdered, and their wives being raped.

Jump to the New Testament, and even Christ says "yeah, it's gonna suck for pregnant women and babies in the Last Days." There's no special protection/concern for them. All that's promised them is woe.

Catholic liturgy omits an entire part of Psalm 137 because the idea of singing about murdering babies in revenge kind of squicks them out, you know?

Catholic doctrine being adamantly opposed to abortion is not reconcilable with its own holy text. I'm not saying they should go ALL WOMEN MUST HAVE ABORTIONS, but the Church's stance on abortion comes from cherry-picking the verses in the Bible that give folks the warm fuzzies and ignoring all the bits of the Bible that are kinda lethal to babies and fetuses.

You can't tell the church that it doesn't have the right to teach its doctrine (or be penalized with what essentially will shut down many churches) just because that doctrine is the opposite of what virtually every candidate on one side stands for and that's what the issue really is.

The church can teach its doctrine, even if that doctrine is an invention of men and not wholly supported by its own holy book. That's not, of itself, political. Political is "if you vote for Democrats, you should be denied the ability to commune with your God, and should probably go to hell because abortion."

Theologically, that's a suspect argument. That places abortion prevention on a pedestal higher than feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, or clothing the poor - all of which are things Christ tells his followers "when you did those things to the least among you, you did them also to me."

That argues that it's okay if Republicans vote to slash the social safety net (which safety net does all of the things in the prior paragraph) as long as they pass ever more draconian laws against abortion, and that the faithful should reward those votes for anti-abortion laws and turn a blind eye to the dozens of ways in which their Republican representatives straight up ignore Biblical commands when following them would be inconvenient.

The Church is free to teach its doctrine, but when that doctrine gets expressly political and suggests, either overtly or slyly, that a vote for That Person is a Ticket To Hell, it becomes more like a political advocacy wrapping itself in the cloth to get a tax break that would otherwise be denied it.

It's that an issue like abortion is almost always a dividing line in politics and one side proclaims they agree with the church and one side doesn't. It's not the church opposing a political party - its a political party opposing the church. Do you really think that if the democratic party suddenly gave up certain stances that the church would start speaking out against medicare for all or something simply to oppose the democratic party?

"Certain stances"? So, which, all of them?

The church is not an arm of the republican party - the church is what it is. The doctrines do not change based on who's running for office.

I'm so old I remember when religious leaders praised a thrice-married guy who bragged about committing sexual assault because he could as a "baby Christian" - and therefore beyond reproach for all of the multitude of ways in which he is clearly NOT representative of Christ's love and teachings - who was clearly God's cure for everything that ails the country.

TL;DR: bull. I can repeat that with some expletives to spice it up, but the Church is bound up so tightly with the Republican Party that if you COULD somehow excise the one from the other, it would be the death of the GOP.

[GrantDawg]

Biden is kicking off his "No Malarky" bus tour. I believe his stump speech is that he swears to end Prohibition and give women the vote.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The faithful of the Catholic church should probably study the Bible a little more closely. Catholic dogma may currently hold that life begins at conception and all that jazz and that babies are super precious in the sight of the Lord, but, uh...

FWIW, I do agree that fundamentalists cherry pick passages that support their stance and often ignore/rationalize others.

I do think you need to make a distinction between Old vs New Testament. Not a scholar but as my fundamentalist friend would say "Jesus brought us a New Covenant" which in many ways supersedes the Old.

Interested in this passage. Can you provide the specific passage?

Jump to the New Testament, and even Christ says "yeah, it's gonna suck for pregnant women and babies in the Last Days." There's no special protection/concern for them. All that's promised them is woe.

Yeah, I've been in conversations with my evangelical friend where once saved, always saved regardless of what happens later. The argument is ... have these saved people, who now do "bad" things, were they really saved in the first place? The Catholic dogma of purgatory is much more reassuring to me.

I'm so old I remember when religious leaders praised a thrice-married guy who bragged about committing sexual assault because he could as a "baby Christian" - and therefore beyond reproach for all of the multitude of ways in which he is clearly NOT representative of Christ's love and teachings - who was clearly God's cure for everything that ails the country.

I agree. The church should tell members abortion is wrong if that is their belief. But I don't think they (churches, religious institutions etc.) should take political sides - leave out Dems, GOP, Presidency etc. otherwise let's revoke their tax free status.

My guess this is happening mostly in the super-mega churches who can afford to be taxed if they wish to get political.

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski View Post
I understand what you're saying but that's also kind of the point of the church isn't it?

Why should the church not tell its members that the church says abortion is wrong and that those who are pro-choice are not in line with teachings of the church? That's not a political statement - its the truth. Abortion is not a grey area in the church or an opinion by the priest of that parish - the church should absolutely be saying this from the pulpit and not just during an election cycle. The faithful of the church should be reminded constantly just what exactly their faith represents and stands for.

IMO, defending the Old & New Testament as the literal word of God and both should be followed is problematic for me. I take it as a set of books, inspired in the belief of the Christian God, to be a guide on what one should believe and how one should live their lives.

[EagleFan]

Defending a book created by a king as a way to control the minds of his people is a hollow action, if you ask me.

Very similar to acting like an amendment created to ensure the country would have a way of defending itself before the days of a national military should still mean what some interpret it to mean today.

Time changes, new knowledge is learned, progress is made, our understanding should adjust accordingly... yet we still see morons who think the world is flat and vaccinations are some government conspiracy.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Tulsi is essentially playing the role in this primary that Trump did in the 2016 R primary. Will attack all of the other candidates, doesn't really go along with any of the party line, has her greatest fans among a) the fringe of the party, b) disaffected younger men, or c) those who aren't actually part of the party. She's the chaos candidate. Oh, and the Russians love her because again, chaos.

The comparison fits. Trump wasn't really a republican and Tulsi isn't really a dem. The GOP ticket was Trump's only path to being elected and Tulsi would very likely run as a moderate Republican or Independent in any state other than Hawaii.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do think you need to make a distinction between Old vs New Testament. Not a scholar but as my fundamentalist friend would say "Jesus brought us a New Covenant" which in many ways supersedes the Old.

"I have come not to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets, but to fulfill them."

Christ may have brought a New Covenant, but that was to graft the Gentiles onto the Tree of Life, not to retcon stuff from the Old Testament that future generations might find problematic.

Interested in this passage. Can you provide the specific passage?

It's repeated a few times in the Gospels. Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, when the disciples ask Christ about the signs of His return and of the end of the world.

I agree. The church should tell members abortion is wrong if that is their belief. But I don't think they (churches, religious institutions etc.) should take political sides - leave out Dems, GOP, Presidency etc. otherwise let's revoke their tax free status.

My guess this is happening mostly in the super-mega churches who can afford to be taxed if they wish to get political.

It's not even that they can "afford" to be taxed. Many of them are doing it as an explicit dare to the government. "Yeah I'm not allowed to do this thing but I'm gonna do it anyway. You know you don't have the balls to enforce the law."

IMO, defending the Old & New Testament as the literal word of God and both should be followed is problematic for me. I take it as a set of books, inspired in the belief of the Christian God, to be a guide on what one should believe and how one should live their lives.

The Old Testament is the Law and the Prophets. The New Testament is partly the Gospels and a whole lot of Paul imposing his own house rules. But again, Matthew 5:17. The New Covenant was for all the peoples of the world, to graft the Gentiles onto the Tree of Life. He didn't come to abolish the Law, and the Old Testament is pretty explicit in Numbers and (I believe) Leviticus that there is to be no double standard. That is, no "Jews must follow the Law I have set down, but you may make different laws for the Gentiles."

So between that and Christ's assertion that he didn't come to abolish the Law, there's a convincing argument to be made that Christians should be giving the Old Testament more than just lip service in their faith.

And if they aren't willing to do that, "Love thy neighbor" pretty much means "stop being cherry picking dinks trying to use the Law as an excuse to hate other people."

[Edward64]

Where Biden's support is coming from.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/01/polit...eek/index.html

A new CNN/SSRS poll shows that former Vice President Joe Biden leads the Democrats among potential Democratic voters nationwide with 28%. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren are in a fight for second at 17% and 14% respectively. South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg comes in fourth at 11%.
:
:
Biden's averaged 49% among all potential black Democratic primary voters in our last two CNN national polls. That's good enough not only for a 35-point lead over his Democratic competitors, but good enough to beat all of them combined by about 10 points
:
:
In our polling over the last two months, Biden is getting northward of 60% of the vote among black voters 45 years and older. His nearest competitor, Warren, is 50 points behind him.
Younger black voters are far less enthralled with Biden. A look at our polling over the last three months has him in the low 30s with black voters under the age of 45.

This large age gap has existed all primary long, and it's not going away. If anything, our polling is indicating that it is getting larger.

The age gap in Biden's support benefits him in a way that I'm not quite sure folks understand. Simply put, there are more older black voters than there are younger black voters. Those 45 years and older made up 60% of all potential black primary voters. In the majority black primary in South Carolina, those 45 years and older were 71% of all actual primary voters in 2016.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Where Biden's support is coming from.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/01/polit...eek/index.html

Yup. Older black voters tend to be more conservative, and are more concerned with elect-ability than anything else. It is going to be interesting to see if a Biden slide happens in the early states, if that will erode his strength in South Carolina at all.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Catholic doctrine being adamantly opposed to abortion is not reconcilable with its own holy text. I'm not saying they should go ALL WOMEN MUST HAVE ABORTIONS, but the Church's stance on abortion comes from cherry-picking the verses in the Bible that give folks the warm fuzzies and ignoring all the bits of the Bible that are kinda lethal to babies and fetuses.

I believe the Catholic Church's position on abortion comes from the actions of the early Church (more so than any Scriptural basis). One of the things that the early Church was known for was its opposition to abortion (the prohibition is found in the Didache, for example). Now there whens of abortion and when human life begins were left up for debate. And, of course, other, Protestant, churches have different theologies on the matter (Eastern Orthodox is also anti-abortion).

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Biden is kicking off his "No Malarky" bus tour. I believe his stump speech is that he swears to end Prohibition and give women the vote.

Malarkey has always been a favorite word of Biden. Most famously against Paul Ryan in 2012. He's used it for ages now, that one correlates him with the phrase. So I think it's less of a put off than some may think.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Malarkey has always been a favorite word of Biden. Most famously against Paul Ryan in 2012. He's used it for ages now, that one correlates him with the phrase. So I think it's less of a put off than some may think.

My sons' response to the motto, "Well, if it worked for McKinely...". It sounds so old. It was outdated when I was young, and that was when we used rotary phones. Maybe something a little less has-been sounding? Like "The bees knees" or something.

[GrantDawg]

We lose Steve Bullock and Joe Sestack from the list of candidates. Both might have been interesting possibilities in some years, but they couldn't get oxygen in this huge field. More winnowing should be coming soon.

[NobodyHere]

A thought Bullock was pretty good in the debates. But it seems that unless you're a former VP or have big spending plans then you aren't going far in this race.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

A thought Bullock was pretty good in the debates. But it seems that unless you're a former VP or have big spending plans then you aren't going far in this race.

Mayor Pete has neither, nor did he have name recognition. With a crowded field, you need something to stand out. Name recognition makes a big difference, but to really break out you have to have some kind of political savvy. Bullock was fine, but he didn't really have the "it" factor to make it. Heck, I think Booker is a much better candidate than Bullock, and he can't get anywhere either. You have to be able to either grab something that will propel you, or be able to create it.

[ISiddiqui]

Bullock's also from Montana. You need to be from a bigger state (population wise) than that. And even then you can have issues - Booker, Klobuchar, Delaney, etc.

[JPhillips]

Lots of rumors that Kamala Harris is dropping out.

[ISiddiqui]

Big news. Wonder where her supports will go?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[NobodyHere]

Lil' Kamala sheds a tear.

[QuikSand]

I know it's a big field, but that's a really stunning outcome, given her posture heading into this thing. I guess Scott Walker comes to mind as a parallel... definitely among the handful of favorites in a big field, but he popped like a balloon after one debate with Trump. KH actually had a little bit of a run, and since then has just flamed out. Incredible autopsy awaits there.

[stevew]

Probably wise to deselect when you’d have 0 support in Iowa and virtually none in NH.

[JPhillips]

Just spitballing here, but Kamala as a VP for Biden looks pretty good for both. Biden could use a woman VP, and Kamala might be able to take the mantle as early as 2024.

[ISiddiqui]

Harris would have to swallow her ego... especially considering her first big bump was an attack on him.

[GrantDawg]

Sure, but that is not really all that uncommon from future VP's. Of course, I am still holding out hope that Biden won't win. I really don't think she is going to rush to endorse anyone. Her campaign seemed to be very poorly run. Her mistakes are different than Booker's, but both are so far a lesson of how not to run a Presidential campaign.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just spitballing here, but Kamala as a VP for Biden looks pretty good for both. Biden could use a woman VP, and Kamala might be able to take the mantle as early as 2024.

I could see that, but as ISiddiqui mentioned her ego. I would not mind a Biden/Booker ticket in the least.

[ISiddiqui]

I remember how Biden was flirting with announcing "a ticket" when he threw his hat in the ring and the name Stacey Abrams was floated around. I think if Biden wants a black women, he'd go for Abrams which may help with the South. After all, as the primaries have shown, Biden does not need to shore up African-American support. Picking a Senator from California or New Jersey for Vice President may not be where he wants to go.

I'd bet Biden would far more like to have Klobuchar as his VP - a Midwestern woman. You'll note that Klobuchar doesn't go after Joe much, even though she's fighting for the same moderate vote.

(I've long thought Biden could beat Trump in 2020 - though I also think Warren or Sanders have good shots as well - by flipping Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania while winning the popular vote by a good deal less than Hillary Clinton did in 2016)

[JPhillips]

I'd hate to see Abrams pulled out of GA. I think she can do a lot with registration and get out the vote even if she doesn't run for office again.

I do think if Biden wins he has to pick a woman. Women are the most motivated and anti-Trump group.

[Ryche]

Tammy Duckworth would be a hell of a VP candidate.

[tarcone]

Bloomberg vs. Trump? While making for entertaining reality TV, as they hate each other, our country is going down a dark path if that happens.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd hate to see Abrams pulled out of GA. I think she can do a lot with registration and get out the vote even if she doesn't run for office again.

I do think if Biden wins he has to pick a woman. Women are the most motivated and anti-Trump group.

I really don't know if Abrams would. She has openly said she is not interested in the position. Her registration work played roles in Kentucky and Louisiana this cycle. I think she wants to be all in on that work in the next election. It really could be THE difference.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm slowly coming to the realization that Biden is going to be the nominee. I think Harris's dropping out of the race and Booker struggling to even get on the stage in December, combined with Warren's and Buttigieg's complete inability to gain African-American support, made me realize just how rock solid Biden's support among African-American voters is. Even if he struggles in Iowa and New Hampshire, I don't see the older African-American voters in South Carolina (or the Latino voters in Nevada) jumping ship.

The only one who may be able to get some of those voters is Sanders - but he generally does well with younger African-American and Latino voters, not the older ones who come out and vote.

It's just a slow dawning realization that Biden's Teflon was much stronger than I figured.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just spitballing here, but Kamala as a VP for Biden looks pretty good for both. Biden could use a woman VP, and Kamala might be able to take the mantle as early as 2024.

Yes I agree but I saw an article a few days ago that said he was also considering the senator from NH Sheehan and also Abrams from Georgia