Topic: The 2020 Democratic VP Straw Poll
Anonymous A started this discussion 5 years ago #100,170
See poll
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kamala Harris | 2 | 29% | |
| Amy Klobuchar | 1 | 14% | |
| Stacey Abrams | 1 | 14% | |
| Elizabeth Warren | 1 | 14% | |
| Gretchen Whitmer | - | 0% | |
| Val Demings | - | 0% | |
| Tammy Baldwin | 1 | 14% | |
| Catherine Cortez Mastro | - | 0% | |
| COMEDY OPTION | 1 | 14% |
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 47 seconds later[^] [v] #1,129,648
Only women?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 13 seconds later, 1 minute after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,650
Mike Pez. He will fight for the strongest side.
Anonymous C double-posted this 5 years ago, 39 seconds later, 1 minute after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,652
jodie !foster2PAQ joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 minute after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,653
i fuckin hate Joe Biden you guys
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 15 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,660
@1,129,648 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
He has committed to picking a woman for VP.
@previous (jodie !foster2PAQ)
Whom does not?
He has committed to picking a woman for VP.
@previous (jodie !foster2PAQ)
Whom does not?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 5 years ago, 33 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,661
I have been on the Tammy Baldwin train forever. I think she is the smart, safe pick.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU triple-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,662
Wait. Tammy Baldwin is NOT Tammy Duckworth? Wtf. I liked Duckworth. Baldwin is bleh.
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,663
@1,129,660 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> He has committed to picking a woman for VP.
Oh, neat. I didn't know that.
> He has committed to picking a woman for VP.
Oh, neat. I didn't know that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,748
@1,129,662 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I don’t know anything about Duckworth except she’s part Asian and is missing a leg.
Anyway I’m on the Kamala train!
I don’t know anything about Duckworth except she’s part Asian and is missing a leg.
Anyway I’m on the Kamala train!
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,751
@previous (A)
Former Senator, lost her leg in the Iraq war, relatively progressive. All around a pretty low risk candidate. I get the appeal of running with Warren if you want Big Structual Change (tm) but honestly she'd probably be more effective as Senate Majority leader than VP.
Harris is whatever to me. Dont think she has a lot of upside.
Former Senator, lost her leg in the Iraq war, relatively progressive. All around a pretty low risk candidate. I get the appeal of running with Warren if you want Big Structual Change (tm) but honestly she'd probably be more effective as Senate Majority leader than VP.
Harris is whatever to me. Dont think she has a lot of upside.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,754
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
she’s still a senator you mongoloid
I don’t think Warren would add anything to the ticket
she’s still a senator you mongoloid
I don’t think Warren would add anything to the ticket
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,755
Harris would bring in women voters and increase electability for Biden among non Bernie type black voters
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,756
@1,129,754 (A)
Oh shit! Thought she stepped down. That makes her even better.
@previous (A)
Does he need more non-bernie black voters? He easily won the overwhelming majority of them in the primary. He dramatically underperformed with younger voters though which im not sure Harris helps with a ton. Neither does Duckworth tbf.
Oh shit! Thought she stepped down. That makes her even better.
@previous (A)
Does he need more non-bernie black voters? He easily won the overwhelming majority of them in the primary. He dramatically underperformed with younger voters though which im not sure Harris helps with a ton. Neither does Duckworth tbf.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,762
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I think the extra help with suburban women and black voters could help be the tipping point in states like GA, TX, and AZ.
I don’t think there’s a prominent woman he could pick for VP that would encourage younger Bernie supporters to rally for him other than AOC or Ilhan Omar. Both of him would be a disastrous Palin-esque pick.
I do think Warren could be that choice but her base and Bernie’s base seems to be at odds with each other but again Twitter isn’t real life so I don’t know.
I think the extra help with suburban women and black voters could help be the tipping point in states like GA, TX, and AZ.
I don’t think there’s a prominent woman he could pick for VP that would encourage younger Bernie supporters to rally for him other than AOC or Ilhan Omar. Both of him would be a disastrous Palin-esque pick.
I do think Warren could be that choice but her base and Bernie’s base seems to be at odds with each other but again Twitter isn’t real life so I don’t know.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,763
I'm voting Vermin Supreme, like any right minded USAmerican should.
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 4 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,809
Anonymous F replied with this 5 years ago, 49 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,810
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,819
@1,129,809 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
You could argue that by taking no risks, I am taking a huge risk. If you think about it.
You could argue that by taking no risks, I am taking a huge risk. If you think about it.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 6 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,935
Tammy Baldwin has alien features
Anonymous H double-posted this 5 years ago, 20 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,936
Like in the face
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 20 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,940
Tammy Suzanne Green Baldwin
blom joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,941
He should pick a mental tranny
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 34 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,945
@1,129,751 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I get the appeal of running with Warren if you want Big Structual Change (tm) but honestly she'd probably be more effective as Senate Majority leader than VP.
I completely agree. If Warren can't be the Presidential Nominee, then she is way better where she is now in the Senate in terms of enacting change and getting things done.
I'm surprised you didn't pick Stacey Abrams, the would-be Governor of Georgia. (would-be, if not for all the crazy voter suppression and possible voter fraud that went mysteriously uninvestigated by the incumbent Republican Governor Brian Kemp and his appointed AG)
I always thought Abrams would make a great candidate for VP for almost any Democratic Party Presidential Nominee. Demographically, she's just about everything Biden would need to pick up votes. Plus, it would a fun dare to the GOP who would almost certainly be itching for any reason to engineer getting Biden out of office during his term.
> I get the appeal of running with Warren if you want Big Structual Change (tm) but honestly she'd probably be more effective as Senate Majority leader than VP.
I completely agree. If Warren can't be the Presidential Nominee, then she is way better where she is now in the Senate in terms of enacting change and getting things done.
I'm surprised you didn't pick Stacey Abrams, the would-be Governor of Georgia. (would-be, if not for all the crazy voter suppression and possible voter fraud that went mysteriously uninvestigated by the incumbent Republican Governor Brian Kemp and his appointed AG)
I always thought Abrams would make a great candidate for VP for almost any Democratic Party Presidential Nominee. Demographically, she's just about everything Biden would need to pick up votes. Plus, it would a fun dare to the GOP who would almost certainly be itching for any reason to engineer getting Biden out of office during his term.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 years ago, 10 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,946
Also, I think it would be fun for Biden to float Kamala Harris as US Attorney General. That would be hilarious. California has a great progressive US Senate candidate in Kevin de León. (He actually challenged Dianne Feinstein's seat in 2018) We could just plug him in when Harris left. That would be awesome.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,967
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 49 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,977
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,129,990
@1,129,945 (K)
I just don't "get" Abrams' appeal. If you wanted a black woman, Kamala Harris is more accomplished. If you wanted a super progressive woman, pick Liz. If you wanted a super progressive black woman, pick Barbara Lee or someone with significant federal experience. Abrams' two most well known qualities are the fact that she finished second in a 2 person race and that she is sort of indeterminately progressive in a way that is never explained in detail.
I also am not sure how much VP matters. It mattered for Obama and arguably Trump. Does anyone think that Kaine, Ryan, or Edwards mattered? Does anyone even remember that Al Gore picked Joe Lieberman to be his VP in 2000? Or that Clinton had Gore?
I just don't "get" Abrams' appeal. If you wanted a black woman, Kamala Harris is more accomplished. If you wanted a super progressive woman, pick Liz. If you wanted a super progressive black woman, pick Barbara Lee or someone with significant federal experience. Abrams' two most well known qualities are the fact that she finished second in a 2 person race and that she is sort of indeterminately progressive in a way that is never explained in detail.
I also am not sure how much VP matters. It mattered for Obama and arguably Trump. Does anyone think that Kaine, Ryan, or Edwards mattered? Does anyone even remember that Al Gore picked Joe Lieberman to be his VP in 2000? Or that Clinton had Gore?
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 42 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,130,000
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> If you wanted a super progressive black woman, pick Barbara Lee or someone with significant federal experience.
That would be awesome in a vacuum, but a progressive black woman from Oakland, California isn't pulling in votes like a progressive black woman from Georgia who lost a statewide election for maybe nefarious reasons. Shouldn't the choice, just from an electioneering standpoint, be assuming that the choice of VP does matter? Wouldn't you want a choice that maximizes appeal over all demographic and geographic areas?
> I also am not sure how much VP matters. It mattered for Obama and arguably Trump. Does anyone think that Kaine, Ryan, or Edwards mattered? Does anyone even remember that Al Gore picked Joe Lieberman to be his VP in 2000? Or that Clinton had Gore?
Like you say, it has mattered more in some races and hardly at all in others. I don't know how to predict that though. We only know that in hindsight. I recall Lieberman being a somewhat controversial choice for Gore at the time because if something happened to Gore we could have a (GASP) Jewish guy in the highest office. The same kind of rumors that were passed around about JFK and his Catholicism and our nation being ruled from Rome were passed around again about Lieberman and Israel. And the 2000 election came down to the hanging chads and the judicial branch. Arguably, every choice made that year mattered even if no one remembers Joe Lieberman after 20 years.
Anyway, Lee is doing fine in the House right now. It's not as if CA-13 or California are going red anytime soon. I think either woman would be a great choice, but I'd really like to maximize the chances of winning due to wide popular appeal.
> If you wanted a super progressive black woman, pick Barbara Lee or someone with significant federal experience.
That would be awesome in a vacuum, but a progressive black woman from Oakland, California isn't pulling in votes like a progressive black woman from Georgia who lost a statewide election for maybe nefarious reasons. Shouldn't the choice, just from an electioneering standpoint, be assuming that the choice of VP does matter? Wouldn't you want a choice that maximizes appeal over all demographic and geographic areas?
> I also am not sure how much VP matters. It mattered for Obama and arguably Trump. Does anyone think that Kaine, Ryan, or Edwards mattered? Does anyone even remember that Al Gore picked Joe Lieberman to be his VP in 2000? Or that Clinton had Gore?
Like you say, it has mattered more in some races and hardly at all in others. I don't know how to predict that though. We only know that in hindsight. I recall Lieberman being a somewhat controversial choice for Gore at the time because if something happened to Gore we could have a (GASP) Jewish guy in the highest office. The same kind of rumors that were passed around about JFK and his Catholicism and our nation being ruled from Rome were passed around again about Lieberman and Israel. And the 2000 election came down to the hanging chads and the judicial branch. Arguably, every choice made that year mattered even if no one remembers Joe Lieberman after 20 years.
Anyway, Lee is doing fine in the House right now. It's not as if CA-13 or California are going red anytime soon. I think either woman would be a great choice, but I'd really like to maximize the chances of winning due to wide popular appeal.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)