Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 03-21-2020, 12:05 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,613
That Twitter study seems so flawed as to be meaningless, to me. For one thing, a state having a large number of Twitter users complaining about being discriminated against would, under their methodology, make that state look less racist. Maybe California scores poorly because the non-racist folks in California just tend not to have any need to talk about race. And even if you could somehow get a count of how many racist people were in each state, it also matters what position those people are in: If there are a lot of racists in positions of power, that's a problem, regardless of how common they are in the population as a whole. Or how about breaking it down by race: What proportion of whites in each state are racist? Maybe Georgia has the same or higher proportion of racism among whites, but scores well just because whites are a relatively small proportion of the population.
  #152  
Old 03-21-2020, 06:32 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
First do no harm.

Picking someone purely based on race or sex is a bad idea.

Biden is old and he has a 25% chance of dying before the end of his first term and its about 50/50 that he dies before the end of his second term.

The chances that he becomes medically incapacitated is higher.

Pick someone that you wouldn't mind as President. Pick someone who would beat Trump in swing states today.
  #153  
Old 03-21-2020, 08:22 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Picking someone purely based on race or sex is a bad idea.

Biden is old and he has a 25% chance of dying before the end of his first term and its about 50/50 that he dies before the end of his second term.

The chances that he becomes medically incapacitated is higher.

...
Not picking purely based on race or sex- picking from several dozen top candidates and in order to winnow them, out, decided to choose a woman, which is a great idea, and about time.

Doubtful. The Prez has the best healthcare in the world.


Note that sanders is older and has worse health.
  #154  
Old 03-21-2020, 08:28 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,417
wrong thread

Last edited by Lamoral; 03-21-2020 at 08:31 PM.
  #155  
Old 03-22-2020, 09:50 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Not picking purely based on race or sex- picking from several dozen top candidates and in order to winnow them, out, decided to choose a woman, which is a great idea, and about time.
Why is it a great idea?

If it becomes too obvious that he chose someone because of their sex and/or race, it will hurt them.

Quote:
Doubtful. The Prez has the best healthcare in the world.
He is 77 years old. What I gave you was actuarial data so his chances are probably better but only by so much. He has a much higher risk of mortality or morbidity than most presidents before him.

Quote:
Note that sanders is older and has worse health.
Yeah but he's not going to be the nominee so it's not really that big a deal.
  #156  
Old 04-22-2020, 12:42 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,737
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/21/polit...ent/index.html
In short: There is no single person in America Biden could pick as his VP that would increase his chances of victory more than Michelle Obama. Period.
  #157  
Old 04-27-2020, 12:32 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/21/polit...ent/index.html
In short: There is no single person in America Biden could pick as his VP that would increase his chances of victory more than Michelle Obama. Period.
Never gonna happen. You and Cillizza need to put down the crack pipe.

Under more normal circumstances, I think Stacey Abrams would be his first choice and it's clear she wants the job. But given the state of the economy, it's going to be Liz Warren because she has the necessary experience to manage this crisis from the position of authority of VP.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #158  
Old 04-27-2020, 12:40 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/21/polit...ent/index.html
In short: There is no single person in America Biden could pick as his VP that would increase his chances of victory more than Michelle Obama. Period.
Never gonna happen. You and Cillizza need to put down the crack pipe.

Under more normal circumstances, I think Stacey Abrams would be his first choice and it's clear she wants the job. But given the state of the economy, it's going to be Liz Warren because she has the necessary experience to manage this crisis from the position of authority of VP.
Out of curiosity: how likely do you think a Biden/Obama ticket would be, compared to Biden/Abrams and Biden/Warren, to win against Trump/Pence?
  #159  
Old 04-27-2020, 12:42 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 13,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Out of curiosity: how likely do you think a Biden/Obama ticket would be, compared to Biden/Abrams and Biden/Warren, to win against Trump/Pence?
It's not going to happen because Michelle Obama doesn't want to be Vice President, not because it's not a winning ticket.

(but what do I know, I honestly thought Hillary Clinton wouldn't even run in 2016)
  #160  
Old 04-27-2020, 01:13 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Never gonna happen. You and Cillizza need to put down the crack pipe.

Under more normal circumstances, I think Stacey Abrams would be his first choice and it's clear she wants the job. But given the state of the economy, it's going to be Liz Warren because she has the necessary experience to manage this crisis from the position of authority of VP.
I didnt say it was likely.

I think giving up a senate seat is a bad idea. Sure, a Dem will likely fill it, but...
  #161  
Old 04-27-2020, 01:25 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,061
It won't be Warren because old and older is a bad idea. Most likely he picks someone 60 or younger.
  #162  
Old 04-27-2020, 01:39 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
It won't be Warren because old and older is a bad idea. Most likely he picks someone 60 or younger.
That too.

And Warren was the last to endorse him.
  #163  
Old 04-27-2020, 01:45 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,346
My money is on Kamala Harris (even though I don't bet). She has experience on the national stage and most importantly would not cost the Democrats a Senate seat either in 2020 or 2022. Let's face it, it would be most extraordinary if a Republican won a statewide CA seat. Warren and Klobuchar could potentially cost a Senate seat. Whitmer and Abrams don't have the national experience.
  #164  
Old 04-27-2020, 01:51 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,061
Last time Dem VP candidate was not in the Senate or House was 72. And we know how that worked out. Since then every pick was a Senator except Ferarro who was in the house.
  #165  
Old 04-27-2020, 02:09 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
My money is on Kamala Harris (even though I don't bet). She has experience on the national stage and most importantly would not cost the Democrats a Senate seat either in 2020 or 2022. Let's face it, it would be most extraordinary if a Republican won a statewide CA seat. Warren and Klobuchar could potentially cost a Senate seat. Whitmer and Abrams don't have the national experience.
Altho that is true, Harris gave Biden quite a hard time, and a Californian doesnt help win the race, like a southerner or rust belter could.
  #166  
Old 04-27-2020, 02:17 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Out of curiosity: how likely do you think a Biden/Obama ticket would be, compared to Biden/Abrams and Biden/Warren, to win against Trump/Pence?
Quite honestly, a Biden/Obama ticket would be completely bizarre. Michelle is far too large a personality to play second fiddle to Joe. But I do not see a down side to it against Trump/Pence, except for Michelle.

Thing is, Biden doesn't need help with the black vote. He's demonstrated that he has it in spades. A progressive woman VP pick is essential to ensure the broadest Democratic and Independent voter coalitions. In the case of Warren, I don't think age matters given her energetic disposition and confidence inspiring competence as a progressive thinker/leader.

In short, I think all Biden's other choices floated thus far are worse. Even if it means a small risk to a senate seat.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #167  
Old 04-27-2020, 02:17 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,766
Still say it's gonna be Warren. He needs someone with strong economic chops to steer out of a recession/depression, he needs a progressive (imo), he needs someone with a strong online/social media presence.

Warren checks those boxes, and her age and location are less important than people think. She's a very young 70, and there are legislative ways to ensure her replacement is a Democrat.
  #168  
Old 04-27-2020, 03:00 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
My money is on Kamala Harris (even though I don't bet). She has experience on the national stage and most importantly would not cost the Democrats a Senate seat either in 2020 or 2022. Let's face it, it would be most extraordinary if a Republican won a statewide CA seat. Warren and Klobuchar could potentially cost a Senate seat. Whitmer and Abrams don't have the national experience.
That’s more or less what the 538 folks decided in their recent chat.
  #169  
Old 04-27-2020, 03:12 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,260
Kamala Harris is AG/DOJ material at best, and only if Biden is in a very kind and forgiving mood. No way she gets VP.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #170  
Old 04-27-2020, 03:18 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 607
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Quite honestly, a Biden/Obama ticket would be completely bizarre. Michelle is far too large a personality to play second fiddle to Joe. But I do not see a down side to it against Trump/Pence, except for Michelle.

Thing is, Biden doesn't need help with the black vote. He's demonstrated that he has it in spades. A progressive woman VP pick is essential to ensure the broadest Democratic and Independent voter coalitions. In the case of Warren, I don't think age matters given her energetic disposition and confidence inspiring competence as a progressive thinker/leader.

In short, I think all Biden's other choices floated thus far are worse. Even if it means a small risk to a senate seat.
He won the black vote in spades during the primary. So did Hillary. She ended up seeing a decline in black voter turn out in the general. Biden needs black voter turn out like when he was number two on the ticket under Obama.

Biden might well eat into Trump's white support (52% of white women voting for Trump in 16 was a shock) but I don't think enough to use that as the path to 270. The playbook is to replicate Obama 2012 in my opinion. Obama 2008 was a generational change candidacy and Biden cannot match that enthusiasm (no one can). Obama 2012 took a hit from 2008 but still a relatively comfortable win.
  #171  
Old 04-27-2020, 03:38 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,816
The VP slot is a figurehead. It requires a resume of national experience, only because they may become the POTUS. Most actual VP's are handshakers, campaigners, eat with foreign dignitaries, etc. With the exception of Cheney*, most don't really take on truly meaningful work.

*Cheney pretty much ran the show during W's years, albeit behind the scenes.
  #172  
Old 04-29-2020, 10:39 PM
Elendil's Heir is online now
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 90,088
My money's on Stacey Abrams. An appealing, progressive black woman; younger than Joe; ran a pretty good campaign for Governor of Georgia; would maybe put Georgia in play, or at least force the Trumpinistas to spend time and money there; would motivate black voters nationally; and has stood by Biden in the recent controversy over a sexual assault allegation against him.
  #173  
Old 04-30-2020, 12:13 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,417
There's no polite way to say this. I actually hate that I have to say it. But I have to say it. She does not appear to be physically fit for the job. With Biden being as old as he is, and with the coronavirus exponentially raising the bar for what should be considered a healthy running mate, I believe she is not qualified for the position under these circumstances.
  #174  
Old 04-30-2020, 12:44 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,479
What do you mean? She's only 46, and I haven't heard about any health issues.

I think it would be a mistake to pick Warren, and I still think it's going to be Klobuchar.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #175  
Old 04-30-2020, 12:52 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,417
I mean that she appears to be significantly overweight. I'm not saying this to be mean. I'm not trying to pick on her because of her appearance. Actually, before this pandemic, I probably wouldn't have cared about it at all. But at a time when everyone is hyper-fixated on health and fitness, and the nominee is consistently described as looking like a walking corpse, the VP at least ought to radiate health and youth to make up for this.
  #176  
Old 04-30-2020, 12:57 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,479
She looks pretty healthy to me. At age 46, having a body that's very average for women of her background does not strike me as remotely putting her on death's door.

But I still think it's going to be Klobuchar.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #177  
Old 04-30-2020, 01:05 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 11,109
What physical issues do you see that lead you to think so? Serious question, because I'm unaware of any. Unless you count her weight, which I don't think is that much an obstacle.

I just don't think that Abrams has the experience necessary to take over if Biden dies. I wouldn't be comfortable with her in the Oval Office.

I still say it's Klobuchar/Whitmer/Harris. I think Harris is the most qualified, but I see her as an AG more than a VP. I think Whitmer or Klobuchar get the nod, and they both kinda help deliver the Great Lakes area.

ETA: you answered my Abrams question while I was typing my response.
__________________
It's chaos. Be kind.

Last edited by Superdude; 04-30-2020 at 01:06 AM.
  #178  
Old 04-30-2020, 01:42 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
The VP slot is a figurehead. It requires a resume of national experience, only because they may become the POTUS. Most actual VP's are handshakers, campaigners, eat with foreign dignitaries, etc. With the exception of Cheney*, most don't really take on truly meaningful work.
This hasn't been true in the last 25 years. Both Gore and especially Biden were heavily involved in policymaking. If Biden becomes President he will have a lot on his plate and possibly relatively less energy. It would be useful to have a VP who can do meaningful work from Day 1. The VP is a unique figure who can't be fired and has been validated by voters. Plus any VP of Biden will automatically have the stature of being a likely future President. It would be a shame to waste that on ceremonial work.

As for who it should be, I think Tammy Duckworth is a pretty solid choice. I agree that Abrams has too little experience and Warren is too old.
  #179  
Old 04-30-2020, 01:45 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 11,109
I'd be okay with Duckworth as VP. It'd be great to see her debating the Republicans on military issues.
__________________
It's chaos. Be kind.
  #180  
Old 04-30-2020, 05:55 AM
Win Place Show is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 307
What are the chances that Biden is considering Hillary as his running mate? Sounds crazy but before you say 0%, was there 0% chance when Trump came down the escalator, that he'd be preparing for his inauguration 18 months later?

Just indulge me for a moment by forgetting that the 2016 Election happened. Let's assume Trump defeated.... hell, Cory Booker.

Wouldn't Hillary be at the top of everyone's short list in this thread? Ahead of Klobuchar / Whitmer / Harris / Warren? She fits the "woman" bill, and she's got a hell of a resume. Yes maybe she's considered "not young", I'll grant you that one.

Ok {snaps fingers} back to the real world of today. Yes, she lost 2016. But she did win the popular vote, and I can't imagine anyone who voted for her in 2016 would turn and vote AGAINST a Biden / Clinton ticket. In fact, if you're like me, you might be even MORE motivated to vote for Biden in 2020 if she were on the ticket (sort of a "pull for the underdog" redemption story).

I think she's done a pretty good job of staying "under wraps" for four years and hasn't done anything to tarnish her reputation. Sure, if you hated her then, you probably still do. But otherwise if there were a "Hillary Clinton approval rating" it can't be lower now than four years ago, right?

That being said, would she still be considered too "toxic" even today? Would this just be too much red meat for the Dems to serve up to the shitheads on Fox? Would she even accept the nod if asked?

And finally if Biden wins, would there still be a place for her in the administration anywhere? Or in your opinion has she already hung up her hat and ridden off into the sunset?
  #181  
Old 04-30-2020, 07:16 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,518
Hillary, already 72½ years old, doesn't check the 'Young' box. Otherwise I'd agree — Yes, she'd be a great choice.
  #182  
Old 04-30-2020, 07:46 AM
Folacin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: North of the River
Posts: 3,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Hillary, already 72½ years old, doesn't check the 'Young' box. Otherwise I'd agree — Yes, she'd be a great choice.
Hillary would have been a great president, and not just in comparison to the idiot we ended up with.

But putting her in the VP slot just reboots the 30+ years of hate leveled at her. Just no way it is a good idea.

But bringing it up does serve to distract the idiots on the right, so it is possibly a good thing to discuss.
  #183  
Old 04-30-2020, 08:18 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,061
I figured it was a lock Biden would have a black woman help him pick his VP and he did that. Lisa Blunt Rochester.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/30/polit...ion-committee/

Last edited by Bijou Drains; 04-30-2020 at 08:18 AM.
  #184  
Old 04-30-2020, 08:44 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,665
I'm still hoping for either Whitmer or Harris, myself. But I also don't think a VP pick has a lot of impact on the outcome of the general election.

I agree that experience should be the thing, here. More than policy or geography.

Remember this: If Biden wins the election and falls over dead at 12:06pm on Jan 20, 2021 he will have accomplished the largest part of what we needed him to accomplish: he will have unseated a sitting and disastrous President who was systematically destroying our institutions and culture. After that, whatever else he accomplishes is a bonus.
  #185  
Old 04-30-2020, 08:46 AM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 19,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
I'd be okay with Duckworth as VP. It'd be great to see her debating the Republicans on military issues.
Not sure anyone would be better qualified to stump for the ticket!
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #186  
Old 04-30-2020, 09:43 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,665

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
Not sure anyone would be better qualified to stump for the ticket!
Dinsdale, if that's a joke it's in very poor taste.

No warning issued, but don't be a jerk, dude.
  #187  
Old 04-30-2020, 12:05 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,443
Susan Rice has been suggested recently. She's young and has more foreign policy experience than any of the other contenders. But she's never held elected office and she turned down an offer to replace Clinton as Secretary of State because the hearings would be all about Benghazi.

Biden would be a idiot to allow that to overshadow his campaign. She's in the same class as Clinton and Obama. He needs someone with no right-wing baggage. The VP must add and never subtract.
  #188  
Old 04-30-2020, 12:14 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Susan Rice has been suggested recently. She's young and has more foreign policy experience than any of the other contenders. But she's never held elected office and she turned down an offer to replace Clinton as Secretary of State because the hearings would be all about Benghazi.

Biden would be a idiot to allow that to overshadow his campaign. She's in the same class as Clinton and Obama. He needs someone with no right-wing baggage. The VP must add and never subtract.
I think Susan Rice is brilliant. I wonder whether she'd seriously consider it.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #189  
Old 04-30-2020, 12:32 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,134
Susan Rice sounds excellent. Ready to step in as commander-in-chief and also someone that Biden would have seen a lot of during the Obama administration.
  #190  
Old 04-30-2020, 12:51 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,061
Rice might prefer sec of state.
  #191  
Old 04-30-2020, 12:59 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,766
Yeah, the only fundraising Susan Rice would inspire is of the right-wing variety. Biden needs someone who has at least a bit of online savvy and can excite fundraising. Yet another reason I think it's going to be Warren, or possibly Abrams.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 04-30-2020 at 01:00 PM.
  #192  
Old 04-30-2020, 01:06 PM
Elendil's Heir is online now
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 90,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Folacin View Post
...putting [Hillary] in the VP slot just reboots the 30+ years of hate leveled at her. Just no way it is a good idea....
Agreed. Good Lord, enough of the Clintons already.
  #193  
Old 04-30-2020, 01:32 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
Agreed. Good Lord, enough of the Clintons already.
She could come back for State, she was good there.
  #194  
Old 04-30-2020, 02:00 PM
Xema is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,571
Can someone explain why Biden would choose Chris "waitress sandwich" Dodd as part of his vice-presidential selection committee ?
  #195  
Old 04-30-2020, 02:25 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
Can someone explain why Biden would choose Chris "waitress sandwich" Dodd as part of his vice-presidential selection committee ?
Well, if you read his bio, it should be clear:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd
Christopher John Dodd (born May 27, 1944) is an American lobbyist, lawyer, and Democratic Party politician who served as a United States Senator from Connecticut from 1981 to 2011.

Dodd is a Connecticut native and a graduate of Georgetown Preparatory School in Bethesda, Maryland, and Providence College. His father, Thomas J. Dodd, was also a United States Senator from 1959 to 1971. Chris Dodd served in the Peace Corps for two years prior to entering the University of Louisville School of Law, and during law school concurrently served in the United States Army Reserve.

Dodd returned to Connecticut, winning election in 1974 to the United States House of Representatives from Connecticut's 2nd congressional district and was reelected in 1976 and 1978. He was elected United States Senator in the elections of 1980, and is the longest-serving senator in Connecticut's history.

Dodd served as general chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1995 to 1997. He served as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee until his retirement from politics.[1] In 2006, Dodd decided to run for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, but eventually withdrew after running behind several other competitors.
  #196  
Old 04-30-2020, 02:35 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 13,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
She could come back for State, she was good there.
She should just retire. There is no shortage of capable people. She has too much imagined baggage.

I like her. I voted for her and sent her money. Fair not not (I vote not) she hurts the Democrats every time her name is mentioned.
  #197  
Old 04-30-2020, 03:22 PM
Xema is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
... if you read his bio, it should be clear
I'd think he could find a number of well-qualified candidates without a conspicuous instance of sexual harassment in their records. Why - especially in current circumstances - would he want to be dealing with that?
  #198  
Old 04-30-2020, 04:19 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Susan Rice has been suggested recently. She's young and has more foreign policy experience than any of the other contenders. But she's never held elected office and she turned down an offer to replace Clinton as Secretary of State because the hearings would be all about Benghazi.

Biden would be a idiot to allow that to overshadow his campaign. She's in the same class as Clinton and Obama. He needs someone with no right-wing baggage. The VP must add and never subtract.
If the American people fall for the Benghazi trap the country deserves four more years of Trump.
  #199  
Old 04-30-2020, 04:23 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
If the American people fall for the Benghazi trap the country deserves four more years of Trump.
This line of reasoning makes no sense to me. The "Benghazi trap" is a known quantity of negative, destructive baggage. It's not about what anyone "deserves." If there's a fucking bear trap right in front of you with big signs marked "BEAR TRAP", and you step into the bear trap and die...you're dead. That's all there is to it. The "you" here is the Democratic Party. It would be squarely on THEM for fucking up in this situation, not the "American people."

Last edited by Lamoral; 04-30-2020 at 04:26 PM.
  #200  
Old 04-30-2020, 04:37 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Win Place Show View Post
What are the chances that Biden is considering Hillary as his running mate? Sounds crazy but before you say 0%, was there 0% chance when Trump came down the escalator, that he'd be preparing for his inauguration 18 months later?

Just indulge me for a moment by forgetting that the 2016 Election happened. Let's assume Trump defeated.... hell, Cory Booker.

Wouldn't Hillary be at the top of everyone's short list in this thread? Ahead of Klobuchar / Whitmer / Harris / Warren? She fits the "woman" bill, and she's got a hell of a resume. Yes maybe she's considered "not young", I'll grant you that one.

Ok {snaps fingers} back to the real world of today. Yes, she lost 2016. But she did win the popular vote, and I can't imagine anyone who voted for her in 2016 would turn and vote AGAINST a Biden / Clinton ticket. In fact, if you're like me, you might be even MORE motivated to vote for Biden in 2020 if she were on the ticket (sort of a "pull for the underdog" redemption story).

I think she's done a pretty good job of staying "under wraps" for four years and hasn't done anything to tarnish her reputation. Sure, if you hated her then, you probably still do. But otherwise if there were a "Hillary Clinton approval rating" it can't be lower now than four years ago, right?

That being said, would she still be considered too "toxic" even today? Would this just be too much red meat for the Dems to serve up to the shitheads on Fox? Would she even accept the nod if asked?

And finally if Biden wins, would there still be a place for her in the administration anywhere? Or in your opinion has she already hung up her hat and ridden off into the sunset?
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Hillary, already 72½ years old, doesn't check the 'Young' box. Otherwise I'd agree — Yes, she'd be a great choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Folacin View Post
Hillary would have been a great president, and not just in comparison to the idiot we ended up with.

But putting her in the VP slot just reboots the 30+ years of hate leveled at her. Just no way it is a good idea.

But bringing it up does serve to distract the idiots on the right, so it is possibly a good thing to discuss.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Hillary didn't lose just because people disliked her personally. She lost because she represented to many people an "establishment" that had failed them. Biden represents the same establishment, so he's already handicapped by that. He needs a fresh, younger face to counter that perception. Hillary on the ticket would guarantee four more years of Trump.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017