# 3-15 Dem Debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 16, 2020, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-15-dem-debate/849552 "2020-03-16T00:04:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Mrs\_McGinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mrs\_McGinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrs_McGinty)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2020, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-15-dem-debate/849552/141 "2020-03-18T00:20:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Fair enough. But with multiple qualified candidates, I don’t see a problem even if he went at it the other way – deciding in advance that he was going to pick the best woman for the job. Our society is so profoundly tilted that decisions like that are necessary. My point is that making decisions that way does not help to untilt things. It’s putting a fig leaf over inequality. True progress in representation requires a different dynamic, wherein power flows up from the bottom, not down from the top. With Biden’s recent successes - and his route to power - coming most significantly through the support of female and African American voters, I think what we’re seeing here is an example of that dynamic in play. But this is something I think the left very often gets wrong, demanding the appearance of progress where it has not actually been made in the real world of politics and power. The illusion thus created makes it harder to change the true dynamic, because to many it looks like it has changed already. And I think that’s something older black democrats in particular understand better than any other group in the US today. The implication from some on the left has been that most have just blindly gone for Biden because of his association with Obama, overlooking the direction in which power now flows in that relationship. With both HRC and Sanders, power would always have been concentrated under their aegis (albeit by very different means). Like Trump, they have largely been around the edges of the game, and so moved into contention as singular candidates. Biden, by contrast, has always been right in the thick of it. And thus his candidacy is much less imperial in character, being grounded in the meat and drink of reciprocal power politics. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2020, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-15-dem-debate/849552/142 "2020-03-18T03:24:42Z")
There is a philosophical/ethical problem with excluding men from contention as VP, and of excluding men AND white/Asian/Latina/Native American women from contention for SCOTUS. However, I think it’s okay to set aside this concern when a certain demographic has NEVER held that position. After the first time, though, I don’t think it’s right to make such a categorical promise (even if deep down, it’s what you intend to do). > [@Jophiel](#): > > Biden said that he’d (a) have a woman VP and (b) put a black woman on the Supreme Court. This suggests to me that (a) won’t be a black woman and (b) is intended to help soften that blow for people who were expecting Harris or Abrams. Bingo. Pretty clever of him! > [@Folacin](#): > > And a SCOTUS appointment would be more significant/longer lasting effect. > > Some might think the VP slot would potentially launch that person into the Presidency, but that really doesn’t work any more - if it ever did. HW Bush got a single term, but otherwise the sitting Veep doesn’t really move up (Ford, Humphrey, Nixon all lost - LBJ won an election, but special circumstances). I guess Biden would be a bit of an exception if/when he wins (except for sitting out the last election (and the Nixon precedent)), and that he’ll likely only serve one term might help whoever is Veep to have a better shot at taking over. I think this significantly understates the significance to the party’s future of the nominee’s VP choice. Some VPs didn’t ever run for president. But over the past 67\* years, every Democratic VP who sought the nomination was successful (and I’m counting Biden at this point). On the GOP side, it was almost as automatic, with (appropriately) Dan Quayle being the only one to try it and fail. So as long as you’re not a national laughingstock like Quayle, it’s pretty much a lock! It strikes me as unlikely that Biden is going to pick someone who is ultimately uninterested in running for president herself. So if their ticket wins and she becomes veep, she’s very likely to win the nomination in 2024 or 2028, depending on whether Biden decides to run for reelection. That means there probably won’t be an open race for the Democratic presidential nomination until the 2030s (and maybe not even then!). \*I had to cut it off at this point because in 1952, well before the modern era when primary voters chose the nominee, Alvin Barkley made an unsuccessful bid to get the Democratic nomination. But he was 74 (which was really old then), and had quite publicly suffered heart trouble. The delegates at the convention openly dismissed his suitability on that basis alone. So if you eliminate him as a kind of outlier, you can go a good bit further back. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-15-dem-debate/849552/143 "2020-03-22T02:40:41Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > This didn’t happen. Don’t be naive. Of course it happened. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-15-dem-debate/849552/144 "2020-03-22T02:55:47Z")
In the comment you’re referring to, she literally said “I don’t think you’re racist”. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-15-dem-debate/849552/145 "2020-03-22T02:58:16Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Don’t be naive. Of course it happened. [Here’s a transcript](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-2019-democratic-debate-night-two-sortable-topic-n1023601). Could I trouble to quote the part that you thinks supports your (false and obviously bullshit) claim? Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-15-dem-debate/849552/146 "2020-03-22T03:30:18Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > [Here’s a transcript](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-2019-democratic-debate-night-two-sortable-topic-n1023601). Could I trouble to quote the part that you thinks supports your (false and obviously bullshit) claim? > > Thanks in advance. Maybe you could take that elsewhere? Clearly Harris took a nasty jab at Biden in that debate. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2020, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-15-dem-debate/849552/147 "2020-03-22T03:36:43Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Maybe you could take that elsewhere? No. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3-15-dem-debate/849552.md?page=7)