What is “needed” is to win PA MI and WI. A Latinx running mate doesn’t help so much with that per se. Chasing those voters, hoping that this is finally the cycle they get off their asses and realize their voting power, has been a disappointment in the past. I wouldn’t bank on AZ or TX. Build there, fight there, but make sure SURE you have the votes you need in the states you NEED to win.
I get it. But that’s presumably what Candidate Biden brings to the ticket: strength in the industrial Midwest. I could understand the need for looking to the industrial Midwest for a running mate if the nominee is Warren or Harris or Castro, but imo, there’s no need to double down on Biden’s strengths. And speaking to the Baldwin idea: a lesbian senator from Wisconsin isn’t gonna fire up those key voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan any more than a Latina would. But having a Latina on the ticket would make inroads in places like AZ and TX. Plus it just reinforces that the Democratic party is the party of doing the right thing at a time when that population, and really the world, has been stunned by the cruelty of the Republicans in charge.
Ticket balancing:
Biden definitely needs a young person who can connect to the progressive base. That person also needs to be a woman or minority, because I don’t think the Dems should or will go with the two-white-guys look (maybe he could get away with Buttigieg). Extra points, of course, for hailing from a swing State. Not seeing a* perfect* match here, but a lot of good ones. Solis isn’t from a swing State, Castro isn’t a favorite of the left, Baldwin isn’t young, Duckworth isn’t progressive…Abrams might come closest, though the “swing state” criteria is a stretch.
Sanders: see Biden, just switch out “moderate” for “progressive”. Duckworth seems like a great fit; she’s Midwestern, though Illinois itself obviously isn’t a swing State. Castro might work well, too.
Harris needs a white guy; I also don’t think we’re going with two minorities or two women. Fortunately there are a lot of them about. Since she is near the middle of the pack generationally and ideologically, she has a lot of ways she could go and has the luxury of seeing how the campaign unfolds and which groups she needs to shore up support with.
Warren needs a younger, moderate guy. Again, no shortage there; Booker, Beto, Castro or Buttigieg might fit nicely. Tim Ryan might add the union-hall comfort factor that Warren lacks.
(I assume that none of the above four would be interested in the VP slot for themselves, so haven’t considered them)
O’Rourke pairs very well with Baldwin; gender, ideological, generational, and regional balance, plus swing state bonus.
Baldwin would also be a great fit for Booker, as would Sherrod Brown (Beto-Brown doesn’t work as well because of the two-white-guys rule).
Buttigieg needs an older figure with some gravitas…maybe Klobuchar? Actually, Hilda Solis could work well here, too.
In the abstract, “lesbian” might not seem like a quality that would appeal to white working class Midwesterners…but Baldwin has already proven her appeal to just those voters! I agree with your broader point, though…if Biden would need to make the right VP pick in order to have a chance of winning back the Rust Belt, why exactly are we thinking of nominating him again?
+++.
The fact that Kasich is viewed as a “moderate” shows how far down the slippery slope labels and the GOP have slid.
Kasich is a hard-core right-winger. He opposes women’s choice, gun control, Obamacare, support for public schools, and government regulations. He was an enabling admirer of Newt Gingrich, a Fox pundit, and was named Conservative of the Year 2011. He favored gutting labor unions but switched sides on that issue when his draconian law was overturned by Ohio’s voters. Kasich is a “moderate” only in the sense that he is “to the left of” the bat-shit insane GOP mainstream.
Please: In future use Spoiler tags to enclose any jokes about Kasich running as a Democrat.
Bipartisanship isn’t a gimmick. But if you’re serious about it, you do it by things like co-sponsoring bills with legislators from the other party. Picking a running mate from the other party in the name of “bipartisanship” is what’s a gimmick.
You’re right, my throwing “lesbian” in there was unnecessary. I should’ve just said “white working-class senator from Wisconsin.” *That *doesn’t bring anything extra to the ticket that Biden doesn’t already bring for voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
I’m not too familiar with any of these Latinx names being brought up. If any of them are activist friendly progressive firebrands, I would find that possibility potentially worrying. You might increase Latinx turnout with one, you also might hurt yourself in other areas, see Charles Blow’s column hinting of a warning about this. If a Latinx is who, someone who can communicate well among a broad coalition would be my preference. Anyone should be able to call out the incompetence and inhumane practices flagrantly evident.
Stacey Abrams has announced that she is not running for the Senate in 2020. Is she holding her options open for a Veep nomination?
Possibly. There has also been speculation that she might still run for President herself.
Forget veep. I would be surprised if she isn’t thinking about running for president herself.
Maybe a hijack but…
I get WHY people do this “Latinx” thing, to be gender inclusive, but it doesn’t scan well at all, either visually in text, or in the internal monolog of the reader. I’ve never heard anyone say the word out loud - probably for this very reason. Surely there is a better word that means the same thing, right? I’m not blaming YOU, you weren’t the one who invented it…I just wish something better would supplant it.
If the premise is to use a White mid-westerner to take votes from Trump, I believe that a non-White or female running mate would cause those voters to stay with Trump.
Dictionary.com has no problem with it.
LATINX Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
I don’t.
The white Obama-Trump voters of the industrial midwest voted for a black man, twice. White midwesterners won’t *only *vote for a white person. And while it’s possible sexism may keep a lot of blue-collars (and others) from voting for a woman for president, I don’t think it would be as big of a deal to have a woman as the running mate, especially with someone like Biden at the top of the ticket. YMMV.
The best choice for a running mate is a strategic choice - someone who can help pull in a demographic that might otherwise not get on board in the necessary numbers. Mike Pence is an example of a strategic choice, a very good one. With Pence alongside Trump, Evangelical Christians in the Midwest had an easier time seeing their way clear to voting for Trump. If Trump had picked someone like Rand Paul, there would have been less likelihood of this happening. Many of those Pence supporters would have stayed home or voted for some third-party bullshit candidate.
(Tim Kaine, if anyone even remembers who he is - that’s the perfect example of a totally NON-strategic choice.)
In Biden’s case, I think the strategic choice would be a minority. Ideally a black person, in my opinion. I think Booker would be an excellent choice.
Biden is already winning the black vote going away. Younger voters and progressives are where he’s weak.
I don’t know much about Booker but like many people saw him during the Kavanaugh hearings.
I was not impressed with his ‘Spartacus moment’ comment. Is that type of trope really so close to his consciousness? It suggests a superficiality or an impetuousness that makes me take him less credibly. Sure, he’s a smart guy but was that type of performance typical for him?
Booker is younger than Harris, Duckworth or Gillibrand; and of course much younger than Inslee, Hickenlooper etc. His stances on issues may not be at the lunatic left, but are quite progressive. (He balanced Newark’s budget — Is that a problem?)
(I also thought his ‘Spartacus’ comment was silly, but don’t want to get hung up on a single word.)