Is Kamala Harris the inevitable VP choice for Biden?

[tres borrachos]

Election Betting Odds by Maxim Lott and John Stossel

According to the website Election Betting Odds, Harris has about 46% chance of winning the Vice President nomination for Joe Biden. Here are her "closest" competitors: Val Demings 12%, Susan Rice 11%, Tammy Duckworth 8%, Elizabeth Warren 6%, Michelle Obama 4%, Keisha Lance Bottoms & Michelle Lujan Grisham 3%, Stacey Abrams 2%, and Hilary Clinton & Gretchen Whitmer at 1%.

Election Betting Odds averages together the betting odds for Betfair and PredictIt.

The top 5 makes a lot of sense. Democrats love to pick U.S Senators as their VP. Since 1944, the end of the World War 2, 17 out of the 19 Democratic Vice Presidents have been sitting Senators. Having Senators Duckworth, Harris and Warren in the top 5 makes perfect sense.

But do you guys really think Harris is really that far ahead of everybody else? The big draw seems to be that she's black, experienced, already vetted by the national press (and Tulsi Gabbard) and comes from a big donor state.

Personally I think Duckworth would be the bigger splash: military experience, inspiring story, administrative experience working for the VA department, congresswoman, and U.S Senator.

No, I actually don't think it will be Harris. I see it as a sleeper pick, someone like a Sarah Palin (not her!) who is a relative unknown to most of the country, and who is very opposite of Biden in that he or she will be relatively young and dynamic. No idea who that is but I just don't think it will be Harris.

 

[HumblePi]

I don't think Harris is the top pick for one simple reason: California is a safe blue state. That's why my money remains on Val Demings.

I agree, Val Demings

 

[coyotedelmar]

Craig - I think he's got to pick a woman with the LEAST amount of liabilities. No candidate is going to be perfect. Biden is in a much different place than Mondale was in 1984 and McCain in 2008. Ferraro and Palin were picked as Hail Mary passes. Biden is picking a woman in order to counter the criticism, he's a stale, old white man, and maintain leads in the electoral college.

I agree, right now he has the anti-Trump vote as being both the only alternative and that inoffensive enough to the Republican base (imo). Plus some of the people who don't want Trump but don't really like the left/Democrats. My thought is even he went with a Palin type, someone appealing to the further left base, is it could drive some people back to Trump, especially if Biden starts to show his decline, as people will be concerned that he won't make it through his presidency.


Anyways, I mostly agree with the odds, I think Demings is a little bit too high, her being an ex-cop, ex chief of police, and her department supposedly (I haven't looked into it) having a spotty record. My personal choice would be Duckworth, I'd have to read more into her, since last time I looked I was more looking for controversies than anything else, but hell I might even vote Biden if she were the VP (on the above basis that I don't think Biden makes it through even 1 term).

Rice I feel would fire up the Republican base too much, plus we'd hear about Benghazi over and over and over again.

 

[btthegreat]

For me, it is probably more about what's not there, which is much. She's a real 'how did that person get there' person to me', always, always maneuvering for advancement and nothing else I can tell. Unfortunately, our system isn't good at selecting 'good people'.

the ambition is clearly the most obvious trait, but we like that a lot in men. I suspect there is 'substance'/ passion there on policy, and I know there is innate intelligence. but I am not sure how much real empathy there is, and I sure did not see any humility. If you read the reports on why and how her campaign imploded, a lot of blame rests with a candidate who just did not listen, and refused to keep a handle on her top staff and allowed dissension on messaging and strategy issues to get too personal . Its her management style that played a large roll. Hopefully, she will learn and grow down the line and I certainly would have no problem voting for her for a lesser office, but right now I see a less experienced and seasoned version of Hillary, only more progressive.

I like Warren a lot and have always seen her as top drawer, but I think now the pressure is too great to have a woman of color. I'd be tempted to look toward a Hispanic, myself. I think that is a demographic that Biden will need more support with, than black voters. It helps him compete in very different states than a black woman would, including Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado.

 

[swing_voter]

Tammy Duckworth

Disabled vet.

Senator from Illinois.

 

[Craig234]

the ambition is clearly the most obvious trait, but we like that a lot in men.

Actually I do not. I feel the same way for men and women on it.

right now I see a less experienced and seasoned version of Hillary.

Not a bad description.

 

[RAMOSS]

I sure hope not. I'm afraid Harris will give a bad name to Democrats and racial diversity in leadership. Though it'll be hard to notice compared to trump. Rice is very competent, but I'm a bit concerned about her coldness, where war might be a Kissinger-like game to try to win without enough appreciation of the human costs, but I'm not at all sure that's a flaw of hers, just an impression it might be.

I'd be most comfortable with Warren in terms of policy and a long history of compassion, but the times do not call for a white choice. Harris seems like a real 'party insider' choice, and that's not what I want to see - another Obama but possibly worse, 'hope and change' rhetoric but plutocratic policies. I'm really not sure who the right choice is for Biden. I'd probably have preferred someone like Sherrod Brown, but that's out.

On policy, I'd be happy with a progressive woman of color. AoC is too 'green' and controversial, but there are others.

But the thing is, it's hard to see who would have the background to really look strong - but that's a bar that's a joke for Republicans, when you look at Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin, Mike Pence, and so on.

Although I like Warren's politics the best, I don't feel comfortable about having TWO people above the age of 70. I want some younger blood.

 

[Craig234]

Although I like Warren's politics the best, I don't feel comfortable about having TWO people above the age of 70. I want some younger blood.

That's your right. I value policy and character over age.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Hmmm two people I would never pick as VP if I were Biden.

in order
Hillary Clinton
Harris

Who here is astute enough to know why?

 

[BrotherFease]

I agree, right now he has the anti-Trump vote as being both the only alternative and that inoffensive enough to the Republican base (imo). Plus some of the people who don't want Trump but don't really like the left/Democrats. My thought is even he went with a Palin type, someone appealing to the further left base, is it could drive some people back to Trump, especially if Biden starts to show his decline, as people will be concerned that he won't make it through his presidency.


Anyways, I mostly agree with the odds, I think Demings is a little bit too high, her being an ex-cop, ex chief of police, and her department supposedly (I haven't looked into it) having a spotty record. My personal choice would be Duckworth, I'd have to read more into her, since last time I looked I was more looking for controversies than anything else, but hell I might even vote Biden if she were the VP (on the above basis that I don't think Biden makes it through even 1 term).

Rice I feel would fire up the Republican base too much, plus we'd hear about Benghazi over and over and over again.

Exactly. Play it safe. Get somebody who has experience in the national spotlight or you know can handle it.

 

[Craig234]

Unfortunately, as I posted before, it's hard to see how it's not Harris, then Biden said presidential debate experience is important for the position, and that leaves Harris and Warren, with the pressure - 70% of Democrats say it's important - to pick a woman of color leaving Harris in front.

 

[btthegreat]

Actually I do not. I feel the same way for men and women on it.



Not a bad description.

I like ambition - married with integrity and empathy of course - but it is the undeniable fuel that moves people to work hard and sacrifice for a professional goal. Check out those two Texas names Representatives Garcia and Escobar. Those are exactly the sort I think would be ideal VP material. What they lack of course is the gravitas of national prominence

 

[Phys251]

I just don't give a crap about that. It's a person who could well be president, and I don't want another disappointment choice, who will leave the country open to the next Republican.

That's what's driving your thought process for Biden's VP?

 

[ultmd]

Exactly. Play it safe. Get somebody who has experience in the national spotlight or you know can handle it.

The above exemplifies one of the great myths of modern (i.e. post-1980) Democratic Party "wisdom".

Tim Kane was "safe" in 2016. Joe Lieberman was the "safe" choice in 2000. John Edwards was the "safe" choice in 2004.

Base party voters do not want "safe", and swing voters almost ALWAYS prefer a clear ideological option.

"Safe" VP choices only work when the top of the ticket offers a strong, clear ideological choice/message (i.e. Reagan, Clinton, Obama).

In other words, a "moderate" candidate (like Biden in 2020) should NEVER choose the most moderate (i.e. "safe") running mate. That's a recipe for under-performance by that party's base on election day.

--In the case of Susan Rice, I think the biggest (and, really, the only) question mark is her lack of electoral record. She has no constituency or documented appeal to the voting public. But she's intellectually top-notch, her politics are progressive and she's imminently qualified, no doubt. But I don't view Rice as "safe", by any measure.

--In the case of Kamala Harris, she checks all the boxes, but her primary performance was truly disappointing. That said, as a first time national candidate, I'm not at all concerned about that. Harris is smart, progressive and qualified. Her history as a prosecutor is being over-played by her detractors, and will be easily dismissed.

--In the case of Val Demmings, I think the biggest drawback is her anonymity. She would be a risky pick, but I have little doubt that she will quickly dispel concerns about her, once she hits the big stage. She's smart, she progressive and she's qualified.

--In the case of Tammy Duckworth, she's everything she needs to be...except African-American. Joe Biden is a candidate, and this is an election season that demand an African-American female. If Elizabeth Warren was the nominee, Duckworth or Cory Booker or Julian Castro would be the top VP options.

--In the case of Elizabeth Warren, see above. She's everything she needs to be, except African-American...and she's too old to team up with a candidate like Biden. Warren is, by far, the best candidate in terms of ideology and policy positions. She's shown herself to be the most informed and prepared of all 2020 candidates. Warren is so exceptional that if she was 61, instead of 71...I think she'd be hard to deny.

 

[BrotherFease]

The above exemplifies one of the great myths of modern (i.e. post-1980) Democratic Party "wisdom".

Tim Kane was "safe" in 2016. Joe Lieberman was the "safe" choice in 2000. John Edwards was the "safe" choice in 2004.

Base party voters do not want "safe", and swing voters almost ALWAYS prefer a clear ideological option.

How was Biden and Gore not safe?

All what you're doing is pointing to candidates who ended up losing, and labeling them "safe".

 

[Craig234]

I like ambition - married with integrity and empathy of course - but it is the undeniable fuel that moves people to work hard and sacrifice for a professional goal. Check out those two Texas names Representatives Garcia and Escobar. Those are exactly the sort I think would be ideal VP material. What they lack of course is the gravitas of national prominence

It's frustrating when words are used pedantically. There is a difference between the word used 'to move people to work hard' and the sort of extreme ambition for its own sake I'm criticizing. Mixing up the meaning of the word to argue is just that.

 

[btthegreat]

It's frustrating when words are used pedantically. There is a difference between the word used 'to move people to work hard' and the sort of extreme ambition for its own sake I'm criticizing. Mixing up the meaning of the word to argue is just that.

I did not mix up the meaning. Ambition to move up professionally, or 'to get ahead' or 'move up the ladder' as we see in Harris desire to become President, moves people to work harder and sacrifice towards their goals. If you meant 'extreme' ambition', you should have written it. Its only if other character traits like integrity and empathy fail to temper it, or balance it, that professional ambition is a problem. You don't have to like it, but I am using the word exactly in the right context.

 

[veritas1]

Harris makes sense. Female, black and a willing tool of the left radicals. Everyone knows Grandpa won't last through any term he might be elected to.

 

[element94]

Biden has been a joke for over forty years he hasn't fixed anything yet, so why do you think he can fix anything now, Willie Browns girl friend is not going to help him!

And it will be quite a big job too, once that punk-ass-bitch Trump is finished.

 

[Craig234]

I did not mix up the meaning. Ambition to move up professionally, or 'to get ahead' or 'move up the ladder' as we see in Harris desire to become President, moves people to work harder and sacrifice towards their goals. If you meant 'extreme' ambition', you should have written it. Its only if other character traits like integrity and empathy fail to temper it, or balance it, that professional ambition is a problem. You don't have to like it, but I am using the word exactly in the right context.

Have an ounce of common sense.

When I say a candidate appears to nothing but title chasing blind ambition and no other leadership qualities, you don't respond with a normal defition of 'ambition', of you object to their working hard? You're not getting any less frustrating or pedantic. Let's see if you can get it this time.

 

[btthegreat]

Have an ounce of common sense.

When I say a candidate appears to nothing but title chasing blind ambition and no other leadership qualities, you don't respond with a normal defition of 'ambition', of you object to their working hard? You're not getting any less frustrating or pedantic. Let's see if you can get it this time.

Oh I got it the first time. You wrote that you don't like ambition. I suggested it promotes hard work and sacrifice but its important have to have integrity and empathy to balance . You didn't like the feeling of being corrected so you got snippy instead of being gracious, and agreeing .

" I like ambition - married with integrity and empathy of course - but it is the undeniable fuel that moves people to work hard and sacrifice for a professional goal. Check out those two Texas names Representatives Garcia and Escobar. Those are exactly the sort I think would be ideal VP material. What they lack of course is the gravitas of national prominence" That's when you got all pissy.

That's what happened, Craig.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Susan Rice is the most qualified to be president if Biden could not continue. Biden / Rice would make you feel like the Obama team is back in control after the Loose Cannon almost killed us.

 

[ultmd]

How was Biden and Gore not safe?

All what you're doing is pointing to candidates who ended up losing, and labeling them "safe".

"'Safe' VP choices only work when the top of the ticket offers a strong, clear ideological choice/message (i.e. Reagan, Clinton, Obama)."


The above is the take-home point from my previous remarks.

Biden and Gore (and even Bush Sr) were VP choices who were running with elite political animals at the top of the ticket. Kerry, Gore and Biden are not such animals. They were/are political moderates who needed/need more ideological running mates to appeal to the party's base.

Republicans understand this. They have managed to stay relevant, even with a shrinking base, by unapologetically embracing the ideology of their base, and thus controlling the national narrative...because swing voters respect that, and base voters are motivated by it. Democrats (at least, Democrats of the post-Vietnam era) have had it backwards for 40+ years.

That's how Democrats--who have maintained clear majority popular support on virtually EVERY major political/social issue during this time--have managed to turn every single national election into a 50/50 tossup. The last 40 years SHOULD have been dominated by the Democrats. Instead, most of them have been dominated by the GOP'ers. The mistake is believing that "winning" requires appealing to "the middle" or "moderates". In reality, bases win elections.

Moderates are as likely to not vote or vote for the ideologically consistent candidate, as they are to switch parties in favor of an ideologically ambiguous option. M'oderates will follow the strongest leader (or leadership team) on the ballot, even if they don't totally believe in what he/she is selling. If we've learned nothing else over the last 40+ years, it's that we Americans are, as a general rule, NOT a very sophisticated people. We like to see strength and certainty in our leaders, even when they are WRONG on the issues. Strong and Wrong beats Weak and Right, almost every time.

When Democrats go bold, they win. When they go "Republican-light", they lose. Americans what STRONG Progressive leadership right now.

Biden isn't a great candidate. He's a moderate institutionalist at a time that screams for reform. His running mate needs to be someone who appeals to the Democratic base, not the DLC wing of the party...and definitely not to disaffected Republicans. If the anti-Trumpers don't think Biden is moderate and mainstream enough to earn their votes (in a binary choice with the absolute worst POTUS in HISTORY), there is no "safe" VP choice that will ever sway them.

 

[Dayton3]

On policy, I'd be happy with a progressive woman of color. AoC is too 'green' and controversial, but there are others.

AOC will not be old enough to be nominated for Vice President for nearly a decade.

 

[Craig234]

Oh I got it the first time. You wrote that you don't like ambition. .

No you didn't, no I didn't.