Who will Biden choose as running mate?

[Dr. Keith]

I analyzed it a number of years back and found that VPs tended to improve the ticket's net percentage of the vote in the VP's home state by about 2.75 percentage points.

So, if a candidate wanted to use the VP slot for EC advantage on a state basis it would've to be state that is very close to make any difference. That's got to be a very short list at this point.

Frankly, I think it is more important to view the VP choice in how it impacts overall turnout. But I appreciate that you ran the numbers.

ETA: I'm the only person here who thinks there is a good chance it will be someone not listed. Interesting.

 

[acbytesla]

I analyzed it a number of years back and found that VPs tended to improve the ticket's net percentage of the vote in the VP's home state by about 2.75 percentage points.

I analyzed the elections from 1964-2004. I excluded any VPs running for reelection since those tend to be referendums on the sitting President. There were 16 VP candidates who qualified. Of those, 12 appear to have helped their presidential candidate and 4 did not.

I'll illustrate with John Edwards, John Kerry's running mate in 2004. Edwards was from North Carolina, which Bush took by 12.44 percentage points in 2004. By contrast, Bush won North Carolina by 12.83 percentage points in 2000, so Edwards improved things by about 0.39 percentage points.

But that's not the whole story. Remember, Bush actually lost the popular vote nationally by 0.51 percentage points in 2000, and won by 2.46 percentage points in 2004, so there was a national trend for Bush to pick up 2.97 percentage points. Thus, the indicated improvement for the Democrats in North Carolina from having Edwards on the ticket appears to be about 3.36 percentage points.

I think there are some serious issues with your analysis. I absolutely do not believe you can make deductions from one election to another or national percentages to state percentages. But I tip my cap to you for doing the work.

You may be right about Edwards, but there are far too many variables to have any certainty.

 

[dudalb]

Now with her eulogy of a CPUSA leader making thenews, Karen Bass is pretty much through.

 

[Venom]

It's endlessly amusing how news like that could be used against Biden in a way conservatives would never against Trump, and there's plenty of material there.

There are quite a few former CPUSA leaders who've voted for mainstream neoliberal Democrats, and they don't even try too hard to rationalize it with the "lesser evil" or any of that.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I voted for Susan Rice, even though she wouldn't be my preference. She's the one that Biden knows the best, at least among the plausible candidates.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I voted for Susan Rice, even though she wouldn't be my preference. She's the one that Biden knows the best, at least among the plausible candidates.

And she's incredibly intelligent. I'd love to see her debate Trump sycophant Pence.

 

[Trebuchet]

And she's incredibly intelligent. I'd love to see her debate Trump sycophant Pence.

But Pence has GAWD on his side!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But Pence has GAWD on his side!

All the better.

 

[Brainster]

I think there are some serious issues with your analysis. I absolutely do not believe you can make deductions from one election to another or national percentages to state percentages. But I tip my cap to you for doing the work.

You may be right about Edwards, but there are far too many variables to have any certainty.

I'm certainly not saying that it's 100% certain; I'm just saying that we would expect there to be a modest effect and here's some data that indicates that might be the case. When I did the same calculation for presidential candidates and their home states the swing was much more robust; 7-8 net percentage points difference. Again, the kind of effect we would expect.

 

[Brainster]

Now with her eulogy of a CPUSA leader making thenews, Karen Bass is pretty much through.

She had to correct her defense for giving the speech at the Scientology center; turns out that the building was not in her district. She previously had claimed that was the only reason she attended.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm certainly not saying that it's 100% certain; I'm just saying that we would expect there to be a modest effect and here's some data that indicates that might be the case. When I did the same calculation for presidential candidates and their home states the swing was much more robust; 7-8 net percentage points difference. Again, the kind of effect we would expect.

You may very well be right. But I think the overall influence on the majority of elections is negligible. Otherwise the Bush's, Trump and McCain do not pick running mates from red states.

 

[Armitage72]

The question now is how many of these VP candidates would be illegal for Joe Biden to pick.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who once dismissed white supremacy as a "hoax" and "not a real problem," falsely claimed on Monday that it was "probably illegal" for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to only consider women of color for the vice presidency.
...
"Biden has decided to hire exclusively on the basis of qualities that are both immutable and completely irrelevant — race and gender — and that's it," the Fox News host insisted. "'But wait a second,' you ask. 'Isn't that insulting? Isn't it wrong? Isn't it probably illegal?' 'Yes, it is,' all three of those things. But no one's pushing back against it, so Biden is doing it."

 

[theprestige]

I doubt it's illegal. I think it is an interesting case of affirmative action and hiring quotas in action. Tucker Carlson is an ass. But Biden is giving us some insight into what he thinks the real issues are, and what he thinks a good solution is.

I don't give a flying about Carlson's questions. My questions are:

If he picks a black woman for VP, is it because of her race and gender?

Does that mean her race and gender are what make her the best person for the job?

If so, then what exactly is the job? What exactly is the VP's job, anyway? How much do the two jobs actually overlap?

And what if he doesn't end up picking a black woman? Then what? Why did he say he would earlier? What problem was he trying to solve earlier? Why does he think it no longer needs to be solved?

Hypothesis: What he said earlier was a gambit to win votes for his nomination as the party's candidate. Now that his nomination is effectively guaranteed, he's free from that commitment and can consider other factors when trying to win the general election.

 

[CORed]

I doubt it's illegal. I think it is an interesting case of affirmative action and hiring quotas in action. Tucker Carlson is an ass. But Biden is giving us some insight into what he thinks the real issues are, and what he thinks a good solution is.

I don't give a flying about Carlson's questions. My questions are:

If he picks a black woman for VP, is it because of her race and gender?

Does that mean her race and gender are what make her the best person for the job?

If so, then what exactly is the job? What exactly is the VP's job, anyway? How much do the two jobs actually overlap?

And what if he doesn't end up picking a black woman? Then what? Why did he say he would earlier? What problem was he trying to solve earlier? Why does he think it no longer needs to be solved?

Hypothesis: What he said earlier was a gambit to win votes for his nomination as the party's candidate. Now that his nomination is effectively guaranteed, he's free from that commitment and can consider other factors when trying to win the general election.

If you were actually hiring someone (I mean as a private sector employer), it would be illegal under the Civil Rights act. For a vice presidential nomination, I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply. Not that Tucker Carlson would let a little thing like the truth get in the way of making his point. Personally, I wish that Biden hadn't promised to pick a woman. I think for something like Vice President, qualifications should be the primary factor. He hasn't actually promised an African-American woman, but I'll be a bit surprised if he doesn't pick one.

Normally, the vice presidential pick isn't all that important anyway, but given Biden's age and possibly declining health or mental faculties, it is considerably more likely that his VP will end up as president, or acting president than usual.

 

[Armitage72]

Normally, the vice presidential pick isn't all that important anyway, but given Biden's age and possibly declining health or mental faculties, it is considerably more likely that his VP will end up as president, or acting president than usual.

Back in 2008 my mother commented that she was basing her vote on the VP candidates, believing that McCain was too old and sickly to survive the stress of the position and Obama would be assassinated.

 

[theprestige]

If you were actually hiring someone (I mean as a private sector employer), it would be illegal under the Civil Rights act. For a vice presidential nomination, I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply. Not that Tucker Carlson would let a little thing like the truth get in the way of making his point.

I think it raises an interesting question, though. We make it illegal in hiring because we believe that society benefits in some important way from prohibiting this kind of discriminatory practice. Obviously the legality of the VP pick is different. But what about the underlying ethics that inform the hiring law? Are those ethics really that different?

How would Biden complete the sentence, "I think it's wrong to hire someone because of their race and gender, but I don't think it's wrong to pick a VP the same way because ____"?

Personally, I wish that Biden hadn't promised to pick a woman. I think for something like Vice President, qualifications should be the primary factor. He hasn't actually promised an African-American woman, but I'll be a bit surprised if he doesn't pick one.

Normally, the vice presidential pick isn't all that important anyway, but given Biden's age and possibly declining health or mental faculties, it is considerably more likely that his VP will end up as president, or acting president than usual.

I kind of think that if the planned outcome of a Biden win is the installation of his VP as president or acting president, then he probably shouldn't have campaigned at all. If we like Harris as an Emergency Backup Biden, then we should be electing her, not him.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I think it raises an interesting question, though. We make it illegal in hiring because we believe that society benefits in some important way from prohibiting this kind of discriminatory practice. Obviously the legality of the VP pick is different. But what about the underlying ethics that inform the hiring law? Are those ethics really that different?

How would Biden complete the sentence, "I think it's wrong to hire someone because of their race and gender, but I don't think it's wrong to pick a VP the same way because ____"?

You're... joking, right?

Discriminating against someone because you don't like their dark skin, gayness, or religion is the polar opposite than choosing a candidate specifically to increase diversity in your staff. That's... pretty basic stuff.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I doubt it's illegal. I think it is an interesting case of affirmative action and hiring quotas in action. Tucker Carlson is an ass. But Biden is giving us some insight into what he thinks the real issues are, and what he thinks a good solution is.

Does he really. Or is he perhaps just trying to follow in Obama's footsteps and have a diverse staff, since we live in 2020?

 

[Distracted1]

I think it raises an interesting question, though. We make it illegal in hiring because we believe that society benefits in some important way from prohibiting this kind of discriminatory practice. Obviously the legality of the VP pick is different. But what about the underlying ethics that inform the hiring law? Are those ethics really that different?

How would Biden complete the sentence, "I think it's wrong to hire someone because of their race and gender, but I don't think it's wrong to pick a VP the same way because ____"?


I kind of think that if the planned outcome of a Biden win is the installation of his VP as president or acting president, then he probably shouldn't have campaigned at all. If we like Harris as an Emergency Backup Biden, then we should be electing her, not him.

.....because I am not hiring this person, I am presenting them as a potential hire to the American people, and I think it is important that a person representing a race and gender that has never been represented in this office before be offered up as an option.

And, is Biden really campaigning all that much? - he is not even going to attend the "convention".

(but, yeah, he is just fine- fit as a fiddle!!)

 

[Trebuchet]

I doubt it's illegal. I think it is an interesting case of affirmative action and hiring quotas in action. Tucker Carlson is an ass. But Biden is giving us some insight into what he thinks the real issues are, and what he thinks a good solution is.

I don't give a flying about Carlson's questions. My questions are:

If he picks a black woman for VP, is it because of her race and gender?

Does that mean her race and gender are what make her the best person for the job?

If so, then what exactly is the job? What exactly is the VP's job, anyway? How much do the two jobs actually overlap?

And what if he doesn't end up picking a black woman? Then what? Why did he say he would earlier? What problem was he trying to solve earlier? Why does he think it no longer needs to be solved?

Hypothesis: What he said earlier was a gambit to win votes for his nomination as the party's candidate. Now that his nomination is effectively guaranteed, he's free from that commitment and can consider other factors when trying to win the general election.

You doubt it's illegal? By what extreme stretch of the imagination could it possibly be illegal?

Of course, Trump pandering to the religious right by picking a fundy Christian is just fine.