I think a good strategy would be to pick a solid women to help win 2020. After 2 years in Biden can step down for health reasons. That gives the VP 2 years of the rest of the presidency and 2 more terms if possible.
5
All fine and good to choose a woman...not because she is a woman. The idea that a Black woman must be chosen is short-sighted and foolish. You must choose a person who is qualified to be President. The next VP truly will be "one heart beat away" from the Oval Office given the next president's advanced age. Do we want someone ready or someone chosen for window dressing?
Choose based on qualifications.
Abrams certainly is not qualified. She has no international or executive experience. Two items necessary in today's world.
Yates? Just because she had a moment of in standing up to Trump does not make her qualified.
Or how about considering Cory Booker? Why discount qualified men?
6
The importance of picking a VP can’t be overstated. The selection should be made as if he or she were going to assume the Presidency on day 2. It is actually a very difficult task.
3
I predict it will be Biden/Klobuchar, if he is the nominee....
10
Disagree that it must be a woman of color. It must be a qualified candidate who can take the reigns from Biden in four years, should he decide enough is enough. It also happens to be that Klobuchar works just fine for that role. I think it should be one of the candidates who made it the furthest though, and and definitely not Abrams, who would try to overpower Biden in terms of visibility. Not sure Harris deserves to be considered over Warren if it’s because she’s black (or mixed race), As much as Warren drove me away with her yelling, waving, and kissing up to “progressives", she’d snap tightly into the VP role tomorrow.
6
So Biden won already? Thanks for the update!
4
Kirsten Gillibrand would be a brilliant VP. She'll deal with
her Al Franken problem.
2
@jahnay No, she won't. Nor will she deal with her "abolish ICE" problem.
Never has such a transparent opportunist miscalculated so badly.
6
Who ever is selected as VP, assuming Dems win, will have a big leg up on being the next POTUS since neither Biden or Sanders would likely run for a second term.
I refuse to even consider the possibility that Trump would win in November 2020 unless, a possibility that he would declare martial law this year to hang on. He has more or less hinted at that.
2
Female? Midwest? Minority? Non-compromised? Intelligent? Educated? Beloved? Michelle Obama!
12
Yes!!!! I love Michelle too, but the prob is she doesn't want to do it. tears
11
Tulsi Gabbard is in the race and is offering profoundly important views that would otherwise be avoided completely. I am certain that most of those who have negative views of her have adopted them from others. I'm sure few have seen any full, unedited interviews with her, like her podcasts with Joe Rogan or even her brief, MSM interviews with Chris Cuomo, Anderson Cooper or Steven Colbert. (Though they started out condescending, Tulsi made these last two seem like little boys by the end.)
3
@carl Bumba
Making two men feel like little boys? Is that like men making women feel like little girls?
2
I have been a committed feminist since the spring of 1970 then the scores of young women handing out leaflets at Macy's for Betty Friedan's August 26, 1970 Women's Strike for Equality. I was an after work pitch in volunteer for the Women's Liberation Center and grass roots groups afterwards until the 80's and in the 1990's switched to being a feminist voice for urban and older adult issues in New Haven, CT and now in my CA city.
Even with that background, I am all for a woman vice president especially for this election given the ages of the two leading candidates that will prevent their running for a second term.
I do hope the vice presidential candidate will be chose based on seniority--length of experience--and effectiveness in leading the Senate to pass legislation approved by the House of Representatives then halted by Senator McConnell.
Such a woman will be of more help to more people in all ethnic and socioeconomic groups below the 5% to recover from Trump and move forward with new helpful programs.
2
Note that Trump could pick a woman running mate, as well.
Democrats pick first, so if they don't pick a woman, Trump trumps
I pick, Sen. Amy Klobuchar because of her abilities and manner.
I think a Black VP candidate will likely turn off too many voters.
Let's have a woman vice president and a new democracy wave.
"Democracy is coming to the USA" (Leonard Cohen song)
4
@H Pearle Why would a black VP turn off voters, when the country has already elected a black President?
Generally, this assertion of who would turn off too many voters is somehow only made of black/Latino/women candidates. Are none of them ever competent enough?
12
@S North
Is racism and misogyny still strong in this country? Many Republicans including Trump could never forgive President Barack Obama for being Black. Still, it’s the right thing to do!
John McCain made a huge mistake when he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate in the 2008 presidential election. It delivered a short-term boost in the polls. But it also opened the Pandora’s box of populism. The emergence of the Freedom Caucus, the Tea Party, and the shift in the centre of gravity for the Republican Party, enabled Trump to win the GOP nomination eight years later.
McCain's failure to win had nothing to do with putting a woman on his 2008 ticket. He just picked the wrong one. This shouldn't deter Biden and Sanders from tapping someone more competent and intelligent than Palin as their running mates.
11
There's no reason for the VP to be a woman. The Democratic Party had a number of female candidates and all failed to make the grade. They are failures and should not be made VP merely because they are women.
The very idea that a woman needs to be VP is anti-male sexism and compelling evidence of the female gender privilege.
11
@Billy Ross
That’s a joke right?
5
For both the candidates, Biden and Bernie, the choice of VP is not just pro forma; these guys are not spring chickens and the VP could quite possibly assume the Presidency. And even if the President stays healthy throughout his term, I would not be surprised if he were to step aside at the end of the term and endorse the VP as the 2024 candidate. So whoever fills the role should be viewed through the lens of being the leader of this country one day. I personally am ready for a woman President, not because it is time that we have one but because I think we can use less testosterone in some of our critical decisions.
232
@Scott Werden Biden just last summer talked about stepping aside after one term. Sanders has never mentioned it and I think he's too egotistical at heart to consider it. But voters should because both would be running for a second term at the ripe age of 84. That's too old no matter which way you want to spin it. So a VP choice in this election in my view is critical and should be a person already highly qualified for the office of the presidency.
14
@Scott Werden: Warren fits the bill. She's a vigorous, healthy 70 y/o.
11
@Sheila
Don’t forget the gay candidate — Buttigieg is only 38!
1
So, I understand the article is about naming a female as the VP candidate, which is a great idea, but I'm curious if Mayor Pete fits in the administration somewhere. Also, how about Senator Cory Booker for that matter? Biden could have a wonderful group of people in his administration that could really rally up enthusiasm in the party. Please put Sally Yates in there somewhere, too. Attorney General, perhaps? Also, the VP candidate has to have enough experience and qualifications to be President. I thought I read that Biden was only running for one term. The VP will probably be the Democrat's next nominee in 2024.
1
Why hasn't anyone mentioned the most obvious over-the-top candidate: Michelle Obama. Think about it. You're welcome.
2
Because it's a ridiculous idea that will never happen; because she has no political experience; and because she has no desire to get into politics. That's why.
You're welcome!
4
This shouldn't be a problem. She ran, she lost fair and square. Any other reason is someone's bone to pick and spilled milk. What is all this sexist nonsense? Ladies and Gent's we need each other. No one is entitled to anything unless they earn it.
She didn't earn it. Keep it simple. 'There is no room for personal grievances. I'll say it again. She lost fair and square. Let it sink in.
If some Bernie people were mean and caustic to her, take it up with them. Leave the rest of us 95% of good men out of your personal opinion. You lost. Swallow hard and move on.
4
Political purity absent Power has been the fetish of the left for 60 years. Without the will to seek and hold power Democrats are merely an expensive think tank. We have one responsibility; to field a team that can win. Without pandering to any one group or segment of the Democratic movement the person Biden chooses must add to the voting coalition. Where he appears to need assistance is with the Latino community. I thought that Julian Castro was a fine mind and a good communicator. He finished his campaign in January saying "...ir simply isn't our time". It should be.
3
The premise that a black woman on the ticket is a must is a strategic mistake. I cannot think of a woman white or black whose presence on the ticket will make a difference except for Sen. Warren. Unless Sen. Sanders is the Democratic nominee, anyone else sends the wrong message to the left. This is a great opportunity for a woman with great policy credentials and an opportunity to establish her for 2024 assuming Biden decides not to run (and is elected). White nationalism in 2024 will not accept a black woman as head of the ticket and any black woman would be symbolic only and benefit no one.
3
@James I guess you have forgotten about Kamela Harris. If you don't think she will make a difference in the electability of Biden, thing again. She is highly qualified, experienced, intelligent and will give the ticket a boost. She will attract not only women but people of color and improve his chances in the key swing states.
1
@mancar No I have not forgotten. It would be a great personal achievement for her, but would do nothing to address any of the many policy issues the country is faced with. She would jump at a chance to be on the ticket and would contribute nothing beyond symbolism.
Beside she and her parent have not lived the black experience.
2
"Sarah Palin did nothing to shore up support from Independent and/or Democratic women."
Of course she didn't. Contrary to accusations of playing identity politics, when I say I want to see a woman President, I don't mean ANY human being with the correct biology. I mean with qualified people of both sexes running, I'd rather see a woman win it for once.
When I say I'd like a female VP, I don't care what color she is, so long as she can help the ticket and win the Electoral College.
(Also, she should ideally know her way around the Senate.)
1
Harris, Amy and Warren are all needed in the Senate.
Balancing the ticket should lead to minority, a woman or a minority woman.
Stacy Abrams would be a good choice, but also consider Corey Booker or Julian Castro. We need to win and beat Trump-Pence, is first priority.
2
I wonder if we're beating ourselves up too much. It's been 16 years since the democrats nominated a white man for president, and a woman won the popular vote four years ago. That doesn't mean we don't have to keep working for equality, but maybe the arc of the moral universe really is bending towards justice.
2
Is this her "deal" for endorsment?
3
@Slann
If so — don’t nominate her.
3
Update.
Bidens cabinet largely filled with bankers. I’m sure many moderates will love it. Not a good way to get progressives to support him though.
'All You Need to Know': Biden Reportedly Weighing Billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Jamie Dimon for Cabinet Posts
"The establishment wing of the party didn't fall into line behind Biden despite the fact that he'd put Bloomberg and Jamie Dimon in his cabinet. They did it because of that. This is who they are."
by Jake Johnson, staff writeronMonday, March 09, 2020
—
Joe Biden's secret governing plan
Axios
Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen
2
If Senator Warren endorses Senator Sanders and becomes his VP, maybe the article below this one saying that "Even if Bernie Sanders wins, Medicare for all almost certainly won’t happen" can be proven to be just more propaganda.
I believe that together, if Warren is truly loyal to the progressive movement despite her personal issues with Bernie, then together they will lead this nation, manage the Senate and exert their considerable influence, the progressives in this nation win and we begin turning away from the 50-year movement to a nation for the rich and by the rich and the underlying agendas of both the neoliberal and neoconservative politicians that have largely taken their money from billionaires and the super PACs, now dark monied, that control the likes of McConnell and to a somewhat lesser degree the DCC and the DNC.
We are lead to believe that Biden is actually "Blue Collar Joe" or that he is a civil rights leader rather than what his record actually indicates; a leader of the rightward marching corporate representation of the neoliberal strategy of the countries increasingly disproportionately wealthy plutocracy while the criminal legislation Joe signed contributed more to the incarceration and long term incarceration of black men.
He seemed focused on legislation to undo regulations of Wall Street and championing of the 2005 bankruptcy act that profited the TBTF and payday lenders rich at the expense of the middle class. 2008 didn't need to happen.
2
I would happy if there were to be a woman running mate. But I wouldn’t say it is a must for dems. Identity politics brings bad name to the party and the group it tries to help. Let the winner choose whoever he is most comfortable with. Man, woman, black, white, young, old, Latina, Latino, Asian American, beer drinker, tea drinker. These identities should not be the criteria. Character, Competence, Charisma and Compatibility criteria make more practical sense.
6
Here they go again. A woman at any cost. How about a well qualified candidate that offers positions the majority will support? The Democrats' game playing last time to push a woman at any cost got us Trump.
Warren fell short not because of gender but because she took ridiculous positions that the majority of voters would not support. Plain and simple. I am happy to vote for a woman who puts up positions that the majority will support. But not someone who only knows how to poke the electorate in the eye.
7
I don't see any advantage to putting on woman in as running mate this time, and there might be a disadvantage (no matter which woman it were) because IMO the country has shown itself to be still very sexist. And I want Dems to win the presidency above all--in any other circumstances, I would be delighted to have a woman either as candidate or running mate, or both.
1
In an election where both of the top male democratic candidates are old white men and one has had a heart attack, the vice presidency if the democrats win the election, may not end up being silver, but gold. Many female leaders, such as former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, are not elected but find themselves in the top job, by appointment or other means (NB. Australia is a parliamentary democracy so the no Prime Minister is “elected” by the people as such, but is appointed by their political party). A female Vice President is probably the most likely way the United States will get a female president in the next term or two.
1
For everyone who thinks a woman must be the VP candidate, I have four little words:
"Geraldine Ferraro" and "Sarah Palin."
Remember how those elections turned out?
While I personally would like to see Amy K or Stacey A on the ticket, all that matters to me is that we get a team that can grind the current regime into mincemeat and disinfect the White House.
3
@Elizabeth I'm not old enough to remember much about Ferraro, but it is not at all reasonable to compare Palin to ANY of the women who were serious Democratic candidates (I'm not counting Gabbard or Williamson). It isn't necessarily that it has to be a woman on the ticket, but as a middle-aged white woman, I'm tired of the old white guys getting it by default. Neither of them is as good a prospect as were most of the women (and maybe one or two of the younger, more diverse men). It is a pretty hard pill to swallow that any of the more qualified and capable candidates have to take the second spot on the ticket.
1
I'm not saying she wants or should get VP, but I do really like Warren as an option. I'm seeing a few negative comments about her appeal that I would like to challenge or comment on:
1. A lot of people are underestimating the pain, anger, and frustration of progressives, people of all stripes who want more than a return to "normalcy", and of women, from this primary season and the politics that got us Trump. We will need more enthusiasm and unity to win. And as the Times itself reported, people wished they could make Warren President with a wave of a magic wand, but many switched votes because of fear. Warren as VP gives people a chance to show their support in a way they may be more comfortable with and, in the case of Biden becoming the nominee, balances the ticket more ideologically.
2. With the markets in turmoil and the fragile economic situation being tested by the coronavirus, her expertise and plans will be highly valuable and reassuring. She warned against the recession of 2008 before it happened and in July of 2019 she warned about the issues we are seeing now, and she has released more than one comprehensive plan to address these issues. It matters that she could step in right away if needed.
3. Massachusetts law requires a special election so her replacement would be a temporary issue. Senate Majority Leader is elected by fellow Senators, so that's not a sure reason for her to remain.
4. I hate to see age be used against her given past and current options.
4
I wonder how many voters who voted for Trump will switch sides because the Democrats have a woman as Vice -Presidential candidate? The Democratic Presidential candidate in 2016 was a very well known, experienced woman and she lost. The voters in the swing states, which from a pragmatic standpoint will have the most weight in the 2020 election will be concentrating on bread and butter issues rather than the gender of the candidate. Besides, what difference does gender make in the quality of government? None that I can detect. After all, about one quarter of the House and the Senate are comprised of women members. I haven't detected any improvement in the quality of our Government as a result of their increasing influence. A politician is a politician irrespective of gender.
3
The gender filter, like the race filter since Obama, hasn't proven to be helpful in a female heavy elector. This call is another last-gasp for special interest politics. You should have figured it doesn't work when Madeleine Albright's comment on behalf of Hillary brought such derision from women.
Amy Klobuchar couldn't get traction when she made female-ism one of her planks. Why should it work now?
3
I don’t know if there has to be a woman on the democrat ticket but I do know that we need to get rid of the fools in the White House before he gets us all killed.
8
I hope to see Senator Warren replace McConnell.
11
Amy Kovachar is the best I see for Vice President. But it’s not because she is a woman and we need to check some sort of box because, you know, there are no qualified women so we have to pick a random woman and check a box. She is the best candidate and she just happens to be a woman.
So get over it, “progressives.” I cringe when I use that Orwellian word. Kobachar is the best choice not because she is a woman and any woman will do, but because she is who she is. A second wave feminist choice
Contrast her to Elizabeth Warren, who has a Trump temperament.
2
The Dems need to get creative with their VP choice.
Tammy Duckworth. Consider:
- Her family and military background are known to and respected by most everyone.
- As far as I know, she is the only public person in D.C. who dissed Trump (the Cadet Bone Spurs comment) without a single twitter peep in reply.
- If you want a consensus builder, watch the video of her carrying her newborn daughter onto the Senate floor after the Senate got around to amending its rules to allow members to bring in their children. Both McConnell and Schumer stood with her, next to each other, both smiling. Proof positive that a little child can lead them.
3
Tammy Duckworth is extraordinary — alas she was born in Thailand so ineligible. She would be awesome however.
1
Where is Hillary when you need her?
2
Biden-Warren, Biden-Warren, BIDEN-WARREN!!!
5
Right below this article is another one entitled:
"Even if Sanders Wins, Medicare for All Almost Certainly Won’t Happen"
If Warren cares more about getting healthcare to citizens than in political gaming, she will wholeheartedly embrace Bernie and the vast majority of the progressive population.
If instead, she's angling for a role with the single most advocate neoliberalism - that term actually means those who are moving from the Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt New Deal, people-first policies and towards the agenda of entities who's only value is greed - then you may want to consider that as a progressive in future elections.
Frankly, since Harris let her position as a neoliberal be expressed as did Mayor Pete and others including of course the mega-billionaire neoliberal, Bloomberg, and if Liz shows the progressive community she is actually progressive and not just in it for herself and endorses Bernie today, then I'd say Stacey Abrams is Bernie's best choice and I hope she will join Jesse Jackson in endorsing him.
Joe claims to be "Blue Collar Joe" but anyone who has really done the research, studied his voting record and looked at the arc of his career knows he is one of the quarterbacks of the neoliberal movement.
Forty years of stagnating wages, horrible trade relations, massive deregulation of food and other safety, massive outsourcing to Communist China for corporate socialism, giant tax cuts for the super-rich, breaking down regulations. Joe was on board.
2
@Tom Paine
I will take Joe Biden over Trump ANY day!
3
An enthusiastic YES to Stacy Abrams, for Sanders or Biden, either one. An enthusiastic NO for Kamala Harris. She will bring down the nominee.
6
In vice presidential politics the cardinal rule is, "do no harm". Klobuchar is the clear choice. The nation knows who she is. She proved her sand throughout the primary cycle and came out as the lead female candidate alongside Warren. And she is a centrist from the heartland. Warren proved she is too far left for much of America and would give many Americans misgivings about voting for a ticket that might elevate her to the presidency, should uncle Joe not survive his first term... a very real possibility given his age. It is a misgiving they would not have about AK.
4
The glass ceiling was broken in 2016. Mrs. Clinton won the election, she lost to a cheating Trump and an archaic system that should have been done away with decades ago. What we need now is a ticket that will get Trump out of the White House or else we will no longer be talking about glass ceilings or historic firsts, but how to rebuild a country reduced to ashes by Trump and the Republican Party.
5
Amy Klobuchar or Kamala Harris didn't appeal to the majority of voters in the primary; being VP won't change that. Also, Harris is a divisive figure for most people of color given her history of incarcerating a record number of black people as a district attorney/attorney general. Warren is a superstar who I want leading the Senate.
In my estimation, the only way to guarantee a Democratic victory in November is by selecting a young, progressive(ish) and vibrant VP candidate, i.e. Julián Castro, Stacey Abrams, or Andrew Gillum.
3
I truly do realize that what we write here will bear no influence on who is chosen - yet I want to express my view:
Stacey Abrams is the person for our time. I am a Southern woman in my 7th decade. I can tell you that she is the best of us, intellectually, culturally and as a woman. Lets not waste another election cycle - lets move her to the front of the line now.
She is quoted in this article as saying, "I accept that I exist in the political zeitgeist in a very specific way,”
She said it better than any of us.
8
I supported Senator Warren with my efforts and my cash. I'm still grieving her absence from the campaign. That said, I have absolutely zero expectations that she will be selected by anyone as their VP running mate. Why? Because she'd upstage them all by getting really big stuff done and their fragile male egos couldn't handle it for a second. I suspect Biden and Klobuchar already have a deal. Exactly what Abrams or the late-to-the show Harris would do for Biden's run puzzles me. Abrams has never so much as held a state-wide elected office that I know about and would very unlikely turn Georgia blue for Biden or any of the other of the other southern states that elevated him to the top of the heap. And Harris would do nothing to aid Biden's pursuit of western states beyond those he could already carry with even Elmer Fudd as a running mate. Looking for a woman to run with Biden? Better start getting accustomed to Klobuchar. Looking for a woman to run with Bernie? That's a very big problem once his fawning wife is eliminated from contention. Never met a successful woman yet who'd put up with someone screaming or growling at them all day long.
4
Inconvenient Truth coming at you. If Trump dump's Pence and nominates Nikki Haley for his VP, he will completely obliterate either Biden or Sanders. This is my sad prediction for 2020.
1
@Ryan
Maybe true in Texas but where it counts in the swing states a good Democratic VP might make a HUGE difference,
3
Absolutely NO! If the old boy's network (literally!) wants one, last hurrah before the nursing home, let them pick a vice president worthy of themselves.
Strom Thurmond!
Yes, dig that old segregationist up out of the ground, set him up in a cabinet in the United States Senate, and like old Jeremy Bentham at the University of London, mark him down as "Present, but not Voting."
1
Disappointment is the watchword for 2020; The tops of their tickets both major parties are hardly paragons of competence, and the bottom half selection available to the Dems is also singularly unimpressive, apart from Elizabeth Warner - whose notions are and will be unacceptable to most of the electorate. And anyway, even if they have necessary mo-jo and smarts to make it to the finals, the top half of the ticket, Bernie or Joe, isn't going to pick a running mate what can and will outshine them on the campaign trail, or if elected, in office.
In my opinion, we did not need our first black president to be a Republican, like Colin Powell. Nor do we need our first female president to be a tool of the corporate establishment. Everyday that Elizabeth Warren does not endorse Bernie Sanders is a gift to that establishment.
2
@Carl bumba
Was it the corporate elite in South Carolina that gave the margin of victory to Biden and gave him the momentum to sweep Super Tuesday?
2
Those who think gender doesn't matter haven't been paying attention to how the exclusion of women in the top position has set us apart from other nations. Our country lags behind al the countries we respect because we think talking about gender is somehow more shameful than being too sexist to elect women to office. Perhaps premise of this article is right: a woman should be named VP because next in line to a geriatric president may be the only way a woman can find herself seated in the oval office.
5
Look we need competence. Leave the senators in the Senate. Stacy Abrams must wait. I say Susan Rice, proven, qualified, experienced and familiar.
3
@Lawrence
Susan Rice, interesting.
She lacks the dazzling star power (the dictionary defines this as "see Abrams, Stacey") that an unfortunately waning one like Biden needs. But she does have the good looks, wit, brilliance, and youth to be a perfect match for Joe. Not to mention the experience and expertise that she might need to put to work sooner rather than later.
Oops, did I just commit a PC faux pas by citing "good looks" as a vital factor?
Three words for you: A O C. Also: We must win. Also: Nothing else matters.
Still offended? Then maybe these three: "Trump's second term."
1
Males who see this strategy as ridiculous do not understand the female perspective, and women are more than half of the voters, so how we feel matters. We feel the discrimination and know that too many males in positions of power are making laws that hurt women (or are voting against laws that protect them). Females who see this as a consolation prize should view this as a foot in the door. If a female VP is given a meaningful role it may change perceptions. And let's be real, Joe is pretty old and could die in office, so it is possible we could have a female President that was not elected to the office.
3
@RAR
What consolation prize? Women voted for Biden, too. More than a few women expressed dislike of Warren. Women need consolation prizes?
1
I asked 80 college mostly liberal city students who would win. Overwhelmingly Trump!
Why?
"Biden is old news, has nothing new to offer them."
Go figure.
Warning to the DNC: nominate young female Klobuchar to give something to attract women and young people to good old boy Joe, who in my eye will possibly die in office.
2
@Me.
Where you asking your fraternity brothers? The students I have heard from our strongly for Sanders.
1
Warren & Klobuchar have always been fine with me.
2
Stacy Abrams is my top pick for VP. We need Warren in the Senate.
3
I find it laughable so many men advise against the idea of a woman at VP.
If not now, when?
1
Dems: Harris or Abrams would be an excellent VP nominee, but if Warren's on the ticket, kiss the White House and Congress goodbye!
2
Harris would cut Pence up in little pieces.
3
Which woman will Trump have on his ticket for VP?
Trump will pick Ivanka. She's loyal!
3
Baby steps, Ms. Warren, Baby steps. I think Warren would make an excellent addition to the presidential ticket. That said, she's also a great Senator.
Sigh - and thus we continue to try and drag the right wing out of the 19th century.
3
Yes, a qualified Republican Women in 2024.
6
As an Australian I don't have a vote but would dearly like Trump gone.So pick a VP that speaks to the swinging voter and not the PC brigade.
5
The important issue is beating Trump, not getting one woman one job.
12
I wholeheartedly agree a woman should be on the Democratic ticket, it would diminish some of my disappointment in seeing no women remaining in the primaries — as there were great, intelligent, inspiring female candidates. Warren, Abrams, Harris, Klobuchar would be excellent running mates for VP — and I'd hope it would lead to their presidential runs in 2024.
4
My dream has been a Warren/Harris ticket. The boldness of that, Warren's likability and honest dealing would win people over. The way she deliberately took Bloomberg down would be a prediction of things to come. Harris, as a former prosecutor has shown that she can nail Trump and the GOP to the wall with her questions and fierceness. Piece of cake for her.
Klobuchar would make a great cabinet secretary. Tulsi Gabbard needs to go in the dustheap of history. But Warren is in a class by herself in her steely gaze on the highest office. I wouldn't accept a VP slot if I were her. The simpatico and loyalty of Obama and Biden would be hard to reproduce.
1
@Tulipano Harris, as California AG, refused to allow advanced DNA testing of an African-American man who appears to have been framed for the murder of a family.
Harris, as a senator without a political reason to oppose the testing, has now changed her mind. He's still on death row.
As San Francisco DA, she refused to pursue a capital conviction against an undocumented immigrant for the murder of a cop and three members of the Bologna family.
Harris is only a senator because her democratic opponent was even more unpopular.
2
If a person is chosen because of their race and gender, is that not racism and sexism?
If a person is chosen because of sex and/or race, they will never have the same legitimacy as a person who honestly earns their way...they will forever be tarnished as a diversity hire.
A Supreme Court justice said it best when he said you don’t fight racism with more racism.
5
"some cringe at settling for silver after spending a year competing hard for the gold."
Listen, ladies: as a feminist to the core, as a 1968 voter for Shirley Chisolm for President, I am telling you to toughen up. "Cringing" is self-indulgent. Leave it to the losers.
Only one thing matters in the 2020 election: defeat the "incumbent". If the stats show that the Democratic presidential candidate will more likely succeed with a female VP, & I hope for a woman of color, yay! If the stats show a more likely win with a white male, go for it! End game, ladies! End game!
6
Elizabeth Warren always Running onto the stage as if she is trying to show how young she is. I would rather she would have acted more Professional and Presidential. Her loud abrasive dressing down Mike Bloomberg fried her for me and her popularity went to the basement.
6
@GARRY
Funny, I applaud her “dressing down” of Republican Bloomberg, whose ads were overwhelmingly mythic — in addition to buying his way into the race. It was due.
5
Yea, her name is Amy Klobuchar...
5
"A ticket needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle"
[with apologies to Irina Dunn]
Quotas and set-asides imply a sense of learned helplessness - I would hope the Dem women demand better.
3
This article is one of the reasons why I am more certain than ever that Trump is going to win again. Democrats play politically correct games. Republicans play to win.
Do you think there is one Trump voter (including women) who give a fig if a woman or minority is on the ticket? Ever? Do you hear any of them whining about Trump's age? Is there any pearl clutching about two white men leading the republican ticket?
I have already taken what steps I can to avoid getting the coronavirus. Looks like it is time to start preparing for four more years of Trump.
4
If the Democratic leadership thinks we women Democrats are big on "identity" politics, they haven't been paying attention to us. We told them in our votes that having a woman president just because she's a woman is not what we're about! And to that point, having a VP who is AA or any minority just because Lee thinks it's time is NOT what we're about...again! We want likability, someone who can step up to the Presidency without missing a beat, and someone who will unify. From all accounts...and from our lack of support...Harris is not that person. The end!
7
Bernie should choose Julian Castro as his running mate. His campaign signs would read SANDERS/CASTRO 2020. It could preempt any awkward discussion of his past support of the Cuban regime, since he could easily change the subject to “the only Castro that matters in 2020.”
2
Dems need to pick a president-ready VP as Biden is 77 years old. Don't play around. Senators need to stay in place. We don't need novice senators replacing seasoned ones. A moderate governor/former governor sound or FORMER senator about 55-65 years old.
5
It doesn't matter who Biden or Sanders picks as VP because the Democratic party has already been hoisted on its own petard. It has lost the war of intelligent strategy, so the election battle is already lost.
Who in their right mind thinks Elizabeth Warren, who couldn't even fool the people in her own state on Super Tuesday with her phony Sanders 2.0 act, is any pillar of integrity? Here's a woman who was Republican until she was 47, and profited her entire career by pretending to be Native American. Many people with sense in this country are already on to this "progressive" pretender, she's a no-go. Stacy Abrams' obnoxious appearances in the media, constantly rambling about identity politics don't endear her to thinking people either. She also lost in her own state, so....?
Many of the strategies offered here in the comments section are abysmally inadequate and betray a complete lack of understanding that it's still the economy that's the primary determiner of how and why people vote the way they do. Inspiration plays a role, but these two women inspire very few people in the country as a whole. They'd kill any ticket.
People in this country have wised up, to some degree to the obvious tactics of politicians who talk loudly, attack others and grandstand over gender and hue issues but have no viable policies to offer themselves. Americans want a President and VP who will maintain economic strength. Dem front runners look pretty pathetic on this front so far.
3
Given the ages of the two leading candidates, this Veep had better be someone you want to be POTUS during a pending crisis.
2
American politics are the embodiment of the Twilight Zone: A place where winners are actually losers, the despicable rise above the decent, logic is rarely the beginning of wisdom and nothing is ever linear.
These are only handful of factors that will influence the choice of a presidential running mate. Gender may be important but it's probably a secondary consideration.
2
I bet that Progressives will be fuming when Nikki Haley becomes our first female president... because she is not the "right" kind of woman.
2
Could we settle for the most qualified and the one that best compliments the presidential candidate. That person may or may not be a women or of a particular race. We want the best choice not one that panders to special interest groups. Just look at the trump team, trump the epitome of a loser has a cardboard cut out for a VP. The two if them are like the caricatures Cheech and Chong or Dumb and Dumber.
3
Senator Warren will be the perfect VP for either Bernie or Biden. Of course, she may not want to be VP, so, the decision will be hers to make. I can see a Biden/Warren ticket, with Biden as the person with experiences and leadership on international matters and Warren as the person with solutions to major domestic problems such as income inequality, child care, and other social safety nets.
2
@Jean Kolodner
Warren finished a pathetic third in her home state. She excites nobody.
5
@Jean Kolodner Nonsense. There are plenty of candidates without Warren's inconsistency, flakiness and baggage.
Sanders and Warren? That's the republican opposition's dream ticket.
1
I certainly hope both candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination choose a woman to be Vice-President on their ticket.
It is unfair that no woman made it to the finals of the Democratic nomination when there were at least 3 outstanding women running for President. Nevertheless, adding the right woman to one's ticket might help the eventual nominee earn the votes of women and African-Americans in the Presidential race.
I would love to see Elizabeth Warren as a Vice-Presidential candidate because she has so carefully analyzed ways to support working people and has ideas about how to incorporate them in existing system. Of course, Kamala Harris and Stacy Abrams would be great VP candidates and so is Amy Klobuchar and well so many brilliant women would make terrific candidates for VP. Come to think of it Cecile Richards, founder of SuperMajority, would also be a great candidate as well.
Yes, if we can't get a woman, no matter how qualified into the office of President, please, Bernie & Jo, let us have one for Vice President. You won't regret it.
1
The female presidential-candidates were great. Just none had resonated enough with enough of us. It’ll happen, one day, though; without having to force the issue.
1
Four years ago there was a woman at the top of the Democratic ticket. Four years ago a woman won the popular vote to be president of the United States. That's pretty good evidence that in the US there isn't a political glass ceiling for women. Sexism, racism, religious intolerance, ageism, heterosexism exist in all corners of America but they're not proving to be barriers that can't be overcome by qualified peoplle.
Choose the best candidate, fight a smart battle to win electoral votes and stop worrying about what your candidates gender identity is. Pandering to special interests and selecting a candidate based on sex, race, creed, gender, or other categories create artificial fault lines that divide the party .
2
Biden can't keep his foot out of his mouth or keep himself from challenging people to push up competitions. A woman or a man as VP won't change that. Biden is the least worst Democrat candidate. The optics of he and Bernies first "sit-down" debate will be awful and it'll only go downhill from there. Klobuchar and Warren and those of similar talent and intellect would be best served by staying put and not risk being taken down when the USS Biden hits the iceberg.
5
Reminds me of the lyrics from a Girl Scout song--Make new friends but keep the old. One is silver but the other gold. Not really comfortable with that dated sentiment.
1
Why does it matter why Warren didn’t attract the votes to be competitive? She didn’t, that’s the bottom line. Another woman running at another time should study the whys and the wherefores and perhaps run a better campaign. But that’s later. This is now. How do Democrats beat Trump? Believe me, the only question Republicans are asking is how to beat Biden.
Pinky swear!
2
@Mullingitover
GOP cannot wait for the debates versus Biden. Trump will just let Biden talk. That ought to sink the Biden ship.
2
Stop focusing on gender and instead worry about choosing the best candidate for the most important job in the world.
Identity politics is pernicious, and is destroying the Democratic party, breeding destructive divisiveness, and indeed threatening the nation.
These are perilous times indeed, with coronavirus, the financial collapse, global warning, and the list goes on.
And yet what worries you most is the gender of the next president, and not his or her qualifications???
8
I’d like to see Biden chose HRC as his running mate. Now that would be a bold statement.
2
It may well be time for the VP-candidate to be chosen from the pool of highly-qualified African-American women. Or as Bernie would call them, the “Democratic political elite”.
3
My first choice is Amy K-would be K Hrris, but as Cali is already Blue, think Amy could be more helpful...
1
NO, NO, NO....
I want Nancy!
She can whip these old boys (yes, boys in old man's clothe) into shape and gives them a stern lecture than any mama...
and these old boys need her!
2
Gender or color, please give us someone who can do something about climate change policy, fast!
4
The must be a women on this Presidential ticket ... and it better be Elizabeth Warren or the Democrats can fold up and just go home.
2
@Bruce Said no one in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.....
3
@Randy
I'm open to suggestions, got one?
Amy K, Kamala Harris, Jennifer Granholm
1
Stacey Abrams and Biden should bring in a wide swath of voters
1
@elenifer - Abrams lost. It's like Biden's Beto endorsement. Both lost. Pick winners.
6
Democrats will never learn. This is what has caused so many of us to flee the party. Identity politics. Oh well, I guess nothing is more of a lesson than losing once again.
4
I dont want just any woman on the ticket, I want one that is as passionate and committed to reversing voter suppression, gerrymandering and Jim Crow tactics as I am. And that person is Stacy Abrams who is also charismatic and authentic. From the VP stage she will be able to orchestrate a new and better voter rights bill. There are other roles for Elizabeth Warren, Amy and Kamala, we need their voices and strength in the Senate.
3
@drsolo It's always "voter suppression" when Dems lose an election. Stacy Abrams and Beto lost. Try to focus on winners.
3
Somebody needs to creat a ticket that will win the electoral college—and then abolish it.
6
That would require a constitutional amendment.
1
Leftist thought is destroying America. The coda of beliefs runs contrary to common sense, American values and simple survival. Only a leftist could come to the conclusion a woman is owed public office at any level.
5
Michelle. Problem solved.
3
No. Obama oversaw the creation of The Gilded Age. No more. Enough.
3
@Lilly
I thought progressives consider women's qualifications in their own right, not their husbands'. I was for Elizabeth Warren, but then I realized I didn't like her husband. Are you responsible for your husband's record?
And why not sign your name?
1
Now that Trump has thrown Mike Pence under the COVID19 bus and Nikki Haley becomes his VP, what happens to the female VP calculus for the democrats
4
Warren presented herself as The Female Candidate far too exclusively. Obama never presented himself as The Black Candidate, which is part of why Obama won and Warren faded.
Warren misled us about her own corporate fundraising, about taxes and costs related to her m4a plan, and about her willingness to take PAC support.
She’d help Biden the way Palin helped McCain.
2
Although I think Warren would be an excellent VP choice, we can't afford to lose her in the Senate if we want a Democratic majority.
The Massachusetts Governor is a Republican, so her Senate seat will be filled by a Republican if she is VP.
5
Blacks are already overwhelmingly voting for the Democrat this November. It seems so are women. What Biden lacks is competence. I think it would be beneath Sen. Warren or Sen. Klobuchar to work under Biden as VP. But it should not be impossible to find a very competent person who could prop up Biden if he wins the presidency. Tim Kaine was a solid choice in 2016 (better than the candidate he was joined to) and could help deliver VA to the Democrats. He is also to the left of Biden. What's most important is finding a VP who is not prone to gaffs and can solidify the ticket.
1
If no one has learned the lessons from the HRC debacle the "I,m with Her" slogan of feminist identity politics, then they have not been paying attention. What needed is someone with a plan, a resounding, or a least hopeful message of progress (no not progressive -progress) to restore our country to the promise it once had. Identity politics is a failure, and alienating process, one creating divisiveness rather than unity.
4
Maybe everyone in these comments who wants to complain about identity politics, quotas, and virtue signalling should stop telling women that 244 years of electoral of single-sex presidencies is not sexism. 100% of US presidents and vice presidents have been men. It is not "identity politics" to say that it is long past time to change that. There is no "quota" when, in 2020, there are so many over-qualified women to chose from. It is not "virtue signalling" to accept a female VP nomination should be a no-brainer.
8
The "glass ceiling" is not a myth but it is a term that was repeated so much, and accepted as a standing reality by newspapers and columnists, that it has taken on all the appearance of proven, accepted fact. This springs from an ahistorical perspective, as if the world somehow was all wrong before the birth of the feminists in the second wave that hit in the 1970s and had to be corrected somehow.
The goal now is to show that women can be president of the United States. It is not enough that we have accepted women as viable, creditable candidates, they must win over the white men who have ruled for so long. The underlying, unspoken postulate is that white men are passe, wrong by their very existence in human form and in need for some degree of permanent retirement to the sidelines. You can't have one side win without another losing.
This is an ahistorical position because it denies the nature of human development on this planet and the thousands of years of conflict, wars, that have led us to this point. Though of course restricted in many ways, women have always played a vital role in society and decision making. Just ask Willy Shakespeare and many others.
The news story here represents a continuing lobbying for change and an implied circumstance of wrong. That is partially valid and, yet, still wrong.
2
corrected
Who said THERE MUST BE A WOMWN ON THE TICKET. Is it written in the Bible? Is it God’s divine will? I will be perfectly happy if there will be no women on the ticket, especially not Warren. She has an irritating self-riotous personality, and is convinced she has the recipe to correct what is wrong in the USA. The only problem more than half of the country, at least does not agree with her extreme leftist views.
3
Biden needs to pick Warren as his VP. And Harris as his AG, that is about all the Senate members you can afford to lose.
2
“There must be a woman on this ticket,”
There is a Presidential candidate still running - Tulsi Gabbard. A woman, last time I checked. Funny how the Democratic complainers forget about this.
5
The DNC can’t control Tulsi and she isn’t corrupt. Not who they want then.
3
Dear Joe; I admire you so much I moved to your hometown to be with the culture that molded you, but after you legislated the crime bill in the nineties that turned our nation into a police state where blacks are being gunned down by cops, I cannot vote for you. If you choose a former woman prosecutor, you will likely lose. If you choose a boutique veep, you will also likely lose and that's why Democrats will lose again, because you are all running on personalities and fanciful people instead of issues like Bernie.
3
If Biden gets the delegates, I'll confess , I hope he does, I would like him to nominate as his VP Susan Collins of Maine.. or Mitt Romney of Utah.
I want this to be one country. I want all the people elected,, to serve all the people,, not some dang squirreled up political party.
3
@Deanalfred Collins!!?? You ARE kidding, right?
11
@Franco51 I'll be the very first to admit I know very little about the Senator. But she and Romney voted with the Dems for witnesses.
That counted for a lot with me.
Maybe there is a better choice of a Rep, in the House? I am gonna say something here,,, Is there a Republican woman that is the equal of John McCain or Nancy Pelosi. I do not give a flying fig for what party they are,, I just want competence. Competence,, and a woman would be a good idea as well,,, and a Republican running mate would also be a good idea.
Laughing,, and no, I am not kidding.
Hmmm You might know,,, Is there a Republican woman of extreme competence and a duty to serve the people,, first, foremost, and always. not the party. Who is the most competent one you know of?
1
@Deanalfred I said this to my husband last night....add John Kasich to the mix.
1
Compelling arguments can be made for Biden-Harris:Biden-Warren; Biden-Klobuchar and as the article shows, several others. Whatever the choice may be, it will be a "Trumpbuster" Come on Democrats, this is the 21st century and the dawn of the end for the ideological pygmies of the right.
1
We will have evolved when we don't care about the gender of the candidate. Women do not sprinkle magic fairy dust. All of this whining is tedious. Why was Thatcher elected PM in what democrats would call an evil, patriarchal, sexist, heinous, political system? Because Thatcher had the right stuff.
It is a lot more likely that the first female President will come from the right than the left. Women on the right are generally tougher and smarter. They can run with the big dogs.
6
Why must it be a woman? I want Andrew Yang there as VP.
6
Oh please ... “A Black, Asian, Young person, Hispanic, Gay, Transgender, Atheist, Mormon ... “ MUST be on the ticket.
How about a “Person” who is highly qualified to the President in the event that Joe Biden dies and brings value to the ticket in beating Trump.
9
Beating this sociopath remains the singular, most crucial part of any Democratic ticket. But readiness to assume the top job must also be factored. Ms. Abrams might add some southern assistance and solidify the black vote. But Amy has senate experience, has fought campaigns and hails from a region that Dems MUST regain. Biden/Amy.
4
I am interested in what a candidate stands for. I find it insulting to think that the primary driver for a candidate is sex.
4
Is this news or opinion? Tickets with female VPs have done terribly. The whole idea is bad. This is an election the pro science and pro environment parties have to win. What ever polls best in the 6 crucial swing states is a better rule of thumb.
David blogs at InconvenientNews.net
1
Need someone smart to help Biden. AND a woman.
4
Biden & Klobuchar - winning ticket!!
4
Nothing inspires the right like cheers of “it’s time” on the left. Such claims will only undermine female VP or presidential candidates by allowing the right to claim the left’s nomination is just affirmative action at work. The “reader’s picks” comments overwhelmingly say we need to elect the best person, regardless of gender/orientation/race. I would love to see a woman on the White House, but the office of the president is far more important than the symbolic benefits. I for one am getting tired of the NYT beating the elect a woman because it’s time drum - they not see this only works against their cause?
3
Identity politics is killing the Democratic Party and exacerbating racism.
Biden should be careful.
6
Please, Elizabeth, get back in the race.
3
I don’t get it. There are more women than men in this country. If it’s so important that a woman be the nominee or VP, isn’t it incumbent on the women of the country to dictate that via their vote?
Or have we reached the age where we are completely severing ourselves from all tangible manifestations of reality in service to advancing our chosen narratives.
Oh wait, I shouldn’t have asked. I know the answer.
3
How about we need the VP to be someone who can make a difference in the 2020 general election: whether it be (along with credentials) someone that could help win a swing state, etc. if that individual is a woman—excellent! I consider that an extra benefit. But—as other people have commented here—the Democratic party’s huge reliance on identity politics is off putting and doesn’t resonate with a huge proportion of the electorate.
3
If Biden wins, he’s one term. If he tries to run again, he’ll face a plethora of primary challenges. He should focus on female governors for VP, who aren’t boomers or pre-boomers. They are people who have to make deals to get things done within a budget.
1
George Bush Jr. called it "Bigotry of low Expectations" I'd love to see a female candidate, but she has to win the primaries (like Hillary did).
Pardon me, but Warren and Klobuchar ( Who i think are both excellent candidates) had their time on stage, but the didn't get the votes.
1
There's no limit to the amount of game-theory speculation one could make about what will happen if who does what. Voters hate that, and HRC, who was the master of it, came up with... Tim Kaine?
More than any other two candidates in this race, Warren and Sanders have been on the same page in terms of ideology, positions and rhetoric. I hope and trust she will do whatever she thinks is right. I would love to see her at the top of the ticket with Sanders, but I bet she could be a powerful, Cheney-style VP - not like Biden, who was just a mascot. Sorry.. but it's close enough to true.
1
Biden made a shortsighted error when he legislated his Crime Bill that resulted in unbridled dangers from police. If he picks Klobuchar or Harris as a running made, or any other former prosecutor, he'll lose because it will show not only his shortsightedness but his true belief in a police state. Then again, If Sanders picks Warren, both warriors for all the people, they will likely win.
I am currently waiting to fill out my mail in primary ballot here in Ohio until I see what happens with Warren. Wherever she goes, I go. She was the best candidate in my opinion.
5
Except by not backing the policies she claimed to be running on, Warren has exposed herself as a fraud. There’s that little problem...
2
Plenty of qualified women. Half of the country are women.
That pretty much makes it a smart move...and a decent move.
6
I think something to be learned from Warren's failure is that making it about gender does not work. "Elect me, because I am a woman" has, quite rightly, failed as a message because people want these positions to be filled based on merit.
So, picking the VP because of gender won't work either, and I don't think there is public support for it. Pick the best person for the job, whoever that may be.
4
Maybe Anita Hill would be willing to accept the vice presidency? If we’re stuck with Biden, AND Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, I think Anita Hill is the way to go. Not kidding.
4
I remember when tokenism was called out for what it is — replacing equal opportunity with political hucksterism and blatant pandering.
3
First, you have to win the election to do anything. So the VP has to help in the swing states or with a key bloc of voters. Second, the Pres nominee should select someone he feels he can work with and mentor. Emphasis on mentor.
I'm perfectly okay with a female as VP. Heck Elizabeth Warren was my choice for commander-in-chief, I voted for her in the California primary last Tuesday.
But why does the VP have to be a person of color? I want the most qualified, as well as the one with the most appeal among those suburban purple voters to defeat Trump.
We had Obama for two terms. Must it always be a person of color in the WH or VP role? How long until some folks insist that half the ticket has to be at least one letter out of LGBTQ?
Enough of the identity politics folks.
And let's talk more about contested Senate races, and to a lesser extent the House. Without gaining control of the Senate, given the current status of the GOP, winning the WH ain't gonna accomplish all that much. Unless we're relying on a whole bunch of alleged "moderate" Republicans to suddenly come to their senses and reach across the aisle now that Trump is gone from the scene? More likely they'll be preparing to discover Trump II, but with a bit more competence?
2
We need to remove gender from this conversation. I cook, do laundry, pay the bills and mow the grass. My husband maintains our cars, oversees our finances and makes the money. We never said, "You do this and I'll do that." We just quietly chose the chores we like and do well. The things we don't like, we do together. We've been married 45 years.
I worked for 25 years in a male dominated industry (still so today). At times, there was discrimination but for the most part most of the men wanted to work with me. They really didn't care that I was a woman. They knew I knew what I was doing.
I took issue with John McCain when he chose Sarah Palin. It was a slap in the face. He was pandering. She had no congressional experience whatsoever. Obama chose Biden because he did.
Trump is known for his tagline with "The Apprentice." "You're fired!" He seems to do that very well.
So, throw gender out the window. Chose someone who knows what they're doing and does it well.
2
“African-American women have been the most loyal supporters of Democratic candidates,” said Representative Barbara Lee of California, a former chairwoman of Ms. Harris’s campaign. “It’s time we have an African-American woman as vice president.”
I agree completely and the most strategic choice would be Val Demings, Florida Congresswoman, who was one of the brilliant prosecutors on the House Democrats Impeachment Trial team.
Beside bolstering Democrats' chances to win Florida this fall, Demings could prosecute with first hand knowledge the 19 Republican senators up for re-election this year who acquitted Trump without calling a single witness.
Turning out both Trump AND McConnell is a Democratic imperative.
Republican Senators undoubtedly will attack Biden through his son Hunter in Senate Republican investigations later this year. That will demonstrate again how much Republicans fear a Biden candidacy.
They know how easily Biden, with Demings as VP, could close down their ballpark and end the games they have been playing, like calling in Hunter Biden, for years.
Demings counter-attacking these same Republican Senators in real-time would be riveting and could undermine Republicans prying loose Biden's support by torturing his son.
Dems winning Florida in the fall would be a knock-out punch to Trump.
Also, Demings' experience as Orlando police chief for four years and her 27 yeas as a policewoman are unparalleled preparation for crisis management, like we need now.
3
@Dennis I have also suggested Rep. Demings in other posts, for all the reasons you have pointed out.
Are we the only two people who see how qualified she is?
1
"The Must be a Woman on this Ticket" Please. Let us start with getting the two best people on the ticket that can beat Trump and help carry other races. If one is a woman than so be it since she is there on merit but to just say there must be a woman on this ticket. That sound like a little bit of a good-ole boy convention.
1
Who will bring in the most votes strategically (taking the electoral college into account) is the most important criterion. Also someone younger than Biden, who still has to weather a grueling campaign. It's difficult to believe the do-nothing incompetence of Trump in the face of the current crisis could lead to his re-election--but he may be counting on the difficulties and barriers to people actually voting with the coronavirus circulating. I'm actually stunned that the White House has not done a massive mobilization on hospital capacity, protective gear for healthcare workers, health coverage for all, and trying to retard the spread of the disease.Many people will die because of this failure, and many more will lose their livelihoods as well as loved ones.
The purpose of running in an election is to win, not to make a point or to go down in glorious flames. This particular election is critical, and it matters for the country far more that the Democrats win, retake the Senate and keep the House.
I will vote for any Democratic ticket but there are those who are put off by what they see as the excessive identity politics that has gotten so much play lately. It is highly offensive to claim that a woman, being a woman, is inherently more qualified for a position than is a man. It is also highly offensive to imply that it is obligatory to choose a woman for a position, just as it would be to say a member of any other identity group you wish to name be chosen.
The presidential nominee should have two criteria for choosing a runningmate:
1. Most importantly, will that person help the ticket win
2. Is that person temperamentally and philosophically compatible with the person at the head of the ticket.
To assert that the runningmate must be a woman is insulting to us all. The runningmate should be the best person possible to win the election, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or any other identity criterion you wish to mention.
2
I disagree. While these women candidates are more than capable, I believe Pete Buttiegieg is who we need as VP to an elderly, one term president. He éclipses all others.
NYTs commentator Leonard thinks its because the first primaries are in Iowa and NH. They have a large white population with conservative views. In order to give women and blacks a chance the first primary should be CA. Although Obama beat the odds in 2008 he had the strong backing of Ted Kennedy who had a huge influence among the party. Warren's chances were lessened with the back lash against her universal health care proposal. Which hasn't harmed Sanders because of his strong grass roots campaign. Joe Biden was the last hope of the Democratic establishment as they have united around him with their corporate news media backers. Both candidates would be helped with a woman running mate.
I cringe at a lot of things about this election, but "silver" isn't one of them.
1
How about Hillary? Both Biden and Sanders are quite old and may not live out a full term. Then Hillary would finally be president and Democrats could rest easy.
1
How about picking a person most qualified to be Vice President, man or woman? I personally like Senator Klobuchar, not because she is a woman but because she best embodies the characteristics and qualifications I would like to see in the person a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
Choosing someone because of their sex is just as bad as rejecting them for the same reason.
1
Argh. I'll remind everyone suggesting Warren that the governor of Massachusetts is a Republican and would name her replacement.
2
Maybe less a possibility so for Warren, but V.P. Harris or V.P. Abrams could easily run for the top job 8 years down the road.
That's pretty much the default position, to have the V.P. go next, unless he is historically unpopular (Cheney) or decides not to run for personal reasons (Biden in 2016).
Joe Biden is most definitely going to need a competent vice president as I expect he will step down by March of 2021. I would not recommend Hillary Clinton...so it's going to be Hillary Clinton!
And why didn't we learn from Hillary's defeat in 2016?
Don't slam me. Accept reality and adapt. This isn't a feel good movie.
I woman actually won the election 4 years ago, but had that election result overturned by the electoral college. If women everywhere want to direct their anger, I would direct it at that.
4
I believe that the DNC is as corrupt, if not more, than the Republican system in place. It's pretty low when you go against the welfare of your most vulnerable citizens. You deserve another 4 years under trump.
Who competed for gold? Warren? Was there any state where she got the 'gold'? Did she even get silver in any state?
How about Abrams? Did she ever get gold on the national stage?
Let's face it. Any VP for Biden is a shoo in to be acting president when Joe will wander off into the Rose garden and not get back...
We don't have the luxury of choosing a running mate just for color, sex or nationality. Whomever Biden chooses must be experienced, smart and able to take over should need be. They will need to help Biden reset every vile and nasty policy that Trump put in place and they need to know the players around the world. Biden is getting ready to inherit a big mess and he needs the best and brightest people around him.
1
Please god, not Kamala Harris. A mean-spirited former prosecutor who had to drop out early because, um, people don't like her. My #1 pick would be Warren, but Stacy Abrams could be great. If it's Harris, I'll have to hold my nose to vote for her.
1
Warren was exposed as an irrational mess! She finished third in her own state. That was a death sentence for her political career !
Who said THERE MUST BE A WOMWN ON THE TICKET. Is it written in the Bible? Is it God’s divine will? I will be perfectly happy if there will be no women on the ticket, especially not Warren. She has an irritating self-riotous personality, and is convinced she has the recipe to correct with is wrong in the USA. The only problem more than half of the country, at least does not agree with her extreme leftist views.
1
Neither Bernie nor The Squad should be deciding this question now. The question is up for grabs because the left-wing of my party want to pin Biden down so early before the convention.
I agree with Jill Biden on rejecting Kamala Harris for running mate. Her race-baited attacks on Joe should disqualify her for that post. As recommended by the NYT's Thomas Friedman, she would make a great choice for AG.
In the event Biden is, indeed, our nominee coming out of the convention, his choice of running mate should assure the voters that his steady-as-it-goes, moderate position, will not be derailed in the event he has a medical crisis, leaving the VP to keep the ship of state off the rocks.
Bernie and the Squad members are trying to set up a left-wing WH with a liberal VP positing that it will balance the ticket. Nothing could be further from the truth. Biden's running mate should mirror his philosophy of a moderate-and-steady hand at the helm.
The need to remove Trump is at a high crisis level so this is not the time to put gender or race ahead of our need to end the Madness of King Don.
2
I think Abrams expands the electoral map and the conversation the most. But, there are many excellent possibilities.
5
"Ms. Klobuchar said she had no conversations about future positions with Mr. Biden or his aides when she discussed ending her campaign and endorsing his. 'It didn’t even cross my mind to try to make some deal or anything...'"
I'm sorry but this does not sit well with me. Klobuchar is either being disingenuous or, if it really didn't occur to her to make a deal, not savvy enough to be running in a race at this level. I'm done with dumbed-down, "let's make nice" women. We get trampled on.
3
Stacy Abrams for the win. She is smart, articulate, and a strong proponent of voting rights. She has name recognition, especially in the Southeast. This year especially, she can hit the stump and be everywhere Joe can’t. Trump is already planning to ditch Pence and draft Nikki Haley, Democrats can ill afford to dawdle.
6
@Herman I think at this point we need someone in the top two who can recognize and admit a loss. Abrams' failure to admit defeat is the same personality trait you despise in Trump, but it seems not to matter much. Double standards and hypocrisy will be the death knell of the Dems.
1
@Herman
Abrams? A one-note politician, an inveterate complainer, and a sore loser. Perfect VP material.
2
First of all, does the VP choice make a difference to anyone? I'd argue not. Most people couldn't tell you who the current VP is and the same was true under Obama.
Secondly, this is continuation of senseless political salami slicing. We already had a woman VP pick; has everyone forgotten Geraldine Ferraro? And just four years ago a woman was the Democratic nominee for president. And of the choices presented, they were already rejected by voters for the presidential spot. Harris couldn't get support from women or blacks in her own state. Warren just came in third in her own state. Abrams is famous only for losing her races and then refusing to concede, instead spouting ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Maybe instead, Biden (since Sanders isn't going to win now) should pick somebody that voters would actually *like* to see as president. Especially since it's an open question whether Biden could finish out even one term.
3
@Locke_
It makes a difference in this election, because Joe Biden is getting old and displays confusion.
I want to see a younger and energetic VP pick in case something happens to Joe.
I also want the pick to be eminently electable in 2024 and/or 2028.
2
Peak privilege.
Settle for silver rather than gold?
Put aside the presidency as gold which itself tells a tale.
Who do these people think they are? Aside from privileged. Owed. Your boss by right without any thought to their match to the job.
Win the election. Get the women’s vote and you win. Guaranteed.
The end.
3
Whoever picks Warren will get my vote. She was my number 1 pick, better silver than no medal at all.
5
Leave it to the "progressives" to keep the Democratic Party from winning by insisting compliance with "fairness" and a commitment to a "history-making selection": put a woman on the ticket, NO MATTER WHAT or else -- else what? That you won't vote for Biden and you'll just sit out the election? Why is it that the readers of this article who support this kind of thinking would rather be right than win? No sooner does Biden gain the momentum and support of the vast majority of Democratic voters who do not support or identify with AOC or Bernie or Sen. Warren and their unpopular, unsupported plans, the left wing rises up again and makes these demands. Very disheartening and disappointing that the Times gives this the coverage that it does not deserve.
5
@Warren Clark
To choose a woman in either position will not be history-making. Democrats nominated a female vice presidential candidate in 1984. They nominated a female presidential candidate in 2016.
The issue is not the person's gender, but the person's qualities.
1
"Yet there’s also little evidence that vice presidents — male or female — have a significant impact on converting undecided voters"
Maybe if the voters had more influence on the VP pick it would make a difference. Why aren't we more of a top 1 & 2 on the ticket? Clearly we the people are invested in our top candidates, why shouldn't our choices matter? Warren, Klobuchar, & Harris all have the qualifications and more support in the electorate, why shouldn't it just BE one of them if they are interested as opposed to some obscure representative that we don't get to really weigh in on?
BTW part of the reason we don't have a women still in the race was the focus on electability early on, a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy, perpetuated by the media and I value the media but come on.... I've seen more articles about Warren than I did while she was in the race, instead the focus was squarely on Biden, even when he was stumbling on his words and riding on Obama's coattails, as well as the other men running. I'd be curios to know how many articles focused on the women's strengths and accomplishments while they were still in the race vs. their male counterparts that were less qualified and their electability.
1
We need to be realistic--several of the women mentioned, i.e. Klobuchar, Harris, Warren are senators and we need them in the Senate!
6
Have all those writing of the anger and dismay that a woman will not be the Democratic nominee forgotten who the last nominee was?
7
Unfortunately, much of the left-wing base has ideological blinders similar to the right's base
3
‘“In the current political environment, it looks tone deaf to have an all-white, all-male ticket,” said Jennifer Lawless, a professor at the University of Virginia and an expert on women in politics. “There’s no question that the notion of a female V.P. is used as a strategy and I think that’s a little bit sexist. It’s sort of like an ‘insert woman here’ kind of conversation.”’
In addition to praising Lawless for using the word “sexist” where less thoughtful people throw around the word “misogynist” recklessly without understanding what it actually means, it’s worth noting that women are often the ones promoting the “sexist” strategy here, which appears to discount asking the question: Who would, in fact, make the best vice president?
Further, for those upset about two “old white men” being left in the race (Tulsi Gabbard isn’t serious and is simply trying to draw attention to herself by staying): rather than the usual cultural explanations about why a woman is no longer competing as a primary candidate, take a close look at Harris’s incompetent campaign staffing decisions and poor fundraising (clearly related to the first factor); Klobuchar’s inability to distinguish herself as anything other than a sitting senator from Minnesota and a “tough” woman who announced her candidacy in a blizzard (the salt-of-the-earth subtext recalling Sarah Palin’s vacuous talk about snowmobiles and ice hockey); and Elizabeth Warren’s regrettable failure to distinguish herself from Sanders.
1
In politics, part of being “most qualified for the job” is being able to attract resources, broad public support and votes to your platform. There are many candidates who can do this, but one stands out to me.
From an electoral standpoint, it seems wise to me to avoid the coastal candidates for VP, since their national support tends to get overestimated by insular political environments. And it seems clear that black votes (or the absence of them) swing elections.
Those factors make Stacey Abrams my odds-on favorite for the VP nod. If Abrams is on the ticket, Michigan will likely flip back, with N.C. and FL being toss-ups — simply by increasing black turnout, which she has shown she can do (Harris has not). Even GA could be in play, or at least make Republicans expend resources there. LBJ (OK, possibly Biden) was probably the last time a VP pick made a difference in the electoral map, but there is a real chance (using a football analogy) to spread the field with this selection.
82
@Joby , I agree but for a reason you leave out. Of all the discussed VP candidates, who has the same likable quality as Biden. I would argue none compare too Abrams. She has the ability to compete for the moderates who want an even-keel candidate. She can win votes across a broad spectrum of American society.
8
@Joby
Stacey Abrams won't work at all. With an aging Biden people are going to be looking very harder at possibility that the vice president will become the president. That "heartbeat" away is a lot closer than usual. People may be ready to support Abrams as vice president for four years but might well shy from the ticket for that reason.
14
@Joby
Abrams has appeal, but not enough experience to step in if needed.
Harris is better, but her state is already Blue.
Warren’s senate replacement would be picked by a Republican governor. She’s too divisive.
Amy would win back the Midwest lost by HRC. She shares values with Joe. As a woman, she’d bring out progressives
16
I say the best person, not choose someone based on gender or race
8
Priority #1: A winning ticket, especially in the swing states
Priority #2: Solid leadership to undo the current mess
Everything else: So far in the distance as to be nearly invisible.
5
Biden owes EVERYTHING to African-Americans and women. Through our fury at losing more brilliant, charismatic and diverse candidates, we nevertheless will support him to finish off Trump. Do us all a favor Joe: get Stacy Abrams on that ticket. Youth, Warren-like competence and dazzling, "can't get enough of her" charisma will inject life and excitement into this dull ticket. Harris should be AG or SCOTUS--she's not nearly as magnetic as Abrams is to women--don't make a dumb mistake.
6
Imagine if Trump ditches Pence, which would follow his "hire 'em and dump 'em" tendency, and then signs on Nikki Haley as his VP, and Democrats don't have a woman on the ticket. I would expect that would tilt the election Trump's way.
1
If you want to keep them on their toes, someone like Anita hill for vp ticket with Biden; Amy Klobuchar on vp ticket for bernie. Reason being none of these women like the top ticket holder so they will pose a strong team of rivals.
2
Susan Rice, anyone?
3
@Walt Chambers Yes, please, Susan Rice. The Democrats have a vast selection of inveterate liars to choose from.
Since when was race and gender a requirement for office? How about picking the best person to take over the job of President should the President be incapacitated? A black woman? Harris and Abrams were losers, rejected by the voters. A Progressive woman? Warren was rejected by the voters. So they should be second in line to the Presidency even though they had lost BUT they had the right color or genitalia? Give me a break.
9
@SilverLaker 4284 Abrams was not rejected by the voters, she won. There was voter suppression.
@Erin Garbage. That’s the spin. But the reality is quite different. Further, Abrams has NO experience that would justify her inclusion on a Presidential ticket. None.
2
Welcome to post-post-racial America.
Where were the women voters when Warren was asking for their vote? Warren is the most qualified and smartest candidate the Dems have had since Obama and women seemed uninterested in getting the best option on the ticket. As a man I find that a very discouraging statement. We need many of Warren's plans more than ever now that the stock market is tumbling, Coronavirus is in ascendancy and the Trump administration's incompetence is glaringly in the spotlight. I think women have to think long and hard about whether they truly trust each other to be the best option and capable of leading with authority in tough times. No matter who wins of the Dems my first choice would've been Warren who had the moxie to give America a real kick in the butt as the issues in the 21st century become ever more pressing and in need of leadership that can get us back on track as a nation. Selecting a VP is critically important but missing the top of the ticket top choice makes the process even more difficult.
7
@Michael - nobody likes Warren. Even voters in her own state rejected her last week.
1
This. Women really need to take a hard look at their jealousy of other women in successful places, so much so that they would rather advance two clearly unsuitable, but male, candidates just because they don't like how the woman speaks or some other spurious excuse for their own internalized misogyny.
4
So, quotas again.
5
Let's face reality. Rich old white men call the shots in America, so all you women clamoring for power need to organize something to beat them, and all of us minorities and progressives need to organize something better to capture the votes. Or we must wait for the current structure to collapse and rebuild in the rubble.
3
You lost me at "there must be." These are not the times for ultimatums.
10
This so typical for the NYT and Democrats who don't know how to win. Simply to plug in some woman, such as Harris or Abrams who would not help Biden win any state, is just plain ignorant. There is only one woman who would help the ticket win back Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio; she is Amy K.
7
A woman VP is "silver", and a man is "gold"? Some things never change, but one does expect better from the New York Times.
4
@Alice Curtis
Oh, for Pete's sake! The Presidency is the gold; VP is Silver. Do you really not get that, or are you just looking for ways to be offended and call everyone a sexist?
5
Pelosi, ultimately.
1
SUSAN RICE
3
Biden Warren
3
Biden OWES the black community. Stacy Abrams with Kamala as AG. Pete fir DOD and Warren for Treasury along with Porter. Klobuchar for Agriculture?
Democrats had quite a few women running. So they settled on 2 70+ year old white men?
And only NOW they are lamenting something that they did?
That's called hypocrisy. And the lamentations are just pandering.
As Lizzie Warren might say: Democrats speak with forked tongue.
4
Same thinking that got McCain Sarah Palin.
5
Claire McKaskill, please pick up the white courtesy phone!
1
Only sore losers refuse silver after failing gold.
4
With the nomination process being so damaged so far I think looking outside that group is good policy. I was a strong Warren supporter and while she would give strength and leadership to the ticket I would rather Stacey Abrams be the choice. She is bright, articulate and has style. Just imagine her up against Mike Pence. Ouch!
3
Absolutely the best qualified and most closely aligned woman with Joe Biden is Amy Klobuchar. He needs a running mate who can virtually guarantee the Midwest for him, can identify with and who can support his policies, who can both debate with him and maintain a fierce loyalty to him, has enough experience in the federal government in order to continue his policies in the event of his death, has enough congressional respect for both her strength and her willingness to work across the aisle, to be the ideal choice as Vice President.
3
Stacey Abrams would be a very effective campaigner. She is funny, smart, self-effacing, captivating, inspiring (I could go on).
Save Sally Yates for AG, where she has tons of experience. That department will need rebuilding and it will need to regain the public's confidence. Yates can do that and she can come across as nonpartisan. She's already said she doesn't want to run for office; if she did, she'd be running for Senate right now in GA.
5
Many influential politicos and pundits harbor the deep suspicion that Elizabeth Warren was outdistanced in the primary because America is "not ready for a female president". Their suspicions apparently confirmed, these same people are now clamoring to put a woman on the ticket anyway.
If that makes no sense, then consider that these same people effusively celebrated when voters decisively chose Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.
Democrats have to face the reality that the women who lost the primary did so primarily because they were not that appealing to primary voters. It's reasonable to speculate that if all the candidates were changed only to be of the same gender, male or female, Warren and the others would still have lost.
And it's reasonable to speculate that adding a woman to the ticket as a statement of gender equality is not a reliable recipe for success.
Democrats need a ticket that can attract every voter that is not Republican, a pair of candidates that will cure the nation of the scourge of Donald Trump and repair all the damage that Trump Republicans have done to our government and our laws.
Hillary Clinton knows. She had the wisest advice of anyone interviewed in this piece: the presidential candidate should "take a really hard look at the Electoral College for what will help him". Woman or not.
3
VP might be "silver" but statistically there's a good chance there will be a promotion to gold at some point in the next four years. That's true for no matter who wins: Trump, Biden, or Sanders.
3
Whoever the demos nominate, the VP he chooses will have to be a woman or person of color or both- and I think both.
Also, both Sanders and Biden are late septuagenarians and one has had a heart attack in the last 6 months so if I wouldn't turn down the offer if I were a woman.
3
I too would like to see a woman VP candidate, and one of color would be nice, but Democrats must do it in a way that looks as little like merely checking a demographic box as possible. Most Americans not of the progressive left are weary of "woke" identity politics, and identity politics is what helped, in a major way, propel the ascendence of Trump.
@Jim It's funny, usually the VP is chosen from a different part of the country than the President. Why isn't that considered a 'demographic box'?
@S North
That's more political, but in any case, I didn't say it couldn't be for largely demographic reasons of race and/or gender. I said it shouldn't be "obviously" for that reason.
I live in the heart of Trump country, not the progressive bubbles of coastal cities. And you can shoot the messenger all you like, but the fatigue with woke tokenism and identity politics is on the rise outside those bubbles, not decline. that's true even among centrist and more conservative Democrats in flyover country.
That very fatigue, which has only increased in the last 3 years is largely what propelled Trump into the Presidency in the first place. All I'm saying is that the Dem candidate for President must be mindful of that in a nation divided nearly 50-50 politically.
1
As a Warren supporter who has known the Senator, personally and professionally for 30+ years, I am dismayed by all of the conversation about requiring a woman on the ticket. Walter Mondale picked Geraldine Ferraro after the vocal demand for a woman on the ticket and it didn't make any difference in the outcome. Over 50% of the White women who voted in 2016 voted for Trump. Now, political geniuses tell us that a woman will enhance the prospects of victory. Trump women will not desert him just to elect a female VP. Where were all of the supporters of Amy, Kamala, Kirsten and, my friend, Elizabeth in the primaries? Massive Democratic turnout is the key to victory.
We are going into a presidency that will have the incumbent approaching 80 in the most demanding job in the world. Be careful, because the VP may have to step into a vacancy. Warren could do it. Gender has nothing to do with her qualifications.
4
"But some cringe at settling for silver after spending a year competing hard for the gold."
Disingenuous denials aside, do the Democrats want to make the same mistake again of having the perfect destroy the good? After a woman is ELECTED Vice-President, the prospect for a woman President will improve. Especially considering the age of the leading candidates for President.
1
It would be a start.
I don't want the nominee to choose an African-American woman as an affirmative action pick or consolation.
I want them to choose the best person for the job. Susan Rice comes to mind: A brilliant, experienced expert on foreign affairs and national security who's unafraid to speak the truth.
5
Sigh. Can we please get something straight? There is just one priority in this presidential election: to beat Trump. The vice presidential candidate must be chosen solely for their ability to appeal to the greatest number of voters. That’s all that matters this time around. If we Democrats prioritize other issues ahead of that, we will lose.
5
Pete had the most most delegates coming out of the chute. People are inspired by his youth. At Biden's age, the VP has a good chance at becoming President after Biden's one term. Pete would have the experience he lacked this time around. Liz and Amy didn't inspire anyone. They won't as a VP on the ticket either. A woman president is very feasible. We just need the right woman. So far we only have a bunch of screamers. I hate their shrill and angry voices during debates. Yuck!!!
Go Joe & Pete.
3
If for no other reason, (and of course there are many others) we should have a woman Vice Presidential candidate on the ticket just so we can watch the gynophobic Mike Pence debate her.
4
So the DNC will be throwing the women a bone--that is in keeping with their character.
Now the Democrats are going to run either a candidate who has limited cognitive abilities or one who goes around praising Castro.
The DNC knows they are going to lose but at this point is just deciding which of these dim bulbs will cause the least negative impact to down ballot candidates. The DNC is concluding Biden will not take all of the Democrats down with him. Biden gets to be the fall guy.
1
During the debates, we saw Harris, Klobuchar, and Warren emerge as leaders in their own rights, not as representatives of their gender. Any of these three would be solid choices for the VP spot. All have solid credentials in the Senate and all could step into the presidency with a background in legislating at the national level. All three would be good choices based on their records and accomplishments, not because they are women.
109
@Rick Spanier
Harris seemed very casual and confused about her own identity. And she is not very likable. A poor choice for Biden.
8
@Rick Spanier And yet all this desk pounding that "it has to be a woman" will lead to the conclusion, if one of them is picked, that she was only picked "because she was a woman" and not because she was competent.
The double-edged sword of identity politics is that there is always a sneaking suspicion that someone wasn't picked for who they were, but for what they were.
Be careful what you wish for.
7
@Rick Spanier
I think Warren presented herself gender-first nearly all the time. She misled us about her own corporate fundraising, about taxes and costs related to her m4a plan, about her willingness to take PAC support.
3
How about an African American Female VP? Stacy Abrams would be a great choice!
3
I've read about fifteen comments in and so far nobody has pointed out what I think is pretty obvious; Any of the three really really old white guys in position to be elected or re-elected president better have backup.
Jeez, even Moses dropped dead.
2
A Norwegian (female) CEO was recently asked why she didn't support the gov't's attempt to mandate 40% of all CEOs should be women.
She replied" I'd rather be chosen for my abilities than my legs".
Heh Bernie.. don't you profess to love the Nordic countries?
4
Great. Find one that would make a good President, not Warren. Or better yet forget affirmative action for intersectionals, pick the best person for the job, no matter who they are.
2
Hmmm. Which veep candidate reminds me most of Selena Meyer? Amy Klobuchar maybe? The comb incident was pure Veep.
This exact scenario was run in 2008 when another septuagenerian white male called John McCain picked a woman named Sarah Palin to be his running mate and he still lost. Perhaps what matters more to voters is if the candidates care about their concerns, not whether or not one of them has XX chromosomes.
3
I don’t care who it is, I care about their policies! If a white man has good policies, I don’t want a Clarence Thomas or other woman just cause he’s black or female!
1
Biden will pick Klobucher and Trump will select Nikkie as VP. Both candidates are only middlin chances of living through the next 5 years. Voila: experienced female prez candidates for 2024.
Yes there must surely be a woman, but, no offense to Senators Warren, Klobuchar or Harris, I hope future President Biden picks someone from outside the Congressional 'belt' to complement his own longstanding 'belt' experience.
Someone like Michigan's Governor Whitmer or Granholm, or New Mexico's Hispanic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, or possibly Stacey Abrams, although I wonder if she has adequate executive experience.
2
Obama originally chose Biden as VP to be a comforting, familiar white face for all of the voters afraid of the black man. Everyone saw the logic in that; there were no screams of quotas. Why do we have a problem with it now?
1
Tough choice, so many brilliant, beautiful women:
Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Amy Klobuchar, Ellen DeGeneres, Michelle Obama, Stacey Abrams, Rachel Maddow.
1
@areader
Maddow? LOL.
1
Yes, please pick Maddow. Trump 2020.
@M ,
What's wrong with Maddow?
1
The one choice that is not open to Biden is a white man. He's riding on the black vote, and his campaign should reflect that.
Offer it to Kamala She's good.
Resident raging feminist here. I’ll skip the usual rant, in lieu of this: The ONLY goal is to evict Trump and his Collaborators. Nothing else matters. Do you all get that ? If Trump is re-elected, we might not have another Election. Ever. He will remain “ President “ until he’s nearly dead, then Ivanka will assume the Throne.
Wake UP.
4
How about Dems/Libs stop worrying about whether or not there's a candidate that looks like them and just support the best person for the job?
That's what they asked us to do in 2008/2012. If all the Dems/Libs had only supported candidates that look like them Barck Obama never would have gotten elected.
3
Must!!?? The sex of a candidate for any office is not a requirement and your vote should not be made just because of it.
1
There is still a woman in the running for the Presidency. Here name is Tulsi Gabbard and because the Clinton machine does not like her she is getting zero attention. Such a shame
3
People thinking that Harris is a liberal because she has the "identity" should take enough trouble--for the sake of the nation--to find out who she is behind the photogenic exterior. Please start with this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html
And vet her past further. The republicans certainly will. You do need to know.
2
Kamala Harris or Michelle Obama would be a smart ticket for Biden. Biden will serve one term paving the way for the first female President. A Biden/Warren ticket wouldn't work at all and would disrespect the black community who are the bedrock of the party.
"Some cringe at settling for silver." OH REALLY? Well, Lerer and Epstein, you don't know as much about women as you think you do, and Ms. Lerer should be ashamed of herself. Her photo looks like she is 12 years old, so perhaps she hasn't been seasoned enough yet by the hard reality of actually being a grown up female in the United States. Face it - misogyny. Deal with it, it's a fact of life in this country and everywhere else in the world where there are males. But ultimately, politics is a game of pragmatism. A female President isn't going to come from nowhere like Obama did in 2008, and in case nobody noticed, he is a man. Running as Biden's choice for VP is not an insult, it's a set-up platform for running for President in 2024. Get a grip, and keep your eyes on the prize. Wishing, hoping, hand-wringing and whining ain't gonna cut it. Prove yourself a valuable asset to a Biden administration and get a leg up!
1
Hillary learned from her blunder of picking a guy just like her as her VP.
She should have picked Sanders -- would have won in a walk -- and spared us all this Trump Trauma.
She's right now, got to analyze the impact on drawing votes.
Kamala -- she gut punched Joe, which he deserved but kept going back to it until it backfired.
Stacy Abrams -- best speaker, but too far out there for middle America.
Amy -- probably the safe pick, but two white middle of the roaders will not optimize black and sanders voters.
Elizabeth Warren -- I hated her gut punching our most progressive billionaire urged on by the mobs who don't understand this year's battlefield, but Nixon was Eisenhower's pit bull and Agnew was Nixon's so there's precedent.
But I think Cory Booker is a better pick.
We got three geezers running marathons until November to take over the USS Enterprise as the ship is falling apart. The VP position has, except in 1945, never been so fraught with potential.
Roosevelt got it right when he picked a True Man.
Who would make the better president? I don't know.
But I prefer Booker because he played tight end at Stanford and beat Pete's team, Notre Dame. And he once ran into a burning condo and carried an old lady out. His clothes were singed.
Klobuchar is called the senator from Cargill (sp?) the AG giant, and moved to de-list protection for wolves. Any enemy of wolves is an enemy of mine.
Booker is better.
4
Stacey Abrams!
1
Apropos of nothing, it really is shocking the Biden and Sanders have risen to the top when both are older than every living President, with the exception of President Carter. Also, an interesting fact I didn’t know until just now: Presidents Clinton, Bush (the younger) and Trump were all born in a two month period between June and August 1946.
1
We began with a broad field of candidates and through an extensive primary and numerous debates where all had their opportunity to present their views and visions, 2 individuals garnered the overwhelming support from the electorate, including women who are the largest voting bloc. That's how democracy works, or at least should. An alternate approach could be to dispense with elections and the exercise of ideas and persuasion, and instead have technicians make the selections based solely on demographic proportionality.
3
I would prefer her to see her as attorney general, where she can prosecute corporate crooks. VP is mostly ceremonial.
Candidate: Announce your VP. Announce your cabinet. Announce permanent, ratifiable candidates. Let each one hit the campaign trail on how they are going to run their departments and put this country back together literally and figuratively.
Biden needs to be part of a smart package.
2
@Leslie
Biden and smart party may be the newest oxymoron coined.
1
There is also Michelle Obama!
Am I alone in thinking that a public pressure campaign to pick a woman VP is both unnecessary and counterproductive?
Unnecessary, because it should be obvious to either Biden or Bernie that there are many excellent choices who are women, and not choosing a woman would be political malpractice of the highest order. Not choosing one of the several qualified women will qualify the Dem nominee as a certified moron.
Counterproductive, because the eventual choice of a woman will be buried in the weight of an unflattering process. "Oh, she was chosen only because Biden had to choose her because of mounting public pressure." What a total buzzkill for what should be a time to celebrate both a VP nominee's accomplishments and the huge milestone the selection will represent.
Please people -- Let's take a deep breath. The Dem nominee will pick a woman. Let's not be spoilers.
3
Let's see. How about a Progressive Lesbian Black Woman .... does that cover all of the bases or did I leave something out?
4
@Leslie Harris
No. And deBlasio's wife is looking for a new do-nothing job.
2
Géraldine Ferraro ... and they lost.
2
Stacie Abrams.
Perhaps its more likely a black VP would send a message? Sen. Corey Booker—ready to step in as president. Joe Biden would seal his support in the South.
Does your brain really believe Biden has the best chance to defeat Trump? Why do you believe that?
2
Jim Clyburn will pick the next Dem VP candidate
1
"There must be a woman on the ticket"?
Well, I guess you 2 are giving the orders!
3
Forget the Progressives Joe pick Amy
1
When I saw "settling for silver" in the headline, I thought it meant settling for old white men.
2
The country deserves good public servants- not quotas based on skin color or type of genitals. There were no good women of color candidates this year.
5
If women want to win, women need to start voting for women -- they are the majority, yet 53% of white women voted for Trump. White guys are worse, of course, but women need to step up!
3
picking a woman just to pick a woman
is a bad idea.
5
Another story, another Tulsi Gabbard blackout. Uggh.
6
A figurehead position to serve with the hair sniffer--that is the DNC for you. Zero authority but it will make the young naive women happy. The DNC keeps all of their victim groups happy but never does anything concrete for them. Vote for All Americans--Vote Republican.
2
Two words. Sherrod Brown.
“There must be a woman on this ticket,” said Cecile Richards, a longtime abortion rights activist and a founder of Supermajority. “What is really important to see is representation, a commitment to the issues that women care about and a commitment to do something about it.”
Okay - how about --
Geraldine Ferraro
"Geraldine Anne "Gerry" Ferraro (August 26, 1935 – March 26, 2011) was an American attorney and Democratic Party politician who served in the United States House of Representatives. In 1984, she was the first female vice presidential candidate representing a major American political party.
Ferraro grew up in New York City and worked as a public school teacher before training as a lawyer. She joined the Queens County District Attorney's Office in 1974, heading the new Special Victims Bureau that dealt with sex crimes, child abuse, and domestic violence.
In 1978 she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where she rose rapidly in the party hierarchy while focusing on legislation to bring equity for women in the areas of wages, pensions, and retirement plans.
In 1984, former vice president and presidential candidate Walter Mondale, seen as an underdog, selected Ferraro to be his running mate in the upcoming election. Ferraro became the only Italian American to be a major-party national nominee in addition to being the first woman."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Ferraro
How about that ...?
1
Consolation prize? No...a good place to start.
1
I'm sorry, but being a woman, or being a man is not a qualification for being President of the United States. Neither is being white, black, Asian, Latino, Native American....(the list goes on). Nor is being straight, gay, trans, bi, queer....etc.
The qualification for being President of the United States is being able to do the job well.
5
Walter Mondale ran for President with Geraldine Ferraro as his VP candidate. They were crushed by two white men. If a woman VP helps the ticket, by all means choose a woman VP candidate. This is not about trophies for everyone. It's about beating Trump and taking over the Senate. If that's not good enough for some people, then they can vote for "Jill Stein," like they did the last time because Hillary was "just as bad as" Donald. Or maybe this is just Russian trolls stirring up trouble to help Trump?
1
I hope they give Val Demings from Florida a look. I liked her during impeachment hearings.
1
Just because your a women?
Your skin color will not win my vote.
Your gender will not win my vote.
Your religious views will not win my vote.
Your sexual assignment or preference will not win my vote.
What will win my vote is your:
Ethics.
Morals.
Control of emotions and actions.
Honesty.
Leadership.
Genuine Love of Humanity.
Genuine Love of our Earth.
4
A good VP won't win you the election, but a bad VP can lose it. Think "Sarah Palin".
For Joe Biden, the VP is especially important because of his age.
6
Admire Ms. Warren greatly but Democrats could use a younger woman of color to balance the old white males at the top of the ticket. It is criminal that misogyny is so pervasive among so many voters (in all demographics) in America with respect to the presidency. It appears a female VP will be needed to allay fears of an eventual female president.
1
I agree it’s important to have a woman for the VP slot, but I don’t think we should get hung up on needing it to be a woman of color. Women generally are more than half the population while black women are 6% and of course we’ve already had a black man lead the ticket twice.
We should pick the most competent woman who can also help bring in needed votes. If there’s any evidence suggesting that a sizable number of black voters would vote for Trump in the absence of a woman of color as VP on the Dem side, then fine. I highly doubt that is the case.
Personally, I would prefer Warren but I can see that Klobuchar may well be able to pick up some midwestern and/or independent voters that Warren might not.
Amy K is the ideal choice for Biden. She's smart, personable and a daughter of the Midwest. Who better to focus on Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. She's calm, clear, and determined. All qualities that Joe is comfortable with.
6
I hate to say this but I think it's important to be blunt considering the serious problems our country is now confronting:
Because of the seriously bad taste left in the country's mouth leftover from the Hillary Clinton's fiasco, a female candidate at the moment is just too dangerous of a step for the Democratic Presidential nominee to make.
As Donald Trump constatntly remind us, Presidents are 'picked' based on the country's mood at the time of the election.
Any reminder of that negative emotion is just political death -in my opinion. And right now, the country simply cannot afford to take that chance.
3
Trump may pick Nikki Haley. Oh, Democrat you say, but if it's a woman does it matter, Democrat or Republican? She might attract woman voters.
When Biden wins he should pick Warren. She would be a better choice than Klobuchar bringing more left leaning voters. All know about Harris she thinks Trumps hand size is important.
1
@JoeG
Huh? Nikki is a Republican. Now, for his second term, Lincoln chose a war Democrat from Tennessee, Andrew Johnson. Look where that got us.
2
@fFinbar
I know she is a Republican. I was saying if if they want to vote for a woman why not vote Republican.
In other words their priorities are mixed up. It shouldn't be any woman that's a Democrat.
What do think Biden / Bloomberg.
The good news - any heatlhy female is much more likely to survive COVID-19 than the current occupant or contenders and will be ultimately become president.
1
Serious about big tent and progressive voters?
Nina Turner.
When our democracy is at stake shouldn't we be focused on beating Trump? Or is it all about gender. I personally liked Harris, or Amy Klobuchar for president but the main focus for me is getting the rot out of the whitehouse.
2
I’m confused why the woke don’t ever call for a Hispanic person to be in office or for Hispanic faces to be represented (anywhere really). Wouldn’t logic say diversity and people of color needing representation would include hispanics?
Especially since the Hispanic vote will be the largest minority voting bloc this election for the first time?
Hillary won the vote four years ago but lost the EC, if she focused on that instead of everything else, we wouldn’t be having this debate.
How about we focus on the EC above everything else. That would be the smart thing to do but if there’s one thing we can agree on, it’s that our online world doesn’t do is promote the smart thing.
I have very high regard for our California Senator. She is a tenacious campaigner, and a ticket of Biden/Harris would be formidable. Question is, will Trump go with Pence or choose someone like Nikki Haley?
Progress is progress. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
2
Biden most likely has promised the VP spot to half a dozen rivals. But by the convention he will have conveniently forgotten.
2
53% of white American women voted for Donald Trump in the last election. Don't complain that there hasn't been a woman president of this country since you only have yourselves to blame.
6
So, how does this work? First, we need a woman President. Then, who's next in line. Jews, Asians, Gays. We'll just take turns nominating the next politically correct candidate, no matter who's most qualified or winning the General Election.
5
Make it stop! Entitlement is not an attractive look and impossible to satisfy when women, Hispanics, blacks, tall people, etc all want a treat and we have only one cookie.
In case you’ve been too busy gazing at your navel to notice, 15 white guys are also
losers this year. OUR LAST NOMINEE WAS A WOMAN. When the nominating contest is over there will be a single INDIVIDUAL winner. Maybe it will be Joe Biden who lost badly on his last 2 tries. I’ve never seen anyone whine their way to victory. Knock it off. Prepare to work a lot harder next time. And take note of the fact that there is exactly 1 winner in these contests and you are entitled to nothing.
2
'Insert (whatever)" to balance the ticket isn't sexist,it's as old as the VP candidate running with the Presidential candidate. JFK/LBJ was an odd couple indeed, as were Obama/Biden. But both expanded the base of who were comfortable with them. I had expected Biden to offer the slot to Warren (and maybe he has) but Harris may have stolen her thunder.And it would steal whatever is left of Jesse Jackson's thunder.
1
"There must be a woman on this ticket" is a sure recipe for another election loss. The far left that now controls the Democratic Party cannot get out of its own way. Identity politics like this serves no purpose other than feel good virtue signaling among in-crowd progressives.
The VP this year must be selected for more than just demographic vote appeal, insofar that the top of the Democratic ticket will be a 77+ year old man in so so health. This person could very likely assume the presidency before the next term is over.
The majority of voters want to vote for the most competent and capable candidate team. Not some Berkeley focus group creation.
102
@BearBoy Only men, and mostly white men at that, define equity as "identity politics". We see you.
34
@BearBoy I see your argument, yet Elizabeth Warren was consistently ranked as the most qualified candidate and yet here we are... Equality is not something that "just happens". It must be fought for.
23
@BearBoy
The specter of "identity politics" has nothing to do with the left. The left has operated from an assumption of gender equality for over a century--it's only a novel idea to the centrist liberals that currently dominate the Democratic Party, who have latched onto identity politics in an attempt to undermine class politics, which the Party abandoned in the 1970s.
The left is concerned with class solidarity--not identity politics.
6
I didn’t know that we agreed to have gender quotas for VP positions. How about the best qualified person, whatever sex?
3
A ruthlessly-poll-tested VP candidate should be chosen...
I mean, the Democrats do wanna win don’t they?
3
I think it's important to note and remember that Geraldine Anne "Gerry" Ferraro was the first female vice presidential candidate in history (1984) and Sarah Palin was the second female VP candidate (2008).
Us old timers still remember how incredible that notion was back then. While it's still considered "incredible" I long for the day when we will arrive at the juncture where gender is a non-issue and their qualifications and politics will be what matters most.
3
"Must" is such an incorrect word here. Possibly "should" but not "must." We "must" do/experience very few things.
2
I do think if Elizabeth Warren was a man, she would have been a shoo-in for the nomination, but there is still much sexism in the world and especially in this country, so if Warren or another woman ends up the VP pick, then good. I know people are tired of "baby steps" but the old guard is dying off - the older white male club is grasping at any and all straws to "stay the course" and hopefully we can knock them off the course for good. People of all races, genders, sexuality should be welcomed and considered for office on their merits alone.
2 articles that sum up our backwardness.
Time Magazine, Nov 7, 2016.
"In the past half century, 59 countries have had women leaders, according to a 2016 report from the World Economic Forum."
CNBC March 5, 2019.
"Despite gains, the US ranks 75th globally in women’s representation in government."
And of course the US is the only developed country that still lacks affordable health care for all. That's the hottest issue in the 2020 election right now, with the C Virus pandemic, tens of millions uninsured and millions also lacking paid sick leave.
Per Wikipedia— “Paid sick leave is a statutory requirement in most European, many Latin American, a few African and Asian countries…”
We need op eds on the underlying reasons for America's stunning contrasts with the rest of the modern world in issues of equality and protection for all citizens lives and well being. What are the ways to bring us up to standards of even the late 20th century?
1
I hope this accommodation for a woman VP will have someone who can fit the position, rather than one who is just a female having been chosen because "there are the times"
1
Just elect one of these spectacular women and you will find out Just what excellent qualities you have been misding byynotelecting a woman.
1
She checks all the boxes.
Current U.S. Senator (2 terms as a U.S. congressperson who previously served in Obama administration)
Represents a Midwest state
Veteran (Iraq war) - received a Purple Heart and retired as a lieutenant colonel
Person of color
Person with a disability
Governor of her state is a Democrat (will replace her with a Democrat)
51 years old
First U.S. Senator to give birth while in office
Graduate degree in International Affairs
DAR - Daughter of the American Revolution - ancestors served in the Revolutionary War (her father is a veteran too)
Quote: I spent my entire adult life looking out for the well-being, the training, the equipping of the troops for whom I was responsible. Sadly, this is something that the current occupant of the Oval Office does not seem to care to do — and I will not be lectured about what our military needs by a five-deferment draft dodger. And I have a message for Cadet Bone Spurs: If you cared about our military, you'd stop baiting Kim Jong Un into a war that could put 85,000 American troops, and millions of innocent civilians, in danger.
Senator Tammy Duckworth - submitted for your consideration
3
It seems I remember Biden said he was open to a Republican VP.....Why not Condoleeza Rice?
How amazingly condescending and sexist these Women First people are. That’s why they keep losing - and should.
4
There remains a woman in the Democratic primary: Representative Tulsi Gabbard. She's a woman. She's a person of color. She's a military combat veteran, and still gives active service in the Army National Guard with the rank of major. She's a fresh thinker on all of the most pressing issues of our day. Why does this newspaper ignore Tulsi Gabbard? Why does the DNC blackball Tulsi Gabbard, doing everything to undermine her candidacy, continually barring her from the "debate" stage? Why do all major commercial and even non-profit media ignore her candidacy. Now, before you attack me with your DNC talking points, how about taking a look at Tulsi Gabbard's positions, watch a town hall or two. There are scores of them in Youtube. You might change your mind, which is the last thing the Democratic Establishment wants you to do. wwww.tulsi2020.com Of, by and for the People.
3
A little less open love for Moscow would win her some badly-needed friends. Do the research.
3
@Disenfranchised Democrat
Thank you! Her podcasts with Joe Rogan are definitely worth a view. Her interviews with Anderson Cooper and Steven Colbert made both of them look like little boys.
All meaningful change is incremental.
2
Jill Biden opposes Harris for VP because of her sneak attack on Joe at the first debate. I, too, thought the attack was mean and uncalled for.
By my takeaway is not that it should have disqualified Harris for, at the time, the presidential nod or, now, as veep. Primary slugfests, I mean debates, are not for the dainty.
My takeaway is that it should have disqualified Joe, who should have called her on the carpet for the transparently phony stunt that it was. Instead, he offered a weak and pathetic half-defense of himself -- exactly what we do not want in someone going against the pathogen that now occupies the Oval Office.
Of course I will vote for him if he is the nominee. Or Bernie. Or the Cat in the Hat, or Daffy Duck, or whatever (male, natch) animal, vegetable, or mineral becomes our nominee.
I’m starting to believe there is no such thing as a Democratic Party. There’s only fragmented constituencies bound together in opposition power - but each with to a different relationship to it.
So when older black voters in NC, or latinx voters in California, or women around the country leverage "the party" to acknowledge their voice and advocate for someone on the ticket — they’re actually leveraging no one or worse blocking another constituency.
The appearance of a central authority is actually hurting Democrats. Operating like there is one, using as a foil, is proving destructive to what everyone does agree upon — “the racist incompetent must go.”
All great and have no issue with a woman as V.P as long as its not a republican. Lets work on supporting a ticket that brings out a borad support to vote to elect a govt for the people vs for special interests, corporations and the 1%
2
@World foodie
How do say you have no issue and then say it can’t be a Republican ?
Isn’t that the definition of an issue ?
1
If gender is nothing but a social construct, why do you even care what gender the president or vice-president is?
If you don’t subscribe to this, isn’t it sexist to suggest that I should vote for someone based on gender or sex? Should I hire people based on immutable characteristics?
Isn’t that what we were supposed to be fighting against?
You don’t get to have it both ways. If you want equality, maybe start fighting for the right to be drafted, to end alimony, and for female coal miners (instead of just CEOs).
This is the problem with modern feminism, you want all of the good but none of the bad.
5
I was one hoping for a Warren/Abrams ticket, with Abrams taking her turn at the reigns thereafter. Our country sorely needs the solutions that these stars of governmental and policy leadership call for.
Warren is brilliant and would have made the best president from the wide field of candidates. A Biden presidency, though almost completely uninspiring otherwise, would certainly benefit from her intellect and proactive leadership if Warren were selected VP.
1
On the issues, I was for Warren. In so many ways, she is great. However, I have to say: a person running for President or Vice President should not dress in gym clothes. I realize that we live an an informal age, and that this comment will seem superficial -- but it just isn't professional.
5
If Biden is the Democratic candidate, what he needs to win is to pick a running mate not so much for racial diversity, or even gender but someone to balance his own centrist and moderate positions.
He needs someone who can offer solutions for the coming future that this country is in dire need of. Having said that, yes I believe he should also pick a woman as his VP, but that is not the first consideration: leadership potential should come first.
Biden is already strong among African-Americans. He needs to add strength to his ticket from a policy point of view, and if that is a woman, so much the better.
Among the candidates who have bowed out of the race, Warren is the best to help lead the country into the future, regardless of ethnicity or gender.
102
@ernieh1
Not sure we need two 70-somethings in the White House. There are well over 100 women in both houses of Congress, not to mention the hundreds more lawmakers at the state level.
3
@Jim OK, so among these hundreds of women, who among them has the leadership record and potential of an Elizabeth Warren, not to mention name recognition.
Just name three if you can.
And no, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be fine, but she is five years too young.
6
@ernieh1 I would like nothing better than to watch Elizabeth Warren slice and dice Pastor Pence in a VP debate.
11
Whatever it takes to beat Trump, I support. Woman, woman of color, whatever. That means it has to be Biden, not Sanders, at the top of the ticket, or it won't matter who the VP nominee is.
4
It is insulting to make a choice based purely on demographics.
Secretary Clinton was elected as the Democratic nominee because she was by far the better candidate running, not because she was a woman.
She won the national popular vote for US President by 4.5%, or 3 million votes, because she was by far the better candidate, not because she was a woman.
She lost due to Russian-GRU-GOP cheating and interference.
Elizabeth Warren lost the Democratic nomination because she was not the best candidate running in 2020, not because she was a woman.
She came in third in her home state, which had elected her Senator before, so the misogyny argument falls apart.
She started off her campaign well, and I agreed with many of her positions, until she dropped the ball in describing some policies, became fixated on Wall Street as the biggest problem with America (it isn't), and was vicious in attacking other candidates who know the focus of this race is defeating Donald Trump.
The best VP may be a woman, I don't know.
But certainly a candidate's gender shouldn't be the sole determinant of candidate selection, or the country has made a giant leap backwards in bias-free merit and electability decision-making.
7
People saying that the VP pick doesn't make much difference to voters should maybe remember the JFK/LBJ ticket, when LBJ helped to deliver large parts of the South. I know, it's a different time now, but still. Worth remembering.
4
@VPM
That was *60* years ago. Times have changed a lot since then.
And that comparison is apt for more reasons than one.
The choice (if she'll have it) is Stacey Abrams. She's brilliant. She's experienced. She's competent - - and, she's a woman. And she's a black woman.
Come on, Ms. Abrams. Go down in history as being the one who opened and stepped through all doors for women and POC at the highest levels of government.
Warren would be an incredible choice, too. I'd be thrilled with either.
4
@JL22
Considering she lost her last election in her own state, I’m not sure she’s the best option.
2
Very careful consideration is needed for a V.P. pick.
Please, not Hillary. She is like a moth to the flame and I see her flickering around just lately.
Looks like Biden could win, so hope he does not pick Amy, she is to wily a politician and I can't find real substance, she just safely nibbles around the edges.
Of course Bernie should have Warren, but she is reticent and he may not win the nomination, that being the case, Biden should select Warren if she is willing.
3
Elizabeth Warren WAS the front runner in a crowded Democratic primary. Then it happened. She inexplicably hire ex-Hillary campaign staffers and before you could say Medicare for all, she began backtracking on the very progressive issues that shot her to the top. How do I know this? Because I was one of her earlier supporters. I was initially going with Bernie Sanders but I decided to go with her because she was younger, seemed to embrace many of the same ideas and had a better fighting attitude. And then, I guess, the ex-Hillary consultants got their hooks into her and all of a sudden that progressive became a progressive with a centrist asterisk by her name. As someone who voted for Obama in 2008 hoping for change and then watching him disband his supporters and turn into a centrist neoliberal corporatist, literally picking his cabinet from a list handed to him by Citigroup, there was no way I, and other progressives were going to sit back and watch our candidate getting co-opted again. THAT's when her support started to dry up and she began to slip. Sanders? He continued his consistent campaign policies and started to gain. Please. Stop trying to make this a "woman" thing. Elizabeth Warren's failures had nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her inexplicable poor judgement in hiring on ex-Hillary campaign staffers, who I suspect, are the ones that gave Warren such disastrous advice and ruined her campaign.
4
A woman on the Democratic ticket is going to happen in 2020. Not because of all the political calculus spinning around. Simply because the time is right. 2016 may have been the reaction to the first black president. 2020 will be the reaction to a toxic, reactionary, male one term president.
There is a lot that could happen unexpectedly before the election. It ain't over 'til it's over.
HRC chose a man for her running mate (as poor as choice he was in that role) and John McCain chose a woman, Sarah Palin (another poor choice in that role).
Both were extremely strong presidential candidates and HRC actually won the popular vote.
I think the primary goal of choosing the best running mate needs to be viewed through a pair of winnable lenses, regardless of one's gender, race, religion and everything in between.
Which person could best compliment the presidential nominee and pick up the states and votes he is most weak and vulnerable in.
That's the key and hopefully winning ticket. And if the running mate ends up being a woman, then the presidential victory is that much sweeter.
3
Not that intelligence isn't important for being vice president, but I think Elizabeth Warren would be far superior in a cabinet position. I feel certain that Bernie Sanders would put a woman on the ticket with him, but I think Joe Biden would have to be reminded -- and he probably will as he seems to be following what everyone in the DNC etc. is telling him to do. The woman should also have some experience, enough to become president as I don't think either Biden or Sanders will be two-termers. It seems to me a given that a woman would be on the ticket, so why all the talk now? Trying to push one or both Democratic candidates into naming a veep now? I hope not, it is too soon. All good things in time.
1
Warren is as straight and quick as an arrow, a godsend of a politician and one of America's better angels. Is she better than either Sanders or Biden? She speaks very effectively for herself, but maybe because, when she waxes stentorian, she comes across more like a stern librarian at the outer limits of her vocal cords she is perceived as not quite the right fit for the Presidency. Especially in contrast to the bombastic incumbent, whose voice rakes from very podium on which he stands into the outer corners of his rallies like a B52. But there is another woman, still in the race, Tulsi Gabbard, who is sharp as a tack, cool as a cucumber, polished in her thinking and a match for Trump on every level - were she to square off with him face to face. Meet the new Marianne Williamson! unmentioned, off the radar. Instead Hilary Clinton is back. Chapeau! But can we whack away please? Umpteen times if necessary until that mole disappears for good? Good God! Tulsi is still in the race. Still young. Still strong. She rolls both night and day - with a sensible plan for the country. And she listens ... carefully.
1
As a Progressive if the Dems run a ticket of Biden/Klobachar or Biden/Harris I’m out and I’m never coming back. Green Party here I come.
3
The job of the VP is pretty simple (if Pence can do it, any one can do it). Those duties consist of: breaking tie votes in the Senate, attending funerals for minor heads of state, and standing around the President and nodding your head up and down - no left to right -it's just too darn hard to remember when to use up and down vs left and right.
The question is not weather or not to have a woman on the ticket, it's what woman and what color. If the rumors about Trump dropping Pence for Nikky Haley are true, the democrats must respond in kind and a woman of color is all but a foregone conclusion
Unfortunately, the Democrats need to make the decision first and Trump will respond accordingly. So can the democrats come up with a woman of color who can counter Haley?
Kamala Harris comes to mind, but Biden's wife dislikes her. So, the question for the democrats is who qualifies? Is there more than one?
I am a 66 year old white woman. I still think Hillary is the best candidate, man or woman. This year I really was not sure I could support any woman for president. Klobuchar came the closest. It would be great to have a woman VP. But more important to me, I just want the best choice whether they are a man or a woman. I think Corey Booker or Klobuchar or Buttigieg would be my first choices.
4
Stacey Abrahams for Vice President. Smart, savey, likable, and relatively young.
1
“There must be a woman on this ticket,” is a sexist demand. "Woman" is not a qualification for the job of President or Vice President. Neither it is a disqualification. "preferably a black woman". Is a racist comment. The Democratic nominee should pick the best qualified running mate. The pick may be strategic as to who may boost the likelihood of gathering more votes but that is a different motivation.
5
I love how people are posting that it 'shouldn't be a woman but the most qualified person. As if, historically, the best possible most qualified person has always been a white man. They still assume the default of 'most qualified' will always be the white guy. This is the essence of misogyny. Men are assumed to be inherently better and more qualified. Women have to over-prove themselves and then are still considered suspect.
5
@Anne
That's not what people are saying at all. That's a gross misinterpretation. People are arguing against an effective "quota."
1
@Anne
At least this year, women have decided a white guy is the best person and black people have decided that a white guy is the best person.
And in case you forgot, there was a woman at the top of the ticket just four years ago...
1
Re: “Democrats Eye a Vice-Presidential Consolation Prize for Women,” March 9, pg. xx: One name that has not popped up as often as it should is former Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. She wouldn’t just offer a valuable Midwest background and disarming tact, wit and lack of pretension, but also the necessary heartbeat-away-from-the-presidency quotient of experience and judgment. Another plus: Her selection would put no current Democratic Senate seat in jeopardy. And you just know she would shake up Vice President Pence something fierce in a debate, reason enough to put her on the ticket..
2
All these people saying it only about the best human candidate should take a good hard look at Joe Biden. Can you honestly say he is the best?
4
Here’s a novel idea: pick the BEST candidate, regardless of gender.
6
California will never vote for trump, so picking Kamala Harris won't help bring in her home state. But she is strong and smart and tough--the usual qualities in a VP running mate--remember Bob Dole? She could really help in states with black women, strong white women, and men smart enough to reject a congenital liar with a hypocritical evangelical running mate. But you gotta love Stacey Abrams' spunk. I just love her so much!
@Paula
Harris got no support, period. That's why she dropped out. Why do people think she would be an asset when Biden has always gotten more black support and more female than Harris did?
@Locke_
Good points. Thanks.
Amy Klobuchar, or Tammy Baldwin
1
What about Pete? Not a woman, but a midwesterner and a good campaigner. Young. Smart. Glib.
2
Is that all we're doing now, checking boxes? Black, female, gay, etc.? Sad day when qualifications take a backseat to identity.
5
1. How about "most qualified to succeed an 82 year-old incumbent" as the main criterion? Maybe that would be a woman, gay man, paraplegic, Hispanic, Black, or white male.
2. Is it just me, or was there an almost-coronation of a woman in 2008, and a woman won the popular vote in 2016? Hillary Clinton must find the coverage of Warren infuriating.
3. Using a woman VP as a gimmick has been tried twice - Ferraro in 84 and Palin in 2008. The entire idea disrespects "suburban women" as easily swayed by such gimmicks.
4. Trump will choose Nikki Haley, so merely choosing a woman will cancel out anyway.
Let's choose the person "most likely to succeed" - in the election, and in the Oval Office in 2024 (or earlier). Genitalia and skin color aren't part of that equation.
2
Enough with the identity politics.
6
It should become a rule to have a gender balanced ticket (1 person of each sex) as well as an ethnically balanced ticket (1 white person, for now, + 1 non-white).
That's the only way to reflect what this country is, and to ensure proper representation.
I just watched a great documentary on Imelda Marcos...and didn't know that the Philippines has a separate election for the vice president position...
I find this interesting, as the current vice president in the Philippines is NOT a Duterte supporter...
One can dream...
Oh and they use the popular vote...
One can dream...
Wow ! This is an entitlement ? Way to go ! Our lady( ies) could not win the primaries to be the presidential candidate, now we demand the position of vice presidency for them. It doesn't matter whether or not they are the best qualified, doesn't matter whether or not the person who will win the candidacy want them or not, We just demand that seat ! Yeeeey !
1
I’m OK with anyone other than trump, regardless of the gender
Warren and Harris are a wash, demographically, because California and the Northeast are very safe. I think Klobuchar is the best choice because of her ability to bring the Midwest into play and because of her youth and combative abilities. We need someone who can be a bit more -- dare it say it -- aggressive in putting forth the Democrat's case. You know, like a prosecutor....which she was. Amy is extremely good on her feet, her law enforcement background is a net plus and her biography has the depth we need right now. She did not go from win to win. She had to grind it out and it shows in her character.
She's got soul.
4
Competing hard doesn't entitle you to anything. Being a woman doesn't entitle you to anything. Claiming victimhood all the time and blaming half the population doesn't entitle you to anything. And this is the problem with feminists that the electorate doesn't care for-you don't decide for them. Run a good campaign that is inclusive, including not suggesting that you are going to favor women over men, and you are entitled to a chance at being elected. Play the gender card at your own peril and as Warren found out and you won't.
Analysis of national election data has shown that there is no gender bias in elections against women. Surveys by CNN etc. have shown that there is-against men by women who vote for a woman based solely on gender three times more than men do the same.
Feminist rage plays well at the NYT, but it does not most anywhere else. Time's up on feminist entitlement and misandry.
3
So after castigating him as a racist, Sen. Harris now feels Joe Biden is best qualified to be president (as long as he picks her as his VP of-course).
2
I'm an older millennial in my mid 30s, my dad is a boomer in his mid 60s. We always chat about politics as beltway DMVers do. Last year, as candidates were beginning to announce for the democratic primary, we saw an article about Joe and Kamala possibly running together and how this would be the dream ticket according to the House's African American caucus. Intriguing, we both thought! It definitely seems to be shaping up this way, or at least to include a woman as the running mate in both campaigns. Although I would've liked to see a woman president this time around, a VP is a positive stepping stone for the future! Overall, I'd be happy with Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Stacy Abrams or any of the other highly qualified, capable women as a running mate for Biden. Rep. Val Demmings is also intriguing. Her background in law enforcement in Florida would certainly bring new facets to Joe's campaign.
2
Maybe I watch too many shows about political wheeling and dealing, but my guess is Amy Klobuchar will be the VP... hence her endorsement a day before Super Tuesday. She’s always claimed that she could carry the middle of the country...and hopefully she can. Stacey Abrams is another excellent choice. And of course Elizabeth Warren.
Interesting that most men don’t understand that women really have been waiting for this for a long time. I didn’t vote for HRC because she was a woman. In fact I had a hard time voting for her, I was a Bernie supporter and still am. That said it would be nice to have a female VP. Especially one who is capable and could unite the party.
4
Why is Stacy Abrams a good choice ? Based on her race and gender ? The Democrats bar for qualifying any candidate.
Can’t we do better than that....she has virtually zero experience and at Biden’s advanced age it is possible he may not be able to serve a full term.
Klobuchar is better but she has no real experience managing any kind of organization nonetheless the us government.
She will of course maintain the swamp status quo so it really does not matter.
@Unhappy JD
And she didn't get elected in her own state! Isn't this a requirement anymore? Or have we become puppets of national news outlets pushing their views and their celebrities on us?
Clinton's right, it's time to think strategically. But not just about the electoral college -- about the Senate, too.
We need to hold on to as many Dem senate seats as possible; not hand them over to Republican governor's to fill as whomever the nominee, and hopeful winner is, flushes out their administration.
3
A female on the ticket will not make history. There were women on the ticket in the past, both on the Democratic and Republican side. History will be made only if the ticket wins, which is a big IF with Biden at the top of the ticket. Biden will not survive in a debate with Trump, even if he is sitting and getting prepared and vetted questions.
2
The most logical running mate for Biden is Stacey Abrams. And not just because of her gender and/or race. She is brilliant, energetic and can excite people from being a possible voter to a definite voter. She could also bring out voters in not only her home state of Georgia, but other Southern state which would be beneficial in helping flip the Senate for the Democrats.
1
@Randy Arnold
Did she pay her taxes yet?
If the Democrats are to avoid the mistake Hillary Clinton made in 2016, they must pick a running mate who will unify the Democratic Party. At this point, with Joe Biden the now clear front runner, that means the Vice Presidential nominee must be a progressive woman. That means it must not be Kamala Harris or Amy Klobuchar who ran like Biden as moderates. There is only one real viable choice. That's Elizabeth Warren. Warren will unify the ticket by keeping most of the Sanders voters from staying home or voting for Trump. And she will solidify the revolt of suburban women against Trump that led to Democrats retaking the House in 2018. She has the experience; she has the record; she has the plans; she has the passion; and she's an amazing debater. Biden-Warren 2020 "The Perfect Vision for America"
7
While I agree that we are rightfully on the verge of having a female President (Hillary won the popular vote by a good margin), it is distasteful in the extreme to take on the attitude that women are 'owed' it, and, further, the blatantly judgmental nature of of old-white-guy-bashing. Imagine, for a moment, if someone in the party had called Hillary an 'old white woman', and undeserving of the Democratic nomination for that reason alone.
The somnambulistic drone of the 'woke' movement is the surest way to re-elect Donald Trump.
For the moment, the people have spoken, and Joe Biden is the guy. Having said that, Kamala Harris would make a great choice for VP.
4
Elizabeth Warren voter here. Was bummed to see her exit. But you gotta take progress where you can, and for all the hand-wringing about not having a woman in the white house, it'd be a lot easier to swallow with a not only a woman on the ticket, but women in the cabinet, on the bench, in Congress and state houses. That's all still do-able.
So: disappointing, but not disastrous.
3
I agree that it would be good to have a woman as the vice president (and not based on demographics, but rather on talent). Coming as a sitting vp is an edge, while Obama was an outsider and won , in general being VP gives an edge that a woman will need to get nominated and win the election. Especially if the VP role is a real one, unlike the boot licker who currently inhabits the position, and can show real responsibility in the executive branch, it would be a big help for name value and such to help put a woman over the edge.
1
I believe the only way we will ever get a female president is through the vice presidency.
Both of these candidates are older and could easily become ill and unable to perform their duties.
Then the (female) vice president step right in and save our country - and the world.
4
Why would she "save the world"? She could be much worse. I don't understand why female candidates for office are considered to have almost mystical, super-human powers to solve problems that males can't. Disappointment often follows when it's revealed that they are but one more politician constrained by the system in which they work, and all their apparent powers count for nothing.
Why must there be? It is about having the most qualified person for the position not a particular gender or sexual orientation.
5
I'm not a person for quotas, but I am rather discouraged by some of the comments here. The fact is the best VP options currently are women, and I am not even thinking of Warren:
Klobuchar (who was my original pick for president)
Or how about Susan Rice? She is more qualified than most who ran.
Tammy Duckworth: Double amputee veteran pilot with house and Senate experience.
3
“There must be a woman on this ticket”
So, if a more qualified man is a choice vs a qualified woman for the position of VP, the the woman MUST be chosen?
This is not how we should choose for ANY position.
The most qualified candidate must be on this ticket.
6
The point is that there are numerous people, male and female, who are equally qualified. So why not choose a woman on the list? Another factor that no one is mentioning: with the Coronavirus sweeping the country, there is a chance the septuagenarian nominee, as he travels and campaigns, could come down with the virus. The Vice President nominee has to be someone experienced and, yes, electable, who can carry on the campaign should that happen.
3
The Democrats lost to Trump last round because they lost Michigan, Wisconsin and western Pennsylvania, so how does a midwesterner like Klobuchar or Whitmer not make sense? Biden is strong around the South, so he doesn't need Abrams though her pick would show that he has an eye for remarkably talented people.
1
@L Do Agree 100%
Life is tough for everyone.
Running for the Oval Office is not guaranteed for any gender.
After the catastrophic disaster of the Trump Administration, America should pick the most sane, qualified official with EXPERIENCE, rather than a more narrow choice.
1
Stacy Abrams...yeah she doesn’t have a lot of experience. But she is brilliant. And as VP she would be able to rapidly familiarize herself with the job. But what do we mean when we say experience? Most know that you rely on advisors. So it’s not specific policy knowledge. Is it budgets? Doubt it. That is also done with help of OMB and treasury. Nope it’s politics. Knowing how to bridge gaps. Stacy knows how to do this... she is a black women who almost won a senate seat in Georgia... Georgia. She would bring in most of not all of the missing black vote from 2016. Had we had that in the key electoral states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, Hillary would be president. So she’s my pick.
2
How do left-wing Democrats choose their representatives? Apparently based on the pigment in their skin and their reproductive organs. As soon as Trump is gone I'll leave the Democratic Party behind. There's just no place left for intelligent people in American politics. And FYI, Klobuchar and Pete B would be my preferred picks for VP, but not because of their "identity".
4
I cringe when I hear, "the ticket must..." Sounds like a "Trump wins another four years"
2
Stacey Abrams would be a terrible choice for veep. She has absolutely no experience outside of being a Representative in the Georgia House. There are two senate seats up in this election and she should have run for one but declined. Not a bright move -- after serving as a US Senator for 8 years, she'd be ready for the 2028 elections.
Yes, I know she was robbed in the gubernatorial race. My own polling place was moved from down the block to a location a 10-minute drive away, with no direct bus service (I live in John Lewis's district, natch) and a lot of people living intown don't have cars.
What drives me crazy is that her name is "Stacey-Abrams-a-rising-star-in-the-Democratic-party." Every single time her name is mentioned. And while giving the Democratic response to the SOTU can be a stepping stone to greater things, as it was for Obama, it didn't give her any real national recognition; Obama had already served a term in the US Senate when he did it.
She's not ready for the national stage, and should anything happen to the president, she would be miserably unprepared. She would be a drag on the ticket.
Naming her because she's a black woman might be politically correct but this is not how a Vice Presidential should be chosen.
I'd like to see Amy Klobuchar be the nominee. Not only is she experienced and qualified, she'd bring in the Mdwest votes. Putting Harris on the ticket would mean a coastal ticket, once again making the "fly-over" states left out.
7
!9th Amendment was the biggest blunder ever made. Salas, we're stuck with it. That said, we certainly don't need a woman VP, especially someone like Warren.
1
Silver is a start. We've got to start somewhere!
1
Susan Rice would be an excellent choice.
2
There will only ever be one president and VP at a time. Will we always have everyone except one or two demographics agitated that they were excluded?
Senator Warren said she was told there were two lanes, each with a clear "incumbent". Several candidates tried to maneuver to create a third lane and none were convincing.
Some tried desperate attacks at the debates and none were convincing. This was not a case of two newcomers running past a female candidate on an imagined ladder to the top. Bernie has been Bernie for years, has a lot of credibility in that sense, and this is his last chance. The same is true for Joe. No reasonable voter has any priority in 2020 other than replacing Trump with someone ethical and competent.
The most blatant illustration of sexism was Mayor Pete's ascent at the expense of Klobuchar, not that no one could beat either of the two leading household names in the race. The last time the party nominated a white guy was 2004. One of the two "white guys" would be the first Jewish president and just had someone unfurl a Nazi flag at his rally. If that "doesn't count", maybe some additional reflection is necessary.
@Alan
Why is Mayor Pete's ascent over Klobuchar an illustration of sexism? Maybe people just thought he was a better candidate.
All this feminist angst has me wondering: feminists tell us women have been overlooked and ignored because they were conditioned not to ask for things or think of themselves. How is it it then that women are so good at and so willing to demand things now? These characteristics are not developed overnight.
1
". . . prominent Democrats began publicly insisting that the ticket include a woman, preferably a black woman." Let me from the outset say that, first, I myself am Black, and that, second, I understand the hankering for a Black woman, given the lease on life Black people, Black women in particular, have given Mr. Biden. That said, it's not going to do him any good to have a Black person on the ticket, male or female, since it is more than obvious that he has a lock on that section of the electorate. Is there anyone out there who thinks that if he did not pick a Black running mate Black Americans would stay home en mass or vote for DJT in massive numbers come election day? If he really wants to unite the party and grow his base, as he argues, he has to pick a woman who has an apparent progressive streak so as to attract younger, more progressive voters. And currently no one fits that bill better than . . . Senator Warren. Yes, another White, septuagenarian but at this point that is all we've got (next time around AOC will be good and ready). If he doesn't, the disillusion among progressives will be great and the Democratic Party runs a risk of losing a chunk of them forever.
4
Yes, a woman on the ticket! Biden/Harris, Biden/Warren, Biden/Klobuchar or Biden/Abrams. Any of these amazing, well-qualified ladies would be a great asset to the Democratic ticket!
1
The VP should be younger than 70, younger than 60, than 55. Not a senior citizen!! Someone really energetic to fill in the gaps for the old man who will be in office. Biden & Sanders are both going to need a lot of support (behind the scenes) to appear connected to the modern world - 21st century. Someone like Amy, Pete or Cory.
2
Choosing a Black woman or a Latina woman who is qualified and comes from a state that will balance the presidential ticket is a no-brainer.
2
Keep in mind that the Vice President is next in line if God forbid something should happen to the President. This is not what a sane person would consider a consolation prize.
VP should be a qualified, experienced and intelligent person regardless of gender or race. One that doesn't need to be in the spo†light all the time... So far, I am liking Deval Patrick...
Stop. Just stop it. By screaming "sexism" every 30 seconds, you are alienating voters who are needed to win the general election. If you say Warren/Amy K/Harris didn't get the nomination because of sexism, you're accusing people who didn't support them of being sexists. No one wants to be accused of sexism, particularly when there were valid reasons to not support any of those candidates.
6
This is no time to be worrying about virtue signaling or optics.
We need the BEST persons as POTUS and VPOTUS, and Congress, regardless of race, color, creed, whatever.
Jus' sayin'.
3
The identity politics of the Democratic Party is just disgusting. Hopefully their positions will cause their demise.
4
A VP candidate is typically one who can deliver a critical swing state and is an avid attack dog, with the first criterion being the most important. None of the women listed as possible VPs fit the bill. California (Harris), Minnesota (Klobuchar) and Massachusetts (Warren) are already blue states. Georgia is a red state that Stacey Abrams could not deliver for herself in the governor's race.
I don't agree that putting a random black woman or man on the ticket as VP will deliver the black vote. The people saying this are either old civil rights retreads or asleep at the wheel. Obama 2.0 is dead as evidenced by the crash and burn of Kamala Harris (who was Indian-American until she decided to run for president), Cory Booker and Deval Patrick. Andrew Gillum could not deliver Florida for himself so he cannot help the Democratic nominee.
The content of the presidential candidate's platform and the extent to which he will carry through are what matter. Right now, neither candidate offers anything of benefit to black voters. Democrats have a history of benign neglect when it comes to black people who voted consistently for them since the 1970s. Yes, Biden is winning the black vote in primaries but so did Hillary and how did that work for her?
1
Given the number and quality of potential Democratic VPs who just happen to be women, the problem may be more choosing which woman than choosing a woman.
Why a woman isn't still in contention for the top spot has me scratching my head.
1
Who ever wins the DNC nomination needs to choose an equally capable running mate. Someone that can be groomed to take over once the eight year term has ended. I do not think that person needs to be a woman, but if a woman is chosen as a Vice President I would hope that the choice would be someone other than one already working for us. All of the women in this year's democratic race were inspiring, more than capable and I would have supported any of them had they gotten the nod. On the other hand I am very glad that each of them still remains in a position to assist whomever is elected in November to move this nation back to normalcy. ANYONE BUT TRUMP 2020 !
1
So the article says the VP position doesn't matter, does matter, and matters more for perception? And they next sentence lists candidates that couldn't win before? I guess I am confused about this. Sen Harris had minimal support among black voters, and it sunk her candidacy. Rep Abrams narrowly lost a race for governor. Those are not exactly qualifications for VP. The worst thing that could happen is to put an unqualified or unprepared VP in a position to take over if Biden or Sanders cannot finish a term and have that person fail or appear to fail. That will reinforce perceptions and set back future candidates. I am not saying that they are not qualified, only that race and gender not be the primary qualifications. Now, that begs the question as to what a policy qualification for VP is considering that the article mentions that the VP does not matter so much. Either way, I think this is more an intellectual exercise. My advice: don't pick someone too polarizing that might push those swing voters in the Midwest to Trump. I can see a VP pick hurting far more than helping. They Democratic electorate is already showing they prefer safe candidates compared to revolution. This should extend to the VP selection as well.
46
@Steve -- Exactly!
3
@Steve Only white men see anyone but their same gender and race as "too polarizing". Most women see an all-male and all-white ticket as too polarizing, and we usually provide the margin of victory or defeat.
7
@Steve
You make the obvious point and it would be the most painful of ironies if they chose a candidate that appeals to the worr social mediasphere and it’s costs them the EC.
3
Diversity if not created by quotas reflects a fair and egalitarian society where all are provided equal opportunities to achieve their goals. This country started out a republic for property owning males of European ancestry from Britain, The Netherlands, Germany, but few other places. Today the citizens are all genders and from all ethnic backgrounds. The representations in top leadership and more advantaged groups remains skewed towards males and mostly of European ancestry but that is going to change because the diversity among younger people is greater than ever before.
The important thing for all of us to remember is that life is not fair and only we can impose fairness in human communities. For now, the people best able to lead are those who have and are experienced enough to anticipate outcomes well. There is a tendency among young people to think that if they can think of anything they can make it real. Experience tends to be very disillusioning.
Imho, if Sanders continues to get delegates and progressive support, there should be a Biden-Sanders ticket to ensure the progressives vote in November. A Biden-Warren ticket would also work if Sanders has a sharp decline in primary votes. The Dems just need to consolidate fast (to minimize in-fighting) and in a strong (everyone onboard) way to win in November.
3
All those grumping that gender, orientation, or disability shouldn't matter are apparently ignorant a primary responsibility of higher office: to inspire the nation.
Yes Barack Obama's blackness mattered. It inspired millions, and not just black millions. Yes FDRs disability mattered--it inspired millions of physically challenged as well as the able-bodied. And yes, Abe Lincoln's class mattered--that a person could overcome so many obstacles is equally inspiring.
So yes, choosing a women is both legitimate and inspiring. This old white guy will be absolutely thrilled.
124
@Laurence Bachmann
So would this old white gal!
But keep in mind that another old white guy, John McCain, was way ahead of the curve back in 2008 when he chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate.
HRC WAS the Democratic nominee for president in 2016. She chose a man for her running mate.
There have been trailblazers on both sides of the aisle when it comes to the highest elected offices in this country.
There could and should definitely be more. And I believe there will be.
But the focus for THIS presidential race must be to dump Trump - full and hard stop!!
4
@Laurence Bachmann
So inspiration is more important than competentence?
4
@Laurence Bachmann
I don't need to be inspired. I want a good economy and jobs.
4
Whether a woman is chosen or not as VP is not my primary concern. Given the ages of both Biden and Sanders, I think it is most important to pick a candidate who is both experienced in government and has the temperament to lead our country should there be a need during a first term.
2
I also don't think gender should be a consideration. However, months ago I posted that my dream ticket would be Bernie/Tulsi, and I still feel that way.
3
Really wish, given their ages, that the candidates would signal their choices for vp, before I have to vote in the primary. It might very well make a difference.
2
The notion that for a woman to be "merely" a vice presidential candidate is a "consolation prize" represents the kind of irritating entitlement that fuels a lot of the outrage in Trump's world. An election is not a prize contest. It is a choice about who appears most able and qualified to run a government. We are not talking about a mere figure head. Running a government is a real job and no one is entitled to it. Elections are understandably imperfect and are subject to all kinds of frustrating biases, but ultimately they need to be respected or we are back to being in Trump's
world where all the negatives are nothing but a conspiracy against more deserving (or entitled) people.
Also, if Joe Biden does win, he will 78 years old when he becomes President, which means he is unlikely to run for a second term and has a higher chance of being incapacitated in office (I am not an actuary -- I can't provide the number, but it is out there) than his younger counterparts. His vice presidential choice has a very good chance of ultimately being president. The same is true, by the way, of Trump's vice presidential choice. We know very little about Trump's health (at least little believable), but can talk about risk associated with his age, which is very close to Biden's.
Finally, if anyone needs to know how relevant a vice president can be, just ask Mr. Biden.
3
It is not a conciliation prize, the DNC is on notice that a woman will be on the ticket.
The DNC orchestrated strategy to shove women and candidates of color out of the race, before the primaries, and endorse Biden is not acceptable.
Senators Warren, Harris, Gillenbrand, and Klobuchar are all viable candidates.
We have to demand a woman on the ticket, otherwise we are sitting out.
Trump isnt the only danger in America. Biden represents the same corruption and status quo we will not tolerate anymore.
We demand change and equality now.
5
@Hope
There was no DNC orchestration before the primaries. Voters started voting and it became apparent who the front runners are.
And who is your "we" demanding "change and equality"? I'm a woman. I don't want change. I just want a competent hand steering the ship. And I already have "equality" under the law.
Women are not ideologically homogenous. I look forward to VP Klobacher not because she's a woman but because she's competent. And I lost the interest in Warren not because of her sex but because I disagreed with her ideas.
2
@Hope ; "Biden represents the same corruption and status quo". Have you looked at Gillenbrand's record? Oh yes - because she's a woman it doesn't matter.
@Hope So you and the three who recommended your comment will vote for Trump with Nikki Haley as VP just to get a woman in the White House if the Democratic VP choice is not a woman. There is no hope in that vote.
I am demanding the best ticket and that includes somebody who is running as an American, not as a woman looking to break some kind of a ceiling and make history.
There is a good chance that Biden's VP will have to take over at some point during the first term. So it should be someone whom we can actually picture doing the job. This is really more important now than ever before because we never had such old people in the oval office.
Paint-by-number election politics is such overwrought mental gymnastics. It's fascinating on the one hand, but there is probably such a thing as overthinking.
I'm reminded of the saying (as I am trying to grapple with what has been happening in the democratic field over the last two weeks) that people react to and remember how you make them feel, not necessarily what you said to them or even did. They remember the feeling, the emotions you evoked in them.
Maybe people vote like that too, and when they try to counteract that impulse, it backfires. In which case, the over-analyzing of what voters anticipate their vote will mean in the grand scheme, has certainly backfired for Warren.
There are countless people who say they would vote for her but they doubted her electability. If all the people who really wanted to vote for her or for Sanders had done so, maybe their preferred candidate would have gotten elected. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
Instead voters try to think like pundits whose prognostications then become a reality.
But the truth is, if ever there was a time for "big ideas" and fighting for our rights and to save the planet, it is now.
1
"Studies of the 2008 race found that while Ms. Palin shored up her party’s evangelical base, she did little to help John McCain, the Republican nominee, win over independent or Democratic-leaning women."
They needed studies to tell them that? Look at Sen. McCain's choice ...
3
The convention should announce that the Democratic Party is not submitting a candidate for president in 2020. We offered well-qualified woman and minority candidates in the primaries and the electorate (including women and minorities) failed to vote for them. Instead they returned old white men. Clearly they don’t get what the Democratic Party of the 21st century is about. It is not enough that Ms Harris, for whom almost no one voted, should have the number two place on the ticket. Let them vote for Trump, who apparently represents their values.
The most qualified female politician -- the only one who has actually won a Presidential election -- with more votes than any candidate in American history --
Hillary.
1
@Horatio You are not qualified when you can’t figure out how to talk to the voters or get their vote in that large part of the country where the voters can’t stand you.
Elizabeth Warren might have done herself some good by appearing on SNL sometime before Super Tuesday. She appeared as somebody with a sense of humor who is able to laugh at herself and who is a lot more human than she did on the debate stage.
I am hoping Biden will win and pick either Amy Klobuchar or Stacy Abrams. I acknowledge the obvious bias against women candidates. My wife and myself, both long time Dem voters, were really turned off when Warren attacked Bloomberg at his first debate. Instant vote loser, so yes there is prejudice against women candidates unfortunately.
@Mckeever Would you have liked the attack any better if it had come from a man? I couldn’t stand Klobuchar’s attacks on Buttigieg. Wouldn’t have liked them any better if they had come from any of the men. If I enjoyed attack dogs on the campaign trail I would just vote for Trump.
Once again the media, including my favorite MSNBC, have created an issue out of nothing. Suggesting that the failure to nominate a woman as a candidate for a major political party had a misogynistic undercurrent is just another trite conspiracy theory of the politically correct. Hillary Clinton – a very able US Senator and Secretary of State – won the nomination in 2016 and garnered 3-4 million votes than Trump. We lost the opportunity to have a fine president, defaulting to the fool who occupies the White House now. Equally trite talk of 70 plus year old white men. Kamala Harris had nothing and had no business running, Elizabeth Warren was intentionally vague about the cost of universal heath care and how we would get there. And the thought of getting rid of the health insurance industry was singularly naïve. I was ready to vote for Amy Globuchar in California until Biden re-emerged. I hope she runs on the ticket as Vice-President. She would be a competent and experienced back-up and sounding board for Joe Biden (if he wins) and a perfectly fine president if necessary. Better than Harris, Marianne Williamson, Gillibrand, Gabbard and Warren. So there you have it, oh wise people of the media.
1
@styleman
The black electoral will not accept Amy. Although I think she is a nice woman.
So all the dudes who said they'd prefer Warren over Clinton in 2016 are now saying Warren can't be VP because she needs to stay in the Senate.
Sounds like you still want female candidates making your sandwiches instead of governing.
5
@Ames I'd prefer Klobuchar, Susan Rice or Tammy Duckworth myself, but the Warren/Senate argument does not hold water. Several Massachusetts voters have pointed out that state law requires a special election so there would be another Democrat right away.
I think the aforementioned would be great VPs. Then again, I wanted Amy as president.
1
Hands down, Barbara Jordan would have been my first choice for first woman President. Nicely, it would have been a twofer: first woman POTUS, first black POTUS, putting us light years ahead of these issues by now, instead of lagging behind countries like India, Pakistan and Liberia. It was her intellect, her unapologetic, independent, tell it as it is, fighting spirit and we should insist on nothing less now in our first female VPOTUS.
1
Yes! It looks like the best and fastest road to a woman finally becoming president is to be the VP to a man in his late 70's!
1
Biden should choose Elizabeth Warren as his VP. This would help unify the Democrats in a meaningful way. We need a massive Blue turnout for this nation to throw Trump and his traitorous Republican lackeys out of our government. It is the last chance we will have to restore our broken democracy.
True progressives understand that pragmatism over purity must prevail in these desperate and dangerous times. Biden/Warren yes..but Vote Blue No Matter Who!!
4
When you lose you don’t get gold.
For those who say we should pick the “best human” irrespective of gender, I wish the world worked that way. If it did, Warren would still be in the race.
4
Senator Warren would be a bad choice for V.P. She's as much a Socialist as Bernie Sanders. Perhaps a position in the Biden Administration.
Here is a novel idea. Pick the person who would be Biden's best VP. Forget all of the identity politics that turns the US into some kind of Lebanese government offshoot.
2
Am not voting for a VP under Biden who may very well need to step up to the #1 position, which might include Harris, Klobuchar, Buttigeig, et al...the democrats establishment will pick whom they want just like when Biden was chosen VP(the reason being still is baffling today), what was considered best for the party in their opinion. Sex, skin color seem to be the top priority, not qualifications or possible job performance in the future if needed. If these candidates were accepted by the democratic establishment, then why didn't the democratic party nominate them for #1 position in the WH, if this is a rational reasoning by the party itself?
And where does the ERA Amendment stand these days? Perhaps much more needed attention from the MSM is needed concerning this issue. In my state we voted for ratification in 1974. Today is 2020...unbelievable. Think I'll go have a cigarette...is that an ok thing for a woman to do constitutionally today?
1
More like need a consolation Prize for the working class, someone that has fought for the poor in both urban and rural areas.
Give the people in poverty a voice within the White House.
Poverty effects all genders
While I’d love to see a woman elected V.P., I’d frankly be delighted if Sen. Sanders or V.P. Biden named anyone as a running mate this early in the process. It’s a little odd to vote for any nominee relatively blind as to who their running mate might be.
My primary elections are held next week, so I’ll have to choose between Biden and Sanders. What I most want is reassurance that Republican multi-billionaire Bloomberg won’t be allowed anywhere near my White House. I’m sure Sanders won’t choose him as a running mate… but I’m not so certain Biden couldn’t be talked into some stupid “Democrat/Republican unity ticket” plan that‘d almost certainly cost him the election, would definitely return full control of Congress to the Republican Party, but which even at best would place Bloomberg within a heartbeat of the presidency… which I’d also regard as a failure.
Not wanting to give aid and comfort to Sanders’ corrosively toxic and often GRU-flavored online fanbase on the one hand, and not wanting to accidentally leave open the crack Bloomberg might still weasel through into the White House on the other, it’s hard to know what to do.
I’d be delighted for Sen. Warren or Sen. Harris or Rep. Abrams or even Sen. Klobuchar to be someone’s V.P. pick for very much the same reasons as those given by the NYT’s interviewees. But it’s also shocking how broken our primary system is: whoever we pick as the nominee could still undo everything we stand for through their choice of running mate.
1
@Daniel Merchán Bloomberg was a Democrat for longer than Elizabeth Warren. And definitely longer than a Sanders.
1
@Bashh - And Bloomberg has been a base opportunist, instituting racist and Islamophobic policing policies, and creating mysoginistic, homophobic, and transphobic workplaces, all while widening the gap between the rich and the poor in NYC, while simultaneously padding his nest with ill-gotten corporate welfare, for longer than every other primary candidate combined. But I’m sure that’s what you also meant to type!
1
Democrats and women especially are turning me and so many others off with this bizarre entitlement and self-centered attitude. A woman will get on the ticket when or if she has EARNED IT and not before. Warren was 6% with black voters in the South. Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar - neither of them made it either. All three were rattled in debates. EARN IT like Hillary did or please stop with these pointless selfish demands. We are facing a national and international crisis that will be all hands on deck. Focus group the thing. Poll it. Whatever will win in Florida or Pennsylvania that is what we should go with. Stop giving well meaning activists who happen to be women a bad name.
3
I understand why many readers here are not comfortable with the concept of “A woman must be on the ticket to balance it”..It doesn’t sound fair just choosing someone based on gender and I do think that in many occasions the ‘Politically Correct’ goes too far in our society.
But not on this case..I think that the Democratic ticket should have a woman as VP and that she must be a black woman - a competent, intelligent, caring, efficient VP, exactly because would be seen as a pay back to Obama and all black voters who resurrected his campaign..but most importantly because she will be competent, intelligent, etc.
And not only that: for centuries the presidency and cabinet has been composed of men. Things are different now; women fought hard to get education, advance in life and are professionally present now in pretty much every, if not in all, area of human activity.
I think Biden should go one step further than Justin Trudeau in Canada(50/50).
He should pledge that, if elected, 100% of his cabinet will be composed of competent women, from different ethnicities, backgrounds, ages.
The pool in US of professionally outstanding female in all fields of human knowledge is huge. Even his more blue collar, white men, supporters in battle ground states would understand if he, Biden, provides background on this decision when making the announcement.
2
Kamala Harris began her bid for the presidential nomination by staging prepared debate ambushes against Joe Biden. She was the little girl in tears because she was denied a good education because of Biden's former opposition to school busing, remember? When her candidacy failed she quickly switched tactics to a covert VP bid, even while remaining on the debate stage. Now she thinks Joe is wonderful.
Hariis's phoniness is unusually transparent, even for a politician. Kissing up to Biden to get the second spot on the ticket is her route to the presidency. Biden is 77. Assuming he gets elected, he won't run for a second term. The VP will be the heir apparent.
3
@PWR There are some excellent women of color to fill the slot. I do not believe Harris is one of them.
What about Susan Rice?
Tammy Duckworth?
@PWR
Was Kamala the only one attacking Joe? why are we always so hard on a woman, there is a reason its called a debate.
Joe never supported Obama and he was choosen as a VP, politics is about not taking things personally. Men are usually better than that than females I find.
@Sandra Harris was a poor candidate for more than just that. It was also a cheap shot. And her proprietorial record is questionable. It is not about her being a woman. I did not like her at all and I donated to Amy twice.
Nope, Nope Nope. This article is incorrect for many reasons.
1) Silver? vs gold? Joe might die in office. So might Bernie. Then silver becomes gold. An alchemist's dream job!
2) Lots of Presidents were VP's before becoming President in later elections. Even Richard Nixon. Why do you think Mike Pence is there?
3) The women who ran in the primaries are too different from Joe to be running mates. Joe (and Bernie) are better off with someone who can balance the ticket better.
2
Everyone needs to take a second to understand how far we've come - even in the last 8 years. In my central Texas town, the mayor is female, as are three of the 6 members of the City Council (one being a minority). Two of the other male members are African-American and Hispanic. There's only one white male. My State Representative is female, as is my State Senator. My US Representative is male, but Wendy Davis is running against him so I'm hoping that seat flips female too.
The candidates for the Democratic nominee for US Senate are a female war veteran (MJ Hegar) and an African-American State Senator.
On the ballot Super Tuesday, I had about 18 offices to vote for at the federal, state, and local level. With the exception of the public safety offices (i.e., sheriff and constable), I had multiple women to select from --- in most cases, the only candidates were female.
So I had the pleasure of voting for voting solidly female all up and down my ballot. And the best part is that these women represented a diverse set of backgrounds (e.g., ethnic, etc).
Remember folks - this is RED STATE Texas!
Let us not despair. As we get more women in the pipeline for local/state/Congressional offices, the race for president will take care of itself. In the meantime, women/minorities/men of diverse backgrounds will be doing the hard work of remaking local communities and states. Let's get behind them! Change doesn't need to be top down! Let's do bottom up!
1
By all means choose a woman. Warren, Harris, and Klobuchar all have what it takes in a VP nominee — teeth. But choose soon. Biden appears too shaky to try and drag this out. Whoever gets the nod is the instant front-runner if Biden cannot go the distance. Choose!
3
The headline 'There Must Be a Woman on This Ticket' is incredibly sexist.
Who cares if it's a man or a woman? We need a candidate who can beat Trump and restore civility. That's what matters.
1
@Kansas Patriot Thank you. And the constant description of the leading candidates as two old white men is offensive and racist and unworthy of people who call themselves Democrats. Makes you look like a Republican, which some using those descriptions certainly are.
Have we not already had two female VP candidates (and one President)? Any female VP selected by the Democrats will be a quota candidate. It won't fool anyone. But if we must have a female VP, how about Sarah Palin? A true unity ticket.
1
Please delete Senator Elizabeth Warren's name from any Vice-Presidential list. If she can keep her Senate seat great for her. Senator Warren showed to me her mean streak when she so ruthlessly brought up old news to humiliate Mayor Mike Bloomberg, in my opinion the smartest man or woman in the room.
Also, is it socialist or communist thinking to complain about a self-made billionaire and philanthropist to pay for his own campaign for the Presidency. It should be a democratic thing to do.
3
Sarah Palin, proof that you can't just pick any woman for your VP. She has to be the correct woman. Palin is one of the reasons the McCain lost that race.
3
@Bailey Yes, but had he picked Olympia Snowe, the astoundingly qualified Senator from Maine, he would have won that.
1
“In the current political environment, it looks tone deaf to have an all-white, all-male ticket[.]”
----
Is that really the lesson of the primary? Seems to me that, if anything, it is tone def to continue believing identity politics rules the day.
This is not the Olympics! Stop with the absurd language NYTimes. It's not a competition for different identity groups to feel better about themselves by beating the others! It is democracy. Keep it sacred and respect us all
2
Trump's going to dump Pence and replace him with Nikki Haley so Biden would be smart to choose a woman as his running mate.
It's clear that Pence has served his purpose by locking in the Evangelical vote for Trump. He's proven to be a terrific lap dog, and yes man. The way he looks at his master with those adoring eyes when his master speaks. It's really something to behold.
If Biden is smart, he'll choose a woman too, and a woman of color would be preferred since he's running on "Barack's" coattails. Obama chose him, and it's his turn to repay the favor.
I suggest that Kamala Harris be Biden's running mate. Harris is sharp, and would be a good attack dog for Biden when he is out campaigning.
2
A woman on the ticket just to have a woman on the ticket? That’s so degrading to women and their abilities.
4
Whether Biden or Sanders they should pick a qualified women (there’s lots to choose from whether those who were campaigning - or not), and announce that they’ll only serve one term. And the inference then being that that VP will run for President.
All the "best person" commenters miss a really solid point. We need to get out the vote in November, so who is the best person to make that happen? The answer, for either Joe or Bernie, is Stacey. She knows more about GOTV than anybody in the country, and chose not to run for the Senate in GA to focus on that. She carries her own charisma and would do a lot to turn around PA, WI, and MI, with a very good shot at AZ and even TX, FL and (shudder) GA.
3
@beaujames
Maybe she chose not to run for Senate in a red state because she expected she would lose? If she expected to win, she would be a hero for helping to flip the Senate.
1
@Alan She was asked and answered that question a long time ago. Check it out.
I am not enamored with either leading candidate at this point, but I think if Biden and Warren agreed to run together it would be a dynamite fit. A progressive and a moderate. I think the original Warren voters who flocked to Bernie would probably prefer to see Warren in the White House where she can get more done. I certainly would, and I don't think Bernie can win a national election against Trump. I just don't see his all or nothing policies being popular enough, and his base doesn't appear to be as big as we thought after Super Tuesday.
5
I thought the most important thing was to oust Trump? If that weren't the case would we even be considering Joe Biden? And what good would it do us at this point to just be the appointed token? Is that really going to make anyone feel better if that is insisted on? None of the women earned very many delegates, there is no guarantee it would help anything.
I'm a woman who voted Republican for 20 years before becoming a Democrat in 2006 and this is what I dislike intensely about the Democratic Party. Everyone is worried about moving their pet projects to center stage this minute without regard to the number one objective. We can even include Bernie Sanders wanting to push his agenda now when it's obvious most Democrats aren't on board with the message.
Can we please just get rid of Trump first?
11
@Morgan
What makes you think you can get rid of Trump without a platform? Joe Biden's "charm"?
We tried the personality game last time around and Trump won because people perceived "he is telling it like it is" and was entertaining. Nobody says that about Joe Biden without cringing.
2
How about the most qualified candidate?
Voting for an image,a type, got us Trump.
Let's not be so condescending to women
that we think one can't get their on merit.
Klobuchar on merit and electability both.
7
There's more than one way to the top. Possibilities -
Sanders - Warren
Sanders - Abrams
Sanders - hmm
These would be forward - looking tickets, with a younger woman at the ready. Sounds good to me.
1
@EB -- Biden-Abrams.
"Ms. Abrams recently said that she planned to be president by 2040 but would consider vice president in the meantime."
Is this really the world we're living in now – can the sense of entitlement felt by so many grow any stronger than it is in this moment?
7
@BayArea101
People see laughably giant egos getting rewarded and have a strong incentive to follow suit.
It is up to us as voters, consumers and employees to stop rewarding bad behavior.
3
I think that, most likely, the pick for VP will be a woman, which is great, as long as it does not smack of tokenism. During her campaign, Amy Klobochar has consistently shown that she has the knowledge and skill sets to handle the job. Aside from that, Senator Klobochar is from Minnesota, where she is well liked. She would be familiar to people in neighboring Wisconsin, which Hillary lost last time. She would be an excellent choice. I understand that there is is some demand for a woman of color, however I don’t see Kamala Harris because we will already have California. Stacey Abrams is capable, but not well known. Elizabeth Warren is 70 and we should have someone younger to counteract the age issue. I would go with Amy. This, of course, all assumes that Biden is the nominee.
3
You’re not the first to indicate that Warren is too old for the position, nor will you be the last. May I point out, however, that not all 70-year-olds are alike. I’ve observed that Warren, in the way she moves on stage and off, seems to be much closer to 60 than 70. Whether she’s chosen or not, I expect she’ll be around and actively involved in government for some time yet. And I’m glad, because she’s not just a talker, she’s a doer with some very well thought out ideas.
3
Stacey Abrams? She’s brilliant and essentially unknown. 11yrs in the Georgia legislature may give her a high profile there, but where else? We need someone who comes out of the gate with high name recognition and fighting skills. Her instincts are to be president by 2040. I fully support that. Not 2020.
2
I wanted WARREN as president simply because she is by far the best candidate on all fronts for what we are facing now. Across the board. Period.
7
@CJ
Apparently you do not understand what "best candidate" means. Warren's big binder of plans and pandering to the far left on every single issue tells us all we need to know about her judgement.
I had high hopes for Warren as president and believe she was the best candidate, and while I’m disappointed not to have her in the running any more, I’ll vote blue no matter who, and I’d be thrilled to see her in any position in the government.
8
I guess we're past the point in America where one seeks to choose the best candidate from whatever field presents itself. This is often the case when considering a Vice President - normally done for political considerations, i.e., "We need a Southerner to round out the ticket."
If the standard for the selection of a candidate is, "it's about time", then we've reached a new low. I voted for Clinton over Trump, not because she was a woman, but because she was the best choice. We may as well "go all the way" and choose an African American female lesbian Vice President, as the LBQTG segment has been underrepresented as well - never mind that may not provide us with the best leadership (if such a candidate does provide us with the best leadership, then I'm for them).
My vote is not based on race, religious affiliation, gender, sexual orientation, etc., it's based on the rationale I used when I hired; namely, find the best person for the job. Perhaps this is why as often as not, I hired women (on the same pay scale as men).
2
Harris would be the best VP fit for Biden. Her age, race and fearless prosecutorial style can effectively play the part of prosecuting the case against Trump and his cronies to the country with precision; ushering in a new era of strong, capable women in Washington.
1
@geminied
An election is not a prosecution. Harris lost because she campaigned that way.
2
Stacey Abrams. Go outside the ex candidate pool for the VP pick.
I dont buy into the settling for silver. Lets stop the game playing analogies. This aint no game, lives and the democracy are at stake.
1
Sarah Palin scared the voters to the core that such a ditzy woman would be a heart beat away from the Presidency when the top of the ticket was in his early 70s.
With the likely top of the ticket candidates are pushing 80, a good, strong VP is essential. Over a century ago, we got one of our best Presidents, a Progressive, by him being VP. He was Theodore Roosevelt.
I have serious doubts about the health of both Biden and Sanders. We need Elizabeth Warren in the VP slot. Even if healthy, the President, especially if its Biden, needs someone to give him guidance. Liz is the one.
6
@RM, yes, Warren, there’s also Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar.
1
It seems that Democrats are not ready yet for any of these women to run for President or they would have had better showings during the primaries. The ticket should be the top two vote getters during the primaries. It has worked in the past (think Kennedy & Johnson and Clinton & Gore) and it brings the most Democrat voters to the booth. Sorry that they're both old white men, but the voters are speaking. The goal is to win and get rid of Trump and not necessarily to make everyone feel good.
I voted for Warren in the primary and thought she would have made a great president. With that prospect lost, I think that the democrats have to consider the electoral map. It is essential that Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania get back in the democratic column. Biden has proven that the black vote is behind him and he refers to his Pennsylvania upbringing so he needs to turn to the midwest. Governor Gretchen Whitmer from Michigan is the logical choice. Next Biden should annouce that he is putting together his own team of rivals. Warren - Secretary of State, Kamala Harris - Attorney General and Klocbuchar at Teasury. If Bernie wins the nomination he would have to have someone like Stacy Abrams as his running mate to pull in the black electorate. I am not sure he would put winning before idealogy.
I would like to see a woman on the ticket. But it must be a woman who is going to bring you something in the electoral college. Can Abrams actually deliver Georgia? Maybe but she's never won statewide office. What do Harris and Warren get you? Massachusetts and California are already in the bluse column. Klobuchar makes more sense from this perspective if she can help bring in a state like Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Ohio.
4
Lose the White House, lose RBG's seat and enable the continued onslaught of conservative/federalist jurists in the Federal judiciary. This is a no brainer.
Choice will be gone, gerrymandering will be the norm, and 40 years, at least, of darkness will ensue. Take a page from the Evangelicals, focus on the war not the "purity test"/battle.
1
How about the most able is elected, instead of discriminating candidates based on gender or race? Very weird discussions in 2020.
1
We need to stop caring so much about what looks good and focus on what will beat trump. If we don't get rid of him, there may never be a woman president because we won't have a functioning republic anymore that warrants one.
1
Not Warren. Her replacement in the Senate would be picked by a Republican governor.
Better role for Warren: Senate majority leader. Ditch Schumer.
3
Elizabeth Warren would be a great Vice President, and eventually President. Her POV would enhance the presidency.
4
The Democrats have no choice but to pick a woman to be Vice President. Picking someone not in their 70's could be prudent but Warren would be a great choice. I want to see her tear into our current wood-block VP, Pence.
2
As others have noted controlling the Senate
is of vital importance.
Is there no female Governor or ex-Senator under
the age of 70 who could run as Vice President ?
2
Walter Mondale put a woman on the ticket in 1984. How did that work out for Democrats?
I might suggest that Biden, if he's the nominee, should put a progressive on the ticket to broaden his appeal. If that progressive is also a woman, that adds yet another way to bring unity to the party.
But it can't be just any woman. Elizabeth Warren might bolster the ticket. But we in Massachusetts need her in the Senate, if only because our governor is a Republican, and we all know what would happen to that seat. And, frankly, can you imagine Liz in the No. 2 spot? She's too feisty for that.
Our Democratic nominee, whichever man it is, will be closing in on 80. What he needs to choose is someone who can lead the party next time around, hopefully someone younger -- gender, color, religion, sexual preference should all be an afterthought.
1
It’s not surprising that the US leading the Western world in depression and suicide when coming second is considered a failure.
2
As a woman and one who, truly, was one of the first people to get a degree in Women's Studies in the early '80s, I have to say I profoundly disagree with this statement. One's gender does not a candidate make. There might be a woman on the Dem ticket. Maybe. But there must be? No.
What we need is a GENXer on the TICKET. !!!! A pragmatic, no-nonsense, resilient leader.
:-)
4
@Jessie
Sorry Jessie, but inasmuch as you are clearly right you will get few Recommends.
1
I just had a disagreement with my very good friend from Georgia who thinks we cannot even field a woman vp. She is a woman. I hope she is wrong.
I am a racial minority who's a male (POC).
All this "preferably a black female" and "female" talk sounds so offensive to me. How about hispanic? how about LGBTQ? Where does it end? in fact it ends up diminishing the person because it can seem like they were chosen for their gender and race instead of just their ability.
Warren is great -- and turned off so many voters that she did terribly in the primaries. What about that makes her "the best" candidate as so many people here are writing?
3
The only thing that matters is winning the electoral college. Woman or man, doesn't matter in the least.
4
Why? This was the problem with the Democratic party leadership in 2016. It just had to be Hillary, even though she was not great on the campaign trail and turned off many voters of both sexes. The voters have spoken. Why can't you understand that ? Senator Warren certainly did. Voters are not saying no to a woman -- just these candidates. That's why we have elections. Get over it. And, see if Glenn Close is available to run for VP. She was good in Air Force One.
1
Sad to think of that a Vice President “settled” for the position no matter what gender. We want equality. So lets start with our words.
2
I disagree with the opinion that a VP pick has little effect on support for a Presidential candidate. McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate essentially turned me off from ever considering a vote for that ticket. A qualified VP pick is what is needed, one that will help and not hinder elective prospects. If that happens to be a woman, great. If it's a person of color, great. As long as the person is qualified, that, in my opinion, is what is most important.
1
No. We are beyond the days of tokenism, and tokenism is what "a woman" would be. For the democrats to win, they need a strong vice presidential candidate who could be reasonably seen as a presidential candidate, not a Sarah Palin, otherwise either Biden or Sanders may as well just concede now.
1
With both Biden and Sanders nearing 80, their pick of a VP should guided by this one criteria: the ability to become President at a moment's notice. I read "Accidental Presidents" last year, and it's appalling how little thought presidential candidates give to this most crucial of choices. It's been 57 years since a president died in office and 46 years since a president resigned, so the odds are we're going to experience an unexpected vacancy in the Oval Office in the near future. We can't afford a repeat of Lincoln's selection of Andrew Johnson.
1
The running mate of the winning candidate should be the best qualified person and one that voters can envision as president given the ages of Biden and Sanders. The voters in all caucus/primary states did not choose one of the women candidates. The Democrats will loose this election if they do not select someone solely on the basis of who will help carry the ticket in the crucial battleground states needed to overcome Trump.
5
I'm with the woman -- Hillary Clinton. The priority is the Electoral College, as she correctly points out. That is hard experience and it is where the election will be decided. Inspirations are nice but inning is what matters. If the nominee thinks that's a woman, so be it. If not, not.
12
This jibes nicely with the Thomas Pikkety review that states:
"But why did policy take a hard-right turn? Piketty places much of the blame on center-left parties, which, as he notes, increasingly represent highly educated voters. These more and more elitist parties, he argues, lost interest in policies that helped the disadvantaged, and hence forfeited their support. And his clear implication is that social democracy can be revived by refocusing on populist economic policies, and winning back the working class."
The Times editorial, people with educated elite females (and males), of course see the world through their narrow lens of identity, not class, politics. And we all pay the price.
Given the choice between two equally qualified candidates I liked, I would tend toward the less represented candidate, but ONLY if she was equally qualified. Warren was certainly qualified. I just did connect with her. Emotionally, I preferred Harris or Klobuchar. And I always liked Clinton.
Somehow the Democratic quest for “a woman” assumes “the woman” (when that day arrives )will be all in on commonly held Democratic planks - a joy to watch her succeed. There seems no consideration that the first elected woman reaching the summit may indeed be a woman of great qualification, but rock-hard conservative. I have Nikki Haley in mind - not my candidate, although Nikki Haley may be the one to end the quest as early as 2024. If such a development becomes real, and it puts an end to the burden of Democratic identity dogma, the pain might be a good lesson.
7
@RJH Hillary Clinton was highly qualified. 1000 times more qualified than Trump.
3
I will be unreconcilable and so incensed at Democrat's that if Joe Biden does not nominate Elizabeth Warren as his running mate I may never participate in a general election ever again. I'll even change my designation to Independent. What's the point if we just keep kicking the can of necessary change down the road for another generation to fix. The line has been drawn between right and wrong. Trump and Trumpism is an authoritarian plague on our democracy that has to be eradicated here and now. A Biden-Warren ticket is the the only strategy to heal and repair our Nation. Like Lincoln, who knew that a stand against slavery would put our nation where right had to prevail, drew a line in the sand and took a stand for what is morally right. Now it's our turn.
3
Surely there can be a female VP candidate. But, to suggest that it should be one that was rejected by voters generally (Harris, Klobuchar) or one rejected even by voters in her own home state (Warren) smacks of tokenism of the kind that progressives everywhere should find deeply offensive.
16
@Jeff
Surely this leads us to Stacey Abrams, who recently shared with us that she "planned to be president by 2040 but would consider vice president in the meantime."
If Hilary Clinton had done, as I hoped, and picked Bernie Sanders as her Vice President, we may never have had to live through the terrifying hoax of Trump as president. Instead, voters gambled that a guy with a record of zero public service, terrible business sense and no moral compass beyond one focused on his family and friends would some how be able to contribute anything to the general well-being of USA citizens or those in other countries. That gamble proved hundreds of times over to be purely disastrous. People with a significant track record of experience and capability is what voters are looking for in the 2020 presidential candidates. That’s the only way we will be able to Make America Sane Again.
3
It’s time for an important reality check. I stuck a fork in Bernie Sanders, and he’s done. Everyone will know it when Joe Biden is projected to win Michigan as soon as the polls close.
It’s extremely likely that Joe will select a woman. The goal is winning the Electoral College, so Amy Klobuchar is the best bet. The only other woman who could be a game changer is Michelle Obama.
The best male: Sherrod Brown.
1
Michelle Obama as the VP choice is the height of identity politics. Her resumé is way too thin. Being First Lady is not preparation enough no matter how much she discussed issues with her husband.
The next president can and should appoint Liz Warren to oversee financial wrongdoing. It will be a sweeping, full-time job, and much more powerful than vice-president. Besides, what does the vice-president do, anyway? Trump certainly needs no assistance with vice.
4
I want Senator Warren, who has always been my preferred candidate, on the ticket. She is my ideal candidate, full stop.
However, the headline "There Must be a Woman on the Ticket" inspires fury and despair. Kamala Harris, for example, would be disastrous. There are a lot of women in the world, and the vast majority of them, like the vast majority of men, are unsuitable for high elective office.
When will my fellow democrats learn that winning the election is more important that collecting trophies?
3
A Biden/Warren ticket would unite the two points of view in the party. It would also balance personalities. Warren would be a very active and competent VP. Both are good strategists for gaining legislative support.
4
As the authors of this column write: "seeing a woman come closer to the presidency than ever before now rests with two men born during World War II" --- and might relate to a President who died during it, and a socialist VP who as torpedoed by the DNC from taking over.
Yes, the choice of a VP and woman VP is an interesting thing to 'game-out'.
More attention is paid here to Biden's choices, than Bernie's --- which is par for the course, of course, by the "Establishment" (as Bernie would say, although he should use another 'E' word, Empire).
IMHO, progressiveness vs. center-left moderation would be an essential element, just as much as the gender and race of any capable woman who might be our next President -- and several here have mentioned; character, prescience, voter appeal, et al. --- although I would not think it necessary for our future President and VP to be as similar as our current Emperor Trump and Reichsleiter Pence.
1
Choosing Warren or Harris for VP would be an epic mistake if this is about winning elections.
Democrats absolutely need to pick someone as VP who can campaign for the presidency in 2028, or possibly already 2024, with the advantage of incumbency. The other side would have a hard time smearing and demonizing someone who is already known to the electorate from being VP. Obama picked an old man for VP, and so the Democrats lost the presidency in 2016 because that old man was not seen as the obvious heir to Obama in the way any VP in his or her 50s would have been.
Nominating another old person who will not be a suitable candidate for the presidency in four or eight years is a terrible idea. Research suggests that voters don't care much who the Vice candidate in the current election is anyway, so this post should be utilized to install the best possible successor for the next election. So Warren should be out.
As for Harris, she wasn't even popular with black voters who rightly see her as a bad cop. She brings nothing useful to the table. Biden already has the black vote locked down - remember that African-Americans were the ones who just rescued his candidacy? A black woman is not going to be elected in 2024 or 2028, so picking one for VP would be a colossal political mistake.
Biden needs to choose either a gay white man or a white woman. Both options are still risky but probably viable for a general election, and just woke enough to sufficiently appease the activist left.
1
Many of the people saying that we shouldn’t limit the VP choice to women would never support a very qualified avowed atheist as the VP choice. They would say that would be political suicide for the Dems, and their stance on political purity would quickly change.
Electoral map favors Amy Klobuchar.
The VP selection should really emphasize the the VP pick brings in winning over midwestern states.
The Dems can't be complacent, learn from the 2016 debacle.
3
I'm a woman, myself, and while I would have loved to see a female president, this year's election is about getting Trump out of office. Make history some other year; THIS year, pick whoever will help you BEAT TRUMP!
1
@Corylea Names please! LOL
Before we factor in the vice presidential nominee, let's never forget that 53% of white women voted for Trump in 2016 and that women's support (despite all the grandstanding and blustering) for female candidates in this primary has been anemic. I'm tired of articles that are as simplistic as MAGA and ignore all the nuances that are involved in winning in 2020.
2
It's inconceivable of either candidate choosing anyone other than Senator Kamala Harris. And there's a logical rationale for that. Given that our last Democratic president was black, plus all of the Obama pushback by Trump, it stands to reason that an African American would be a logical choice. Add to that that many, including myself, believe Hillary Clinton was robbed of the opportunity to become this nation's first female president, it stands to reason that Harris is the only viable choice... especially if the nominee becomes Obama's former vice-president Joe Biden.
1
It's such a simple, some would say unimportant, thing...but just look at the lead photo.
Yoga clothes in public might be "cool" for the everyday person, but a Presidential candidate?? Talk about casual Fridays...
Just as I expect a lot more in the character dept. than our current President embodies, I'd expect a lot more from Warren in the sartorial dept. The leader of the free world at an official event in Lululemon? C'mon now!
As I say, it's a small thing, but a thing nonetheless.
1
Michelle Obama. She may have said she won't run, but the country needs her. I want a woman who can hit the ground running on day one, because neither Bernie nor Biden are healthy enough to last 4 years. Stacy Abrahms would be a no in my book. She's not ready to be POTUS.
1
@Sydney Biden and I agree, but I bet she is not intereste, (frownie-face).
This little piece of establishment propaganda is to make the Progressives and woman put pressure on Warren not to endorse Sanders. Nothing more.
2
And this is why Democrats keep losing, (recently). So many in the party are concrned more with identity politics than actually winning and governing. IMHO, the most likely way the "ultimate glass ceiling" will be broken is for a female VP to be elevated to the presidency after an octogenarian male POTUS dies in office, she does a competent job and then wins re-election on her own merits. Once that happpens, the public will be comfortable seeing a woman as POTUS and off we go. Not the scenario most folks prefer but I'm willing to bet that's the way it happens.
3
For heavens sake, it's not about gold or silver, it's not the Olympics. It's about who can lead the country. The vp does not lead the country unless the president dies. Otherwise vp is a typically female role: Helping out. Assisting.
Apparently the issue wasn't foremost in the mind of AOC.
1
This breaks my heart: For hundreds of years, America has limited its presidential pool to less than half its population.
3
"Settling for Silver"?
This is a Democracy. We have universal suffrage for all Americans over the age of 18 (with varying state exceptions for convicted felons). It has come down to two white men according to the expressed will of Democratic voters and all other candidates voluntarily withdrawing from the race (except Gabbard who has no realistic chance). Last time around we chose a white female. She lost. The two times before that we chose a black male who won. It's been 16 years since a white man was nominated for the Democratic ticket.
There is no "Settling for Silver". The people have spoken, including women and minorities and this is their choice. Stop sowing dissent with this ridiculous second guessing of the people's will based on nothing more than the dog and pony show of so-called "woke" nonsense.
2
How dare those voters choose the candidates they prefer!
2
I don't need to have a woman on the ticket. But I do want Amy on the ticket.
The latter has nothing to do with the former.
2
Can Veep please go to the best man or woman for the job, please, regardless of skin color or gender.
For centuries we have said we only want to be judged by the same standards as men. Now we want the deputy job guaranteed us in advance because didn't get the top job.
Thanks,
A woman
1
Everybody knows that the most qualified person to be VP is a woman. The most qualified candidates in the primary were women. Clearly, qualifications are not of paramount importance to most voters. Feminists know that the most qualified candidate this cycle is a woman— don’t call them sexist for demanding a woman be VP if women are most qualified. Blame everyone else for refusing to see past their own sexism long enough to vote for a woman.
A women Vice-President would be great.
But Elizabeth Warren does not deserve to be that person.
From my perspective, it is her doing that has robbed us of the chance of a Sanders candidacy.
She split whatever of the progressive vote exists in the turgid Democratic party.
In addition, during the campaign she as much as accused Sanders of being a sexist.
Then, after quitting her campaign, she as much as accused him - via attacking his followers - of being a racist - targeting, as she called them, "women of color".
Give me a break!
Sanders' positions on the issues are the closest to her own.
But instead of endorsing him, she attacks him - and says nothing about the abysmal record of Joe Biden.
If we are to have a women Vice President, let it be Tulsi Gabbard, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. You know - women who have courage and stand for something.
But Elizabeth Warren?
No thanks.
3
Warren was not a victim of sexism. She was her own worst enemy. Barack Obama would not have been elected twice if we are as racist as is so widely reported....
This notion of there MUST be a woman on the ticket is absolutely wrong- an women should embrace this. If women are to be successful at the highest levels then they need to be the best at those levels- not because there "should be" someone of the female gender there. That is almost tokenism, which is anathema to what women are trying to achieve.
2
Want a woman on the ticket? Want the best candidate to succeed a President on the ticket? How about Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of Michigan? In her you have someone with Executive experience who could step in and know how to govern in any kind of emergency. So, yes, let's have a woman but not a token woman. Let's run with the most qualified then let's also keep Amy and Warren in the Senate so they can help get bills through when we retake the Senate in November and throw the incompetents sycophants out.
1
Why not Hispanic? That is 2nd largest racial group in US.
By the way, John Kerry was the last white male Democratic nominee - not exactly yesterday, was it?
The fact that it is socially acceptable to use "white" and "male" as derogatory terms is pathetic. Our society is moving in the wrong direction on issues of race and gender. We should be striving to make these characteristics less relevant, not more relevant.
If a woman is the best candidate, so be it. Amy Klobuchar would be a good pick. But to just pick a woman because she is a woman is merely pandering. Remember Geraldine Ferraro? This is why Democrats lose. I hate to say it, but I'd bet the first female President ends up being a Republican. I doubt whether Margaret Thatcher said vote for me because I'm a woman. Or Golda Meir.
Gender should not be the only quality to consider when choosing a VP candidate. I’m sure John McCain wished he didn’t pick Sarah Palin.
On the other hand, Sarah Palin could not begin to compare with Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar.
[[‘There Must Be a Woman on This Ticket’
A female vice president would make history. But some cringe at settling for silver after spending a year competing hard for the gold.]]
Affirmative action? A quota?
Interesting.
1
I'm all for a woman as the VP running mate, but I'd much rather see Kamala Harris as Attorney General in a new Democrat administration. Just don't raid the Senate of all the Democrats, please, we need as many as possible to stay right where they are.
I don't care if it's a woman. I just want the best combination that can defeat Trump. Period.
I look at it this way: Biden will be 78 shortly after the election, and it is unlikely that he will run for re-election (if he won and served a second term, he'd be 86!)
Choosing a woman for the Democratic ticket would give that person a leg up on 2024, which will be another critical election. It is painfully obvious that for a woman to be seen as a viable candidate for President, she must be even more qualified and experienced than any male. This attitude is changing, but it still exists -- how else to explain that the Dems ended up with competing old guys?
As to who the VP candidate might be, cold political calculation must be made. Does she strengthen the ticket in swing states? Could she immediately step in if something were to befall Biden or Sanders? Can she win the Presidential nomination after serving as VP, or will she still be viewed as lacking electability.
Finally, the VP candidate must exert sufficient influence to either turn a state or two from red to blue or, more likely, to prevent a blue state from turning red. In such a calculation, only Klobuchar checks all the boxes; Minnesota is trending purple, but she has won three statewide elections by sweeping margins.
Should the VP candidate be black? This is heard often in the commentariat, and there's lots to be said for such representation. Biden appears to be able to count on the black vote, so perhaps this is the year to place gender over race at the top of the ticket.
Close call. Much at stake.
6
@PaulB67 Every election year is the year to put competence and ability first, above everything including gender and race.
Sadly, we seldom seem to do that. In 2016 it was the turn of the rich orange men, after the failure of the rich orange candidate in 2012.
While it may be true that the data show that past VP picks did not help that much in attracting voters, in this election NOT selecting a female VP will most certainly do damage.
This particular political reality coin has two sides to it: The first side is the absolute necessity of defeating Donald Trump by whatever political calculus necessary. The second side is no matter which old, white, male candidate is chosen by the Democratic Party, he absolutely must reckon with the fact that every female and candidate of color was summarily eliminated from the race. In this year's election, we have to deal with both sides of the coin.
3
Since rumor has it that Trump might choose Nikki Haley instead of Pence for round two, this could get interesting. Interesting, too, how Harris walks back that piece of drama at Biden's expense. Hard to see how that happens, especially when it's backed by a lot more stats on AA suffering. Fodder for the other side.
I'd think Abrams would be more suitable. Her acceptance of $5M from Bloomberg for her PAC would disqualify her for Bernie but be just fine for Biden.
3
VP candidates are attack dogs, at best. Think Bob Dole. Warren and Harris fit the bill. The men, so far, have been too sedate.
1
Please not Warren. We need her in the Senate. Desperately.
And please not Harris. She did not have a compelling vision for why she was running for President. And many of her policies and decisions at AG were downright regressive. She is not the right person, at all.
9
If meeting a "quota" is necessary (I don't think it is) then by all means name a women as running mate.
Here's the deal, and it was resoundingly exclaimed with Biden's comeback -
The most important goal is beating Trump.
#2 is holding the House.
#3 is taking back the Senate.
The gender of the VP candidate is way down the list. Personally, if the presidential candidate was Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, or name -your-female, I would vote for her.
But Biden, or maybe still Sanders, must pick a running mate that gives them the best chance of winning. Regardless of gender.
1
Let's avoid the mistake of thinking that these are normal times. Young people may be forgiven for thinking so, especially those born since the election of 2000 or since the Gingrich "revolution." This must not be primarily about a ticket that brings "fresh blood or fresh ideas." There is nothing new under the sun in the ideas field. This election is primarily about the need to win. Climate change, income and wealth disparity, gender justice: I've been preaching those for thirty years or more. We need to win. And win big all across and down the ticket. I certainly favor having a woman on the ticket, but not for "gender justice." For talent! And it's there aplenty. We need a highly competent unifying ticket, not one that spits fire at those who disagree with them. Enough with the bad temper already! Let's stick it to Trump, not to our fellow Democrats. Let's win!
3
It becomes clearer all the time that a lot of people are seeing Elizabeth Warren through tunnel vision. They are not seeing her as a "candidate for president," but as a "woman candidate for president."
3
@EduKate
They are not seeing her that way because she pivoted to marketing herself as a victim of sexism - most incredulously by her closest ideological supporters.
Victims don't attract support.
The bar for the positions has been set so low by the Republican Trump-Pence team that it is easy to find a superior combination. But better candidates do not necessarily translate into victory---given the unscrupulous and unfair actions of Trump-Pence supporters to unbalance the playing field and given the stubbornness of these supporters---so the selection of the Vice-Presidential candidate should be guided mainly by its effect on voter turnout. I believe that Stacey Abrams would be the best choice. We know that the African-American vote as well as the women vote are essential for Democratic victory . We need a large turnout of these supporters at the polls (in spite of obstacles that Republicans are erecting to discourage their voting). As with Obama, putting Stacey Abrams into this top position will inspire many to brave the long lines and the distant poll locations to stand patiently in line to register their vote. Not to mention that she is a highly competent , intelligent, and eloquent spokesman for the Democrats.
“There must be a woman on this ticket”
This is nonsense.
What MUST happen is that a list of potential VP candidates be developed, and filled only with people who are competent to be President. That is separate from the appeal which would come from the political side of such a candidate. There are people who would attract votes for Biden who do NOT have the competency to actually be President if the need were to arise. And at his advanced age, it is not beyond reason to think that he may not complete even his first term, and the VP would have to take the office over.
We cannot be in the mode of thinking that superficial political attributes should be prioritized over competency. Remember what happened to McCain when he picked Palin as his VP running mate. The country shuddered at the prospect of her potentially ascending to the Presidency if McCain could not continue in office, which was reasonable to be concerned about given his age and health issues. The same could be true for Biden.
Compile the list of candidate would are qualified to be President if the need arose, and then apply the political aspects of that to those people. That would rule out people like Stacey Abrams, who is certainly appealing but is not qualified to be President. It would include Kamala Harris, though, who is competent to be President. But it can NOT exclude men from the list, like Corey Booker, just because they're men. That would go against the very values the Progressives claim to espouse.
3
@Max Dither
"Competence" doesn't seem to be first on the list for people who support Biden.
@Viv Biden has 8 years of experience in the White House. You bet he has the competence to be President, and your ad hominem attack aside, his supporters recognize that. He's not my perfect candidate, but he's far better than Bernie would be, especially in terms of being able to get needed legislation through Congress. And Biden is worlds better than Trump could ever hope to be. And he has the most important qualification of all in this election - he can beat Trump. And he will.
1
The panic pandemic has made the world, a mad, mad, mad, mad world unable to reason or welcome logic. Those democrats who cringe at settling for silver after spending a year competing hard for the gold are absolutely right. Thats the prize that the Dems have to pay for its identity politics and calling itself the party of women. When the time comes the Dems do not always go by the principle of let the best person win the nomination. In 2016, the best person to be nominated happened to be a woman and the party was right in nominating Sec. Hillary Clinton who went on to win the popular vote against the GOP nominee President Trump.
Neither Sen. Elizabeth Warren or Sen. Amy Klobuchar or the rest of those that ran in the primary have the same credentials or clout as Hillary but Rep. TULSI GABBARD is still in the race and has not endorsed any of her male rivals. My question to those women who cringe that settling for VP is a consolation prize, I say why not get the prize in 2020? Tulsi is dynamic, younger than the current democratic front runners (in an age group being targeted by the Corona virus) and has served with honor and is as articulate as Hillary but fit as a fiddle and most importantly from my point of view will not send our troops to another useless and costly regime change war.
To those who cringe about the consolation prize for women, I say you don't have to take the consolation prize, keep your eyes on the prize, not in the future but now in 2020. I will like that.
1
Looking for electoral college votes, Biden has credibility in the African American community but needs help with Latinx voters. Sanders is the other way around. If it is Biden, Julian Castro would be bring race and geographic balance, and maybe help flip TX, though that is a long-shot. If it is Bernie, Cory Booker or Stacie Abrams would both strengthen the ticket, Abrams maybe more than Booker. Both would bring age balance. Warren? A white northeast liberal won’t help—that background hasn’t won either the Presidency or VP since 1060.
Please don't say the next VP must be a woman. Look to the next election.
The problem with Democratic vice presidential nominees (and presidential spouses) is that they are chosen not for their political talents and broad appeal, but to satisfy narrow constituencies: the residents of a swing state, older voters, younger voters, women, minorities.
Then, in the next election they automatically become the establishment choice, regardless of whether they have the talent to win.
Look at Biden. He was never very successful as a presidential candidate. But because he was Obama's vice president he was automatically the front runner. True to form, he stumbled badly in the early primaries. It was only the dread fear of Bernie Sanders that drove moderate Democrats into supporting him.
Look at Hillary Clinton. It was only an extremely gifted Barack Obama who denied her the nomination the first time around. The second time she had it all her way. But she turned out to be a flawed, awkward, and unpopular candidate, losing a critical and very winnable election to Donald Trump.
Look at Al Gore. Smart guy but mediocre politician. After the Monica Lewinsky scandal, common sense would have been to nominate someone not so closely tied to Bill Clinton. But it had to be Gore. And the rest is history.
So, please don't hold Biden to choosing a woman. Biden should choose someone with talent, potential, and broad appeal. Because odds are he or she will be the next Democratic nominee.
3
The only thing that matters is defeating Trump. I would love to see a woman president in my lifetime, but right now I don't care. I have two criteria for the candidates: the candidates must be electable and breathing. I simply don't care about anything else. If we can't defeat Trump, nothing else will matter--no agenda, no plan, no nothing.
1
Perhaps a woman (and there are many I could recommend), but I think we can all agree that none of the candidates who did awful in the actual polling should be considered.
2
“But some cringe at settling for silver after spending a year competing hard for the gold.”
This sums up a lot about us as a country right now, and not all of it great. Across the spectrum from business to finance to politics, if we’re only motivated when we can make a killing, we’re in serious trouble.
I'm a real, live woman. I'm a lifelong feminist. I'm a registered Democrat. And this "There must be a woman VEEP" campaign makes me want to cry, and it makes me want to scream. Please stop it.
A real feminist would be pushing for the BEST, most qualified VEEP candidate, no matter his or her gender or skin color.
Joe Biden is a senior citizen. He makes verbal gaffes. We need a young, vigorous, dynamic, articulate VEEP, someone qualified to take over the presidency if need be.
Clearly, that one person is Pete Buttigieg, and Pete Buttigieg just happens to be male and white.
It breaks my heart that people who call themselves Democrat are blind to Pete's qualifications and are insisting on identity politics uber alles. It's that insistence on identity politics that helped Trump get elected in the first place. Like it or not, millions of men and white people read the Democratic party as anti-male and anti-white, and we can't afford that look right now.
2
The ‘most qualified candidate’ is a myth. There are many, many candidates who are highly qualified to fill a VP slot. Nothing wrong with deciding that that candidate should be female or a person of color or both. After all, for centuries it had to be a white man.
4
Probably should lengthen the primary season...18 months just isn’t enough time for me to decide...
1
Yang is the best choice, if intelligence and ideas are the criteria.
1