Biden's VP Pick
It might surprise you all to know that I think the eventual candidate should be a centrist (as opposed to a progressive or a conservative) who did not run in the primaries.
That said, I would love to see Elizabeth Warren as the eventual nominees VP.
Klinker said:
It can't work that way. We need to agree to replace Biden and then choose that replacement, at the Convention, from amongst the vast sea of Democrats who are more viable than he is.
For the vast majority of US history, this is how party nominees were chosen. I don't think it is something that should be adopted going forward but in this moment, in the face of this vast crisis that could not have been anticipated during the pivotal moments of the primary, a candidate so flawed as to be non viable and an opponent who poses an existential threat to the future of our nation, necessity dictates a path that can lead to victory.
It pains me to say this, but have you gone mad? Biden won the primaries, who the **** are you to decide to overthrow that?
drummerboy said:
replacing Biden is insane. why are we talking about this?
Cabin fever.
mjc said:
Sorta makes you long for ranked-choice voting.
Oh, I'm a big fan of ranked-choice voting. I've been happy to see it gaining in visibility and would love to see it one day become standard.
basil said:
It pains me to say this, but have you gone mad? Biden won the primaries, who the **** are you to decide to overthrow that?
Your commitment to losing is impressive. I love my country too much to see Trump in office for four more years.
Red_Barchetta said:
Klinker said:
We need to agree to replace Biden
and then choose that replacement, at the Convention,
Let's add World Peace just to round out the to-do list.
Well, those would both be desirable outcomes. Who am I to say no to World Peace?
Klinker said:
Your commitment to losing is impressive. I love my country too much to see Trump in office for four more years.
No siht Sherlock....
I could declare with an equally forceful amount of certainty the Biden will definitely beat Trump this year, that he is 100% electable and that anyone who opposes him is determined to help Trump win. And in November, either Klinker or I would be "right" -- but whichever way it went, any credit for picking the actual outcome would be completely unmerited.
Klinker said:
STANV said:
At least Nan had a candidate that she believed had the best chance of beating Trump. You have yet to name one.
It can't work that way. We need to agree to replace Biden and then choose that replacement, at the Convention, from amongst the vast sea of Democrats who are more viable than he is.
So at this point the Democratic Party should have no nominee?
It is your position rather than Biden's candidacy that is not viable.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Rentals
Advertisement
It can't work that way. We need to agree to replace Biden and then choose that replacement, at the Convention, from amongst the vast sea of Democrats who are more viable than he is.
For the vast majority of US history, this is how party nominees were chosen. I don't think it is something that should be adopted going forward but in this moment, in the face of this vast crisis that could not have been anticipated during the pivotal moments of the primary, a candidate so flawed as to be non viable and an opponent who poses an existential threat to the future of our nation, necessity dictates a path that can lead to victory.