• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • With Bernie Sanders dropping out, all that’s left to figure out on the Democratic side is who will Joe Biden choose as his running mate? It’s not obvious who he’ll choose and who would be the best fit. The Democratic Party seems to be split into two groups. One that is moderate and centrist and the other that is far left and progressive. The calculation Biden has to make is which group he should pick his running mate from.  There are pros and cons to whatever decision he makes.  

      Starting with picking a moderate/centrist running mate, the obvious pro for Biden is this is likely to make those who voted for him in the primary more happy. They chose him over Bernie because they like his more centrist/moderate views and see that as the path to beating Trump. By choosing a moderate running mate, Biden would keep those people happy and also attract a larger number of independent as well as Republican voters who are fed up with Trump but don’t want to knee-jerk in the opposite direction by picking a far left candidate. 

      The con with a moderate running mate is perhaps it won’t widen Biden’s tent as much as he would hope. With Biden as the nominee, he’s guaranteed to get a lot of the moderate/centrist voters. Instead of doubling down with a moderate/centrist type of Democrat or Republican, it’s easy to argue that Biden might as well roll the dice and go with a running mate that is a bit more progressive and able to energize a base of voters that are disappointed by seeing a centrist candidate win the nomination. Of course, Biden has to ask if any running mate other than Bernie Sanders can make such voters happy. If not, maybe he just goes with a moderate running mate instead of trying to appease a base that will give him the cold shoulder no matter who he chooses. 

      Personally, I think Biden would be smart to choose someone who is on the younger side of the coin as his running mate. Someone like Pete Buttigieg (38 years old), Andrew Yang (45 years old) or even Cory Booker (50 years old). I think any of those three guys would make younger Democrats feel like they have a voice and a seat at the table. If Biden wanted to go with someone a little older, but avoid the boring old white guy look, he could roll with Kamala Harris (55 years old). Being a woman and person of color would make her an interesting choice as well. 

      The bottom line at least for me is Biden needs to choose a candidate that can appeal to a younger generation of voters who are in their teens, 20s and 30s. Those voters want more radical change and someone in office who represents the diversity that the Democratic Party strives for. A woman, person of color, a young person, or any combination of those things would make a good running mate. An old white guy on the other hand, would be a terrible choice for a running mate. Unless his name is Bernie Sanders and I don’t think Bernie would take the job if offered. 

      What are your thoughts? Who would be the best running mate for Joe Biden? 

    • He has already committed to choosing a woman as his running mate. I hope he follows through on this promise.

      Like @RussP I would like to see someone a good number of years younger than Biden.

    • A younger proactive woman would be awesome.

      The USA desperately needs a new team, for a new direction.

    • Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice?

      Pros: From Alabama, Female, African American, Stanford and UC Berkeley ties, significant political experience, was a Democrat before becoming a moderate Republican. In favor of Roe v Wade, centrist.

      Cons: Irag war (big one), favors civil unions not same sex marriage, others?

    • I would agree that Condi Rice would be an intelligent choice for all of the reasons you gave. In addition, her Seceretary of State experience would reassure Republicans of a pro-business foreign policy. Rice is also a former Chevron Oil executive, which should reassure Conservatives that Biden won’t be making significant regulatory changes to the fossil fuel industry related to Climate Change.

      Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska would be the best option, imho, to appeal to Republicans without pissing off Moderate Dems. She is considered a Republican who will vote with Dems on key votes—or at least creates the perception that she will consider Dem concerns instead of falling in lockstep with Mitch McConnell. I suspect she and Biden agree on many issues. Coming from an oil producing state, Murkowski would reassure conservatives that business-friendly Climate Change legislation was enacted. I also think her representing Alaska would appeal to Libertarians, who favor limited government.

    • I'm curious about something in your post.

      I have for many years believed that America's laws should not use religious terminology nor defend religious concepts.

      I was opposed to DOMA for the same reason that I would be opposed to DOBA or DOPA.

      DOBA would be a law trying to define what baptism is and is not

      DOPA would be a law trying to define who should be allowed to preach

      The origins of the concept of marriage are based in religions.

      The first amendment to the constitution forbids Congress to make any laws relating to "establishing" a religion.

      There are many religious groups that disagree on what baptism is and who may preach but neither of these have led to great upheavals in the last century in America because there are no laws enforcing one religious definition of these things.

      It is not that such laws have never existed, it is that such laws are constitutionally forbidden, but I would argue that the same amendment that prohibits laws concerning baptism and preachers should equally apply to prohibiting laws pertaining to marriage.

      Your objection to Condoleeza Rice seems to be based on a belief that the Government whould involve itself in a religious issue instead of making it a "civil union."

      Doesn't the first amendment oppose your position?

    • Thanks for the follow up and question. You refer to Defense of Marriage Act which i'm not familiar enough to discuss and most of your question is beyond my ability to comment.

      In practical terms, for me religion doesn't own the copyrights on Marriage so when I put Condoleezza Rice's civil union support as a con I simply do so because I think it it's not enough and everyone should be allowed to use the term Marriage with the same benefits (and drawbacks) regardless of sexual orientation.

      If she is not in favor of Same Sex marriages today in 2020 then she won't be a good candidate for VP.

    • American Law did not spring into effect over night. With the exception of Louisianna most Emerican Law both on the national and on the state level originates in English Common Law. Louisianna's legal system originates in the Napoleonic Code.

      Marriage as it is discussed in American law during the first 150 years of this country's existence as an independent country was religious in its core.

      Your statement that "religion doesn't own the copyright on Marriage could only be historically valid if the Marriage laws of America were grounded in secular legal precedent.

      Are you either a historian of American law or else a lawyer yourself?

      If not, then just as a person has the legal right to believe that the earth is flat, so also you have the right to believe that "marriage" is not a religious concept.

      As for me, I believe America should neither prohibit nor condone nor license nor legalize any forms of "marriage" in which people engage anymore than they legislate baptism.

    • As for me, I believe America should neither prohibit nor condone nor license nor legalize any forms of "marriage" in which people engage anymore than they legislate baptism.

      To be clear, are you proposing that marriage shouldn't exist in the eyes of law? What do you propose instead?

    • I'm not sure what you mean by "shouldn't exist in the eyes of the law."

      I'm saying that the law's attitude towards baptism should be identical to its attitude towards baptism.

      And if Atheists want to practice some cermony that they call baptism, I don't believe that those who are religious should have any legal right to object. Parallel with the topic as to whether secularists, agnostics, and atheists have something they call "marriage."

      I teach that sprinkling is not baptism, that pouring water over the back of a baby's head is not baptism — but I would be opposed to having someone say that it should be against human law to sprinkle and call it baptism or to say that it should be against human law to pour water over the back of a baby's head and call it baptism. Again, Parallel that with Marriage.

      There are already many heterosexual marriages which I believe violate God's teachings on marriage but I have never advocated that secular law should prohibit those marriages. (And in case, you wonder I am not opposed to interracial marriages. There were a number of them in the Bible and one woman was struck with leprosy because she got upset over her brother's interracial marriage and questioned his right to be leader. Also Jesus was descended from two interracial marriages and from one interracial fornication.)

    • No offense, but I think there are no strong alternatives to the current president. And I am really saddened to understand further how superficial the whole "battle" for this position is. I mean, any person with their feet on the ground can sense what America needs, a responsible, smart, above all - well intended and selfless - president. But what America actually wants? Am not so sure... Selecting persons purely based on skin color, age, even religious belief concerning some societal aspects, indicates a total lack of society maturity when fundamental, burning issues, continue to remain unaddressed, one president after another.

    • I am not an anabaptist but I am familiar with their history. There were many anabaptists killed by the rulers of the lands in which they lived because they had the audacity to believe and teach that "infant baptism" was not biblical and to require that those who wanted to be anabaptists be baptized as adults regardless of the fact that when they were babies they had had "infant baptism."

      See this Wikipedia article:

      Even though I am not an anabaptist, I do agree with them that "infant baptism" is not valid.

    • fundamental, burning issues, continue to remain unaddressed, one president after another.

      We agree on this point, perhaps we need a different approach, or viewpoint then?

      Personally i'd like to see someone who can just maybe work with both sides, maybe it's not possible in a toxic two party environment. I'm not sure if a Democrat turned Republican is the answer but i'm willing to consider some outside the box ideas because we continue down a path of income and social inequality, destroying our environment and now grossly mismanaged pandemic responses.

    • In order to have someone who can work with both sides it is essential that the peron in question not possess antipathy towards the policies of the other side.

      An extremist Republican cannot work well with Democrats


      An extremist Democrat cannot work well with Republicans

      Sadly, both parties seem bent on defeating in the primaries anyone who is not an extremist.

      We already know which direction Trump will go if he is re-elected.

      Many Democrats are trying to pressure Biden into nominating a VP whose views are as far away from Republican policies as possible. If they get their way (and if Trump is defeated) the next four years will be more of divisiveness and less of bridge building.

    • Many Democrats are trying to pressure Biden into nominating a VP whose views are as far away from Republican policies as possible. If they get their way (and if Trump is defeated) the next four years will be more of divisiveness and less of bridge building.

      I agree with most of what you said above, however if Democrats really wanted views further left wouldn't the primaries have produced a Sanders or Warren nominee?

      Separately does a Trump re-election result in in less divisiveness then a Biden presidency?

    • I already commented on Trump. When it comes to bridges "burning" is a more appropriate verb than "building" in relationship even to the GOP let alone to the Democrats.

      I'm not sure if the need for this follow up post is due to a lack on my part in my previous post or on your part in reading it, but I thought I was already clear in my original comment.

      As to Biden, it depends both on his VP choice and as to whether he adopts the same attitude that many have adopted before namely We don't need the other party to pass a bill so we are going to write as extreme a bill as we can get our party to support. Both parties have adopted that attitude in the past after being elected.

      If he picks an extremist VP AND if he and a Dem congress, freeze out the GOP legislators then Biden's presidency will be as divisive or even worse.

    • If he doesn't pick an extremist VP and if he convinces both houses of congress to write only bipartisan bills that would be a major improvement.

      But, based both on what I have seen from the time I first got into politics back in the 1970s until this day, I have to agree with a writer from over 2500 years ago:

      Better is a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king, who knows not how to receive admonition any more. For out of prison he came forth to be king; yea, even in his kingdom he was born poor.

      I saw all the living that walk under the sun, that they were with the youth, the second, that stood up in his stead. There was no end of all the people, even of all them over whom he was:

      yet they that come after shall not rejoice in him.

      Surely this also is vanity and a striving after wind.

    • Well said, Drac. The best PERSON should be Biden’s VP pick. Full stop. Saying you’re going to nominate a woman for VP is pandering. What if the most qualified VP choice is another old white male?

      But that’s not how the game is played.

    • Very interesting! Thanks for sharing! Yeah, the LDS church doesn't believe in infant baptism, either. We believe one must be at least eight years of age to be baptized, which we believe is the age of accountability. I mean, when Jesus was baptized, he wasn't an infant. That seems to sum it up, I think.

      In the LDS church, we do give infants a blessing at the beginning of their lives, though. It seems like in Catholic tradition, infant baptism is a combination of baptism and blessing. The blessing part is fine in our view, but the baptism part is not. I learned about this on my LDS mission and had to clarify this with those who believed in infant baptism. I.e. The blessing part is ok; the baptism part is not.

      They view it as a celebration of the child's new life, which is great. That's why you wanna be careful condemning infant baptism without making the distinction I explained above.