Joe Biden says he is considering four Black women to be his running mate

[Hammster]

Speaking of nutty women, whatever happened to Sarah Palin? Tulsi would be fine, but both major parties are still mostly dominated by OWP (Old White People). Hopefully, that will change after this election and younger people will support candidates with linger shelf lives.

The Democrats as a whole had a chance to change that.

 

[cow451]

The Democrats as a whole had a chance to change that.

Yes, Obama did not have the broader impact that would have made a difference in 2016. The Grand OLD Party continues to live up to its name.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, Obama did not have the broader impact that would have made a difference in 2016. The Grand OLD Party continues to live up to its name.

And who is the Dems nominee again?

 

[cow451]

And who is the Dems nominee again?

I said BOTH parties. And. I didn't invent the Republican party's name. And, I have repeatedly said both need to get younger candidates. That applies to the country as a whole. It's time for us OWG's to let the next generation(s). have their go of running things.

 

[Hammster]

I said BOTH parties. And. I didn't invent the Republican party's name. And, I have repeatedly said both need to get younger candidates. That applies to the country as a whole. It's time for us OWG's to let the next generation(s). have their go of running things.

And I said that the Dems had a chance to fix that, and they now have Biden. So the left can’t complain about having OWGs when that’s who they are nominating.

 

[KCfromNC]

Campaign pandering is what the office of vice president exists for.

Well, that and foreign head of state funerals.

And in our case, apparently being a failure at dealing with a nation-wide outbreak of a deadly novel virus.

 

[cow451]

And I said that the Dems had a chance to fix that, and they now have Biden. So the left can’t complain about having OWGs when that’s who they are nominating.

I’m a moderate, so I get to dent all their fenders.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well at least he's picking a person for the right reasons...

Who has time to worry about things like qualifications, experience, and all that nonsense when they should be doing the prudent thing and selecting based solely on immutable characteristics for the purposes of pandering.

 

[SimplyMe]

Well at least he's picking a person for the right reasons...

Who has time to worry about things like qualifications, experience, and all that nonsense when they should be doing the prudent thing and selecting based solely on immutable characteristics for the purposes of pandering.

I can tell some one else didn't bother to read the article, merely went for a misinformed reading of the OP -- much less a read through of the thread. As I mentioned in an earlier post -- there are four Black women who are part of a larger group he is currently considering for VP. He is getting two hour briefings from staff, on each candidate, that have been vetting these VP candidates, and will then a short list who will be vetted even further.

So, if you had read the article, you'd know that Biden is doing exactly what you are saying and not necessarily pandering.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I can tell some one else didn't bother to read the article, merely went for a misinformed reading of the OP -- much less a read through of the thread. As I mentioned in an earlier post -- there are four Black women who are part of a larger group he is currently considering for VP. He is getting two hour briefings from staff, on each candidate, that have been vetting these VP candidates, and will then a short list who will be vetted even further.

So, if you had read the article, you'd know that Biden is doing exactly what you are saying and not necessarily pandering.

I did read the article, and I watched the interview they're referring to...I watched it live on July 20th when it was on...it is pandering.

"I am not committed to naming any (of the potential candidates), but the people I've named, and among them there are four Black women," Biden told MSNBC's Joy Reid on "The ReidOut."

A) why even mention the race or gender aspect if you're not sending a particular message?

B) the question he was responding to was deliberately seeking a pandering response.

Biden says four Black women are on his VP list
(the fact that MSNBC put that as the title of the video showing the interview shows that they were going for a pandering angle...why not call it "Biden discusses potential VP candidates"?)

"they're the ones that brought me to the dance"

"My administration will 'look like America', it's critically important that that be the case"

Why is that important? If there are 5 slots open, and the 5 best people for those jobs are 2 Native Americans, One Gay person of Irish descent, and 2 Korean immigrants, shouldn't they be the ones to get the jobs?

Seems like he's saying that his administration should be racially proportioned to the racial demographics of the country as a whole, does it not?

In any vocation, "look like" shouldn't be the deciding factor. If I was building a new company from the ground up, saying that "my staff demographics should have to match the demographic breakdown of the country as a whole...it's critical that that be the case" sounds like I'm picking based on a quota rather than judging qualifications.

 

[helmut]

Campaign pandering is what the office of vice president exists for.

Well, that and foreign head of state funerals.

And in our case, apparently being a failure at dealing with a nation-wide outbreak of a deadly novel virus.

Which Vice-President is a failure?

If I project the numbers of Germany into the USA, this would mean about 35,000 death casualties. That is about 115,000 less that the actual number. I think a person that did not prevent more that 100,00 deaths, in spite of the fact they could have been prevented, is a failure.

It is not the vice-president who is in charge.

 

[Goonie]

Well at least he's picking a person for the right reasons...

Who has time to worry about things like qualifications, experience, and all that nonsense when they should be doing the prudent thing and selecting based solely on immutable characteristics for the purposes of pandering.

Tell me when was a vice president candidate picked solely on qualifications and experience?

 

[Albion]

As long as "solely" is included in the proposition, the answer probably has to be "never."

That's because a candidate who brings a resume that's strong on experience and qualifications is going to be seen as attractive to the voters. That in turn means that there is another reason for the selection.

 

[Goonie]

As long as "solely" is included in the proposition, the answer probably has to be "never."

That's because a candidate who brings a resume that's strong on experience and qualifications is going to be seen as attractive to the voters. That in turn means that there is another reason for the selection.

The thing is that Biden sees himself as being experienced and qualified (which he is, though to old) so he is looking for candidates that will reach parts of the electorate he won't get on his own.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Tell me when was a vice president candidate picked solely on qualifications and experience?

Never, it's almost always for pandering purposes.

Trump was clearly going to have issues drawing the same support from Evangelicals (given that he didn't really 'walk the walk' --what with the multiple affairs, owning casinos and all), so he went with Pence as a running mate.

The key distinction is pandering based on circumstances of choice vs. circumstances of birth.

 

[cow451]

As long as "solely" is included in the proposition, the answer probably has to be "never."

That's because a candidate who brings a resume that's strong on experience and qualifications is going to be seen as attractive to the voters. That in turn means that there is another reason for the selection.

And Mike Cardboard Cutout was not picked because he had the best qualifications, but because he was a draw for evangelicals and he is a total yes man. Nothing new in what Biden is doing.

 

[SimplyMe]

I did read the article, and I watched the interview they're referring to...I watched it live on July 20th when it was on...it is pandering.

"I am not committed to naming any (of the potential candidates), but the people I've named, and among them there are four Black women," Biden told MSNBC's Joy Reid on "The ReidOut."

A) why even mention the race or gender aspect if you're not sending a particular message?

B) the question he was responding to was deliberately seeking a pandering response.

Biden says four Black women are on his VP list
(the fact that MSNBC put that as the title of the video showing the interview shows that they were going for a pandering angle...why not call it "Biden discusses potential VP candidates"?)

"they're the ones that brought me to the dance"

"My administration will 'look like America', it's critically important that that be the case"

But as you point out below, the VP slot is almost always used for pandering. Beyond that, since you brought business into it, often companies will consider ethnic minorities and women for executive positions so that, even if that person is not chosen, they do it as "cover" to show that they weren't "discriminating," rather that the non-minority was the better choice.

Why is that important? If there are 5 slots open, and the 5 best people for those jobs are 2 Native Americans, One Gay person of Irish descent, and 2 Korean immigrants, shouldn't they be the ones to get the jobs?

At this point, we don't know one of them won't get the job; that is pure speculation -- it may be a good speculation but we don't know what Biden is actually thinking or he may decide the Black women aren't good fits.

Beyond that, likely every person on Biden's short list is qualified for the VP slot. Even businesses will do what Biden talks about, where they pick a person who will "fit in," or is a "go getter" and is qualified -- because they believe that person will do a better job (be a better leader or work harder to succeed) than a person with "more" or "better" experience. In fact, that is the argument many here make against Biden, he was the most and best experienced Democrat running this year, but age and questions about his health cause people to question if he was the best choice.

Seems like he's saying that his administration should be racially proportioned to the racial demographics of the country as a whole, does it not?

In any vocation, "look like" shouldn't be the deciding factor. If I was building a new company from the ground up, saying that "my staff demographics should have to match the demographic breakdown of the country as a whole...it's critical that that be the case" sounds like I'm picking based on a quota rather than judging qualifications.

Again, for a Presidential administration, there are frequently several people who are well qualified for every job. If you'd prefer, Biden could be like Trump and not vet his appointments and just pick who he likes for the job -- let the Senate and press do the vetting. Instead, Biden seems committed to vetting individuals, finding good fits, as well as finding people that will help all Americans feel like they are represented in his administration.

On that last point, if you were opening a retail store in a "minority community," my guess is that you'd hire to try and make sure the "neighborhood was represented." If you bring in the "best qualified" from other neighborhoods, there is a strong chance that those in the neighborhood will avoid your store; they won't feel comfortable there. It tends to be that same idea in government, to make all Americans feel like they are represented. Additionally, it makes sense to bring a broad range of "voices" into an administration, to ensure the viewpoints of various minorities are heard.

Again, let's wait to see what Biden does before we criticize him.

 

[Sketcher]

Somebody should trick him into naming Star Parker and then retiring.

 

[helmut]

Tell me when was a vice president candidate picked solely on qualifications and experience?

Hopefully never.

Politics is not only about knowledge and experience, it is also about opinions.

Take the current covid-19-pandemic. Some aspects are pure knowledge and simple wisdom: People should wear masks, try to avoid close contacts (2 yards minimum) and so on. But than we have the question of "lockdown" (total or partially): That will save lifes, but weaken the economy, so you may ask: How much of our GNP should we sacrifice to save lives, how much does a human life cost? This is a purely political question, If people differ on thi9s point, that has little do do with knowledge or experience, but with political opinions (based on moral convictions?).

The VP candidate should have a political standing compatible with the presidential candidate. Only looking on qualifications would be sheer nonsense - or can you imagine a republican taking a high qualified leftist economy professor?

As to "experience: A black person has other experiences with racism than a white one, a woman will have other experiences as a man. So choosing according to race or sex or similar criteria means that the one doing so wants a special sort of experience (that may result in a political conviction). Calling this "pandering" shows only blindness on the reasons why such criteria are considered important.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

So the last 250ish years there just wasn`t woman most agreed on ? Well, sure, but what is the reason not a single woman has historically got to high enough position in US to have that influence to win Presidential race ?

Surely you do not think it is just chance or bad luck ?

Well, to be fair, for 144 of those 250ish years, women were not allowed to vote.