My preference for the 2020 ticket: Biden/Bullock

[jaysunb]

I wish it could be Bullock up front, but he hasn't been able to get any traction. It's said he could win a Senate seat but obviously doesn't want it.
Also, I'd like Biden to announce early on that he will only serve one term to get the Country back on track.
Thanks in advance for your flames, but at my age I don't care. I just see these two as a winning combo.

[doc03]

1. Who the hell is Bullock Sandra? nt

[chimpymustgo]

3. LOVE Sandra! But not for Veep!

[doc03]

5. Miss Congeniality does DC I would

vote for her.

[lillypaddle]

52. cute.

These times don't call for cute.

[jaysunb]

11. Gov. Steve Bullock ( D ) Montana, current candidate for Dem. nomintation

[doc03]

14. Oh ok I remember him there are so many I cant

keep track.

[DownriverDem]

20. Not two men

Biden/Harris would be a formidable ticket!

[lillypaddle]

51. Guess you haven't been paying attention.

[CTyankee]

2. no flames, but don't you think it is way, way past time that we have a woman president?

I say Kamala/Beto.

[chimpymustgo]

4. Love your thinking here! Youth and energy!

And maybe Texas in play...

[DownriverDem]

21. Pennsylvania

Biden can win PA. He was born there.

[hlthe2b]

6. This is the worst time, after 58 Presidential elections and 231 years to elect two white males.

I don't care who they are. We can NOT have a ticket with zero diversity--gender, race/ethnicity, or both.
Not in THIS election. NO WAY.


(And... the first comment I see admonishing that we should seek the most 'qualified' will get no free pass from me --nor likely others-- because to say this is to say NONE of our women candidates, none of our candidates who are POC and none of those possible picks not currently running are as qualified as a white male of your picking. No longer does that work. NOT this year. This year we send a message that RW misogyny, RW racial and ethnic hatred, RW white nationalism are the polar opposite values as those of Democrats/Progressives )

[CTyankee]

9. Amen, sister.

I have a son and two daughters. I have 3 granddaughters. I would like to see a woman president before I die (and I'm on the wrong side of 70). Our female candidate last time got millions more votes than her opponent, but that man still won.

DAMN.

[DownriverDem]

22. Thank you

We need a man and a woman ticket. Biden/Harris!

[lillypaddle]

55. Bullock/Harris

or Bullock/Warren

[Bettie]

64. I agree completely

but, I doubt you'll convince those who believe that only a couple of older white man can win.

[elleng]

8. This time, I will NOT concern myself with diversity,

but rather with the most winnable candidate(s.) SADLY, programs and diversity may have to wait.

[CTyankee]

10. I think we can win with a woman. We did in 2016. Diversity does not have to wait.

We can win again in 2020 with another great woman candidate.

[elleng]

12. I don't mean to suggest a woman can't win, I have one in mind, but

it won't be a priority for me.

[empedocles]

16. Dems did not 'win' in 2016 because their margin was not big enough to

overcome putin, Electoral College, socialists, anti-female vote, etc.

We need the largest vote margin possible to overcome the bad factors - to actually, really WIN!

Also a big, actual win will enable the Dem coattails to actually get some real things done.

[elleng]

25. Right, must be HUGE! (really)

[CTyankee]

31. why do you think the pukes won't come at a male candidate with all the they've got in 2020?

Last edited Sun Aug 11, 2019, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)

If this is what we're facing, then why would it matter if it's a man or a woman? You think they won't play as dirty with a man we nominate as with a woman? Why would they hesitate?

sorry, I don't believe that we have some magic firewall if we have a man instead of a woman. It doesn't make any sense.

[elleng]

33. They surely will; it's what they do.

[jaysunb]

13. +1. my exact thoughts n/t

[DownriverDem]

23. We are better

We don't need two men to win. Biden/Harris! is a winning ticket.

[StarfishSaver]

36. It never seems to be the time for "diversity"

It now. We need to go with the default: white males. Next time we'll do the "diversity thing." Promise

A couple of problems.

First, it's not "diversity" only when we're talking about women and minorities but "the most qualified" when we're talking about white men.

And second. For people who try to use the "next time" argument, there's never a "next time."

This argument has nothing to do with pragmatism or electability. It's white male privilege pure and simple.

[elleng]

37. I said:

'This time, I will NOT concern myself with diversity,

but rather with the most winnable candidate(s.)'

MY decision is NOT about 'white male privilege,' I will support the Democratic candidate, and s/he will have my full support. My PRIMARY concern now is not 'diversity,' but winning, and I will decide who to support in the Maryland primary based on my conclusion about who can beat trump.

Do NOT misunderstand me.

[StarfishSaver]

38. I know what you said and I did not misunderstand you.

[elleng]

40. You said

'This argument has nothing to do with pragmatism or electability. It's white male privilege pure and simple.'

You clearly misunderstood me.

[Merlot]

15. Almost any ticket with Beto as VP is a winner in my book

Biden/Bullock would be a real enthusiasm damper for a lot of people.

[empedocles]

18. A damper on the Dem left, an escape zone for the waverers in the middle 60% of voters.

[DownriverDem]

24. That's why

a Biden/Harris ticket can win.

[empedocles]

28. 'Can win' - yes. 'Big win'? Not the biggest possible win.

[Sapient Donkey]

34. I'd rather see Mayor Pete in place of Beto in that situation

Buttigieg is a smart dude who speaks eloquently and is quick on his feet. He also thinks and view things in a way that resonates with me. It's similar to the way Obama did with me. I see others online seem to feel the same, but that's not always the most accurate assessment.

[DrToast]

47. Vote for candidates, not private parts.

[lillypaddle]

53. Geez

We're gonna be looking at a 2nd term for the orange asshole.

Do you really think that is a winning ticket?

[CTyankee]

60. What is the winning ticket in your opinion?

Are we that afraid of a woman at the head of the ticket? Remember, HRC won the popular vote by over 3 million votes. Our strategy should be on the Electoral College rather than the idea of a woman president. As I have said again and again, every democracy, other than ours, has had or has now a woman in the top job. What is the matter with us?

[lillypaddle]

65. It's hard to say

but I'm leery of two "newcomers" to win this election. Frankly, I think that's why Joe Biden is doing so well. It's not that I don't like either of your choices, I'm just trying to think of a combination that doesn't just please DU and very progressive dems. I mean, that's how trump can win and DID win (with a little help from Comey and Russia).

I like most everyone in our lineup (except BS), would vote for them in a minute - and will.

No, I'm not afraid of a woman at the head of the ticket, I just don't know if Warren or Harris can do it with the rest of America. Actually, I think Klobuchar might have a better chance if she were doing better, so obviously I'm wrong there.

See why I'm undecided???

I like a lot about Beto, just don't think it's his time. I like Pete, but again, not sure how broad his appeal would be in a general. It would help if we didn't have so many candidates ... it's hard for anyone to step out front and shine. And one candidate I really like, Steve Bullock, is absolutely vanilla, but ... have you heard him speak? Have you looked at his record? Pro-choice gov of a red state, but he got in late. He's not looking for VP, I don't think, and neither is Kamala Harris.

Peace.

[CTyankee]

69. I will go back and research more about Bullock and how he got to be a Dem gov. of a red state. He

Might be a good VP pick for us.

At some point, there has to be a woman president and from the looks of things it sure as hell won't be the repugs. As I pointed out, we already elected one woman president by the popular vote. So now we have an array of several extremely qualified women in our primaries. To me, Harris is the stronger woman candidate and a WOC and if Joe counts himself out at some point I think she would be the likely nod. It wouldn't be a terrible thing for her to choose a Steve Bullock (who has a strong credential as you rightfully point out). I just checked his website: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/14/18528546/steve-bullock-2020-campaign-policies and I like him.

As I have said often, I think Trump is afraid of Harris since he seems to be pulling his punches with her but felt perfectly OK punching away at Warren. I adore Warren but the Pocahontos thing and her unfortunate response to it has me worried about her as a candidate. I would love her being our candidate but I don't see her as strong as Harris is against Trump. Women voters are increasingly sick of Trump and they can get Harris elected.

Now about those Electoral College voters that determined the 2016 election: our party has to have a very strong strategy for those states because now we know what happened in 2016. And we have to have protections in place to keep our elections free from outside influences, despite Mitch McConnell transparent attempts to keep election reform from happening. I am keeping an eye on his opponent. We gotta get rid of him or weaken him substantially. How that is accomplished, I don't know.

[lillypaddle]

70. I agree

Harris is the strongest of the women candidates. Okay, Harris/Bullock. Should we tell everyone now or wait?

[BannonsLiver]

7. The base of the party is women and POCs

So I'm not sure how much sense it makes to put two white males on any ticket.

[JI7]

26. if most POC and women give their primary votes to them

it's possible.

[BannonsLiver]

27. It is possible

I should clarify: I don't really care what end of the ticket they are on. Democrats will decide on who the nominee is. And then the nominee will decide on their running mate.

[DesertRat]

17. I don't think we should have a Dem. ticket with two white men. nt

[chimpymustgo]

19. Easy call.

Harris/your pick

[Sherman A1]

29. No flames

We are all entitled to our opinions and choices.

[pnwmom]

30. 2 white guys to represent our party in an election where 60% of Dem voters could be women?

If we do that, Trump will drop Pence and add a woman candidate instead -- I predict Nikki Haley.

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1095292092455108608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2Finteractive%2F2019%2F02%2Fpolitics%2Fdem-primaries-exit-polls%2F

[MarcA]

56. +1,000 n/t

[Iggo]

32. This guy? Fuck yeah!

[TSIAS]

35. Great Ticket

Secretary of Labor: Howard Schultz

Secretary of State: Joe Lieberman

Secretary of Treasury: Lloyd Blankfein

Secretary of Defense: Bill Krystol

Secretary of Health and Human Services: John Delaney

Drug Czar: Dr. Drew Pinsky

National Security Advisor: Malcolm Nance

Press Secretary: Meghan McCain

[JI7]

39. THis is the Closest we will get to a Biden/Bullock Ticket

but they do look good together

Link to tweet

[jimmy the one]

41. Biden Brown

Joe & Ohio senator Sherrod Brown would be my dream ticket, could swing ohio, seal goodbye to the bloviating windbag.

[Celerity]

45. Brown as VP destroys basically any hope we would have of flipping the Senate

Last edited Fri Aug 16, 2019, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)

We need a plus 4 net to flip as it stands, plus 5 if Paedo Moore is not the Rethug Alabama nominee (and even that bastard will be hard for Jones to beat in a POTUS year in Alabama.)

Brown leaving makes it a plus 6 net needed by us to just get to 51-49.

These are all the remotely possible races where we can flip, all 12 of them. Some are very much a stretch, and also we are having a lot of big names refuse to run, in fact, all the arguably best candidates in 11 of the 12 states have all refused, so far, to run.


Arizona (Mark Kelly has a great chance at beating McSally. This is the one state so far that we have the best potential candidate already running.)

Alaska (I hope Mark Begich, our ex US Senator, runs versus Sullivan, he has said he was not, but now may change his mind)

Maine (Susan Rice, who has said no quite emphatically, would have been the best to knock out shitbox Collins IMHO, but hopefully we can find another one, it looks likely to be Sara Gideon atm)

Montana (Bullock is basically the only one of ours who would have a great chance at beating Daines, I think Bullock would defeat him, but he has said dozens of times he will not run.)

Colorado (even if Hickenlooper refuses, I think Gardner goes down, but Hickenlooper makes it 90-95% that we flip)

Tennessee (open Rethug seat, due to Alexander retiring, I so hope Tim McGraw reconsiders his turndown, he would have the best shot from all I have seen, most of the other candidates we have are already one time losers, some just last year, or retty unknown. The two I see who are the best should McGraw not change his mind are Jeff Yarbro and James Mackler)

Georgia (Stacey Abrams and Sally Yates would have had the best chances by far to beat Perdue, but each one has said no over and over, so it is going to be much harder I fear, even though Perdue is weak, and a shit campaigner. So far it looks like the best of the rest are Teresa Tomlinson and perhaps Jon Ossoff )

Kansas (open Rethug seat due to Roberts retiring, the right candidate for us has a shot, maybe Kathleen Sebelius, but she also just said no, and a big local paper says that really hurts our chances)

Iowa (Cindy Axne and Vilsack, probably our 2 best chances to beat Ernst, both have declined to run, but I have hope we can find another great candidate, Theresa Greenfield or Abby Finkenauer look to be the best of the rest)

North Carolina (our two best candidates by far, Foxx and Stein, have both said no, grrr, hope one, especially Foxx, re-considers) Tillis is so ripe for the picking if we get one of those 2 to run, and still may have a shot if it is another, Cal Cunningham perhaps, or Erica Smith, but both will have a harder time that Stein or Foxx would have had.

Kentucky This is probably the 2nd toughest. Andy Beshear might have had a shot at dumping McTurtle, but he is running for Governor, Amy McGrath is who we are going to have to roll with, and it is not impossible, due to McConnell being truly hated even by some Rethugs, his overall approval numbers are worse than Rump by far, amongst the bottom in all the Senate. Overall a huge reach, but so hope Moscow Mitch goes DOWN. McGrath needs to make no more errors like the one she did right at kickoff (saying she would have voted yes for Kavanaugh for SCOTUS. The same thing crushed Bredeson in TN in 2018, so depressed our base turnout.)

Texas Cornyn in Texas is the toughest reach, IMHO, even if Beto runs (which I doubt he will.) Cornyn is streets ahead of Cruz in terms of TX popularity.

We would need to win SIX of those to flip if Brown was the VP, and only CO is even close to one that I would say is a pretty good chance to label a semi-lock, and some are just downright so so hard, even if the best candidates change their minds and run.

Schumer and Cortez Masto have been so poor at recruiting the best candidates, it is one of the biggest stories of 2020 so far.

[jimmy the one]

46. good points all

celerity: We need a plus 4 net to flip as it stands, plus 5 if Paedo Moore is not the Rethug Alabama nominee.. v jones alabama
Brown leaving makes it a plus 6 net needed by us to just get to 51-49. These are all the remotely possible races where we can flip.

Good points all. I had thought we had a much better chance than what you portend. Haven't been concerned with the senate races to now; even with the dem 'nomination campaign' underway, it's still 3 months when the campaigning should really be started; nomination campaigns are somewhat a disgrace imo, ditto with repubs 2016 with 16.
Congressional polls are too sketchy as of now to get a clear picture.

Brown leaving makes it a plus 6 net needed by us to just get to 51-49.

Well, he would negate the senate loss if he became vice president & tie breaker, and I think we need to count that as a certainty in our minds, since if trump is reelected our 2020 cause is lost.
With your dim chances of winning the senate outright, I think the better chance is for sherrod brown to go for it. Could be a moot point we are discussing if he declines interest.
And a 51-49 dem senate majority is hardly a lock; if trump were to be elected one defection gives the issue to repubs with pence #51.
What'd'you think? Would brown help swing ohio? biden currently is up in ohio by several points. Ohio would lock it up for biden.

[Celerity]

49. a 50 50 Senate with our VP as the tie breaker is better than nothing, but will be a semi

nightmare still as a power sharing deal will have to be made and the Rethugs are so so much more virulent than the last time (2000) we had that.

I agree that 51-49 Dems is still perilous, and we can forget any big ticket progressive moves, but, I also believe the House will block those as well, as even if we retain all our seats and gain some new ones, say to get to 250, that will still mean around 120 Dems in the House (108 now) will be centrist caucus members, either in the New Democrat Coalition, the Blue Dogs, or the truly problematic Problem Solvers Caucus.

I see almost zero chance, if we have say 51 or even 52 seats in the Senate, and 240ish, 250ish in the House, of even the public option being passed. We may even have to totally re-do the ACA, IF the SCOTUS rules it now unconstitutional. Just pulling that back will take damn near all our political capital. It was a nightmare last time.

It is why I am just a tad wary of Biden so pushing that he can get the public option through. It sets him up for over-promising and under-delivering, which can hurt us in 2022 and hurt Biden himself in 2024.

We have slid so far to the left in terms of framing that the public option is actually being painted as a 'moderate' proposal (and ludicrously painted as some corporate sell-out by the far left), when it most definitely is not a moderate, centrist, milquetoast thing at all.

A public option spells eventual substantial doom for the private insurance companies and their rapacious profiteering on the backs of 200 million or so Americans. They are going to fight it with a vengeance an order of magnitude higher than they fought Obamacare (they killed the PO then too.) They already are starting. The same group (AHIP and their subsidiaries and cross-industry partner lobbyists) are already slamming Biden and others over the public option (let alone their attacks on MFA.)

I did not mean to sound so gloomy on the Senate. We just need to get those 11 states to run their BEST possible candidates. If we got the best in all eleven, I think we can flip 5, 6, even 7 of them. Losing Alabama, and then taking that middle number of 6 flips, gives us a 52-48 advantage, which is a key, as then the two most likely (by far) to vote with the Rethugs on certain things (Manchin and Sinema) are negated.

They are the only Dem Senate Caucus Senators left with a Trump score over 39 (the Independent Angus King is next at 39%)

They vote around 55% of the time with Rump and the Rethugs and will be so hard to contain at 50-50 (Manchin will be under insane pressure to change parties at that point, especially if Biden is POTUS, as his state is Trump PLUS 42 atm) or even 51-49. Brown leaving imperils that and I think we win or lose Ohio whether he is on the ticket or not. I do not think he moves the needle enough either way (IF the top is Biden) to risk bollocksing up our Senate chances.

[jimmy the one]

61. sinema manchin & jones

celerity: I did not mean to sound so gloomy on the Senate. We just need to get those 11 states to run their BEST possible candidates. If we got the best in all eleven, I think we can flip 5, 6, even 7 of them.

That's more like what I'd heard a month or so back. Senate polls won't be out for a few more months, that can be given much cred as to insight.
Interesting graph, still trying to figure out what the trump plus-minus score indicates.

..the two most likely (by far) to vote with the Rethugs on certain things (Manchin and Sinema)..

We'll miss manchin when he's gone, WVa then forever red for our lifetimes, barring an alabama/jones style victory where the repub gets exposed in an 11th hour scandal. And while manchin remains viable in wva, he's gotta be he.
Sinema was a surprise gift horse, & we know what not to do with them. And she's gotta be she.
Sinema manchin & jones, sung to abraham martin & john: anybody here, seen my good friends, eh, never mind.

Brown leaving imperils that and I think we win or lose Ohio whether he is on the ticket or not. I do not think he moves the needle enough either way (IF the top is Biden) to risk bollocksing up our Senate chances

Quite possible he would have no effect, like Gore losing tennessee vs gwbush (son of his father herbert walker tush). Dunno of course, would be nice if a reputable pollster later on did a poll asking ohioans whether they would vote for a biden/brown ticket vs a biden/generic, or biden/other possibles, see if what you think is so. Brown did reject a presidential run, so might be moot.

Ah, saying reputable pollsters generally sets me off about rasmussen, which is not quality polling. Since you may be into graphs & poll averages, note that the real clear politics (RCP) average includes rasmussen, which strategically pads its trump approval polls, by plus 5 - 8 points it seems.
This skews the RCP average in two ways. By the padding itself, and because rasmussen's poll is (apparently) included in every single RCP poll average, while other reputable pollsters are subject to about a 2 week dropback and then is not included in the current poll average. This in itself gives rasmussen much more influence in the RCP average than pollsters which poll only once a month or longer.
RCP is a daily tracking poll which averages 3 days of its polls, C.R.A.P. poll = computer responsive automated polling - ring ring, hello, push one for gore, two for bush, thank you bye.
Note below in the RCP expanded view going back months, how Quinnipiac is about to drop off after 2 weeks, Gallup is not listed in the current rolling average, nor is pbs, nbc or PPP (nor fox!). Do not be fooled that rasmussen is not mentioned in the monthlies dropback either, it has some sort of special RCP privilege because it is up every day.
Well, RCP is pretty much right wing, but how they justify including right wing republican scott rasmussen's strategery is beyond fairness & reason.
(Rass strategically pads by counter padding some republicans less, or some dems more, generally in foregone races but not always, so as to try to leave a net zero to pretend to be 'unbiased').
Upshot is, the RCP average needs be tweaked by subtracting 0.5 to 1.0 pts, to counter the 'Rasmussen Affect'.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

Sorry not up to speed enough to comment on public option, tho I bet roberts backs out of supporting o-care.

[Celerity]

62. Rasmussen left the pro Repug Rasmussen Reports firm 6 years ago, he no longer has anything to do

with it. That said, this Harris X (that is a Scott Rasmussen poll) poll is fairly dodgy as well, it is a massive outlier with some candidates, especially Warren.

I pay little attention to RCP averages overall. I use 538 more, and like to do my own research. I am more of a big picture person, love to look at mid to longer term event horizons, unless there is a potential inflection point event (debate, huge scandal, etc.) that I can drill down on to a fairly granular level and then extrapolate upon.

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

Edward Lorenz

[jimmy the one]

67. we are reading snapshots in time

celerity: Rasmussen left the pro Repug Rasmussen Reports firm 6 years ago, he no longer has anything to do with it.

Didn't know dat, thanks for the heads up. Still has some sort of his residual stink to it. Rasmussen had gwbush winning by 9 pts over al gore, the worst of the pollsters back then. Most republican senate races in 2000 rass padded as well.
Rass profusely apologized & promised to improve, which surprisingly they did, tightened up next go in bush v kerry & was one of the closest pollsters, but they really didn't have as much to 'prove' since bush was slightly ahead in the polls and what with him riding the fumes of his 9/11 popularity, they figured a good chance to recoup their credibility. Proves they had the mechanisms to poll well, but their 2000 padding done did them in.

That said, this Harris X (that is a Scott Rasmussen poll) poll is fairly dodgy as well, it is a massive outlier with some candidates, especially Warren.

I suspect a couple other polls have ulterior motives and not kosher. Tarrance for one. Didn't know dat about harris.

I pay little attention to RCP averages overall. I use 538 more, and like to do my own research.

RCP is right wing, but what other poll of polls is there? unless I'm missing something.

I visit 538 sometimes, usually to get the pollster ratings. Rasmussen has been at C+ rating for a year or more; don't be impressed, a C+ is close to the 50 50 mark, where 50% of the pollsters are better, 50% worse.
538 has Rasmussen with a 1.5 repub bias, which is tied for 7th highest repub bias; course nbc survey monkey is worse with a 4.9 dem bias & a D-, but survey monkey is not counted in the RCP avg;
Monmouth is curious, A+ but 1.4 dem bias. NBC/WSJ A-, 0.8dem; Pew B-, 0.6 dem; Gallup B, 0.9repub;
Harris is also C+ with 1.5 repub bias, same as rass;
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

Harris & Rasmussen are 'online' or IVR interactive voice response (1 for bush 2 for gore etc); Reputable polls usually live.

Trump likes to bloviate about how wrong the 2016 polls were, citing national polls & 538. How wrong he is. 538 is not a poll, it is an analysis of polls, like an oddsboard at the racetrack. It puts all the state polls into a meat grinder, cranks it up & spits out odds. Hillary 3/5, trump 4-1, also rans 100/1. 4-1 shots win regularly at tracks.
The national polls were 94% correct, accd'g to RCP state poll avgs, missing only pennsy wisc & mich iirc (nevada was at parity trump +0.2 so a push).
The worst of the 2016 polls was LA Times, which ironically was the only one picking trump to win; but by having him winning by 2 pct pts, it was ~5 pct pts off the true winner hillary who won by 2 pct pts - the poll was for winning the popular vote, not winning the electoral college.

I am more of a big picture person, love to look at mid to longer term event horizons,

I know what you mean, right now means little when compared with 6 to 12 months from now, election wise.
Our posts are just snapshots in time.

signing off, cheers, have a good evening

[Celerity]

68. great chatting!

The USC/L.A. Times poll, which I do like poll-wise, nailed 2016 BTW (Only major national poll that predicted Trump winning the EC.) When I am in the US I live in Marina del Rey, so hometown (I was also born in LA, just grew up in London mostly) bias, lolol.

The USC/L.A. Times poll saw what other surveys missed: A wave of Trump support

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-usc-latimes-poll-20161108-story.html


cheers and have a good evening too

[JI7]

43. nope, Obama picked Biden who didn't do well and it worked out

well.

[elocs]

44. "I just see these two as a winning combo."

Perhaps it is your vision then that's the problem. n/t

[Trenzalore]

48. How does that inspire non-white middle age and old guys to go to the polls

You aren't going to capture the balding/bald white guy demographic with Trump on the ballot.

[JI7]

54. actually there are white guys who will vote for democratic white guys

but less likely for women and minorities.

[Trenzalore]

58. We call them assholes where I am from.

[lillypaddle]

50. I like Steve Bullock a LOT

and I like your idea that Joe should announce he is only seeking one term.

These are dangerous and weird times - We need to choose someone who can get this country back on track and is electable. period.

[evertonfc]

57. Bullock

Bullock would win the general on top of ticket. He would put so many states in play ...

[underthematrix]

59. This would be an excellent ticket because we would get twelve

years instead of eight.

Also Bullock is in my top 5

i think Biden has to be at the top of the ticket to keep the Obama coalition on board.

[Fiendish Thingy]

63. The perfect ticket...

If you want every single voter under 24 to stay home on Election Day.

[USALiberal]

66. Nope, VP IMO HAS to be a woman!!! nt