Elizabeth Warren: Sen. Warren would clearly be the most energizing pick for Clinton and for the campaign. Selecting Warren would add the kind of star power to the Democratic ticket that would greatly enhance the historic nature of Clinton's candidacy.

Warren would excite for two reasons. First, she is the most commanding figure, other than Bernie Sanders, in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Selecting Warren would send a clear signal to Democrats that a Clinton White House will understand the need to address the economic struggles facing so many middle class Americans and the need to impose stronger regulations on financial and business institutions.

Second, in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, where Trump will make a play for disaffected Democratic voters, Warren could offer a powerful retort and remind these voters that the economic policies of Trump and the GOP don't really match up with the promises he is making about restoring their economic security.

Her negatives are clear. Most important, she will give Trump the opportunity to tag the Democrats as left of center. She doesn't have as much foreign policy experience as Clinton might like in these turbulent times, and Warren has already faced a small controversy by having claimed Native American identity earlier in her career. And if a sexist bias is a big part of this electorate, having two women on the same ticket could give Trump an advantage.

We lost Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida because the base of our party did not turn out in the numbers Even approaching The levels they did in 08 and 12. I’m talking about African Americans especially African American females.

In many states African Americans are the solid base of our party. Politics aside they deserve to be represented on the ticket for the different perspective they have on what makes America great. And in this case it Is actually is the smartest political move. Anyone on the left fringe that is ambivalent about Biden won’t suddenly spring into action because of Warren. But the base of our party will be totally energized by a selection of someone who shares their perspective as the most marginalized group of Americans.

But honorable people can disagree.

I think that’s the essence of the disagreement. Who makes up “the base”? I think there are multiple components to the base but I rarely see that acknowledged.

If every myriad group is considered the base, then it has no real meaning.

But in my 50+years of life the Caucasian Democratic demographic has changed over time. Full disclosure: I’m a 54 year old southern white male. When I was young that demographic was solidly Democratic. And there were lots of New England Republicans. But that has changed and continues to change. And in the Midwest we saw lots of Obama voters switch to trump. I expect that trend to continue to change. Just as we are seeing lots of suburban white women now voting Democratic rather than republican. But will that change when republicans run a candidate that is not batshit crazy? And the hippy generation became yuppies and brought in Reagan of course with all the southern white who abandoned the part once we kicked out blatant racism.

Throughout that entire time there has been one group of people that have always been Democratic voters. African Americans. If that does not make them the base nothing does.

especially black women.

But I take example from my experience here in Florida In 18. We were one of the few states where the Democratic Party did not excel. We had an African American running for Governor and it was real close. Gillum had some baggage but it was not too bad at the time. But in the primary, which in the end he easily won, he tied himself tightly to the more left of our our party when he had Bernie come in and hold a rally for him. The republicans did not let anyone forget it. In my opinion it costs us the election because swing voters abandoned him.

We now know he actually was very flawed with his recent arrest in South Florida.

The reason I have wanted BidenHarris for over a year is that she can not be tied to generally unpopular positions. What are the republicans gonna do? Run an ad that she is too law and order? Under perfect conditions I might favor Adams or even Demings, who I really like. But I think their resumes are just too thin. California AG and US Senator is enough experience for anyone.

And, full disclosure, I am on the more moderate side of DU and feel comfortable with her being to do the most important job of a VP. Becoming President.

Thanks for you thoughtful post. Have a nice evening.

She’s been in Congress as long as Harris as doesn’t have Harris’ baggage with African Americans and progressives. Plus Demings won a long time GOP seat in 16 while Harris won in a reliable Democratic state.

But comparing an appointed police chief of a city of a couple of hundred thousands to the long time AG of a state with 40 million seems disingenuous. And even the difference between a senator and house member is huge.

But honorable people can disagree.

So Mitch McConnell has a better resume than Nancy Pelosi?

Or think of it this way, Demings flip a long time GOP seat in 16 (16 not 18) while Harris won an easy victory in a reliable Democratic state. Now who would be a better candidate to put a swing state in play?

I like Val a whole lot. Have watched her for years. Her husband is as impressive as hell as well. Mayor of Orange County.

But Orlando proper is not a huge city. And she was police chief of it. A non elected position.

I just don’t see how that is in any way comparable to long time California AG with its 40 million residents.

Her thin resume would be a problem.

Again I like her and think she has huge future potential. And also again, honorable people can disagree.

Never has or Trump wouldn’t be President.

Some Senators have a higher profile but so do some House members like AOC. Demings was an impeachment manger and has a good profile from that.

Harris’ time as a prosecutor is actually a minus not a plus. Progressives and some African Americans have issues with her because of it.

Plus California is a reliable Democratic state but Florida is a key swing state. Who would put the ticket in better position to flip it?

But a serious candidate who cares about the nation, as Biden does had to make the estimation that his or her pick is capable of stepping in and becoming president.

I have way more faith that a 7 year California AG and 2 year senator is proven than a medium town police chief and one term Senator.

Again, nothing against Val who I like and is from the county over.

It’s apparent you and I disagree on this issue, and that’s cool. We are on the same team at the end of the day.

Have a nice evening.

Demings won a long held GOP seat in 16. Harris won an easy election in a state where the Democrats could nominate a coffee mug and still win.

Your argument is based solely on some perceived experience difference between Harris and Demings which doesn’t exist. And even if one did experience doesn’t matter in elections. If it did Trump wouldn’t have won. Obama wouldn’t have won either.

Now answer my question who gives the ticket a better chance or winning Florida Harris or Demings?

So I don't know why that would happen in the GE. In addition what drove the Dem wave in 2018 were suburban women of all colors. I think other candidates would be as good or better than Harris at making that happen again.

Amy Klobuchar: The Minnesota lawmaker is one of the star figures in the U.S. Senate. The choice is appealing, since Democrats could retain her seat even if she departs. A strong proponent of gun control and family-friendly policies, she could have immense appeal in suburban communities, which will play an important role in most key states.

She could be exciting, adding to an already historic female-headed ticket without being a real flashpoint of controversy. She can help compete in the Midwest where Trump will be making a strong play for voters. One of her flaws, like those of some of the other choices, is that she doesn't have much of a foreign policy record.

right now 40% of the country adores drumpf and will not leave him for anything. 50% is going to vote for Biden no matter what.

The election is all about the 10% of people who, for reasons i cannot POSSIBLY fathom, think there is actually some sort of decision to be made here. Pick a VP that will influence as many of those people as possible. without simultaneous alienating the 50% you already have.

Hillary

I am good with his experience and am confident with any choice he makes.

who worked on it. Maybe one did and I missed it? No columnist gathered a team of top experts, consulted with movers and shakers across the nation, were in on candidate meetings, and invested literally millions of dollars in this analysis.

Julian Castro would have been a very weak choice. A lot of Hispanics were not exactly admirers; and with his very weak resume and boyish face he would not have impressed anyone with a gut need for a strong male presence on the ticket. Which would have included a lot of Hispanics.

Btw, of course absolutely NO Democratic candidate could have reached "Trump's base." We went after "moderate suburbanites" -- as in moderate nonvoting liberals and moderate conservatives -- as well as Democratic white male voters resentful over losing their white male privileges, because they were NOT Trump's base. Many of both voted with us in 2018 and are with us now, proving the point.

And we're doing that again with those whom Trump/Repubs are still helping us persuade. Biden himself obviously has appealing to the broad range from moderate conservative through liberal covered.

And with that covered, I'd like to see him expand his own image and promises for the future by going for a VP with a rightfully dynamic, iconoclastic image, someone like Elizabeth Warren. Considering how they were trained to mix her up with socialists and commies, her "we can fix this!" resonated surprisingly well when speaking to RW audiences. Or ?