2024 U.S. Presidential Election Thread
- Thread starter FAH1223
- Start date
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
How many of those bills that she introduced actually became law?
If there's 77% turnout amongst registered voters (same as 2020) and 50% of the No Party Affiliation vote for Kamala, it covers the gap
The district court has to re decide if the new SC decision affects their previous non immunity verdict, right?
Reality Check
Keepin' it 100
I went through the VP vetting process in 2016, part of a group of potential running mates considered by Secretary Clinton. Here’s what that experience was like:
I got a call from a top Clinton campaign official in mid-June 2016, asking if I would like to participate in the VP vetting process. Expectations were set at the very beginning. Sec. Clinton was vetting about ten candidates and might well select someone else—still, nothing was set in stone, I was told.
It’s a grind of a process. Teams of lawyers and investigators were each assigned 2-3 candidates to vet. Weeks before candidates were contacted, the teams had put together extensive dossiers of each person. Candidates had to answer a 150+ question background questionnaire that delved into political, employment, legal, financial and personal family history.
Once that was turned in, each candidate sat with their vetting team for several hours to answer detailed questions. They were direct and precise, mining for any potential political problem lurking in one’s background. (Memories of the Sarah Palin embarrassment loomed large in this cycle). Some questions were also meant to put the candidate on the spot, “Would you have any problem if I were to take your phone from you right now (pointing at the cell phone) and look through it?” They didn’t actually take it.
A brief follow up interview came a week or so later. Then, about a week after that, Sec. Clinton interviewed perhaps 6-7 candidates. These meetings varied in length but were generally aimed at gauging chemistry, giving each candidate a chance to make their case, and assessing governing and campaigning ability.
After at least five weeks of direct candidate vetting, Secretary Clinton made her decision and Senator Kaine was announced as her running mate on July 22.
Generally, presidential nominees have sought to balance the ticket in different ways to gain a perceived political advantage— geographic (Kennedy/LBJ, Dukakis/Bentsen, Gore/Lieberman, Kerry/Edwards), ideological (LBJ/Humphrey, Carter/Mondale), experience (Obama/Biden), old Washington-trailblazer (Mondale/Ferraro, Biden/Harris). As the swing states in contention have shifted, these considerations have become more of less important. As many have said, though, what doesn’t change is the need for the VP to at least do no harm (a rule violated by Palin and probably Vance).
Are running mates chosen specifically to help the ticket win in a home state? For Democrats, not usually. Mondale (‘76), Ferraro (‘84), Lieberman (‘00), Biden (‘08), and Harris (‘20) came from relatively blue states. Gore and Kaine were exceptions, as Tennessee had voted nearly 58% for Bush in ‘88 and Virginia had gone for Obama by only 51-47 in 2012. Bentsen (‘88) was chosen when Texas was still winnable for Democrats and the GOP nominee (H.W. Bush) was a Texan.
In 2016, the speculation was that Clinton might choose a Black or Latino male to balance the ticket. This year, conventional wisdom is that a white male will be chosen. The good news is that VP Harris has several great options.
VP Harris has more experience than most previous nominees and has reenergized the Democratic base without alienating moderates. She’s also opened the battleground map back up to include AZ, NV and GA. Trump doubled down on his base with the choice of Vance, making Trump perhaps less competitive with independents than he might have been with a different pick. That gives VP Harris a lot of latitude to select a running mate—a progressive or a moderate— who won’t just help her win an election but with whom she has great chemistry and will help her govern effectively.
I got a call from a top Clinton campaign official in mid-June 2016, asking if I would like to participate in the VP vetting process. Expectations were set at the very beginning. Sec. Clinton was vetting about ten candidates and might well select someone else—still, nothing was set in stone, I was told.
It’s a grind of a process. Teams of lawyers and investigators were each assigned 2-3 candidates to vet. Weeks before candidates were contacted, the teams had put together extensive dossiers of each person. Candidates had to answer a 150+ question background questionnaire that delved into political, employment, legal, financial and personal family history.
Once that was turned in, each candidate sat with their vetting team for several hours to answer detailed questions. They were direct and precise, mining for any potential political problem lurking in one’s background. (Memories of the Sarah Palin embarrassment loomed large in this cycle). Some questions were also meant to put the candidate on the spot, “Would you have any problem if I were to take your phone from you right now (pointing at the cell phone) and look through it?” They didn’t actually take it.
A brief follow up interview came a week or so later. Then, about a week after that, Sec. Clinton interviewed perhaps 6-7 candidates. These meetings varied in length but were generally aimed at gauging chemistry, giving each candidate a chance to make their case, and assessing governing and campaigning ability.
After at least five weeks of direct candidate vetting, Secretary Clinton made her decision and Senator Kaine was announced as her running mate on July 22.
Generally, presidential nominees have sought to balance the ticket in different ways to gain a perceived political advantage— geographic (Kennedy/LBJ, Dukakis/Bentsen, Gore/Lieberman, Kerry/Edwards), ideological (LBJ/Humphrey, Carter/Mondale), experience (Obama/Biden), old Washington-trailblazer (Mondale/Ferraro, Biden/Harris). As the swing states in contention have shifted, these considerations have become more of less important. As many have said, though, what doesn’t change is the need for the VP to at least do no harm (a rule violated by Palin and probably Vance).
Are running mates chosen specifically to help the ticket win in a home state? For Democrats, not usually. Mondale (‘76), Ferraro (‘84), Lieberman (‘00), Biden (‘08), and Harris (‘20) came from relatively blue states. Gore and Kaine were exceptions, as Tennessee had voted nearly 58% for Bush in ‘88 and Virginia had gone for Obama by only 51-47 in 2012. Bentsen (‘88) was chosen when Texas was still winnable for Democrats and the GOP nominee (H.W. Bush) was a Texan.
In 2016, the speculation was that Clinton might choose a Black or Latino male to balance the ticket. This year, conventional wisdom is that a white male will be chosen. The good news is that VP Harris has several great options.
VP Harris has more experience than most previous nominees and has reenergized the Democratic base without alienating moderates. She’s also opened the battleground map back up to include AZ, NV and GA. Trump doubled down on his base with the choice of Vance, making Trump perhaps less competitive with independents than he might have been with a different pick. That gives VP Harris a lot of latitude to select a running mate—a progressive or a moderate— who won’t just help her win an election but with whom she has great chemistry and will help her govern effectively.
Obviously this specific cycle is going to be different, but this gives some insight into the vetting process for a VP. Walz and Kelly should have no issues given they ran state-wide campaigns and any skeletons would have popped up in the past.
Trump's pick for Governor was an extremist, far right lunatic in a purple state. Also, Shapiro isn't the first Governor who was previously an Attorney General that has looked the other way. Tom Corbett (Governor from 2011-2015) was AG when he was investigating Jerry Sandusky and Penn State, and it not only took him two years to get Sandusky indicted but also gave Sandusky's charity a $3 million grant right before the indictments came down.
Do we have any more Twitter leaks about how horrible of a person he is that we can send Kamala before it’s too late
Yeah I’m just joking. I prefer walz but some people in here have fallen down the rabbit hole where they legit probably want him arrested and put on death row (electrocution, not injection) so I’m poking fun at that.
Voice of Reason
Veteran
Lets remember before you mock me, I been right you been wrong, you was blue maga thru and thruDo we have any more Twitter leaks about how horrible of a person he is that we can send Kamala before it’s too late
I don't think it'll matter one way or the other. Fill a bit overblown. He's definitely never will be fit for presidency. For VP, he's fine. Probably excell being a glorified assistant.
Still team Wal
Poetical Poltergeist
Precise and cold hearted
Kyle C. Barker
Migos VERZUZ Mahalia Jackson
Yo, if Fabrizio is saying it's a tie
That's a polling firm Trump's PAC pays millions to
Similar threads
- Poll
