Will Joe Biden be dropped from the Obama ticket?

Amerika

With the GOP pick of fiscal intellectual Paul Ryan, Biden’s second week-long vacation in little over a month during the campaign, and Joe’s recent slew of gaffes including the toxic "They gonna put y'all back in chains" told to a group with a high majority of African Americans in attendance, there is suddenly renewed speculation that Joe will be dropped from the ticket. CNN is also reporting that some senior advisers are not happy, calling his recent gaffes "not helpful, and that "they believe the vice president has knocked them off track." Not good going into a tough election.

The Democratic party convention is being held the 3rd to the 6th of September. That leaves a little over 20 days to make a decision. It would probably be a good idea for Obama to drop Biden (and Joe could feign new founded health issues), as he doesn’t really bring much this time around. But I wonder who would be a good replacement?

I know Hillary Clinton’s name repeatedly comes up, but I just don’t think she would do it. That doesn’t leave many others… Colin Powell perhaps?

Brussels Sprout

No

Amerika

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

No

I hope you're right!

(4 articles on Drudge Report right now hinting at his being dropped from the Democratic ticket, and a couple even on some Democratic friendly media sites also)

plasmaguy

Too late now surely, it would smell of desperation if he was.

He just needs to be kept well out of sight that's all...they done a good job of that the last three and a half years, but now with the pressures of campaigning and the president unable to canvass everywhere, they are forced to rely on Biden to do some canvassing.

Brussels Sprout

Getting rid of Biden would be an admission that they're afraid of Ryan. Besides compared to previous VPs (Quayle and Cheney spring to mind) the guy is pretty competent and affable.

Dave!

The Biden/Ryan debate will sure be fun

hooradiation

Amerika wrote: »

With the GOP pick of fiscal intellectual Paul Ryan,

That's an interesting metaphor.

But seriously, no.

The meme of "Biden is a buffon" needs to go die in a fire - The guy has been in the senate since Paul Ryan was two, and he's actually amazingly sharp. The first time I recall seeing him was on '04 when he took John Ashcroft's song and dance over not releasing memos written by his department on the subject of torture, to task, cutting through the legalese and to the heart of the matter brutally.

He's not a codgerly old man who doesn't know better, like Ron Paul. He does know better, and he has heard every single argument that Ryan could possibly bring up a hundred times.

southsiderosie

Joe Biden says crazy ****, but he's kind of like a batty uncle - you know he is going to say something crazy, but you also know what he means.

In addition, there is not one person on either side of the aisle in Congress who can say with a straight face that Biden isn't one of the most knowledgable people in Washington when it comes to US foreign policy. Given the state of the world today, this is not a bad thing.

I don't see any real reason to drop Biden from the ticket, and they certainly aren't going to do it less than a month from the convention. They knew before they picked him that they would have to deal with these kinds of eruptions occasionally. But they also know that Biden doesn't have any further political ambitions after the Obama administration and so he is going to call things as he sees them, instead of making decisions with an eye towards the next election. Given the sycophants in Obama's inner circle, this is also not a bad thing.

Canvasser

Amerika wrote: »

With the GOP pick of fiscal intellectual Paul Ryan, Biden’s second week-long vacation in little over a month during the campaign, and Joe’s recent slew of gaffes including the toxic "They gonna put y'all back in chains" told to a group with a high majority of African Americans in attendance, there is suddenly renewed speculation that Joe will be dropped from the ticket. CNN is also reporting that some senior advisers are not happy, calling his recent gaffes "not helpful, and that "they believe the vice president has knocked them off track." Not good going into a tough election.

The Democratic party convention is being held the 3rd to the 6th of September. That leaves a little over 20 days to make a decision. It would probably be a good idea for Obama to drop Biden (and Joe could feign new founded health issues), as he doesn’t really bring much this time around. But I wonder who would be a good replacement?

I know Hillary Clinton’s name repeatedly comes up, but I just don’t think she would do it. That doesn’t leave many others… Colin Powell perhaps?

Fiscal intellectual? LOL :pac:

Denerick

I've always liked Joe Biden but he is a dreadful politician. Sometimes he dares to say what he thinks. Not what others think he should think.

Anyway, who would replace him? Hillary wouldn't be a bad option, putting her in pole position for 2016 (She'd have a good chance at winning) There are a few democratic grandee's you could roll out. Maybe someone as crazy as Barney Frank? That would energise Obama's liberal base (Though every bigot in the country would turn out to vote against him)

hooradiation

White house says "not dropping biden"

Asked about McCain's remarks Wednesday, Carney said: "One place I would not go for advice on presidential running mates is John McCain."

I guess that's him told.

southsiderosie

Denerick wrote: »

I've always liked Joe Biden but he is a dreadful politician. Sometimes he dares to say what he thinks. Not what others think he should think.

Anyway, who would replace him? Hillary wouldn't be a bad option, putting her in pole position for 2016 (She'd have a good chance at winning) There are a few democratic grandee's you could roll out. Maybe someone as crazy as Barney Frank? That would energise Obama's liberal base (Though every bigot in the country would turn out to vote against him)

Nah, Frank is done with politics, and putting someone from Massachusetts won't help Obama anyway, since that state will go blue.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz could be an interesting choice. She's a congresswoman from Florida, a major swing state, the current head of the DNC, and she's been a very active supporter of both gay rights and policies targeting senior citizens (two of the key constituencies in her district). She is also very pro-Israel - although less so that her predecessor, Peter Deutsch, so she has caught some **** for it (there are a lot of ultra-conservative Hasidic Jews in South Florida).

I can only imagine the absolute frenzy of hatred in some quarters that would result from an Obama/Wasserman-Schultz ticket - a black man AND a Jewish woman? Horrors. :P

Brian?

Denerick wrote: »

I've always liked Joe Biden but he is a dreadful politician. Sometimes he dares to say what he thinks. Not what others think he should

I don't think he's a bad politician at all. I see what you're saying, he says things no one else would dare. But given that he's not top of the ticket, he has that little bit more freedom. He's basically Obamas pitbull right now. He's just use his mad genius to push the selection of Ryan off the "front page".

Isn't he tied for the longest sitting Senator ever? Not bad.

Also, I love him. He has personality and balls. He'll never be elected POTUS though.

Brian?

Also, Paul Ryan, fiscal intellectual? You're joking right?

Biden will take him to school in the VP debate. It will be fun to watch.

matthew8

briankeating wrote: »

Biden will take him to school in the VP debate. It will be fun to watch.

That guy who scraped past Palin?

southsiderosie wrote: »

I can only imagine the absolute frenzy of hatred in some quarters that would result from an Obama/Wasserman-Schultz ticket - a black man AND a Jewish woman? Horrors. :P

And that she's arrogant and obnoxious. Wasserman-Schultz is toxic to many, and her appointment as VP candidate would turn me into an ardent Romney supporter. Wasserman-Schultz is viewed by conservatives as a pure party hack. Conservative turnout would skyrocket.

Brian?

matthew8 wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

Biden will take him to school in the VP debate. It will be fun to watch.

That guy who scraped past Palin?

He completely outclassed Palin. You need to rewatch that debate.

Biden was basically in trouble in that debate because if he unleashed on Palin he would have been painted as a bully. instead he took tthe sensible course and answered every question directly and refused to get drawn into the bull**** Palin was pedalling. I dare you to rewatch that debate and find an example of Palin giving a better answer to a question that was actually asked. I`ll give her 10/10 for winking though.

Biden WILL unleash on Ryan though and it`ll be great .

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

No

I hope you're right!

(4 articles on Drudge Report right now hinting at his being dropped from the Democratic ticket, and a couple even on some Democratic friendly media sites also)

What dem friendly sites?

Amerika

That's an interesting metaphor.

Fiscal intellectual? LOL

Also, Paul Ryan, fiscal intellectual? You're joking right?

You don’t get to become Chairman of the House Budget Committee on good looks alone. He is also a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee.

Here is a good example of his fiscal intellect. Ryan schooling the President on spending.

What dem friendly sites?

I remember that day seeing such sources as Politico, HufPo, ant the DailyBeast tackling the rumors.

Anyway, it’s a moot point now becasue yesterday the White House said President Obama has no intention of getting rid of Vice President Biden as his running mate. And they wouldn’t lie to us… right?

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

Nah, Frank is done with politics, and putting someone from Massachusetts won't help Obama anyway, since that state will go blue.

Barney would be a terrible choice because he would turn off a lot of those who lost money in the housing crisis of 2008. And that's a whole lot of people.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz could be an interesting choice. She's a congresswoman from Florida, a major swing state, the current head of the DNC, and she's been a very active supporter of both gay rights and policies targeting senior citizens (two of the key constituencies in her district). She is also very pro-Israel - although less so that her predecessor, Peter Deutsch, so she has caught some **** for it (there are a lot of ultra-conservative Hasidic Jews in South Florida).

I can only imagine the absolute frenzy of hatred in some quarters that would result from an Obama/Wasserman-Schultz ticket - a black man AND a Jewish woman? Horrors. :P

Hmmm… Partisan much? A democratic Obama/Wasserman-Schultz ticket would be a gift to THE VAST MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS, but not because of "a black man AND a Jewish woman," but because of a failed presidency aligning with a liar and propagandist hack -- who by some good accounts is out as DNC Chairperson (regardless of how the election goes) because of her toxic nature and comments.

Amerika

The whole thing gets curiouser and curiouser. It is now being reported by author Ed Klein that Hillary Clinton turned down an offer by top Obama aide Valerie Jarrett to replace Joe Biden on the ticket two weeks ago. It makes sense that she would have problems for an election run in 2016 regardless of the 2012 results if she jumps on the ticket. Seemingly, if the Obama/Clinton ticket looses, she would have a tough time 4 years later... and if they would win, President Obama’s plans on moving hard left in his second term would also cause her much pain in a bid for 2016.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-rejected-vp-slot-to-ready-her-own-2016-run/article/2505206#.UC5q5N1lREN

Evan Bayh or Mike Bloomberg anyone?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

You don’t get to become Chairman of the House Budget Committee on good looks alone. He is also a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee.

No, you get there by back scratching and glad handing your way up the greasy political pole. Actual intellect has very little to do with it.

Here is a good example of his fiscal intellect. Ryan schooling the President on spending.

That is not schooling Obama, that is grand standing a political view point. Schooling requires teaching.

You only believe it's school because philisophically you agree with Ryan.

I remember that day seeing such sources as Politico, HufPo, ant the DailyBeast tackling the rumors.

Proof of such happenings? I don't think they exist

hooradiation

Amerika wrote: »

Here is a good example of his fiscal intellect. Ryan schooling the President on spending.

Your video would be more effective if they weren't so cowardly as to completely cut Obama's response.

The idea that Ryan is intelligent or competent is laughable. Every proposal the man makes is based on fantasy and the "numbers" he quotes never add up. He's a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like.

spank_inferno

Biden will remain on the ticket for sure.

However if elected it does raise question for 4 years time.

Will VP Biden remain the presumptive Democrat nominee?
Or would he face someone from within the party in a primary.

martingriff

hooradiation wrote: »

That's an interesting metaphor.

But seriously, no.

The meme of "Biden is a buffon" needs to go die in a fire - The guy has been in the senate since Paul Ryan was two, and he's actually amazingly sharp. The first time I recall seeing him was on '04 when he took John Ashcroft's song and dance over not releasing memos written by his department on the subject of torture, to task, cutting through the legalese and to the heart of the matter brutally.

He's not a codgerly old man who doesn't know better, like Ron Paul. He does know better, and he has heard every single argument that Ryan could possibly bring up a hundred times.

You do know that his 1 amazing speech as senator was a complete rip off from someone else even though he denies it. Everything will be used used on Obama and Biden is one. If and its a big if they replace Biden they need to make sure they pick is better. I believe he is going but i think they are hoping Obama will win and then he will leave for personal reasons

martingriff

I would say the only way Biden would be gone now is if Hillary was persuaded to take it and not retire

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

Proof of such happenings? I don't think they exist

How good of you to request proof 7 days later. :rolleyes: (I’ll be sure to repay the favor some time.)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/15/joe-biden-s-chains-comment-and-the-racial-double-standard.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79763.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/sarah-palin-biden-chains_n_1778571.html

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

Proof of such happenings? I don't think they exist

How good of you to request proof 7 days later. :rolleyes: (I’ll be sure to repay the favor some time.)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/15/joe-biden-s-chains-comment-and-the-racial-double-standard.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79763.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/sarah-palin-biden-chains_n_1778571.html

So you have quotes from Palin and McCain plus an editorial by a conservative writer. Nothing partisan there is there?

I can't see how you could possibly see this as "liberal news sources" campaigning for Biden to be replaced. It's merely reporting on chatter from the decent minded McCain and the simple minded Palin.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

Proof of such happenings? I don't think they exist

How good of you to request proof 7 days later. :rolleyes: (I’ll be sure to repay the favor some time.)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/15/joe-biden-s-chains-comment-and-the-racial-double-standard.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79763.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/sarah-palin-biden-chains_n_1778571.html

I notice as well that you dodge the issue of Ryans so called "Fiscal intellect" rather than trying to rebut it. Does this mean we've reached an agreement that he did not in fact school Obama on spending?

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

So you have quotes from Palin and McCain plus an editorial by a conservative writer. Nothing partisan there is there?

I can't see how you could possibly see this as "liberal news sources" campaigning for Biden to be replaced. It's merely reporting on chatter from the decent minded McCain and the simple minded Palin.

Hmmm… Another case of "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." .. eh? The MSM is good at ignoring, or burying, news stories they feel wasn’t newsworthy. I guess they felt news regarding calls for Biden to be replaced merited prominence on their sites.

Reindeer

I'd rather have Biden as president than Obama, Romney, and Ryan put together. And I am an independent and a former republican. I would hazzard a guess he'll do just fine by the dems.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm… Another case of "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." .. eh? The MSM is good at ignoring, or burying, news stories they feel wasn’t newsworthy. I guess they felt news regarding calls for Biden to be replaced merited prominence on their sites.

So here we go again with the main stream media nonsense. Politico and the Huff Post are not mainstream media.


I also have no idea what the part in bold means. As usual you aren't actually addressing a point that was made.

Denerick

Only the most hysterical of minds would consider 'Politico' to have a liberal bias. Its annoying neutral. If anything it has a bias to 'fairness' - even though many extreme conservative positions betray delusional thinking.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

So here we go again with the main stream media nonsense. Politico and the Huff Post are not mainstream media.

Please point me in this post where I claimed Politico and HufPo were.

I also have no idea what the part in bold means. As usual you aren't actually addressing a point that was made.

You’ve twisted most everything I’ve said. I was either going to ask you to guide me to the "Liberal Translator" you use, or go with Bill Clinton’s defense of his lie to the Grand Jury… I went with Clinton’s most infamous quote. Sometimes I guess I fail at humor.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Please point me in this post where I claimed Politico and HufPo were.

You said it 2 posts ago:

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm… Another case of "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." .. eh? The MSM is good at ignoring, or burying, news stories they feel wasn’t newsworthy. I guess they felt news regarding calls for Biden to be replaced merited prominence on their sites.

Unless MSM doesn't mean mainstream media.

You’ve twisted most everything I’ve said. I was either going to ask you to guide me to the "Liberal Translator" you use, or go with Bill Clinton’s defense of his lie to the Grand Jury… I went with Clinton’s most infamous quote. Sometimes I guess I fail at humor.

I haven't twisted anything, mainly because you have yet to address a point I made. You simply dodge them and throw up some nonsense. Most of the time I can't even figure out what point you're trying to make.

I've told you before, don't call me a liberal. I am not liberal. I am socialist.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

You said it 2 posts ago:

Unless MSM doesn't mean mainstream media.

I’ll give you that one. My comment was meant for the MSN in general, and that those organizations utilized the same tactics, but I can see how it can be construed as you saw it. Three points awarded to brian.

I've told you before, don't call me a liberal. I am not liberal. I am socialist.

I write “4 articles on Drudge Report right now hinting at his being dropped from the Democratic ticket, and a couple even on some Democratic friendly media sites also.” You read “I can't see how you could possibly see this as "liberal news sources" campaigning for Biden to be replaced.”

Woudn't a socialist go to a Liberal Translator first if a Socialist Translator wasn't available? And wouldn't they be very similar?

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Woudn't a socialist go to a Liberal Translator first if a Socialist Translator wasn't available? And wouldn't they be very similar?

No. Not unless you don't understand the difference between poverty reduction within the current system and poverty reduction by destroying the current system. The difference is quite vast. I don't know what the smiley was about, I'll assume it was in jest.

Memnoch

Denerick wrote: »

No. Not unless you don't understand the difference between poverty reduction within the current system and poverty reduction by destroying the current system. The difference is quite vast. I don't know what the smiley was about, I'll assume it was in jest.

What you have to understand, is that to the current GOP faithful, anything that is even close to the centre is extreme marxism/communism/socialism.

Never mind ideas that would be considered truly liberal or socialist. You have to give them credit. By simply enough of them putting their fingers in their ears and going 'na na na na,' for long enough, with support of media outlets such as fox et all, they've actually managed to shift the conversation where gibberish and nonsense somehow become part of mainstream debate.

So you get a clearly centre-right president whose policies are more in line with republican presidents of the past than anyone else labelled as some kind of socialist.

Same goes for this whole MSM media bias nonsense. They just keep shouting loud enough and throw up silly conspiracy theories and then ask you to disprove them, which is taking strawman to a whole new level. Because for them, until the homepages of cnn, msnbc and everyone else remotely normal look the same as foxnews or townhall.com, or look like they were put together by either limbaugh, coulter or krauthammer, it is evidence of MSM 'bias.'

The only thing I can see that the MSM is biased against is the kind of illogic that is now the mainstay of the republican base.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

So here we go again with the main stream media nonsense...

Memnoch wrote: »

The only thing I can see that the MSM is biased against is the kind of illogic that is now the mainstay of the republican base.

Oh bother… Shall we just keep our heads buried in the sand on the subject?

Well there most certainly is political bias in the media. And it comes in the guise of political donations.

According to the NY Times... Time Warner (CNN and the Time magazine), and which also owns Warner Brothers and HBO, has contributed $191,834 to Obama this election cycle, and only $10,750 to Romney.

Walt Disney Company (ABC and ESPN) donated $125,856 to Obama and $9,950 to Romney.

Comcast Corporation (NBC Universal) has given $206,056 to Obama and $20,500 to Romney.

And here’s the shocker… Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation (Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and the 20th Century Fox) has contributed $58,825 to Obama’s campaign, and only $2,750 to Romney’s campaign. Overall, News Corp has donated $504,162 to individuals, Super PACs and candidates in 2012, with 8 of the top 10 recipients being Democrats.

Of course we shouldn’t ever think those sorts of things would leech over into their coverage and treatment of the candidates… right? :rolleyes: But hey… if we keep yelling there is no media bias loud enough and long enough, people will believe us. :pac:

Memnoch

So News Corp media outlets, like Fox News are biased in favour of Obama and the democrats?

Oh my god!

So all the negative coverage is actually a smoke screen!

My eyes are now open!

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Oh bother… Shall we just keep our heads buried in the sand on the subject?

Well there most certainly is political bias in the media. And it comes in the guise of political donations.

According to the NY Times... Time Warner (CNN and the Time magazine), and which also owns Warner Brothers and HBO, has contributed $191,834 to Obama this election cycle, and only $10,750 to Romney.

Walt Disney Company (ABC and ESPN) donated $125,856 to Obama and $9,950 to Romney.

Comcast Corporation (NBC Universal) has given $206,056 to Obama and $20,500 to Romney.

And here’s the shocker… Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation (Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and the 20th Century Fox) has contributed $58,825 to Obama’s campaign, and only $2,750 to Romney’s campaign. Overall, News Corp has donated $504,162 to individuals, Super PACs and candidates in 2012, with 8 of the top 10 recipients being Democrats.

Of course we shouldn’t ever think those sorts of things would leech over into their coverage and treatment of the candidates… right? :rolleyes: But hey… if we keep yelling there is no media bias loud enough and long enough, people will believe us. :pac:

Well done on producing so many facts that prove nothing. A truly exceptional effort.

So everyone donates to Obama because he's the obvious winner. Big woop. The fact that the company that owns Fox 'News' donates so much to Obama completely disproves your own point. Fox is not biased towards Obama even though they donate a lot, therefore donations do not create editorial bias. Simples.

Corporations donate the most to who they think will win.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I’ll give you that one. My comment was meant for the MSN in general, and that those organizations utilized the same tactics, but I can see how it can be construed as you saw it. Three points awarded to brian.

That could well the most condescending concession of a point I've ever seen.

I write “4 articles on Drudge Report right now hinting at his being dropped from the Democratic ticket, and a couple even on some Democratic friendly media sites also.” You read “I can't see how you could possibly see this as "liberal news sources" campaigning for Biden to be replaced.”

Wouldn't a socialist go to a Liberal Translator first if a Socialist Translator wasn't available? And wouldn't they be very similar?

Liberals and Socialists are nothing alike. Socialists have a commitment to a philosophy. You clearly have zero understanding of socialism, not really surprising given your own party has called Obama a Marxist , when at best he's center right. I wouldn't even call him liberal, although I would struggle to define a liberal to be honest.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

So News Corp media outlets, like Fox News are biased in favour of Obama and the democrats?

Oh my god!

So all the negative coverage is actually a smoke screen!

My eyes are now open!

Hmmmm… FoxNews is only one segment of News Corp. And the news shows at FoxNews (which do not include the pundit’s shows… which I agree do favor R’s) have been noted to be very fair and balanced.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

Corporations donate the most to who they think will win.

And perhaps make an effort to ensure the win?