Biden's Replacement And Trump's VP Pick

Examining the game theory of the last two big surprises before November's election.

If there’s one political rule that always seems to hold true, it’s that both parties will wind up choosing the worst possible selection for whatever needs they seek to fulfill.

That’s just the miracle of government. Who knew that doing things as inefficiently as humanly possible — selecting candidates, spending tax money, passing legislation, appointing cabinets — was such an art form, reserved for the likes of brilliant visionaries like Jeb Bush, Jasmine Crockett, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell and the likes?

The talent is uncanny. If you gave me 20 years as President, all $80 trillion in tax receipts the country brought in over that time and made it my one sole objective to do so, I still wouldn’t be able to engineer the following headline during my tenure:

Anyway, every two years, we have a major round of elections, and every two years I’m stunned that the slate of candidates we put up for election are passed off as representing the best we can do on both sides of the aisle.

And every four years, it seems like there are always running jokes during the presidential election that most people would vote for literally anybody other than the two choices they are being given.

As someone who leans conservative, I hope this maxim of choosing the worst possible replacement continues to hold true when it comes to Joe Biden’s coming replacement.

It seems fairly obvious at this point that the generally incomprehensible Biden is going to have to be swapped out with someone who is at least semi-conscious. If Democrats don’t do it between now and the election, Biden almost certainly will (1) lose the election or (2) not be finishing a second term.

The good news for conservatives is that Democrats don’t show any signs of letting up from their current strategy of torpedoing their own party.

I’ve mentioned in passing that I think a long line of centrist Democrats, including the likes of former candidate Dean Phillips or potentially Michelle Obama, would throttle Donald Trump in a national election.

---

This will be an unpopular statement with some, but I believe Trump is beating Biden by a wide margin not because Trump is the overwhelming objective favorite of the country, but because he’s the overwhelming favorite relative to the idea of another 4 years of Joe Biden.

If you were to stack Trump up against any middle aged centrist Democrat with a pulse who promises to pull back on woke policy and return the country to some form of normalcy, he’d likely slip significantly in the polls. I don’t know why this is so difficult for Democrats to understand, but then again they don’t exactly seem to be the party of common sense decision making. If liberals ignore this obvious decision that could instantly win them the election and instead continue playing “the game” that dictates people who have “put their time in” deserve a chance more than somebody like Dean Phillips, they’re going to lose the election.

If you think Hillary Clinton’s appearance at the Tony Awards the other night was a coincidence, think again. I think it is a sign there’s a very real chance that she is in the running to replace Joe Biden. If I had to guess, second to Hillary would be Kamala Harris because the Democrats probably feel like they “owe it” to her, not only for being current vice president but also for DEI purposes.

I can’t even begin to tell you how terrible either of these selections would be, not only for the country but for the Democratic Party. Both candidates are unbearable, and the country has already had their fill of both of them.

Clinton would be the closer race of the two, in my opinion, because if you recall correctly, Harris got curb-stomped during the Democratic primaries while making her run for president.

For the most part, it appears the country still finds her detestable.

To boot, the last four years have proven, on top of that, that she’s an airhead.

Either way, the nation would see both of these candidates as more of the same, and they would do little to advance Democrats’ against Donald Trump.

---

But it isn’t just Democrats that are horrific political strategists, and all one needs to do is look at Donald Trump’s shortlist for vice president to understand that.

When I read the list of those in serious consideration, I couldn’t help but quote this scene in Major League:

“Ricky Vaughn? Willie Hayes. I never heard of most of these guys. Mitchell Friedman?”

“Who’re these fuckin’ guys?”

At first glance, it appears Trump’s strategy in picking a vice president is to get somebody milquetoast enough to move him closer to the center, not eclipse his bombast, and support him vehemently. We’ll call it the “Pence strategy”.

But as Trump quickly found out with endorsing Mike Johnson for the Speaker of the House role, a good portion of his base wants somebody who isn’t a centrist, and instead unapologetically supports the Make America Great Again agenda.

It’s baffling to me that with potential picks like Tulsi Gabbard, Kari Lake, and Vivek Ramaswamy out there, Trump would be mulling over a list that includes the likes of “Little” Marco Rubio and Doug Burgum, both of whom have the personality and likability of a damp washcloth.

I think Trump could be in the right neighborhood looking at somebody like Byron Donalds, who is strong and outspoken, and would obviously give Trump further reach into the black community, but I think the key issue he needs to defend heading into November is the abortion issue. He’s not going to lose on the issues of law and order, inflation or the economy, that’s for sure.

Trump selecting a female vice president would check a lot of boxes: it softens up his image, it gives him an inroad with women on the abortion issue, and it checks the equality box that a lot of undecided/independent liberal-ish voters close to the center wouldn’t mind checking off.

I do understand the strategy of not wanting to change much when you’re already ahead, and I understand a guy like Doug Burgum has appeal because he brings nothing positive or negative to the campaign, but I do think Trump doesn’t need to totally focus on playing defense with his pick. Someone like Ramaswamy would bring another sharp tongue, adept at slicing and dicing through the mainstream media's bullshit. Former Democrat Gabbard would bring inroads not only to women voters, but to Democrats. Someone like Elise Stefanik or Kari Lake would also be a value add if Trump needs to defend the abortion issue as top priority.

---

The Democrats still have a legitimate shot to pull this election out, but their window to make a change is closing every day. The nonsense of not being able to pull Biden out of the race because he’s an incumbent will come back to bite them in the ass if that’s the road they want to take.

Perhaps the strategy is to allow Biden to humiliate himself at the first debate so whoever they put in his place for the second one looks that much better. But as days and weeks pass by without making a change, they are losing crucial time. They will need to warm up a second candidate — and entire second campaign — to the public, even if it is somebody they already know like Hillary Clinton.

The name of the game for the conservatives is simply not to screw anything up. I understand that there’s a case for playing “prevent defense” and slotting in somebody like Burgum as vice president, but resting on their laurels when they’re only ahead slightly could wind up doing more harm than good.

The Philadelphia Eagles beat the New England Patriots in Super Bowl LII by consistently being aggressive. When you are going up against the entire Washington machine in the Democratic Party—essentially Tom Brady’s dynastic New England Patriots of the political world—sometimes it can do more harm than good to keep your foot off the gas instead of on it. Sometimes you have to go for the strategic jugular.

If you were a Democratic strategist or a Republican strategist, who would your choices be for Biden’s replacement and Trump’s VP? After all, they can’t be any worse than the leading candidates for both as they stand right now.

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. These positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.