To: Lee Lichterman III who wrote (14937 ) 1/11/2021 7:39:42 PM From: ajtj99 1 RecommendationRecommended By Lee Lichterman III
Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 97958 I think the market has almost implicitly discounted for a possible 4-years or less of Biden, don't you? Most of the staffing choices have strong government backgrounds which, combined with a dedicated civil service, would insure continuity. We saw in the last 4-years that even when people come in and attempt to blow up institutions, there is a resiliency from the established traditions and norms that help keep things in the government running. Harris, by all appearances, is a shrewd politician. However, if she had to step in soon, her lack of executive experience would be a liability. I think a year of executive experience as VP could have her sufficiently prepared for the big chair should it come to that. That's a year of National Security meetings and briefings, legislative heavy lifting, diplomatic work, and foreign policy. Most of the people who have reached the highest office in the land have had executive experience, either as a governor or a vice president. Are you thinking of the Zero Factor, which worked up to (and almost through) 1980. simple.wikipedia.org The Biden administration is going to have a big push for the first 100-days. I suspect most of the legislation passed during the 4-years will come in the first 6-months, as mid-term campaigning starts up soon, and the projected mid-term losses would flip Congress to the Republicans if they can remain a cohesive party post-Trump. As for who the a VP pick would be should something happen to Biden, the VP has only as much power as the President cedes to them. They could be pretty much in charge, like Dick Cheney was, or they could be virtual wallpaper, like Dan Quayle was. I suspect the market would prefer something in between. The Dems would probably prefer someone from the Midwest or South to help them in elections.