Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 03-17-2020, 08:30 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think Biden made a mistake by announcing it this way. By saying he was going to pick "a woman" he's feeding into the accusation of identity politics that Republicans love to beat the drum for. He should have named a particular individual and then said she was chosen because she was the best person for the job.
Do you think that the fact that Reagan promised to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court will concern them about possible hypocrisy?
  #102  
Old 03-17-2020, 08:33 AM
Shodan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Do you think that the fact that Reagan promised to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court will concern them about possible hypocrisy?
I for one will never vote for Reagan again.

Regards,
Shodan
  #103  
Old 03-17-2020, 12:58 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,635
How exactly did he phrase it, anyway, and in what context? I'm having a hard time figuring out any way to work "I'm going to pick a woman, but I won't say who specifically" into an answer without it sounding artificial.

OK, I just looked it up, and indeed, it sounds kind of artificial. But the context was a question about how he would make sure his administration handled women's issues fairly, so it's at least relevant.
  #104  
Old 03-17-2020, 01:03 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Do you think that the fact that Reagan promised to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court will concern them about possible hypocrisy?
Is this a joke?

If you're serious, I'll say that I don't think the Republicans will have any problems with the hypocrisy of once again declaring a different standard for the Democrats than they do for themselves.
  #105  
Old 03-17-2020, 01:32 PM
gatorslap is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 786
I was previously thinking optimistically about Tammy Duckworth, but, and I hate to say this, I think the "Chinese virus"/"kung flu" (ugh) changes that calculation. As a general rule major crises lead to increased prejudice, and there's an undeniable rise in antipathy towards people of East/Southeast Asian descent right now. I don't think this is dispelled by either the fact that she served in the US military or the fact that Thailand is not China.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think Biden made a mistake by announcing it this way. By saying he was going to pick "a woman" he's feeding into the accusation of identity politics that Republicans love to beat the drum for. He should have named a particular individual and then said she was chosen because she was the best person for the job.
I agree with this but I'd go a little further. Once the running mate is named, regardless of her merits, Republicans will use the clip of Biden saying that to cast aspersions on her record or fitness. They'll call her an affirmative action hire who was chosen solely for her gender (and race if she's non-white) and is not capable enough to assume the presidency. Or if she's very highly credentialed they might instead label some aspect of her record "toxic" and say she's getting a "pass" because she's a woman but it would've been a "dealbreaker" if she were a man. Maybe they would've tried to say that anyway, but the video clip of Biden "admitting" it will give it more traction.

I know many of us see the whole "identity politics" thing as a sideshow and largely a constructed narrative. And we are correct! But it's been enormously effective messaging for the Republicans in certain areas. It doesn't matter if their narrative is untrue, logically inconsistent, or weakly supported. Democrats really really should've learned this by now. You can't expect people to spot fallacies or consult the fact checkers, you have to actively counter their messaging in word and deed, and you have to avoid giving it fuel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Do you think that the fact that Reagan promised to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court will concern them about possible hypocrisy?
Very few if any things concern Republicans about possible hypocrisy.

Speaking of Reagan, should Biden be worried about being reminiscent of Walter Mondale? You know, the other former vice president who ran with a female running mate against a Republican incumbent? I know that's superficial but it might influence how he's perceived by old people in the general. I don't dislike Geraldine Ferraro but picking her wasn't doing the Mondale campaign any favors.
__________________
The mind is a terrible thing to taste.
  #106  
Old 03-17-2020, 01:37 PM
gatorslap is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 786
edit: duplicate post
__________________
The mind is a terrible thing to taste.

Last edited by gatorslap; 03-17-2020 at 01:38 PM.
  #107  
Old 03-17-2020, 02:18 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatorslap View Post
Speaking of Reagan, should Biden be worried about being reminiscent of Walter Mondale? You know, the other former vice president who ran with a female running mate against a Republican incumbent? I know that's superficial but it might influence how he's perceived by old people in the general. I don't dislike Geraldine Ferraro but picking her wasn't doing the Mondale campaign any favors.
Ferraro actually gave Mondale quite a boost at the time of her choice. He was trailing quite significantly and Ferraro helped with the poll numbers. Until her wealthy husband refused to release his tax returns and Ferraro's finances became a huge issue.
  #108  
Old 03-17-2020, 02:23 PM
Nonsuch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 5,897
I really don't see Republicans getting anywhere with charges of tokenism or political correctness. Unless Biden nominates a nuclear (by GOP standards) candidate like AOC, nobody's really going to care one way or another.
  #109  
Old 03-17-2020, 07:38 PM
Win Place Show is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 308
Not interested in debating the merits of either Facebook or Politico.com (which I happen to be a fan of both) but just to further the discussion - they posted an Op-Ed link on their Facebook page - of one guy's top 12 options of Biden's VP running-mate choices.

I think we've Bingo'd 8 of these 12 within this thread, but there were some I hadn't heard/thought of.

Link w/ spoilers below

12. Stacey Abrams
11. Elizabeth Warren
10. Susan Rice
9. Laura Kelly
8. Gretchen Whitmer
7. Val Demings
6. Michelle Lujan Grisham
5. Catherine Cortez Masto
4. Tammy Duckworth
3. Tammy Baldwin
2. Amy Klobuchar
1. Kamala Harris

I suppose at this point I'd be stunned if his choice didn't come from the above list.
  #110  
Old 03-17-2020, 07:44 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I for one will never vote for Reagan again.

Regards,
Shodan
Care to address the substance, or no? Republicans were fine with "identity politics" when a Republican vowed to use gender as a part of his decision. So, why not fine with it now?
  #111  
Old 03-17-2020, 07:50 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Care to address the substance, or no? Republicans were fine with "identity politics" when a Republican vowed to use gender as a part of his decision. So, why not fine with it now?
Respectfully, can we please not relitigate Reagan and identity politics in this thread?
  #112  
Old 03-17-2020, 10:41 PM
erysichthon's Avatar
erysichthon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonsuch View Post
I really don't see Republicans getting anywhere with charges of tokenism or political correctness. Unless Biden nominates a nuclear (by GOP standards) candidate like AOC, nobody's really going to care one way or another.
Yeah, this is my take on the situation too. People are overthinking this.

If Biden hadn't made that announcement at the debate, and selected a woman later, he would inevitably be asked, "Did you consider any male candidates?" If he says "Yes," it's going to sound disingenuous, because the buzz for weeks has been that Biden absolutely HAS to pick a woman to bring the party together. If he truthfully answers "No," then people will wonder why he didn't just say so up front.

Republicans are going to cry "Identity politics!" no matter what, because that's what they do. To them, the only way to avoid identity politics is to elect while males to everything.

The idea that GOP reaction can be micromanaged is wishful thinking. There is NO VP candidate who will make Republicans nod sagely and say "Ooh, good choice." Whoever Biden picks, they'll denounce as the worst person ever. All he can do is go with someone who has a solid resume and minimal baggage. As long as he doesn't make a bizarre selection like AOC or Oprah Winfrey, he'll be fine.
  #113  
Old 03-17-2020, 10:57 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by erysichthon View Post
As long as he doesn't make a bizarre selection like AOC or Oprah Winfrey, he'll be fine.
AOC is ineligible. Oprah, though... now there's an idea.

  #114  
Old 03-17-2020, 11:21 PM
erysichthon's Avatar
erysichthon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defensive Indifference View Post
AOC is ineligible.
Oh, duh. I should have used Rashida Tlaib as the other example. She could deliver Michigan, right?
  #115  
Old 03-18-2020, 08:48 AM
split p&j is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 418
He lost it with this its going to be a woman thing, and VP was key for him. White women voted for Trump, knowing all his grab them by the pussy talk, and will do so again. They really don't care, they see their sons as Trump. A black woman as VP is really a non starter, the country will not vote that ticket. Trump wins 2020 thanks to this blunder.

Last edited by split p&j; 03-18-2020 at 08:51 AM.
  #116  
Old 03-18-2020, 09:11 AM
BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,347
It won't be a token pick the way that Ferraro and Palin were. It will be someone well qualified. I'm thinking Harris has the inside track and Klobuchar also in the running. Whitmer I think lacks the national policy experience.
  #117  
Old 03-18-2020, 09:16 AM
split p&j is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 418
It's already a token. I don't understand why, even if he was going that way, he'd say it now. It's going to look like a token no matter what. It was a blunder no question.
  #118  
Old 03-18-2020, 09:34 AM
Nonsuch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 5,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
It's already a token. I don't understand why, even if he was going that way, he'd say it now. It's going to look like a token no matter what. It was a blunder no question.
Since it's seemingly made no dent in his support, I'd say that's a little premature.
  #119  
Old 03-18-2020, 09:39 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
Yeah, your confidence that voters will feel the same way as you is misplaced.
  #120  
Old 03-18-2020, 09:45 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
It's already a token. I don't understand why, even if he was going that way, he'd say it now. It's going to look like a token no matter what. It was a blunder no question.
I suspect it was to ensure that the headlines after the debate were this, rather than Biden's teams worries that the headlines would be that Biden sucks at debating. Maybe it wasn't necessary, since he wasn't terrible (he was just okay, IMO, but far from terrible), but it did get a lot of attention, as I suspect it was meant to.
  #121  
Old 03-18-2020, 10:02 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,635
On thinking about it, I think it was still a mistake the way he said it. I'd have said something more like "My top three choices for the position are all women". That makes it more about those particular individuals, each of whom is individually qualified, and it would if anything have got even more attention, as it'd invite speculation about who those top three are. It'd still lock him into choosing a woman, because after a comment like that, choosing a man would mean that he's settling for his fourth choice, but that's no worse than the situation he's in now.

And of course, this doesn't actually depend at all on what his actual shortlist looks like. Even if he already knows exactly who he wants, he can't say that yet, or people will ask "Well, who is it?". And he can't say a number that's too high, because if too many of the top picks are women, that makes it obvious that they are being chosen for "identity politics" reasons. Three sounds to me like the right middle ground, there.
  #122  
Old 03-18-2020, 08:09 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,480
I thought Biden was far better than "just okay" at the debate. And I don't just say that because I back him: I fully acknowledge that he had some very rough performances (as well as some "just okay" ones) earlier in the campaign.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #123  
Old 03-19-2020, 02:47 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
On thinking about it, I think it was still a mistake the way he said it. I'd have said something more like "My top three choices for the position are all women". That makes it more about those particular individuals, each of whom is individually qualified, and it would if anything have got even more attention, as it'd invite speculation about who those top three are. It'd still lock him into choosing a woman, because after a comment like that, choosing a man would mean that he's settling for his fourth choice, but that's no worse than the situation he's in now.

And of course, this doesn't actually depend at all on what his actual shortlist looks like. Even if he already knows exactly who he wants, he can't say that yet, or people will ask "Well, who is it?". And he can't say a number that's too high, because if too many of the top picks are women, that makes it obvious that they are being chosen for "identity politics" reasons. Three sounds to me like the right middle ground, there.
+++.
This is exactly what I'd have posted, had I been smart enough to realize that he'd need a specific number — three is best — for reasons Chronos explains.

Are Klobuchar, Harris, Abrams the "three"? I still think Tammy Duckworth might be better.
  #124  
Old 03-19-2020, 08:28 AM
divemaster's Avatar
divemaster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Gainesville, VA
Posts: 4,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
On thinking about it, I think it was still a mistake the way he said it. I'd have said something more like "My top three choices for the position are all women". That makes it more about those particular individuals, each of whom is individually qualified, and it would if anything have got even more attention, as it'd invite speculation about who those top three are. It'd still lock him into choosing a woman, because after a comment like that, choosing a man would mean that he's settling for his fourth choice, but that's no worse than the situation he's in now.

And of course, this doesn't actually depend at all on what his actual shortlist looks like. Even if he already knows exactly who he wants, he can't say that yet, or people will ask "Well, who is it?". And he can't say a number that's too high, because if too many of the top picks are women, that makes it obvious that they are being chosen for "identity politics" reasons. Three sounds to me like the right middle ground, there.
Yeah, this is really smart. Not just "well, I picked a woman b/c I pretty much had to or my Party would eat me alive," but "I've done due diligence and my top candidates so far are women."
  #125  
Old 03-19-2020, 08:32 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by divemaster View Post
Yeah, this is really smart. Not just "well, I picked a woman b/c I pretty much had to or my Party would eat me alive," but "I've done due diligence and my top candidates so far are women."
But that probably wouldn't have made headlines in the same way. The reason this was said was to make headlines (and cover for a potentially poor debate performance which didn't happen). In my estimation, anyway.
  #126  
Old 03-19-2020, 09:40 AM
Nonsuch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 5,897
Has there been any blowback to Biden's remark anywhere but in this thread? Seriously, I have seen zero think pieces calling Biden out for mishandling the VP "pre-announcement." I could be wrong but I really don't think anyone's troubled by it.
  #127  
Old 03-19-2020, 09:56 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 30,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonsuch View Post
Has there been any blowback to Biden's remark anywhere but in this thread? Seriously, I have seen zero think pieces calling Biden out for mishandling the VP "pre-announcement." I could be wrong but I really don't think anyone's troubled by it.
Maybe on Fox, but that hardly counts.
  #128  
Old 03-19-2020, 10:43 AM
Nonsuch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 5,897
Cool. So maybe people should quit fretting over it? Just a thought.
  #129  
Old 03-19-2020, 11:01 AM
Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I feel like Klobuchar is likely, but I hope it's not her. We've already got a boring guy on the top of the ticket, and while boring might be a refreshing change of pace from Trump, it doesn't have a great track record of winning elections.
Klobuchar is also—rightly or not—the butt of a rumor that became a running joke on VEEP, and by many accounts of former staffer essentially a real life version of Selina Meyer. And honestly, it is unclear what Klobuchar brings to the table for a presidential ticket; she doesn’t seem to have a particularly strong agenda, wide demographic voter appeal, or even any particularly memorable moments beyond that ridiculous Brett Kavanagh hearing. I’m sure that she’s a fine Congressional member for the state of Minnesota, but that translates to national politics the way a Hungarian prhasebook translates to English.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Are Klobuchar, Harris, Abrams the "three"? I still think Tammy Duckworth might be better.
There. Is no question in my mind that Duckworth would be better (at least than Klobuchar and Harris), and despite the supposed baggage of her heritage and birth on foreign soil (to a U.S. citizen and Army veteran), I don’t think she would have any hesitation to responding to any attempted ‘swiftboating’ with a vigorous use of the word “fuck” in a way that John Kerry was too politely reluctant to do. It is long past time for the Democratic Party to keep falling back to the notion that only the white voters really matter in an election; there is a vast untapped market of typical non-voters (as demonstrated both by Obama and by Trump) looking to be engaged by a candidate who stands out as representing their interests, and a vocal demographic of veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and their families who feel very betrayed by politicians who have never faced the kind of trauma and hardship they have for no good result. There would certainly be racist dogwhistles and propaganda slurs against her (or Abrams) but those are people who aren’t going to vote for a Democratic ticket regardless.

Stranger
  #130  
Old 03-19-2020, 02:36 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,816
I agree with Win Place Show's assessment and link above...no way Abrahms is in the top 10 of candidates...running for a governorship, doesn't make you qualified to be VP.
  #131  
Old 03-19-2020, 02:41 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,447
Hey everyone, Stranger Danger. I hadn't realized you were back. Good to see your phosphors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
I’m sure that she’s a fine Congressional member for the state of Minnesota, but that translates to national politics the way a Hungarian prhasebook translates to English.
But I don't get this. How does this differ from the experience of Senator Obama? And isn't it better than the national political experience of Governor Bush II, Governor Clinton, and Governor Reagan? Are you saying that the Vice Presidential experience of Bush I and Nixon and Johnson were game-changers?

Nobody is prepared to be President. Some are less prepared than others, true. **cough** trump **cough** But it's silly to say that a Senator who has been in office for a dozen years knows nothing about national politics.
  #132  
Old 03-19-2020, 03:01 PM
Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
But I don't get this. How does this differ from the experience of Senator Obama? And isn't it better than the national political experience of Governor Bush II, Governor Clinton, and Governor Reagan? Are you saying that the Vice Presidential experience of Bush I and Nixon and Johnson were game-changers?

Nobody is prepared to be President. Some are less prepared than others, true. **cough** trump **cough** But it's silly to say that a Senator who has been in office for a dozen years knows nothing about national politics.
I’m not saying that Klobuchar doesn’t know anything about national politics or couldn’t handle the role of President; alleged temper aside, she seems at least as competent as any other senator (and definitely better than some) and she does seem to be well-regarded by her constituents based on being handily reelected to a second term. But virtually no one outside of Minnesota had heard of her prior to the last presidential election, and based on her performance in this primary cycle she didn’t have much support outside of her base despite some media efforts to primp her as the “centrist female candidate”. So, in other words, she doesn’t bring votes or any particularly appealing ideas to an already milquetoast ticket other than being a woman, and the field is ripe with acceptable female candidates that could broaden the appeal and bring out potential voters who would normally abstain.

Stranger
  #133  
Old 03-19-2020, 03:17 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
I agree with Win Place Show's assessment and link above...no way Abrahms is in the top 10 of candidates...running for a governorship, doesn't make you qualified to be VP.
She may be in the top 10 but she's probably #10. She would be higher if she held statewide office or served in Congress.
  #134  
Old 03-19-2020, 04:43 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,635
Yeah, a senator is a perfectly respectable position to choose a VP from. But there are dozens of Democratic senators. What makes her any better than any of the other senators out there, many of whom do have something that makes them stand out?
  #135  
Old 03-19-2020, 05:06 PM
erysichthon's Avatar
erysichthon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
But that probably wouldn't have made headlines in the same way. The reason this was said was to make headlines (and cover for a potentially poor debate performance which didn't happen). In my estimation, anyway.
This is, I think, the third time you've claimed that the announcement was concocted to distract people from Biden's allegedly-poor debating skills. Do you have even a particle of evidence for this theory? I know you're a sincere guy, but honestly, this is starting to sound like petulant snark from a disappointed Sanders supporter.
  #136  
Old 03-19-2020, 05:50 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonsuch View Post
Has there been any blowback to Biden's remark anywhere but in this thread? Seriously, I have seen zero think pieces calling Biden out for mishandling the VP "pre-announcement." I could be wrong but I really don't think anyone's troubled by it.


Sam Harris threw a fit about it on his podcast (which has millions of listeners, probably more than say your average MSNBC show). I tweeted at him something similar to what I said here, that while I understand where he's coming from, there's a difference between this and the other thing he likened it to--Elizabeth Warren promising that a transgender teen would have the opportunity to vet any candidate she might consider for Secretary of Education. This is really a different case because no woman has ever been a president or vice president. Once that glass ceiling is broken even once, candidates should no longer make promises like this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
And honestly, it is unclear what Klobuchar brings to the table for a presidential ticket; she doesn’t seem to have a particularly strong agenda, wide demographic voter appeal, or even any particularly memorable moments beyond that ridiculous Brett Kavanagh hearing. I’m sure that she’s a fine Congressional member for the state of Minnesota, but that translates to national politics the way a Hungarian prhasebook translates to English.

You don't think a Minnesota senator who consistently wins millions of votes from people in the Upper Midwest who otherwise often vote Republican has some relevancy to an election that will be decided in Wisconsin and Michigan?

And as sad as it is to say, it's just not true that people who have racist or xenophobic attitudes are impossible to get to vote for "all-American" Democrats. There is political science backing this up. Are we just going to scorn the votes of such people on principle when the stakes are so high?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Yeah, a senator is a perfectly respectable position to choose a VP from. But there are dozens of Democratic senators. What makes her any better than any of the other senators out there, many of whom do have something that makes them stand out?

How many of the others did well enough by the DNC's objective standards to qualify for every single debate held until it was down to just Bernie and Joe?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #137  
Old 03-19-2020, 06:00 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
Who cares who matched up to some arbitrary debate qualifying standards? They were made up on the fly for each debate, for the first time ever this year. And that is now some meaningful test for a veep slot?
  #138  
Old 03-19-2020, 07:15 PM
split p&j is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 418
I just don't get this its gotta be a woman thing, I don't understand who he is aiming for with this.

Like I said, white women don't care, we know they voted for Trump, that is a fact. Black men will not vote for a woman as VP, especially a black woman. I'd have to go really deep to explain why but I won't and will just say that black men will just not vote if that is the ticket. White men, come on you're joking right. I consider latinos to me white, for reasons I've said before, so they are a non factor.

I can't stand Trump, but he is sure to win if Biden stays on this course.
  #139  
Old 03-19-2020, 07:16 PM
split p&j is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Upstate
Posts: 418
I just don't get this its gotta be a woman thing, I don't understand who he is aiming for with this.

Like I said, white women don't care, we know they voted for Trump, that is a fact. Black men will not vote for a woman as VP, especially a black woman. I'd have to go really deep to explain why but I won't and will just say that black men will just not vote if that is the ticket. White men, come on you're joking right. I consider latinos to me white, for reasons I've said before, so they are a non factor.

I can't stand Trump, but he is sure to win if Biden stays on this course.
  #140  
Old 03-19-2020, 07:21 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Who cares who matched up to some arbitrary debate qualifying standards? They were made up on the fly for each debate, for the first time ever this year. And that is now some meaningful test for a veep slot?
Not by itself. But her presence meant that she became a familiar name and face to millions of potential voters. Never underestimate the power of pure name recognition. And it also meant that she was examined by the national press for months without any scandals or secrets coming out. If Geraldine Ferraro had that scrutiny she would have disqualified for the selection before it happened and not embarrassingly after, as reality had it.
  #141  
Old 03-19-2020, 07:39 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,480
That's true too. But what I meant was that she was staying high enough in the polls and raising enough money to keep qualifying, while many other senators were not.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #142  
Old 03-20-2020, 04:59 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
And as sad as it is to say, it's just not true that people who have racist or xenophobic attitudes are impossible to get to vote for "all-American" Democrats. There is political science backing this up. Are we just going to scorn the votes of such people on principle when the stakes are so high?
Yes, there is a lot of ignorance about this point: "Oh, those racists would never vote Democratic anyway." Nonsense! Democrats cannot reclaim the White House unless a significant portion of racists and misogynists vote for them. Sorry; that's just the way America is. I've previously linked to studies showing that Obama's blackness put him under a huge handicap in his election: he squeaked by because of his huge charisma and because America was ready for a change from the Dubya years. Despite huge successes, he even almost lost to Romney 4 years later.

Scroll 1/3 down this page to find a nice graphic showing Georgia to be one of the least racist states. California is more racist than Georgia; in the South, only Texas is less racist. Thus, Abrams' success in Georgia hardly guarantees success nationwide.

IMO, Duckworth and Klobuchar are the only two who should be under consideration for the V.P. job.
  #143  
Old 03-20-2020, 05:49 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 31,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
Like I said, white women don't care, we know they voted for Trump, that is a fact. Black men will not vote for a woman as VP, especially a black woman. I'd have to go really deep to explain why but I won't and will just say that black men will just not vote if that is the ticket. White men, come on you're joking right. I consider latinos to me white, for reasons I've said before, so they are a non factor.
Well at least you've managed to be offensive to everyone equally.
  #144  
Old 03-20-2020, 06:32 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Sam Harris threw a fit about it on his podcast (which has millions of listeners, probably more than say your average MSNBC show).
As an aside, do you have any non-Sam Harris backup for this 'milllions of listeners' thing?

It struck me as unlikely - and it is based on average podcast listenership - so I did some digging. His YouTube channel has fewer than 385,000 subscribers. The average views there on the first page of show about 20,000 views per day.

He has about a million or so Twitter followers, sure. But I'm willing to bet in terms of humans it's much much smaller. According to an NPR story fewer than 20% of Americans have Twitter and fewer than 2% engage on a daily basis.

I'm not picking on you. I've spent some time this year trying to get my head around Internet engagement. It sure SEEMS like it's a lot of loud people speaking to other loud people and not really accomplishing much. Sort of like how Sanders has some many people being partisan for him but not really moving the needle much in terms of absolute votes.+

Contrawise, you mention MS-NBC viewership. A quick look at multichannel shows that in Q3, MSNBC primetime had 1.5 million average viewers per day. Contract that with Harris' 20,000 per day and that is...a significant difference.

Last edited by Jonathan Chance; 03-20-2020 at 06:35 AM.
  #145  
Old 03-20-2020, 01:06 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
.. Democrats cannot reclaim the White House unless a significant portion of racists and misogynists vote for them. Sorry; that's just the way America is. ..
Scroll 1/3 down this page to find a nice graphic showing Georgia to be one of the least racist states. California is more racist than Georgia; in the South, only Texas is less racist. Thus, Abrams' success in Georgia hardly guarantees success nationwide.

..
According to your cite, which is pretty weak, (CA is more racist than Georgia?, Impossible) about 15% of Americans are racist.

You seem to think that like 60% or more of Americans are racist.

The Democrats can (& have) win without any racists anywhere casting a vote for them.
  #146  
Old 03-20-2020, 01:56 PM
KAndre is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, TX y'all!
Posts: 148
I have to admit, as a black woman, I am more than faintly annoyed with those who dismiss Stacey Abrams (or Kamala Harris) with "we don't need help with the African American vote" - why is it acceptable to take black, and especially black women's support for granted but we have to pander to Bernie Bros? Let us see that the Democratic Party (and Biden) is willing to dance with who brought them.
__________________
Nothing clever yet
  #147  
Old 03-20-2020, 02:44 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 2,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by split p&j View Post
I just don't get this its gotta be a woman thing, I don't understand who he is aiming for with this.

Like I said, white women don't care, we know they voted for Trump, that is a fact. Black men will not vote for a woman as VP, especially a black woman. I'd have to go really deep to explain why but I won't and will just say that black men will just not vote if that is the ticket. White men, come on you're joking right. I consider latinos to me white, for reasons I've said before, so they are a non factor.

I can't stand Trump, but he is sure to win if Biden stays on this course.
It most certainly is not a fact that all white women voted for Trump. One hell of a lot of us voted for Clinton -- including some of us who didn't much like her in particular. He probably didn't get the majority of white women, either.

And as you are flat out claiming that no white women, no black men, and no white men latino or otherwise will vote for a ticket with a woman on it: how the hell do you think Hillary Clinton won the popular vote?

What century are you living in, anyway? Or are you the one who's joking? (If so: not funny.)
  #148  
Old 03-20-2020, 05:36 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by KAndre View Post
I have to admit, as a black woman, I am more than faintly annoyed with those who dismiss Stacey Abrams (or Kamala Harris) with "we don't need help with the African American vote" - why is it acceptable to take black, and especially black women's support for granted but we have to pander to Bernie Bros? Let us see that the Democratic Party (and Biden) is willing to dance with who brought them.
As a white male, I also think that it is a silly statement. Not that I am saying that the choice HAS to be a Black woman but damn, you've got to recognize the difference that just a few percent of Black turnout makes. Nah, you won't repeat Obama level, not likely anyway, and HRC was as good as anyone else not named Obama has done, but a bit closer to Obama level makes all the difference. Show proper respect for the demographic that pulled your ass out of the dumpster it was in after the first two Joe. And the rest of us would be foolish to take the demographic's enthused turnout for granted.

That said I think Biden has his choice in mind already and the fact that he specified a Black woman to SCOTUS to me means he felt the need to demonstrate he "wants to dance with who brought him" by doing that (and hopes that that promise is enough) but has a white woman in mind for his running mate.
  #149  
Old 03-21-2020, 12:35 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 11,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by KAndre View Post
I have to admit, as a black woman, I am more than faintly annoyed with those who dismiss Stacey Abrams (or Kamala Harris) with "we don't need help with the African American vote" - why is it acceptable to take black, and especially black women's support for granted but we have to pander to Bernie Bros? Let us see that the Democratic Party (and Biden) is willing to dance with who brought them.
As a white male who is engaged to a black woman, I agree wholeheartedly with your post. My original choice for POTUS was Harris, though I think she'd be wasted in the VP role (assuming that Biden serves a complete term). I'd rather see her as Attorney General, or on the SCOTUS. I think that plays more to her strengths.

I'd be fine with her as VP, but it's not my preferred spot for her. I'm not sold on Abrams yet, though I remain open-minded on her. I'd love to see Duckworth get the nod. But I think it's a huge positive that we're even having the conversation. Prior to Obama, this would have been considered wishful thinking.
__________________
It's chaos. Be kind.
  #150  
Old 03-21-2020, 11:40 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
According to your cite, which is pretty weak, (CA is more racist than Georgia?, Impossible) about 15% of Americans are racist.

You seem to think that like 60% or more of Americans are racist.

The Democrats can (& have) win without any racists anywhere casting a vote for them.
And you seem to think that all non-racists will vote Democratic.

Racism is a very fuzzy term and very difficult to quantify. The idea that Georgia scored better than California also surprised me! But it's tangential, except as it regards Abrams' political success. You don't get many blacks competitive for state-wide office in places like Tennessee! (BTW, here's another graphic showing 'racism' across the U.S. though without clear state boundaries.)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017