Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 05-01-2019, 04:30 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,237
Booker is certainly young and culturally progressive, though he's not going to do much for the folks who think Biden is too cozy with Wall Street. I think he would be a decent choice; I was just pushing back against the idea that Biden "needs" a black running mate specifically.
  #102  
Old 05-01-2019, 04:45 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 58,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
The white Obama-Trump voters of the industrial midwest voted for a black man, twice. White midwesterners won't only vote for a white person. And while it's possible sexism may keep a lot of blue-collars (and others) from voting for a woman for president, I don't think it would be as big of a deal to have a woman as the running mate, especially with someone like Biden at the top of the ticket. YMMV.
I hope you guys are right. I guess they can always grab her by her coat tails.
  #103  
Old 05-01-2019, 04:52 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
I don't know much about Booker but like many people saw him during the Kavanaugh hearings.

I was not impressed with his 'Spartacus moment' comment. Is that type of trope really so close to his consciousness? It suggests a superficiality or an impetuousness that makes me take him less credibly. Sure, he's a smart guy but was that type of performance typical for him?
All Booker would need to do is spend a few days on the campaign trail delivering stump speeches and that stupid "Spartacus" moment would fade away. It's the most memorable thing about Booker at the moment because it's the most recent noteworthy thing he did. All that would change if he started, you know, doing more things.
  #104  
Old 05-01-2019, 05:58 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,237
After seeing clips from today's Barr hearing, I felt the need to rush over and put Mazie Hirono's name in this thread. She da bomb.
  #105  
Old 05-01-2019, 06:29 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
After seeing clips from today's Barr hearing, I felt the need to rush over and put Mazie Hirono's name in this thread. She da bomb.
She's also Japanese. As in, born in Japan to Japanese parents.
  #106  
Old 05-01-2019, 06:45 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Reality checking this thread - the VP choice matters very little nationally in and of itself.

It can matter as part of a messaging package ... Biden choosing a progressive but stating things antithetical to progressive positions would be of no impact, while coupled with saying some things supportive of progressive goals would play well, for example.

Avoiding the messaging of two old white guys is important.

And again it can help maybe two or three points in a VP's home state, which might matter if that home state is a tipping point electorally.

But a Latinx (and I have heard it said a fair amount) candidate isn't going to bring out big Latinx turnout that wouldn't already be there, nor would a Black one for Black voters, not by any significant amounts. Biden won't get Obama level Black turnout on the basis of a Black running mate. Maybe a hair more than Clinton.

My WAG is there is more of danger of a bad running mate selection hurting you than an upside from the exact right one.

So to avoid - another old white guy, someone who insults progressives, someone exceptionally divisive, and someone who speaks of gimmick and desperation.

What else?
  #107  
Old 05-01-2019, 07:57 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
She's also Japanese. As in, born in Japan to Japanese parents.
Ah. Well, I guess that explains why I never hear anyone talking about her in this context.
  #108  
Old 05-02-2019, 02:51 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
She's also Japanese. As in, born in Japan to Japanese parents.
Senator Hirono's mother was born on American soil, specifically the territory of ... uh-oh ... Hawaii. She was an American citizen by birth. That mother moved to Japan in her teens, married, had kids, returned to Hawaii in 1955 with her kids. Her daughter Mazie Hirono became a naturalized citizen in 1959.

IANAL. If Mazie Hirono qualified for "natural-born" status, did she forfeit that with the naturalization process?
  #109  
Old 05-02-2019, 04:29 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,419
Something to think about with a Biden/Buttigieg ticket is that it could maybe win Indiana. Not just because Mayor Pete is from there but also because Biden would likely do ok there on his own (but not win). The two together could have a chance although IMO Buttigieg with any other candidate would likely lose there.

Indiana has more EVs than Wisconsin (11 to 10) so that's nifty. OTOH I don't think
fighting to win Indiana should be any crucial part of the Dems strategy. Come to think of it, maybe Joe and Pete could win BOTH Indiana and Wisconsin which would make up for a loss in either Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Ohio.

My electoral math is horrible... would winning IN, WI, and ONE of MI, PA, or OH about lock it up for a Dem (if the rest of it went "as expected")? Would that recipe need Florida too?

Damn. Forgot about Pence. Oh well... yeah Indiana's a pretty red state but there's a decent number of suburb-dwellers around Indianapolis who wouldn't be impossible to pry away from Trump/Pence. Don't forget that Obama won Indiana in 2008 (but not 2012).
  #110  
Old 05-02-2019, 04:45 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Maybe a hijack but....

I get WHY people do this "Latinx" thing, to be gender inclusive, but it doesn't scan well at all, either visually in text, or in the internal monolog of the reader. I've never heard anyone say the word out loud - probably for this very reason. Surely there is a better word that means the same thing, right? I'm not blaming YOU, you weren't the one who invented it....I just wish something better would supplant it.
My thought is that "Latini" might been a better choice but maybe I'm not thinking it through all the way.

One thing about "Latinx" to me is that I scan it as "Latin ecks" not "la-TEEN-ecks" as I think it's supposed to be pronounced. I manage to pronounce it the latter way but it takes me a moment to think about it.

Hijack finished!
  #111  
Old 05-02-2019, 05:00 AM
Nava is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 41,152
If y'all get a woman running for VP, could you try and make it one whose 'do doesn't look like it's stuck in the late 80s? I know, I know, compared with those whose 'do still lives at the height of the hairspray era that's actually forward, but damn some of those female senators make me want to look down and make sure I'm not in my school uniform.

Then again it might be a malus with midwestern voters. Damn.
  #112  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:56 AM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,454
Everybody's talking about "paths to 270." Is "50-state strategy" no longer a thing?
  #113  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:49 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Everybody's talking about "paths to 270." Is "50-state strategy" no longer a thing?
I sure as hell hope so. It was the quest for a glorious landslide that caused the Clinton oafs not to bother with Pennsylvania.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
My electoral math is horrible... would winning IN, WI, and ONE of MI, PA, or OH about lock it up for a Dem (if the rest of it went "as expected")? Would that recipe need Florida too?
Trump took Indiana 57% to 38% (5% for Johnson). Forget it.

Here's a version of the electoral college math that may be easy to work with: D's and Rs are tied 216 to 216 outside 9 swing states. Whoever gets 54 evs from those swing states wins:

216 = The Rs take the obvious Red states plus Florida, Georgia
      18 Ohio
      15 North Carolina
      11 Arizona
      4 New Hampshire
      2* Maine
      10 Wisconsin
      16 Michigan
      20 Pennsylvania
      10 Minnesota
216 = The Ds take the obvious Blue states plus Colorado, Nevada, Virginia
  #114  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:45 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Although we can't forget that Obama won Indiana in '08. It's not impossible.

Main thing though is to recognize that in any presidential election that the D has won a state like IN the D did not need to win it.

The "50 state strategy" is important. It builds for the future. It is key for the rest of the ticket, maybe not Senate but from Congressional races to dog catcher getting the vote out even for a D top of the ticket that loses the state (but by less) helps tip some of those other races. Making more states competitive can give more potential paths to 270 and if you are very well funded it forces the other side to spend resources on defense.

But that investment (in time and monies) cannot come at the cost of risking getting the 270 to win.
  #115  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:40 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,666
Not bothering with Pennsylvania is the exact opposite of a 50-state strategy. The 50-state strategy was what Obama did, not Clinton. And remember how Obama fared with it.
  #116  
Old 05-11-2019, 02:12 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Not bothering with Pennsylvania is the exact opposite of a 50-state strategy. The 50-state strategy was what Obama did, not Clinton. And remember how Obama fared with it.
No. Assuming there are a fixed amount of resources for the campaign, seeking 50 states is the opposite of spending effort where most needed, i.e. in Pennsylvania, etc. (This isn't just hindsight. Nate Silver's graphs and charts showed very plainly that Pennsylvania was the decisive "tipping" state but Hillary's team "knew better.")
  #117  
Old 05-11-2019, 07:43 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,666
But your opponent has finite resources, too, and money spent in "unimportant" states might force them to spend there, too. And of course, nothing says that you need to invest in all 50 states equally.

The 50-state strategy also pays dividends in the states you would have been focusing on, anyway. A farmer in Ohio might say something like "Democrats don't care about farmers", but if the Democrat is making visits to Kansas and Nebraska, that might turn that Ohio farmer around.
  #118  
Old 05-11-2019, 02:27 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
And when you opponent has as much or more resources as you have and doesn't respond to your spending in a state that they will for sure win, but instead spends more in states that you must win to win the election?
  #119  
Old 05-12-2019, 08:49 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,340
I'd have to think that while Biden may choose another of the Presidential candidates as his running mate, he probably wouldn't want to choose someone who did really badly in the primaries. Of course things can change, but right now it's looking like Castro, Beto, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, and Booker will all be in the low single digits in Iowa and New Hampshire and will then drop out, if they don't drop out before the voting actually starts. I can't realistically see any of them as the choice.

Kamala Harris looks like the obvious choice to me. Younger, female, minority, fairly dynamic as a speaker, and western balances old as dirt, male, white, dull as a post, and East Coast.

Stacy Abrams might have looked like a good choice a few months back, but I think she's shot herself in the foot by refusing to officially concede the governor's race and veering into conspiracy theory territory.

It won't be Buttigieg because there's no way the Dems are going to put two white men on the ticket. I've thought from the start that Buttigieg is basically running for a cabinet secretary position in Biden's administration. Given that his resume including the military, the corporate world, and a stint as mayor, there would be a lot of possibilities: Commerce, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, Veteran's Affairs.
  #120  
Old 05-12-2019, 09:03 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Stacy Abrams might have looked like a good choice a few months back, but I think she's shot herself in the foot by refusing to officially concede the governor's race and veering into conspiracy theory territory.
...you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that the Georgia elections were full of shenanigans. Refusing to concede was the correct thing to do. Nothing "conspiracy theory" about it.
  #121  
Old 05-13-2019, 03:58 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
One thing to think about with Democrats is that they almost always pick the most responsible choice once they've figured out what they are looking for. If they want a black woman, it's not going to be Stacy Abrams, given that there are a dozen more experienced, ready to be President black women already to choose from. If they want a mayor, Eric Garcetti makes more sense than Buttigieg. Democrats don't choose hype VPs, they choose ready to be President VPs. They will not have a Quayle or Palin on their watch.
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 04:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017