There are plenty of threads analyzing 2016 without having to get into it here
Ok, then why does Biden think having a woman VP is the key for him now?
Jeanne Shaheen has served as a Senator for more years than Clinton did, and served as a Governor for more years than Clinton was a cabinet secretary.
It doesn’t. But it’s okay that Biden is choosing a woman as VP. There’s nothing wrong with choosing a woman as VP.
I know there is nothing wrong with a woman VP, but he has excluded any male as a potential VP. Why? I actually know the answer, he wants to appear to be “woke”, but this is a huge blunder that will cost him the election. Even if he was going that way, a smart man would have left himself an option.
That’s one possible answer. It’s far from the only one, though.
Here’s another: he has already whittled down his list to the most qualified/best candidates, and they are women (or possibly even a single woman). He considered several men earlier, but decided they weren’t the best candidates.
I’m with you here. I think it’s a blunder for a couple reasons. First, the fact that a rich idiot with no real experience in anything but being handed money beats a white woman with all the needed qualifications (IMO) in 2016. From that I thought that if the Dems put up a woman for their nom as president this year, she might as well campaign from her front lawn and never travel. White women voted for Trump and a lot of white women stayed home and didn’t vote. So why limit the contenders for VP as only for women? There’s plenty of damn-qualified ones, and it might energize the Dem base, but what fence sitter would really want Klobuchar, Warren, Harris, etc. in the WH if Biden croaks? I’d like a female VP so we can finally get some different perspective in the Exec branch. But the VP certainly doesn’t have to be female to get me out to vote against Der Bungle.
Second, now that’ he’s promised a woman, let’s say he’s changed his mind. Picks a man instead. That would be seen as “he’s not even elected and he’s already not fulfilling his promises! Aaaaaah!”
This was implied, though not stated, to be a given in my initial critique. He can’t go back on it. That’s political suicide. He made the commitment, he’s stuck with it.
It can be explained easily: It isn’t true. Clinton came a lot closer than the unreliable 2016 exit polls suggested.
The democrats don’t need a huge shift to tip the balance. White woman are more likely to shift away from the republican ticket than white men. A VP can help that swing.
Donald got, what, 52% of the white woman vote in '16 and won’t do as well in November.
47% as per the link above your post( as opposed to 45% for Clinton ).
I was hiring for an IT position once, and got 20 candidates (they were people whose qualifications passed a filter before getting to me). Of those 20, 2 were women. And they were not remotely qualified; I needed someone I could put to work right away diagnosing and fixing issues, and they basically had help desk experience, where they took calls and passed them on to technicians. Potentially trainable but I needed someone that could start right away, not a trainee.
So I knew I was only hiring a man. Not by deliberate choice. I was very disappointed that I wasn’t able to give serious consideration to a woman candidate. Diversity matters to me. But I wasn’t going to consider someone with no real experience just because of her gender.
So if Joe is going through a similar situation, where all of his potential running mates happen to be women, I find that plausible. Sometimes that’s what happens.
We kicked this around the other night. The VP candidate needs to bring the fire and brimstone to the campaign. That leaves out Kamala Harris. While she’s smart and capable, the debates showed her to be too much like a hipster. Also, her attack on Biden as being senile won’t be forgotten by him.
Warren is brilliant, a powerful debater, and can really rain down hell on the campaign trail, but what else does she bring? She’s also 70 years old, which means that if Biden completes two terms, she’s pushing 80. Not a great prospect for continuity.
Our choice is Stacey Abrams, as she can bring the southern voters and encourage black turnout. Not to mention she’s smart and articulate and only 46 years old.
Why would you say that? Perhaps because he announced in a nationally televised debate that he would pick a woman? Sheesh.
A presidential candidate pick a VP that he can work with? Good God man, now you’re onto something!
This is a repeat of # 2 but with different wording.
Thank you for your groundbreaking political insight. I look forward to your return to this thread in a couple of months snarking about how you were right on all three counts. :smack:
And on another note, do we not merge identical threads together anymore? Didn’t we cover this exact same topic over a several week long thread elsewhere?
I don’t know. Did we?
Except Klobuchar keeps MN in the D column. It was very close in 2016.
Klobuchar would likely attract some folks in other upper Midwest states who may have sat it out or voted for DJT. I’m looking at WI, maybe IA. She might even draw a few votes in MI. Those are states that are crucial to a D win in November.
The press conference where she endorsed Biden showed me there was chemistry there, similar to Obama and Biden. Joe’s speech after her speech was one of the best he has given in this entire campaign.
Thank you for that link, that was a fascinating read! I knew the data can be “sliced and diced” all sorts of ways, but the way that author drilled down into the data was incredibly thorough.
From a pure marketing perspective, and woman brings along the most “undecided” voters. trump is white on white, with pence pandering to the evangelicals.
A woman on the ticket is a free option on a woman actually becoming the first female president given biden’s age. If one happens to want a female as the president, the best odds in 2020 is as biden’s veep either for death, senility or 2024. If you’re a democratic leaning male, you still get joe, and who knows what happens in the future (the woman’s place is in the home vote already goes to pence, so no need to try crossover).
I keep saying that a female general would be great marketing. Bring along more of the military vote.
Tammy Duckworth is growing on me. She’s not a general, but as a Lieutenant Colonel was a lot more than “just a combat pilot that lost both legs in combat.”
Still, from pure marketing, a black female general seems like a big draw to me. YMMV
I generally agree with you. I think she might be able to flip Georgia.
Not impossible - Clinton won there in 1992, albeit with Perot siphoning off ~13% of the vote.
But color me skeptical. After all Abrams wasn’t able to flip it in her own campaign. Georgia might be paler red than almost anywhere else in the deep south outside of North Carolina, but I dunno if it is all that purple. If Obama-Biden couldn’t crack it( and they didn’t really get close ), I’m doubtful Biden-Abrams would do that much better.