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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
edit: duplicate post
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.
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.
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.
- Stacey Abrams
- Elizabeth Warren
- Susan Rice
- Laura Kelly
- Gretchen Whitmer
- Val Demings
- Michelle Lujan Grisham
- Catherine Cortez Masto
- Tammy Duckworth
- Tammy Baldwin
- Amy Klobuchar
- Kamala Harris
I suppose at this point I’d be stunned if his choice didn’t come from the above list.
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?
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.
AOC is ineligible. Oprah, though… now there’s an idea.
Oh, duh. :smack: I should have used Rashida Tlaib as the other example. She could deliver Michigan, right? 
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, your confidence that voters will feel the same way as you is misplaced.
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.