Agreed.
I saw enough of it to think he came off as an unlikable, buffoonish jerk with a short temper and inflated sense of his brilliance. His presidency has simply confirmed that is who he really is.
Or get sick. However, altho I like Joe*, I do hope he picks someone young and more progressive as a veep.
- dont get me wrong, by no means is he perfect
Young and progressive are relative terms. On a ticket with him 57 is a mere child. Someone around that age with progressive cred who has shown the ability to win over rural voters, preferably not a white male would be great. (Yeah, I’m a fan of Tammy Baldwin but Kamala Harris would be fine.)
Yeah, I think that’s the one concern I’d have about Joe, either getting sick or simply looking sick. If Joe struggles to answer a question, has a moment where he seems forgetful or hard of hearing, that could plant a very negative seed in the minds of voters. In fact Trump’s branding strategy, with his “Sleepy Joe” snark, is clearly aiming in that direction.
Yeah, I am by no means a Harris fan, but she would work as a Biden veep. OTOH, do we have any females or blacks, etc in purple states that would be even better? I mean, CA is a shoe-in. Colorado? Florida? Iowa? Kentucky? Ohio? Penn? Virginia?
Wisconsin?
“Do we have any …blacks…that would be even better”
WTF. Extremely disturbing phrasing.
Yes you should use the best blacks you can rustle up.
Yeah, bad phrasing, lol. :smack:
There are organizations that can give you binders full of women, and the NAACP has a special this week on Binders O’ Blacks.
And, more seriously, does it really work to pick a VP from a particular state, then assume that state will come out in huge numbers for your campaign?
No, not “huge numbers”, but an average advantage of a bit over 2 points, which in a close election in a close state could be THE difference, the nail which without the shoe is lost, etc. …
Yup. Anyone who doesn’t think demographic balance and swing state appeal are going to be the prime factors in choosing a running mate is extremely naive.
Thanks, ignorance fought™.
I just couldn’t imagine someone thinking "Well, I prefer the policies of Candidate A, but Candidate B is running with a VP from the midwest… wait, I live in the midwest, I should vote for Candidate B!
But I guess people do.
I doubt it has as much to do with ignoring policy differences so much as getting off your ass and voting for a hometown boy/girl.
Not every voter is analyzing politicians policy briefs and many (with some good cause) take the policy statements as advertising drivel not as actual indications of what their administrations would bring. A fair number are on the fence between A or B or not bothering to come out that day. Little things like “We’re both Hoosiers.” can be just enough to sway that.
Not sure why that surprises. We are used to the idea that a Black person or a woman or a host of other identity issues on a ticket, including VP, may impact votes (up down cancelling each other out whatever). Being of the same state is just another arbitrary identity that we make tribes and teams of, in this case of a small but real and potentially significant impact.
Historically it did make a difference, but wasn’t the idea basically abandoned by the Clinton/Gore ticket? Both of them being from the south, I mean. Of course it was also true that they were both straight white Christian men, but aside from that, there wasn’t much geographic diversity on display.
Yeah. It gets a few more butts off couches and a few more undecided to vote the right way.
The average net gain (average with a pretty wide scatter) is simply a matter of record. There were gains with Biden, Palin, Edwards, Lieberman, Cheney, and Gore … whether or not the gain made any difference to the outcome and whether or not home state impact was any factor in the decision is a different question.
I don’t think the impact is reliable or big enough to be the most important factor in a running mate choice. There are other ticket balancing issues that play in as well and of course how well the two feel they would work together in the campaign and in the administration. But if there happens to be a choice who works well on other items coming from a swingable state cannot be dismissed.
I have lots of reasons to think that Tammy Baldwin would be a great pick if Biden was the nominee. Her bumping up must win WI by 2 points (on average) would be just one item in her plus column.
One drawback is that her Senate seat would be vacant until filled via special election, and there’s no guarantee that Wisconsinites would elect a Democrat to fill her seat.
As it is, the Dems are going to have to win 4 R-held Senate seats in order to get to 50, unless Doug Jones by some miracle holds on in Alabama. That’s already an uphill battle, and 5 is seriously more difficult than 4, given the territory.
WI may not be CA but it isn’t OH either. In an environment that won the election the odds would be good.
OTOH the odds that her seat would be the balance and that another D would not be able to win a special election are not as probable.
But yes, even that low probability is an offset to her pluses.