|
Post by markesq on Aug 13, 2020 12:18:37 GMT -5
I agree that a VP pick is unlikely to have much effect on an election. But I also agree that a bad choice is more likely to have an effect than a good one. Sarah Palin seems like a good example.
Personally, I am delighted Biden chose Harris. She's been vetted through the primary process so there shouldn't be any more surprises. She's smart and articulate and I do believe she will best Pence in a debate (not saying that's worth much, other than for entertainment and bragging rights).
For me, I would vote for a mushroom against Trump. He is so crooked, so inept, so dangerous and disregarding of the Constitution and democracy that ANYone would be better. To admit he's messing with the USPS to reduce the number of mail-in ballots is utterly amazing. He's not even hiding it anymore (was he ever?!).
So maybe what I'm saying is that for many people like me, Rob is even more right than usual: the VP pick is utterly irrelevant, this year more than most.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 13, 2020 15:55:23 GMT -5
Like I said, the 'rules' beyond what's in the constitution, is all unofficial. And they matter only in so far as people believe they matter. For you, clearly, they don't at all. You're hung up on this for some reason. When I quoted Blakeman on that rule, I knew he was speaking of strategy alone. This has nothing to do with the Constitution and actual requirements. And what he was saying/implying was that all smart political campaigns follow that "rule": they select a VP who will help win "battleground states"; he's saying that it's basically automatic. And what I'm saying is that this is utter nonsense. Presidential candidates/campaigns don't automatically do this. Hell, most don't do it at all. To claim that they do follow this "rule" (agian, a strategy) is to ignore actual history. So the point is that criticizing Biden's choice of Harris because that choice violates the strategy that all smart (or winning) campaigns follow is laughable. It's as laughable as cheering for Biden's choice of Harris because Harris will cream Pence in a veep debate and that is how the GE will be won. See? Both sides are offering stupid takes on the Harris pick, that's my point. That's my "equal time": I'm dumping on all of the idiots. Look, an individual person can claim that a VP choice impacted or will impact their vote. I can't tell them they're wrong. But what I can say is that there is no evidence that a VP pick has ever swung the needle in a GE such that a candidate went from loser to winner. Hell, there's no evidence that a VP pick has ever swung the needle in a single state in this manner.* Again, it's all just filler from the talking heads and political columnists. I'm not averse to this particular argument. I think it's possible that the Palin pick did end up costing McCain some electoral votes. I'm not aware that anyone has actually shown this, however. And I would note that this kind of analysis is probably only possible after-the-fact. Again, people can say the choice impacts their vote. I think the people saying this are a) full of shit and/or b) unlikely to actually vote. No. Not the one being cited here. It doesn't exist in any meaningful sense because almost no one is following it, has ever followed it. If one out of ten people follow a specific strategy in chess and following or not following that particular strategy has no impact on the odds of winning, then no one with a clue would claim that the strategy is what everyone who plays chess always does, or that strategy is what everyone who wins at chess always does. * ETA: I may have overreached here. Perhaps this happened with Kennedy and LBJ. I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Aug 14, 2020 7:13:12 GMT -5
Okay, let me take another track with this unofficial rule thingiemigie.
Would you agree that people say certain things about VP pics? Pick a vp from a different state. They should brings something that people think the pres contender doesn't. (Bush picked Cheney because he brought more gravitas, Trump picked Pence to shore up the religious vote. Obama picked Biden for life insurance. (Imagine a red neck thinking he's going to shoot Obama. He scopes him out, takes aim, then sees Biden standing next to him and thinks "Shit. I shoot Obama, then Biden becomes President. Aw shit." and goes home. Same worked for Bush Sr. and Quayle.) Of course, that last one might be true.)
All of this gives talking heads stuff to talk about. They attack Biden for Harris because of this, Trump for Pence because of that. Supporters do to the opposite. How we see the VO pick gives us either pause or ease with that choice. Maybe not people who have made up their mind, or people who are really informed like yourself. This factors in. How they follow these unspoken but understood rules factor in with a segment of the voting people, one that's hard to caculate. It is the first choice a President to be has the chance to make a choice. Do we like that choice?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 14, 2020 7:44:06 GMT -5
I think VP selections hardly matter at all, when it comes to the general election.
And people--talking heads--say all kinds of things about particular picks. The "gravitas" thing is a great example. It's a bunch of nonsense imo, insofar as Bush no more lacked gravitas than did many of his predecessors. It was wholly contrived for the 24 hour news cycle back then (now we have the twitter cycle).
There's always some angle available to justify/explain a pick. But that doesn't mean there's any truth to a given angle.
Now in the case of Harris, we know that she was selected first and foremost because she is a woman. Biden publicly stated that was a necessary qualification. And I think we can fairly surmise that her race played a role as well. Again, so what? Biden gets to choose. He could have chosen Abrams and still achieved the same goals. And if he had, there would be some talking heads saying how smart that was, because it would shore up southern votes as well (and thereby follow our nonsensical "rule"). Ten will get you twenty, however, that people like Blakeman would still be criticizing the pick for violating some other made-up ahistorical rule.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 16, 2020 7:56:28 GMT -5
On that "gravitas" thing from the age of Bush and Cheney, that Vince brought up: Rush Limbaugh had one of his most successful (imo) bits ever in mocking the media with an extended clip of pretty much every talking head on cable news mentioning gravitas (start listening at 1:45): It's like someone sent out a memo, instructing everyone to criticize Bush for his lack of gravitas. The same thing is happening with Kamala Harris, except the commonality is her awesomeness at debates. Look at Dowd's column: www.nytimes.com/2020/08/15/opinion/sunday/biden-harris.html?action=click&auth=login-google&login=email&module=Opinion&pgtype=HomepageI mean, that's the big positive for Harris: a debate performance. And really, it's a single moment in one debate, a moment were she lambasted Biden for being comfortable around segregationists. Somehow, that moment has turned Harris into the most awesome debater who has ever taken the stage in the history of American politics, maybe in the history of world politics. Gabbard's demolishing of Harris on a different debate stage and the subsequent collapse of Harris' campaign is roundly ignored.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Aug 16, 2020 9:15:43 GMT -5
I don't understand the whole Harris as a great debater line. She was never particularly impressive in any of the Democratic debates she participated in. I'd rate her, at best, as average. And her constantly changing views to go along with political expediency gets old.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 18, 2020 8:05:42 GMT -5
Chris Cillizza on the hits and misses from day one of the DNC convention (spoiler alert: it's mostly "hits"): www.cnn.com/2020/08/17/politics/democrats-analysis-best-worst-dnc/index.htmlOne of the hits (my boldface): What ridiculous spin. And this bit really captures--for me--why I just don't trust the media in general, whether it's CNN or FoxNews. And I'm amazed that the DNC could so confidently put Cuomo out front here (which it knew it could do because of its water carriers in the media).
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Aug 18, 2020 9:07:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 18, 2020 11:34:37 GMT -5
Kyle Kulinski and I agree on how cringe this moment was:
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 18, 2020 11:58:38 GMT -5
Oh. My. God.
I can't believe Stills pimped himself out like that. I mean, I can believe it because he's a big time Dem, but it still makes me sad.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 21, 2020 8:11:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 21, 2020 10:01:48 GMT -5
Chris Cillizza on the hits and misses from day one of the DNC convention (spoiler alert: it's mostly "hits"): www.cnn.com/2020/08/17/politics/democrats-analysis-best-worst-dnc/index.htmlOne of the hits (my boldface): What ridiculous spin. And this bit really captures--for me--why I just don't trust the media in general, whether it's CNN or FoxNews. And I'm amazed that the DNC could so confidently put Cuomo out front here (which it knew it could do because of its water carriers in the media). The bit about Cuomo as a presidential candidate really makes me LOL. Because yeah, if HRC and Biden both end up losing, then surely Cuomo will be that breath of fresh air that will turn things around for the Dems. And how about Michael Bloomberg in 2028?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 26, 2020 6:53:12 GMT -5
Because CNN didn't already get get its ass handed to it repeatedly over the incident:
Joe Lockhart on twitter*:
Also, the best way to look like an elitist out-of-touch douche is to call someone a "snot-nosed kid."
* I linked to the tweet, but it doesn't show up. Maybe twitter's new echo chamber rules are limiting sharing on some sites?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 26, 2020 7:02:31 GMT -5
A retweet of something bad appears on my twitter feed and oftentimes, I click through to the original, just to see if real people are actually applauding the ugliness. I regret looking at the thread for the rest of the day. Anyway, here's a thread:
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Aug 26, 2020 12:02:35 GMT -5
Reading through that it seems Midler is rightly getting her ass handed to her by most of the comments.
|
|