+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: It's Kamala! (/Thread-It-s-Kamala)
RE: It's Kamala! - hollodero - 08-16-2020
(08-16-2020, 02:29 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Yes, indeed. I don't understand how someone so convincingly ejected from the primaries is now chosen as the deputy. It's not as if Stacey Abrams couldn't have boosted Biden's voter turnout or garnered him more votes than Harris among the demographics into which Biden would seek to make inroads.
The same is true for Oprah Winfrey, possibly. I guess it is not all just about possible turnout. Biden also would have to work with this person later on. That might have factored into it.
RE: It's Kamala! - masterpanthera_t - 08-16-2020
(08-16-2020, 02:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Harris has better credentials, though. Abrams hasn't served in a position higher than leader of her state's lower chamber.
Which, while true, doesn't lend to any increase in voter turnout for Biden based on lukewarm excitement in the democratic base during the primaries. Perhaps some changes will happen now. I did read that Carribean based Americans in Florida have been excited by the choice. Florida plays a mighty role in EC calculations and if any sizable fraction of the extra few hundred thousands of this demographic turns out instead of otherwise staying put, the choice of Harris will have paid Biden many times over. Even if it doesn't make a dent elsewhere. Not sure if this was what drove Biden to the choice. On balance I would venture a guess that Abrams could provide more of a boost across the South compared to Harris, but I'm definitely deep in speculation territory now.
RE: It's Kamala! - masterpanthera_t - 08-16-2020
(08-16-2020, 02:55 PM)hollodero Wrote: The same is true for Oprah Winfrey, possibly. I guess it is not all just about possible turnout. Biden also would have to work with this person later on. That might have factored into it.
Yes, but I don't see a whole lot in Abrams that would make it more difficult. Perhaps, I'm not too aware of these intricacies. Harris doesn't strike me as being that amicable with Biden, however, she shared a friendship with Joe's deceased son Beau, so there's that. Perhaps Biden saw Harris' critique of him as purely political and not with real belief, and believes she might help implement his policies and provide a voice for them.
While I personally don't want to see a President Harris due to any issues arising from Biden's health or else, perhaps Biden felt she was the best aligned with his policies. I suppose we will see.
RE: It's Kamala! - BmorePat87 - 08-16-2020
(08-16-2020, 02:59 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Which, while true, doesn't lend to any increase in voter turnout for Biden based on lukewarm excitement in the democratic base during the primaries. Perhaps some changes will happen now. I did read that Carribean based Americans in Florida have been excited by the choice. Florida plays a mighty role in EC calculations and if any sizable fraction of the extra few hundred thousands of this demographic turns out instead of otherwise staying put, the choice of Harris will have paid Biden many times over. Even if it doesn't make a dent elsewhere. Not sure if this was what drove Biden to the choice. On balance I would venture a guess that Abrams could provide more of a boost across the South compared to Harris, but I'm definitely deep in speculation territory now.
VP picks at best provide a modest boost, though rarely to any degree that shifts the electoral map. Though, having a minority woman is unprecedented, so that could change the pattern.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-16-2020
(08-16-2020, 03:08 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Yes, but I don't see a whole lot in Abrams that would make it more difficult. Perhaps, I'm not too aware of these intricacies. Harris doesn't strike me as being that amicable with Biden, however, she shared a friendship with Joe's deceased son Beau, so there's that. Perhaps Biden saw Harris' critique of him as purely political and not with real belief, and believes she might help implement his policies and provide a voice for them.
While I personally don't want to see a President Harris due to any issues arising from Biden's health or else, perhaps Biden felt she was the best aligned with his policies. I suppose we will see.
I don't see "amicability" as an issue at this level. Bush I accused Reagan of pushing "voodo economics," then bonded with the guy for 8 years. The people who wanted Reagan saw many advantages in the choice.
You mentioned Abrams--I like her, but one reason I prefer Harris so far is that she has at least some experience of national politics and foreign policy.
I don't think either were yet prepared for a national presidential campaign, but I think Harris may nevertheless learn from campaign missteps. Dem voters won't hold any of that against her if she seems to be "working" for/with Biden.
This still seems to me a much more sensible choice than Hillary's selection of Kaine, who failed to deliver the white male vote lol.
RE: It's Kamala! - hollodero - 08-16-2020
(08-16-2020, 11:54 AM)Dill Wrote: No one is arguing that "arguing for the best person" is in itself or in the abstract a "sign of meritless and selective defense of meritocracy." In North America, that was a battle already won for white males in the northern American colonies by the 1770s. (lol, not where you live, though.) And most civil rights activists in the US have worked to extend, not refute it. So no one actually has to argue FOR the principle any more, they way the did back in the 18th century. It only seems to pop up now in the US as a rear guard action to protect a racial status quo.
Yeah, I did not mention it as a rear guard to protect a racial status quo though. Also, sorry in advance for answering real selectively, for while the history of Texas university is an interesting read, I have little to add to that and I also feel it takes the whole debate a bit too far. Who was allowed when in what marching band is a bit far fetched. I get that you try to draw parallels and it is not lost on me why and why that might be legit.
- I really feel that the Democratic party, and the more left leaning media, tends to forcibly overcompensate for the historic white sin. Often more in humble words and less in deed, sure. It is tough to put this in examples that can not be construed as racist or at least deeply ignorant if one wishes to do so, so I keep it somewhat short. But let's take poverty as an example. Many bad positions blacks are put in are, imho, actually not inherently a racist problem, but an economic problem. A problem of poor people of all races and genders being offered little pathway to escape their circumstances. That certainly is particularly prevalent when it comes to black people, and mainly not by their own fault, but indeed as a result of long-lasting and ongoing disadvantages. But that does not mean that the answer to it just lies in just considering race and declaring all economic questions racial questions. You always make it out to be. Just help the poor! That's a good thing! Helps many blacks too, right? But the rhetoric is quite different. It's made about race all the time when it really inherently isn't or doesn't have to be. Now George Floyd, that, in comparison, absolutely is a racial issue of course. Poverty, not so much. One could easily argue that the candidate that had the best policies to fight poverty, hence also helping many black people, was Bernie Sanders and not Kamala Harris. Yet she's the black candidate for VP now and blacks are expected to scream in joy. Expected to do so by the same legions of pundits that when it came to Bernie only had to say that he is yet another white old male and that was the end of it. That, imho, is a disconnect.
Of course, blacks do not really benefit from this rhetoric too, because it's often just window dressing, often just saying the nice and racially sensitive thing, or using the racist card against someone to take him or her down, and in reality nothing changes and black people stay as marginalized and disadvantaged as ever, but get something shiny to compensate. And saying we need a black woman as VP imho inherently just falls into this category. Also, the first SC nominee has to be a black woman as well. Why? Dems already nominated three women, is having yet another woman really the most and only important thing regarding a SC seat? And further, did Clarence Thomas help the black community, is it even an effective strategy to put on a certain ethnicity to reward or pander to said ethnicity? I don't know. To me it all is so mendacious.
(08-16-2020, 12:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Correct. All those women traipsing the back roads of SC and Alabama in the 60s and 70s were likely NOT thinking of a black vp then, but of empowering the party whose policies would empower them, achieving the promise of equality for all.
But 60 years later, they and their daughters and granddaughters still traipsing those roads, may feel entitled to wonder why, if black women are possessed of the same rights and competencies as white and black men, and why, if the Dem party loudly affirms that possession, no black woman has EVER been on a Dem national ticket. Year in and year out, the "best person" just randomly turns out to be white
Except when they picked the black dude recently. Twice.
And why no black woman? Sure, it's because they were and are disadvantaged. Also, they are 8% of the population and hence 92% are not. It's not that inherently puzzling that there aren't more black women in high positions. It is, I agree with that, a result of unfair treatment for decades and ongoing. No doubt about that. A black female VP alone won't change a thing about that though. Recognition? I am not so sure that helps. No one will say oh we have a black female VP now, guess I better pay black women fairly now. Laws and policies can do that, and that is achieved by a person with competence, not by a person of a certain race and gender.
(08-16-2020, 12:38 PM)Dill Wrote: in a country where "merit" has been one of the prime criteria for excluding worthy black candidates from all manner of responsible positions, in government and out? Once one finally is nominated, then "merit" is a big question?
Again, what I'd find a better approach is just picking Kamala and listing all her merits, and you can very well include that her race and gender makes her uniquely suited to understand this specific problem better than most. This only works if you haven't already committed to a black woman though.
I mean, why did Biden commit to a black woman? It was because he knew the first primaries might not quite go his way and his chances lie in the "blacker" states that will follow. That's it. And yeah that criteria is free of any consideration of merit. That's not on me, it's not on Biden either, it's on the system and the climate.
(08-16-2020, 12:38 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm not going to say to those women: "But ladies, you were working for the common good all along, right, not just to get one of your group in a top position? Thank you for your service, and remember, ALL lives matter." Even if you don't actually say that, that is what those women will hear.
I have no issue saying the first sentence. If they hear a racist trope, then that's not on me and as sympathetic as I want to be, I don't feel like giving in to false or exaggerated sensitivities. I get why sly politics might look differently, but phew. This constant forced connection to right-wing rhetoric is exactly what I was talking about. It is NOT racist and NOT an endorsement of confederate ideals to pick someone else but a black woman for VP or the SC. I wish people would stop implying the opposite.
(08-16-2020, 12:38 PM)Dill Wrote: No one, not Biden, not anyone, is assuming that blackness is a kind of "competence" in itself, helpful to the implementation of "good policies for black women." Real political and legal competence has to be there, the kind someone who had been AG of the largest state and sits on the Senate intel committee could reasonably be expected to possess.
Again, no shot at Harris implied. But when you commit to a black woman before considering any specific black woman, then you declare blackness and gender as a form of competence in itself and in advance. Saying so is just stating the plain.
(08-16-2020, 12:38 PM)Dill Wrote: I can understand somewhat why the choice and debate over it might puzzle you. You're sitting over there in Wien and you hear all these Americans claiming the choice was political and demographic. "Time for a black female VP!" So naturally, given your great familiarity with our politics, your first impulse is to wonder--"Why this minority and not that?" And then to run the percentages to figure what "really" makes the best mathematical sense. And to re-affirm that anyway competence ought to be basis of such selections.
I think many people not sitting in Vienna think the same thing. What I say imho is not inherently ignorant or illogical.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-16-2020
(08-16-2020, 06:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: I think many people not sitting in Vienna think the same thing. What I say imho is not inherently ignorant or illogical.
Yo, easy Hollo. Seems like I touched a nerve or two here. I was not at all implying that the view from Vienna is inherently ignorant or illogical. But I am implying that from that distance, while the numbers may be clear enough, they don't account for the way history and culture weigh differently on differing groups in US political discourse, and so on vp choices.
By that same token of distance, there is absolutely no reason to suppose you and your neighbors would raise the meritocratic standard to fight a "rear guard action" to defend a US status quo, especially one you, personally, have always been critical of. You've generally been a touchstone of rational clarity in this forum. My humble apologies if I have given you the impression I thought otherwise. My intent was to SEPARATE, not conflate, your defense of meritocracy from that of Ingraham and others by emphasizing the difference in context.
My mention of UT history was to suggest how a precedent was set in the 60s which continues to work today*, and so why the connection to right wing rhetoric is not "forced" but a concrete and continuing tactical problem. At least in my argument. Not sure how responsible I am for what other Dems or "leftists" make of race in US politics. But I have not separated race out from class/economic issues. E.g., my point about the UT Law School director specifically rests upon recognizing a class and economic disadvantage which is obscured by the meritocratic standard.
Since I don't think Dem "pandering" to Blacks (and other minorities) has left them as "marginalized as ever" over my life time, I'll take another shot tomorrow at examining the question of whether a black female vp will or will not "change a thing," and what might constitute realistic expectations for such a choice.
*I could have reeled off a series of examples of how the meritocratic argument has been deployed to protect racial/class privilege, decade by decade, which would illustrate this continuity. (I get particularly incensed when MLK is invoked to do this.) But I figured the post was already getting long and I thought current applicability was clear enough from that one example.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-17-2020
(08-16-2020, 06:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, I did not mention it as a rear guard to protect a racial status quo though. Also, sorry in advance for answering real selectively, for while the history of Texas university is an interesting read, I have little to add to that and I also feel it takes the whole debate a bit too far. Who was allowed when in what marching band is a bit far fetched. I get that you try to draw parallels and it is not lost on me why and why that might be legit.
- I really feel that the Democratic party, and the more left leaning media, tends to forcibly overcompensate for the historic white sin. Often more in humble words and less in deed, sure. It is tough to put this in examples that can not be construed as racist or at least deeply ignorant if one wishes to do so, so I keep it somewhat short. But let's take poverty as an example. Many bad positions blacks are put in are, imho, actually not inherently a racist problem, but an economic problem. A problem of poor people of all races and genders being offered little pathway to escape their circumstances. That certainly is particularly prevalent when it comes to black people, and mainly not by their own fault, but indeed as a result of long-lasting and ongoing disadvantages. But that does not mean that the answer to it just lies in just considering race and declaring all economic questions racial questions. You always make it out to be. Just help the poor! That's a good thing! Helps many blacks too, right? But the rhetoric is quite different. It's made about race all the time when it really inherently isn't or doesn't have to be. Now George Floyd, that, in comparison, absolutely is a racial issue of course. Poverty, not so much. One could easily argue that the candidate that had the best policies to fight poverty, hence also helping many black people, was Bernie Sanders and not Kamala Harris. Yet she's the black candidate for VP now and blacks are expected to scream in joy. Expected to do so by the same legions of pundits that when it came to Bernie only had to say that he is yet another white old male and that was the end of it. That, imho, is a disconnect.
Of course, blacks do not really benefit from this rhetoric too, because it's often just window dressing, often just saying the nice and racially sensitive thing, or using the racist card against someone to take him or her down, and in reality nothing changes and black people stay as marginalized and disadvantaged as ever, but get something shiny to compensate. And saying we need a black woman as VP imho inherently just falls into this category. Also, the first SC nominee has to be a black woman as well. Why? Dems already nominated three women, is having yet another woman really the most and only important thing regarding a SC seat? And further, did Clarence Thomas help the black community, is it even an effective strategy to put on a certain ethnicity to reward or pander to said ethnicity? I don't know. To me it all is so mendacious.
Except when they picked the black dude recently. Twice.
And why no black woman? Sure, it's because they were and are disadvantaged. Also, they are 8% of the population and hence 92% are not. It's not that inherently puzzling that there aren't more black women in high positions. It is, I agree with that, a result of unfair treatment for decades and ongoing. No doubt about that. A black female VP alone won't change a thing about that though. Recognition? I am not so sure that helps. No one will say oh we have a black female VP now, guess I better pay black women fairly now. Laws and policies can do that, and that is achieved by a person with competence, not by a person of a certain race and gender.
Again, what I'd find a better approach is just picking Kamala and listing all her merits, and you can very well include that her race and gender makes her uniquely suited to understand this specific problem better than most. This only works if you haven't already committed to a black woman though.
I mean, why did Biden commit to a black woman? It was because he knew the first primaries might not quite go his way and his chances lie in the "blacker" states that will follow. That's it. And yeah that criteria is free of any consideration of merit. That's not on me, it's not on Biden either, it's on the system and the climate.
I have no issue saying the first sentence. If they hear a racist trope, then that's not on me and as sympathetic as I want to be, I don't feel like giving in to false or exaggerated sensitivities. I get why sly politics might look differently, but phew. This constant forced connection to right-wing rhetoric is exactly what I was talking about. It is NOT racist and NOT an endorsement of confederate ideals to pick someone else but a black woman for VP or the SC. I wish people would stop implying the opposite.
Again, no shot at Harris implied. But when you commit to a black woman before considering any specific black woman, then you declare blackness and gender as a form of competence in itself and in advance. Saying so is just stating the plain.
I think many people not sitting in Vienna think the same thing. What I say imho is not inherently ignorant or illogical.
Well stated and I applaud you for taking the time. If Biden really wanted to help a marginalized group he would have committed to a Native American woman. But their aren't enough Native Americans to help him get elected, hence the choice he made. It is, as you correctly point out, the very definition of pandering.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-17-2020
(08-17-2020, 10:24 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well stated and I applaud you for taking the time. If Biden really wanted to help a marginalized group he would have committed to a Native American woman. But their aren't enough Native Americans to help him get elected, hence the choice he made. It is, as you correctly point out, the very definition of pandering.
So picking a Native American woman would prove Biden wanted to "help a marginalized group,"
but picking Kamala proves, what, he does not?
No marginalized groups "helped" if Biden picks a black woman for vp?
So declaring one is going to pick a black woman as vp, and then doing it, is "pandering."
Leave it to the Democrats to say or do what their voters want them to say or do, just to get votes.
RE: It's Kamala! - hollodero - 08-17-2020
(08-16-2020, 11:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Yo, easy Hollo. Seems like I touched a nerve or two here. I was not at all implying that the view from Vienna is inherently ignorant or illogical. But I am implying that from that distance, while the numbers may be clear enough, they don't account for the way history and culture weigh differently on differing groups in US political discourse, and so on vp choices.
?? No, I am not offended in any way. Just to be clear about that. Also, while you say you don't see my views as Ignorant, you go on within the next sentence and describe a form of ignorance. But that is totally, 100% fair. I am ignorant of many things for sure, it's just that at times I feel the distance also gives me a different perspective, which at times can not be that disadvantageous. No offense, but at times I feel you're a bit too caught up with historical examples and drawing up connections that are a bit far fetched.
I believe historical context often is overrated. I also see the democratic party as indeed engaging in identity politics too much, too much for their own good that is. Like declaring poverty as a racial issue and then be all surprised that the poor white working class feels forgotten. Don't they check their privilege? Oh btw climate change is all about race too. And corona doesn't affect poor people especially, but black people especially, let's make this a black people issue too. I know many people don't do that, but in your media driven world the more nuanced voices often get outscreamed by oversimplified counters, and quite a lot of TV pundits do exactly what I described. Like saying no nunance, let's just call this racist and that racist and be all worked up and then be done with it.
(Kamala, imho, displayed an example of that when she attacked Biden on bussing. Hardly anyone seemed to even recognize that Biden actually had a response to that, where he tried to explain that it wasn't quite that easy and clear-cut as she just makes it out to be. She won the excahnge on mere simplicity though, no it is that easy, you lost, I destroyed you. Does that really help the black community, is it even considerate? I don't know. I think it's using race for a cheap sham attack.)
Too much is made out of race in word and symbolic deed, just way too much, that is just my perspective on it, sure without any context of what happened in the '60s. Probably too little is done in form of actual deed, that's probably true as well.
I also have a habit of more or less always being annoyed when an important post is to be filled and the first thing people say is "let's first decide to put in someone from this or that group and move on from there". It annoys me in my country as well, where we treat women's rights a bit similar. When we needed a surrogate chancellor in dire political times, folks just claimed it has to be a woman, it is the most important thing, and it would be sexist not to choose a woman, just look at how unfairly women were treated throughout history... - and I consider this approach quite wrong. That's maybe just me, but that's one of my main issues with the black female VP pick.
For one, I hate the underlying message of "if it's not a black person, this person can't do good by your community", or at least significantly less good, which is just not true. I also dislike it then when someone non-black would have been chosen, blacks would have been told that they somehow got victimized by that. I get annoyed when self-declared black leaders claim that Biden can either choose a black woman as VP or is a devil. What nonsense. Or all the hysteria of deep offense to a whole race, a slap in their collective faces and whatnot when no black person won an oscar... ah this leads too far now.
(08-16-2020, 11:47 PM)Dill Wrote: By that same token of distance, there is absolutely no reason to suppose you and your neighbors would raise the meritocratic standard to fight a "rear guard action" to defend a US status quo, especially one you, personally, have always been critical of. You've generally been a touchstone of rational clarity in this forum. My humble apologies if I have given you the impression I thought otherwise. My intent was to SEPARATE, not conflate, your defense of meritocracy from that of Ingraham and others by emphasizing the difference in context.
Well, to be fair, you also lumped them together in the first place. Meritocratic arguments per se do not have any historic context, they just have a somewhat logical, well, merit. I am certain though without a dozen more examples that meritocratic arguments, as you put it, were used time and again to defend the racially unjust status quo throughout history and up to this day. But this approach also can lead to a killer argument, like saying "you believe the earth is round? You know who else believed that? Hitler." I'm not trying to say you do something akin to that, I'm saying that Laura Ingraham or other right-wing voices don't need to be part of this debate at all, and the existence of Laura Ingraham etc. etc. doesn't need to result in automatically refuting meritocratic arguments. This isn't about the right wing. What I could say about the right wing though is that it can be observed how they start to use the same racism arguments now - like Biden is a racist for saying blacks vote for him or they ain't black or that the hispanic vote is more diverse. No he's not a racist, he's just a bit dull at times. But the quality of the racist takedown is something the right wing learned by observation.
(08-16-2020, 11:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Since I don't think Dem "pandering" to Blacks (and other minorities) has left them as "marginalized as ever" over my life time
That's probably true. Doesn't mean all they do is not just pandering without leaving them as marginalized as before. It depends on what people do, it also depends on what Kamala Harris will do, it doesn't depend on what skin color or gender she is.
RE: It's Kamala! - hollodero - 08-17-2020
(08-17-2020, 10:24 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If Biden really wanted to help a marginalized group he would have committed to a Native American woman. But their aren't enough Native Americans to help him get elected, hence the choice he made. It is, as you correctly point out, the very definition of pandering.
Well, he could have picked Elizabeth Warren. I have no issue to leave this distateful comment, she apparently used a basically non-existent native american heritage to possibly advance her career and unlike seemingly everyone else I am not cool with that, so there.
In general though, I am not mad at Biden for doing what he feels is the best way to win an election. Sure I think that's what this is, I'm uncertain if the approach is right, but I can't condemn accepting what is deemed cold reality. I also feel it's not real necessary to pit marginalized groups against each other. One could very well argue that picking Kamala Harris does as well help an actually marginalized group that just happens to be larger in numbers and hence being a more influential group to pander to. How I see this in general, I already lost 10.000 words about that.
I will say this again though for whatever reason, if it were about choosing the candidate that really helps the black community in their most dire needs, it would have been the guy that is for universal healthcare and free, well-funded education. But it seems he had the wrong skin tone, as empathically stated by way too many people. I wasn't rooting for Bernie for several reasons, but all those "he's an old white male and that's all there is to say to that" comments really rubbed me the wrong way.
RE: It's Kamala! - Millhouse - 08-17-2020
I don't mind Biden wanted to pick a black woman as his VP. Just sucks he picked this one. She is one of those that climbed the ladder of power that would have made a good character in Game of Thrones.
RE: It's Kamala! - hollodero - 08-17-2020
(08-17-2020, 12:38 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I don't mind Biden wanted to pick a black woman as his VP. Just sucks he picked this one. She is one of those that climbed the ladder of power that would have made a good character in Game of Thrones.
To be fair, who isn't.
RE: It's Kamala! - Belsnickel - 08-17-2020
Every VP pick out there is a strategic pandering attempt. The strategy with Harris is an interesting one. The most consistent voting bloc for liberals are black women. Biden has some questions regarding women and race. Because of this, selecting a black woman was intended to help that. It's ridiculous, but that's our politics. Harris, specifically, is seen as a good choice because her history as a prosecutor makes her hard to attack on policy from the right.
Anyway, it's not going to move the needle, any.
RE: It's Kamala! - Goalpost - 08-17-2020
Again. I'm not picking for Biden. But I think a more geographical choice would have helped him. In the battle ground states per say. The east coast and west coast aren't going to flip, but a Midwest or Southern candidate could have made more impact.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-17-2020
(08-17-2020, 01:32 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Again. I'm not picking for Biden. But I think a more geographical choice would have helped him. In the battle ground states per say. The east coast and west coast aren't going to flip, but a Midwest or Southern candidate could have made more impact.
That was Hillary's strategy in picking Kaine. But this is a different election and your point is a good one.
But suppose Biden had picked a vp from Florida or Ohio or Texas. If that candidate were not black, or a woman, what assurance is there of a net gain? For many waffling independents, Harris is another "safe" choice. And its the independents for the most part that have to be convinced, especially in those battleground states.
Stupid that this election has to be close anyway. But that means fractions are important.
RE: It's Kamala! - Benton - 08-17-2020
(08-17-2020, 03:55 PM)Dill Wrote: That was Hillary's strategy in picking Kaine. But this is a different election and your point is a good one.
But suppose Biden had picked a vp from Florida or Ohio or Texas. If that candidate were not black, or a woman, what assurance is there of a net gain? For many waffling independents, Harris is another "safe" choice. And its the independents for the most part that have to be convinced, especially in those battleground states.
Stupid that this election has to be close anyway. But that means fractions are important.
Minorities in those states largely make up the Dem voting anyway. Selecting a black female from ohio wouldn't do much to bring in the majority in that state. But selecting a white male would pull some voters away from trump and likely get a few more off their couches to go vote.
I suppose he's falling into the same trap Dems have done for decades of looking at nationwide numbers and not state by state, which is a big part of why they have a majority of voters but can't seem to figure out how to win the EC.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-17-2020
(08-17-2020, 05:34 PM)Benton Wrote: Minorities in those states largely make up the Dem voting anyway. Selecting a black female from ohio wouldn't do much to bring in the majority in that state. But selecting a white male would pull some voters away from trump and likely get a few more off their couches to go vote.
I suppose he's falling into the same trap Dems have done for decades of looking at nationwide numbers and not state by state, which is a big part of why they have a majority of voters but can't seem to figure out how to win the EC.
What if he's picked Sherrod Brown and Brown accepted? Would that have helped elsewhere?
Lot of things to consider with these picks. I think Hillary was looking at the election state by state. That in part why she chose Kaine and spent so much time campaigning inf Florida. She just never imagined that PA, MI and WI could flip for Trump.
In Harris' case, she also brings a strong connection with the Senate and a proven ability to fund raise.
Everyone says the VP debate means nothing. (Who knows, we might not even have one this time around.) But I don't agree.
Harris' has a good chance of beating Pence, though he is certainly a better debater than Trump. And people would have noted if Biden picked someone who looked bad or even "equal" against Pence. More so than in any other election, people will feel they are looking at a VP who might have to step into the Oval Office at any point in the next couple of years.
Another thing--this VP pick is also about "transition," leadership being passed to a new generation. It's not a given that Harris' will step into this role, perform strongly enough to actually be Dems next presidential candidate. Or become secretary of State or Defense. But she is, at the moment, more likely to than Rice, Abrams and Bottoms to fill that role.
RE: It's Kamala! - masterpanthera_t - 08-18-2020
(08-16-2020, 04:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: VP picks at best provide a modest boost, though rarely to any degree that shifts the electoral map. Though, having a minority woman is unprecedented, so that could change the pattern.Agreed
RE: It's Kamala! - masterpanthera_t - 08-18-2020
(08-16-2020, 05:13 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't see "amicability" as an issue at this level. Bush I accused Reagan of pushing "voodo economics," then bonded with the guy for 8 years. The people who wanted Reagan saw many advantages in the choice.
You mentioned Abrams--I like her, but one reason I prefer Harris so far is that she has at least some experience of national politics and foreign policy.
I don't think either were yet prepared for a national presidential campaign, but I think Harris may nevertheless learn from campaign missteps. Dem voters won't hold any of that against her if she seems to be "working" for/with Biden.
This still seems to me a much more sensible choice than Hillary's selection of Kaine, who failed to deliver the white male vote lol.
I agree this doesn't impact the voting landscape significantly and I've said as much explicitly. Because Biden had imposed restrictions on himself, I can see Harris over Abrams from an experience point of view.
I do feel better candidates were cast aside, but at this point the reasons for the choice have been well articulated and there's no reason for me to restart those discussions.