08-17-2020, 06:37 PM
(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.