American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

How about this? True colors?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1293618745907322880

My wife and I talked about this very issue this morning. The Dems have always been poor at setting up the future. The Castros should have played a bigger role in the last convention to give them more gravitas going forward. They should have had their tires pumped and been out in front on more issues. But they didn't.

I'm hopeful this will be a bellwether moment and the Dems will change this behavior with cabinet level selections. Stack the cabinet with younger players who will be able to transition in 2024 and 2028.

[Mickey76]

Moving on to the actual electability of Biden/Harris and I have to say I find the pick a little odd. 2016 demonstrated that a woman is certainly electable and 2008 and 2012 obviously showed that a black person can become president so as bad as things appear in the US, race and gender don't seem to affect the voting booth as much as you might think. The last 3 presidential elections were won by a black man and a woman won the popular vote in the 3rd.

But what exactly does Harris bring in as VP? Pence was a choice that made sense, Trump was disliked by the evangelicals and the Republicans need every single one of those votes so he picked a guy who resonated with them. Obama I think was seen as being a little too liberal and maybe inexperienced so Biden brought those voters in. But Harris is a bit of different story in the primaries she didn't seem well received by black voters, and given her law and order background and tough on crime approach I think she may merely appeal to supporters Biden already has. To tell you the truth I think she would have made a better candidate for a Republican candidate. This Novembver will be interesting for sure.

[FlamesAddiction]

How does the DNC work? Do they appoint speakers, or do members have to ask?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

How does the DNC work? Do they appoint speakers, or do members have to ask?

The DNC (that is, Tom Perez and company) appoints the speakers, but I gather that the nominee's campaign really has the final veto on who gets to speak and who doesn't. At the end of the day it's primarily a campaign event.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

A lot of people are discounting or flat out ignoring how progressive Harris has been in the senate. She votes with Sanders something like 95% of the time, and her voting record has one of the highest progressive ratings

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

Originally Posted by Mickey76

To tell you the truth I think she would have made a better candidate for a Republican candidate.

[White Out 403]

Harris is the 4th most liberal voting Senator in the current Senate.

She's hated by young people and not really loved by POC.

Kind of an odd choice but, this really shouldn't be about her.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Also:

Kind of silly he's not there. FFS, There are 35 slots. He doesn't need to be the keynote.

Yeah, stupid not to have Yang there, especially considering how popular he was with voters who could still ultimately choose Trump over Biden.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

He also has the less-than-common combination of,

1. People who will tune in just to hear him;
2. Sympathetic views with the Bernie wing (his campaign was ultimately about income inequality and the working class); and
3. Unequivocal, full-throated support of Biden since before Super Tuesday.

You'd think that would be someone you'd want to put on the stage, even if not in prime time, but I guess they had to make space for exciting speakers who represent the future of the party, like... Jim Clyburn? Doug Jones? Chuck Schumer? John Kerry? Chris Coons? Right then!

[GirlySports]

Heck not only Andrew Yang but Ted Lieu, should be a speaker. He's awesome on twitter.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Harris is the 4th most liberal voting Senator in the current Senate.

She's hated by young people and not really loved by POC.

Kind of an odd choice but, this really shouldn't be about her.

Not to pick on you specifically, but posts like this in general.

Where do you guys get your information to make statements like this with such certainty?

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Not to pick on you specifically, but posts like this in general.

Where do you guys get your information to make statements like this with such certainty?

538 politics. Pretty reliable source.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Harris is the 4th most liberal voting Senator in the current Senate.

She's hated by young people and not really loved by POC.

Kind of an odd choice but, this really shouldn't be about her.

Do you have some 538 data to support this claim? All I can find is this recent column.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ice-president/

[Wastedyouth]

Yeah, I am also not finding this on there either. But I haven't dug super deep into the site.

[White Out 403]

Their "emergency" podcast released yesterday they touch on all the points:
-being very liberal on voting record
-not popular among POC because of her record on being "too tough" on crime as an AG
-being unpopular with young people (perhaps hated was wrong word )

It's a great listen and I highly recommend their podcast as a regular listen. They lean left but in a fair way.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Their "emergency" podcast released yesterday they touch on all the points:
-being very liberal on voting record
-not popular among POC because of her record on being "too tough" on crime as an AG
-being unpopular with young people (perhaps hated was wrong word )

It's a great listen and I highly recommend their podcast as a regular listen. They lean left but in a fair way.

Personally I don't think much of anyone who thinks they know why some other VP candidate would have been better.

My guess is The Democrats have spent much of the last months carefully considering their strategy, their needs, potential scenarios, weaknesses of the Trump campaign, target demographics, who polls well with the groups they think they think they can get in the areas they need etc. They most likely have way more information than anyone else on this topic.

Of course more information doesn't necessarily lead to better decisions, but it does mean their decision was likely the most informed possible. Anyone else is guessing with less.

The US presidential election with it's bizarre and and antiquated mechanics makes for an extremely complicated chess game.

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I know. I'm a women of color. For me it's about personal relationships. If I knew you well, wouldn't I be happier for your success rather than someone far away just because they happened to be the same race? Like i don't care if Chong is the Conservative leader over others. Does Chong being Prime Minister or Clarkson or Jean when they were GG motivate me more?


Did Palin turn Democratic women to go GOP? It's all a strange argument to me.

People tend to vote for very shallow reasons, and they mostly care about surface level symbolism.

It's just how we are.

(Of course the funny part there is, because we care about shallow surface level symbolism so much, symbolic victories can be incredibly important.)

[chemgear]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1293637527669288960

[fulham]

Not a huge fan of picking a failed candidate for VP. She got torn to shreds and discarded by Tulsi Gabbard. If you were needing to pick a woman of colour whom was also a candidate she would be my choice.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Itse

Personally I don't think much of anyone who thinks they know why some other VP candidate would have been better.

My guess is The Democrats have spent much of the last months carefully considering their strategy, their needs, potential scenarios, weaknesses of the Trump campaign, target demographics, who polls well with the groups they think they think they can get in the areas they need etc. They most likely have way more information than anyone else on this topic.

Of course more information doesn't necessarily lead to better decisions, but it does mean their decision was likely the most informed possible. Anyone else is guessing with less.

The US presidential election with it's bizarre and and antiquated mechanics makes for an extremely complicated chess game.



People tend to vote for very shallow reasons, and they mostly care about surface level symbolism.

It's just how we are.

(Of course the funny part there is, because we care about shallow surface level symbolism so much, symbolic victories can be incredibly important.)

The Republicans chose Sarah Palin. So.. Yeah..

Just because they were picked by the DNC or RNC doesn't make them wise choices. Like at all.

[GirlySports]

Since you mention Palin. Again, I find that playing demographics is always a failed strategy. I mean, did the selection of Palin convert anybody? Did female democrat and independent voters suddenly turn to try and get a woman VP for the first time?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by fulham

Not a huge fan of picking a failed candidate for VP. She got torn to shreds and discarded by Tulsi Gabbard. If you were needing to pick a woman of colour whom was also a candidate she would be my choice.

Tulsi would have been a great pick to lead the ticket, but the Democrat party is way too pro war that's a big reason Gabbard was marginalized.

On Harris, I think it's a good move overall she's well spoken and intelligent although not especially likeable. No idea if she will hurt, help, or change nothing for black voters.