Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i think all of the "it's completely obvious that warren is the superior selection" attitude is prompting the bias here.  i don't think either one is the obvious pick, and i'd feel confident with either heading into nov.

Concur. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

Concur. 

Same. I think with the exception of maybe five posters, everyone on here would be just fine with Warren or Harris and likes both of them. I think they'd both be strong VPs.

Viscerally, I do want to see Harris go full blown rabid dog and tear Trump/Pence apart, because she is a tough and smart litigator. But that's almost a purely emotional thing. Either one is great by me.

Edited by BradInATX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Lord love a duck, that was funny after a long and trying day.

Hugo--I don't have any issue with you and have enjoyed many of your posts, but that was a good one by Doc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t read every page on this thread so this may have been discussed, but thoughts on Susan Rice as VP.  Very intelligent with tons of experience and knowledge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brandywine said:

I haven’t read every page on this thread so this may have been discussed, but thoughts on Susan Rice as VP.  Very intelligent with tons of experience and knowledge. 

When you talk to Zoomers about potential veep nominees, the first words out of their mouths are "Holy shit fuck yeah Susan Rice!"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 406W30th said:

When you talk to Zoomers about potential veep nominees, the first words out of their mouths are "Holy shit fuck yeah Susan Rice!"

democrats are wild, right?

i think i'm getting the hang of this progressive twitter talk.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 406W30th said:

When you talk to Zoomers about potential veep nominees, the first words out of their mouths are "Holy shit fuck yeah Susan Rice!"

That's funny. Susan Rice = Bree Larson. Technically gifted, but shines in the background not facing the public. Her name recognition has to be in the low to mid-20's among the public. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rice is definitely not in your face and aggressive as Harris, who at times can be a pit bull. I like both. But I saw an interview with Rice the other day and I thought she would be really good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This polling shows Black voters don't think race should be a factor. And favorability with candidates is basically just name recognition at this point. 

IMO VP polling seems to be pretty worthless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

This polling shows Black voters don't think race should be a factor. And favorability with candidates is basically just name recognition at this point. 

IMO VP polling seems to be pretty worthless.

 

I had a conversation with my step dad yesterday. He's a convert from Trump and is voting blue all the way down this fall. He's horrified by what he's seen. He hasn't been following this stuff as closely as the rest of us, but he's paying attention. He was asking about VPs, etc. He was mostly ok with Harris. But when I said the other leading candidate seems to be Warren, the progressive, he flat out said that would have to make him reconsider his vote, because she's too progressive.

It's one guy, albeit a highly educated one with two degrees in engineering and mathematics. A lifelong republican who is horrified by what he's seeing. And yet the mention of Warren as VP and he stopped abruptly. Again, a sample size of one. But I feel pretty comfortable assuming there are A LOT of moderates that feel similarly to him.  So this notion that warren is so popular with absolutely zero potential net negatives doesn't ring true to me. At all. So I don't think she should be the VP because there's about half a dozen ways she can be a meaningful and driving impact on the party and America while not being in the VP spot. It's not either/or. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

This polling shows Black voters don't think race should be a factor. And favorability with candidates is basically just name recognition at this point. 

IMO VP polling seems to be pretty worthless.

 

Hey..... a few of us have been saying this all along.  It's a lot of hand wringing over marginal benefits.  Historically, only Demings and maybe Abrams would really move the needle.

If it's not going to be one of them, then just go with who you want..... unless is Klo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I had a conversation with my step dad yesterday. He's a convert from Trump and is voting blue all the way down this fall. He's horrified by what he's seen. He hasn't been following this stuff as closely as the rest of us, but he's paying attention. He was asking about VPs, etc. He was mostly ok with Harris. But when I said the other leading candidate seems to be Warren, the progressive, he flat out said that would have to make him reconsider his vote, because she's too progressive.

It's one guy, albeit a highly educated one with two degrees in engineering and mathematics. A lifelong republican who is horrified by what he's seeing. And yet the mention of Warren as VP and he stopped abruptly. Again, a sample size of one. But I feel pretty comfortable assuming there are A LOT of moderates that feel similarly to him.  So this notion that warren is so popular with absolutely zero potential net negatives doesn't ring true to me. At all. So I don't think she should be the VP because there's about half a dozen ways she can be a meaningful and driving impact on the party and America while not being in the VP spot. It's not either/or. 

Sigh.  I agree with the last part, but god damn this sucks.  It's pure fear and makes zero sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the good old days when the progressive at the top of the ticket needed a moderate VP. Now that Biden is the presumptive POTUS no need for a progressive VP. No need to appease the progressive base. At least the hypocrisy is consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Current make-up of the electorate:

25% Republican 

31% Democrat

40% Independents 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
 

First off, I don’t give a flying fuck about appealing to life long Republicans.  They’re not the votes we’re looking for, they’re not going to make the difference.  It’s the independents that decide elections.  So sorry to hear your Republican pappy has issues with Warren b/c she actually wants to do something but it’s irrelevant.

Trump won independents by one point in 2016 43/42

05DD129B_07C5_4248_9F6D_ED9FD016A9D4_IMG

Independent DOES NOT MEAN MODERATE.

Independents are not a monolith and the selling point of Bernie’s campaign was that he resonated with independents.  Indeed, many independents tend to dislike both parties and the “corrupt establishment.” They like change agents and this was a resonating message for the Tea Party/Trump among independents in the past.  They like the negative partisanship messaging. 

Why isn’t this being discussed in the VP debate? I dunno but perhaps because the establishment wants it that way.  

While I’ve posted lots of VP polling data, the most telling thing is the polling data I don’t have. 

I’m sure the Biden campaign has hypothetical VP tickets polling information in swing states but that information isn’t being made public for whatever reason.  

“What do the Texas polls look like when it’s Biden/Harris vs Biden/Warren against Trump/Pence?”

 I don’t know but I bet the Biden campaign does. 

Biden’s base is moderates and older Blacks. Why Biden needs to appeal to this group with the VP pick defies all logic.  Obama didn’t pick Biden because he’d get more young people to vote.  He picked him for ideological balance and to appease working class whites in the mid-west. 

My reasoning for wanting Warren as VP is simple:  I want her for VP because she would make the best President should something happen to Biden and I believe she would run a more effective campaign against Trump.  

I don’t just want to beat Trump, I want to humiliate him and the entire Republican Party to the point that we don’t have to worry about a crypto fascist Josh Hawley coming in and winning on Trumpism in 2024.  

When I here folks wanting to play it super safe with some Bloomberg backed democratic insider, this is pretty much my mood:

/rant.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you talk to Zoomers about potential veep nominees, the first words out of their mouths are "Holy shit fuck yeah Susan Rice!"
 

She was impressive tonight. If the bounty thing gets legs, straightening up that mess would be right up her alley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sydney Carton's step-dad is going to vote for Donald Trump no matter how hard the Dems simp for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More VP polling! 

In the poll, nominating a woman of color was more important to whites than Blacks. Seventy-five percent of whites said it was very or somewhat important to them; 60% of Blacks took that view. So did 81% of Hispanics.

Among Democrats under 25, 85% called it very or somewhat important, a higher proportion than among older voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s so funny about that polling is it’s irrelevant for general election purposes.  It assumes the only people voting are democrats. 

If the democrats were so interested in elevating a person of color, why didn’t they nominate one for President? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

More VP polling! 

In the poll, nominating a woman of color was more important to whites than Blacks. Seventy-five percent of whites said it was very or somewhat important to them; 60% of Blacks took that view. So did 81% of Hispanics.

Among Democrats under 25, 85% called it very or somewhat important, a higher proportion than among older voters.

Let's get Condoleezza Rice on the ticket!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all seriousness, it has to be Abrams right?  She is so horribly perfect for this administration - a face and nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What’s so funny about that polling is it’s irrelevant for general election purposes.  It assumes the only people voting are democrats. 

If the democrats were so interested in elevating a person of color, why didn’t they nominate one for President? 

If Democrats were so interested in elevating Warren, why didn't they nominate her for President? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

If Democrats were so interested in elevating Warren, why didn't they nominate her for President? 

She was the top performing woman in the primary so...

And if you’re looking for informative polling on questions of race and the VP, the framing of the question makes all the difference in the world.

982570DC_3CE3_41A8_8CAE_395078AD7B03_IMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

In all seriousness, it has to be Abrams right?  She is so horribly perfect for this administration - a face and nothing else.

Assuming not Warren, it’s going to be Kamala Harris. There is a shadow campaign for her like I’ve never seen. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She was the top performing woman in the primary so...

And if you’re looking for informative polling on questions of race and the VP, the framing of the question makes all the difference in the world.

982570DC_3CE3_41A8_8CAE_395078AD7B03_IMG

Polls that favor the Warren for VP argument are real and good. Polls that favor a POC for VP are faulty and bad. Okay. 

Please provide links when posting these jpegs. I don't know if the info above was from last week or 2 months ago. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Polls that favor the Warren for VP argument are real and good. Polls that favor a POC for VP are faulty and bad. Okay. 

Please provide links when posting these jpegs. I don't know if the info above was from last week or 2 months ago. 

 

 

The VP polling data, even the ones favorable to Warren, are not very informative as to which pick would be the most politically strategic in a 2020 election against Trump. 

I’ve said this before but the polling data most valuable isn’t available.  

How would a Biden/Warren vs Biden/Harris tickets perform against Trump/Pence in swing states.  That’s the most valuable information polls could tell us.  Instead we’re getting these bullshit polls about race and among democrats only.  That doesn’t help us understand which one helps Biden beat Trump.  It’s just noise to talk about. 
 

A case could also be made for which pick resonates with independents but there isn’t enough good polling data on that either.

Here’s where I pulled that graphic:

 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/biden-vice-president-voters.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moreover, there is a good progressive argument for Biden to pick a Black woman as his VP but no one is making it.  

You could argue that Biden should pick a Black woman because it brings the lived experience of a Black woman to the table to help shape Biden’s policy decisions.  No one is making that argument because it’s not about policy for the pundits, it’s about optics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

In all seriousness, it has to be Abrams right?  She is so horribly perfect for this administration - a face and nothing else.

Pretty telling you would describe a black woman with a law degree from Yale, an MPA from UT, and 10 years of state congressional experience (including 6 as minority leader) as "a face and nothing else".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

Pretty telling you would describe a black woman with a law degree from Yale, an MPA from UT, and 10 years of state congressional experience (including 6 as minority leader) as "a face and nothing else".  

*MPAff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

How would a Biden/Warren vs Biden/Harris tickets perform against Trump/Pence in swing states.  That’s the most valuable information polls could tell us.

this polling is being done, i assure you. but it’s internal. 

my guess is the difference is negligible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

Pretty telling you would describe a black woman with a law degree from Yale, an MPA from UT, and 10 years of state congressional experience (including 6 as minority leader) as "a face and nothing else".  

I couldn’t care less about her or any other politician’s academic credentials. They are meaningless to how she would govern if Biden were to croak. If anything it just reinforces the fact that she’s a worthless striver looking to use her political career as a means, in her words, to become wealthy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I couldn’t care less about her or any other politician’s academic credentials. They are meaningless to how she would govern if Biden were to croak. If anything it just reinforces the fact that she’s a worthless striver looking to use her political career as a means, in her words, to become wealthy

citation? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

citation? 

Try Google. She has said, in the context of rejecting a statewide $15 minimum wage, that she has no interest in doing class warfare because she wants to be wealthy.  She’s openly acknowledged that she doesn’t want to upset the paymasters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Try Google. She has said, in the context of rejecting a statewide $15 minimum wage, that she has no interest in doing class warfare because she wants to be wealthy.  She’s openly acknowledged that she doesn’t want to upset the paymasters. 

Thats certainly one way to interpret her quote. 

 

She was talking about a $15 minimum wage statewide being too much of a shock to the economy.  

 

while Abrams supports raising the minimum wage to about $15 an hour in cities like Atlanta, she’d stop short of a statewide increase, explaining that Georgia’s history of resistance to unions has kept wages so low that a blanket hike would be too much of a shock to the economy.

“I’m not going to do class warfare; I want to be wealthy,” she tells the far-from-wealthy crowd at the Fair Fight rally. “You’ve probably got aspirations about that too.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Try Google. She has said, in the context of rejecting a statewide $15 minimum wage, that she has no interest in doing class warfare because she wants to be wealthy.  She’s openly acknowledged that she doesn’t want to upset the paymasters. 

Ahhhhhh, this: 

Quote

But while Abrams supports raising the minimum wage to about $15 an hour in cities like Atlanta, she’d stop short of a statewide increase, explaining that Georgia’s history of resistance to unions has kept wages so low that a blanket hike would be too much of a shock to the economy.

“I’m not going to do class warfare; I want to be wealthy,” she tells the far-from-wealthy crowd at the Fair Fight rally. “You’ve probably got aspirations about that too.” Many in the room nod in recognition.

https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/stacey-abrams-whats-next.html

Yep, just like Trump and all the others out there that are running a grift through politics. She decided to look at things holistically and try to find answers that balance the impact as much as possible. What a worthless striver. 

Her aversion to class politics in favor of identity politics is outlined better here: 

Quote

Fukuyama and other critics of identity politics contend that broad categories such as economic class contain multitudes and that all attention should focus on wide constructs rather than the substrates of inequality. But such arguments fail to acknowledge that some members of any particular economic class have advantages not enjoyed by others in their cohort. U.S. history abounds with examples of members of dominant groups abandoning class solidarity after concluding that opportunity is a zero-sum game. The oppressed have often aimed their impotent rage at those too low on the social scale to even attempt rebellion.

This is particularly true in the catchall category known as “the working class.” Conflict between black and white laborers stretches back to the earliest eras in U.S. history, which witnessed tensions between African slaves and European indentured servants. Racism and sexism have long tarnished the heroic story of the U.S. labor movement—defects that contributed to the rise of a segregated middle class and to persistent pay disparities between men and women, disparities exacerbated by racial differences. Indeed, the American working class has consistently relied on people of color and women to push for improved status for workers but has been slow to include them in the movement’s victories.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/node/1123763

 

She seems like someone who has thought thru this pretty deeply and I think would serve her well if ascending to President. But you are probably right, just a face who wants to be wealthy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

this polling is being done, i assure you. but it’s internal. 

my guess is the difference is negligible. 

I wish I could guess but if one gives even a nominal advantage in states like Ohio or Texas with no liability, that might be decisive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey everyone.  nobody thinks it will be abrams, except fozz, who will explain why she's the logical choice and also why she's horrible.

just another wednesday on the surl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I wish I could guess but if one gives even a nominal advantage in states like Ohio or Texas with no liability, that might be decisive. 

if you're talking about ohio and texas, this thing is over.

if you could show me relevant numbers from arizona, michigan, north caro, pennsylvania, wisconsin, and florida, sure, i'll take a look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

if you're talking about ohio and texas, this thing is over.

if you could show me relevant numbers from arizona, michigan, north caro, pennsylvania, wisconsin, and florida, sure, i'll take a look.

Yeah, I guess my point is I cannot make a conclusion on this without the data. I can’t assume there’s no difference until the data tells me there’s no difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see those numbers and how much weight the Biden team gives to them. Like, say Warren and Harris are pretty even across the board, but in Florida Biden/Harris is +3 over Trump, but Biden/Warren is +13 (just throwing out random numbers). Would a number like that in Florida be enough to swing it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

Thats certainly one way to interpret her quote. 

 

She was talking about a $15 minimum wage statewide being too much of a shock to the economy.  

 

 

 

lol didn't want to jeopardize that A rating from the Georgia Chamber of Commerce.  She's a grifter, which is why she's been groveling so obscenely for the VP spot and why she defended Bloomberg's campaign.  Her politics is a politics of what will serve to advance her career and nothing more.  It has to be embarrassing to others in her profession how transparent she is about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Ahhhhhh, this: 

https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/stacey-abrams-whats-next.html

Yep, just like Trump and all the others out there that are running a grift through politics. She decided to look at things holistically and try to find answers that balance the impact as much as possible. What a worthless striver. 

Her aversion to class politics in favor of identity politics is outlined better here: 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/node/1123763

 

She seems like someone who has thought thru this pretty deeply and I think would serve her well if ascending to President. But you are probably right, just a face who wants to be wealthy. 

That is laughable.  The identity politics used by the right to dissolve class solidarity cannot be combated by an inverse identity politics practiced by the other side.  All people like Abrams can possibly hope to achieve with their project is to diversify the winners and losers, which will do nothing to address the totality of suffering of the poor.  It will lend some legitimacy to that suffering though as it it's much easier to blame downscale whites for their predicament than it is to blame blacks, which is probably why the Democratic party has moved and is continuing to move in this direction.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming not Warren, it’s going to be Kamala Harris. There is a shadow campaign for her like I’ve never seen. 

Shadow campaigns are the ones you never see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tuco said:


Shadow campaigns are the ones you never see.

lol

Inexplicable shifts in polling data.  Kamala is on the rise.  She has a formidable troll army too.  Whatever they’re doing, it’s working. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

lol

Inexplicable shifts in polling data.  Kamala is on the rise.  She has a formidable troll army too.  Whatever they’re doing, it’s working. 

I don't think it's a shadow campaign.  I think it's out there in the open.  She wants the job and everyone understands it. 

Also, her undressing of Cornyn on the "JUSTICE" bill made the rounds, and demonstrated that she can speak convincingly and with authority on that issue.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tuco said:

undressing of Cornyn on the "JUSTICE" bill made the rounds, and demonstrated that she can speak convincingly and with authority on that issue.  

This is such a low bar.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tuco said:

I don't think it's a shadow campaign.  I think it's out there in the open.  She wants the job and everyone understands it. 

Also, her undressing of Cornyn on the "JUSTICE" bill made the rounds, and demonstrated that she can speak convincingly and with authority on that issue.  

her questioning of barr back when is starting to get extraordinarily relevant, now that they removed the top guy at sdny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...