|
Post by edgbaston on Mar 30, 2020 19:53:09 GMT
I thought a radical VP (especially one who may be controversial amongst progressives right now) would be a bit of a no-go as I assumed that they'd be unable to enthuse potentially non-voting progressives to vote for Biden and would also alienate moderates (as Biden is old enough for the 'this person could be President' scare tactic to work well). However, he does have an enthusiasm problem in the General Election and it may be worth taking the above risk to deal with that. I'm curious to see more polls on this; in any case, I think Harris is highly overrated in terms of the electoral capital she'd bring to the ticket, and that there may be (electorally) better progressives than Warren to put on the ticket (Sanders himself comes to mind, though Biden would have to u-turn on the 'woman VP' stance for that to work). Klobuchar at least makes Minnesota a lock, and while the VP effect is dubious at the national level, their home state bump is definitely real. What about Catherine Cortez Masto, she seems to me like the sensible choice given who Biden is realistically going to pick.
|
|
|
Post by adlai52 on Mar 30, 2020 20:11:30 GMT
I thought a radical VP (especially one who may be controversial amongst progressives right now) would be a bit of a no-go as I assumed that they'd be unable to enthuse potentially non-voting progressives to vote for Biden and would also alienate moderates (as Biden is old enough for the 'this person could be President' scare tactic to work well). However, he does have an enthusiasm problem in the General Election and it may be worth taking the above risk to deal with that. I'm curious to see more polls on this; in any case, I think Harris is highly overrated in terms of the electoral capital she'd bring to the ticket, and that there may be (electorally) better progressives than Warren to put on the ticket (Sanders himself comes to mind, though Biden would have to u-turn on the 'woman VP' stance for that to work). Klobuchar at least makes Minnesota a lock, and while the VP effect is dubious at the national level, their home state bump is definitely real. What about Catherine Cortez Masto, she seems to me like the sensible choice given who Biden is realistically going to pick. Harry Reid is pushing for Biden to tap Cortez-Masto as well apparently. Added advantage that she doesn’t have the baggage that Rice has re Benghazi.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Mar 30, 2020 20:16:03 GMT
I think Biden either picks a Latina or Klobuchar / Whitmer (to help in the mid west). He has pledged to put an African-American woman on the supreme court which I assume means that he isn't going to pick an African-American running mate.
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Mar 30, 2020 20:44:34 GMT
I think Biden either picks a Latina or Klobuchar / Whitmer (to help in the mid west). He has pledged to put an African-American woman on the supreme court which I assume means that he isn't going to pick an African-American running mate. Well if the Democrats don't take the Senate the republicans may just hold any vacant seat open for 4 years. Especially if its a Conservative judge being replaced. I wouldn't put it past these people at all.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Mar 30, 2020 20:58:08 GMT
I think Biden either picks a Latina or Klobuchar / Whitmer (to help in the mid west). He has pledged to put an African-American woman on the supreme court which I assume means that he isn't going to pick an African-American running mate. Well if the Democrats don't take the Senate the republicans may just hold any vacant seat open for 4 years. Especially if its a Conservative judge being replaced. I wouldn't put it past these people at all. Extremely unlikely in my view. McConnell is not stupid and he knows that there would be a severe backlash against such an outrageous stance. Furthermore we are likely talking about Ginsberg's replacement and not one of the conservative justices. It also very hard to imagine Collins (if re-elected) and Murkowski going along with something like that.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,162
|
Post by mboy on Mar 30, 2020 21:29:11 GMT
RBG will be the first to go though. I don’t think the GOP will hold up her replacement unless it’s a loon.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Mar 30, 2020 22:28:10 GMT
RBG will be the first to go though. I don’t think the GOP will hold up her replacement unless it’s a loon. Why? The precedent has been set; the pro-appointment backlash wouldn't be much stronger than that against the non-appointment of Garland. Conversely, the devil McConnell doesn't yet know is the threat of backlash from the base - encouraged by Trump - should they bow to Biden in a way they have already demonstrated to be unnecessary. All Biden could retaliate with is a shock recess appointment, but that is little more than a one-trick pony and Biden is very hesitant to use executive power to effect change that legislative power opposes.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Mar 30, 2020 22:37:43 GMT
I thought a radical VP (especially one who may be controversial amongst progressives right now) would be a bit of a no-go as I assumed that they'd be unable to enthuse potentially non-voting progressives to vote for Biden and would also alienate moderates (as Biden is old enough for the 'this person could be President' scare tactic to work well). However, he does have an enthusiasm problem in the General Election and it may be worth taking the above risk to deal with that. I'm curious to see more polls on this; in any case, I think Harris is highly overrated in terms of the electoral capital she'd bring to the ticket, and that there may be (electorally) better progressives than Warren to put on the ticket (Sanders himself comes to mind, though Biden would have to u-turn on the 'woman VP' stance for that to work). Klobuchar at least makes Minnesota a lock, and while the VP effect is dubious at the national level, their home state bump is definitely real. You’re clearly not going to get Sanders on the ticket as the combined age would be around 150. I’m dubious about polls such as this as they’re likely the only three women other than Nancy Pelosi who have any kind of name recognition. Often with an experienced top of the ticket the VP is a relative unknown (John Edwards, Dan Quayle, Mike Pence), and it wouldn’t surprise me if Biden does likewise and not worry overly about appealing to the Sanders supporters; one very vocal supporter, who apparently remains close to the family, is Susan Rice, a veteran of the Clinton Administration who was UN Ambassador and National Security Advisor in the Obama Administration. She would tick the box of a potential woman President (being the obvious frontrunner in 2024 if successful), motivate African American turnout, but also have an appeal to those suburban voters who have been flooding to the Democrats in the Trump years. Equally she’s not got any domestic baggage to drag down the white vote in the Midwest who went Obama-Trump in 2016. With respect to the bolded part, how so beyond the candidacy that's already on the top of the ticket? She has had a low profile for a while and a controversial record before that - I would not imagine it to be especially controversial to Democratic-leaning African-Americans relative to other swing voters, but I don't see where the distinct pull is, to them or suburbanites (there are plenty of moderates who haven't been mired in controversial foreign policy that drives away isolationists). Assuming it's a matter of representation, I get the rationale behind 'woman VP', but there has already been a black president; I'm not sure representation has a significant pull here, and there are plenty of potential VPs who are female. N.B. foreign policy controversy: there's a fair amount, but the most electorally important controversy may be the least geopolitically significant - Benghazi. The Republicans wouldn't even need new talking points; they could just repurpose the old HRC lines, and those seemed to have some success.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Mar 30, 2020 22:52:15 GMT
RBG will be the first to go though. I don’t think the GOP will hold up her replacement unless it’s a loon. Why? The precedent has been set; the pro-appointment backlash wouldn't be much stronger than that against the non-appointment of Garland. Conversely, the devil McConnell doesn't yet know is the threat of backlash from the base - encouraged by Trump - should they bow to Biden in a way they have already demonstrated to be unnecessary. All Biden could retaliate with is a shock recess appointment, but that is little more than a one-trick pony and Biden is very hesitant to use executive power to effect change that legislative power opposes. Recess appointments basically can't happen anymore because the Senate never goes into recess. When the Senate goes off for their regular breaks they hold pro forma sessions every three days where a single Senator goes in and gavels the Senate into session and then out again. Obama did try and make a recess appointment and argued in the courts that the Senate was in recess but the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against him. On the wider point I think there difference between the Garland situation and refusing to hold a vote on a nomination made by a newly elected President is considerable. If McConnell goes down that road he will basically ensure that if the Democrats ever hold all the marbles again that they will abandon all restraint. A future Democratic majority could abolish the legislative filibuster, increase the size of the supreme court (and other courts) and then confirm judges at even quicker rate than he has. As things stand nobody is seriously arguing for that but if the GOP's position is that they will never confirm a supreme court nomination by a Democratic President that would change.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 30, 2020 23:43:07 GMT
I think Biden either picks a Latina or Klobuchar / Whitmer (to help in the mid west). He has pledged to put an African-American woman on the supreme court which I assume means that he isn't going to pick an African-American running mate. Well if the Democrats don't take the Senate the republicans may just hold any vacant seat open for 4 years. Especially if its a Conservative judge being replaced. I wouldn't put it past these people at all. In theory he could only hold it open for two years as he’s got midterms in 2022, and little room for manoeuvre as people like Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, possibly Rob Portman in Ohio are going to be playing defence, plus the perennial dogfight in Florida for Marco Rubio. You’ll have the McCain/McSally seat on the ballot again in Arizona, a potentially competitive race in Georgia for the Isakson/Loeffler seat, a potentially open seat in Iowa if Grassley calls it quits, and, assuming he survives the share selling controversy currently swirling around him, an open seat in North Carolina, as Richard Burr has already said this is his last term. Without presidential level turnout that makes it tough for McConnell to hold his caucus together as he did for the Garland nomination.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 30, 2020 23:55:12 GMT
You’re clearly not going to get Sanders on the ticket as the combined age would be around 150. I’m dubious about polls such as this as they’re likely the only three women other than Nancy Pelosi who have any kind of name recognition. Often with an experienced top of the ticket the VP is a relative unknown (John Edwards, Dan Quayle, Mike Pence), and it wouldn’t surprise me if Biden does likewise and not worry overly about appealing to the Sanders supporters; one very vocal supporter, who apparently remains close to the family, is Susan Rice, a veteran of the Clinton Administration who was UN Ambassador and National Security Advisor in the Obama Administration. She would tick the box of a potential woman President (being the obvious frontrunner in 2024 if successful), motivate African American turnout, but also have an appeal to those suburban voters who have been flooding to the Democrats in the Trump years. Equally she’s not got any domestic baggage to drag down the white vote in the Midwest who went Obama-Trump in 2016. With respect to the bolded part, how so beyond the candidacy that's already on the top of the ticket? She has had a low profile for a while and a controversial record before that - I would not imagine it to be especially controversial to Democratic-leaning African-Americans relative to other swing voters, but I don't see where the distinct pull is, to them or suburbanites (there are plenty of moderates who haven't been mired in controversial foreign policy that drives away isolationists). Assuming it's a matter of representation, I get the rationale behind 'woman VP', but there has already been a black president; I'm not sure representation has a significant pull here, and there are plenty of potential VPs who are female. N.B. foreign policy controversy: there's a fair amount, but the most electorally important controversy may be the least geopolitically significant - Benghazi. The Republicans wouldn't even need new talking points; they could just repurpose the old HRC lines, and those seemed to have some success. The pull amongst moderates I referred to is they tend to be strong national security voters, and many are in military districts. Somebody with her foreign policy credentials ticks the box when it comes to the possibility of having the experience to step up - I don’t think voters much care about domestic policy in such a specific circumstance, but do want someone they feel confident can keep the country safe. Benghazi might be an attack line but it’ll be less successful a) because it played directly into people’s pre-existing qualms about Clinton personally, b) the National Security Council is so detached from the State Department she can justifiably argue she knew nothing until after the event (same reason they’re not going to get traction against Biden on the issue - even as VP he likely heard about it first on CNN); c) it’s becoming a distant memory in voter’s minds, much water has flowed under the bridge since then. Why not Cortez-Masto? Partly experience, or lack thereof, and partly because Biden has historically surrounded himself with people he likes and trusts, and we’ve no idea whether she fits into that.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Mar 31, 2020 10:42:11 GMT
Why not Cortez-Masto? Partly experience, or lack thereof, and partly because Biden has historically surrounded himself with people he likes and trusts, and we’ve no idea whether she fits into that. That's not true. Biden has an excellent working relationship with CCM, which is one of the reasons she has been mentioned (there is no hyphen in her name btw).
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Mar 31, 2020 14:22:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Mar 31, 2020 17:06:47 GMT
Potential pitfalls of an all-mail primary in a state where attempted voter purges are in progress.
Not sure which candidate this hurts more, but I would suspect Sanders, given that the purges focus on assuming a voter is going to, or has, moved to a new residence (disproportionately affecting younger voters). This is in contrast to a lot of minority-suppressing measuring presumably hurting Biden's tally more in previous primaries (Texas etc.).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2020 17:39:12 GMT
This is in contrast to a lot of minority-suppressing measuring presumably hurting Biden's tally more in previous primaries (Texas etc.). Except that Sanders dominated with Hispanics in Texas. Minority-suppressing would surely have harmed Bernie in that state.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Mar 31, 2020 17:49:34 GMT
This is in contrast to a lot of minority-suppressing measuring presumably hurting Biden's tally more in previous primaries (Texas etc.). Except that Sanders dominated with Hispanics in Texas. Minority-suppressing would surely have harmed Bernie in that state. That's a fair point, but my bet was based on the substantial targeting of the black vote there by measures reducing the number of polling stations in particular places - it has traditionally broken more heavily for the Democrats than the Hispanic vote.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Mar 31, 2020 22:20:30 GMT
Potential pitfalls of an all-mail primary in a state where attempted voter purges are in progress. Not sure which candidate this hurts more, but I would suspect Sanders, given that the purges focus on assuming a voter is going to, or has, moved to a new residence (disproportionately affecting younger voters). This is in contrast to a lot of minority-suppressing measuring presumably hurting Biden's tally more in previous primaries (Texas etc.). The GOP controlled legislature have refused to change the law to allow vote by mail ballots to be sent out to all voters because they want a low turn election, especially in urban Milwaukee. This has nothing to do with the Presidential Primary but the far more important election to the State Supreme Court where Justice Daniel Kelly, who was appointed by then Gov Scott Walker in 2016, finally has to face the voters. A Kelly win will retain the solid 5-2 conservative majority on the court where as a win for Jill Karofsky would leave the court one appointment / election away from a major ideological swing. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has a strange election system. There are 7 justices who are elected statewide to 10 year terms in what are technically non-partisan elections (in reality these are now partisan contests) and only one justice can be elected each year. In the event of a vacancy occurring due to death or resignation the Governor appoints a replacement who serves until the first year when no other judge is up for re-election.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Mar 31, 2020 22:40:44 GMT
I should add that if Kelly does win then 4 of the 5 conservative justices will be aged between 42 and 56 and will have between 6 and 10 years of their current terms to run. Therefore it is highly likely that if he wins the conservative wing will be in the majority for at least the next 6 years.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 1, 2020 15:40:51 GMT
An incomplete (but interesting) map with the popular vote winner by county (California's results are slightly unreliable as it hasn't finished counting):
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Apr 1, 2020 16:56:45 GMT
Wisconsin Gov Tony Evers has ordered the Wisconsin National Guard to provide as many personal as possible to man polling stations next week. Over 1 million absentee ballots have already been requested which is roughly half the total number of votes in 2016 primary (both R and D).
|
|