Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
I just gave you a negative example. Can you think of another negative example from, say 2008? They were both harmful Veep choices, but for different reason. Palin's gender initially motivated some positive votes, but then once people got to know her it said volumes about McCain; bad stuff.
|
I don't think anyone voted for Obama because Palin was on the ticket. Who thinks like that? Maybe Palin hurt McCain because the press coverage she generated forced him to talk about things he didn't want to talk about, but that's a second-order effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
This is dumb. It's about the whole ticket. Choosing poorly can cost you dearly and the benefits of choosing wisely isn't exactly easily tracked.
|
We can agree to disagree. I think you are wrong, in the way that people who think a lot about politics can be wrong about people who don't think a lot about politics. People who think a lot about politics know a bunch about the candidates and make up their minds early and know things like where the VP candidates went to high school. They wouldn't make their minds up on the basis of who the running mate is because they have such strong views about the top of the ticket. Low-information voters are, similarly, picking a president, not a vice president. On some political issues, like our Cyprus policy or zoning, there are some voters who care an awful lot and vote on that issue. No one cares about the Veep that way.
Quote:
|
But if you're a hard core leftie who is going to hold his breath if Warren or Harris isn't the nominee, I doubt you sit the election out if that person is on the ticket. I can't speak for Bernie bros. Those people are fucking idiots.
|
You are right that the eventual Dem nominee is going to have to pull the party together after a primary campaign that could be more divisive than some. One way to do that is with the VP pick. There are other ways to do it, and Hillary wasn't a skilled enough politician to get that done.
