Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's a fair point. On the Democratic side, to be successful a candidate has to mobilize a coalition and get different groups excited. Picking a VP candidate could be part of doing this, but it doesn't have to be. For example, I don't think that Obama won anybody's vote with Biden (and was not trying to -- I think he picked Biden as someone he wanted to work with in the White House), but I do think he did a good job of exciting and unifying different parts of the Democratic Party. I think Tim Kaine would have been a fine VP and didn't turn anyone off, but Hillary was not good at unifying the party and Kaine didn't help her. A successful candidate needs to tell different groups what they want to hear.

Yes. A once-in-lifetime candidate like Obama has the ability to unite the entire party.

When no such candidate exists--and no matter how many times Adder says Kamala or Warren is that type of candidate, they are not--it makes sense to bring as many people into the fold as possible. And given the fact that those in the center of the political spectrum (i.e., fragile white people who need comforting) will not vote for Harris, Booker, Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg, or O'Rourke, making those on the progressive side feel included and even that their candidate is next in line, is probably the best way to go.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

When no such candidate exists--and no matter how many times Adder says Kamala or Warren is that type of candidate, they are not--it makes sense to bring as many people into the fold as possible. And given the fact that those in the center of the political spectrum (i.e., fragile white people who need comforting) will not vote for Harris, Booker, Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg, or O'Rourke, making those on the progressive side feel included and even that their candidate is next in line, is probably the best way to go.

I'm not sure why Warren or Beto are on your list. For Warren, is it just that she's a woman? Because "old white lady who wants to help" doesn't seem all that threatening to the fragile white people you're talking about.

I think the national perception of Beto paints him as a lot more progressive than he actually has been, so I'm not sure he actually scares those people either (although that also makes him less viable too).

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I can't recall a VP who made a difference electorally.

"I can't decide between the two candidates on any other ground, so I'm going to vote for the person who chose a better back-up."
- no one

I think Sarah Palin may have had an effect, but not in favor of John McCain.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm not sure why Warren or Beto are on your list. For Warren, is it just that she's a woman? Because "old white lady who wants to help" doesn't seem all that threatening to the fragile white people you're talking about.

I think the national perception of Beto paints him as a lot more progressive than he actually has been, so I'm not sure he actually scares those people either (although that also makes him less viable too).

Beto has zero traction, so he probably shouldn't be on my list at all.

I hope you're right about Warren. I think Trump's racist bullshit when it comes to her will have traction with the people I think will be key in this next election.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK, you're right.

The troll act was tired 10 years ago. I named two people swayed by Palin's nomination. Name one person you know, really know, who hasn't voted lockstep forever? You talk like you actually know normal people but you grew up in one super educated lib bubble and live your life in another. You. Don't. know. How. real. people. think.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

But I don't have the same expertise when it comes to low information-voters that you have.

TM

Ty's barista doesn't watch TV, so he's got that. Mine worked on a campaign, so I have the same lack of knowledge you got.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The troll act was tired 10 years ago. I named two people swayed by Palin's nomination. Name one person you know, really know, who hasn't voted lockstep forever? You talk like you actually know normal people but you grew up in one super educated lib bubble and live your life in another. You. Don't. know. How. real. people. think.

Yeah, Ty, enough of that multi-ethnic, religiously diverse urban bubble! Go hang out with a bunch of white baptists who married their cousins and have never been out of Arkansas, get to know what it's like when you don't live in a bubble.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Yeah, Ty, enough of that multi-ethnic, religiously diverse urban bubble! Go hang out with a bunch of white baptists who married their cousins and have never been out of Arkansas, get to know what it's like when you don't live in a bubble.

Places that vote 90% for one party may be diverse in lots of ways, but it doesn’t empower em to speak of how most people vote. Because places that vote 90% for one party are not diverse in how people decide who to vote for. You really don’t get that?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yes. A once-in-lifetime candidate like Obama has the ability to unite the entire party.

When no such candidate exists--and no matter how many times Adder says Kamala or Warren is that type of candidate, they are not--it makes sense to bring as many people into the fold as possible. And given the fact that those in the center of the political spectrum (i.e., fragile white people who need comforting) will not vote for Harris, Booker, Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg, or O'Rourke, making those on the progressive side feel included and even that their candidate is next in line, is probably the best way to go.

TM

I'm pretty damn white. And while I myself may be an overeducated liberal globalists (I understand the "in" term may now be "Cosmopolitan"), I think a lot of my relatives, like the branch that's a bunch of NYC cops, the upstaters who sell John Deeres, the NJ and Virginia military types, the folks in the building trades, or the retired bean farmers, fit the category of people you're saying Biden appeals to.

The thing is, none of them are really that excited about him, even though many of them are expecting to vote Democratic (but not the NY Cops, they're hopeless). Don't get me wrong, they like him fine, but none of them seem to think it's him or Trump.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Places that vote 90% for one party may be diverse in lots of ways, but it doesn’t empower em to speak of how most people vote. Because places that vote 90% for one party are not diverse in how people decide who to vote for. You really don’t get that?

As you know, once upon a time I ran some political campaigns, and I always loved places that vote 90% my way, because they give great margins so a really small town can have a big impact, and I also loved places that voted 90% the other way in the past, because I have some idea how to knock it down to 80% and that swing can make a big difference. But there are very, very few places that are in that 90% category. Most of the country is somewhere between 60/40 and 50/50. There aren't as many bubbles as you think (either red ones or blue ones), but the bubbles that are least permeable are some of the rural white ones.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

As you know, once upon a time I ran some political campaigns, and I always loved places that vote 90% my way, because they give great margins so a really small town can have a big impact, and I also loved places that voted 90% the other way in the past, because I have some idea how to knock it down to 80% and that swing can make a big difference. But there are very, very few places that are in that 90% category. Most of the country is somewhere between 60/40 and 50/50. There aren't as many bubbles as you think (either red ones or blue ones), but the bubbles that are least permeable are some of the rural white ones.

https://www.marincounty.org/depts/rv.../nov-8/results

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

https://www.marincounty.org/depts/rv.../nov-8/results

Ty lives in Marin? I didn't think he was that rich.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Ty lives in Marin? I didn't think he was that rich.

edit

https://hoodline.com/2016/11/trump-t...-10-of-sf-vote.

If he did live in Marin there’d be twice as much political diversity as SF

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm pretty damn white. And while I myself may be an overeducated liberal globalists (I understand the "in" term may now be "Cosmopolitan"), I think a lot of my relatives, like the branch that's a bunch of NYC cops, the upstaters who sell John Deeres, the NJ and Virginia military types, the folks in the building trades, or the retired bean farmers, fit the category of people you're saying Biden appeals to.

The thing is, none of them are really that excited about him, even though many of them are expecting to vote Democratic (but not the NY Cops, they're hopeless). Don't get me wrong, they like him fine, but none of them seem to think it's him or Trump.

That's all fine (although, I wonder what they think about him vs any of the other candidates).

I think I put more stock into the polls than almost all of you (or anyone I speak to, apparently). Your anecdotal evidence is not very convincing. He's polling very high in the places we absolutely need to win.

Sure, Trump won when no one thought he would. But after Comey destroyed the entire race a week before the election, Hillary's advantage in the polls dropped like a fucking stone. And I think the type of people I have been talking about were the ones that ended up either not showing up or voting for something new. We need them.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yes. A once-in-lifetime candidate like Obama has the ability to unite the entire party.

When no such candidate exists--and no matter how many times Adder says Kamala or Warren is that type of candidate, they are not--it makes sense to bring as many people into the fold as possible. And given the fact that those in the center of the political spectrum (i.e., fragile white people who need comforting) will not vote for Harris, Booker, Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg, or O'Rourke, making those on the progressive side feel included and even that their candidate is next in line, is probably the best way to go.

TM

I guess I'm an optimist, in the sense that I think that one of the candidates you mention may be able to bring people from the center of the spectrum into the fold. None of them are trying to do it now, because that's not what the contest calls for, but I hope that the point of the primary process is to select for those with better political chops.