U.S. Politics: By Gawd King, That's Joe Biden's Music!!!!

[Darzin]

55 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

 

1. Tammy Baldwin: brings a homestate bump in WI.  Woman + LGTBQ.  WI is is the reddest of the WI/PA/MI trio and Dems need a clean sweep of all three if everything else is a repeat of 2016. The world in which the Dems lose MI and PA is a world where they probably also lose WI but the reverse is not true.  Cons: Not African American or Latina.  Will trigger a special election in WI at a time when control of the Senate will be narrowly held either way. 

2. Gretchen Whitmer: brings a homestate bump in MI.  Woman + Governor.  Cons: WI probably more important than MI and hasn't been on the job very long. 

3.  Amy Klobuchar:  Woman + purple state senator.  Good debater and endorser at key juncture.  Strong reputation in the Senate.  Cons: doesn't bring a state or bring racial diversity to the ticket. 

4. Kamala Harris:  Woman + African American.  Good debater and from a similar wing of the party.  Obama is a fan.  Cons: doesn't bring a homestate bump or generate much excitement.  Doesn't seem have a Warren type intellect. 

5. Elizabeth Warren: Woman.  member of the progressive wing of the party, and an olive branch to the Bernie supporters.  Obviously brilliant.  Cons: doesn't bring a home state.  

6. Mayor Pete:  Next generation of leadership.  Smart political intellect and debater (would do very well against Pence specifically).  Biden seems to really like him and compared him to his son Beau.  Cons: not a woman and doesn't bring Indiana to the table. 

7.  Stacey Abrams:  Next generation of leadership.  Woman + African American.  Possibly puts Georgia in play.  Useful bump for the two open Senate seats.  Former minority leader of Georgia House and possibly generates Obama-esque excitement. 

8.  Bill McRaven:  Emphasises Biden's core message of restoring dignity and unity to the country.  Distinguished admiral and outspoken Trump critic.  A native North Carolinian who was chancellor of U of Texas and helps campaigns in both states.  Commanded the mission that took out Bin Laden.  Cons: not a woman or African-American.  Not a politician/untested campaigner.  Health issues led him to retire as U Texas Chancellor. 

Good analysis, I personally hope Biden chooses Abrams. I feel she'd bring star power energy  to a campaign that needs it and she would help bridge the divide in the party, she's popular with left wing people, but she's not uber progressive, in a way that would put a strain on a working relationship with Biden. And those two senate seats... if she could put those in play it'd definitely be worth it.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Even more than Bernie, Biden's VP pick is hugely important (though I don't think it will be enough) as if you're going to get people to vote for a man who is in clear cognitive decline, you are essentially getting those concerned with that to vote for his VP. A Klobuchar pick, for example, seems disastrous given rumors of her aggressive, bullying, cruel treatment of those less than her (and many who do believe these reports could see that part of her shining through in her speeches and debates). I've heard people throw around Michelle Obama which might be his best hope (though he won't do it, and is she even interested?) due to her insanely high approval. I'd vote for Michelle Obama without reservation. I loved the things she did to provide more nutritious options at school lunch, but ultimately, her biggest issue is she says she doesn't want to run for office (Biden saying he wanted her as his pick seems one-sided), and while experience clearly doesn't matter anymore to many Americans, she does lack experience. What are her platforms? It would be a pure likability move--but it'd be a much stronger move than some dream-smasher like Klobuchar. 

[Freshwater Spartan]

12 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Good analysis, I personally hope Biden chooses Abrams. I feel she'd bring star power energy  to a campaign that needs it and she would help bridge the divide in the party, she's popular with left wing people, but she's not uber progressive, in a way that would put a strain on a working relationship with Biden. And those two senate seats... if she could put those in play it'd definitely be worth it.

For you and Gaston:

Dont you think Abrahms have some cons? No experience, never won anything. Very polarizing. Seems like a high risk pick to me.

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, SpaceChampion said:

The narrative is false.

 

 

The data there says a couple other things that you might have missed. 

Sanders supporters are as likely as trump supporters (3%) to do negative attacks. They are also 50% more likely than any other candidates supporters (2 vs 3%).

There are three times as many tweets about Sanders as other candidates, again rivaling trump.

Put that together and it is 6 times more likely to find a negative Sanders supporter than another candidate. 

[SpaceChampion]

37 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

9. Jace. Pros and cons: brings some snark and outrage to the campaign, esp. in a debate with Pence. Speaks for the minority votes of ponies around the country. Cons: voter supression of ponies has been very effective. There are exactly zero pony senators (or voters). Pros. Brings the US within one heart attack close to the authotarian leadership it deserves (in contrast to the one it has now).

 

Jace can bring in the cynic and nihilist demographics.

[OldGimletEye]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The data there says a couple other things that you might have missed. 

Sanders supporters are as likely as trump supporters (3%) to do negative attacks. They are also 50% more likely than any other candidates supporters (2 vs 3%).

There are three times as many tweets about Sanders as other candidates, again rivaling trump.

Put that together and it is 6 times more likely to find a negative Sanders supporter than another candidate. 

Which data table are you looking at? Because the one I'm looking at has Sanders supports tied with Warren supporters, not Trump.

[Week]

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The data there says a couple other things that you might have missed. 

Sanders supporters are as likely as trump supporters (3%) to do negative attacks. They are also 50% more likely than any other candidates supporters (2 vs 3%).

There are three times as many tweets about Sanders as other candidates, again rivaling trump.

Put that together and it is 6 times more likely to find a negative Sanders supporter than another candidate. 

This also a classic tactic of narrowly redefining the bad behavior such that it looks minimized. Abusive, racist and misogynistic actions are clearly the truly rotten part of the apple -- however this also exempts the rank haughtiness and condescension. I see it on my fb feed daily from people that I know personally who continuously post and argue about the the "life and death" stakes of economic inequality, healthcare, and other issues viewed in a "with us or against us" view. Fucking chill out.

As Kal and others previously pointed out, A) Biden presents a far more progressive, left view than he would have 10+ years ago B ) most of Bernie's agenda is DOA anyway, so why demand what is clearly impossible right now? It is being intentionally rancorous, obtuse, and condescending to a lot of folks that are voting for Biden -- NOT against their own self-interest -- but because their self-interest of kicking out a white male authoritarian-leaning government is of immediate and ultimate importance. Disrespect towards this view because "Bernie has the best chance anyway" is, again, holding one's one opinion as fact and pooh-poohing any other perspective as counterfactual is a cornerstone of the BernieBro constituency. 

eta- I say this as someone that voted for Warren in MA -- but would probably still vote Bernie over Biden... but Castro, Kamala, and Booker over Bernie.

[SpaceChampion]

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Put that together and it is 6 times more likely to find a negative Sanders supporter than another candidate. 

No, that is not how the math of probability works dude!

 

 

[mcbigski]

I don't see Biden trying to sniff Mayor Pete's husband's hair, so that's one point for sure in his favor as a running mate, I'd think.  There's way too much Creepy Joe footage out there that's treated as old news. They probably want to avoid fresh eruptions though.

There's no way Biden is actually the nominee come September right?  The DNC must be working on something past NotSanders.  I shudder to think what they might come up with as a late replacement with a short time frame, the element of surprise and full coordination with the media narrative.

[David Selig]

Twitter isn't the only game in town. There are numerous Bernie Bros on Reddit, for example, if you think they are a myth, try posting anything even slightly critical of Sanders on r/politics and you'd inevitably quickly be insulted and told you are a low information voter or a corporate shill.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

14 minutes ago, Week said:

This also a classic tactic of narrowly redefining the bad behavior such that it looks minimized. Abusive, racist and misogynistic actions are clearly the truly rotten part of the apple -- however this also exempts the rank haughtiness and condescension. I see it on my fb feed daily from people that I know personally who continuously post and argue about the the "life and death" stakes of economic inequality, healthcare, and other issues viewed in a "with us or against us" view. Fucking chill out.

As Kal and others previously pointed out, A) Biden presents a far more progressive, left view than he would have 10+ years ago B ) most of Bernie's agenda is DOA anyway, so why demand what is clearly impossible right now? It is being intentionally rancorous, obtuse, and condescending to a lot of folks that are voting for Biden -- NOT against their own self-interest -- but because their self-interest of kicking out a white male authoritarian-leaning government is of immediate and ultimate importance. Disrespect towards this view because "Bernie has the best chance anyway" is, again, holding one's one opinion as fact and pooh-poohing any other perspective as counterfactual is a cornerstone of the BernieBro constituency. 

eta- I say this as someone that voted for Warren in MA -- but would probably still vote Bernie over Biden... but Castro, Kamala, and Booker over Bernie.

But you looking at people who say they are in a life and death struggle (and many are--once the company who engineers my biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis stop paying the hundreds of dollars a month my insurance doesn't pay, I won't be able to be on the med anymore--and to be clear, before I was diagnosed and on the med, I literally could not walk in the mornings, I could not get off the floor, I could not sleep, and my memory, all at the age of 39, was terrible to the point I couldn't effectively work) are calling that haughtiness and condescension and completely dismissing the lived experience of others because you likely never have to think in these terms. This is called privilege--meaning you are blind to certain conditions you do not understand.

To say that should be lumped into bad behavior--forget bad behavior like racism and misogynistic views--is fucked up. People are literally losing young loved ones because of healthcare. Until 2020, life expectancy has been consistently declining, and while I hope 2020 is a trend in the right direction, the fact that nothing has changed I believe it's an outlier.

[Kalbear]

30 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Which data table are you looking at? Because the one I'm looking at has Sander's supports tied with Warren supports, not Trump.

Sorry, I misread Tulsi for trump. It's still the case that it's worse than most others. And it's still the case that the raw volume is significantly higher than other candidates, again only being surpassed by Trump. 

In addition, his average sentiment is lower than any other candidate, meaning it is more likely to have a negative tweet from a sanders supporter than other supporters. 

[Kalbear]

31 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

No, that is not how the math of probability works dude!

That is exactly how it works. Here, I'll show you.

Total number of negative tweets by Sanders supporters: .03 (negative percentage) * 16793 (total tweeters) = 503.79 tweets

Total number of negative tweets by Buttigieg supporters: .02 (negative percentage) * 4634 (total tweeters) = 92.68 tweets

503/92 = 5.45, or there are 5.45 times as many negative tweets from Sanders supporters as there are Buttigieg supporters.

You might be thinking about independent probabilities and multiplying them, and you'd be right that it would reduce - but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the simple question of 'if you see a negative tweet, how likely is it to come from x as y'. 

But you don't even need me to say that - the table says that as well. The 'total negative' sentiment from Sanders is -12000 - this is equivalent to the combined total of Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Warren. The total very negative sentiment from Sanders is -7000, which is just barely less than Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Warren combined. 

So the overall percentage is low - that's true. But it is SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER for Sanders supporters than it is anyone else, including Trump supporters, by more than a factor of 2 in all cases. 

 

[Kalbear]

25 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

But you looking at people who say they are in a life and death struggle (and many are--once the company who engineers my biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis stop paying the hundreds of dollars a month my insurance doesn't pay, I won't be able to be on the med anymore--and to be clear, before I was diagnosed and on the med, I literally could not walk in the mornings, I could not get off the floor, I could not sleep, and my memory, all at the age of 39, was terrible to the point I couldn't effectively work) are calling that haughtiness and condescension and completely dismissing the lived experience of others because you likely never have to think in these terms. This is called privilege--meaning you are blind to certain conditions you do not understand. 

That sucks, and I'm sorry for you. 

That also does not mean you are not blind to other people's problems or concerns. 

25 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

 To say that should be lumped into bad behavior--forget bad behavior like racism and misogynistic views--is fucked up. People are literally losing young loved ones because of healthcare. Until 2020, life expectancy has been consistently declining, and while I hope 2020 is a trend in the right direction, the fact that nothing has changed I believe it's an outlier.

Okay, let's talk turkey. Biden (as well as every single Democratic candidate) wants to improve healthcare for everyone. He does not believe that right now M4A is possible to get through, but he still wants to significantly reduce drug costs to consumers, expand medicaid further, and get more public funding. His ideas are probably not going to get done in congress, but they have a shot in some places.

Sanders wants M4A. He has no shot of delivering this within the democratic party, much less the US at large. M4A is at best neutrally supported by the people, and that's with largely wishwashy things about how it'll be paid for. Once the drug companies get a hold of it, it'll be hated more than the ACA was. If Sanders is elected, you aren't getting M4A. 

Point of fact, both Sanders and Biden would likely be able to achieve about the same level of healthcare improvement if they were POTUS. They would be able to halt the lawsuits for the ACA, they would be able to improve ACA funding, they would be able to expand medicaid, they might be able to get some pharma deals and government negotiation for drug prices. Their position is almost certainly going to essentially converge if they want to get anything done. In addition, both want to leave the filibuster as is, so there is zero shot of getting anything through the senate regardless.

So my general point of view is that neither policy really matters. If you are M4A or nothing else, this is nothing more than a purity test without any concrete meaning or plan of action. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Think best way forward for Sanders is to show rest of Dems why he's a safer pick against Trump.  That's what's Biden has going for him, he seems like the safe pick for people.   We know it's not policy or charisma or his record of running for president.  

Sanders should start taking more shots at Trump, maybe mention Biden being weak on SS.  Hammer trump on covid19 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Question: does the president have anything to do with eliminating the filibuster beyond an opinion?  Is it just a Senate rules thing?  What's the actual process to scrap it?  Could Warren just rile everybody up to do it if we are fortunate enough to have a Dem Senate?

[Gaston de Foix]

1 hour ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

For you and Gaston:

Dont you think Abrahms have some cons? No experience, never won anything. Very polarizing. Seems like a high risk pick to me.

Yes, substantially.  She was minority leader of the Georgia House for a decade, so she does have that in her favor.  But I think her biggest con is simply that the world in which Georgia is a key swing state is one where Biden is already on track for a substantial victory.  My personal favorite is McRaven because I really like the guy and he emphasizes Biden's strongest message but again, in a close election, NC/TX will not be the deciding factor.  

@SimonSteele Zero chance of Michelle choosing to run as Biden's VP.  I would love it too but she's made it as clear as possible that politics is not for her. 

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Anyway, one a more serious note. Like I said, Biden has a lot more options for VP pick, depending on where they think the votes for a succesful GE are. The advantage of being bland vanilla, it works with a lot of ice creams flavours. If he thinks, the black votes in the south are the way to go, Abrams will be high on the list. If he thinks it will be the midwest, Klobuchar might be an option. If he thinks the college educated folks in the suburbs are the way to go (which is where I think the votes are), he will look for somebody with a cross party appeal. Maybe Buttigieg (otherwise I see very little voter groups  where he might help).

I don't think chasing after the rustbelt is a winning strategy in a GE.

The midwest and college-educated suburbs are not exactly apples and oranges.  If you look at 2016/8 results the midwest is a strong possibility for high noon in a close election.  There are developments that would make this not a close election (economy, coronavirus) but in that case the VP choice will matter a lot less (like Biden himself in 2008). 

If you don't think chasing the rustbelt is a winning strategy, what do you think will lead to a victory? The sun belt? AZ has 11 electoral votes not nearly enough to replace PA/WI/MI.  FL has been breaking Dem hearts in election after election.  TX/GA are 2 election cycles away from possibly going blue. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just going to throw these things out there:

-Biden is not exactly composed on camera lately.  Is this an elephant in the room?  Are the rumors and speculation about this nuts?  You know what I'm talking about.

-If covid19 really spreads around, we've got Trump, Biden, and Sanders potentially exposed to this.  Not to diminish the suffering this is causing on its own, but I cannot understate how bad it would be for the world if Biden or Sanders were to become seriously ill right now.  At this point I don't know if I would even support a candidate old enough to collect SS in 2024.  If I could redo this last 6 months I think I'd have been a bigger Castro, Booker, Harris supporter.  We have a really made a mess of this whole democracy thing.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

12 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

If you don't think chasing the rustbelt is a winning strategy, what do you think will lead to a victory? The sun belt? AZ has 11 electoral votes not nearly enough to replace PA/WI/MI.  FL has been breaking Dem hearts in election after election.  TX/GA are 2 election cycles away from possibly going blue. 

I should probably qualify a bit what I mean with Rustbelt, and yes, this will be a difficult election.

When I said chasing after the Rustbelt, I ahd the blue collar (white) voters in mind, that went from Obama to Trump. I think those voters might be lost, plain and simple. Of course the DNC has polling of those groups, and can prove me wrong (I will settle for @DMC to disprove me (yes, I wanted to play with DMC from the DNC for all while)). Anyway, those are presumably low information voters, who like the nativist, talk it like it (supposedly) is, boorish buffoon that is the POTUS. I think that's also the voters that keep his approval rating up. Without those traditional Democrat voters it will be really difficult to win those states. I think places like NC might be easier to win than PA. Don't get me started on effing FL, I said it a few thread ago, the sooner rising sea levels deal with that state the better. Anyway, like I said, I think the former conservative strongholds in the suburbs are the way to go. Happened in the AZ senate race.  The key to get Twitler out of his bunker is a high turnout. Clinton's problem was her inability to mobilize potential voters (AA were really missed during that GE IIRC).

[Freshwater Spartan]

57 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Yes, substantially.  She was minority leader of the Georgia House for a decade, so she does have that in her favor.  But I think her biggest con is simply that the world in which Georgia is a key swing state is one where Biden is already on track for a substantial victory.  My personal favorite is McRaven because I really like the guy and he emphasizes Biden's strongest message but again, in a close election, NC/TX will not be the deciding factor.  

 

I see. I generally agree on Abrams. I just thought it was odd in your original post to list cons for all of The potential VPs except her. Never heard of McRaven so I can offer no comment there. I do  think Biden would give Whitmer a strong look though I am not sure she is the best pick either.