Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 277912 times)

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1447
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2600 on: March 13, 2020, 09:30:55 AM »

I do worry that both Biden and Bernie seem reluctant to remove the filibuster. The next Democratic president + Democratic Congress needs to do that, admit DC and PR (pending their approval) as states, and start the hard work of instituting more democratic reforms. This was the real reason why I really liked Warren, I felt she alone seemed to get that everything else right now is secondary. Still hope that she's VP or her people are tapped for high level administration positions.

Exactly this.  Plus, add at least two more Supreme Court justices.  9 is not a magic number, is not in the Constitution and is not the number that the court has had throughout history.  And it is needed after the Merrick Garland fiasco.

Is there a good reason for increasing the Court size other than "I'm not getting what I want?"

FDR tried to do this with a compliant Congress and was told to pound sand.

If by pound sand, you mean he ended up getting everything he wanted then...yeah.  I mean, it was inelegant and almost certainly not how he intended to win and definitely nowhere near the strong-arm tactics we are suggesting here. 

Also note, FDR was attempting to pack the court for literal policy reasons.  As you said, "I'm not getting what I want." 

That's entirely different from here, where the Republicans made an unprecedented and questionably acceptable tactical move and we are recommending a responsive tactical move to make clear that that was unacceptable and they should not plan to repeat it.  Not that it will be effective, but otherwise all you end up with is Repubs always being allowed to make their tactical moves and Dems never being allowed to.  So far, the court's actual decisions have been a mixed bag and it's *not* that the Dems aren't getting what they want legally, politically or policy-wise.  And certainly not in the way that FDR wasn't getting what he wanted.  It's that the Dems today have an obligation to correct the course from 2016.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2437
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2601 on: March 13, 2020, 10:36:07 AM »
Even if he's been totally ineffective in getting things done (which isn't true), he has succeeded in moving the democrats further to the left by showing democrats the popularity that these ideas have with the people.  He can use that power as president to convince congress to support his ideas as they'd be backed by the people.

I haven't seen a lot of evidence that Congress is moved by such arguments - see, e.g. common sense gun regulation, health care reform.

And I'm really curious just how popular Sanders' proposals actually are among the bulk of even likely Dem voters (not just the young, twitter-activist crowd).   Not his speeches (he can be an effective communicator), or his righteous populist rage (which I sometimes share), or his inclinations toward dis-empowering big companies and the utra-rich (compelling).  But his actual POLICY proposals.  I admire Sanders and sympathize with quite a few of his goals, while strongly objecting to many of his specific proposals.   I suspect there are a lot of Dem-leaning voters who feel similar, but I haven't seen specific data on this point as pertains to specific policies (except that Medicare for all is not popular among most voters if you clarify that it means the end of your private/employer provided insurance).  I can infer by his electoral failure in the primary that most voters are not up for the specifics of his revolution, but I don't absolutely know that policy is driving that.

There have been policy exit polls at almost every state. Medicare for all has polled popularly in every state so far:
VT: 73%/23%
ME: 69%/28%
TX: 63%/33%
MN: 62%/35%
CO: 57%/36%
CA: 57%/36%
NC: 55%/41%
OK: 53%/43%
TN: 52%/44%
AL: 51%/43%
VA: 52%/45%
MA: 50%/45%

But is that with the caveat that it would mean the end of private insurance?  If you asked me, "Do you support Medicare for all", technically I'd say "Yes, absolutely".  But I mean that I strongly support a public option of Medicare-type plans being made available to all, not Sander's version of Medicare for all.

If you asked me, "Do you want to make college more affordable?", I'd say "Yes, absolutely." And I have some ideas about what I'd like to see, but I don't support making college free.

That's the kind of nuance that I'm wondering about, whether that was at play in the primaries and accounts for a big chunk of Sander's super Tuesday face-plant.

Etc.

Do people realize that these are all easily googlable questions? Look it up and contribute to the thread instead of just throwing questions out there that are easily looked up

The medicare question was: "Do you support a single government health insurance plan for all?"

Duly noted, thread enforcer.

I bring data. 

Questions are very general, but this adds info to the overall picture, though not the primary one so much.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/sanders-poll-quiz/

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2882
  • Location: South Korea
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2602 on: March 13, 2020, 06:35:04 PM »

I do worry that both Biden and Bernie seem reluctant to remove the filibuster. The next Democratic president + Democratic Congress needs to do that, admit DC and PR (pending their approval) as states, and start the hard work of instituting more democratic reforms. This was the real reason why I really liked Warren, I felt she alone seemed to get that everything else right now is secondary. Still hope that she's VP or her people are tapped for high level administration positions.

Exactly this.  Plus, add at least two more Supreme Court justices.  9 is not a magic number, is not in the Constitution and is not the number that the court has had throughout history.  And it is needed after the Merrick Garland fiasco.

Is there a good reason for increasing the Court size other than "I'm not getting what I want?"

FDR tried to do this with a compliant Congress and was told to pound sand.

If by pound sand, you mean he ended up getting everything he wanted then...yeah.  I mean, it was inelegant and almost certainly not how he intended to win and definitely nowhere near the strong-arm tactics we are suggesting here. 


Obviously he had a very successful run as President. I was just pointing out that Congress came together to tell him "no, you can't have this one."

I posed the questions because I want to see if there's a reason for increasing the Court size that doesn't boil down to a power play between the two parties.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2448
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2603 on: March 14, 2020, 07:36:02 PM »
Obviously he had a very successful run as President. I was just pointing out that Congress came together to tell him "no, you can't have this one."

I posed the questions because I want to see if there's a reason for increasing the Court size that doesn't boil down to a power play between the two parties.

I'm not the one you asked, but I am in favor of increasing the number of justices.

My reasoning is that the opportunity to appoint 1/9 of the Supreme court is too great of a power to be left up to chance, especially considering appointments are for life. Trump has made 2 appointments and could realistically still make a third during a single term. Having only 9 justices also gives the justices themselves too much power, especially the swing vote member. How many politically biased cases have we seen result in a 5-4 decision? Simply put, adding more seats would water down the vote of each member.

I'm not sure what the right number to add would be but it's probably closer to 20 than just 2. How to do so is a complicated question I don't have a good answer to. Perhaps 2 appointments come with every presidential election until we hit the agreed upon number?

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4532
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2604 on: March 14, 2020, 10:57:36 PM »
Obviously he had a very successful run as President. I was just pointing out that Congress came together to tell him "no, you can't have this one."

I posed the questions because I want to see if there's a reason for increasing the Court size that doesn't boil down to a power play between the two parties.

I'm not the one you asked, but I am in favor of increasing the number of justices.

My reasoning is that the opportunity to appoint 1/9 of the Supreme court is too great of a power to be left up to chance, especially considering appointments are for life. Trump has made 2 appointments and could realistically still make a third during a single term. Having only 9 justices also gives the justices themselves too much power, especially the swing vote member. How many politically biased cases have we seen result in a 5-4 decision? Simply put, adding more seats would water down the vote of each member.

I'm not sure what the right number to add would be but it's probably closer to 20 than just 2. How to do so is a complicated question I don't have a good answer to. Perhaps 2 appointments come with every presidential election until we hit the agreed upon number?

Congress could always put a term or age limit on Justice appointments. Say, 25 years term or age 75 and they're outta there.

This is not uncommon; other OECD countries have age limits.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5287
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2605 on: March 15, 2020, 03:20:28 AM »
Obviously he had a very successful run as President. I was just pointing out that Congress came together to tell him "no, you can't have this one."

I posed the questions because I want to see if there's a reason for increasing the Court size that doesn't boil down to a power play between the two parties.

I'm not the one you asked, but I am in favor of increasing the number of justices.

My reasoning is that the opportunity to appoint 1/9 of the Supreme court is too great of a power to be left up to chance, especially considering appointments are for life. Trump has made 2 appointments and could realistically still make a third during a single term. Having only 9 justices also gives the justices themselves too much power, especially the swing vote member. How many politically biased cases have we seen result in a 5-4 decision? Simply put, adding more seats would water down the vote of each member.

I'm not sure what the right number to add would be but it's probably closer to 20 than just 2. How to do so is a complicated question I don't have a good answer to. Perhaps 2 appointments come with every presidential election until we hit the agreed upon number?

Congress could always put a term or age limit on Justice appointments. Say, 25 years term or age 75 and they're outta there.

This is not uncommon; other OECD countries have age limits.
For comparison -

The UK Supreme Court has 12 justices.  It and will sit with all if necessary (it did for the Miller case last year, on the decision to prorogue Parliament, when there were only 11 appointed) but usually sits with 5.

The European Court of Justice has 27 judges, one from each country, and will usually sit with 3 but also with 5 or 15 for more impactful cases.

The European Court of Human Rights has 47 judges, one from each country, but usually sits in chambers of 7 with some cases going on review/appeal to the Grand Chamber of 17.

All of these courts are of court much less politicised than the US Supreme Court.  One of the benefits of having more justices on the US Supreme Court might be that it would become less politicised.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1567
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2606 on: March 15, 2020, 08:28:16 AM »
The wheels of justice often seem to turn slowly to me in the United States.  How quickly do the numerous judges in Europe dole out their rulings?

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5287
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2607 on: March 15, 2020, 08:47:52 AM »
The wheels of justice often seem to turn slowly to me in the United States.  How quickly do the numerous judges in Europe dole out their rulings?
If necessary, very fast indeed.  The Miller case about the prorogation of the UK Parliament over Brexit concerned a decision made by the UK government on 28 August 2019.  It was first heard in court on 5 September 2019, judgement given 11 September, leapfrogged over the Court of Appeal to go straight to the Supreme Court for a hearing on 17, 18 and 19 September with final judgement (saying that the prorogation was unlawful) on 24 September 2019.

Normally a case using the same procedures would take about 18 months to get to first judgement, then take many months to go through the Court of Appeal and then again the Supreme Court.  But where extraordinarily necessary, as in Miller, the whole process from contested decision to final Supreme Court determination took less than a month.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2830
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2608 on: March 15, 2020, 01:07:35 PM »
Congress could always put a term or age limit on Justice appointments. Say, 25 years term or age 75 and they're outta there.

I don't believe it can.  I believe the Constitution states that Justices are appointed for life (Article III Section 1), so changing that would require a constitutional amendment, not just an act of Congress.

Also, the number of Justices is fixed at 9 by federal law, so increasing the number of Justices on the court would require a change to the law.

The wheels of justice often seem to turn slowly to me in the United States.  How quickly do the numerous judges in Europe dole out their rulings?
If necessary, very fast indeed.

Likewise the US Supreme Court.  Bush v. Gore applied to the court on 12/8/2000, the case was argued 12/11/2000, and decided 12/12/2000.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5287
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2609 on: March 15, 2020, 01:09:00 PM »
Congress could always put a term or age limit on Justice appointments. Say, 25 years term or age 75 and they're outta there.

I don't believe it can.  I believe the Constitution states that Justices are appointed for life (Article III Section 1), so changing that would require a constitutional amendment, not just an act of Congress.

Also, the number of Justices is fixed at 9 by federal law, so increasing the number of Justices on the court would require a change to the law.

The wheels of justice often seem to turn slowly to me in the United States.  How quickly do the numerous judges in Europe dole out their rulings?
If necessary, very fast indeed.

Likewise the US Supreme Court.  Bush v. Gore applied to the court on 12/8/2000, the case was argued 12/11/2000, and decided 12/12/2000.
Yes, but it was a shitty decision.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1447
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2610 on: March 15, 2020, 01:18:45 PM »
Congress could always put a term or age limit on Justice appointments. Say, 25 years term or age 75 and they're outta there.

I don't believe it can.  I believe the Constitution states that Justices are appointed for life (Article III Section 1), so changing that would require a constitutional amendment, not just an act of Congress.


Yep, this is the reason FDR's plan for court packing was to appoint a handful of additional justices for each old/long-serving justice on the court - to effectively drown the oldies out, since a justice's term is, per the Constitution, not time-limited. (Though it is only during "good behavior" so there is a mechanism to remove them.)

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4532
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2611 on: March 15, 2020, 04:10:09 PM »
Congress could always put a term or age limit on Justice appointments. Say, 25 years term or age 75 and they're outta there.

I don't believe it can.  I believe the Constitution states that Justices are appointed for life (Article III Section 1), so changing that would require a constitutional amendment, not just an act of Congress.


Yep, this is the reason FDR's plan for court packing was to appoint a handful of additional justices for each old/long-serving justice on the court - to effectively drown the oldies out, since a justice's term is, per the Constitution, not time-limited. (Though it is only during "good behavior" so there is a mechanism to remove them.)

The Constitution doesn't actually state "for life." It does state "good behavior" but it's a vague statement and is never defined.

Imagine if Congress passed a term limit for SC Justices. The SC would be determining the Constitutionality of that law, knowing the intent of Congress.

But, yeah, it's far easier to add more Justices. It's definitely less Constitutionally ambiguous.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2612 on: March 15, 2020, 06:07:48 PM »
Biden seems to be coughing a bit in the debate so far...

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2613 on: March 15, 2020, 06:39:31 PM »
There is something grating about the way Biden talks 60% of the time. He uses an angry, argumentative tone that raises my blood pressure. I wish he would talk more often like he is right now the personal hygiene habits question. I'm not surprised to learn he uses Old Spice.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4516
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2614 on: March 15, 2020, 06:54:40 PM »
I wish we'd had a debate with three candidates. We went straight from seven candidates on February 25th to two tonight (both well over 75 years old).

OTOH, I'm also glad the democratic presidential primary is clearly winding down and not still in full swing as states start to shutdown, ban public gatherings, close restaurants, and reschedule primaries.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1567
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2615 on: March 15, 2020, 07:54:59 PM »
I'm watching this debate.  I've seen videos of old Joe saying he was going to raise Social Security.  Why didn't he just hang his head and just say he was wrong about the thing?  Anyone can check this.  Trump can eat him alive with this one, win and lower Social Security himself.

I think, however, old Joe won this one.  All he had to do was stay awake and he did much more.  It will be good to see a woman vice president.

American GenX

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 352
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2616 on: March 15, 2020, 09:13:14 PM »
I'm watching this debate.  I've seen videos of old Joe saying he was going to raise Social Security.

That was part of bill in trying to lower the deficit that included other things.  He said he wants to increase SS now.  Trump has hinted about cutting SS and Medicare - probably waiting until after the election.

Vapour

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 138
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2617 on: March 15, 2020, 09:41:21 PM »
I think Biden had a very good debate.  Much better than I've seen him do so far in any previous debates or the few speeches/rallies I've seen of him lately.  I have to say, that does make me feel a little better about him being the nominee.  That's the kind of Biden we need to beat Trump and to run our country effectively so I hope he can keep this up.

I appreciate Bernie keeping the bigger picture in mind and questioning Biden on some of his past views/comments/votes.  But I don't think it was enough to tip the scale in any way.  If Biden overwhelmingly wins on Tuesday, I think Bernie will probably drop out.  The coronavirus is a big concern across the country now so having primaries or caucuses is going to get more and more difficult and dangerous.  I think Bernie wanted to have this last one-on-one debate with Biden.  But if this doesn't sway things this week (and I don't think it will), it makes sense to concede.  The other question is Tulsi Gabbard.  Is she willing to drop out and give Biden the win?  Or will the DNC just make the decision that Biden is the nominee in these special circumstances?

I was also happy to hear Biden promise his VP will be a woman.  We all knew it was pretty likely, but it's still good to see he's committed to it now.

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • Location: Seattle
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2618 on: March 15, 2020, 09:44:38 PM »
Watching this debate reminded me that I am not a Democrat.  I am thrilled that Biden got his cough under control, and I was a little worried when Bernie kept sniffling and clearing his throat.  I think their positions are pretty clear.  I didn't find that the debate moved the needle much.  My family is excited about the potential first black female SC justice and the first female VP candidate.  Those two announcements should help to galvanize the black vote and continue the momentum of suburban women turning out in large numbers.  I hope Biden has a big night on Tuesday and that Sanders does the classy thing and suspends/ends his campaign.  I will gladly choose Biden as a slightly uncomfortable compromise between a vengeful narcissist who is unwilling to learn or listen and.an unabashed socialist who views every situation as an emergency for which the solution is a major tax overhaul.   I don't consider not voting to be an option and I really have nowhere else to go with my vote.  Hopefully the Republicans maintain control of the Senate bc I'm not a fan of any of the tax proposals that were pitched.   

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2830
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2619 on: March 15, 2020, 10:34:20 PM »
Watching this debate reminded me that I am not a Democrat.  I am thrilled that Biden got his cough under control, and I was a little worried when Bernie kept sniffling and clearing his throat.  I think their positions are pretty clear.  I didn't find that the debate moved the needle much.  My family is excited about the potential first black female SC justice and the first female VP candidate.   

Emphasis added.

Biden's VP pick would be the third female VP candidate by a major political party in the modern era, after Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin.

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • Location: Seattle
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2620 on: March 15, 2020, 10:56:28 PM »
True dat.  I had blocked Sarah Palin from my memory and GF was before my time. 

Blueberries

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 242
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2621 on: March 16, 2020, 07:04:41 AM »
I think Biden had a very good debate.  Much better than I've seen him do so far in any previous debates or the few speeches/rallies I've seen of him lately.  I have to say, that does make me feel a little better about him being the nominee.  That's the kind of Biden we need to beat Trump and to run our country effectively so I hope he can keep this up.

I appreciate Bernie keeping the bigger picture in mind and questioning Biden on some of his past views/comments/votes.  But I don't think it was enough to tip the scale in any way.  If Biden overwhelmingly wins on Tuesday, I think Bernie will probably drop out.  The coronavirus is a big concern across the country now so having primaries or caucuses is going to get more and more difficult and dangerous.  I think Bernie wanted to have this last one-on-one debate with Biden.  But if this doesn't sway things this week (and I don't think it will), it makes sense to concede.  The other question is Tulsi Gabbard.  Is she willing to drop out and give Biden the win?  Or will the DNC just make the decision that Biden is the nominee in these special circumstances?

I was also happy to hear Biden promise his VP will be a woman.  We all knew it was pretty likely, but it's still good to see he's committed to it now.

You summed up every single thought I had. 

I admit to being saddened Bernie didn't get the momentum this time around, but as I said on June 28, 2019, I'd like to see a Biden/Harris run and I still feel that way.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4532
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2622 on: March 16, 2020, 09:27:48 AM »
I admit to being saddened Bernie didn't get the momentum this time around, but as I said on June 28, 2019, I'd like to see a Biden/Harris run and I still feel that way.

It'll be Demings. She's a former police chief in Orlando; what better way to pull in Florida votes?

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2623 on: March 16, 2020, 10:18:19 AM »
I'm a democrat, and as much as I want to root for Biden / Bernie, the recent moves sadden me.

Biden / Bernie are now pandering to the press about selecting a female vice president (and Biden about selecting a black female supreme court candidate).

This is utterly ridiculous.  We should not be fulfilling key jobs based on physical characteristics or sexual orientation.  Just say "we will select the best person for the job" and then quietly go about your business.  If it the best candidate turns out to be a woman, great!!  Don't pander to the public / press about how it HAS to be a woman.

That really turns me off.

Imagine if the reversal was true, where a candidate said "I will select a MALE vice president candiate"...imagine the outcry and public reaction.

This is why I despise politics and most politicians.  They miss the big picture and pander to the press, instead of doing the right thing.

We should select people based on capability / best fit for the job.  John McCain screwed up royally picking Palin for the VP job, just because she was a woman.

Now the dems seems doomed to make the same mistake again.  Disappointing.

Waiting for the future when a candidate will declare "I will pick an albino non-white half male / half female / 1/3 dog person to be my VP".... ridiculous.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4516
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2624 on: March 16, 2020, 10:24:20 AM »
We should not be fulfilling key jobs based on physical characteristics or sexual orientation.  Just say "we will select the best person for the job" and then quietly go about your business.  If it the best candidate turns out to be a woman, great!!  Don't pander to the public / press about how it HAS to be a woman.

I agree.

I was also thinking about how it's going to feel for whatever woman ultimately gets the call from Biden or his team. Assume the exact same person would get the call with or without Biden's public announcement that he was going to pick a woman, come what may. Wouldn't it feel a lot better for that person know they were clearly the best person for the job, regardless of their physical characteristics?

Now maybe what this statement actually reflects is that the Biden team already picked a candidate they think is the best person for the job, did their vetting, have her signed up to run, are just waiting to roll out the announcement until after the primaries wrap up, and that candidate happens to be a woman. Then at least she personally won't have to wonder about why she was picked.

Oh well. It's not the battle I feel like fighting today.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1447
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2625 on: March 16, 2020, 10:26:08 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric. 

And whether or not we *could* pick some objective "best person for the job" we know there are so many qualified women that saying we'll pick from amongst women is hardly restricting the quality of the pool.  And since we have so much objective information about how valuable this kind of diversity is in material terms, it can only be for the better to choose from that modified pool, IMO.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2020, 10:35:36 AM by sui generis »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4532
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2626 on: March 16, 2020, 10:27:12 AM »
I'm a democrat, and as much as I want to root for Biden / Bernie, the recent moves sadden me.

Biden / Bernie are now pandering to the press about selecting a female vice president (and Biden about selecting a black female supreme court candidate).

This is utterly ridiculous.  We should not be fulfilling key jobs based on physical characteristics or sexual orientation.  Just say "we will select the best person for the job" and then quietly go about your business.  If it the best candidate turns out to be a woman, great!!  Don't pander to the public / press about how it HAS to be a woman.

As it turns out, given a population of 300+ million, there is not one "best person for the job." There are many that can do the job. Some of them are women, some of them are black, and some of them are gay.

Given that, why wouldn't he choose a woman to be his running mate? It breaks a glass ceiling, which is long overdue.


nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2627 on: March 16, 2020, 10:31:06 AM »
I'm a democrat, and as much as I want to root for Biden / Bernie, the recent moves sadden me.

Biden / Bernie are now pandering to the press about selecting a female vice president (and Biden about selecting a black female supreme court candidate).

This is utterly ridiculous.  We should not be fulfilling key jobs based on physical characteristics or sexual orientation.  Just say "we will select the best person for the job" and then quietly go about your business.  If it the best candidate turns out to be a woman, great!!  Don't pander to the public / press about how it HAS to be a woman.

As it turns out, given a population of 300+ million, there is not one "best person for the job." There are many that can do the job. Some of them are women, some of them are black, and some of them are gay.

Given that, why wouldn't he choose a woman to be his running mate? It breaks a glass ceiling, which is long overdue.
If breaking a glass ceiling is so important, then Hilary should have won the last election.  Warren should be on the podium instead of Bernie / Biden.

American's clearly don't care about breaking glass ceilings.  Otherwise you wouldn't have 3 very old white males all running for presidency this time around.

Pandering to the press is not helping the cause.

They should go quietly about their business and then announce a female VP candidate, instead of the other way around.

This feels like dirty politics and it reduces my respect for Biden/ Bernie.

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2628 on: March 16, 2020, 10:36:42 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric IMO. 

And whether or not we *could* pick some objective "best person for the job" we know there are so many qualified women that saying we'll pick from amongst women is hardly restricting the quality of the pool.  And since we have so much objective information about how valuable this kind of diversity is in material terms, it can only be for the better to choose from that modified pool, IMO.
Why does it HAVE to be a modified pool?

And what inherently makes a female a better candidate than a male, or vice versa?

That's my entire point.  The sex should be completely a non-factor.  By shouting out loud it's going to be a female, they are basically saying the MOST important trait is the physical sex of the candidate.

Why not now narrow it down. How about skin color?  How about sexual orientation?  How about gender identification?  How about being an orphan? How about being raised in a chicken coop instead of a normal home? 

It's ridiculous to go down this route.  The rabbit hole will never end.  You will NEVER break enough glass ceilings to satisfy the press and certain people.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1447
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2629 on: March 16, 2020, 10:43:44 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric IMO. 

And whether or not we *could* pick some objective "best person for the job" we know there are so many qualified women that saying we'll pick from amongst women is hardly restricting the quality of the pool.  And since we have so much objective information about how valuable this kind of diversity is in material terms, it can only be for the better to choose from that modified pool, IMO.
Why does it HAVE to be a modified pool?

It doesn't HAVE to be, of course, but as I mentioned above, there are reams of evidence throughout the business and political world that this kind of gender diversity is materially advantageous, so it is signalling that, if not "the best person for the job" (which doesn't objectively exist) they are looking to create the best possible administration by acknowledging the material value of this kind of diversity.

The rest of your post is over the top hand-wringing about the end of the world if we let one woman in to be VP.  Yes, so terrible. Chicken coops are certainly next.  God forbid.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2020, 10:45:51 AM by sui generis »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4532
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2630 on: March 16, 2020, 10:44:54 AM »
Pandering to the press is not helping the cause.

I'm sure it's been analyzed thoroughly and picking a woman will help his cause, particularly among suburban soccer moms.


Quote
They should go quietly about their business and then announce a female VP candidate, instead of the other way around.

This feels like dirty politics and it reduces my respect for Biden/ Bernie.

Of course it's political. This is a political race!

Lemme guess...you're so angry about this that you've been driven to vote for Trump. You've been a loyal Democrat for 20 years but, goshdarnit, this is the last straw!


nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2631 on: March 16, 2020, 10:45:24 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric IMO. 

And whether or not we *could* pick some objective "best person for the job" we know there are so many qualified women that saying we'll pick from amongst women is hardly restricting the quality of the pool.  And since we have so much objective information about how valuable this kind of diversity is in material terms, it can only be for the better to choose from that modified pool, IMO.
Why does it HAVE to be a modified pool?

It doesn't HAVE to be, of course, but as I mentioned above, there are reams of evidence throughout the business and political world that this kind of gender diversity is materially advantageous, so it is signalling that, if not "the best person for the job" they are looking to create the best possible administration by acknowledging the material value of this kind of diversity.

The rest of your post is over the top hand-wringing about the end of the world if we let one woman in to be VP.  Yes, so terrible. Chicken coops are certainly next.  God forbid.
Hand-wringing??

It's reality, Warren / Harris / Hilary lost.  I want Biden to win, but these recent moves to mimic earlier losers only guarantee Trump will win again.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2632 on: March 16, 2020, 10:45:33 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric IMO. 

And whether or not we *could* pick some objective "best person for the job" we know there are so many qualified women that saying we'll pick from amongst women is hardly restricting the quality of the pool.  And since we have so much objective information about how valuable this kind of diversity is in material terms, it can only be for the better to choose from that modified pool, IMO.
Why does it HAVE to be a modified pool?

And what inherently makes a female a better candidate than a male, or vice versa?

That's my entire point.  The sex should be completely a non-factor.  By shouting out loud it's going to be a female, they are basically saying the MOST important trait is the physical sex of the candidate.

Why not now narrow it down. How about skin color?  How about sexual orientation?  How about gender identification?  How about being an orphan? How about being raised in a chicken coop instead of a normal home? 

It's ridiculous to go down this route.  The rabbit hole will never end.  You will NEVER break enough glass ceilings to satisfy the press and certain people.

Indeed.  I was making this point a week or so ago.  It bugs me that blatant discrimination is seemingly allowed in politics.  Imagine if Biden openly stated that he would choose a straight VP to better position himself for votes in the southern demographic?  That would be preposterous!  But he openly says he is limiting his VP choice to women only?

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4532
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2633 on: March 16, 2020, 10:46:58 AM »
But he openly says he is limiting his VP choice to women only?

Did he say this? Or did he say that he's picking a woman?

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2634 on: March 16, 2020, 10:47:04 AM »
Pandering to the press is not helping the cause.
Quote
I'm sure it's been analyzed thoroughly and picking a woman will help his cause, particularly among suburban soccer moms.
Oh really??? Is that why Hilary won the last election, or Warren / Harris are now on the podium as finalists, or John McCain won the presidency with the Palin ticket??.... OH WAIT....

Quote
Quote
They should go quietly about their business and then announce a female VP candidate, instead of the other way around.

This feels like dirty politics and it reduces my respect for Biden/ Bernie.

Of course it's political. This is a political race!

Lemme guess...you're so angry about this that you've been driven to vote for Trump. You've been a loyal Democrat for 20 years but, goshdarnit, this is the last straw!
You don't seem to get it, do you?

I want the best odds of beating Trump.  Following the same old tired script of following loser strategies that have not worked with the general voter population is not going to work.

Do you think having a female VP is going to suddenly swing the voters against Trump???  It hasn't worked in the last several elections.

Why do you think it will work now???

And what a major jump to conclusions to assume I'm upset by this to vote for Trump.  You seem to have no idea where I'm coming from, do you?

Are you really that lost from reality??
« Last Edit: March 16, 2020, 10:57:48 AM by nemesis »

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2635 on: March 16, 2020, 10:48:18 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric IMO. 

And whether or not we *could* pick some objective "best person for the job" we know there are so many qualified women that saying we'll pick from amongst women is hardly restricting the quality of the pool.  And since we have so much objective information about how valuable this kind of diversity is in material terms, it can only be for the better to choose from that modified pool, IMO.
Why does it HAVE to be a modified pool?

And what inherently makes a female a better candidate than a male, or vice versa?

That's my entire point.  The sex should be completely a non-factor.  By shouting out loud it's going to be a female, they are basically saying the MOST important trait is the physical sex of the candidate.

Why not now narrow it down. How about skin color?  How about sexual orientation?  How about gender identification?  How about being an orphan? How about being raised in a chicken coop instead of a normal home? 

It's ridiculous to go down this route.  The rabbit hole will never end.  You will NEVER break enough glass ceilings to satisfy the press and certain people.

Indeed.  I was making this point a week or so ago.  It bugs me that blatant discrimination is seemingly allowed in politics.  Imagine if Biden openly stated that he would choose a straight VP to better position himself for votes in the southern demographic?  That would be preposterous!  But he openly says he is limiting his VP choice to women only?
Yup, and you see how the democrats seem to bend over backwards to beat themselves.

Now you have a couple of posters who seem to rage on me for pointing this out.  Very sad indeed.

No wonder Trump is winning.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1447
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2636 on: March 16, 2020, 10:48:46 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric IMO. 

And whether or not we *could* pick some objective "best person for the job" we know there are so many qualified women that saying we'll pick from amongst women is hardly restricting the quality of the pool.  And since we have so much objective information about how valuable this kind of diversity is in material terms, it can only be for the better to choose from that modified pool, IMO.
Why does it HAVE to be a modified pool?

And what inherently makes a female a better candidate than a male, or vice versa?

That's my entire point.  The sex should be completely a non-factor.  By shouting out loud it's going to be a female, they are basically saying the MOST important trait is the physical sex of the candidate.

Why not now narrow it down. How about skin color?  How about sexual orientation?  How about gender identification?  How about being an orphan? How about being raised in a chicken coop instead of a normal home? 

It's ridiculous to go down this route.  The rabbit hole will never end.  You will NEVER break enough glass ceilings to satisfy the press and certain people.

Indeed.  I was making this point a week or so ago.  It bugs me that blatant discrimination is seemingly allowed in politics.  Imagine if Biden openly stated that he would choose a straight VP to better position himself for votes in the southern demographic?  That would be preposterous!  But he openly says he is limiting his VP choice to women only?

Oh boy, here come all the people so worried about discrimination when it affects white males.  You will never hear this from them when it affects non-white males (i.e. all the rest of the time).  Guess what?  We discriminate all the time.  Based on skills, based on appearance, based on things that don't matter at all to the job at hand.  This time, discriminating to pick a woman will in fact, based on objective evidence, bring in a more effective and qualified administration.  Quit yer cryin'

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2637 on: March 16, 2020, 10:52:41 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric IMO. 

And whether or not we *could* pick some objective "best person for the job" we know there are so many qualified women that saying we'll pick from amongst women is hardly restricting the quality of the pool.  And since we have so much objective information about how valuable this kind of diversity is in material terms, it can only be for the better to choose from that modified pool, IMO.
Why does it HAVE to be a modified pool?

And what inherently makes a female a better candidate than a male, or vice versa?

That's my entire point.  The sex should be completely a non-factor.  By shouting out loud it's going to be a female, they are basically saying the MOST important trait is the physical sex of the candidate.

Why not now narrow it down. How about skin color?  How about sexual orientation?  How about gender identification?  How about being an orphan? How about being raised in a chicken coop instead of a normal home? 

It's ridiculous to go down this route.  The rabbit hole will never end.  You will NEVER break enough glass ceilings to satisfy the press and certain people.

Indeed.  I was making this point a week or so ago.  It bugs me that blatant discrimination is seemingly allowed in politics.  Imagine if Biden openly stated that he would choose a straight VP to better position himself for votes in the southern demographic?  That would be preposterous!  But he openly says he is limiting his VP choice to women only?

Oh boy, here come all the people so worried about discrimination when it affects white males.  You will never hear this from them when it affects non-white males (i.e. all the rest of the time).  Guess what?  We discriminate all the time.  Based on skills, based on appearance, based on things that don't matter at all to the job at hand.  This time, discriminating to pick a woman will in fact, based on objective evidence, bring in a more effective and qualified administration.  Quit yer cryin'
Wow...just wow.

This clearly shows the out of touch reality mindset of some of the peers out there.  No wonder Trump will keep winning.


maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4516
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2638 on: March 16, 2020, 10:57:44 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric. 

You are right, I should have said, "the person Biden (and/or his team) think is the best person for the job regardless of their physical characteristics."

I agree we cannot objectively agree on who the best person to be VP is as a society as a whole.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1447
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2639 on: March 16, 2020, 10:58:20 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric IMO. 

And whether or not we *could* pick some objective "best person for the job" we know there are so many qualified women that saying we'll pick from amongst women is hardly restricting the quality of the pool.  And since we have so much objective information about how valuable this kind of diversity is in material terms, it can only be for the better to choose from that modified pool, IMO.
Why does it HAVE to be a modified pool?

And what inherently makes a female a better candidate than a male, or vice versa?

That's my entire point.  The sex should be completely a non-factor.  By shouting out loud it's going to be a female, they are basically saying the MOST important trait is the physical sex of the candidate.

Why not now narrow it down. How about skin color?  How about sexual orientation?  How about gender identification?  How about being an orphan? How about being raised in a chicken coop instead of a normal home? 

It's ridiculous to go down this route.  The rabbit hole will never end.  You will NEVER break enough glass ceilings to satisfy the press and certain people.

Indeed.  I was making this point a week or so ago.  It bugs me that blatant discrimination is seemingly allowed in politics.  Imagine if Biden openly stated that he would choose a straight VP to better position himself for votes in the southern demographic?  That would be preposterous!  But he openly says he is limiting his VP choice to women only?

Oh boy, here come all the people so worried about discrimination when it affects white males.  You will never hear this from them when it affects non-white males (i.e. all the rest of the time).  Guess what?  We discriminate all the time.  Based on skills, based on appearance, based on things that don't matter at all to the job at hand.  This time, discriminating to pick a woman will in fact, based on objective evidence, bring in a more effective and qualified administration.  Quit yer cryin'
Wow...just wow.

This clearly shows the out of touch reality mindset of some of the peers out there.  No wonder Trump will keep winning.

It's true there has been a serious decline in trust in objective evidence, particularly among fans of Trump, but I try not to make my decisions on what would be popular, but instead on what has proven effective.  If that means I am a loser, so be it.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4532
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2640 on: March 16, 2020, 10:58:34 AM »
I want the best odds of beating Trump.  Following the same old tired script of following loser strategies that have not worked with the general voter population is not going to work.

Do you think having a female VP is going to suddenly swing the voters against Trump???  It hasn't worked in the last several elections.

Why do you think it will work now???

First, appealing to the "general voter population" is useless. The Democrats could be running Reagan and most Republicans wouldn't vote for him.

Second, Trump, with his grab-em-by-the-pussy ways, lost suburban mom votes. Times change, and this a chink in Trump's armor.

This is the President who endorsed Roy Moore, who prowled malls for teen girls. A woman VP isn't going to suddenly make suburban moms, who once voted Republican, to switch their vote to the misogynist creep supporter.

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2641 on: March 16, 2020, 10:59:46 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric. 

You are right, I should have said, "the person Biden (and/or his team) think is the best person for the job regardless of their physical characteristics."

I agree we cannot objectively agree on who the best person to be VP is as a society as a whole.
And that's the key right there.  THEN selecting a female VP after that would be a much more powerful and genuine statement.

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2642 on: March 16, 2020, 11:02:55 AM »
I want the best odds of beating Trump.  Following the same old tired script of following loser strategies that have not worked with the general voter population is not going to work.

Do you think having a female VP is going to suddenly swing the voters against Trump???  It hasn't worked in the last several elections.

Why do you think it will work now???

First, appealing to the "general voter population" is useless. The Democrats could be running Reagan and most Republicans wouldn't vote for him.

Second, Trump, with his grab-em-by-the-pussy ways, lost suburban mom votes. Times change, and this a chink in Trump's armor.

This is the President who endorsed Roy Moore, who prowled malls for teen girls. A woman VP isn't going to suddenly make suburban moms, who once voted Republican, to switch their vote to the misogynist creep supporter.
Appealing to soccer moms has been equally useless.  Picking a female VP in this manner all but guarantees alienating some of the republican voters who are sick of Trump but now very skeptical of the democratic field.

I have some friends who are republicans and they all pointed out to me the hypocrisy of Biden / Bernie and how they would have considered voting for them but no longer now.

Winning over some fringe republicans would have helped instead of going hard-core left and political correctness.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1447
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2643 on: March 16, 2020, 11:05:38 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric. 

You are right, I should have said, "the person Biden (and/or his team) think is the best person for the job regardless of their physical characteristics."

I agree we cannot objectively agree on who the best person to be VP is as a society as a whole.

So, presumably they have done that.  Whether he/they decided that the pool of women contained plenty of options for who they believed could be best for the job, or because they already have a specific person in mind that is best for the job and she is a woman, so they can reveal that they intend to pick a woman.  It's not as though he has a small, blind group of random people and is willing to say he'll pick from only the women of that random group. That would be stupid, because he would not know if any of the group, much less a smaller pool within that group, is qualified.  In this circumstance, he knows who the women are out there and that there are many that exceed qualifications and could easily be the best for the job.  We discriminate all the time (both  openly and subconsciously) on characteristics that are immaterial to the task at hand (physical or non), and *this time* people are gonna get upset about it?  Groan.

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2644 on: March 16, 2020, 11:07:20 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric. 

You are right, I should have said, "the person Biden (and/or his team) think is the best person for the job regardless of their physical characteristics."

I agree we cannot objectively agree on who the best person to be VP is as a society as a whole.

So, presumably they have done that.  Whether he/they decided that the pool of women contained plenty of options for who they believed could be best for the job, or because they already have a specific person in mind that is best for the job and she is a woman, so they can reveal that they intend to pick a woman.  It's not as though he has a small, blind group of random people and is willing to say he'll pick from only the women of that random group. That would be stupid, because he would not know if any of the group, much less a smaller pool within that group, is qualified.  In this circumstance, he knows who the women are out there and that there are many that exceed qualifications and could easily be the best for the job.  We discriminate all the time (both  openly and subconsciously) on characteristics that are immaterial to the task at hand (physical or non), and *this time* people are gonna get upset about it?  Groan.
You still don't get it do you?

This is not about being upset with Biden/ Bernie, it's about them lessening their odds now of beating Trump.  Eyes on the big prize, not about how they are going to out-democrat each other.

Don't make it such a big deal that it's a woman and alienating half of the general population.  Make it a woman VP and then a big deal about how qualified she is.  There's a better order to do it instead of making things worse.

Public perception matters.  Don't go out of your way to beat yourself in front of Trump.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2020, 11:10:43 AM by nemesis »

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1447
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2645 on: March 16, 2020, 11:08:51 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric. 

You are right, I should have said, "the person Biden (and/or his team) think is the best person for the job regardless of their physical characteristics."

I agree we cannot objectively agree on who the best person to be VP is as a society as a whole.
And that's the key right there.  THEN selecting a female VP after that would be a much more powerful and genuine statement.

Oh, please.  Even if they did, they'd get roasted for picking a woman and people would *say* they did it for PC.  John McCain did not, as I recall, say that he'd pick only a woman, and yet not only in popular memory but *right here in this thread* he is being blamed for picking a woman for the wrong reasons, even though he defended his pick as being based on merit.  No one could win. The only way to win is to NOT PICK A WOMAN.  That's the only way not to be accused of picking a woman for the wrong reasons.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4532
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2646 on: March 16, 2020, 11:09:17 AM »
Appealing to soccer moms has been equally useless.  Picking a female VP in this manner all but guarantees alienating some of the republican voters who are sick of Trump but now very skeptical of the democratic field.

The experts think otherwise.

Quote from: 538
Suburban women are a crucial demographic group in any presidential election

Quote from: wapo
With just five weeks of campaigning left, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are scrambling to win over female voters in America’s suburbs as well-educated white women have emerged as perhaps the presidential campaign’s most pivotal swing voting group.

If you think otherwise, join Biden's campaign and convince him/them otherwise.


Quote
I have some friends who are republicans and they all pointed out to me the hypocrisy of Biden / Bernie and how they would have considered voting for them but no longer now.

Yeah, didn't see that one coming....

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1447
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2647 on: March 16, 2020, 11:11:07 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric. 

You are right, I should have said, "the person Biden (and/or his team) think is the best person for the job regardless of their physical characteristics."

I agree we cannot objectively agree on who the best person to be VP is as a society as a whole.

So, presumably they have done that.  Whether he/they decided that the pool of women contained plenty of options for who they believed could be best for the job, or because they already have a specific person in mind that is best for the job and she is a woman, so they can reveal that they intend to pick a woman.  It's not as though he has a small, blind group of random people and is willing to say he'll pick from only the women of that random group. That would be stupid, because he would not know if any of the group, much less a smaller pool within that group, is qualified.  In this circumstance, he knows who the women are out there and that there are many that exceed qualifications and could easily be the best for the job.  We discriminate all the time (both  openly and subconsciously) on characteristics that are immaterial to the task at hand (physical or non), and *this time* people are gonna get upset about it?  Groan.
You still don't get it do you?

This is not about being upset with Biden/ Bernie, it's about them lessening their odds now of beating Trump.  Eyes on the big prize, not about how they are going to out-democrat each other.

Research shows that the VP pick does not bring in additional voters, it is about solidifying your base.  I just listened to two different podcasts that talked about this last week.  So this is probably the exactly right thing to do.  The base, that is less than excited about Biden, will be happier and more energized to work for and donate to him. The fringe was never going to base their vote on the VP pick, no matter the whitest most masculine most straight male that could be picked.  It should be a good move on his part.

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2648 on: March 16, 2020, 11:11:58 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric. 

You are right, I should have said, "the person Biden (and/or his team) think is the best person for the job regardless of their physical characteristics."

I agree we cannot objectively agree on who the best person to be VP is as a society as a whole.
And that's the key right there.  THEN selecting a female VP after that would be a much more powerful and genuine statement.

Oh, please.  Even if they did, they'd get roasted for picking a woman and people would *say* they did it for PC.  John McCain did not, as I recall, say that he'd pick only a woman, and yet not only in popular memory but *right here in this thread* he is being blamed for picking a woman for the wrong reasons, even though he defended his pick as being based on merit.  No one could win. The only way to win is to NOT PICK A WOMAN.  That's the only way not to be accused of picking a woman for the wrong reasons.
If what you say is true, then DON'T PICK A WOMAN.   The ultimate prize is to beat Trump.  Whatever it takes.

Or do Biden/Bernie just want to be the last loser who claims 2nd place under Trump???

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2649 on: March 16, 2020, 11:13:41 AM »
Appealing to soccer moms has been equally useless.  Picking a female VP in this manner all but guarantees alienating some of the republican voters who are sick of Trump but now very skeptical of the democratic field.

The experts think otherwise.

What experts?  The same ones that predicted that Trump would never be president?  Or the ones that predicted that Hilary would be running for her 2nd presidency?  Or the same ones that predicted that Warren / Harris would be the finalists?

Pray tell... let's hear from the experts who are telling us that reality is wrong.