06hawkalum wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:Stacey Abrams as the VP pick nearly ensures a 2nd term for Trump.

Would you please qualify this opinion?

For the quick answer time allows I'll oversimplify. It is not a statement about my thoughts on her actual ability. She will energize the opposition beyond the tipping point.

Oh, so I guess Kamala is out too...right?

So I guess you think my comment is only based on race or skin color. Disheartening to see these 2 unique people and politicians minimized to "black female".

Spell it out for me. Why precisely would Abrams, who would absolutely fire up progressives, be such a horrible choice in comparison to Harris?

You hit on a big part of it. Anyone who "fires up the progressives" also energizes the opposition. That's a net loss for the Democratic ballot, imo.

I think Abrams bristles the anti-intellectuals more than other options. Some will also react negatively to her personality and presentation. Obviously race will also stir the asses from their holes.

I think Harris is also a losing choice but to a lesser extent and for some different reasons.

traderdave wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:Stacey Abrams as the VP pick nearly ensures a 2nd term for Trump.

This message scared me enough to check all over to make sure I had not missed an announcement. I mean it would not keep me from wanting Trump out of office but I would be less than thrilled about the selection.

Sorry. I posted my thoughts on the reaction to her interview this morning.

This is just my opinion, but Biden needs a ton of help with African Americans. The party can't make the same mistake it did in 2016-assuming Hilary was strong with African American voters because she ran up big numbers in the primary with older, high turnout individuals in southern states that she was never going to carry in the general. African American turnout was down in 2016, most notably in urban areas in swing states like Philly, Cleveland, and Milwaukee. It's going to need to be a lot more than just a VP pick, but any VP who can marginally boost turnout there can't hurt.

In all though, I don't think the Republicans will focus on the VP pick, whomever it is. It's going to be a long summer of Hunter, Burisma, China, the Tara Reade allegation and questions about Biden's mental state. All of this is hilarious, because Trump is far more corrupt, is far more guilty of nepotism with his worthless children than Biden is, seems to be a serial rapist, and probably just as cognitively limited, but here we are.

An insignificant amount if any will vote for Trump because they dislike Abrams. Your feeling is not founded in any reality or data.

k

I won't bother with the rest then.

CalvinBall wrote:An insignificant amount if any will vote for Trump because they dislike Abrams. Your feeling is not founded in any reality or data.

Pretty much this. Successful campaigns don't worry about how people vote, they worry about who votes. Republicans figured this out awhile ago and started focusing on turning out their base and taking the right to vote away from black people. It's dovetailed nicely with their worldview because conservatives on the whole don't seem too fond of democracy or equality. On the other hand, the (once) idealistic Boomers and Gen Xers who run the Democrats don't understand this. My guess is because they came of age sometime between the '60s and '80s and still envision these huge electoral blowouts a la Johnson in '64, Nixon in '72, or Reagan in '84 in which vast swaths of Americans were "persuaded" by powerful messages.

Democrats need to stop fantasizing they're going to win back the majority of white middle America. It ain't happening. Stop imagining there are these suburban dads or retired ladies who volunteer at their church or whoever who won't vote for Biden if he picks somebody like Abrams. The ship has sailed. The only relevant constituency this might matter with is white male union members, but this group looms much larger in the Democratic psyche than it does in mathematical reality. Too many Thanksgivings getting berated by their hardhat uncles.

Election/Candidate/% of white vote (all stats from Cornell's Roper Center; they don't go any further back than '76)
2016 Clinton 39%
2012 Obama 39%
2008 Obama 43%
2004 Kerry 41%
2000 Gore 42%
1996 Clinton 44%*
1992 Clinton 39%
1988 Dukakis 40%
1984 Mondale 34%
1980 Carter 36%
1976 Carter 48%**

*Might have won a plurality if not for Perot
**Close, but still did not win a plurality; they have Ford with 52%

Uncle Milty wrote:k

I won't bother with the rest then.

Thanks

Augustus wrote:Pretty much this. Successful campaigns don't worry about how people vote, they worry about who votes.

Exactly my point. I never mentioned changing anyone's choice.

CalvinBall wrote:An insignificant amount if any will vote for Trump because they dislike Abrams. Your feeling is not founded in any reality or data.

Curiously, what is this statement founded on?

On balance I think people saying the VP doesn't affect anything have the better of the argument. But also think it matters at the margins and definitely matters more than most this time given Biden's age.

If Abrams had any kind of a big gaffe during the ~3 months she's on the ticket it would be way more damaging than if someone like Harris/Klobuchar/Duckworth/etc. stepped in it. The largest office she's ever won or represented was GA State Rep, so 1 of 180 reps, and representing like 60k folks. Her biggest claim to fame is she lost an election to an idiot in an increasingly purple state in a dark blue year. And despite protests that it was stolen, it wasn't actually that close of an election. As someone utterly unqualified to become president, if she says or does something that confirms she's utterly unqualified to become president, that will hurt more. But the VP choice is unlikely to change the outcome.

I think choosing Stacey Abrams would reflect very poorly on Biden, and I think the downsides are a lot bigger than the upsides (and I'd be shocked if he picked her). I don't think it would meaningfully help or hurt his chances of actually winning either way, which are mostly wrapped up in what Trump does and whether or not Biden avoids having a stroke on national television.

Joe Biden was Vice President, and was chosen more for governing than campaigning.

Biden is quite a bit ahead of Trump.

Biden really shouldn't go the Hail Mary route for VP, and I'd be stunned if he picked a non senator/governor.

Augustus wrote:Successful campaigns don't worry about how people vote, they worry about who votes.

BTW this is wrong and dumb and wrong. Successful campaigns focus messaging on both persuadables and the base. Especially at the presidential level you have the budget and attention level to pull that off, but that applies to statewides and even competitive congressional elections.

And it's also not an either or. There are messages that appeal to GOP base voters as well as toss up Indies that the Trump campaign can push, and messages to Dem base voters that also get huge buy in from swing voters that Biden can leverage. The issue a good campaign drills in on will be one that hits across the board. Or is targeted to the recipients it wants.

But if you're looking at an issue that revs the base but maybe turns off persuadables and/or revs up the opposition, you quickly learn that people who would vote for you instead of your opponent as opposed to people who would stay home rather than vote for you are twice as important.

Speaking of persuadables, the WH deciding to fully shift gears in messaging from public health to the economy while voters are fixated on public health and not the economy is a good way to lose them.

Abrams was minority leader in her chamber too, which is not nothing, but regularly does not get mentioned here.

Good stuff jh. I'm likely too focused on not revving up the opposition.

I thought Harvard/Harris planned to release polling on VP pick last week but I haven't found it. The only polling I have read puts experience as the top preference over race, gender, etc.

What's your opinion on the number of persuadables - more, less or the same as usual?

jerseyhoya wrote:Joe Biden was Vice President, and was chosen more for governing than campaigning.

Biden is quite a bit ahead of Trump.

Biden really shouldn't go the Hail Mary route for VP, and I'd be stunned if he picked a non senator/governor.

IYO, putting aside the down ballot impacts (i.e. putting a governorship or senate seat up for grabs), who makes up a top 3/5 list for VP?

Never understood why a man who would be 82 at the end of his first term would choose an inexperienced representative as VP. Just doesn't make any sense - I don't get the Abrams talk at all.

CalvinBall wrote:An insignificant amount if any will vote for Trump because they dislike Abrams. Your feeling is not founded in any reality or data.

What is the foundation of this statement

and what is an 'insignificant amount'? I would postulate that 60K across three states is an "insignificant amount"

Uncle Milty wrote:What's your opinion on the number of persuadables - more, less or the same as usual?

Probably less. I think most people are going to vote on what they think of Trump, and the segment that hasn't made their mind up about Trump is smaller now than it was in 2016.

There was an interesting piece last week in the NYT looking at groups that are moving and may be more persuadable than others. Seems like those 65+ are much more friendly to Biden than they were Hillary, while Trump might be making in-roads with minority voters, particularly younger, nonwhite men.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/upsh ... ction.html