Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[Momma There Goes That Man]

9 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Sorry Beto, time to run for Senate.

 

If you think Beto is good enough to win a senate seat in Texas, why wouldn't you want him on the presidential ticket to put Texas in play when no other candidate really can?

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

Trump ran on "letting gov't take care of healthcare" in more or less words.  Why isn't the media holding him to what he campaigned on in that regard?  Not that I actually believe he ever had any intention on following through with it, but he is the one who said it.  So why isn't the media asking him why he campaigned on something that he is now saying is bad when Dems are proposing it?   Media still not doing their job. 

 

[twa]

3 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

If you think Beto is good enough to win a senate seat in Texas, why wouldn't you want him on the presidential ticket to put Texas in play when no other candidate really can?

 

You just hurt Julian's feelings....I hope you are happy 

[NoCalMike]

Meghan McCain who pretends to be a politically savvy person got angry that Mayor Pete, at the debate last night, suggested the GOP would call Democrats socialists regardless of which candidate was running.  Pretty funny when I pretty clearly remember Obama being called a socialist, Bill Clinton called a communist. This is a pretty well known regular thing for the GOP to do.  Not for trickle down system? Socialist, Communist, etc etc.....it is a regular part of the playbook. 

[PleaseBlitz]

33 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

If you think Beto is good enough to win a senate seat in Texas, why wouldn't you want him on the presidential ticket to put Texas in play when no other candidate really can?

 

Because (1) there is little to no evidence that VPs put their home states into play, (2) I think he'd be more valuable as a Senator from Texas than as Veep, and (3) because he's flopped so far on the national stage so I don't think he's a very good choice for VP.  

[mistertim]

36 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Meghan McCain who pretends to be a politically savvy person got angry that Mayor Pete, at the debate last night, suggested the GOP would call Democrats socialists regardless of which candidate was running.  Pretty funny when I pretty clearly remember Obama being called a socialist, Bill Clinton called a communist. This is a pretty well known regular thing for the GOP to do.  Not for trickle down system? Socialist, Communist, etc etc.....it is a regular part of the playbook. 

 

For me it's not even about "suggesting" that the GOP would do it. They do it already. Kennedy calling Delaney a socialist? The entrepreneur who became rich by starting two companies and taking them public? THAT guy is a socialist? They've essentially made the word meaningless, but they know their base doesn't know any better and will follow what they say regardless. Like the lady who claimed Biden was a socialist because he's "all about the money". Wut?

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Larry]

4 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

https://peteforamerica.com/douglass-plan/

 

From the horses mouth. Im still trying to understand all of it, and it does sound more fantastical than reality, but I like that hes attempting to learn from his issues in his state and at least trying to talk about it. It wont happen if you dont seriously try. So here we are! 

 

Realistically, you would need alot of things to change before this can have any kind of honest attempt on a national scale. 

 

Just reading some of it so far.  

 

The first thing seems to be to encourage capitol investment in poor neighborhoods.  

 

I'm kinda of the impression that the normal result of this is called "gentrification".  And the poor people who were there absolutely loathe it, because they get kicked out of their places, with nowhere else they can afford to go.  

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

 

*whispers* Complicit

Just now, Larry said:

I'm kinda of the impression that the normal result of this is called "gentrification".  And the poor people who were there absolutely loathe it, because they get kicked out of their places, with nowhere else they can afford to go

It’s what he did in South Bend. Buttigieg just doesn’t know non-Ivy League Black people.

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Because (1) there is little to no evidence that VPs put their home states into play, (2) I think he'd be more valuable as a Senator from Texas than as Veep, and (3) because he's flopped so far on the national stage so I don't think he's a very good choice for VP.  

As for number 2, I think that's largely irrelevant. The question is not in which position does he do better but whether he can help win the White House in the first place. I mainly agree with you on number 3, which may make this a moot conversation. But number 1 is where some discussion may be warranted.

 

It would be virtually impossible to prove that a VP pick did or did not help deliver a state. "Proof" of such things doesn't exist because it really can't. There is no way to definitively  find what voters would have done if things had been different. It's why Trumpers are able to cling to "no proof" the Russians or Comey or voter suppression swung the election. It just can't be proved. In most cases recently, there isn't much left to even be surmised about VP picks, because almost none in recent history have come from real swing states.

 

However, I did think looking at the two Presidential re-elections this century might be at least a little instructive:

From 2000 to 2004, Bush went from losing the national popular vote by 0.5% to winning it by 2.4%, so an improvement of 2.9 points nationally. Meanwhile, in North Carolina (John Edwards' home state), he went from a victory margin of 12.8 percent to a margin of 12.4 percent. Not a huge move, but it bucked the national trend. Again, not by huge numbers.

From 08 to 12, Obama went from winning nationally by 7.2% to winning by 3.9%. In Wisconsin (Paul Ryan's home state), his margin went from 13.9% in 08 to 6.9% with Ryan on the ticket. So, while Obama lost 3.3 points across the country, he lost 7 in Ryan's state.

 

So, while well short of proof, or even an overwhelming argument, those two cases make it at least seem that a VP pick gives a bit of a boost in their home state.

 

The other question is what indication (much less "proof") is there that a VP pick add anything else electorally? We can surmise that a couple have been to some extent negatives (Palin seemed to scare off independents, while Kaine likely just continued a trend of Hillary alienating her base). Apart from a vague sense that Biden gave some air of experience, it's hard to find a VP pick who added much of anything to a nominees chances.

 

in just my opinion, I would say you want a pick who mainly does no harm and hopefully excites your base (in the Dems' case, someone who further pushes black or Latino turnout especially). But beyond that, providing a boost in one state would be the best you can hope for. And Texas is clearly the biggest prize that's even remotely up for grabs (plus I'm not sure there is a Democrat from Florida who's viable).

 

As for Beto, whether or not he's damaged himself enough with this run to rule himself out I can't say, and it likely at least partly won't be known until the process further plays out. The poll out of Texas recently that had him beating Trump by 11 (while Warren did the next best at +3, Biden the worst at a tie) is at least interesting. 

 

A long way to go before this decision needs to be made. I would want a lot of polling and focus grouping. But it's at least possible, and certainly worth researching, whether Beto could deliver Texas (and with it, likely the election) as a running mate. 

 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

However, I did think looking at the two Presidential re-elections this century might be at least a little instructive:

From 2000 to 2004, Bush went from losing the national popular vote by 0.5% to winning it by 2.4%, so an improvement of 2.9 points nationally. Meanwhile, in North Carolina (John Edwards' home state), he went from a victory margin of 12.8 percent to a margin of 12.4 percent. Not a huge move, but it bucked the national trend. Again, not by huge numbers.

From 08 to 12, Obama went from winning nationally by 7.2% to winning by 3.9%. In Wisconsin (Paul Ryan's home state), his margin went from 13.9% in 08 to 6.9% with Ryan on the ticket. So, while Obama lost 3.3 points across the country, he lost 7 in Ryan's state.

 

So, while well short of proof, or even an overwhelming argument, those two cases make it at least seem that a VP pick gives a bit of a boost in their home state.

 

Yeah, but WI was leaning more right during that time period (the election of Walker as governor).

 

Most studies find no affect on the VP and their home state.

 

e.g. 

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/election-2016-vice-president-selection-matters-less-than-you-think-213805

 

"Our conclusion: While presidential candidates typically enjoy a home-state advantage (approximately 3 points to 7 points), vice presidential candidates generally do not. In each of the three analyses described above, a presidential ticket performs no better in the vice presidential candidate’s home state than we would expect otherwise. Statistically speaking, the effect is zero."

 

(They do find a small state affect so if you are worried about a small state than it might make sense.  The other thing that I think a VP can bring is a sense of stability/familiarity (e.g. Cheney for Bush; Biden for Obama) in specific cases.)

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

As for number 2, I think that's largely irrelevant. The question is not in which position does he do better but whether he can help win the White House in the first place. I mainly agree with you on number 3, which may make this a moot conversation. But number 1 is where some discussion may be warranted.

 

It would be virtually impossible to prove that a VP pick did or did not help deliver a state. "Proof" of such things doesn't exist because it really can't. There is no way to definitively  find what voters would have done if things had been different. It's why Trumpers are able to cling to "no proof" the Russians or Comey or voter suppression swung the election. It just can't be proved. In most cases recently, there isn't much left to even be surmised about VP picks, because almost none in recent history have come from real swing states.

 

However, I did think looking at the two Presidential re-elections this century might be at least a little instructive:

From 2000 to 2004, Bush went from losing the national popular vote by 0.5% to winning it by 2.4%, so an improvement of 2.9 points nationally. Meanwhile, in North Carolina (John Edwards' home state), he went from a victory margin of 12.8 percent to a margin of 12.4 percent. Not a huge move, but it bucked the national trend. Again, not by huge numbers.

From 08 to 12, Obama went from winning nationally by 7.2% to winning by 3.9%. In Wisconsin (Paul Ryan's home state), his margin went from 13.9% in 08 to 6.9% with Ryan on the ticket. So, while Obama lost 3.3 points across the country, he lost 7 in Ryan's state.

 

So, while well short of proof, or even an overwhelming argument, those two cases make it at least seem that a VP pick gives a bit of a boost in their home state.

 

The other question is what indication (much less "proof") is there that a VP pick add anything else electorally? We can surmise that a couple have been to some extent negatives (Palin seemed to scare off independents, while Kaine likely just continued a trend of Hillary alienating her base). Apart from a vague sense that Biden gave some air of experience, it's hard to find a VP pick who added much of anything to a nominees chances.

 

in just my opinion, I would say you want a pick who mainly does no harm and hopefully excites your base (in the Dems' case, someone who further pushes black or Latino turnout especially). But beyond that, providing a boost in one state would be the best you can hope for. And Texas is clearly the biggest prize that's even remotely up for grabs (plus I'm not sure there is a Democrat from Florida who's viable).

 

As for Beto, whether or not he's damaged himself enough with this run to rule himself out I can't say, and it likely at least partly won't be known until the process further plays out. The poll out of Texas recently that had him beating Trump by 11 (while Warren did the next best at +3, Biden the worst at a tie) is at least interesting. 

 

A long way to go before this decision needs to be made. I would want a lot of polling and focus grouping. But it's at least possible, and certainly worth researching, whether Beto could deliver Texas (and with it, likely the election) as a running mate. 

 

 

 

The last time a VP's ticket won the VP's home state after that party lost it in the prior election is 1992 (Al Gore).  Almost 30 years ago.  Clinton won that election 370/169 electoral votes, so saying that Gore won him a state is speculative at best.  Clinton won Georgia and Kentucky (and Arkansas and Louisiana).   

 

Then, the question is:  Even if you assume that a VP can help you win their one state, is it worth it if they cost you votes overall, especially in swingier states?  Sarah Palin was very popular in Alaska and McCain took it in 2008.  She also probably cost him 2 million votes overall.  

 

Further, I think it's relatively easy to figure out what probably would have happened in other circumstances.  You determine the relative partisanship of a district over the past 4 years (for all elections) and compare it to the actual result.  538 and Cook Political do this all the time.  Here is an example of the concept.  Sure, it's not DEFINITIVE, but citing to Trump supporters as evidence of how math doesn't work and lack of absolute proof means the opposite definitely happened is not how math or proof work.  

 

Depending on who is on the top of the ticket, I'd pick the "safe opposite" for veep.  If a progressive like Liz Warren is at the top of the ticket, I'd pick a moderate that can go into swing states (like Mayor Pete or Sherrod Brown).  If a moderate is at the top like Biden, I'd pick a more progressive person that can speak to the base and take the message into more progressive areas, but won't scare off moderates (Stacey Abrams?  Can Warren herself fit that bill or is she too scary for moderates?  Someone that isn't currently running for POTUS like Joe Kennedy?)

 

Edit:  I say this as someone who donated to Beto's campaign and really wanted to see him do well.  

[Momma There Goes That Man]

7 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Depending on who is on the top of the ticket, I'd pick the "safe opposite" for veep.  If a progressive like Liz Warren is at the top of the ticket, I'd pick a moderate that can go into swing states (like Mayor Pete or Sherrod Brown).  If a moderate is at the top like Biden, I'd pick a more progressive person that can speak to the base and take the message into more progressive areas, but won't scare off moderates (Stacey Abrams?  Can Warren herself fit that bill or is she too scary for moderates?  Someone that isn't currently running for POTUS like Joe Kennedy?)

 

Well for one, I still like Beto as the actual nominee and it’s a long ways away. My initial point was why tell a Dem that could possibly win Texas as president to go run for senate. Anyway. 

 

This part quoted specifically though, what would make Pete or Brown better  than Beto as a VP that can go into swing states and appeal to moderates or minorities? Beto actually did bring turnout with youth and minorities in Texas and brought new voters with him too. He has a unique ability to resonate and connect with people when he speaks to them. This hasn’t translated to debates but it wouldn’t need to if the goal is sending him in as a VP to deliver the message and increase turnout. It would actually appeal to his strengths 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

Just now, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Well for one, I still like Beto as the actual nominee and it’s a long ways away. 

 

This part specifically though, what would make Pete or Brown better  than Beto as a VP that can go into swing states and appeal to moderates or minorities? Beto actually did bring turnout with youth and minorities in Texas and brought new voters with him too. He has a unique ability to resonate and connect with people when he speaks to them. This hasn’t translated to debates but it wouldn’t need to if the goal is sending him in as a VP to deliver the message and increase turnout. It would actually appeal to his strengths 

 

First, from my above post:

 

7 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Edit:  I say this as someone who donated to Beto's campaign and really wanted to see him do well.  

 

Second, Beto has done poorly in the Presidential election, even though he did amazingly well in the Senate race.  I was all-in on Betomania, but he's seemed out of his depth since he announced a campaign for President.  What has been his best moment?  I can't even think of one.  It's sad that he hasn't been able to translate his success in Texas to this race, I really thought he could six months ago, but he hasn't.  That's why i think he should go back to Texas and take a crack at John Cornyn, because I think he has a real chance of winning that and doing something that would be hugely positive for Dems everywhere. 

[88Comrade2000]

Come on Kamala, finish Uncle Joe off.  I expect her and Cory to beat up Joe all night.

[visionary]

CNN trying to prop Biden up in the pre-show.

[mistertim]

Jesus Christ, are they going to do the whole "25 minutes of bull**** before anyone says anything of consequence" thing again?

[88Comrade2000]

1 minute ago, mistertim said:

Jesus Christ, are they going to do the whole "25 minutes of bull**** before anyone says anything of consequence" thing again?

yes.

[mistertim]

1 minute ago, Rdskns2000 said:

yes.

 

[Cooked Crack]

Tell me when this actually starts.

[mistertim]

I'm already sick of it. lol

[Forehead]

De Blasio I think invoked all three of Obama's buzzwords in his opening sentence.

[StillUnknown]

Michael Bennett, produced by DJ Screw. chopped and screwed

[mistertim]

Just now, Forehead said:

De Blasio I think invoked all three of Obama's buzzwords in his opening sentence.

 

Haha. I'm glad someone else noticed that as well. He said "hope", "change" within the first 2 sentences.