Renegade7 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 9 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said: Based solely off of her experience? Nothing. Based on who she is, her dedication and brains? No doubt about her at all. Based solely on a resume of experience, George W Bush was definitely more qualified than Barack Obama to be President. But I never had any doubt Obama could do the job, while I never thought W could. Was I wrong? Obama's legacy is defined by him being too green to realize he was being too nice to republicans before they took congress from him. Quote No, she wouldn't definitely do any such thing. Georgia remains a long shot for Biden. If he wins it, it's probably because he's crushing Trump and didn't need Georgia anyway. Winning that state probably doesn't hinge on Abrams being on the ticket, and winning the Presidency certainly doesn't hinge on Georgia. You literally just posted a map with Georgia as a toss-up state. How often is it ever a toss-up or swing state? I walked into this thread today starting with if Biden maintains a 10+ point lead nationally, which he has right now. I wouldn't want Abrams as the VP, but if the goal is winning, take that chance at getting at least one or both of those senators from her state blue and blowing a shotgun hole in the GOP electoral map. Lindsey Graham would be gone too if Dems get Georgia, he's fighting for his life right now, mighty temping... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: Lindsey Graham would be gone too if Dems get Georgia, Graham is SC? You mean if we are doing well enough to win Ga It could mean SC is in play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 1 minute ago, Momma There Goes That Man said: Graham is SC? You mean if we are doing well enough to win Ga It could mean SC is in play? Exactly. Entirely possible if we talking Texas in play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 South Carolina is not in play. Maybe for the Senate, but it isn’t the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 8 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: Obama's legacy is defined by him being too green to realize he was being too nice to republicans before they took congress from him. His legacy is not defined by that. But that specific strategy was pushed by people like Biden and leftover Clinton staffers. It was literally the opposite of lack of experience which brought it about. 9 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: You literally just posted a map with Georgia as a toss-up state. How often is it ever a toss-up or swing state? I posted a map that has Biden winning or tied in states that bring him to 349 Electoral Votes, with Georgia not being one of them. It really shouldn't take any more discussion of how Georgia is extremely unlikely to be a tipping point state. 9 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: I wouldn't want Abrams as the VP, but if the goal is winning, take that chance at getting at least one or both of those senators from her state blue and blowing a shotgun hole in the GOP electoral map. Lindsey Graham would be gone too if Dems get Georgia, he's fighting for his life right now, mighty temping... If we have a shot in Georgia, it's because of a national climate that could do things like put Lady G (look it up, I beg you) in trouble in South Carolina. So, therefore, we should do something to specifically target Georgia, because that puts SC in play? That's beyond nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, visionary said: South Carolina is not in play. Maybe for the Senate, but it isn’t the same thing. That's really all we need from that state, crazy Trump could win there and Graham still lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 20 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said: His legacy is not defined by that. But that specific strategy was pushed by people like Biden and leftover Clinton staffers. It was literally the opposite of lack of experience which brought it about. Nah, I'm not buying Biden wanted to push for bipartisanship more then Obama. He tried so hard for that so we wouldn't have to, his message of hope was we could work together, at the time he was wrong. Quote I posted a map that has Biden winning or tied in states that bring him to 349 Electoral Votes, with Georgia not being one of them. It really shouldn't take any more discussion of how Georgia is extremely unlikely to be a tipping point state. So what is that map, because it has Georgia brown as a toss-up. Quote If we have a shot in Georgia, it's because of a national climate that could do things like put Lady G (look it up, I beg you) in trouble in South Carolina. So, therefore, we should do something to specifically target Georgia, because that puts SC in play? That's beyond nonsense. I typed "Lady G South Carolina" like you asked to keep combo honest, what am I looking for here? You don't target Georgia to put South Carolina in play, you target Georgia to take back the Senate. Biden is powerless without it and a state with two spots up for election. It's nonsense to ignore it and give up if we talking 10-point national lead. Go for the jugular if its all about winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: I typed "Lady G South Carolina" like you asked to keep combo honest, what am I looking for here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 And yall don't think think he can be knocked out after that on top of being tied and outraised by his Dem Challenger? http://abcnews4.com/news/local/new-poll-shows-lindsey-graham-jaime-harrison-tied-for-us-senate-seat Ok, sure. But Texas might go blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 8 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: Nah, I'm not buying Biden wanted to push for bipartisanship more then Obama. He tried so hard for that so we wouldn't have to, his message of hope was we could work together, at the time he was wrong. Biden, possibly the most experienced politician in American history, is still pushing the idea of working with Republicans. Experience has nothing to do with that. I didn't support Obama in 08 mainly because of stuff like that, but there is literally zero reason to think another term in the Senate would have made that different. There's really no reason to discuss that further. 10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: So what is that mal, because it has Georgia brown as a toss-up. It's a map which shows him winning 300 EVs comfortably enough to shade blue. And if you look at the numbers, he's also ahead by smaller margins in NC, Arizona and Nevada and tied in Ohio, while slightly behind in Georgia. I'm not going to keep going over this, Georgia is quite clearly not going to be the state that decides the election, and it's weird to be bringing up a map that indicates that so strongly as proof of the opposite. 12 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: You don't target Georgia to put South Carolina in play, you target Georgia to take back the Senate. Biden is powerless without it and a state with two spots up for election. It's nonsense to ignore it and give up if we talking 10-point national lead. Go for the jugular if its all about winning. The point is Abrams has nothing to do with Graham's seat, so bringing it up in that context is, at utter best, misleading. One of the two Georgia seats will be decided by a special election in January, so even if we think Abrams gives some boost there in November, she will have nothing to do with the second seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 Outing Graham for anything beyond what he's done to LGBTQ people is ****ed up. Outing him because of that. Whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 25 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said: Biden, possibly the most experienced politician in American history, is still pushing the idea of working with Republicans. Experience has nothing to do with that. I didn't support Obama in 08 mainly because of stuff like that, but there is literally zero reason to think another term in the Senate would have made that different. There's really no reason to discuss that further. You don't get to decide what's discussed here. Hillary would've been a better president with the same advantage in the senate Obama started with, but I wouldn't take that vote back, it was worth it. By the time he really got a hang of how to be president, his second term was up. Quote It's a map which shows him winning 300 EVs comfortably enough to shade blue. And if you look at the numbers, he's also ahead by smaller margins in NC, Arizona and Nevada and tied in Ohio, while slightly behind in Georgia. I'm not going to keep going over this, Georgia is quite clearly not going to be the state that decides the election, and it's weird to be bringing up a map that indicates that so strongly as proof of the opposite. I never said Georgia would decide the election. If you think that's my point in all this, we should jus stop now, you aren't listening to me. You've made up your mind you are right, i got better things to do. Quote The point is Abrams has nothing to do with Graham's seat, so bringing it up in that context is, at utter best, misleading. So South Carolina goes from being the state that's the first primary test regarding black voters to not mattering at all bordering Georgia even with a black VP? Both states black population are between 27% and 30% of the state. With a senate candidate on the ropes and Biden "only slightly behind" in Georgia, your just saying they have nothing to do with each because you don't want to have this conversation. In which case, stop responding to me instead of telling me to stop talking about certain things on a message board just because you disagree with me. Not how this works. Quote One of the two Georgia seats will be decided by a special election in January, so even if we think Abrams gives some boost there in November, she will have nothing to do with the second seat. I misread them being both in November. I'll admit I was wrong, I do do that sometimes, your turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted June 5, 2020 Author Share Posted June 5, 2020 5 hours ago, @SkinsGoldPants said: but they'd like Harris? I think if they aren't ok with Demings, they won't be ok with Harris either. What stuff are you talking about during her tenure as Sheriff? Rufus T Firefly posted that article in the Atlantic about Demmings tenure. I found the article I was talking about though. Minneapolis unrest shakes up VP shortlist >>> Law enforcement credentials once offered an appealing and protective sheen to a handful of the top prospects in contention to be Joe Biden’s potential running mate. But three of those candidates — Sen. Kamala Harris, Rep. Val Demings and, most notably, Sen. Amy Klobuchar — now find their records under new scrutiny in a presidential race transformed in the wake of national outrage surrounding Monday‘s death of George Floyd under the knee of a white Minneapolis police officer....<<< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 It's a shame, because i thought that started as a nice theoretical discussion between people who mainly agreed. But i am done with it now. I never told anyone what they are allowed to discuss. I said I wasn't going to discuss something further since there was no reason to. Either you are being that obtuse, or you have decided to Straw Man me so you can hurl invective. Either way, it's not worth another second of my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted June 5, 2020 Author Share Posted June 5, 2020 3 hours ago, mistertim said: It would matter if the VP is someone who's expected to run if Joe only decides to do 1 term. As far as knowing what they're doing and experience on the national stage with the ability to step in quickly, I agree and I'd say that would be between Harris and Warren (Klobuchar has the experience but she's more or less irrelevant right now IMO). And if they're looking for someone who could carry the torch after Joe is out of office (whether that's 2024 or 2028), Warren probably wouldn't be the ideal fit because she'll already be 71 this month. I'm guessing Harris is definitely the front-runner. If Joe wins, I don't see him serving his full term; that veep may have to step in sooner than you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 10 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said: It's a shame, because i thought that started as a nice theoretical discussion between people who mainly agreed. But i am done with it now. I never told anyone what they are allowed to discuss. I said I wasn't going to discuss something further since there was no reason to. Either you are being that obtuse, or you have decided to Straw Man me so you can hurl invective. Either way, it's not worth another second of my time. It went off the rails when you asked for a VP candidate with no experience but could still help win an election. I said Stacey Abrams. Your response was she has plenty of experience despite never making it past Georgia House of Representatives and wouldn't help Biden win the election despite being a black woman. Look, this happens. Give it a couple weeks, we'll be high fiving about something else and barely remember this happened. I'll log off, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted June 5, 2020 Author Share Posted June 5, 2020 #1 in deciding the Veep pick- Joe must feel comfortable that person can step in, on Day 1 to be President; if something happened to Joe. #2- Joe must pick someone that will bring enthusiasm to the ticket. People aren't enthused one bit about voting for Joe; just resigned they have to vote for him. An exciting veep pick, could make the difference of getting people to come out in key states to give Joe the win. Joe's veep will probably be the most powerful veep since Dick Cheney and maybe even more powerful. If I were Joe, I would appoint his veep to address the racism/police brutality issues from Day One. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 19 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said: #1 in deciding the Veep pick- Joe must feel comfortable that person can step in, on Day 1 to be President; if something happened to Joe. Of the dozen women who seem to have been under serious consideration, there's really two who I would say are worthy of significant concern about readiness- Keisha Lance Bottoms and Susan Rice. -Bottoms has been Mayor of a mid-sized city for less than two years, and I haven't seen enough from her (unlike with Abrams) to be convinced she can overcome that lack of experience. Rice is one who would seem to have experience, but she doesn't really have any in domestic affairs. There is so much that needs to be addressed at home that I can't condone picking someone who has no qualifications to speak of on the economy, health care, education, the environment, etc. (She's also a terrible candidate for other, obvious reasons). Three others whose inexperience would potentially become big campaign issues, but I think are probably capable of handling the job- Abrams, Demings, Whitmer. The other 7- Warren, Baldwin, Harris, Klobuchar, Lujan Grisham, Masto (who has apparently dropped out) and Duckworth- are pretty clearly qualified. 19 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said: #2- Joe must pick someone that will bring enthusiasm to the ticket. People aren't enthused one bit about voting for Joe; just resigned they have to vote for him. An exciting veep pick, could make the difference of getting people to come out in key states to give Joe the win. My criteria for VP picks is simple: 1. Do no harm 2. Inspire turnout from as much of the base as possible. Bonus if you can give a boost in a swing state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted June 5, 2020 Author Share Posted June 5, 2020 I think Joe made a big mistake tying himself to only picking a woman. If had a open search with both men and women and still end up picking a man; people would know at least he gave a woman a shot. I do believe with some of the electorate, all his woman veep choice will be seen as; is a gimmick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 3 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said: I think Joe made a big mistake tying himself to only picking a woman. If had a open search with both men and women and still end up picking a man; people would know at least he gave a woman a shot. I do believe with some of the electorate, all his woman veep choice will be seen as; is a gimmick. Nah. We're over 230 years into this, it's WAY beyond time a woman was at least a Veep. I could maybe buy the notion that he should have at least pretended to be open to anyone before he ultimately picked a woman running mate. But I have doubts it would matter enough to anyone who might vote for him anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 The very surprising jobs report today and continued ramp up in the stock market made this quite a good day for the President. Sorry, but I see the narrative forming of Trump being the hero that led the economy to a V-shaped recovery. Granted, there are still five months left, and both guys are going to stick their respective feet in their mouths more than we can count, but I can see this sticking. Four years and seven months more, peeps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted June 5, 2020 Share Posted June 5, 2020 Today's jobs report really just means a larger percentage of people have returned to work now rather than later. If anything, there's a real argument that this ends up bad news for Trump- it'd be one thing to be pointing to a rapidly dropping Unemployment number in August-September and claim things were about to get rosy, but another if there's just a slow drop in the numbers from now until November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted June 5, 2020 Author Share Posted June 5, 2020 5 minutes ago, hail2skins said: The very surprising jobs report today and continued ramp up in the stock market made this quite a good day for the President. Sorry, but I see the narrative forming of Trump being the hero that led the economy to a V-shaped recovery. Granted, there are still five months left, and both guys are going to stick their respective feet in their mouths more than we can count, but I can see this sticking. Four years and seven months more, peeps. It's too early, way too early to know really happens. Look what have had so far this year. Impeachment trial and acquittal. Pandemic and accompanying economic collapse. Police brutality and killing suspects and the accompanying protests. We are still 5 months away and lots of things will happen. For Trump to really benefit from a V shaped recovery; the jobs lost has to be restored by the time people vote in October & Nov. 3. If it trends upward the whole time, no doubt that will be a plus for Trump but most of those jobs have to be back by the time people vote. I don't see that happening. We will see how things are in October; then you can get a better feel of how things may go. I hope you are dead wrong because I don't see blue areas accepting a Trump win. You will succession movements pop up, if he wins reelection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.