- This topic has 10 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
I had been publicly stating for a few months that Biden should take Elizabeth Warren. She was a woman, she finished high in the voting and is a proven vote-getter, she’s a policy wonk and has an ethnic background (heh. Sorry. Couldn’t resist). She was getting traction with minority voters. And most importantly…she can deliver the Progressive vote better than anyone except Bernie. And yes, I know that Biden and Warren despise each other, and I’m fully aware of her failings. That said, she would have been a smarter selection than Harris. Biden didn’t need Harris, at all. He already has California. She can’t really deliver anything else. She’s not as (ugh…I apologize in advance for using one of my least favorite terms, but it fits here) “authentic” as the other candidates that Biden considered. Harris is and was a social-climbing, scheming, Willie-Brown-mistressing conniver. There’s a lot that’s not good about her, and no doubt Biden is aware of all of it.
To me, this signals the fact that Biden believes his lead over Trump is large enough that he doesn’t need to factor into account the Progressive vote. Because his selection of Kamala Harris as running mate is a gigantic F-You to the Progressives. Harris isn’t even a pretend Progressive, and she certainly won’t drive their program. Just ask these folks, who consider the choice to be a middle finger thrust against both BLM and Progressives. She was a DA and an Attorney General, and therefore by definition runs against the BLM crowd.
Quite a trick for a woman with African heritage:
Or as one of the blue-circle Tweeters tweeted: “Biden going with the strategically brilliant move of picking somebody for VP who is despised by both the right and the left.”
In my view, the selection of Harris was a strategic mistake. Admittedly, she checked the most boxes (as CNN put it), but she checked the wrong boxes. Biden has opened the re-election door a crack, just wide enough for Trump and the Republicans to exploit it, if they are smart and savvy enough. Because let’s face it, even if Biden gets elected, he’ll be non compos mentis. Ironically, the 25th Amendment would apply more to Biden than to Trump.
-
Yep. Her baggage is going to be on display…bigly.
I don’t think Biden had a better choice, however. I disagree with your implied assessment of Warren’s “authenticity.” She’s a phony of the first order.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work)-
I don’t think Biden had a better choice, however. I disagree with your implied assessment of Warren’s “authenticity.” She’s a phony of the first order
Well, let me rephrase. I’m certainly not trying to imply that Elizabeth Warren is authentic, she’s nowhere close. But Kamala Harris is a bigger phony, with less going for her than Warren.
-
-
What lead, Mick? If Trump is within 4 points in any swing state poll by the media including Fox, he is leading. And Harris has not been publicly vetted in the ad wars yet. Who really knows her outside of progressive enclaves and California? Rassmussen is acknowledged by pretty much all to be the most accurate and non partisan and Trump`s favorability is pushing 50%. Much of the national lead is attributed to the big states of Illinois, California and New York where Dems are greatly dominant and a large proportion of those voting hail from.
Even CNBC of all polls had Trump`s favorability at 46% today which really surprised me. and then there is this:
-
-
Disagree, Mick. She was the logical and safe choice given the “situation”. He had to pick an African American. I said that a long time ago. Clyburn brought him the nomination. It would have been a slap in the face. Warren has very high negatives. He didn’t need a Hail Mary He’s ahead.
Harris was the obvious choice.
-
Christ, Lex. WTF is wrong with you? Do you ever read or just act petulant?
“Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen wrote in 2010 that Rasmussen has an “unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.” Slate magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that Rasmussen Reports was one of the most accurate polling firms for the 2004 United States presidential election and 2006 United States general …” (These are Democrats, Lex)
https://thehill.com/media/306721-rasmussen-calls-itself-most-accurate-pollster-of-2016
http://americanresearchgroup.com/ratings/2016/uspresident/
What is the point of posting here if someone can just make a statement of “fact” based on prejudice? When I am published in my local newspaper or are given a column in a blog at least if someone refutes what I say they provide or attempt to provide some evidence in opposition no matter how inaccurate or misrepresented. Here as on the Bootboard folks just call you out without a shred of evidence and it gets old very fast. I am wasting my time. Might as well go back to posting on the Cardboard where as with CNN and CBS/Scout as we found out, there is only one opinion and if you violate the moderator consensus, you are banned.
-
-
Probably right TC. They reported today that Nate Silver’s 538 has Biden winning 71% of their unbiased random trials, Trump 29%.
But then you realize Silver spent the entire 2016 cycle with Cankles winning.
I think Fox is polling registered voters? So they too are reporting a Biden lead. Personally I like Rasmussen. But I think polling will be particularly difficult this cycle. I don’t think anyone knows what mail in balloting/ballot harvesting will do to turnout. Particularly with republicans in the unusual position of leadership in voter registration. And you probably know Democrat partisans are already in court trying to extend the cut off dates for the return of eligible ballots by mail.
I’ll leave you with a thought. I talked with our friend today and was reminded once again why anyone who would vote Biden/Harris or fails to vote Orange is stupid beyond belief. As you know, he has unique insight and presents his thoughts effectively.
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long
-
-
Rocky,
Rasmussen overcounts GOP. Has for years. And I’m not overly impressed by comments about his abilities that are 10-15 years old. But hey, maybe I’m wrong.
As for Schoen and Caddell, both hated Clinton. Why do you think they were the darlings of Fox. Nothing better than to be able to have negative comments from someone of the same party. It’s the same reason Kasich has become the darling of CNN.
You quote Fox as if it’s the Oracle. It’s not It’s opinion journalism. Just as CNN is. It just leans right as opposed to the others that lean left.
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.