Cont: Biden for President? Pt 2

[Bob001]

Exactly. Personally a much younger me was turned off of Gore by his pick of Lieberman. I was already unhappy that Gore's wife was very pro-censorship of music, and Lieberman's pro-censorship stance was the tipping point.

It's hard to believe that it was 20 years ago.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's hard to believe that it was 20 years ago.

It was a prior millenium.

 

[theprestige]

What, that Minnesota is a potential swing state and that picking someone Minnesotans are unhappy with would be a bad idea?

It would probably be a bad idea if he did it today.

It'll probably be a bad idea if he does it at the convention. But maybe not. By the convention, this may have blown over, and there might be other picks that are even worse.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Now, now, what does a history of lying under oath in court at least twice have to do with her credibility regarding lying? Stop smearing her character!

Conservatives used to say that credibility was very important. Now, not so much.


I guess it's refreshing to see that they are finally admitting that they could care less about credibility.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Time, money, and advertising slots are all limited resources. They might decide that some other line of attack is a better use of those resources. The Tara Reade thing, for example, or Biden's obvious senility.

Attacking Biden/Klobuchar 2020 over the Floyd cop thing at least has the merit of being a valid objection, even if it is being raised for cynical partisan advantage, rather than a sincere concern about putting the best candidate forward.

The way I see it:

Would Klobuchar get hammered by right-wing PACs about the Floyd Cop Thing, if Biden picks her?

Probably yes.

Would it matter to Biden's election chances?

I don't know. I think it depends on the details of voter demographics and which votes Biden needs to win. I don't have good info on this, though.

It's funny that wareyin is complaining about not discussing Biden's VP options and implications. Some of us, including me, were on that topic a few days ago. Then it turned into an Abrams-Onion slapfight, and then swung right back to bUt tArA ReAdE ThO. With even wareyin getting right back in on that action.

If you want to talk about Biden's veep options, talk about Biden's veep options. Stacy and Telly aren't forcing you to stay stuck on their topic.

That's a lot of words just to say "of course not."

 

[theprestige]

That's a lot of words just to say "of course not."

Good thing I was actually saying, "probably, but I'm not sure." Most of the words were there to give some explanation of my thought process for saying that.

Anyway, I apologize for the confusion. Please tell me which of those words made you think I was saying "of course not". I'd like to see if there's anything I can do to avoid confusing you like that in the future.

 

[wareyin]

Aren't Minnesota busy being on fire with riots at the moment? Surely whatever's left of the place by November will have bigger fishes to pizza.

It would probably be a bad idea if he did it today.

It'll probably be a bad idea if he does it at the convention. But maybe not. By the convention, this may have blown over, and there might be other picks that are even worse.

The VP announcement is slated for August. That's three months away, not a lot of time for people to forget. Will the officers have even been arrested by that point?

The general election is 6 months away. Even if the DA decides to arrest and try the officers involved, will the case have made it before a judge yet?

I think that this will still be fresh in the minds of many voters, especially with daily reminders on Fox and Friends, Limbaugh, and every 2 minutes in a commercial break on TV.

 

[theprestige]

The VP announcement is slated for August. That's three months away, not a lot of time for people to forget. Will the officers have even been arrested by that point?

The general election is 6 months away. Even if the DA decides to arrest and try the officers involved, will the case have made it before a judge yet?

I see three and six months as being very long time frames, in modern political campaigns.

I think that this will still be fresh in the minds of many voters, especially with daily reminders on Fox and Friends, Limbaugh, and every 2 minutes in a commercial break on TV.

I stopped watching TV years ago. They have commercials every two minutes, now?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure it would be a waste of resources to run these ads for the Fox-Limbaugh audience.

What even would be the strategy there? Turn out the conservative vote in Minnesota by telling them Biden is soft on police brutality? "Oh wow, I better vote for Trump; he'll really crack down on all those racist cops!"

It could be used to depress progressive turnout in Minnesota. But not by airing it on Fox and Limbaugh, I think.

 

[wareyin]

I see three and six months as being very long time frames, in modern political campaigns.

You do, huh? I see people bringing up stuff from years or decades ago to use against various candidates. Heck, people are arguing about Obama's "If you like your doctor" claim today in another thread, and he isn't even running. 3-6 months is nothing, and considering that any court case will take at least that long it won't be 3-6 months ago as it's daily news.

I stopped watching TV years ago. They have commercials every two minutes, now?

Depends on the show, and the medium.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure it would be a waste of resources to run these ads for the Fox-Limbaugh audience.

Oh, you misunderstand. Fox and Limbaugh will be saying that stuff in their programs, for free. Not charging PACs to run them in the commercial breaks.

What even would be the strategy there? Turn out the conservative vote in Minnesota by telling them Biden is soft on police brutality? "Oh wow, I better vote for Trump; he'll really crack down on all those racist cops!"

It could be used to depress progressive turnout in Minnesota. But not by airing it on Fox and Limbaugh, I think.

Are you seriously asking what the strategy of noted pro-Trump media like Fox and Friends and Rush Limbaugh attacking Trump's opponent would be? Is this some sort of performance theater?

 

[Ziggurat]

1:Abrams was and still is a potential VP pick, despite certain conservative posters getting fooled by satire pieces.

Oh, I never doubted that Abrams was still a potential VP pick, and I never said she wasn't. I don't think the odds are in her favor, but I could be wrong and I'm not counting her out anyways. What I mocked was the idea that she could be a serious presidential candidate in 2024. What's the difference? Well, Palin was the actual VP candidate pick in 2008, but she wouldn't have had a shot if she tried running for president in 2012. So it's not at all out of the realm of possibility that Abrams could become the next Palin. What's not within the realm of possibility is her becoming the next Obama.

As for getting fooled by a satire piece, nobody was fooled. I linked to the Bee for the same reason I always link to the Bee: it's often hilarious, including in this case. I've been linking to them for some time, as I already showed, and always with full knowledge that they're satire. What's odd about you trying to pass off the idea of anyone being fooled, though, is that nothing in the Bee link suggests Abrams won't or couldn't get picked. So even if someone had been fooled by it, there wouldn't be any "despite" involved.

 

[wareyin]

Oh, I never doubted that Abrams was still a potential VP pick, and I never said she wasn't. I don't think the odds are in her favor, but I could be wrong and I'm not counting her out anyways. What I mocked was the idea that she could be a serious presidential candidate in 2024. What's the difference? Well, Palin was the actual VP candidate pick in 2008, but she wouldn't have had a shot if she tried running for president in 2012. So it's not at all out of the realm of possibility that Abrams could become the next Palin. What's not within the realm of possibility is her becoming the next Obama.

Abrams may not be a good candidate for Pres in 2024. I don't really have a firm opinion on that one. She's definitely not as easy to mock as Sarah Palin, though.

As for getting fooled by a satire piece, nobody was fooled. I linked to the Bee for the same reason I always link to the Bee: it's often hilarious, including in this case. I've been linking to them for some time, as I already showed, and always with full knowledge that they're satire. What's odd about you trying to pass off the idea of anyone being fooled, though, is that nothing in the Bee link suggests Abrams won't or couldn't get picked. So even if someone had been fooled by it, there wouldn't be any "despite" involved.

Abrams was brought up as a candidate. You cited a satire article (and sure, let's go with that it didn't fool you, no skin off my nose) as to why she wouldn't be a good candidate. Then there was a fair bit of back and forth about informing you that it was satire. theprestige somehow thought that this discussion of potential VP pick Abrams wasn't a discussion of potential VP picks. And, despite the side conversation over whether you were fooled, it was still a conversation about a potential VP pick.

So, yes, despite your claims, despite was accurate to use in a shorthand/single sentence refutation when I didn't feel the need to use a paragraph to explain it.

Then again, I guess if a poster can't accurately remember the conversation over the last couple of days, 3-6 months is going to feel like a lifetime. Huh.

 

[theprestige]

You do, huh? I see people bringing up stuff from years or decades ago to use against various candidates. Heck, people are arguing about Obama's "If you like your doctor" claim today in another thread, and he isn't even running. 3-6 months is nothing, and considering that any court case will take at least that long it won't be 3-6 months ago as it's daily news.

There's always going to be someone, somewhere, digging up something old. Hell, I pulled up a two year old Michelle Obama quote not to long ago.

But that's a lot different than voters keeping stuff from last week's news cycle at the top of their minds this week, or retaining that interest and outrage for months. Will people remember it for years? Sure. Will some people be justifiably bitter about it, and keep their bitterness fresh for the rest of their lives? Of course.

Will there be a sustained wave of public anger about this, from now until August, really hurting Biden's chances if he picks Klobuchar? I don't think that's necessarily true.

Oh, you misunderstand. Fox and Limbaugh will be saying that stuff in their programs, for free. Not charging PACs to run them in the commercial breaks.

Gotcha. My bad.

Are you seriously asking what the strategy of noted pro-Trump media like Fox and Friends and Rush Limbaugh attacking Trump's opponent would be? Is this some sort of performance theater?

I'm seriously asking what you think the strategy is.

Here's what I think the strategy is: Preaching to the choir. I think these attacks are mainly to reinforce and reward the mindset of their target audience, which is already a pro-Trump, anti-Democrat audience.

I don't think there are a lot of swing voters who pay attention to Fox and Limbaugh. I think attacks from those sources have much effect on other audiences, mainly because those audiences aren't actually following Fox and Limbaugh.

I dunno. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe one of the characteristics of a swing voter is that they watch MSNBC and Fox & Friends with equal favor.

But I lean towards the theory that there's not really a lot of "swing" voters, in the sense of people who could vote either way with equanimity. I think what characterizes swing states is roughly balanced populations of partisan voters, and that what "swings" those states is turning out your partisan voters more than the other guy turns out his.

And I think that attacking Biden as soft on police brutality won't make much difference to the audience of Fox and Limbaugh. I'm sure there are things that will increase conservative voter turnout in swing states, but I doubt that's one of them.

I think picking Klobuchar would depress progressive voter turnout. I don't think Fox or Limbaugh talking about it would make much difference to those voters.

And I don't see any other reason why Fox and Limbaugh would attack Biden for being soft on police brutality. It just doesn't seem on-message for them, you know what I mean?

 

[Ziggurat]

Abrams was brought up as a candidate. You cited a satire article (and sure, let's go with that it didn't fool you, no skin off my nose) as to why she wouldn't be a good candidate.

Well, no. Go back a bit further. TGZ said, "The best VP Biden could pick would be a someone who could credibly run on their own in 2024." I jokingly responded that this meant Abrams, since I think she cannot credibly run in 2024. Stacyhs responded in seriousness that she agreed with me that Abrams fit TGZ's criteria. That's what led me to post the Bee link. The post of mine that Stacyhs agreed with was satire, so I followed it up with more satire. The Bee link makes sense in the context of Abrams not being fit for 2024, and mocks one of her more absurd moments. That link isn't really why she's not fit, but if you already understand why she's not fit, it's funny. And if you actually believed the Bee was a real news link (ie, you just read the headline, not the whole story, and didn't know she's not the governor), then it would be essentially meaningless as a way to laugh at her. But all of this revolved around TGZ's criteria regarding 2024, it had nothing to do with whether or not Abrams would get picked as VP now.

And no, let's not just "go with" me being fooled. I've already documented multiple cases of using the Bee as satire in the past. They aren't unfamiliar to me.

 

[wareyin]

Well, no. Go back a bit further. TGZ said, "The best VP Biden could pick would be a someone who could credibly run on their own in 2024." I jokingly responded that this meant Abrams, since I think she cannot credibly run in 2024. Stacyhs responded in seriousness that she agreed with me that Abrams fit TGZ's criteria. That's what led me to post the Bee link. The post of mine that Stacyhs agreed with was satire, so I followed it up with more satire. The Bee link makes sense in the context of Abrams not being fit for 2024, and mocks one of her more absurd moments. That link isn't really why she's not fit, but if you already understand why she's not fit, it's funny. And if you actually believed the Bee was a real news link (ie, you just read the headline, not the whole story, and didn't know she's not the governor), then it would be essentially meaningless as a way to laugh at her. But all of this revolved around TGZ's criteria regarding 2024, it had nothing to do with whether or not Abrams would get picked as VP now.

I read the link. It wasn't particularly funny. It certainly wasn't "I can see Russia from my house" funny. But hey, humor is subjective.

And no, let's not just "go with" me being fooled. I've already documented multiple cases of using the Bee as satire in the past. They aren't unfamiliar to me.

I didn't say let's go with you being fooled. I said let's go with you not being fooled. Whether or not you were fooled by this article or this publication really doesn't matter to me, so feel free to claim whatever makes you feel good.

 

[Stacyhs]

Clearly some of us are able to respond ad infinitum. What is it about this story that makes you feel like you haven't yet responded enough?

 

[Stacyhs]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/poli...ainst-trump-ad-campaign/?hpt=ob_blogfooterold

It's nice to see there are some Republicans who still love their country. A group Republicans got together and is running TV and digital ads to get conservatives to vote for Biden and return to American values.

I'm pleased to read this. It's time for disaffected Republicans to stand up and let their voices be heard. People often need reassurance from others that it's OK to change their minds and admit to themselves they made a mistake. This won't change hardline Trump supporters but it may help those who have misgivings now about voting for Trump to make that decision.

 

[wareyin]

There's always going to be someone, somewhere, digging up something old. Hell, I pulled up a two year old Michelle Obama quote not to long ago.

But that's a lot different than voters keeping stuff from last week's news cycle at the top of their minds this week, or retaining that interest and outrage for months. Will people remember it for years? Sure. Will some people be justifiably bitter about it, and keep their bitterness fresh for the rest of their lives? Of course.

1:The murder happened this Monday, not last week.
2:The officer was just arrested today, while news has come out that he had 18 previous citations. I'm not sure how many of those Klobuchar was involved in.
3resuming this goes to trial, the trial will be ongoing during the election, not old news.

I'm seriously asking what you think the strategy is.

To do everything they can to ensure another Trump victory. Whether that is fanning the flames of any and every anti-Biden story for as long as it takes, or actively making stuff up, these organizations don't a reason to do what they already do.

Here's what I think the strategy is: Preaching to the choir. I think these attacks are mainly to reinforce and reward the mindset of their target audience, which is already a pro-Trump, anti-Democrat audience.

I don't think there are a lot of swing voters who pay attention to Fox and Limbaugh. I think attacks from those sources have much effect on other audiences, mainly because those audiences aren't actually following Fox and Limbaugh.

I dunno. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe one of the characteristics of a swing voter is that they watch MSNBC and Fox & Friends with equal favor.

But I lean towards the theory that there's not really a lot of "swing" voters, in the sense of people who could vote either way with equanimity. I think what characterizes swing states is roughly balanced populations of partisan voters, and that what "swings" those states is turning out your partisan voters more than the other guy turns out his.

And I think that attacking Biden as soft on police brutality won't make much difference to the audience of Fox and Limbaugh. I'm sure there are things that will increase conservative voter turnout in swing states, but I doubt that's one of them.

I think picking Klobuchar would depress progressive voter turnout. I don't think Fox or Limbaugh talking about it would make much difference to those voters.

And I don't see any other reason why Fox and Limbaugh would attack Biden for being soft on police brutality. It just doesn't seem on-message for them, you know what I mean?

Fox and Limbaugh attacked Obama on the number of Executive Orders, the color of his suit, how many times he played golf, drone strikes etc. They attacked Hillary Clinton on being friendly with Russia (Uranium One), private email servers, and coughing that one time. Then, when Trump took office EO's suddenly became praiseworthy, badly fitting suits were cool, golf was praiseworthy, drone strikes were no longer an issue, friendship with Russia was great, private email servers were a good idea, etc.

What is on-message for Fox and Limbaugh is Trump/GOP good, Biden/DEM bad.

 

[theprestige]

1:The murder happened this Monday, not last week.
2:The officer was just arrested today, while news has come out that he had 18 previous citations. I'm not sure how many of those Klobuchar was involved in.
3resuming this goes to trial, the trial will be ongoing during the election, not old news.

Well, if the outrage against Klobuchar is real in three to six months, I'll admit I was wrong on this one. You may have to remind me, though.

To do everything they can to ensure another Trump victory. Whether that is fanning the flames of any and every anti-Biden story for as long as it takes, or actively making stuff up, these organizations don't a reason to do what they already do.

I honestly don't think they care whether Trump wins or not. As long as ratings are good and the ad revenue is flowing in, they don't care who is in the White House. I think they can make just as much money off a Democrat president as a Republican, and they know it.

Fox and Limbaugh attacked Obama on the number of Executive Orders, the color of his suit, how many times he played golf, drone strikes etc. They attacked Hillary Clinton on being friendly with Russia (Uranium One), private email servers, and coughing that one time. Then, when Trump took office EO's suddenly became praiseworthy, badly fitting suits were cool, golf was praiseworthy, drone strikes were no longer an issue, friendship with Russia was great, private email servers were a good idea, etc.

What is on-message for Fox and Limbaugh is Trump/GOP good, Biden/DEM bad.

Granted. The question isn't, do they attack Democrats. The question is, do attacks on Democrats for the Fox audience have a significant effect on voter turnout in swing states?

I think probably not, but I could be wrong. Again, if I turn out to be wrong, I'll admit it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Time, money, and advertising slots are all limited resources. They might decide that some other line of attack is a better use of those resources. The Tara Reade thing, for example, or Biden's obvious senility.

Oh, god. Please don't start banging that drum again. It went nowhere before and isn't going to go anywhere this time.

It's funny that wareyin is complaining about not discussing Biden's VP options and implications. Some of us, including me, were on that topic a few days ago. Then it turned into an Abrams-Onion slapfight, and then swung right back to bUt tArA ReAdE ThO. With even wareyin getting right back in on that action.

If you want to talk about Biden's veep options, talk about Biden's veep options. Stacy and Telly aren't forcing you to stay stuck on their topic.

 

[theprestige]

Oh, god. Please don't start banging that drum again. It went nowhere before and isn't going to go anywhere this time.

As you can see, I've been talking about other stuff.

I threw that one in there so you'd have something to talk about.

If you'd prefer to talk about the other stuff, feel free to skip right over it. Like I said the other day, I'm not really interested in dinging Biden on gaffes and whatnot.

Wanna talk about veep choices and implications instead? It'll be tricky, dodging the Babylon Bee articles about Abrams, but I think it's do-able.

Actually, forget all that. We have a huge long thread about how laypeople and professionals alike can totally diagnose mental health from footage of public appearances. So I'm not going to argue with you about it.

Quite frankly, an argument between us doesn't really matter. What matters is how voters perceive Biden. If Dem turnout in swing states is depressed because of how Biden talks and acts in his video clips, that's a problem even if he's not even remotely senile. Don't worry about me saying it. Worry about CNN saying it. Worry about Rachel Maddow* saying it.

---
*I kid. Maddow would never say it, especially if she thought it was true. Plus, even if she did, I don't think she has the ratings to make it worrisome.