[kenberg]

y66, on 2020-August-11, 15:38, said:

I really like Biden's pick.

If there'd been a pool I would not have won.

I also am very happy. I had no guesses as to tho it would be but I am very happy.
Maybe I will say more later. Well, maybe.

[y66]

Jim Geraghty at National Review said:

You know, whatever else you think of Kamala Harris, it’s pretty amazing and awesome that immigrants can come to the U.S., meet, marry, have a child, and their daughter can grow up to be DA, state attorney general, U.S. Senator, and on a presidential ticket.

[johnu]

Trump Rewrites Rules On Showerheads Amid Growing Water Crisis

Quote

The Energy Department proposed rolling back three-decade-old efficiency standards for showerheads Wednesday following President Donald Trump’s repeated gripes about subpar water pressure while bathing.

Quote

“Showerheads — you take a shower, the water doesn’t come out. You want to wash your hands, the water doesn’t come out. So what do you do?” he said during a July 16 speech at the White House. “You just stand there longer or you take a shower longer? Because my hair — I don’t know about you, but it has to be perfect. Perfect.”

I don't know why Individual-1 needs a lot of water to wash hands. As anybody can see he has very small hands so doesn't need much water. I also don't know why he complains about washing his hair. He can certainly afford to send his rug out for dry cleaning as often as necessary which will do a much better job than washing with water.

[hrothgar]

Harris was not my first choice (I would have preferred Warren or Rice)

My big issue with Harris is that I thought that she ran an incredibly poor campaign (and I thought that she came across as flakey). Note: at the start of the campaign season, she was probably my top pick for President. However, it felt like she failed to deliver in a big way.

Still, she seems fine and I suspect that this might make for a stronger ticket than either of my preferred choices.

[Zelandakh]

hrothgar, on 2020-August-13, 05:14, said:

Harris was not my first choice (I would have preferred Warren or Rice)

My big issue with Harris is that I thought that she ran an incredibly poor campaign (and I thought that she came across as flakey). Note: at the start of the campaign season, she was probably my top pick for President. However, it felt like she failed to deliver in a big way.

Still, she seems fine and I suspect that this might make for a stronger ticket than either of my preferred choices.

My biggest issue with her campaign is that she seemed to want to state policy from focus groups rather than having any sort of vision of her own. That made her come across as insincere and opportunistic, willing to be blown here and there according to the FOTM popular opinion. As VP this is not really an issue - she is not the one creating policy for the ticket. I think the biggest issue for a mid 70s candidate in their VP pick is that the person be competent. This is the one thing that KH has shown throughout her legal and political career in abundance.

The secondary factor for a VP pick is in making a signal to specific sectors of the electorate. In recent days there have been a lot of rumblings from the African American democrats warning against having another all-white ticket. Given the threat of a possible part-boycott by minority voters, I feel that JB was pretty much forced into choosing a minority running mate in order to shore up this sector of his own base. The advantage of KH over the other options is that her record is much more moderate than most, she can speak authoritatively on law and order, which might be attractive to some moderate conservatives and that she does not come with baggage that can be spun into a fake conspiracy theory, which would be the case for Rice, for example.

Finally, we all know that this campaign is likely to get ugly before the end. There are lessons to be learned from the Dukakis campaign here. JB naturally will want to keep his image intact for being generally amiable, just as Dukakis did. But just sitting there passively and defending the lies is a losing strategy. What KH brings to the table that noone else can is the ability to be the campaign attack dog, while JB gives the impression of "going high". I might be wrong about this but I suspect this strategy is a major part of the reason for the KH selection.

As for downsides, well KH is not particularly well liked and she is prone to the odd blunder. The first part is largely offset by the statement her selection makes to minority voters. The second part though is a potential risk. I suspect the JB campaign have touched base with her on this long before the announcement, with strategies in place for avoiding awkward moments, probably similar to those that JB employs since he is also gaffe-prone.

In the end though, the role of a VP nomination tends to make little difference in the grand scheme of things. Much is spoken about it now but come November the number of votes that will change hands from one pick over another is minimal. The most important thing is that a running mate does not make waves and provide an easy line of attack for the opponent. In this KH is about as safe as they come - Rice and Warren would not have been and therefore I think the JB campaign made the right choice, at least between these 3 candidates.

[shyams]

Zelandakh, on 2020-August-13, 06:19, said:

Finally, we all know that this campaign is likely to get ugly before the end. There are lessons to be learned from the Dukakis campaign here. JB naturally will want to keep his image intact for being generally amiable, just as Dukakis did. But just sitting there passively and defending the lies is a losing strategy. What KH brings to the table that noone else can is the ability to be the campaign attack dog, while JB gives the impression of "going high". I might be wrong about this but I suspect this strategy is a major part of the reason for the KH selection.

+1. Agree wholeheartedly. This makes so much sense that it might very well have been a factor in her selection.

[cherdano]

Chas_P, on 2020-August-10, 18:46, said:

That's my point also. "Middle Ground" seems to be an obsolete concept. The Republicans want to be "right" 100% of the time. The Democrats want to be "right" 100% of the time.

Trump: I want to defund the USPS so that millions of ballots can't be delivered.

Democrats: USPS should be properly funded to ensure that every mail-in ballot gets counted.

"Middle Ground": Let's make sure most mail-in ballots get counted, especially outside of large cities, say outside Milwaukee and Philadelphia.

[kenberg]

What makes me happy about the choice of Harris.

Most important: She can, if need be, handle becoming president. I far prefer Biden, I hope he has a healthy four years ahead of him, but Harris could step in. It is not necessary that I be wildly enthusiastic about her, I am not, but she could step in. During my lifetime, Truman, Joghnson and Ford became president because the incumbent did not finish hi term. So it's not a rare event. If it comes to that, she can step in.

An emotional aspect but perhaps of use: My father was an immigrant. He did not become a professor at Stanford, to put it mildly. But I like the quoted comment a few posts above: "You know, whatever else you think of Kamala Harris, it’s pretty amazing and awesome that immigrants can come to the U.S., meet, marry, have a child, and their daughter can grow up to be DA, state attorney general, U.S. Senator, and on a presidential ticket." When my father came out to visit me and I showed him around the department, a secretary asked him i1f he had been in academic life. "No, I had to work for a living". He was joking. Sort of. But many of us like the story of opportunity. We like to see it happen.


As to Harris doing the punch them back work for Biden, he had better do it himself. Give 'em Hell Harry is my first recollection of political back and forth. People liked that. Biden needs to take care of himself. I think he can.

[Winstonm]

Two quality individuals - not perfect, but who is? - on the Democratic ticket. Trumplandia should quake. And so should Putin.

[Chas_P]

cherdano, on 2020-August-13, 09:14, said:

Trump: I want to defund the USPS so that millions of ballots can't be delivered.

Democrats: USPS should be properly funded to ensure that every mail-in ballot gets counted.

"Middle Ground": Let's make sure most mail-in ballots get counted, especially outside of large cities, say outside Milwaukee and Philadelphia.

I am all for absentee voting. My father saw to it that I registered to vote on my 18th birthday (I also had to register for the draft). In November 1956, I was a freshman at Georgia Tech and he saw to it that I had an absentee ballot to vote in the Presidential election. He voted for Stevenson; I voted for Eisenhower. I exercised my franchise and I'm all for everyone else doing the same, so.......
1. If you want to vote, are registered to vote, and are unable to get to the polls, please call me. I will pick you up, drive you there, wait for you to vote, and drive you home....regardless of who you intend to vote for.
2. If you want to vote, are registered to vote, and are unable or unwilling to go to the polls please request an absentee ballot and cast it. Exercise your franchise.
3. If you are dead or otherwise incapacitated and subject to ballot harvesting by either political party, please remain dead and request that the political party pushing mail-in voting also drop dead.

[y66]

Winstonm, on 2020-August-13, 18:08, said:

Two quality individuals - not perfect, but who is? - on the Democratic ticket. Trumplandia should quake. And so should Putin.

This is from David Sedaris in 2008 but still apropos:

Quote

I don’t know that it was always this way, but, for as long as I can remember, just as we move into the final weeks of the Presidential campaign the focus shifts to the undecided voters. “Who are they?” the news anchors ask. “And how might they determine the outcome of this election?”

Then you’ll see this man or woman— someone, I always think, who looks very happy to be on TV. “Well, Charlie,” they say, “I’ve gone back and forth on the issues and whatnot, but I just can’t seem to make up my mind!” Some insist that there’s very little difference between candidate A and candidate B. Others claim that they’re with A on defense and health care but are leaning toward B when it comes to the economy.

I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of ***** with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

I mean, really, what’s to be confused about?

[shyams]

Something interesting which got highlighted in a politics broadcast I saw earlier today.


Main reason Biden is leading? He is not Trump.

What about policy/issues? Trump leads Biden 21-9
What about leadership? Trump leads Biden 23-19
Who is "for American people & values"? Trump leads Biden 17-6




So in effect Biden is winning by default because "everyone" hates Trump.

[johnu]

shyams, on 2020-August-14, 08:59, said:

Something interesting which got highlighted in a politics broadcast I saw earlier today.

Main reason Biden is leading? He is not Trump.

I would not have been surprised if the "He is not Trump" option wasn't 100%. Getting the Manchurian President out of the Oval Office would be every one of the top 10 priorities in any election.

[Winstonm]

johnu, on 2020-August-14, 12:20, said:

I would not have been surprised if the "He is not Trump" option wasn't 100%. Getting the Manchurian President out of the Oval Office would be every one of the top 10 priorities in any election.

I wish it were as simple as disliking Trump - but it's not. It is about caring for the U.S.A. and democracy compared to authoritarian rule. The one thing Trump has accomplished is the demonstration of the flaws in our constitutional form of government, how, with a complicity Senate, norms and even laws can simply be ignored. By placing what can best be described as Puntin-like wealthy pseudo-oligarchs into key positions - he has created a scenario where he can genuinely attack our voting systems by damaging or even eliminating the U.S. postal services as a guardian of voting liberty and there is no one to stand in his way.

It is not enough to dislike Trump. We must understand that he and his cohorts are a threat to our country.

[johnu]

Winstonm, on 2020-August-14, 12:39, said:

I wish it were as simple as disliking Trump - but it's not. It is about caring for the U.S.A. and democracy compared to authoritarian rule. The one thing Trump has accomplished is the demonstration of the flaws in our constitutional form of government, how, with a complicity Senate, norms and even laws can simply be ignored. By placing what can best be described as Puntin-like wealthy pseudo-oligarchs into key positions - he has created a scenario where he can genuinely attack our voting systems by damaging or even eliminating the U.S. postal services as a guardian of voting liberty and there is no one to stand in his way.

It is not enough to dislike Trump. We must understand that he and his cohorts are a threat to our country.

The option was not "Do you dislike the Manchurian President". The option was "He is not the Manchurian President". Everything you listed and many more are self sufficient reasons to vote for Biden and not vote for Individual-1. At this point, I don't care if some people vote for Biden just because they dislike the Criminal in Chief, as long as they vote for Biden.

[PeterAlan]

shyams, on 2020-August-14, 08:59, said:

Main reason Biden is leading? He is not Trump.

What about policy/issues? Trump leads Biden 21-9
What about leadership? Trump leads Biden 23-19
Who is "for American people & values"? Trump leads Biden 17-6

This seems to me to be rather facile "analysis". The whole poll (and I've only seen your summary) is pitching apples against oranges, and these statements are promoting false equivalences.

I'm not pretending this late at night to provide any deep insights, but surely you have to start by recognising the very different current status of the two:

• Trump has been in the White House for the past 3 1/2 years, exercising what passes for "leadership", and pursuing his own agenda (which you will regard as issues / policy if you're a supporter). Additionally, he seems to spend at least half of his time tweeting various insults, numerous lies, and boasts with little grounding in reality, and by virtue of his position gets to have all this plastered all over the news and social media, including those ("fake", "nasty", etc) elements that are "stupid" enough to differ from him from time to time.
  
  
• In contrast, Biden was Obama's VP for 8 years; from our side of the pond it seems firmly to be the case that the President rather than the VP is the embodiment of the country's leadership both in general and in policy. The Democrats ran Hillary Clinton, not Biden, when Obama stepped down in 2016. Here in the UK there's a formal role of Leader of the Opposition; the US's nearest equivalent would seem to be the House / Senate leader, but only if either chamber has a majority for the non-Presidential party. This, and the whole political process of nomination races etc, means that there can have been no comparable standard-bearer role for Biden to have held for those 3 1/2 years. Whilst he's been prominent, his media exposure over these years also doesn't begin to equate to Trump's.

Given these marked contrasts, it's hardly surprising, for example, that "leadership" and "issues / policy" are going to weigh more heavily than other topics with Trump' supporters, and vice-versa for Biden's. Quite frankly, I'm astonished that "he isn't Biden" scores as high as it does with Trump's, and wonder if this is heavily weighted by those "leaning towards" rather than "supporting" him. I'd also be very surprised if a significant proportion of the pro-Biden pollees had a good grasp of his policy platform.

Given what an appalling President Trump has been, and the swathe of damage that he and his Senate enablers have done both to the US's institutions and to its standing with the rest of the world, it's also hardly surprising that the overwhelming reason given for voting for Biden is to sweep this all away: this is a phenomenon seen all over the world when a democracy realises that it's time for a change. Other important reasons are always going to be subservient to this imperative, and will score materially less in such polls as a result.

I don't see any significance in the "American people & values" differences, partly for that last reason, and partly because the deliberately divisive nature of Trump's pitch, that seeks to rally "true" Americans against the rest of you folks, is obviously designed to highlight this "issue" with his supporters.

Finally, the poll is presented here as if these constituencies are of equal size, and - mercifully - that doesn't seem at the moment quite to be the case. 19% of a larger number of Biden's supporters could well be a larger proportion of the whole population than 23% of Trump's (one can only hope).

[kenberg]

I am trying to imagine a conversation where someone says "I prefer Trump's policies to Biden's, I think Trump is a better leader than Biden, I think Trump represents American values better than Biden does, and so I prefer Biden to Trump based on the fact that Biden isn't Trump". It's like saying "I think a Whopper tasted better than a Big Mac, I think it's better for my health and i prefer the way it looks, so I am in favor of Big Macs because they aren't Whoppers".

I often look at polling results and say "Huh?"

Although I do recognize myself, at least a little, in this. For me, Trump has always been someone that I cannot imagine favoring no matter what position he takes on anything. I cannot imagine why anyone would trust him, work for him, enter into a deal with him. We have now had plenty of reason to see why this is so, but to start with it was instinct.

[awm]

The poll is unsurprising and is being a bit misread. They just asked people why they were voting for <whoever they plan to vote for>.

Trump is the incumbent president and he is a very polarizing figure. There is no one else in politics really like him, and he has done things very much outside the norm of previous presidencies. It makes sense that a lot of people can’t stand this (and some people love it) so you’ll get a lot of answers of that form.

In contrast, Biden is very much a “generic Democrat” who’s very much center-left, seems like a nice guy but not extremely charismatic. People don’t get excited for or against him — he’s not polarizing the way Trump is (or the way Bernie Sanders or AOC might be from the left). A lot of people are supporting him as a “return to normalcy” after the Trump administration, which is a good positioning to recruit disillusioned suburban Republicans. He doesn’t generate enthusiasm among young left voters, but given the alternative perhaps he doesn’t need to.

[Winstonm]

Something I find intriguing to consider is whether or not all those rich and powerful people who now act like Trump is the cat's meow will even take his calls if he loses the election. I can visualize it now:

Adelson's secretary: It's Trump again.
Adelson: Who?
Adelson's secretary: Donald Trump
Adelson: I'm out - and you don't know where I went or when I'll be back.

But more than that, I hope this after Nov 3:

Oh! somewhere everywhere in across this favored land the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing somewhere everywhere, and somewhere all our hearts are light.
And somewhere men are laughing everyone is laughing and somewhere all our children shout;
But there's no Dejoy in PostMudville–mighty lameass Donnie has "Struck Out."

[y66]

Mike L. Goodman @TheM_L_G said:

The state of USPS discourse:

Dems: We think Trump is destroying the post office to win the election.

Trump: I’m destroying the post office to win the election.

Conservatives: The libs have gone crazy and believe that Trump is destroying the post office to win the election