Red Mosquito

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:The president’s only hope to win the election is to expand his platform’s embrace of other opinions, such that he wins back *1/6* of the people who currently disapprove of him. He has five months. Currently, he is busy online accusing an old man of suffering a traumatic head injury on purpose to frame the police, because he heard about it on OAN from a journalist who moonlights for Russia’s state-run propaganda service Sputnik.

I submit to you this: a Vice Presidential candidate never “makes” an election. Not with their name or face. And within a week of Biden choosing Kermit the Frog, we’d all be talking about the next hateful and inciting thing Trump says..and not that Kermit the Frog is a VP candidate.

However, NOT having someone who is a competent, experienced legislator and an effective (preferably aggressive) strategist/debater in the VP spot will make for a much weaker White House, because Biden is too personally risk-averse and trusting, and stumbles hardest when he’s frustrated.

A hype-generating VP will make nearly no difference in the voting this year. A VP that can’t make up for Joe Biden’s “Capitol Hill game” weaknesses, however, would make for a much rougher next four years and come back on us bigly in 2024.

I agree with every word of this. But curious why you think Stacy Abrams isn't the right choice. Which of the above boxes does she not check for you?

cutuphalfdead wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:The president’s only hope to win the election is to expand his platform’s embrace of other opinions, such that he wins back *1/6* of the people who currently disapprove of him. He has five months. Currently, he is busy online accusing an old man of suffering a traumatic head injury on purpose to frame the police, because he heard about it on OAN from a journalist who moonlights for Russia’s state-run propaganda service Sputnik.

I submit to you this: a Vice Presidential candidate never “makes” an election. Not with their name or face. And within a week of Biden choosing Kermit the Frog, we’d all be talking about the next hateful and inciting thing Trump says..and not that Kermit the Frog is a VP candidate.

However, NOT having someone who is a competent, experienced legislator and an effective (preferably aggressive) strategist/debater in the VP spot will make for a much weaker White House, because Biden is too personally risk-averse and trusting, and stumbles hardest when he’s frustrated.

A hype-generating VP will make nearly no difference in the voting this year. A VP that can’t make up for Joe Biden’s “Capitol Hill game” weaknesses, however, would make for a much rougher next four years and come back on us bigly in 2024.

I agree with every word of this. But curious why you think Stacy Abrams isn't the right choice. Which of the above boxes does she not check for you?

What experience does Abrams have?

cutuphalfdead wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:The president’s only hope to win the election is to expand his platform’s embrace of other opinions, such that he wins back *1/6* of the people who currently disapprove of him. He has five months. Currently, he is busy online accusing an old man of suffering a traumatic head injury on purpose to frame the police, because he heard about it on OAN from a journalist who moonlights for Russia’s state-run propaganda service Sputnik.

I submit to you this: a Vice Presidential candidate never “makes” an election. Not with their name or face. And within a week of Biden choosing Kermit the Frog, we’d all be talking about the next hateful and inciting thing Trump says..and not that Kermit the Frog is a VP candidate.

However, NOT having someone who is a competent, experienced legislator and an effective (preferably aggressive) strategist/debater in the VP spot will make for a much weaker White House, because Biden is too personally risk-averse and trusting, and stumbles hardest when he’s frustrated.

A hype-generating VP will make nearly no difference in the voting this year. A VP that can’t make up for Joe Biden’s “Capitol Hill game” weaknesses, however, would make for a much rougher next four years and come back on us bigly in 2024.

I agree with every word of this. But curious why you think Stacy Abrams isn't the right choice. Which of the above boxes does she not check for you?

What experience does Abrams have?

Mickey wrote:While I think representation is important, Abrams brings nothing beyond representation. Her calling card is losing an election. I don't think state level experience, even in a pretty big state, counts for much.

durdencommatyler wrote:Deputy city attorney for the City of Atlanta. 10 years on the Georgia General Assembly.

She would be Governor if not for some massive voter fraud and shenanigans (but to your point, almost doesn't count as actual experience).

Boards of directors for Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, Atlanta Metropolitan State College Foundation, Gateway Center for the Homeless, and the Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education. A lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Founder of Fair Fight. Like Obama she has tremendous experience and success as a community organizer.

I just think overlooking her because she hasn't held a high-profile seat (like Mayor or Governor or Senate, etc) is a mistake.

She's one of the smartest people out there. She's driven. She's competent. She listens. She's active.

Mickey wrote:While I think representation is important, Abrams brings nothing beyond representation. Her calling card is losing an election. I don't think state level experience, even in a pretty big state, counts for much.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Mickey wrote:While I think representation is important, Abrams brings nothing beyond representation. Her calling card is losing an election. I don't think state level experience, even in a pretty big state, counts for much.

Agreed. When Biden dies I want someone to take over who knows how Washington actually works and can navigate it successfully.

McParadigm wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Deputy city attorney for the City of Atlanta. 10 years on the Georgia General Assembly.

I should have specified: I meant national legislative experience. It’s an entirely different beast than the state level.

She would be Governor if not for some massive voter fraud and shenanigans (but to your point, almost doesn't count as actual experience).

“Almost” is an unnecessary word here.

Boards of directors for Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, Atlanta Metropolitan State College Foundation, Gateway Center for the Homeless, and the Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education. A lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Founder of Fair Fight. Like Obama she has tremendous experience and success as a community organizer.

Obama was also a US Senator who taught constitutional law.

I just think overlooking her because she hasn't held a high-profile seat (like Mayor or Governor or Senate, etc) is a mistake.

I’m not talking about the profile level of the work, I’m talking about the demonstrated skill set to not only survive but thrive and make clear, quick decisions under the maniacal conditions and pressures of national leadership. We shouldn’t be picking a mayor either. Good god.

She's one of the smartest people out there. She's driven. She's competent. She listens. She's active.

She also has years left to turn a high level national profile into a demonstrated leadership brand, and skipping ahead to the biggest job in the world ain’t the way to go.

Mickey wrote:I think your glasses are a touch rosy here, Joe. Fair Fight was founded 18 months ago, and as far as I can tell their major achievement is getting the state of Georgia to switch up its voting machines. It's not nothing, but it's not much either. Nor do I think being on the board of anything should count as a massive achievement, since folks tend to end up on those boards by virtue of being, say, House minority leader. So that leaves state-level legislator and deputy city attorney--fine positions, but neither affords a wealth of national political experience.

Which, I'll also note, is fine with me, insofar as the fetish of experience speaks to a technocratic fantasy of objectively good governance that fundamentally does not exist. But Abrams doesn't bring much else to the table either. Let's not forget that she took Bloomberg money and stumped for him this spring--what could be less of a "fair fight"? So, you know, driven vs. power-hungry is a really thin line. I don't think she's awful, she's certainly not the worst candidate to be named, but I can't imagine getting excited about President-in-waiting Stacey Abrams.

durdencommatyler wrote:Is VP to Joe Biden the biggest job in the world?

Mickey wrote:To be a little clearer on that last point, I think it's all but guaranteed that Biden's VP will either literally become president this term or will be the party candidate in 2024. I'm not necessarily excited about President Kamala either, but I think Abrams would be particularly weak.

Mickey wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Is VP to Joe Biden the biggest job in the world?

Between the risk that he might die, the clear fact that he's lost a step, and the near certainty that the GOP will impeach him on the Hunter Biden stuff the *second* they get the Senate (or day one, if they hold it), yes, I think Joe Biden's VP is a huge job. I don't think this would have been the case for any of the other candidates.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Mickey wrote:While I think representation is important, Abrams brings nothing beyond representation. Her calling card is losing an election. I don't think state level experience, even in a pretty big state, counts for much.

Agreed. When Biden dies I want someone to take over who knows how Washington actually works and can navigate it successfully.

Mickey wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Is VP to Joe Biden the biggest job in the world?

Between the risk that he might die, the clear fact that he's lost a step, and the near certainty that the GOP will impeach him on the Hunter Biden stuff the *second* they get the Senate (or day one, if they hold it), yes, I think Joe Biden's VP is a huge job. I don't think this would have been the case for any of the other candidates.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Mickey wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Is VP to Joe Biden the biggest job in the world?

Between the risk that he might die, the clear fact that he's lost a step, and the near certainty that the GOP will impeach him on the Hunter Biden stuff the *second* they get the Senate (or day one, if they hold it), yes, I think Joe Biden's VP is a huge job. I don't think this would have been the case for any of the other candidates.

How will they impeach him without controlling the House?

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Mickey wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Is VP to Joe Biden the biggest job in the world?

Between the risk that he might die, the clear fact that he's lost a step, and the near certainty that the GOP will impeach him on the Hunter Biden stuff the *second* they get the Senate (or day one, if they hold it), yes, I think Joe Biden's VP is a huge job. I don't think this would have been the case for any of the other candidates.

How will they impeach him without controlling the House?