The Race For 2024

[starwater]

Thing of it is: If the candidate was white and male with the EXACT SAME qualifications and experience, the righties would not say a word about a DEI hire.

Duh! Because Biden would not have restricted his selection to only white men.
However, had a white man had the same qualifications, experience and lack of judgment during his 2019 race, he would be criticized on the same grounds she is being criticized.
I.e. the choice would be just as lackluster, only without the DEI part.

Never. White men are promoted at will without regard to qualifications. I have seen it IRL too many times to count.

 

[Derec]

There’s no such thing as a “best candidate” for VP. The closest we might come would be today the one who helps you win the election. Since Biden won the election one could argue that Harris was at least a good candidate if not “the best”. Unless we have access to data from a universe in which Biden picked someone else I don’t think we’ll ever know if there was a “better” candidate out there.

In one sense, duh, counterfactuals are inaccessible to us.
That does not mean that we cannot reason about relative merits of various candidates.

 

[Derec]

Never. White men are promoted at will without regard to qualifications. I have seen it IRL too many times to count.

We also do not have to pay for our papers at the newsstand or have any collateral for loans, and bus trips are always a party when it's just white folks around. I saw that on that documentary with Eddie Murphy.

 

[Derec]

You may believe that Biden only chose Harris because of the George Floyd murder and aftermath but I honestly doubt that.

The "only" is the issue here.
Do I think that without the "women only" pledge and riots he would have gone with someone else? Almost certainly.
But it is also the case that KH beat out other potential running mates in this severely restricted pool - Stacey Abrams, Val Demings, Keisha Lance Bottoms, Karen Bass, Susan Rice, am I forgetting someone? So she did appeal to Biden and his team, but again, not out of all possible running mates but only among those that also fulfilled the race and gender criteria.

Biden has had a very long career in public office, at the national level. He is extremely talented at forging alliances and at bridging differences between two sides. I am certain that Biden thought long and hard about who would be the best person to serve as his VP.

I never said he didn't .

It is amusing and predictable and frustrating and very very sad to see people willing to accept, if forced to accept, black people and women in positions of power but only up to and including the percentage point at which they are represented in the general population.

You are missing my point. I am not saying that at all. I am saying that other people should not be excluded from consideration because they, collectively, represent a much bigger share of the population. Black women are only 5% of California population. That does not mean that black women should be excluded from consideration - just that it is wrong to exclude everyone else as Newsom has done in a naked pandering move.

But I take your point that the USSC could stand to lose Clarence Thomas, who should never have been confirmed in the first place and who should be forced to resign over many many ethics violations. Since women comprise a slight majority of the population, he should be replaced by a woman and/or another person of color.

So you think that after Dems put only women on SCOTUS for 30 years (since Breyer in 1994!) they should continue doing that? No Democratic men on SCOTUS, especially not, the horror of horrors, a white man?

I understand that you are not a fan of Harris, probably for the opposite reasons some people I know are also not fans: they think she was too harsh as a DA and I'm certain you think she was too lenient.

Not exactly. I did not like her pushing of FOSTA/SESTA and I think she was too harsh of say weed possession as DA/AG.
Kamala Harris helped shut down Backpage.com. Sex workers are still feeling the fallout.
Her unfair attacks on Biden over busing were as calculated as they were unfair. I did not like her embracing far-left positions like banning fracking when she ran for president.

You certainly might have some very valid points to make if only you would stop obscuring them with racism and sexism.

I am sorry you feel that way, but there is no racism or sexism in my posts.

 

[Derec]

I didn't realize you were in the inner circle of the Harris team.

I did not realize you were.

While there are likely antisemites who objected to Gov. Shapiro who kept silent on Gov. Walz, there is no evidence to support your claim that ant-semitism is the reason Gov. Shapiro did not get nod.

Well, neither of us are privy to the inner workings of the Harris campaign, so we have to rely on news reports and our own judgment.
I think that Israel hater objections to Shapiro played a pivotal role in him not getting the nod. I guess that fits your "no one objected to Walz" - he was much more acceptable to the antisemites.

 

[Derec]

Did you try to tell him that THE TAXPAYERS sent you a check over Cheato's protest, and A MACHINE signed it?

Those damn machines, always taking our jerbs.

 

[Derec]

I don't think that is the problem. The problem is that Trump has built up a cult and it's very hard to bring cult members away from the cult. Plus, a lot of people are low information voters, who don't read much or follow the news.

But those people are not enough. He can't win with MAGA alone. He must rely on sufficient numbers of people who, when voting for the lesser weevil, see him as being it.

Who exactly do you think would be the candidate that could win in a landslide? I can't think of a single one

Since you would like to see a female president, I will give you just one: Gretchen Whitmer. Without George Floyd riots, she may well have been the Veep right now too.

and I see Harris as one of the most qualified candidates in my lifetime.

Not that shit again! We heard it ad nauseam about Hillary. Now Kamala. Is it not enough to say that they are well-qualified without having to wax hyperbolic?

She has been in many elected positions from attorney general, Senator, VP and a few others when she was quite young. Biden is about the only one I can think of who had more experience than Harris.

He had a lot of experience, but so have many others. When it comes to diversity of experiences, you really can't beat HW Bush though.
Congressman, diplomat (ambassador to the UN and quasi-ambassador to China), RNC chair, CIA director and vice president.

Elections in recent years have been very close, as our country is more divided than I've seen it in my lifetime, even more so then it was in the 60s, when I was a teenager. Sure, it was divided over the Viet Nam War during my youth, but now it's very different and much worse. There is so much hate coming from the Republicans, who have been taken in by Trump.

As you said, the country was very divided in the 60s and early 70s, and yet 1964, 1968 and 1972 elections were not exactly close.

Most of Harris's supporters are very enthusiastic about her, other than those who don't support Israel and feel she will get us more involved in the mess in the Middle East. The problem with that type of thinking is that Trump is far more supportive of Israel, so things will get worse in the Mid East if he gets a second term.

Yes, there is a lot of magical thinking in the "Abandon Kamala" movement, that's for sure.

As far as enthusiasm for Kamala Harris, I think it has mostly to do with people being relieved that Biden decided to step down as the candidate. She was never particularly popular, not as a presidential candidate, and not as vice president either.

I have voted for many people during my life time that I wasn't excited about, but there was always one who I felt was better than the other, so I never missed an election. I'm not a one issue voter either, so I try to look at all aspects, not just something I don't like about a candidate. Plus, as you know, presidents never get everything they want, especially when they. are dealing with a very divided Congress.

We are very similar in this regard.

I don't think anyone should worry about Harris being too far to the Left, since she won't be able to accomplish some of her dream goals and she will likely be willing to work with those who are willing to compromise, which is the way it should be.

I do worry about that for sure. Congress almost passed $3.5T Spendapalooza in 2021 just when inflation was rising. Her spending plans are even more ambitious, and there is no Manchin and no Sinema to exert a moderating influence on the Congress.

Since you keep saying you will vote for her, despite not being happy about your choices, why not spend more time bashing Trump, instead of criticizing the candidate who you say you plan on giving your vote.

There is more than enough Trump-bashing on here, and so you will not find me piling on here. When talking to those who like Trump, I am very different. I could never stand bullies, and much of Trump/Vance bashing kind of has that tone. The whole thing with the couch for example. Very meanspirited, and makes me feel bad for the guy, even though I don't like him.

If Liz Cheney can endorse Harris, considering Cheney is a hard core conservative, there must be something attractive about Harris that make a lot of conservatives feel they can trust her, especially considering the alternative.

Yes. She is not Trump. That alone may get her a victory, but it's touch and go. A better candidate might have gotten a blowout.

 

[Derec]

He’s made the very good point that many of us do not seem open to criticism of Harris

Oh, I readily admit that I'm not open to ANYTHING that increases the chance of a fascist takeover of America. Belaboring the obvious is not "making a very good point" IMHO.
I'd not be open to criticism of a head of cabbage if it was running against Cheato.

Thank you for being man enough to admit to it. But if we cannot criticize our leaders, isn't that already fascism?

 

[Derec]

I agree that The Daily Show was funnier with Jon Stewart before he left the show. I did not see it before Stewart’s tenure.

It was not that well known before. Stewart made it big.

The couch jokes can be funny but as I wrote earlier ( different thread??) they are not based on anything Vance wrote in his memoir. But the funny part, to me, hinges on skewering Vance who seems to voice some very fucked up ideas about sex and women in general.

I detest his fucked up ideas from abortion to porn, but the meanspirited piling on makes me feel sorry for the guy.

But even more so, he needs to be and deserves to be challenged for his 180 turn on public statements about Trump.

Indeed he does. Going from "America's Hitler" to being his running mate is crazy, even crazier than insinuating that Biden was a racist and then becoming his running mate.

 

[Derec]

We love each other. . Those ‘transactional’ examples I gave above are really about division of labor and assets ( time).

As I said, these things you mention are transactional in the widest sense of the word, but they are still there.

I think it’s clear that you and I don’t just have different t world views but we also know different kinds of people.

I definitely do not know those kinds of people. It's more the guilty pleasure of trash TV ...

I’m not interested in the lip filler crowd. It’s weird to me that they exist, much less that they are displayed on screens in peoples homes and people watch them. Why????

In my case, I like to watch the train wrecks. You know, people whose love life is even more screwed up than mine. I may be "forever alone", but at least I am not Colty or Clayton etc.

 

[Derec]

Lots of people have given you advice nand encouragement, Derec.

NAND?

How can you not remember 81 pages of advice and encouragement? You couild have gained from it, but you did not choose to.

Oh yeah, I did not post there even though I said I would. I guess I did not get drunk enough since 2021 ...

 

[Derec]

The trouble with losing the Senate isn't the budget, it is the Federal benches. It is really all that matters these days.

But surely even there it would be good to have a moderating influence. A Dem president with a Dem Senate or Rep president with Rep senate can nominate more extreme judges then when restrained by a Senate controlled by the opposite party. Biden had

The issue will be the GOP will block judicial nominations, opening more seats for them to fill, and we've seen the legislative Justices they've been putting on the bench. Imagine Cannon or Kacsmaryk on a Appeals Court bench?

And I am sure that Dems have their own versions of both of them. My point is, Congress should be a moderating influence on the executive and not a rubber stamp body.

So much has been complained about inflation wise, but the pandemic was 75% of the inflation wick, not Democrat spending.

No argument there, but spending made it worse. And spending $3.5T more would have made inflation even worse.

 

[Derec]

You are using that word poorly. Trump supporters were using numerology and QAnon related stuff in their support of Trump. THAT is "cultish" behavior... well more actual "cult", but the point is, support for Harris on this board is not remotely cultish. The most radical you'll find is partisan.

No, it goes beyond partisan I think. Total embrace of her (when Dems were at most lukewarm toward her) as soon as Biden withdrew combined to hostility toward any criticism of her veers into the cultish for sure.

 

[Derec]

How cute. Derek thinks reality TV is real.

I know it is heavily edited, duh. But these two dingbats really were married and divorced with some domestic violence accusations back and forth.
Anyway, I did post that video as a more light-hearted thing. Not that she doesn't have a point, at least regarding many marriages.

 

[Derec]

But even restricting it to what most people mean by that term, things like better standard of living, gifts, K1 or spousal visa, many relationships are still transactional. Especially when you have a big difference in age or attractiveness between the partners.

Disagree. Most relationships are close to parity--we only notice the odd cases.

But we are talking about an odd case - a 30 year old lawyer shacking up with a 60 year old mayor.

 

[Derec]

You are complaining that the pool was too restricted. But you have no clue whether the pool was smaller than other VP pools.

You take a pool of all people that could be considered for Veep. Then you take that pool and remove 93% of people from it.
Do you really have no clue which pool is smaller?

 

[Derec]

Why is it that white people, especially white male people, especially over 50 years of age are more likely to have stellar education and experience?

Why do you think? People in their 50s would likely have gone to college in the 1990s. That is well after all educational opportunities have been opened for non-whites and women - and then some, thanks to "affirmative action".

Every pool of potential candidates for VP is quite small, and is restricted to those who have the right experience, education, national presence, can pass a very stringent background investigation.

So why restrict it even more by removing people by race and gender?

Heretofore, the candidate pool has been white and male.

Obama had been elected before. Hillary was a presidential candidate. Ferraro was a vice presidential candidate.

Biden made a deliberate choice to select someone outside of those last two parameters.

And he made the same restrictive choice for SCOTUS - white men need not apply.

If there were not over 200 years of history that specifically excluded blacks and females from the potential pool of candidates, there would have been no reason to make a deliberate choice outside of white male.

Again, two wrongs do not make a right.

There are some people who are just more comfortable with certain types of people in certain positions. A lot of women prefer female gynecologists.

And OB/GYN rotations are often toxic and hostile toward male students. But I must say, a med student buddy of mine had a great experience with his preceptor. She let him get really hands on, even doing LEEPs.

Some people think that Jews are better attorneys or accountants.

And that attitude has been skewered, for example here:

Some people believe that Asian or Hispanic people are the best gardeners. And who doesn’t love a French chef? Or a Belgian chocolatier? Or an Italian tailor or architect? Of course we do know that none of those characteristics ensue individuals with special affinity for certain lines of work. Most if us rightly are a bit offended at the idea.

Well a Japanese gardener would be more likely trained in Japanese styles, same with French chef. But a Chinese chef could be French trained and vice versa, so yes, it is silly to assume, even if, in aggregate these things will often be true.

But some of us are more comfortable with how things have always been.

I understand change is inevitable. But that does not mean we should uncritically welcome all change. Things can stay the same only one way, but they can change in infinite ways, most of them probably for the worse.

 

[starwater]

Never. White men are promoted at will without regard to qualifications. I have seen it IRL too many times to count.

We also do not have to pay for our papers at the newsstand or have any collateral for loans, and bus trips are always a party when it's just white folks around. I saw that on that documentary with Eddie Murphy.

Once again you only see things in black and white, there is no grey and you cannot or will not see anything from anyone else’s lived experience. You bias continues to shine through.

 

[southernhybrid]

There is so much misinformation out there, that it's crazy. For example, a woman who I exercise with told me that she will vote but she hates both candidates. I asked her why she hates Harris. She told me she isn't smart because she failed the bar exam 3 or 4 times. I looked it up. She passed on her second try, just like Hillary Clinton, Michele Obama, and FDR. There was also a list of well known politicians who took the bar 3 or 4 times before they passed.

My own son barely made it through high school, then did very well obtaining an associate degree in computer repair, and a year later returned to school and received a BSCS with honors. He can actually build a computer from scratch and he's been praised for being an excellent programer/developer. His SATs were awful. Not everyone does well on standardized tests. Some people just get too nervous. I did exceptionally well when I took my nursing boards, but I've known nurses that failed the first time but were still good nurses and I'm not brilliant by any means. I was just taught how to pass the boards by my excellent nursing instructors, and I've heard the bar exams are extremely difficult, so it's very common to fail them the first time. So, I'm making a list of those who failed the bar the first time, correcting the misinformation that the woman told me and explaining to her that she should double check shit that she hears without any evidence.

The one election I remember voting in that ended in a landslide was McGovern v. Nixon. McGovern was far more to the left compared to Harris and he only won one state, Massachusetts. My sister had a bumper sticker that said, "Don't blame me, I voted for McGovern. So, just like now, a criminal might win because too many people have been convinced that Harris is a scary liberal, when in fact, I've read that the other progressives in Congress feel that she is too moderate. The expression, "There is no reality, only perception" often makes a lot of sense, especially when it comes to politics.

 

[Shadowy Man]

There’s no such thing as a “best candidate” for VP. The closest we might come would be today the one who helps you win the election. Since Biden won the election one could argue that Harris was at least a good candidate if not “the best”. Unless we have access to data from a universe in which Biden picked someone else I don’t think we’ll ever know if there was a “better” candidate out there.

In one sense, duh, counterfactuals are inaccessible to us.
That does not mean that we cannot reason about relative merits of various candidates.

Sure. The way I would view it is that there’s a threshold above which one should be. Once there though it’s a subjective matter as to who is “best”. Just grabbing a McDonalds employee might not be a good idea but if that employee went on to be the attorney general and senator of a state then they have crossed the threshold.