2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[DGuller]

Yeah I concede that. Biden should have said he was looking for the best person and just happened to decide that a black woman was best. That was a mistake. But he still won.

I would even go further than that.  Not only should he not have been racist and sexist publicly, but he also shouldn't have been that privately.  If he picked Kamala for privately sexist reasons rather than publicly sexist reasons, we would still wind up with a candidate by default who just isn't a very strong politician.

[Valmy]

Yeah. The term LatinX is not just lame as hell but I always thought pretty insulting the Spanish speakers.

But I haven't heard it in years. I thought it was dead. I don't think I saw it once during the campaign.

[HVC]

Yeah. The term LatinX is not just lame as hell but I always thought pretty insulting the Spanish speakers.

But I haven't heard it in years. I thought it was dead. I don't think I saw it once during the campaign.

It pops up once in a while. That's the patronizing side of leftism (being woke?) that I find most annoying. Protecting others from themselves because they don't know enough to be offended by something.

[Valmy]

Yeah I concede that. Biden should have said he was looking for the best person and just happened to decide that a black woman was best. That was a mistake. But he still won.

I would even go further than that.  Not only should he not have been racist and sexist publicly, but he also shouldn't have been that privately.  If he picked Kamala for privately sexist reasons rather than publicly sexist reasons, we would still wind up with a candidate by default who just isn't a very strong politician.

I mean we have had all white male VPs for our entire history and the single time it wasn't it was because of sexism? Most of those white male VPs were also picked for electoral considerations, not based on who happened to be the best politician at the time. I don't think Lincoln picked Andrew Johnson because he was some kind of mastermind politician. You think he would have picked Frederick Douglas?

[Valmy]

Yeah. The term LatinX is not just lame as hell but I always thought pretty insulting the Spanish speakers.

But I haven't heard it in years. I thought it was dead. I don't think I saw it once during the campaign.

It pops up once in a while. That's the patronizing side of leftism (being woke?) that I find most annoying. Protecting others from themselves because they don't know enough to be offended by something.

Yeah. If Spanish is sexist in its grammar, let the leftist Spanish speakers come up with something.

And let it be better than LatinX, sounds like some shit Elon Musk would come up with.

[grumbler]

What puzzles me is:
1) the lack of similar outrage over the Harris campaign targeting a white midwestern man for her VP
2) why the supposed outrage over the identity politics of Biden's 2020 VP pick didn't hurt his campaign at all but four years later somehow hurt the Harris campaign.

1) Harris never stated that she would consider only elderly white Midwestern men.  Biden said that he'd only consider women. 
2) The assumption that "the identity politics of Biden's 2020 VP pick didn't hurt his campaign at all" is very much unproven.

I don't believe that the way Harris became VP and then the Democratic candidate for president decided many votes against her, but it may have had an impact on Democratic turnout, which was the key to the race, it seems.

[HVC]

Saying the quiet part out loud was dumb, but VPs are picked not for who they are, but what votes they can bring.

Less forgivable for positions were merit matters, like SC (theoretically ).

[Sheilbh]

But I haven't heard it in years. I thought it was dead. I don't think I saw it once during the campaign.

There was an article recently about it being in decline. The research paper covers Google and newspaper (and scholarly) usage which appears to have peaked relatively recently:


The stats on politicians only goes to 2020, but I suspect it followed the trend of Google search and newspapers and probably peaking 2020-22:

[DGuller]

Yeah I concede that. Biden should have said he was looking for the best person and just happened to decide that a black woman was best. That was a mistake. But he still won.

I would even go further than that.  Not only should he not have been racist and sexist publicly, but he also shouldn't have been that privately.  If he picked Kamala for privately sexist reasons rather than publicly sexist reasons, we would still wind up with a candidate by default who just isn't a very strong politician.

I mean we have had all white male VPs for our entire history and the single time it wasn't it was because of sexism? Most of those white male VPs were also picked for electoral considerations, not based on who happened to be the best politician at the time. I don't think Lincoln picked Andrew Johnson because he was some kind of mastermind politician. You think he would have picked Frederick Douglas?

I don't think we should be evening the score.  The point is that racism and sexism is wrong for or against any race.  Pick the best candidate for veep, especially when you're 70+ years old.  If the strongest candidate happens to still be white male like lots of people before, then so be it, you're kind of picking someone who could be a president in the future, FFS.

[frunk]

The problem is the VP doesn't really do anything.  So the best VP for the job is strictly the one that can best get you elected.  It's the ultimate position with almost no responsibility (at least over the past 60 years).  So Biden's only real crime was saying it out loud, not about actually doing it.

[The Minsky Moment]

Pick the best candidate for veep

The only time I can every remember that happening is when Clinton picked Gore.  Every other VP pick in my personal memory has targeted a demo.

[Sheilbh]

The problem is the VP doesn't really do anything.  So the best VP for the job is strictly the one that can best get you elected.  It's the ultimate position with almost no responsibility (at least over the past 60 years).  So Biden's only real crime was saying it out loud, not about actually doing it.

And it's always been used to send a message about the ticket - either balancing, or doubling down, or whatever. I'm not sure I really see the difference for saying you want a woman or person of colour v Senator or Governor from the South or Mid-West or whatever other historic criteria.

I don't think it's ever been about picking the best person for the job (and what job?) - and to an extent that could actually be a bit of a problem.

[Valmy]

I don't think we should be evening the score.  The point is that racism and sexism is wrong for or against any race.  Pick the best candidate for veep, especially when you're 70+ years old.  If the strongest candidate happens to still be white male like lots of people before, then so be it, you're kind of picking someone who could be a president in the future, FFS.

You know what? This is a pointless discussion. I asked you for your thoughts and here I am stupidly arguing with you.

Sorry, I am an idiot.

Ok point one:

colorblind and genderblind casting of politicians.

Anything else?

[Tamas]

I don't think we should be evening the score.  The point is that racism and sexism is wrong for or against any race.  Pick the best candidate for veep, especially when you're 70+ years old.  If the strongest candidate happens to still be white male like lots of people before, then so be it, you're kind of picking someone who could be a president in the future, FFS.

You know what? This is a pointless discussion. I asked you for your thoughts and here I am stupidly arguing with you.

Sorry, I am an idiot.

Ok point one:

colorblind and genderblind casting of politicians.

Anything else?

But also if you accept DG's point on this, you CANNOT do colour and genderblind casting for politicians. If you truly ignore colour and gender and end up with a female ethnic minority candidate, you hurt your chances due to appearing woke, as per DG that's what loses elections. So sure, go colour and genderblind, as long as that means going with a white male. That's the logical conclusion from DG's argument.

[Valmy]

But also if you accept DG's point on this, you CANNOT do colour and genderblind casting for politicians. If you truly ignore colour and gender and end up with a female ethnic minority candidate, you hurt your chances due to appearing woke, as per DG that's what loses elections. So sure, go colour and genderblind, as long as that means going with a white male. That's the logical conclusion from DG's argument.

Well look, we all know how colorblind stuff goes. I lived through the 1990s.

But I am interested in DGuller's ideas. Just because I accept his points as his points doesn't mean I am going to write the DNC and recommend they all get put into action. He is a smart guy, his ideas might change my mind. So I don't want to just bicker over every point.

Besides, I clearly have no idea what the Democrats need to do to turn this thing around.