Page 396 of 425 FirstFirst ... 296346386394395396397398406 ... LastLast
Results 7,901 to 7,920 of 8482
  1. #7901
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    http://www.pollingreport.com/coronavirus.htm

    In regard to the handling of the virus response:

    78% approve of Fauciís performance
    74% approve of their governorís performance
    59% approve of Andrew Cuomoí s performance
    46% approve of Trumpís performance

    (Q poll)
    "We're only tourists in this life
    Only tourists but the view is nice"

    -- David Byrne

  2. #7902
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    http://www.pollingreport.com/coronavirus.htm

    In regard to the handling of the virus response:

    78% approve of Fauciís performance
    74% approve of their governorís performance
    59% approve of Andrew Cuomoí s performance
    46% approve of Trumpís performance

    (Q poll)
    Isnít Fauci a bit old to run for office though?

  3. #7903
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    Biggest take away from today?

    Fire up the VP Vetting Bus. It's rolling out.
    They already had it idling in the parking lot warming up.

    Biden had Gretchen Whitmer on his podcast not too long ago, which heated up VP talks. I would have place early, pre-COVID $$ on her. Now, I'm not sure. Candidates running typically announce in the summer months before the convention. I do not think it would be a good look for a sitting governor managing his/her state's COVID response to bail for a VP run.

    Another thing to keep an eye on is the surrogacy deployment strategy. Most polling has BO & MO as the most popular/admired figures in the country. The only problem I see here is that in terms of wattage, they'll outshine Joe and Jill big time. That wasn't as much a problem with the Clintons.

    Two other stray thoughts. Bernie going to do Bernie, offers "very decent human being" assessment of Biden, the political equivalent of placing someone in the friend zone. Finally, it bears repeating, Biden's greatest strength is that he is not HRC. The GOP cannot manufacture overnight the same level of animosity against Biden that they spent cultivating over 30 years against the Clintons.

  4. #7904
    I don't think the VP or Cabinet choices will be a big factor in the race outcome. It never has. They are too remote from the Candidate.

  5. #7905
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, NC
    I just hope that Joe picks a strong VP because I'm concerned about his memory issues. Those issues may not be health related but I want a back up plan if he's unable to fulfill his duties as POTUS. Joe seems to be a really good person and I hope he's ok.

    GoDuke!

  6. #7906
    Quote Originally Posted by Indoor66 View Post
    I don't think the VP or Cabinet choices will be a big factor in the race outcome. It never has. They are too remote from the Candidate.
    You could argue Palin sank McCain.

  7. #7907
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    You could argue Palin sank McCain.
    It'd be a pretty weak argument, imo. After two terms of Bush, America was tired of neocons and their warmongering, and McCain was the exact wrong candidate to put up at that point in time. Combine that with Obama being a one-of-kind politician that could create a broad coalition, and the Rs didn't stand a chance.

    I largely agree that the VP pick doesn't matter electorally. Now, it may matter for other reasons in Biden's case. If he really is sundowning and/or can't complete his term for whatever reason, it would obviously be wise to have a strong VP with some executive experience, imo.

  8. #7908
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rougemont Nebulae
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    It'd be a pretty weak argument, imo. After two terms of Bush, America was tired of neocons and their warmongering, and McCain was the exact wrong candidate to put up at that point in time. Combine that with Obama being a one-of-kind politician that could create a broad coalition, and the Rs didn't stand a chance.

    I largely agree that the VP pick doesn't matter electorally. Now, it may matter for other reasons in Biden's case. If he really is sundowning and/or can't complete his term for whatever reason, it would obviously be wise to have a strong VP with some executive experience, imo.
    Well you would have a couple of post-election analyses to back up your point (one somehow came up with a stat that Palin's presence represented 2% net negative influence in polling data*) but Steve Schmidt, Bill Kristol and other campaign operatives struggled to find the right packaging for Palin (various sources on this point). Palin's popularity peaked with the VP nod, then slowly eroded over the course of the campaign and the Katie Couric interview definitely didn't help. By the time the election rolled around there was a vocal anti-Palin contingent among the Republican establishment, particularly Republican women that contributed to voter malaise. It wasn't all a neocon reaction IM"H"O.
    Last edited by CameronBlue; 04-09-2020 at 08:48 AM. Reason: * Wiki stuff

  9. #7909
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    It'd be a pretty weak argument, imo. After two terms of Bush, America was tired of neocons and their warmongering, and McCain was the exact wrong candidate to put up at that point in time. Combine that with Obama being a one-of-kind politician that could create a broad coalition, and the Rs didn't stand a chance.

    I largely agree that the VP pick doesn't matter electorally. Now, it may matter for other reasons in Biden's case. If he really is sundowning and/or can't complete his term for whatever reason, it would obviously be wise to have a strong VP with some executive experience, imo.
    Perhaps it was just me or the circles I was in at the time, but many centrist folks I knew had very positive impressions of McCain, and lots of center-left folks were leery of Obama. I heard many people saying that having Palin a heartbeat away (with an older candidate in the big chair as well) was not appealing. And I also heard many folks say that McCain's choice of Palin made them leery of his decision-making.

    All anecdotal evidence, but it isn't hard to imagine it could have swung a few states.

  10. #7910
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    I largely agree that the VP pick doesn't matter electorally. Now, it may matter for other reasons in Biden's case. If he really is sundowning and/or can't complete his term for whatever reason, it would obviously be wise to have a strong VP with some executive experience, imo.
    Maybe this is so completely obvious to be stupid, but any VP choice that doesn't have some sort of foothold to get votes in the rust belt would be a major strategic flaw. Assuming Biden chooses someone who meets this criteria, I think his choice absolutely plays a role with regards to Trump and what Trump accomplished in those states in 2016.
    Rich
    "Failure is Not a Destination"
    Coach K on the Dan Patrick Show, December 22, 2016

  11. #7911
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    Perhaps it was just me or the circles I was in at the time, but many centrist folks I knew had very positive impressions of McCain, and lots of center-left folks were leery of Obama. I heard many people saying that having Palin a heartbeat away (with an older candidate in the big chair as well) was not appealing. And I also heard many folks say that McCain's choice of Palin made them leery of his decision-making.

    All anecdotal evidence, but it isn't hard to imagine it could have swung a few states.
    While anything's possible, and I do believe Palin scared some voters, I think Mr. Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran scared the working class more, leading to a sweep for O in the Rust Belt. And, again, O was an awesome, awesome candidate in 2008.

    I believe affluent left-leaning voters perceive 2008 as a closer election than it really was because of the notion that a black man couldn't become President. But 2008 really was tailor-made for a blowout for the Ds and Obama, imo, after the widely perceived failures of the Bush administration. I don't think Palin came close to swinging the election.



  12. #7912
    Itís a lot of analysis of candidates, etc. when discussing 2008, but the reality is since 1952 only once has a party won three presidential elections in a row when Bush Senior won the 1988 election.

  13. #7913
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by chris13 View Post
    Itís a lot of analysis of candidates, etc. when discussing 2008, but the reality is since 1952 only once has a party won three presidential elections in a row when Bush Senior won the 1988 election.
    The history books have been tossed in the dumpster as of late. Biden didn't win any of the first primaries, which is almost always a death knell, yet here we are with him as the nominee. Toss Trump in the mix, and nothing should be expected from looking back at historical trends.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  14. #7914
    Aren't we supposed to stick to the current election and not replay prior elections?


  15. #7915
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by chris13 View Post
    Itís a lot of analysis of candidates, etc. when discussing 2008, but the reality is since 1952 only once has a party won three presidential elections in a row when Bush Senior won the 1988 election.
    To be fair, that may simply be a small sample size issue. We've only had eight (1960, 1968, 1976, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2008, and 2016) scenarios in which a party was running for their third straight win (in 1992's case, it was for a fourth straight). And several of those were pretty unique circumstances: 1968 was in the middle of an unpopular war in which the eventual frontrunner from the Dem side was assassinated; 1976 was a case where the "incumbent" had never been elected because the elected president resigned; 2000 was a rare instance where the popular vote winner didn't win the election (decided by less than 600 votes in Florida, and with shenanigans involved in that state); 2016 was another popular-winner-loses scenario (decided by less than 100,000 total votes across 3 states). So in terms of "normal" elections, there has been about a 25% chance that the incumbent party is successful in a third-straight race since 1952. But again, that's based on a tiny sample size (4 "normal" elections).

  16. #7916
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    Maybe this is so completely obvious to be stupid, but any VP choice that doesn't have some sort of foothold to get votes in the rust belt would be a major strategic flaw. Assuming Biden chooses someone who meets this criteria, I think his choice absolutely plays a role with regards to Trump and what Trump accomplished in those states in 2016.
    Well, I'm sticking with the stance that the VP pick matters only a little bit, but to the extent that candidates should still want to maximize whatever (very) marginal advantage they can get with the VP pick, I agree that Rust Belt or Progressive is the way to go. So, for me, it should either be Klobuchar or Warren.

    The current (relatively strong) betting market leader to be the VP pick - Kamala Harris - would be a mistake, imo: https://www.predictit.org/markets/de...ial-nomination

  17. #7917
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Well, I'm sticking with the stance that the VP pick matters only a little bit, but to the extent that candidates should still want to maximize whatever (very) marginal advantage they can get with the VP pick, I agree that Rust Belt or Progressive is the way to go. So, for me, it should either be Klobuchar or Warren.

    The current (relatively strong) betting market leader to be the VP pick - Kamala Harris - would be a mistake, imo: https://www.predictit.org/markets/de...ial-nomination
    I've felt for some time now that Klobuchar is a no brainer, especially looking forward to 2024. She's very good on the pulpit and would be an excellent transition candidate for the Dems assuming Biden is a one term president (and the Dems look to stay in the middle lane instead of going back to the left).
    Rich
    "Failure is Not a Destination"
    Coach K on the Dan Patrick Show, December 22, 2016

  18. #7918
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Well, I'm sticking with the stance that the VP pick matters only a little bit, but to the extent that candidates should still want to maximize whatever (very) marginal advantage they can get with the VP pick, I agree that Rust Belt or Progressive is the way to go. So, for me, it should either be Klobuchar or Warren.

    The current (relatively strong) betting market leader to be the VP pick - Kamala Harris - would be a mistake, imo: https://www.predictit.org/markets/de...ial-nomination
    Agree here. Key to what you said is ďmarginalĒ as in, the last election was won on very thin margins in certain states. Take whatever advantage you can get because a few thousand more votes in Detroit could win this thing.

    Agree on Kamala. I think she is a great prosecutorial debater but Iíd stay away from coastal state selections, personally.

  19. #7919
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    They already had it idling in the parking lot warming up.

    Biden had Gretchen Whitmer on his podcast not too long ago, which heated up VP talks. I would have place early, pre-COVID $$ on her. Now, I'm not sure. Candidates running typically announce in the summer months before the convention. I do not think it would be a good look for a sitting governor managing his/her state's COVID response to bail for a VP run.

    Another thing to keep an eye on is the surrogacy deployment strategy. Most polling has BO & MO as the most popular/admired figures in the country. The only problem I see here is that in terms of wattage, they'll outshine Joe and Jill big time. That wasn't as much a problem with the Clintons.

    Two other stray thoughts. Bernie going to do Bernie, offers "very decent human being" assessment of Biden, the political equivalent of placing someone in the friend zone. Finally, it bears repeating, Biden's greatest strength is that he is not HRC. The GOP cannot manufacture overnight the same level of animosity against Biden that they spent cultivating over 30 years against the Clintons.
    Yes, some people don't like to hear it, but Bernie and Joe are good friends...Joe was very kind to Bernie when he joined the Senate, one of relatively few who were, and Bernie has always appreciated that. Despite what you may hear elsewhere, Bernie is going to campaign hard for Joe. He'll relish that. Remains to be seen how Joe will use him. And double yes to your point that Biden's strength is not being HRC...it's become fairly evident that much of Bernie's success four years ago had to do with HRC's unpopularity...got him a lot of votes he wouldn't have received otherwise.

    Count me in the Klobuchar camp as well...smart, personable, good on TV, Midwestern. Yeah, so she's tough on her staff...so are a whole lot of people...I think she's a better fit than Harris, for example, but Harris is obviously high on the list, too.

  20. #7920
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    To be fair, that may simply be a small sample size issue. We've only had eight (1960, 1968, 1976, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2008, and 2016) scenarios in which a party was running for their third straight win (in 1992's case, it was for a fourth straight). And several of those were pretty unique circumstances: 1968 was in the middle of an unpopular war in which the eventual frontrunner from the Dem side was assassinated; 1976 was a case where the "incumbent" had never been elected because the elected president resigned; 2000 was a rare instance where the popular vote winner didn't win the election (decided by less than 600 votes in Florida, and with shenanigans involved in that state); 2016 was another popular-winner-loses scenario (decided by less than 100,000 total votes across 3 states). So in terms of "normal" elections, there has been about a 25% chance that the incumbent party is successful in a third-straight race since 1952. But again, that's based on a tiny sample size (4 "normal" elections).
    Yeah, but the premise is made more uncertain by the fact that, in running for the third straight Democratic Party wins, both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.

    And two of the other "flips," 1960 and 1968, had razor-thin margins, and I was still up watching the returns for both at 8AM. And Jimmy Carter's win over Gerald Ford also led me to stay up all night.

    Kindly,
    Sage Grouse
    'Had a chance to look again at the electoral map for Carter-Ford in 1976. Boy, the South really wanted a southern president! Carter won every southern state except Virginia and every border state except Oklahoma. Except for LBJ, who inherited the office, the previous Southern politician to win the presidency had been James K. Polk, elected in 1844 but born in 1795.

    'Also omitted Eisenhower, born in Texas, but lived there only briefly and Zachary Taylor of Virginia, known, like Ike for his military exploits not his politics. Similarly, Woodrow Wilson was born in VA and lived in SC until he transferred from Davidson college to Princeton after freshman year and never went back.'
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

Similar Threads

  1. 2016 Presidential Race
    By CameronBornAndBred in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 16487
    Last Post: 11-15-2016, 10:52 PM
  2. Presidential Inauguration
    By such in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 10:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •