189
Josh Shapiro Is a Terrible Choice for VP
(jacobin.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
189 points (86.2% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2656 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There is one functional question for a VP pick. Can they give me the state I need?
And Pennsylvania is it folks. Georgia is nice, but not a dependable thing. From the Campaign's POV, if Shapiro can secure Pennsylvania and he doesn't have a literal serial killer body dump in his backyard, they're going to smash that button.
A) It's not a given that Shapiro will deliver PA. B) Even if he does, he makes Michigan a loss. C) Bad VP picks lower enthusiasm. Hillary chose to ignore the progressive voters that were energized by Bernie's campaign and instead picked boring centrist Tim Kaine. It turned out to he a bad strategy, even if it did deliver Virginia.
Do you have any data to support that?
Well, over 100,000 Democrats voted, "Uncommitted," in the primaries because of the genocide in Gaza, which was already nearly the 150,000 that Biden carried the state by in 2020, and well more than the 10,000 that Clinton lost by in 2016. Most polls still have Harris behind Trump in Michigan, so picking an Israel apologist as VP is almost certainly going to make Michigan go red.
As for Tim Kaine, I can give you two main data ponts: 4.4 million voters who turned out for Obama stayed home for Clinton, and Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election. It's hard to quantify how much of that lack of enthusiasm was caused by her poor VP pick, but it's safe to say an obscure centrist senator certainly didn't generate any enthusiasm.
Anyway, I don't know if that data is up to your standards, but since you didn't supply any to back up your assertions, I'm not sure it matters.
They voted uncommitted because Biden is literally sending bombs and money. Not because he said he supports Israel. They also made it a huge point to say they'd vote for Biden in the general election. And they've largely gone inactive since March.
Also, you must not have looked at the polling recently. She's ahead in Michigan. The best Trump is doing is getting dead even without Kennedy in the poll.
If you're going to withhold your vote over one of the least powerful positions in our government then you either don't understand how the vice presidency works or you weren't going to vote for Harris anyways.
Only one poll has Harris with a large lead, most polls conducted at about the same time show Trump with a slight lead, and the Five Thirty-Eight average has them in a statistical tie. Seems much more likely that the one poll is an outlier rather than Harris suddenly gaining a 10 point lead in a matter of days. Also, while the leaders of the Uncommitted movement may support Biden in the general, that doesn't mean that they speak for the entire Muslim population of Michigan, and on the ground reporting indicates they definitely don't.
I'm not going to withhold my vote over a Shapiro pick, but I think there are a lot of people in Dearborn who might feel differently. Harris is a part of the Biden administration, so if she wants to win back Muslim Americans, she's going to need to show she differs from Biden on Gaza. Shapiro says the opposite.
Anyway, I'm getting a lot of conjecture and opinion here, but not a lot of data, so I think I'm gonna leave it at this.
The only polls with trump in the lead are SoCal and Redfield who always skew right. Like I said above, everything else runs equal to Harris lead.
Which is why the polling averages look like this.
And in your own article, about Biden, from April, they say they'd vote for Biden against Trump.
You're running away because you shot your mouth off and you're just now realizing the data doesn't actually support you.
Edit to add - imgur threw an NSFW warning on it... That's hilarious.
JFC, I guess I'm breaking the data down for you:
Public Opinion Strategies (7/23-7/29): Harris: 45% Trump 45%
Morning Consult (7/24-7/28): Harris: 53% Trump 42% (This is a HUGE outlier)
SoCal Research (7/25-7/26): Harris: 46% Trump: 49%
Redfield and Winton Strategies (7/22-7/24): Harris: 41% Trump: 44%
Glengariff Group (7/22-7/24): Harris: 42% Trump: 41% (Only other poll with Harris having a slight lead, and it's within the margin of error)
Emerson (7/22-7/24): Harris: 49% Trump: 51% (Though this one does have them tried if you add in third parties)
So, when you said, "You must not have looked at the polling recently. She's ahead in Michigan," (and by the way, dont think I didnt catch that goalpost move with, "equal to Harris lead") that wasn't really true; she's ahead in one of the 3 latest polls (by a margin so large it seems like a polling mistake), and she's only ahead in two of the six polls done in the last month. You are right though, the 538 Average does have her up by 2.2%, but again, that's probably mostly because one poll is giving her a ten point lead, which is a huge outlier from the rest of the data.
Anyway, is the data good enough for you yet, guy who demands data but only cites a signal polling average throughout his grand assertions about Shapiro, Harris, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Michigan? Have I finally given you enough proof to meet your rigorous evidentiary standards? Standards which you yourself will not meet? Well, I actually don't care. Here's a bunch of quotes from the article you think proves, "they," will vote for Biden:
BOY, I SURE WAS WRONG ABOUT THIS ARTICLE, WASN'T I?
The article from months ago, about Biden? Yeah... Sure.
You really do have a habit of ignoring any point that's inconvenient to you. So I'll leave you to read my previous post again.
Wow, what a great point. Except the context I brought the article up in was, "This is the baggage Harris inherents as a member of the Biden administration, she needs to distance herself from Biden's position in Israel if she wants to win Michigan, this makes Shapiro a very bad choice." So, what Muslim Americans were saying about Biden 3 months ago is actually very relevant given that context, and it's not a great point.
But thanks for, "You really do have a habit of ignoring any point that's inconvenient to you." Watching you ignore your misinterpretation of Harris' Michigan polls, misunderstanding that entire article, and that you've still provided no evidence to support any of your assertions, that legit made me LOL. Anyway, as someone else in this thread said, once it had become clear you had no idea what you're talking about, "We're done here."
If you want to talk about that why not any of the articles published in the last week about it? Why an article from months ago colored by Biden being the candidate?
Because you claimed that the Uncommitted voters would still fall behind Biden in the general, and that article very clearly shows many Muslim Americans would not. But you're right, there have been a lot of articles written in the last week about how Harris is trying to win back the Muslim groups that Biden lost. Those articles are also great examples of why Shapiro, who once said Palestinians are, “too battle-minded," for peace, is a bad VP pick.
All of it does.
Oh yeah just hand waive. Because that's data.
we had this discussion when people said Biden dropping out would mean certain defeat. people are severely underestimating the danger of depressing voter turnout countrywide. this is not much of an issue for the GOP but for Dems it's their main antagonist.
i think they're going to take PA anyway. it's not worth risking losing on other states showing that there's nothing new and everything is actually the same as the democrats you always hated for never listening. Biden dropping out was the first time this image has cracked, mending it right back would be a liability; falling into the Hillary trap there imo.
To be honest, this is why they leak the names early in every campaign. They're running internal polling on them, doing focus groups, and waiting to see if any skeletons toss open a closet door. If there was a red flag in that polling they'd pull him out of consideration.
There's also the art of political theater to consider. Say they did flag Shapiro for exactly the thing you're worried about. They might bring him along to stuff like the meet and greet just to make people in Pennsylvania feel more included.
All this is to say they have a ton more data on this than we do. What little we have shows Kelly and Shapiro as the most well known and liked of the names that were put forward. I have a bit more faith that they're getting good data since they flushed the Biden group out of the campaign. And her campaign is noticeably better run.
i hope so. for me as always it shouldn't matter who it is. you're literally voting against a fascist who proudly announced he wanted to be a dictator, and whose entourage has publicly announced a step by step plan to completely dismantle what little is left of American democracy. the VP could literally be a trashcan and i wouldn't think republicans should be elected.
We tried that in the UK. He didn't get elected, sadly
it's this kind of anti trashcan political climate that led you down the Brexit path to begin with... too bad you didn't learn from it.
Haha, can we get Cookie Monster as a midterm reveal?
that might unironically guarantee the election
This isn’t how it works anymore; it hasn’t been for like 24 years. There is near-zero home-state advantage in 2024.
That's ... An interesting take. They certainly aren't going to flip a deep red or blue state. But they can absolutely swing a close race. Which is the case here.
It’s not really a take, it’s the statistical fact of the last 2+ decades and has been the consensus among political analysts and strategists for almost as long.
There was a long discussion about this on the 538 podcast last week, and four years ago, and eight years ago. It may be worth a point in a give home state, but even that is less than likely because of how polarized the electorate is and low-information voters have less of an opinion about their state-level leaders than they do nation politicians.
It all comes down to the takeaway being that you’re better off picking a good messenger who is charismatic and can do unfriendly media hits well. That’s the strategy unless you need to balance something out of the ordinary like Obama did when he picked Biden in 2008.
It's been a discussion for that long. But it's been a hot take just as long with evidence flying both directions. I'm going to stay firmly on the side of common sense. And point out that someone winning statewide elections ought to be able to campaign in that state.
There is absolutely not “evidence flying in both directions.” We’re done here.
Because Michigan and other states don't matter at all. The entire election revolves around who wins Pennsylvania.
Of course they matter. Pennsylvania however, matters far more. Because of the way the electoral college works Pennsylvania is a must win for the Democrats. If they lose there then Michigan won't matter at all because Trump will have 270 votes.