Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

It's not an IQ issue, I don't think. The sings have been within the margin of error for most of the polls afaik. I think it's also an issue of voter selection. Are they over-sampling a specific demo and then having to correct for it on the backend?

OscarGuy wrote:I think this might be a good thing. If Dems think the race is tightening, maybe they'll be more diligent about voting.

Or not.

Who are these people who keep seesawing back and forth between Biden and Trump? What are their I.Q.'s?

I think this might be a good thing. If Dems think the race is tightening, maybe they'll be more diligent about voting.

There were three other polls released yesterday, all showing Biden with leads of 7-11 points.

Then, this morning, ABC released this poll.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

But Twitter was all agog with "it's tightening!" last night. Proving Democrats are worrywarts, especially in the wake of the PTSD-inducing 2016.

This is the perfect illustration of how Dems treat polling that looks even vaguely threatening:

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/stat ... 28/photo/1

Why is the race tightening? Do people need to have someone in their own circle die to wake up?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/16/politics ... Stories%29

Trump's not even trying to hide his attempts to undermine democracy, is he?

I really, really, really hope that Biden can win more than the other side can steal.

Thanks for your responses, guys. My thoughts are a jumble, to be honest, but I appreciate them.

taki15 wrote
I think that Biden had settled early on on Harris and the other names (Rice, Bass, etc.) were mostly red herrings, floated to keep everyone, including the press, guessing. Rice especially made no sense since she brought nothing on the table electorally and a re-litigation of the Benghazi affair would have been an unnecessary and unwelcome distraction.

Politico literally published it was Harris two or three weeks ago and then had to retract. It's probably been Harris in Biden's mind since December 2016.

I think that Biden had settled early on on Harris and the other names (Rice, Bass, etc.) were mostly red herrings, floated to keep everyone, including the press, guessing. Rice especially made no sense since she brought nothing on the table electorally and a relitigation of the Benghazi affair would have been an unnecessary and unwelcome distraction.

Big Magilla wrote
An eerie comparison considering McKinley lasted less than nine months into his presidency. It also draws attention to that old axiom about a U.S. president elected every twenty years in a year ending in O dying in office (1840-1960), broken by Reagan, who lived through an attempted assassination, and sustained by G.W. Bush.

I mean, they tried to fly a plane into him.

Mister Tee wrote:Harris is, of course, not the top of the ticket, but her very presence adds life (the way Teddy Roosevelt amped up McKinley in 1900), and also sets up Dems to capitalize on her as a future presidential candidate -- whether she succeeds Biden through tragedy (something that has to be viewed as possibility, with a 78-year-old man taking on the world's most stressful job) or through succession.

An eerie comparison considering McKinley lasted less than nine months into his presidency. It also draws attention to that old axiom about a U.S. president elected every twenty years in a year ending in O dying in office (1840-1960), broken by Reagan, who lived through an attempted assassination, and sustained by G.W. Bush.

Okri wrote:

Mister Tee wrote:She seemed so obvious a choice that I had the paranoid fear they'd pass her by just because.

I'm elated.

Genuine question: why?

If the "why?" refers to my paranoid fear, it's that I knew a corner of the Biden camp --the Chris Dodd/Ed Rendell niche -- believes in permanent prevent defense: concentrating all energy on appealing to that swing white voter in the Midwest. Whereas I subscribe to the Rachel Bitecofer theory, that maximizing turnout among your coalition plays a greater role -- that, had Hillary Clinton not had lower black turnout than Kerry/Edwards in '04, she'd be president today. Those who believe in the precious-swing-voter theory would have gone with Klobuchar or Whitmer, and left the party base uninspired. Harris has the ability to energize black/liberal/young turnout, and is the perfect complement to Biden's "don't scare anyone" averageness.

If -- as I suspect -- the "why?", rather, refers to why I'm elated by the Harris pick...well, part of it is contained in what I just wrote above: Harris, while qualified by job experience to be a step away from the presidency (in a way that, say, Stacey Abrams, however much I like her, is not), also checks off a lot of boxes: black, part-Asian, youthful-seeming if not actually young (though young compared to the year's other prime contenders), liberal. That last is so little understood: all voting studies put Harris among the 5-10 most liberal Senators. She's by far the most liberal person on a Democratic presidential ticket since Walter Mondale...and yet, is considered a mainstream choice. This represents an extraordinary evolution in Democratic policy over the past two decades.

And, over and above that, I think she has more star quality than just about anyone currently in political sight. If you go back to the beginning of this now-long thread, you'll see I listed her among a select few (Beto, Booker, Buttigieg, Abrams) who could bring some level of charisma to the ticket. This is a quality that can turbo-charge not just a campaign but an administration. Harris is, of course, not the top of the ticket, but her very presence adds life (the way Teddy Roosevelt amped up McKinley in 1900), and also sets up Dems to capitalize on her as a future presidential candidate -- whether she succeeds Biden through tragedy (something that has to be viewed as possibility, with a 78-year-old man taking on the world's most stressful job) or through succession (every recent VP save Quayle has been successful at getting his party's nomination).

All of which is to say, I think she's the future of the Democratic party. She was my choice for the presidential slot, and, while this is only second-best, I'm delighted to see her being set up to carry the party forward at some point.

Yet, Obama didn't get the VP candidate he wanted. It seems they were pushing for Susan Rice instead. That said, I think the Sanders thing being settled is wishful thinking. I've already seen people on Facebook bemoaning the corporatist ideology of Biden and his new VP selection and people refusing to vote for either of them.

[quote="taki15] She is also the first person west of Texas to ever be on a Democratic party ticket.
Not bad.[/quote]

This is an interesting fact. Barack Obama, though he represented Illinois, was largely raised in Hawaii. Adlai Stevenson was born in California, though he was largely raised in Illinois. It’s too bad that the West has had so many Republicans on recent presidential tickets such as Nixon, Reagan, McCain, and Palin. Hopefully this will be the start of a shift.