• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Dem VP - who ya' got

Biden's candidacy was saved by Jim Clyburn, who then insisted on changes to the campaign, which he suggested had been mishandled.

We don't have to pretend he ran a good campaign just because he won.

Absolutely, if Clyburn wasn't older than Biden, he would have had a good claim on the VP nod.
 
I don't think anybody ran a particularly good campaign except for Pete who came out of nowhere to win Iowa and drop out while in third place. I also don't think it would have mattered if anybody had run a good campaign. This was a name recognition primary. It's up to Biden to decide to pick his VP based on name recognition, too.
 
If coming from behind to take a state is a measure, then Klobs ran a good campaign as well, no?
 
I don't think anybody ran a particularly good campaign except for Pete who came out of nowhere to win Iowa and drop out while in third place. I also don't think it would have mattered if anybody had run a good campaign. This was a name recognition primary. It's up to Biden to decide to pick his VP based on name recognition, too.

How does one determine if this will be a name recognition primary or a challenger primary? These all seem like post hoc characterizations rather than anything relating to strategy.
 
How does one determine if this will be a name recognition primary or a challenger primary? These all seem like post hoc characterizations rather than anything relating to strategy.

The primary already happened. Of course it’s post hoc.
 
The primary already happened. Of course it’s post hoc.

You're moving around in time, Ph. My claim is that voters are sexist and voted with their feet. The fact that the most diverse candidate pool of all time came down to two white men over the age of 75 confirms this take. Your claim is that it was all about name recognition and that nobody besides Pete ran a good campaign. Only, it's not always about name recognition unless your complementary claim is that the electorate is stupid and can only possibly vote for whomever is getting the lion's share of media coverage at a given moment. If that's not what you're arguing, then this seems like it's getting into "electability" territory. I'll probably sit the rest of this one out in that case because I'm not interested in arguing based on an intangible, floating concept that nobody can quite pin down because at its core is the proposition that the most electable candidates are moderate older white men and nobody wants to admit that the democratic electorate is compromised of sexist reactionaries.
 
How does one determine if this will be a name recognition primary or a challenger primary? These all seem like post hoc characterizations rather than anything relating to strategy.

Take a look at the candidates and see if name recognition exists. Biden and Sanders had lots. Warren some. Hence, a name recognition primary.
 
Take a look at the candidates and see if name recognition exists. Biden and Sanders had lots. Warren some. Hence, a name recognition primary.

I mean, Elizabeth Warren was probably more known Bernie Sanders was in 2016 and it's not like people forgot about her in the interim.

There were 20+ candidates this time around and we ended up with Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. That could be name recognition, but that doesn't explain why Warren and Harris floundered while unknowns like Buttigieg and Yang managed to survive for so long. Hell, I even know who Tom Steyer is now. It seems like it's not name recognition as much as it is reputation recognition, which only men seem to get in a positive way (e.g., Clinton's infamy) despite the fact that there are plenty of well known women politicians with qualified resumes.
 
You're moving around in time, Ph. My claim is that voters are sexist and voted with their feet. The fact that the most diverse candidate pool of all time came down to two white men over the age of 75 confirms this take. Your claim is that it was all about name recognition and that nobody besides Pete ran a good campaign. Only, it's not always about name recognition unless your complementary claim is that the electorate is stupid and can only possibly vote for whomever is getting the lion's share of media coverage at a given moment. If that's not what you're arguing, then this seems like it's getting into "electability" territory. I'll probably sit the rest of this one out in that case because I'm not interested in arguing based on an intangible, floating concept that nobody can quite pin down because at its core is the proposition that the most electable candidates are moderate older white men and nobody wants to admit that the democratic electorate is compromised of sexist reactionaries.

Don’t let MDMH see you post this. It will hurt his feelings.
 
I mean, Elizabeth Warren was probably more known Bernie Sanders was in 2016 and it's not like people forgot about her in the interim.

There were 20+ candidates this time around and we ended up with Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. That could be name recognition, but that doesn't explain why Warren and Harris floundered while unknowns like Buttigieg and Yang managed to survive for so long. Hell, I even know who Tom Steyer is now. It seems like it's not name recognition as much as it is reputation recognition, which only men seem to get in a positive way (e.g., Clinton's infamy) despite the fact that there are plenty of well known women politicians with qualified resumes.

If Warren had run in 2016, she would have had the name recognition Sanders had in 2020.

Harris floundered because she didn’t pocket cash from her last senate run like Sanders, Klob, and Warren did. Also she didn’t run a great campaign.

I should add Yang to the list of people who ran a great campaign too. He didn’t go as far as Pete but he really got his name out there and has a defined fanbase.
 
Take a look at the candidates and see if name recognition exists. Biden and Sanders had lots. Warren some. Hence, a name recognition primary.

I think it's fairly obvious that Mayor Pete did the best job of adding to his name recognition and standing. He was nowhere when the campaign started.
 
I wouldn’t say Pete ran a great campaign so much as he was the most polished at debates

He didn’t built a diverse or large base or register many new voters or collect much data

He did very well considering who he was though, which is to say, nobody of any consequence to the party or the nation
 
If Warren had run in 2016, she would have had the name recognition Sanders had in 2020.

Harris floundered because she didn’t pocket cash from her last senate run like Sanders, Klob, and Warren did. Also she didn’t run a great campaign.

I should add Yang to the list of people who ran a great campaign too. He didn’t go as far as Pete but he really got his name out there and has a defined fanbase.

Sanders absolutely didn't need Senate cash, if you can say absolutely anything about him, its that he didn't need any help raising cash
 
I wouldn’t say Pete ran a great campaign so much as he was the most polished at debates

He didn’t built a diverse or large base or register many new voters or collect much data

He did very well considering who he was though, which is to say, nobody of any consequence to the party or the nation

He outperformed everyone we are talking about except Bernie and Biden. How much better would he have needed to do to run a good campaign? He came out of nowhere.

I don’t know how much data he collected but he will probably get a cabinet position out of it.
 
Back
Top