Official Biden for VP Thread

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
This is true comedy. People criticize obama for lack of experience and then he goes and picks a candidate with gobs of experience in the area of greatest criticism and now it shows a lack of confidence. Some people just cannot be reasoned with, can they? Their hate will also rationalize itself.

I'd say that article was a pretty fair assessment.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Hah - The McCain campaign already had a commercial ready.

That's hilarious!

At least they're on the ball. They seemed to know he he was going to pick before anyone else did.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Originally posted by: Queasy
Hah - The McCain campaign already had a commercial ready.

That's hilarious!

At least they're on the ball. They seemed to know he he was going to pick before anyone else did.

It's not prescience... they put these things in the can as contingencies, as in Gerald Ford eaten by wolves.

The problem with that ad is that it negates itself with Biden himself being on the ticket.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Believe it or not, the numbers behind Biden made him the best choice for VP. From FiveThirtyEight:

Can Biden Out-Hillary Hillary?

The principal rationale for selecting Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama's running mate is that she would have united Democrats behind their nominee at a time when they have a substantial advantage in party identification. John Kerry received 89 percent of the Democratic vote in 2004; if Barack Obama can get within a couple of points of that, even to 86 or 87 percent, he will be very difficult to defeat.

However, Joe Biden might do nearly as good a job as Clinton of uniting the party, while perhaps paying less of a price among independents.

Rasmussen has fresh approval numbers out for Biden, as well as several other Democratic short-listers. Here, borrowed from Rasmussen's invaluable subscriber service, are their approval scores by party:

Democrats

Candidate Fav-Unfav
Clinton 77-22 (+55)
Biden 65-17 (+48)
Bayh 45-25 (+20)
Sebelius 35-19 (+16)
Kaine 35-29 (+6)

Clinton has the highest favorables and highest net score among Democrats; Biden has the fewest unfavorables. Generally speaking, Clinton and Biden blow the other three candidates out of the water.

Republicans

Candidate Fav-Unfav
Kaine 29-30 (-1)
Bayh 23-43 (-20)
Sebelius 14-45 (-31)
Biden 22-63 (-39)
Clinton 21-75 (-54)

Amongst Republicans, the ratings are very nearly the reverse. Joe Biden will not have a terrific amount of crossover appeal. On the contrary, though the animus might not be as personal as in the case of Senator Clinton, Biden will be seen my many GOPers as a partisan blowhard. One can argue, however, about whether this really matters. The notion that Obama was going to win over some large number of "Obamacans" had not realistically been in play for a couple of months now, as the GOP base has begun to rally behind John McCain.

Indepedents

Candidate Fav-Unfav
Biden 42-29 (+13)
Bayh 31-21 (+10)
Kaine 24-23 (+1)
Sebelius 18-21 (-3)
Clinton 39-57 (-18)

Where Biden might do some good is among independents, among whom he has the highest favorables and highest net rating, although a couple other candidates had lower unfavorables. But Biden certainly performs better amongst this critical group than Hillary Clinton. One can argue that Biden is very well positioned within the Democratic party, probably just slightly to the right of the average Democratic senator. Liberal Democrats certainly won't be pleased with his votes on the AUMF or the bankruptcy bill, but they still essentially trust him, which they wouldn't necessarily with a more identifiably centrist choice like Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine. But on the other hand, Biden cannot so easily be characterized as a liberal to turn off independent voters; in fact, independents and moderates like him pretty well.

Let's take one more, slightly different take on this. This time, we'll look at impressions of the candidates based not on party ID, but rather, based on who the voters had intended to vote for in November. Let's make the following assumptions:

- For each McCain voter that has a very favorable view of Biden, one-quarter of them will switch their vote to Obama.

- For each McCain voter that has a somewhat favorable view of Biden, one-eighth of them will switch their vote to Obama.

- For each Obama voter that has a somewhat unfavorable view of Biden, one-eighth of them will switch their vote to McCain.

- For each Obama voter that has a very unfavorable view of Biden, one-quarter of them will switch their vote to McCain.

Does that sound reasonable? It sounds reasonable to me, though I really have no idea. But let's run the numbers and see what we get:


VF = Very Favorable
SF = Somewhat Favorable
VU = Very Unfavorable
SU = Somewhat Unfavorable

... McCain Voters Obama Voters
Candidate VF SF VU SU Net Margin
Biden 4 20 5 10 +2.00
Bayh 4 19 4 16 +0.75
Kaine 8 21 8 20 +0.25
Clinton 11 14 13 14 -0.50
Sebelius 3 13 5 13 -0.50

What's noteworthy is not so much that Biden will turn a lot of McCain voters on -- Tim Kaine and Hillary Clinton would have done a better job of that -- but that he'll turn very few Obama voters off. As a result, this method projects a net swing of 2 points toward Obama, which is better than he'd do with any of the other candidates. Biden also performed quite well in these ratings among undecided (43-22 favorable) and third-party (45-36 favorable) voters, though the sample sizes are probably too small to be worth worrying about.
Biden was strongest among Independents, higher than all other VP choices, and second only to Clinton among Democrats. What that translates to is a 2 point advantage by choosing him (a full 2.5 points higher than if he chose Clinton).
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Believe it or not, the numbers behind Biden made him the best choice for VP. From FiveThirtyEight......

Biden was strongest among Independents, higher than all other VP choices, and second only to Clinton among Democrats. What that translates to is a 2 point advantage by choosing him (a full 2.5 points higher than if he chose Clinton).

He was crazy not to pick Clinton, as much as I cannot stand her, and it would have made my voting against him easier, it would have won him the race, period...Biden is a variable whereas Clinton IMHO would have been a sure thing.

However I can understand why he did what he did, if I was an ego maniac as they all must be only interested in self aggrandizement then I wouldn?t want to share the limelight either.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Believe it or not, the numbers behind Biden made him the best choice for VP. From FiveThirtyEight......

Biden was strongest among Independents, higher than all other VP choices, and second only to Clinton among Democrats. What that translates to is a 2 point advantage by choosing him (a full 2.5 points higher than if he chose Clinton).

He was crazy not to pick Clinton, as much as I cannot stand her, and it would have made my voting against him easier, it would have won him the race, period...Biden is a variable whereas Clinton IMHO would have been a sure thing.

However I can understand why he did what he did, if I was an ego maniac as they all must be only interested in self aggrandizement then I wouldn?t want to share the limelight either.

Black man, white woman ticket? There are a lot of primal fears in that combo:laugh:
 

Conky

Lifer
May 9, 2001
10,709
0
0
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Just what we needed. Someone to counterbalance the age of McCain and another northern liberal on the ticket with the sex appeal of John Kerry and Bob Dole.

Brilliant pick. The democrats always figure out a way to blow it.
That actually made me laugh out loud.

But it's true. The Dem's were so convinced they would win in 2004 that they picked John Effin Kerry, a man who now looks like a solid candidate compared to the rookie politician known as Obama.

Both parties seem to pick the absolute worst candidate for every election but the Dem's have the knack of picking out the most ridiculous ones possible as their final choice.

I'd vote for Hillary. I'd vote for Lieberman. Heck, I'd even consider voting for the wacko Ron Paul. But Kerry? And now this empty suit Obama? :laugh:



 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Skoorb
This is true comedy. People criticize obama for lack of experience and then he goes and picks a candidate with gobs of experience in the area of greatest criticism and now it shows a lack of confidence. Some people just cannot be reasoned with, can they? Their hate will also rationalize itself.

Obama's campaign message is "CHANGE" and getting away from the establishment and I see no better way to show commitment to that message than to choose somebody that has been a professional politician for the last 30 years(?), they have been critical of McCain's age so he goes with a 65 y/o.
So, basically he cannot win. Either he lacks experience or lacks confidence.

No, he cannot win this election. Make the ticket Biden/Obama and you might have a shot.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: daveymark
looks like the biden's articulate/black/clean comment is going to be brought out again
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks likely that every McCain vulnerability will be brought up also.

Whats new? But beware, Biden has more Senate experience than McCain, Hillary, and Obama combined, he bites back, and knows where the bodies are buried.

The more McCain goes negative the more he gets associated with GWB, and that my GOP friends, is a sure way to lose.

The Biden position has evolved with the times, and McSame is still McSame. Intellectually lazy and unable to see a half a move ahead best describes McCain.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: daveymark
looks like the biden's articulate/black/clean comment is going to be brought out again
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks likely that every McCain vulnerability will be brought up also.

Whats new? But beware, Biden has more Senate experience than McCain, Hillary, and Obama combined, he bites back, and know where the bodies are buried.

The more McCain goes negative the more he gets associated with GWB, and that my GOP friends, is a sure way to lose.

The Biden position has evolved with the times, and McSame is still McSame. Intellectually lazy and unable to see a half a move ahead best describes McCain.

Because its not like George W. Bush won 2 elections, or anything like that....
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: daveymark
looks like the biden's articulate/black/clean comment is going to be brought out again
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks likely that every McCain vulnerability will be brought up also.

Whats new? But beware, Biden has more Senate experience than McCain, Hillary, and Obama combined, he bites back, and know where the bodies are buried.

The more McCain goes negative the more he gets associated with GWB, and that my GOP friends, is a sure way to lose.

The Biden position has evolved with the times, and McSame is still McSame. Intellectually lazy and unable to see a half a move ahead best describes McCain.

Because its not like George W. Bush won 2 elections, or anything like that....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWB may have won or lost the election of 2000 by a hair, won the election of 2004,
by a hair, and would not stand a snowballs chance in hell as his failures are quite apparent in 2008. But GWB&co. can't run anyway but its still does nothing to refute my point.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: daveymark
looks like the biden's articulate/black/clean comment is going to be brought out again
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks likely that every McCain vulnerability will be brought up also.

Whats new? But beware, Biden has more Senate experience than McCain, Hillary, and Obama combined, he bites back, and know where the bodies are buried.

The more McCain goes negative the more he gets associated with GWB, and that my GOP friends, is a sure way to lose.

The Biden position has evolved with the times, and McSame is still McSame. Intellectually lazy and unable to see a half a move ahead best describes McCain.

Because its not like George W. Bush won 2 elections, or anything like that....

For which the majority of America, including a sizable chunk of the people who voted for him, now has extreme buyers remorse.

Sorry, guy, but Biden getting on the ticket is about the worst thing that could have happened to the McCain campaign (well, short of having to follow in Bush's footsteps in the first place).

Finally, the world's longest election is about to get interesting.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: daveymark
looks like the biden's articulate/black/clean comment is going to be brought out again
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks likely that every McCain vulnerability will be brought up also.

Whats new? But beware, Biden has more Senate experience than McCain, Hillary, and Obama combined, he bites back, and know where the bodies are buried.

The more McCain goes negative the more he gets associated with GWB, and that my GOP friends, is a sure way to lose.

The Biden position has evolved with the times, and McSame is still McSame. Intellectually lazy and unable to see a half a move ahead best describes McCain.

Because its not like George W. Bush won 2 elections, or anything like that....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWB may have won or lost the election of 2000 by a hair, won the election of 2004,
by a hair, and would not stand a snowballs chance in hell as his failures are quite apparent in 2008. But GWB&co. can't run anyway but its still does nothing to refute my point.

You can believe that if you wish. Humphrey came pretty damn close in 1968 after all...

A little help, though: People aren't buying that McSame garbage.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: daveymark
looks like the biden's articulate/black/clean comment is going to be brought out again
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks likely that every McCain vulnerability will be brought up also.

Whats new? But beware, Biden has more Senate experience than McCain, Hillary, and Obama combined, he bites back, and know where the bodies are buried.

The more McCain goes negative the more he gets associated with GWB, and that my GOP friends, is a sure way to lose.

The Biden position has evolved with the times, and McSame is still McSame. Intellectually lazy and unable to see a half a move ahead best describes McCain.

Because its not like George W. Bush won 2 elections, or anything like that....

For which the majority of America, including a sizable chunk of the people who voted for him, now has extreme buyers remorse.

Sorry, guy, but Biden getting on the ticket is about the worst thing that could have happened to the McCain campaign (well, short of having to follow in Bush's footsteps in the first place).

Finally, the world's longest election is about to get interesting.

No, not really. The worst thing that could happen is Clinton getting either spot, since the Clintons are actually winners, unlike the ObamaKerryDukakis crowd.

Biden actually appears to be a reasonable man, some of the time, and occasionally sets a toe beyond the left wing line. It's too bad he's a terrible politician and is now stuck carrying the biggest wimp to run for President in a very long time.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: winnar111
You can believe that if you wish. Humphrey came pretty damn close in 1968 after all...

A little help, though: People aren't buying that McSame garbage.

And Humphrey would have won if he had called for pulling out of Vietnam earlier in the campaign (instead of waiting until October to change his mind on that). There are videos of Humphrey speaking at rallies very late in the campaign where people are holding up signs saying "If you really mean it."
Even worse for your position though is that RFK almost certainly would have won had he not been assassinated.

And you missed what LL was trying to tell you. He said that the more that McCain goes negative, the more he makes himself into McSame. This is because, by going negative, McCain is pandering to that GWB base whose only opinion on politics is that Rush told them that "lib-uh-rals are bad," and these are exactly the kind of politics that the American voters are rejecting this year.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: winnar111
No, not really. The worst thing that could happen is Clinton getting either spot, since the Clintons are actually winners, unlike the ObamaKerryDukakis crowd.

Biden actually appears to be a reasonable man, some of the time, and occasionally sets a toe beyond the left wing line. It's too bad he's a terrible politician and is now stuck carrying the biggest wimp to run for President in a very long time.

You see, it's these kind of thoughtful, impartial, unbiased comments that has enabled you to become such a well-respected poster here with so few posts. ;)
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: winnar111
You can believe that if you wish. Humphrey came pretty damn close in 1968 after all...

A little help, though: People aren't buying that McSame garbage.

And Humphrey would have won if he had called for pulling out of Vietnam earlier in the campaign (instead of waiting until October to change his mind on that). There are videos of Humphrey speaking at rallies very late in the campaign where people are holding up signs saying "If you really mean it."
Even worse for your position though is that RFK almost certainly would have won had he not been assassinated.

And you missed what LL was trying to tell you. He said that the more that McCain goes negative, the more he makes himself into McSame. This is because, by going negative, McCain is pandering to that GWB base whose only opinion on politics is that Rush told them that "lib-uh-rals are bad."

Except....he isn't, and that's why he's either competitive or winning the latest polls in this election.

By going negative, he's pandering to the middle of the road crowd who is realizing that Obama is not fit to lead this nation. We already had this choice in 2004, people choose a man of conviction over a weather vane.

Middle America is not interested in the Obama-Pelosi agenda.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: winnar111
You can believe that if you wish. Humphrey came pretty damn close in 1968 after all...

A little help, though: People aren't buying that McSame garbage.

And Humphrey would have won if he had called for pulling out of Vietnam earlier in the campaign (instead of waiting until October to change his mind on that). There are videos of Humphrey speaking at rallies very late in the campaign where people are holding up signs saying "If you really mean it."
Even worse for your position though is that RFK almost certainly would have won had he not been assassinated.

And you missed what LL was trying to tell you. He said that the more that McCain goes negative, the more he makes himself into McSame. This is because, by going negative, McCain is pandering to that GWB base whose only opinion on politics is that Rush told them that "lib-uh-rals are bad."

Except....he isn't, and that's why he's either competitive or winning the latest polls in this election.

By going negative, he's pandering to the middle of the road crowd who is realizing that Obama is not fit to lead this nation. We already had this choice in 2004, people choose a man of conviction over a weather vane.

You clearly do not have the slightest clue what has been going on in American politics since 2004.

Just because you can repeat the same lie over and over again and believe it does mean that everyone else is the same way.
What McCain has demonstrated, by going negative, is that he needs to hide that he has completely changed himself and his positions since winning the Republican primaries.
It also demonstrates that he will change himself in this way in order to pander to that far-right talk radio crowd that most of America has come to hate with a passion.

For example, it has already been pointed out to you in other threads that McCain only changed his position on oil drilling after taking in $1.3 million in oil company money. For you to ignore this (on your supposed most important issue), and then call McCain a 'man of conviction' and Obama a 'weather vane' (for refusing to change his position until forced to politically) is only further revealing yourself to be a partisan hack, and further lowering what little credibility you already had here.

edit to your edit:
Originally posted by: winnar111
Middle America is not interested in the Obama-Pelosi agenda.
Well, then, it's a good thing that Obama and Pelosi do not share agendas.

What 'middle America' is really not interested in, you might figure out if you could fscking learn to read peoples' posts and respond to them on topic, is the hate-filled, ultra-negative, ideology (and phony morality) -over-economy talk radio and religious fundie agendas that elected GWB twice in the first place. And whose votes McCain has been desperately pandering to lately.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: winnar111
You can believe that if you wish. Humphrey came pretty damn close in 1968 after all...

A little help, though: People aren't buying that McSame garbage.

And Humphrey would have won if he had called for pulling out of Vietnam earlier in the campaign (instead of waiting until October to change his mind on that). There are videos of Humphrey speaking at rallies very late in the campaign where people are holding up signs saying "If you really mean it."
Even worse for your position though is that RFK almost certainly would have won had he not been assassinated.

And you missed what LL was trying to tell you. He said that the more that McCain goes negative, the more he makes himself into McSame. This is because, by going negative, McCain is pandering to that GWB base whose only opinion on politics is that Rush told them that "lib-uh-rals are bad."

Except....he isn't, and that's why he's either competitive or winning the latest polls in this election.

By going negative, he's pandering to the middle of the road crowd who is realizing that Obama is not fit to lead this nation. We already had this choice in 2004, people choose a man of conviction over a weather vane.

You clearly do not have the slightest clue what has been going on in American politics since 2004.

Just because you can repeat the same lie over and over again and believe it does mean that everyone else is the same way.
What McCain has demonstrated, by going negative, is that he needs to hide that he has completely changed himself and his positions since winning the Republican primaries.
It also demonstrates that he will change himself in this way in order to pander to that far-right talk radio crowd that most of America has come to hate with a passion.

For example, it has already been pointed out to you in other threads that McCain only changed his position on oil drilling after taking in $1.3 million in oil company money. For you to ignore this (on your supposed most important issue), and then call McCain a 'man of conviction' and Obama a 'weather vane' (for refusing to change his position until forced to politically) is only further revealing yourself to be a partisan hack, and further lowering what little credibility you already had here.

Really? Is that why McCain stuck with McCain Feingold after the GOP base rejected it in 2000? Is that why McCain stuck with McCain Lieberman after the GOP base rejected it as well, and still rejects global warming nonsense? Is that why McCain stuck with McCain Kennedy as the GOP primaries were kicking off?