|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 28 2022 02:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 01:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
LL: "The primary criteria is: A good candidate would have been someone who has strong "if Biden keels over, this person will be able to keep the lights on until next election" appeal."
How the hell are we supposed to assess something like that? That sounds extremely subjective, not to mention completely hypothetical until Biden actually dies in office.
LL: "I consider competence to be the primary criteria"
Competence is the ability to succeed at doing something. Competence with respect to doing... what, exactly? For example, she was technically a pretty competent DA, even though we probably both agree that some of the things she successfully did were not things we'd want her to do (based on our political views being different from hers, in some respects). She successfully became DA. She successfully became AG. She successfully became a Senator. She successfully did things in each of those roles. Clearly, she's competent with respect to many things, but perhaps they aren't the type of things you're looking for? I don't know if it's fair to call her a generally incompetent person, and I feel that saying "yeah all these things show competence, but not the kind of competence I want to see from her" is moving the goalposts. Thoughts? Undeniably there's a lot of subjectivity here, but in the same way that there's a process in any other job that you might take in screening a person beyond just bullet points on their resume, there are things you can know ahead of time here. For VP in particular, competence would probably be mostly in the departments of: 1. Is this person good at being a public-facing figure? 2. Is this person a competent administrator? Item (1) matters because as previously discussed, the main job of the VP is to appear to the public and make speeches and such. Harris has done this about as well during the vice presidency as she did as a candidate - awful. And item (2) matters as a backup in case of Biden death, and less so for the executive support activities that a VP does. I think record of past administrative successes and failures is an excellent guide to future performance. Harris' record there is undeniably mixed. For Pence for example, he would have been expected to do well on (1), and less so on (2). He certainly achieved (1), being a moderate foil to Trump, didn't have to deal with a "Trump dying in / removed from office" scenario but did respectably well on looking like he could step up and on performing peripheral executive activities (e.g. the national space council went well). A reasonable candidate, and a reasonable VP - perhaps as expected. He shored up Trump's weaknesses well. An alternative bad choice might have been Flynn - he "checks all the boxes" but would really just double down on Trump's volatility factor. For Harris, the primary weaknesses that would need to be shored up are Biden's foot-in-mouth tendencies in public speaking for (1) and his age-risk factor for (2). Fairly similar goals, but the signs were there before the election that she would not have filled in these weaknesses well. I offered several candidates that I thought would be better choices, with a choose-your-adventure on which "categories" I think they would shore up in addition to meeting the competence criteria. An inability to screen nominees for these things reflects badly on Biden's ability to solve this matter that, while undeniably subjective, is by no means a "every answer is as good as any other" one.
Thank you for taking the time to elaborate 
I do agree with you that I find Harris's public speaking skills to come off as lackluster at best (and often times lethargic or even fake), although I guess it also depends on who I'm comparing her to. I think that she's way worse of an orator than Obama or Buttigieg, but I also wouldn't rate other people - such as Pence or Biden - as notoriously having more energy than Harris. Given that Biden isn't the most charismatic politician ever, perhaps this is the type of competence-related point you would hope that Harris would have covered, which she definitely doesn't (i.e., if a Biden speech is unsuccessful at rallying the public, then a Harris speech probably wouldn't do much either), since you did point out "foot-in-mouth" tendencies for Biden. Although, to be fair, Trump has made a million more inappropriate comments than Biden, and he never needed Pence to save him, but then again I suppose that may be because of who generally supports Trump, as opposed to who generally supports Biden.
As mentioned before, I think Harris's track record with her previous positions is probably a net-positive, in terms of administrative competence. Not perfect, of course, and I'm sure we disagree with some of the things she's done, but I think she demonstrated competence.
Based on what you're valuing, I can see why you don't think Harris checks off all the boxes (although, oddly enough, if we're going to talk about Biden's gaffs needing some kind of recovery, perhaps a quintessential, old, white, male politician with obvious blind spots actually caring about diversity addresses this shortcoming in a different way, outside of an energetic runningmate).
Obama, as a black candidate, might indeed actually benefit from a white counterpart. He doesn't need to talk about it as an explicit goal, though. McCain didn't make woman VP a goal either.
Keep in mind that not saying something out loud isn't the same as not caring about diversity. Obama and McCain could have absolutely had "white guy" and "woman" as relevant runningmate criteria, to "balance out" the ticket in various ways.
|
On January 28 2022 03:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 03:20 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 28 2022 02:52 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2022 02:39 EnDeR_ wrote:
Can we agree that all VP's, in general, are chosen based on how they appeal to different electorate groups? Or as you put it, 'checking the identity boxes of interests'. Harris is not special in this category. You could say the same thing about Biden when he was VP, or Palin, or Pence, or any other VP pick I can think of.
We can argue what a sad state of affairs it is that that is the main role of the VP, but that's a separate discussion. In this day and age, the primary purpose of the VP is to help win the presidential election by shoring up support, i.e. complements perceived weaknesses, of the presidential candidate. After that, they could just stay home and do nothing, and they would have just as much impact as if they were brilliant communicators doing the media rounds every day.
To be clear, there's a possibly subtle, but certainly important, difference between "shoring up support" and merely "checking off the identity boxes of interest." Biden as VP plugged the "Obama is inexperienced" weakness, and Palin appealed to the less-moderate base of the Republican party. Obama didn't say "my VP will be an old white guy" or McCain "my VP will be a woman" with their identity as such being the explicit goal. Because the identity wasn't the goal, the ability to plug a specific weakness to shore up support was. And the VP's roles - public speaking, backup in case of president death/removal, minor executive duties - are mostly symbolic, but symbolism does matter in governing. Certainly they live in the shadow of the president him/herself, but the things they do, do matter. To your first point, as brian already outlined in their post, saying 'my team will have an old white guy as VP' doesn't bring any value so why would they state that? It was clearly an appeal to the progressive wing of the party and arguably successful in reeling them in. With regards to your second post. I can't think of a single modern example (i.e. within the last decade) where the actions of a VP determined the outcome of a vote that wasn't already pre-determined by the numbers in the senate/house. Genuinenly asking here, I googled it but didn't come up with anything, most results are controversial things VP's have said and I don't really have the patience to trawl through all the results. Obama, as a black candidate, might indeed actually benefit from a white counterpart. He doesn't need to talk about it as an explicit goal, though. McCain didn't make woman VP a goal either. VP's role as "head of Senate" doesn't go beyond tiebreaker in favor of their party; that much is true. Their role in the executive and the management of the bureaucracy of is significantly more substantial.
Your point of contention -- that he made his intention public, rather than deciding on the same strategy and not publicising it -- I find genuinely odd. Why do you believe so strongly that a public statement of intent is such a negative thing?
On the VP's role -- I mean, sure, if the president and the VP get along, they spend quite a bit of time together and probably manage meetings together and so on. But your point of contention is that Harris is not good at communicating with the public. So, if the major impact of the role, as you imply in your post, is behind closed doors, how do you assess the VP's competency?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 28 2022 03:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +Obama, as a black candidate, might indeed actually benefit from a white counterpart. He doesn't need to talk about it as an explicit goal, though. McCain didn't make woman VP a goal either. Keep in mind that not saying something out loud isn't the same as not caring about diversity. Obama and McCain could have absolutely had "white guy" and "woman" as relevant runningmate criteria, to "balance out" the ticket in various ways.
Right, and I wouldn't begrudge them for having that as a criteria per se. I do reject the notion that when they outwardly claim race/gender preference as a must-have qualification, that it is implied that vetting for expected competence in the role remains a top priority. And I believe that Harris as VP is the easiest counterexample to the notion.
I think that based on this last discussion, there is general agreement that if assessing by the criteria outlined here, there's reason to believe that Harris might not have been the best choice. To what extent this was predictable and just how bad she is could be debated, but I think the core point is made without that. The hope is that when Biden chooses a SC nominee, that he chooses someone who would be a good SC Justice who happens to be a black woman, rather than someone who will be a "black woman on the SC" core competencies be damned. The outward statement of priorities, and how this has played out in the past, does not fill me with confidence that it will be so.
On January 28 2022 03:48 EnDeR_ wrote:
On the VP's role -- I mean, sure, if the president and the VP get along, they spend quite a bit of time together and probably manage meetings together and so on. But your point of contention is that Harris is not good at communicating with the public. So, if the major impact of the role, as you imply in your post, is behind closed doors, how do you assess the VP's competency?
Public speaking is definitely part of it - perhaps the most important part. Few people think Harris is good at that.
Executive management of bureaucracy is harder to assess, but reports aren't favorable.
|
Canada11355 Posts
Even highly ceremonial positions can be rather disastrous when increasing diversity is the main criteria for hiring.
Actually, that's not exactly it- it's more like: we will make an a priori commitment to not even consider candidates from 50% of the population. And then because politics still skews male, you are making an a priori commitment to select from a much smaller pool of candidates.
Look no further than our dear leader Trudeau's previous governor general selection. All the warning signs were there that Payette had a track record of being horrible to those underneath her, but #currentyear and ignore the red flags.
|
On January 28 2022 03:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 03:02 brian wrote:
and the contention you seem to be disagreeing with is that choosing a woman of color for her identity is a virtue unto itself. choosing a white man to add their experience to a historically white administration isn’t valuable. choosing a woman, or a black person is valuable, and it has nothing to do with ‘shoring support,’ as much as that is potentially also a perk of such a pick.
do you disagree with this sentiment? My previous answer will do: Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 01:39 LegalLord wrote:
I consider competence to be the primary criteria, and that if identitarian concerns supersede competence concerns that the criteria used to make the choice are wrong. That's not to say that diversity has no value, but evidently there's a lot more interest in defending Harris on the grounds of identity than on merit of job done, which strongly suggests misplacement of priority. Perhaps "nobody disagrees that the candidate should be credentialed otherwise" - but evidently there's a disagreement as to whether or not the candidate should be competent otherwise. To some, it's lines on a resume and job performance doesn't matter. I think it does matter in the roles in question (VP, SC Justice). Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 03:20 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 28 2022 02:52 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2022 02:39 EnDeR_ wrote:
Can we agree that all VP's, in general, are chosen based on how they appeal to different electorate groups? Or as you put it, 'checking the identity boxes of interests'. Harris is not special in this category. You could say the same thing about Biden when he was VP, or Palin, or Pence, or any other VP pick I can think of.
We can argue what a sad state of affairs it is that that is the main role of the VP, but that's a separate discussion. In this day and age, the primary purpose of the VP is to help win the presidential election by shoring up support, i.e. complements perceived weaknesses, of the presidential candidate. After that, they could just stay home and do nothing, and they would have just as much impact as if they were brilliant communicators doing the media rounds every day.
To be clear, there's a possibly subtle, but certainly important, difference between "shoring up support" and merely "checking off the identity boxes of interest." Biden as VP plugged the "Obama is inexperienced" weakness, and Palin appealed to the less-moderate base of the Republican party. Obama didn't say "my VP will be an old white guy" or McCain "my VP will be a woman" with their identity as such being the explicit goal. Because the identity wasn't the goal, the ability to plug a specific weakness to shore up support was. And the VP's roles - public speaking, backup in case of president death/removal, minor executive duties - are mostly symbolic, but symbolism does matter in governing. Certainly they live in the shadow of the president him/herself, but the things they do, do matter. To your first point, as brian already outlined in their post, saying 'my team will have an old white guy as VP' doesn't bring any value so why would they state that? It was clearly an appeal to the progressive wing of the party and arguably successful in reeling them in. With regards to your second post. I can't think of a single modern example (i.e. within the last decade) where the actions of a VP determined the outcome of a vote that wasn't already pre-determined by the numbers in the senate/house. Genuinenly asking here, I googled it but didn't come up with anything, most results are controversial things VP's have said and I don't really have the patience to trawl through all the results. Obama, as a black candidate, might indeed actually benefit from a white counterpart. He doesn't need to talk about it as an explicit goal, though. McCain didn't make woman VP a goal either. VP's role as "head of Senate" doesn't go beyond tiebreaker in favor of their party; that much is true. Their role in the executive and the management of the bureaucracy of is significantly more substantial.
No, McCain did specifically choose Palin for her competence as a communicator and an administrator. American politics has never been about competence. It's interesting when likeability is only brought up when it is about a woman in office.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 28 2022 05:03 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 03:31 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2022 03:02 brian wrote:
and the contention you seem to be disagreeing with is that choosing a woman of color for her identity is a virtue unto itself. choosing a white man to add their experience to a historically white administration isn’t valuable. choosing a woman, or a black person is valuable, and it has nothing to do with ‘shoring support,’ as much as that is potentially also a perk of such a pick.
do you disagree with this sentiment? My previous answer will do: On January 28 2022 01:39 LegalLord wrote:
I consider competence to be the primary criteria, and that if identitarian concerns supersede competence concerns that the criteria used to make the choice are wrong. That's not to say that diversity has no value, but evidently there's a lot more interest in defending Harris on the grounds of identity than on merit of job done, which strongly suggests misplacement of priority. Perhaps "nobody disagrees that the candidate should be credentialed otherwise" - but evidently there's a disagreement as to whether or not the candidate should be competent otherwise. To some, it's lines on a resume and job performance doesn't matter. I think it does matter in the roles in question (VP, SC Justice). On January 28 2022 03:20 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 28 2022 02:52 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2022 02:39 EnDeR_ wrote:
Can we agree that all VP's, in general, are chosen based on how they appeal to different electorate groups? Or as you put it, 'checking the identity boxes of interests'. Harris is not special in this category. You could say the same thing about Biden when he was VP, or Palin, or Pence, or any other VP pick I can think of.
We can argue what a sad state of affairs it is that that is the main role of the VP, but that's a separate discussion. In this day and age, the primary purpose of the VP is to help win the presidential election by shoring up support, i.e. complements perceived weaknesses, of the presidential candidate. After that, they could just stay home and do nothing, and they would have just as much impact as if they were brilliant communicators doing the media rounds every day.
To be clear, there's a possibly subtle, but certainly important, difference between "shoring up support" and merely "checking off the identity boxes of interest." Biden as VP plugged the "Obama is inexperienced" weakness, and Palin appealed to the less-moderate base of the Republican party. Obama didn't say "my VP will be an old white guy" or McCain "my VP will be a woman" with their identity as such being the explicit goal. Because the identity wasn't the goal, the ability to plug a specific weakness to shore up support was. And the VP's roles - public speaking, backup in case of president death/removal, minor executive duties - are mostly symbolic, but symbolism does matter in governing. Certainly they live in the shadow of the president him/herself, but the things they do, do matter. To your first point, as brian already outlined in their post, saying 'my team will have an old white guy as VP' doesn't bring any value so why would they state that? It was clearly an appeal to the progressive wing of the party and arguably successful in reeling them in. With regards to your second post. I can't think of a single modern example (i.e. within the last decade) where the actions of a VP determined the outcome of a vote that wasn't already pre-determined by the numbers in the senate/house. Genuinenly asking here, I googled it but didn't come up with anything, most results are controversial things VP's have said and I don't really have the patience to trawl through all the results. Obama, as a black candidate, might indeed actually benefit from a white counterpart. He doesn't need to talk about it as an explicit goal, though. McCain didn't make woman VP a goal either. VP's role as "head of Senate" doesn't go beyond tiebreaker in favor of their party; that much is true. Their role in the executive and the management of the bureaucracy of is significantly more substantial. No, McCain did specifically choose Palin for her competence as a communicator and an administrator. American politics has never been about competence. It's interesting when likeability is only brought up when it is about a woman in office.
McCain chose her because:
On January 28 2022 02:52 LegalLord wrote:
Palin appealed to the less-moderate base of the Republican party.
Is that a good choice? I didn't think so then, and I certainly don't think so now. But he certainly didn't advertise, "I shall pick a woman as my VP." He tried to shore up his too-moderate weakness.
|
I really, really can't believe the idea that Palin's choice had nothing to do with her gender. McCain didn't broadcast it like a weirdo like Biden is now, but I really think gender was an issue.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 28 2022 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
I really, really can't believe the idea that Palin's choice had nothing to do with her gender. McCain didn't broadcast it like a weirdo like Biden is now, but I really think gender was an issue.
True. I suppose the real question is, what would have been the effect if he picked someone like a Newt Gingrich or a Rick Santorum for his VP? It would have certainly been qualitatively different than Palin despite meeting the same general "pander to the base" goal.
Another question would be, for McCain was gender a factor, or the explicit goal, of his choice? Maybe he didn't immediately write off all male candidates as options.
|
On January 28 2022 05:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
I really, really can't believe the idea that Palin's choice had nothing to do with her gender. McCain didn't broadcast it like a weirdo like Biden is now, but I really think gender was an issue. True. I suppose the real question is, what would have been the effect if he picked someone like a Newt Gingrich or a Rick Santorum for his VP? It would have certainly been qualitatively different than Palin despite meeting the same general "pander to the base" goal. Another question would be, for McCain was gender a factor, or the explicit goal, of his choice? Maybe he didn't immediately write off all male candidates as options.
The list of "total women who are republicans" is big enough I don't think they needed to let it be less than a hard limit/goal. Similar to the supreme court situation, there were plenty to choose from. As long as you cast a big net, you can add limitations to that net without suffering appreciably
|
On January 28 2022 04:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 03:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Obama, as a black candidate, might indeed actually benefit from a white counterpart. He doesn't need to talk about it as an explicit goal, though. McCain didn't make woman VP a goal either. Keep in mind that not saying something out loud isn't the same as not caring about diversity. Obama and McCain could have absolutely had "white guy" and "woman" as relevant runningmate criteria, to "balance out" the ticket in various ways. Right, and I wouldn't begrudge them for having that as a criteria per se. I do reject the notion that when they outwardly claim race/gender preference as a must-have qualification, that it is implied that vetting for expected competence in the role remains a top priority. And I believe that Harris as VP is the easiest counterexample to the notion. I think that based on this last discussion, there is general agreement that if assessing by the criteria outlined here, there's reason to believe that Harris might not have been the best choice. To what extent this was predictable and just how bad she is could be debated, but I think the core point is made without that. The hope is that when Biden chooses a SC nominee, that he chooses someone who would be a good SC Justice who happens to be a black woman, rather than someone who will be a "black woman on the SC" core competencies be damned. The outward statement of priorities, and how this has played out in the past, does not fill me with confidence that it will be so.
I think you and I could sit down and make a list of several other SCJs that we would have preferred for various reasons (e.g., political leanings, previous judicial rulings we agreed more/less with), regardless of who he picks, but I also think that's always the case, with any appointee or runningmate. I think you and I are at a fundamental disagreement as to whether or not Biden cares about core competencies / qualifications.
|
Sorry wrong thread. Thank you LL though for correcting me earlier though, I was mistaking your intention. Glad for the opportunity to say so without posting just for that sake. even though the end is the same..
|
On January 28 2022 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
I really, really can't believe the idea that Palin's choice had nothing to do with her gender. McCain didn't broadcast it like a weirdo like Biden is now, but I really think gender was an issue.
I think McCain chose Palin very soon after Obama won the nomination, meaning, very soon after Hillary lost. And there was commentary that McCain was trying to appeal to the female voters who wanted Hillary to win.
|
If Palin wasn't chosen for being a women there would have been 101 white men who would have better appealed to whatever non-women demographic Palin was chosen to appeal to.
|
On January 28 2022 08:11 Gorsameth wrote:
If Palin wasn't chosen for being a women there would have been 101 white men who would have better appealed to whatever non-women demographic Palin was chosen to appeal to.
Palin was just ahead of her time. The time for batshit crazy is now. She would have thrived now. He'll, go for the double combo and get a trump/Palin ticket going.
|
On January 28 2022 03:02 brian wrote:
and the contention you seem to be disagreeing with is that choosing a woman of color for her identity is a virtue unto itself. choosing a white man to add their experience to a historically white administration isn’t valuable. choosing a woman, or a black person is valuable, and it has nothing to do with ‘shoring support,’ as much as that is potentially also a perk of such a pick.
do you disagree with this sentiment? it seems like you do, and that’s what i’m thinking is really no longer an acceptable opinion these days.
nobody disagrees that the candidate should be credentialed otherwise and you all have been having a good back and forth on those credentials, but you keep coming back to this point as if it’s a point against. it is a point for. it should be inarguable.
i hope Biden stating it so bluntly sparks some interest in why that is an explicitly good thing. definitely a step in the right direction.
I think no one denies the benefit of having a diverse team that can bring multiple viewpoints and avoid group think.
The question is where this consideration ranks among others such as how competent they are at their job, how likeable they are, and so on.
Hopefully one day in the future we can be truly colour blind, and on average the make up of any team would mirror that of the wider population, but we are not there yet.
|
All of the inclusion points as of late have me thinking...who is the highest ranking atheist in the US govt? It doesn't matter who you are, if you believe that a good entity created everything after thinking about human history I'm not that thrilled that you're making policy for me.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 28 2022 12:41 mierin wrote:
All of the inclusion points as of late have me thinking...who is the highest ranking atheist in the US govt? It doesn't matter who you are, if you believe that a good entity created everything after thinking about human history I'm not that thrilled that you're making policy for me.
Probably a fair number of top politicians are, but we live in a country where it would be political suicide to be outed as one.
|
On January 28 2022 12:41 mierin wrote:
All of the inclusion points as of late have me thinking...who is the highest ranking atheist in the US govt? It doesn't matter who you are, if you believe that a good entity created everything after thinking about human history I'm not that thrilled that you're making policy for me.
As LL said, any non-religious politician needs to stay deep, deep in the closet, if they want to get reelected. As an atheist, I find it to be very frustrating and depressing.
|
I must admit when You see headlines like this: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-60163694 it makes an impression that race and gender is more important then qualifications.
The other impression I have (about USSC) is that the only qualifiaction that is really needed is willingness to vote along party lines. I am sure that is not the case but thats how it looks from outside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
