Quote:
Originally Posted by O.R.I.O.N
Why? The left already has the VAST majority of the black vote so what's the point of this? She LOST her election for governor,she owes taxes to the IRS,She is a socialist and NOT EVEN CLOSE to a moderate as Biden is expected to portray himself as. Weird.
|
Abrams lost by a gnat's whisker in a state where no one ever believed a black woman would ever get that close to winning.
That's a sign of some real rising political star power. Stacey didn't get as close as she did on her looks, either. She did it using her smarts.
For a Presidential candidate who's very well known and has been around for a very long time, it's harder to present theirselves more viable than younger, fresher, lesser-known opponents who don't have the baggage dragging around behind them the older guys have. All that past.
The past is for the old folks, The future belongs to the young. That's the way the 21st century is going. So for John McCain, Sarah Palin, a much younger female on the rise, looked like a real good choice as VP. A counter-balance to age and a fresh face that didn't have the old mistakes of a long past that could be used against her like it could for McCain.
Palin was a new box of New and Improved! standing next to the old box of Old Reliable. And she did help McCain's election chances quite a lot, but not in the ways McCain intended. I'm sure he never expected to see her name above his on some of his campaign signs, for sure. But she brought McCain a lot more attention than he would have gotten if he had picked Joe Lieberman instead.
All this could be said about Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan in 2012. Ryan is younger, he's good looking, and was another conservative rising star in 2012 that had no political tarnish on him yet.
I think Biden is looking at Abrams in much the same way. And if Biden decides not to run, Stacey could become available to someone Joe backs as a possible VP pick, so her star power wouldn't necessarily be wasted if he dropped out. Stacey is smart enough to gauge another person's chances of success, and she wouldn't go along with someone she thinks is going to be a loser.
There's something to be said in announcing a VP choice as early as possible nowadays it seems. It makes good tactical sense, as the VP can get out on the trail and cover more ground than the candidate alone can cover, and the early campaign is becoming increasingly more important than in the past.
I think the voters like to see a balance in a candidate and the VP candidate. One who is older or younger, one who is less or more experienced than the other, and one who compliments the other in speech and personal appearance.
Selecting a VP choice who's younger is nothing at all new. Ike did it, Nixon did it, and Bush #1 did it. The younger candidates tend to choose VPs who are either older or have more experience than they do.
Either presents a balanced pair to the voters.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The spread is just going to be too wide.
