I'm mostly shaking my head. There's probably five individuals I would have easily gone to instead of Harris, and probably gotten better 'traction' for the vote. Since April, I figured that Warren or Bloomberg would be VP. At a long-shot....I would have even put Mayor Pete into the situation.
But this was limited to the 'golden-rule'.....you had to be female and black. Once you established that situation....you cut the potential down a great deal.
So the questions left?
Will there be a convention? At this point, I'd say there might be forty people sent by the DNC, and some Twitter-type convention might occur. I'd even go as far to suggest that Biden might hold a convention in his basement, with 12 DNC officials, Senator Harris, his wife, and local pizza kid.
For several months, I've suggested that Joe will reach a point after the convention, where he either has a heart-attack (fake) or says yeah....dementia is now a problem. I still believe that may come, with Harris the one left to be the candidate in November. If we get past 1 September, with Joe still there? It'll really shock me.
As for Harris attracting voters? She doesn't have the charisma, the charm, or the character. If you wanted someone with less structure, and less potential than Hillary....then Harris is it.
So I'm shaking my head.....this is an arranged poker hand to marginally run against Trump.
Wednesday 29 July 2020
Barr and the 'Circus'
I put between 90 and 120 minutes into watching the House hearing from yesterday, with AG Barr. I came away with five observations:
1. In the old days, prior to the internet, C$PAN would have covered this but you needed cable or satellite connectivity. At the very most, maybe 300k Americans would have watched the hearing.
Today? Via at least ten different internet platforms, C$PAN, Fox Business, etc.....there were probably 10-million who watched elements of the hearing live, and probably another 10-plus million who watched clips later.
A lot of people....independent-type voters, probably sat there and kept asking themselves where the drama was, and just viewed the whole thing as a 'circus-like' operation with 12-year-old kids trying to act like adults.
2. This exchange with Rep Hakeem Jeffries, where Jeffries wanted to play the fantasy game that Trump wouldn't leave office if the election went to Biden....was 5-star comical.
3. Once Barr laid down the card of the Republicans being the only ones against violence and destruction in the metropolitan cities....it really scorched the whole Democratic accomplishments of the Hearing. It begs the question....is this a Democratic Party agenda item?
4. Ineffective hearing? In terms of bringing down Barr, or really damaging Trump? It was barely felt. The suggestion that Jerry Nadler can't lead a heavy-type critical Hearing? Here's the thing, you go around the 24 Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee, and there's no one in the group who'd you grant five-status as a lawyer. Most of them haven't stepped into a courtroom in twenty years.
5. It just wasn't much of a drama, with 'point of order' and 'reclaim time' being uttered on a constant basis. It would help if the entire committee was made up of nine people total, and just end the 'drama' at the 2-hour point.
1. In the old days, prior to the internet, C$PAN would have covered this but you needed cable or satellite connectivity. At the very most, maybe 300k Americans would have watched the hearing.
Today? Via at least ten different internet platforms, C$PAN, Fox Business, etc.....there were probably 10-million who watched elements of the hearing live, and probably another 10-plus million who watched clips later.
A lot of people....independent-type voters, probably sat there and kept asking themselves where the drama was, and just viewed the whole thing as a 'circus-like' operation with 12-year-old kids trying to act like adults.
2. This exchange with Rep Hakeem Jeffries, where Jeffries wanted to play the fantasy game that Trump wouldn't leave office if the election went to Biden....was 5-star comical.
3. Once Barr laid down the card of the Republicans being the only ones against violence and destruction in the metropolitan cities....it really scorched the whole Democratic accomplishments of the Hearing. It begs the question....is this a Democratic Party agenda item?
4. Ineffective hearing? In terms of bringing down Barr, or really damaging Trump? It was barely felt. The suggestion that Jerry Nadler can't lead a heavy-type critical Hearing? Here's the thing, you go around the 24 Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee, and there's no one in the group who'd you grant five-status as a lawyer. Most of them haven't stepped into a courtroom in twenty years.
5. It just wasn't much of a drama, with 'point of order' and 'reclaim time' being uttered on a constant basis. It would help if the entire committee was made up of nine people total, and just end the 'drama' at the 2-hour point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)