Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Selecting Stacey Abrams to give the response was a brilliant move by Pelosi and Schumer [View all]Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)38. I'm sure you'll like it. But the response to the SOTU is successful if it's not memorable.
The ones that people remember are those that were particularly bad or something funny happened, like Rubio reaching off camera awkwardly to get his glass of water. Or Joe Kennedy's chapsticked lips (although he did a fine response).
It's an honor, and I'm sure Abrams will do fine. But it won't be a springboard to anything, IMO. A speech at the convention is, if she gets that. This may be a test for that.
Why the State of the Union response is always so bad
Supposedly, we are to believe, this is an honor. It has been framed by party leaders and pundits as a path to stardom, a sign that Ernst has some standing and a future in her party. Don't believe it. She has a future, but her response won't likely be a memorable launching pad.
People only remember the response to the State of the Union when it goes badly. (It's kind of like NFL refereeing -- memorable only in its poor execution.) Like it did for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal who displayed about as much charisma as Steve Urkel when he delivered the response in 2009. And of course Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) had his bottled water moment. (Rubio's internal thought process: "If I maintain eye contact with the camera, then maybe nobody will notice that I'm about to grab this tiny bottle of water and take a tiny sip" ). ***
The SOTU response is also supposed to be political theater. But it comes after what is typically a long (hour plus) speech and well past 10 pm on the East Coast. So, no one pays much attention to start.
Supposedly, we are to believe, this is an honor. It has been framed by party leaders and pundits as a path to stardom, a sign that Ernst has some standing and a future in her party. Don't believe it. She has a future, but her response won't likely be a memorable launching pad.
People only remember the response to the State of the Union when it goes badly. (It's kind of like NFL refereeing -- memorable only in its poor execution.) Like it did for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal who displayed about as much charisma as Steve Urkel when he delivered the response in 2009. And of course Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) had his bottled water moment. (Rubio's internal thought process: "If I maintain eye contact with the camera, then maybe nobody will notice that I'm about to grab this tiny bottle of water and take a tiny sip" ). ***
The SOTU response is also supposed to be political theater. But it comes after what is typically a long (hour plus) speech and well past 10 pm on the East Coast. So, no one pays much attention to start.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/20/why-the-state-of-the-union-response-is-always-so-bad/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.31f630cc3f06
The State of the Union response and why it's always terrible explained
On Tuesday, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley will deliver the response to the president's State of the Union address. It's an honor and a national platform for a Republican rising star. But it's also a very, very tough job.
Opposition parties have been trying to craft an effective State of the Union response for 50 years, and they've hardly ever succeeded. The most-remembered State of the Union responses are instead the ones that go awry....
On Tuesday, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley will deliver the response to the president's State of the Union address. It's an honor and a national platform for a Republican rising star. But it's also a very, very tough job.
Opposition parties have been trying to craft an effective State of the Union response for 50 years, and they've hardly ever succeeded. The most-remembered State of the Union responses are instead the ones that go awry....
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/20/7860325/state-of-the-union-response
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
54 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Selecting Stacey Abrams to give the response was a brilliant move by Pelosi and Schumer [View all]
EffieBlack
Jan 2019
OP
I'm sure you'll like it. But the response to the SOTU is successful if it's not memorable.
Honeycombe8
Jan 2019
#38
It must have been great for you to remember, since he never gave a response to the SOTU! nt
Honeycombe8
Jan 2019
#43
LOL, I was referring to his convention speech. But I have strong expectations for Abrams
pnwmom
Jan 2019
#44
I see what you mean, but it might go both ways. Trump can't claim victory, either
More_Cowbell
Jan 2019
#32
She is extremely likeable, genuine and she is an excellent speaker. If she wasn't that she
UniteFightBack
Jan 2019
#13
It's interesting that Beto O'Rourke got all the attention and presidential run buzz
EffieBlack
Jan 2019
#18
I just heard the news a few minutes ago. I agree. It is a BRILLIANT decision.
Stinky The Clown
Jan 2019
#20
"She has led the charge for voting rights, which is at the root of just about everything else."
Cha
Jan 2019
#31
Anbolutely! Abrams heart and eloquence will make PresBrainFart look even stupider than usual.
stuffmatters
Jan 2019
#22
Stacey and Beto the future Nancy and Chuck would ha e been nice. I like her though.
Pepsidog
Jan 2019
#25