I was hearing a lot about her being a VP pick and I believe she already said she’d be open to it. They may want someone with more name recognition among people who aren’t politics junkies. Not saying she’s unknown but if I polled my co-workers I’d bet few have heard of her or if they know the name they might not be able to say what her experience has been.
The future of the party.
Divide by ten. Okay, by eight, then. But I’ve got one word for the future: demographics.
Those same demographics have elected consecutive PAN Presidents. This tells us nothing.
And I’d be betting on her in that case.
Two comments re her announcement today -
-
Buttigieg just didn’t comment as people shouted about 2024, but it would have been nice for him to correct them with a comment that the job will be the Democratic incumbent’s until 2028. She OTOH mentioned after what was to some listeners an emotional moment about all the pinkie swears to little girls that they’ll have to wait four more years … which to me implicitly assumes a loss by the D nominee or a one-termer at best. Was that meant as a dis?
-
She talked about getting into the race thinking that there was another place to be than the progressive and moderate lanes occupied by Sanders and Biden respectively, but she was wrong. She is wrong now. Her fatal error was going all in on the progressive lane, trying to out-Bernie Bernie rather than staying consistently true to her own brand. If she had done the latter instead of trying to get in front of the Sander healthcare parade, she might have found that sweet spot
Hey, have we got time left to start over with a new batch?
(yeah, I know we don’t. Just dreaming – )
I also noticed your point number 1 in Warren’s speech. I hope it was not a dis, just getting emotional in an emotional moment, but like you I’m not positive about that.
Regarding point 2, I agree. Seems like in the popular imagination at least there is a lot of room between Sanders and Biden. She could’ve said “We don’t need a corporate Democrat, but on the other hand we do need a Democrat,” and staked out a middle position that no one else was occupying. She didn’t do it.
My wife is exactly the kind of voter Warren appealed most to–in her fifties, white, sort-of suburban, generally liberal, masters degree, huge supporter of HRC. She really liked Warren at first, but the shine came off the shinola for her over the last few months. Interesting to watch the trajectory…
Very sorry she dropped out. I thought she was the best of the field heading into Super Tuesday. I doubt either Biden or Bernie would pick her as a running mate, given all of their ages, but I could see her as a Treasury or Commerce secretary, or AG, in the next Dem Cabinet.
Harris? Why? Blacks didn’t vote for her. Women didn’t vote for her. Progressives didn’t vote for her.
For good reason.
Some of us aren’t up-to-date with the acronyms. I’m still not even sure what LOL means.
Maybe I’m an offender: I throw around UIAM, BTW, IANAL and AFAIK — but ISTM that if even I know those acronyms (all of which I picked up here), almost all of you do. NAFTA, USMC, WASP, ACLU, NAACP — maybe I know hundreds of acronyms altogether. :eek:
Any clues? Is it bigger than a breadbox?
PAN presidents? Like Johanna, I’m thinking “Mexico” — center-right presidents from 2000-2012 (which at least broke the 70 years of PRI with something more like democracy). Of course, “center-right” means different things in Mexico (think more like Europe).
Or, it could be “pan-pan” — isn’t that pilot-speak for “total disaster,” even worse than “mayday”?
I read it as “PAN,” as in Mexico too. Surely, it cannot be anything else.
Aaron Hamlin of the Center for Election Science tweeted yesterday that polls conducted using approval voting indicated much wider support for Warren than did our first past the post system. This would have been a good year to experiment with approval voting, especially with candidates who are a little further out on the policy spectrum than we normally see. A candidate “winning” a state with 34% of the vote doesn’t really tell us much. The only thing we learn is that two thirds of the voters had that candidate somewhere between second and last on their list.
It sure doesn’t sound like Warren is getting set to endorse Bernie Sanders. From this morning in The Washington Post, “Warren calls out Sanders for ‘organized nastiness’ and ‘bullying’ by his supporters”.
No, it’s the other way around: “mayday” is for “life threatening situations” while “pan-pan” is for “urgent situations that are not immediately life threatening”.
Yeah, Bernie Bros burnt that Warren bridge. Won’t stop them from bitching about her not endorsing. From my conversation from my Bernie Bro friend.:
Me: Also how they, as you just did, act like their attitude should have zero effect on how I feel about the candidate. Sorry it does have an effect.
Him: Well that is crazy, your opinion should be about his policies.
Yeah, why should you being a fuckface have any consequences for your fucking messiah?
[hindsight] It was obvious from up front that she’d not be nominated. [/hindsight]
Too many Dem senators ran, thus too many are cabinet candidates if Biden gains the superdupermajority of votes needed to win the White House. (Rigged election: 70% of senators represent 36% of the population. That bias carries over into electoral votes.) Removing Dems from the Senate doesn’t sound like a smart move. Warren would hold great power as chair of Senate committees when Dems take the majority.
It is certainly true that under the current system getting 48.2% of the popular vote doesn’t guarantee you’ll become President of the United States (even if your opponent only gets 46.1%). On the other hand, Barack Obama never got more than 52.9% of the popular vote–hardly a “supermajority”–and he DID get elected. Twice.
“Thus”? Don’t be silly. Running for the nomination isn’t a fast track to a cabinet position or make an offer of one obligatory.
Assuming Joe or Bernie win, I’m hopeful that neither of them would run for re-election. So while it may have been dis, I think at some level it is a recognition that neither of them are likely to run in 2024.