Not the best choice of words in this context, friend. 
Well now you’ve threatened the very fabric of our universe. None of us will survive the night, Nov. 3, 2020.
Yet in this case, perhaps by random chance, he has a point. Very often some speaking spots are given to the emerging next round talent of a party. It is a try out of sorts to see if any can really connect given that big soap box. Obama hit it out of the park back in '04 and on the strength of that leapfrogged into a run earlier than many, including his greatest fans, would have expected. Few of the speakers who would be future contenders in 2016 hit more than a safe single. Biden was a solid double but not exactly emerging back bench talent. Michelle Obama was a stand up triple but is neither interested nor a good choice to run at this point in time. (I’d love to see her run and serve in a different office, maybe governor, at some point, and then maybe …)
Warren simply lacks any charisma at all.
Warren is poison for the 2020 election. Talk about ticking off all the WRONG boxes. If she is the nominee, Trump will have the time of his life destroying her.
Klobuchar can’t get it done. There’s the name thing: I’m serious about this, confusing/weird names are hard to market and the election is one huge marketing campaign. She’s also a woman and I think the American electorate is still too sexist to elect a woman at this point. Maybe it will change in time. Women have been elected to the highest office in many other countries, but America is America.
I don’t think it’ll be Amy Klobuchar after all, because she may be a little too moderate and a little too dirty with corporate money for where the progressive movement is going. I don’t think the left will trust her. But no, she’s not in trouble because of her name. Maybe you’re just not old enough to remember the jokes about other candidate’s names.
If Elizabeth Warren actually wants to run, and if Bernie doesn’t run, Warren will very probably get the nomination and win. I just don’t know that she wants the job or feels at all prepared for it.
I’ve read that Sanders and Warren have actually discussed that this primary may not be big enough for both of them, and they’re sorting out which one will make a go of it. I suspect it’ll be Warren this time, but I don’t think she’ll make it past March.
Frankly, I don’t think an east coast progressive is the way to go, whichever of the two decides to run.
" a little too moderate and a little too dirty with corporate money for where the progressive movement is going…" which is- losing the general election? Too moderate? And what is wrong with taking corporate money?
If Warren gets the nom, the Dems will lose. Simple as that.
It would be a huge mistake.
Oddly enough, Bill Clinton blew his chance epically when he had the keynote slot.
The progressive movement isn’t even a majority of the party, just the majority of primary voters in low turnout races. I’m skeptical that any of these progressives can win the black vote, which is pretty much decisive in Democratic primaries since 1992. Unless the progressive in question is Kamala Harris. But at the start, the black vote will be with Biden until someone proves they are a better option. I’d note that Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez won like 18% of the black vote(they preferred Crowley by a huge margin), and Cynthia Nixon is winning like 25% of the black vote(they prefer Cuomo). But even if the African-American community abandons Biden, they won’t take up the progressive banner. They never have before.
Oooohhh, I just *loves *me some **adaher **predictions, don’t y’all?
I’ll cite the past then: Bernie Sanders, failed to win the AA vote. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, failed to win the AA vote. Cynthia Nixon, presently failing to win the AA vote in polling.
As a matter of fact, it’s hard to miss the similarity in African-American support between progressives and Republicans. They seem to be held in fairly equivalent esteem in the black community.
So you have no actual argument or comment to make about the analysis?
He’s right so far as it goes. The progressive base is out-numbered by the minority rights and justice base and in general they are not excited by the same candidates. The best hope for the progressive wing is if there is one for them to rally around while other candidates split the other primary voters.
Yes, the so-called “progressive” wing is burdened by fascination with personalities more than issues, easily infatuated by the next shiny candidate to appear out of nowhere with hands undirtied by actual achievement and a propensity to say whatever the audience wants to hear. But so is the hard right.
That take care of your objection?
Both are made up of whites concerned about dropping in SES, with the R side being a bit more likely rural and more lower middle in origin, more commonly not as highly educated, and the D side being more upper middle, more likely urban and college graduated.
Both are looking for the other to blame with the former hooking into minorities and the latter those who make more money than they do.
ETA Yes Elvis it does.
If that’s the case, then it would seem that the only plausible nominees are Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker unless there’s a Bill Clinton type who can go from unknown to extremely popular with black voters relatively quickly.
There’s a ton of overlap (as well as some contentiousness) between progressives and racial/social justice Democrats. AOC is popular with both. Stacey Abrams is popular with both. Kamala Harris is popular with both. And of course Barack Obama is pretty popular with both, as well as having some moderate criticism from both. And many more. The divisions within the Democratic party are swamped by Democratic enthusiasm and anger about Trump.
I agree with your last statement. I just don’t think that translates to a Sanders-type candidate winning the nomination. Chances are, those dreams die in states like South Carolina, Ohio, Texas, etc.
Also, the popular candidates you cited were either black or not actually popular with black voters(AOC).
It’s true that having morals can be a drawback in politics.
Again, a “moral scold”. So someone who calls out the political and financial establishment for their very real misdeeds, who challenges the status quo, who “tells it like it is”. I thought those were good things? And as for being old, abrasive, unlikeable and with a bad voice, the current incumbent seems to manage just fine.
I don’t think Warren would win a general election but those are not the reasons why.
We’ll see, but I don’t think predictions this early are worth anything.
I haven’t seen a cite about AOC’s performance with black voters in her district. Further, the question was about popularity with racial/social justice Democrats (which are a different but overalapping group from black Democratic voters) – and she’s been emphasizing those issues very heavily.