LaxPower Back-Up Stick

It is going to be Warren

Only if Biden gets so much worse that he has to drop out.

I think Warren would lose badly to Trump. The underlying psychosexual dynamic is all wrong. No man wants a slender old woman to "fight" for him. Lead him, maybe, in some sort of intellectual problem-solving task (which is what Warren is good at). But "fight"? No way. But Warren hasn't gotten that advice, or won't take it. Same problem with HRC in 2016.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:26 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:22 am

Trinity wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:38 pm I agree. We get old. Both parties have much better. I wanted Sherrod.

Yup, it is now pretty obvious. Sherrod did not run specifically because he didn't think he could run in Biden's space. It looks like Biden's support is pretty locked in and is as stubborn as Trump's. Sherrod was probably right not to run given this observation. I am not sure Biden's verbal fumbles make much difference when running against Trump.

But it does make one yearn for better than Biden.
I'd vote for Brown's wife!

Job one is beating the lying kitty grabbing, racist, authoritarian sack of beans. That probably makes a lot of people unhappy that we don't have higher aspirations, but its going to take a few years to unscrew the institutions that OD has srewed up. Joe is perfect in personality and experience for the job. He is not my first choice for moving into the future, but we have some clean up to do before we can really move forward on what I see as the big problems. Frankly the same people who Joe addresses are some of the people least prepared for the future. Slowing down to help them catch up is not a bad idea.

I love Connie Schultz as well! Sherrod and Connie as heirs apparent works for me.

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:41 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:34 am

Trinity wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:38 pm I agree. We get old. Both parties have much better. I wanted Sherrod.

Me too. He really has a message that resonates with working people; he's smart, likable and well regarded in the heartland.

Biden and Brown is a solid ticket to defeat Trump.

You're kidding right ? Too white, too male, too straight.

My money's on Biden - Harris (@ now)

Harris- Brown, but we’d lose a Senate seat. So, no.

Dems want a woman.

Harris is going to get eviscerated over her track-record as an attorney - that tough on crime, I might really be a centrist approach might have won in 2008, but the Dems don't want it in 2020.

Warren is going to get the nomination - the Dems won't hit her for the native American stuff, it runs contrary to their current narrative to do so.

I could see a DNC convention salivating over a Warren/Butteigieg ticket

The ticket that wins is Bernie / Biden

the memes would be strong, but they would win.

Dems won't let it happen. Bernie is dead to them.

CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:26 pm Only if Biden gets so much worse that he has to drop out.

I think Warren would lose badly to Trump. The underlying psychosexual dynamic is all wrong. No man wants a slender old woman to "fight" for him. Lead him, maybe, in some sort of intellectual problem-solving task (which is what Warren is good at). But "fight"? No way. But Warren hasn't gotten that advice, or won't take it. Same problem with HRC in 2016.

Whoever wins the job should want Warren as the policy wonk. She "knows" facts (which makes the Trumpnista hate her).

There's a lot of talent among the current Dem candidates -- Warren in particular.

Biden (if he gets the nod) might be smart to take a page from Trump (with his SCOTUS nominee list). In addition to the VEEP spot, designate several of the current candidates in advance as cabinet secretary picks.

Would be great way to get all flanks of the Dem party behind you, check a bunch of diversity boxes, and also have people in your administration with serious policy chops.

Betsy DeVos or Sen. Michael Bennet (former superintendent of Denver public schools). Kamala Harris vs. Bill Barr. Elizabeth Warren vs. Mnuchin. Julian Castro/Pete Butigieg or Ben Carson....

Also wonder if Biden would be smart to declare he'd only serve one term?

Bernie’s 100. His ideas are sugar-mush. He hurts serious Democratic candidates. Always has.

CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:26 pm Only if Biden gets so much worse that he has to drop out.

I think Warren would lose badly to Trump. The underlying psychosexual dynamic is all wrong. No man wants a slender old woman to "fight" for him. Lead him, maybe, in some sort of intellectual problem-solving task (which is what Warren is good at). But "fight"? No way. But Warren hasn't gotten that advice, or won't take it. Same problem with HRC in 2016.

I don't see why she would do worse than Hillary and would expect her to do significantly better. She might lose, but I don't see it being badly unless you define badly as just losing to this SOS at all. Warren is a natural policy wonk for whoever actual gets the nomination -- she knows "facts".

ggait wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:09 pm There's a lot of talent among the current Dem candidates -- Warren in particular.

Biden (if he gets the nod) might be smart to take a page from Trump (with his SCOTUS nominee list). In addition to the VEEP spot, designate several of the current candidates in advance as cabinet secretary picks.

Would be great way to get all flanks of the Dem party behind you, check a bunch of diversity boxes, and also have people in your administration with serious policy chops.

Betsy DeVos or Sen. Michael Bennet (former superintendent of Denver public schools). Kamala Harris vs. Bill Barr. Elizabeth Warren vs. Mnuchin. Julian Castro/Pete Butigieg or Ben Carson....

Also wonder if Biden would be smart to declare he'd only serve one term?

Yup. There is a lot of talent, just needs to be organized, but can't do that with them all running for the presidential nomination.

Trinity wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:12 pm Bernie’s 100. His ideas are sugar-mush. He hurts serious Democratic candidates. Always has.

I never said he was worthy - just that he is the most likely to win in the actual election

Did you ever watch The Princess Bride with your kids? Remember Billy Crystal? In the tree?
That’s who I hear when Bernie rants. Interesting, colorful, but not for President.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:19 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:09 pm There's a lot of talent among the current Dem candidates -- Warren in particular.

Biden (if he gets the nod) might be smart to take a page from Trump (with his SCOTUS nominee list). In addition to the VEEP spot, designate several of the current candidates in advance as cabinet secretary picks.

Would be great way to get all flanks of the Dem party behind you, check a bunch of diversity boxes, and also have people in your administration with serious policy chops.

Betsy DeVos or Sen. Michael Bennet (former superintendent of Denver public schools). Kamala Harris vs. Bill Barr. Elizabeth Warren vs. Mnuchin. Julian Castro/Pete Butigieg or Ben Carson....

Also wonder if Biden would be smart to declare he'd only serve one term?

Yup. There is a lot of talent, just needs to be organized, but can't do that with them all running for the presidential nomination.

You thought Hillary had talent.....come on man.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:16 pmI don't see why [Warren] would do worse than Hillary and would expect her to do significantly better. She might lose, but I don't see it being badly unless you define badly as just losing to this SOS at all.

I see Warren v Trump as another McGovern v Nixon, with added gender bias against her, and expect a similar result.

Also see recent NYT polling analysis that claims that more voters like Trump now than did on election day 2016.

This is no cakewalk for the Ds. Every vote must be contested. I despise the biases that exist, but pretending they aren't real is a not a plan.

CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:03 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:16 pmI don't see why [Warren] would do worse than Hillary and would expect her to do significantly better. She might lose, but I don't see it being badly unless you define badly as just losing to this SOS at all.

I see Warren v Trump as another McGovern v Nixon, with added gender bias against her, and expect a similar result.

Also see recent NYT polling analysis that claims that more voters like Trump now than did on election day 2016.

This is no cakewalk for the Ds. Every vote must be contested. I despise the biases that exist, but pretending they aren't real is a not a plan.

Did they indicate who those voters are and how many more. Don't think it is a cake walk, but need to see evidence that it is a McGovern v Nixon. Why is Warren more likely to lose worse than HRC?

CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:03 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:16 pmI don't see why [Warren] would do worse than Hillary and would expect her to do significantly better. She might lose, but I don't see it being badly unless you define badly as just losing to this SOS at all.

I see Warren v Trump as another McGovern v Nixon, with added gender bias against her, and expect a similar result.

Also see recent NYT polling analysis that claims that more voters like Trump now than did on election day 2016.

This is no cakewalk for the Ds. Every vote must be contested. I despise the biases that exist, but pretending they aren't real is a not a plan.

CU77 you are quite correct. But, I don't see a contender* in the Dem field that does beat Trump. By contender I mean someone who has a legitimate shot at getting out of the convention with the nomination. Right now that list includes: Warren, Biden, Harris.

For a while I thought Yang could catch on, but he seems to be a one-trick pony UBI, UBI, UBI is all he says.
Tulsi could have a legitimate shot to win the White House except for her waffling on Syria and the fact that the Dems don't like her.
Buttigieg can't seem to get traction - his "live" performances leave something to be desired, as best exemplified by his loss of control of a town-hall meeting - if you can't control a town-hall, how do you become president...?
Booker is at best a liability as a VP candidate.

The person with the best shot is/was Bernie, but Dems and media types have been so dismissive of him (because they don't want him) that his lingering mystique with the millennials is starting to wear off.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:18 pm Why is Warren more likely to lose worse than HRC?

because Warren has all of HRC's personality shortcomings without the shiv hidden in her sleeve.

thanks for the chuckle...