Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:47 pm**

Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:06 am He got 0% in a New York primary poll. When you fail to even get a single percentage point in your home state...

de Blasio? More like dead Last-io.

That the man ran for President at all indicates how deeply out of touch with reality he is. He started very, very unpopular in NY. Since then it has only gotten worse. It sucks for NYC because he is incompetent on top of it all. Seems to be a theme nowadays in our politics. Only the crooks and fools want to roll around in the muck anymore.

Posted: **Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:30 pm**

malchior wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:47 pm
Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:06 am He got 0% in a New York primary poll. When you fail to even get a single percentage point in your home state...

de Blasio? More like dead Last-io.
That the man ran for President at all indicates how deeply out of touch with reality he is. He started very, very unpopular in NY. Since then it has only gotten worse. It sucks for NYC because he is incompetent on top of it all. Seems to be a theme nowadays in our politics. Only the crooks and fools want to roll around in the muck anymore.

NYC mayors have got it into their heads that they are essentially state governors and therefore have natural eligibility as presidential candidates. It doesn't help that (due to the city's economic power) they get courted and wined&dined by lobbyists and power brokers more than many other potential runners.

Five of the last seven NYC mayors have launched apparently serious presidential bids. That's way more than most states.

(EDIT: More than most states' governors, let alone major cities' mayors.)

Posted: **Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:07 pm**

I would consider a (successful) NYC mayor more qualified for the position than, say, a Representative or the governor of a small state, and there are plenty of those that have run.

Posted: **Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:02 pm**

Looks like Warren's Ground and Pound is working:

The headlines coming off a new poll in Iowa -- sponsored by CNN and the Des Moines Register -- largely focus on the fact that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is now at the top tier of the 2020 field in the crucial Iowa caucuses. That notion drastically undersells how strong a position Warren is actually in.

Yes, Warren tops the field in the CNN-DMR poll with 22% support, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 20% (the poll has a four-point margin of error, putting the two essentially in a tie). Warren and Biden are followed distantly by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders at 11%...

...* Warren is the first or second choice of 42% of those polled. That's well in front of Biden (30% first/second combined), Sanders (21%), South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (18%) and California Sen. Kamala Harris (16%).
Any one of those three data points would suggest that this poll may have only caught the start of Warren's rise in Iowa. All three together suggest she is well positioned to take off like a rocket ship in the state. Not only does she already have a broad-base of support in the state (as evidence by the topline numbers) but she also has significant passion among those who are for her and remains well-liked -- and a possible voting option -- for those who say she is their second choice at the moment.
That's not even taking into account Warren's grassroots operation, which is widely regarded as the best -- by a lot -- of any campaign in Iowa. Wrote the Des Moines Register on Sunday:
"Elizabeth Warren's slow but steady rise in the first-in-the-nation caucus state is as much a result of her robust organizational presence here as it is a response to the Massachusetts senator's many plans and policies, Iowa experts say ... the (poll) results were not surprising, said several Iowa Democrats who have watched Warren build out a team that is widely credited with having the most sophisticated organizational presence in the state."

Posted: **Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:17 pm**

Together, Warren and Sanders have >40% to Biden's 20%. The answer to the question of progressive vs. moderate is obvious, at least.

Posted: **Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:52 pm**

Kraken wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:17 pm Together, Warren and Sanders have >40% to Biden's 20%. The answer to the question of progressive vs. moderate is obvious, at least.

Eh?

First of all, that's Iowa.

Second of all, together, Warren and Sanders would get 33% not 40% (if you were looking at national polls, it would be ~35% to S+W to ~31% for Biden)

Third of all, it's wrong to assume that all people vote on ideology. A lot of people take other things into consideration. And you can tell that by looking at the second choices for the candidates, which aren't consistent with that (Sanders supporters would be equally split between Warren and Biden. Warren's would be equally split between Biden and Sanders)

Fourth of all, even assuming your claim were right, it would still leave 40% (or whatever) up in the air (Although polls show roughly half of Democrats describe themselves as moderate (or conservative), vs 30% who are liberal and 20% who are very liberal)

Posted: **Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:13 pm**

We'll see. The energy is on the left, and the two leftiest candidates together are leading IA with voters who are engaged this early. If I were a betting man, I'd be going all-in on Warren. Maybe that says more about why I'm not a betting man than about her odds, but still...we'll see.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:36 am**

Kraken wrote:We'll see. The energy is on the left, and the two leftiest candidates together are leading IA with voters who are engaged this early. If I were a betting man, I'd be going all-in on Warren. Maybe that says more about why I'm not a betting man than about her odds, but still...we'll see.

IMHO, if Hillary had half the ground game Warren has, she'd have won. She ignored Wisconsin, Michigan and did not stay up to date in PA, and that's how she lost.

Biden seems to be half assing it just like Hillary did. He hasn't been prepared for obvious attacks like Harris, and has not put together a good ground game. I was a believer early, but I have yet to see the Biden I wanted to see.

Right now, I see Warren as more electable in the general than him. Didn't think I'd dash that six months ago.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:21 am**

So if Warren gets the nod who should be her running mate?

Should she pick Bernie? Biden? Or go off the rails and pick that 16 year old Swedish activist that is trying to save the world for herself, other young folk, and future Earthers?

Well maybe not that far off the rails but maybe a little off the rails? Who would that be? Hilary? Al Gore? Who?

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:18 am**

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Can you imagine how the GOP's collective heads would explode?

I'm just kidding of course. I imagine Warren will choose someone more centrist to shore up her credibility with moderates.

(I think AOC is too young anyway)

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:01 am**

Kraken wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:17 pm Together, Warren and Sanders have >40% to Biden's 20%. The answer to the question of progressive vs. moderate is obvious, at least.

On policy you're right - the two progressive candidates have a combined lead, so to speak. BUT if Warren or Sanders were to drop out, lots of either candidate's voters would go to Biden. Plenty of Warren supporters loathe Sanders and vice versa.

I'm quite surprised to still see Biden in the lead, polling-wise. It seems a good chunk of democratic voters are less interested in the issues and more interested in... continuity? Obama legacy? I guess Biden is seen as a "safe bet" (even though he would almost certainly lose to Trump)?

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:06 am**

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:01 am I'm quite surprised to still see Biden in the lead, polling-wise. It seems a good chunk of democratic voters are less interested in the issues I feel are important.

FTFY

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:14 am**

YellowKing wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:18 am Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Can you imagine how the GOP's collective heads would explode?

I'm just kidding of course. I imagine Warren will choose someone more centrist to shore up her credibility with moderates.

(I think ACO is too young anyway)

AOC will be old enough in 2024.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:16 am**

I just can't see Warren winning in the general. Definitely not Sanders. Biden I could see winning, but that would be so depressing. It would be good to be rid of Trump, but it would still be a long 4 years.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:17 am**

hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:06 am
Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:01 am I'm quite surprised to still see Biden in the lead, polling-wise. It seems a good chunk of democratic voters are less interested in the issues I feel are important.
FTFY

Not really, but I wasn't clear about my point. This is what I mean: Lots of Warren supporters actually favor Kamala Harris as their second choice. Now, on policy, they're completely different. But… they're both women. So - these voters are obviously not interested in policy (since Harris and Warren are quite far apart).

Similarly, there are many Sanders supporters who state Biden as their second choice. These supporters are obviously not interested in policy either, but rather something else since there is very little overlap between the Biden and Sanders platforms.

Finally, given these facts, I would guess Biden's lead can't perhaps be explained by his policy positions. Since even supporters of two of the wonkiest candidates reason so erratically.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 am**

stessier wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:16 am I just can't see Warren winning in the general. Definitely not Sanders. Biden I could see winning, but that would be so depressing. It would be good to be rid of Trump, but it would still be a long 4 years.

I have the exact opposite conclusion - Biden wouldn't be able to win the important states. Sanders would. Warren is a toss-up.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 am**

You don't seem to understand. It's not that they don't care about issues if they have a second choice. It's that they care more about not electing Trump again as another 4 years would see all of the issues they do care about go down the toilet. In truth, they all care about the same issue...the Trump issue.

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 am I have the exact opposite conclusion - Biden wouldn't be able to win the important states. Sanders would. Warren is a toss-up.

The facts simply don't exist to support that conclusion.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:28 am**

hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 am You're completely missing the mark. It's not that they don't care about issues if they have a second choice. It's that they care more about not electing Trump again as another 4 years would see all of the issues they do care about go down the toilet. In truth, they all care about the same issue...the Trump issue.

I didn't say they don't care about the issues - I said they don't care about policy.

As in, "I don't care what a candidate will actually try to accomplish in office, as long as they can win against Trump".

Donald Trump is not a policy position. Everyone wants to get rid of him. (Probably even the Republicans at this point...)

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:32 am**

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:28 am
hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 am You're completely missing the mark. It's not that they don't care about issues if they have a second choice. It's that they care more about not electing Trump again as another 4 years would see all of the issues they do care about go down the toilet. In truth, they all care about the same issue...the Trump issue.
I didn't say they don't care about the issues - I said they don't care about policy.

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:17 am I'm quite surprised to still see Biden in the lead, polling-wise. It seems a good chunk of democratic voters are less interested in the issues

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:33 am**

hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 am
Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 am I have the exact opposite conclusion - Biden wouldn't be able to win the important states. Sanders would. Warren is a toss-up.
The facts simply don't exist to support that conclusion.

I know, it's just speculation on my part. I saw the democratic debates. While Sander's hoarse voice in the third debate didn't do him any favors, Biden seems to have something going on cognitively. He has trouble stringing sentences together. Can you imagine a debate between him and Trump a year from now? It wouldn't be pretty.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:34 am**

hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:32 am
Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:28 am
hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 am You're completely missing the mark. It's not that they don't care about issues if they have a second choice. It's that they care more about not electing Trump again as another 4 years would see all of the issues they do care about go down the toilet. In truth, they all care about the same issue...the Trump issue.
I didn't say they don't care about the issues - I said they don't care about policy.

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:17 am I'm quite surprised to still see Biden in the lead, polling-wise. It seems a good chunk of democratic voters are less interested in the issues

I stand corrected. Meant to say, "policy issues".

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:35 am**

In either case, my original reply still stands as I was responding to your post which stated those who voted for Biden (who you specifically singled out) weren't interested in issues (policy issues, policy, or whatever). And that they were doing so because they were

more interested in... continuity? Obama legacy? I guess Biden is seen as a "safe bet" (even though he would almost certainly lose to Trump)?

Also, again, the facts don't seem to back your claims that he'd "almost certainly lose to Trump".

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:38 am**

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:34 am
hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:32 am
Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:28 am
hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 am You're completely missing the mark. It's not that they don't care about issues if they have a second choice. It's that they care more about not electing Trump again as another 4 years would see all of the issues they do care about go down the toilet. In truth, they all care about the same issue...the Trump issue.
I didn't say they don't care about the issues - I said they don't care about policy.

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:17 am I'm quite surprised to still see Biden in the lead, polling-wise. It seems a good chunk of democratic voters are less interested in the issues

I stand corrected. Meant to say, "policy issues".

You seem to greatly overestimate an average American voter's interest in "policy issues"

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:55 am**

hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:35 am In either case, my original reply still stands as I was responding to your post which stated those who voted for Biden (who you specifically singled out) weren't interested in issues (policy issues, policy, or whatever). And that they were doing so because they were

more interested in... continuity? Obama legacy? I guess Biden is seen as a "safe bet" (even though he would almost certainly lose to Trump)?
Also, again, the facts don't seem to back your claims that he'd "almost certainly lose to Trump".

Correct. Current polling indicates Biden, Warren as well as Sanders would all beat Trump by a good margin.

But consider:
- The lack of excitement around Biden's campaign, compared to Warren/Sanders
- Biden's record as a politician compared to Warren/Sanders, especially Sanders has been historically very consistent (although I guess YMMV on that one)
- The trend in polling, especially compared to Warren (Sanders has petered out currently)
- The current Biden campaign strategy to minimize exposure (ride the name recognition as far as it can take him and pray he doesn't do any gaffes, not even Biden's campaign staff seem too confident in his ability)
- The lack of small individual donors, compared to Sanders especially, but also to Warren
- The apparent effects of aging on Biden (Sanders, Warren and Trump are all over 70, but they all do seem to hold it together for the moment).

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:03 am**

gilraen wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:38 am
Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:34 am
hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:32 am
Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:28 am
hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 am You're completely missing the mark. It's not that they don't care about issues if they have a second choice. It's that they care more about not electing Trump again as another 4 years would see all of the issues they do care about go down the toilet. In truth, they all care about the same issue...the Trump issue.
I didn't say they don't care about the issues - I said they don't care about policy.

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:17 am I'm quite surprised to still see Biden in the lead, polling-wise. It seems a good chunk of democratic voters are less interested in the issues

I stand corrected. Meant to say, "policy issues".
You seem to greatly overestimate an average American voter's interest in "policy issues"

I don't think the American voter is uninterested in policy, really. "BUILD THAT WALL!" is a policy position after all.

I would say the American voter seems uninformed, politically unaware and, at times, VERY gullible.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:03 am**

Most of those are opinion based, not fact based.

But

Trends in polling: A few months ago, trends showed Harris surging. I rest my case on that one.

Lack of small individual donors: Hard to prove, also irrelevant. Small individual donors rallied around Sanders during the last election. I rest my case on that one.

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:03 am I would say that everyone seems uninformed, politically unaware and, at times, VERY gullible.

FTFY

If you honestly think what's going on in America is a unique situation, you're simply not paying attention to any place but America.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:15 am**

YellowKing wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:18 am I'm just kidding of course. I imagine Warren will choose someone more centrist to shore up her credibility with moderates.

It's an interesting question and one I haven't really thought on. I don't see Warren as the sort to choose someone to dialog with unless they are of like mind. It's something I appreciate as a law maker. She has principles I respect and is one strong voice of vigilance and protection among 100 largely looking to protect their electablilty appeasing their strongest donors.

When it comes down to it, if Warren is the candidate, I'm voting for her, so she's not trying to win my vote, but... If she chose someone "centrist" as you say, it could score points with me as long as I don't have an active distaste. It would show evidence that as an executive, she is willing to come to the table when she ought to, rather than be a watchdog for vision of America at all times.

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 am
stessier wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:16 am I just can't see Warren winning in the general. Definitely not Sanders. Biden I could see winning, but that would be so depressing. It would be good to be rid of Trump, but it would still be a long 4 years.
I have the exact opposite conclusion - Biden wouldn't be able to win the important states. Sanders would. Warren is a toss-up.

I dunno. 2016 threw out what I thought was understanding. I have no confidence in my fellow man here. Of those three Warren should be the best for "important' states. But I totally don't have the feel I thought I had for our Misogyny, our antisemitism, our (white?) working class support for GOP messaging (which includes things like Dem = gov corruption, Tax and spend liberals, SOCIALISM!, they're comin for your guns, etc, Jesus, abortions, Islamic terrorists, breeding the white of the US, etc...) I simply don't know what I thought I knew anymore.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:16 am**

hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:03 am
Trends in polling: A few months ago, trends showed Harris surging. I rest my case on that one.

Harris shot up momentarily, likely as a result of her debate performance in the first debate. Since then, she's faded. She's been quite inconsistent on some issues (such as Medicare for all) and there doesn't seem to be much buzz around her campaign currently.

Warren OTOH has been steadily climbing since March. Nothing is certain, but it's one variable. Polling trends sometimes indicate momentum building.

Lack of small individual donors: Hard to prove, also irrelevant. Small individual donors rallied around Sanders during the last election. I reset my case on that one.

Sanders has over 1 million individual donors. I don't recall Warren's numbers, but I think she's still number 2 on that list. You can google it if you're interested. Again, nothing is certain, but it is one variable.

And, in 2016, Sanders came from no name recognition to almost winning the nomination over the Anointed One. While populism and a strong grassroots campaign is no guarantee, it is, again, one variable.

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:03 am I would say that everyone seems uninformed, politically unaware and, at times, VERY gullible.

FTFY

If you honestly think what's going on in America is a unique situation, you're simply not paying attention to any place but America.

Oh, I don't. But we were discussing America in this thread, right?

Your ears would fall off if you heard what I think about voters in my country.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:18 am**

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:01 am
Kraken wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:17 pm Together, Warren and Sanders have >40% to Biden's 20%. The answer to the question of progressive vs. moderate is obvious, at least.
On policy you're right - the two progressive candidates have a combined lead, so to speak. BUT if Warren or Sanders were to drop out, lots of either candidate's voters would go to Biden. Plenty of Warren supporters loathe Sanders and vice versa.

I'm quite surprised to still see Biden in the lead, polling-wise. It seems a good chunk of democratic voters are less interested in the issues and more interested in... continuity? Obama legacy? I guess Biden is seen as a "safe bet" (even though he would almost certainly lose to Trump)?

I think Biden has a few key edges at this point. First is the Obama legacy - it's no small thing in a Democratic primary that he served in a prominent position in a reasonably successful two-term Democratic administration. I imagine it also makes him seem like a less risky choice, since the Obama administration didn't do anything super crazy.

Second, Biden's essentially got the moderate lane all to himself. The heavyweights in the primary (Warren, Sanders, Harris) have mostly been fighting for the progressive lane, and the other people running as moderates (Delaney, Bennet, etc.) have failed to gain any real traction. So if you want center-left policies, Biden's kind of the main guy you're left with.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:22 am**

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:16 am
hepcat wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:03 am
Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:03 am I would say that everyone seems uninformed, politically unaware and, at times, VERY gullible.

FTFY

If you honestly think what's going on in America is a unique situation, you're simply not paying attention to any place but America.
Oh, I don't. But we were discussing America in this thread, right?

Your ears would fall off if you heard what I think about voters in my country.

Ah, got it.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:23 am**

Pyperkub wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:36 am MHO, if Hillary had half the ground game Warren has, she'd have won. She ignored Wisconsin, Michigan and did not stay up to date in PA, and that's how she lost.

I don't buy this. IIRC, she did visit Michigan, and PA was one of her top 3 states visited. In addition, IIRC, she had a bigger ground operation than Obama had had.

It was the Comey letter that cost her the election.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:31 am**

Daehawk wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:21 am So if Warren gets the nod who should be her running mate?

Should she pick Bernie? Biden? Or go off the rails and pick that 16 year old Swedish activist that is trying to save the world for herself, other young folk, and future Earthers?

Well maybe not that far off the rails but maybe a little off the rails? Who would that be? Hilary? Al Gore? Who?

Whoever she thinks would serve well as President if she was no longer able to serve. Someone not in their 70s. And maybe someone that could add to the administration (someone with foreign policy experience, maybe?)

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:35 am**

Defiant wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:31 am
Daehawk wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:21 am So if Warren gets the nod who should be her running mate?

Should she pick Bernie? Biden? Or go off the rails and pick that 16 year old Swedish activist that is trying to save the world for herself, other young folk, and future Earthers?

Well maybe not that far off the rails but maybe a little off the rails? Who would that be? Hilary? Al Gore? Who?
Whoever she thinks would serve well as President if she was no longer able to serve. Someone not in their 70s. And maybe someone that could add to the administration (someone with foreign policy experience, maybe?)

Yeah. And someone who could attract voter groups she would otherwise have trouble with, or compete with Trump over.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:38 am**

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 am
stessier wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:16 am I just can't see Warren winning in the general. Definitely not Sanders. Biden I could see winning, but that would be so depressing. It would be good to be rid of Trump, but it would still be a long 4 years.
I have the exact opposite conclusion - Biden wouldn't be able to win the important states. Sanders would. Warren is a toss-up.

I disagree. Biden's blue collar roots and his "folksy" charm would help in the midwest (and his strong support in the African American community could help in some of the Southern states (GA, NC), although they might be out of reach for any of the candidates)

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:48 am**

Lagom Lite wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:35 am

Yeah. And someone who could attract voter groups she would otherwise have trouble with, or compete with Trump over.

If I remember correctly, there was a study that showed that VP picks barely, if at all, move the needle. Because of that (and her age) I would rather someone be picked in how well they would be in the role than if they can pick up a few votes.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:52 am**

Just our luck, Biden picks Bernie for VP...and the Republicans make Trump speaker of the house and just waits.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:27 am**

Daehawk wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:21 am So if Warren gets the nod who should be her running mate?

Should she pick Bernie? Biden? Or go off the rails and pick that 16 year old Swedish activist that is trying to save the world for herself, other young folk, and future Earthers?

Well maybe not that far off the rails but maybe a little off the rails? Who would that be? Hilary? Al Gore? Who?

If she had to choose from the pool of other presidential candidates, Buttigieg would cover some bases she needs -- young, moderate, Midwestern, war veteran, Christian. I have no idea if the two of them like one another, or if Butti would even consider being #2, but somebody who checks those same boxes would be an asset.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:33 am**

Kraken wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:27 am
Daehawk wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:21 am So if Warren gets the nod who should be her running mate?

Should she pick Bernie? Biden? Or go off the rails and pick that 16 year old Swedish activist that is trying to save the world for herself, other young folk, and future Earthers?

Well maybe not that far off the rails but maybe a little off the rails? Who would that be? Hilary? Al Gore? Who?
If she had to choose from the pool of other presidential candidates, Buttigieg would cover some bases she needs -- young, moderate, Midwestern, war veteran, Christian. I have no idea if the two of them like one another, or if Butti would even consider being #2, but somebody who checks those same boxes would be an asset.

eh, I imagine Warren's campaign advisors wouldn't be too thrilled about her picking someone that young, and also someone who is gay. I would assume that she would pick someone 'safer' - e.g., more traditionally credentialed. Maybe someone like Sherrod Brown - Senator, from the midwest, straight white male, appeals to union types, straddles the moderate / progressive lane like her.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:44 am**

Nice to see Bernie being Bernie:

Sen. Bernie Sanders unveiled a tax on wealth Tuesday as he aims to cut income inequality and fund his sprawling social programs.

The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate’s proposal follows a similar plan from Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who has made a wealth tax a centerpiece of her White House campaign. But the measure from Sanders, who has long railed against an economic system that he says favors corporations and the rich, would tax the richest Americans’ assets more heavily than his rival’s.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:13 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:33 am
Kraken wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:27 am
If she had to choose from the pool of other presidential candidates, Buttigieg would cover some bases she needs -- young, moderate, Midwestern, war veteran, Christian. I have no idea if the two of them like one another, or if Butti would even consider being #2, but somebody who checks those same boxes would be an asset.
eh, I imagine Warren's campaign advisors wouldn't be too thrilled about her picking someone that young, and also someone who is gay. I would assume that she would pick someone 'safer' - e.g., more traditionally credentialed. Maybe someone like Sherrod Brown - Senator, from the midwest, straight white male, appeals to union types, straddles the moderate / progressive lane like her.

I wouldn't call Buttigieg moderate (I would say he's somewhere in between the two ends, but somewhat closer to the progressive end than the moderate end).

But I have a really hard time buying Warren as "straddling the moderate / progressive lane". She's firmly on the left edge, with only Sanders (and the squad) to her left (and on some issues, she's to the left of Sanders).

Octopus Overlords

Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020? No, it's 2020!

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?

Re: Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020?