Re: Warren
 

I was on her bandwagon before any of you knew who she was. She may come across as smart to those who understand what she is talking about but her demeanor and her sex are enough to cast a shred of doubt on enough rank and file voters to make her far from a populist.

VP shot, I feel different. Her or Harris. But we tried that once (Ferraro) and got smacked.

Re: Warren
 

She is also by far the best candidate at communicating her policy agenda and perhaps the the best of the Dems at talking about what she wants to say instead of falling into the trap of reacting to what someone else wants you to talk about.

In a way, these Dem debates are about auditioning to debate Trump. Biden has definitely not looked up to it.

Re: Warren
 

I hope you're not implying that what was wrong with the 1984 ticket was Ferraro's sex.

Re: Warren
 

The way it happened was a bit problematic. She was not prominent, or a candidate otherwise- and NOW demanded a female Veep. And Voila! It looked rather weak kneed, especially for a candidate that Reagan was already attacking as unable to stand up to what needed to be stood up to.

I don't recall her gender being a problem otherwise, but it has nothing at all to do with who gets the nod this year.

Re: Warren
 

I can't recall a VP who made a difference electorally.

"I can't decide between the two candidates on any other ground, so I'm going to vote for the person who chose a better back-up."
- no one

Re: Warren
 

I just gave you a negative example. Can you think of another negative example from, say 2008? They were both harmful Veep choices, but for different reason. Palin's gender initially motivated some positive votes, but then once people got to know her it said volumes about McCain; bad stuff.

Re: Warren
 

This is dumb. It's about the whole ticket. Choosing poorly can cost you dearly and the benefits of choosing wisely isn't exactly easily tracked.

But if you're a hard core leftie who is going to hold his breath if Warren or Harris isn't the nominee, I doubt you sit the election out if that person is on the ticket. I can't speak for Bernie bros. Those people are fucking idiots.

TM

Re: Warren
 

I don't think anyone voted for Obama because Palin was on the ticket. Who thinks like that? Maybe Palin hurt McCain because the press coverage she generated forced him to talk about things he didn't want to talk about, but that's a second-order effect.

We can agree to disagree. I think you are wrong, in the way that people who think a lot about politics can be wrong about people who don't think a lot about politics. People who think a lot about politics know a bunch about the candidates and make up their minds early and know things like where the VP candidates went to high school. They wouldn't make their minds up on the basis of who the running mate is because they have such strong views about the top of the ticket. Low-information voters are, similarly, picking a president, not a vice president. On some political issues, like our Cyprus policy or zoning, there are some voters who care an awful lot and vote on that issue. No one cares about the Veep that way.

You are right that the eventual Dem nominee is going to have to pull the party together after a primary campaign that could be more divisive than some. One way to do that is with the VP pick. There are other ways to do it, and Hillary wasn't a skilled enough politician to get that done.

Re: Warren
 

Umm I did. I voted against McCain, not for President Obama (in 2008- gladly voted for President Obama in 2012) and that vote was based upon his pick. My daughter registered to vote after seeing Palin's act. What do you base these statements on?



Palin drove tons of people to President Obama. "People who think a lot about politics" like you know how you're voting into 2028. Less political people look at crap like picking Palin. Again, my daughter would never have even voted, except she was so bothered by Palin.

Re: Warren
 

2. She's laser-like and on-message all the time. That's Bernie's secret to success as well. He never deviates from his economic populist message. (That's why he's wrongly criticized for refusing to engage many groups on their unique concerns.)

Making one argument and making it well is key. Warren's brand is economic fairness, and it's the most compelling brand out there.

Re: Warren
 

2. Particularly with a one term president.

Re: Warren
 

I feel like this part of your post sits in direct opposition to the other part of your post.

I'm not sure any of your opinions are supportable other than based on what you think. And to be fair, neither are mine. But in a close race, choosing:

1. someone black might help bring in more black voters
2. a woman might bring out more women voters
3. Bernie might bring out the Bernie bros
4. someone from Ohio might win you Ohio
5. a progressive, while you've already shored up the less progressive wing of the party, might maximize your support.

But I don't have the same expertise when it comes to low information-voters that you have.

TM

Re: Warren
 

OK, you're right.

Re: Warren
 

It's a fair point. On the Democratic side, to be successful a candidate has to mobilize a coalition and get different groups excited. Picking a VP candidate could be part of doing this, but it doesn't have to be. For example, I don't think that Obama won anybody's vote with Biden (and was not trying to -- I think he picked Biden as someone he wanted to work with in the White House), but I do think he did a good job of exciting and unifying different parts of the Democratic Party. I think Tim Kaine would have been a fine VP and didn't turn anyone off, but Hillary was not good at unifying the party and Kaine didn't help her. A successful candidate needs to tell different groups what they want to hear.

Re: Warren
 

Admiral Stockdale?

LessinSanIgnacio, Belize