Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[88Comrade2000]

Who would’ve thought that after Biden and Sanders; the last person standing would be Tulsi Gabbard.

[The Sisko]

Well, she’s got the full faith and credit of the Russian government behind her, so there’s that.

 

Gotta love that Warren isn’t making an endorsement yet. Take that Bernie Bros!  Says Liz “The Snake” Warren. 😂😂😂

 

[goskins10]

36 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I think Warren would be awesome in a policy role rather than Veep.  Make her Director of the National Economic Council or CFPB, or simply a close adviser in the West Wing focused on economic issues.  Like Jared, but 1,000 10,000 times more focused, qualified and competent.  

 

I agree, having her as a VP is a waste as it's much more difficult for her to have that much impact on say the justice system, health care, or some other specific position. She would make a great cabinet member or, chief of staff or special adviser. Someone who can help whoever is president form and implement policy. The next Dem president would do well to include her in their administration. Many places where she could help. 

 

I hope she does not run in 4 yrs, it will be a further waste of time and money. She is just not electable as a president but would be amazing in a position where she can help form policy in someone else's administration. It's too much of a popularity contest and fair or not she comes off as Hillary 2.0 by right leaning moderates an even some that can't decide what they are. Right now that's who can win or lose an election for you. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'm not sure why Elizabeth Warren is constantly propped up as someone who can win...she doesn't win primaries.  And yet, she's a media darling, for some reason...if you paid attention to just the media and not the results of the primaries, you'd think she was a frontrunner.  She was on a Rolling Stone cover a few months back.  I really don't get it.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

Just now, Spaceman Spiff said:

I'm not sure why Elizabeth Warren is constantly propped up as someone who can win...she doesn't win primaries.  And yet, she's a media darling, for some reason...if you paid attention to just the media and not the results of the primaries, you'd think she was a frontrunner.  She was on a Rolling Stone cover a few months back.  I really don't get it.

Media darling? Supporters were mad cause the media was pretty much ignoring her. I don't think anyone was propping her up. She lead in polls and then came back down.

[visionary]

 

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

5 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

I'm not sure why Elizabeth Warren is constantly propped up as someone who can win...she doesn't win primaries.  And yet, she's a media darling, for some reason...if you paid attention to just the media and not the results of the primaries, you'd think she was a frontrunner.  She was on a Rolling Stone cover a few months back.  I really don't get it.

 

This coming from a Cousins cultist.

 

Savor the irony.

[visionary]

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

1 minute ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

Media darling? Supporters were mad cause the media was pretty much ignoring her. I don't think anyone was propping her up. She lead in polls and then came back down.

 

Google image search "Elizabeth Warren Magazine Cover"

 

 

3 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

This coming from a Cousins cultist.

 

Savor the irony.

 

Hey, I'm not the one looking for opportunities to drag Cousins into the conversation.  

[tshile]

1 hour ago, mcsluggo said:

biden already has strong support from both blacks and hispanics, and it is hard to see much success from trump and the russian facebook bots peeling off that support...

i keep having this discussion with my liberal friends and they all say this.

 

but here's the thing - having support from the black community isn't enough. you also have to get them to show up on election day. i don't care what the polls say, you cannot run the risk of the black vote not showing up because when they look at the Dem ticket it's an old white guy who's got baggage with the black community and who's only real claim to fame seems to be "I was Obama's VP", and someone else that doesn't appeal to them (like Pete)

 

i don't think the dems can afford to take that demographic 'for granted', or at least cannot afford to create that perception. "Hey guys thanks for helping me in the primary, moving on here's my new VP Pete, another white guy and one that specifically has none of your support"

 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

And be that person in between Sanders and Biden.  I just don't think anybody clearly communicated that idea, at least not early enough, or frequent.y enough.

My gut reaction to your post:

Yeah, that sort of nuance will never be recognized by the general public

 

Maybe i'm wrong.

[Cooked Crack]

5 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Google image search "Elizabeth Warren Magazine Cover" 

I see like 2.. maybe 3 covers from this cycle. Even then being on a cover doesn't make you a media darling.

 

 

 

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

i keep having this discussion with my liberal friends and they all say this.

 

but here's the thing - having support from the black community isn't enough. you also have to get them to show up on election day. i don't care what the polls say, you cannot run the risk of the black vote not showing up because when they look at the Dem ticket it's an old white guy who's got baggage with the black community and who's only real claim to fame seems to be "I was Obama's VP", and someone else that doesn't appeal to them (like Pete)

 

i don't think the dems can afford to take that demographic 'for granted', or at least cannot afford to create that perception. "Hey guys thanks for helping me in the primary, moving on here's my new VP Pete, another white guy and one that specifically has none of your support"

 

This is the truth.

[tshile]

53 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

<tweet about why '20's dem electorate become more pragmatic & less "revolutionary:">

 

I'm #2.

 

I was all about Kasich. Since then I've decided the republican party is so trashy and fundamentally broken, I don't care who they nominate. They need to bulldoze that house and start anew.

 

And since the 08 election, I'd pretty much exclusively voted Dem, cause my problems with the GOP go back that far.

 

And now I've just voted for Biden in the dem primary, and will vote for him in November. I'm not upscale burbs, but I'm just oustide what most NOVA people consider NOVA (btw **** you for not including us, we're nova too you jerks)

((not directed at anyone specifically except for NOVA people, cause you know who you are))

 

22 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Media darling? Supporters were mad cause the media was pretty much ignoring her. I don't think anyone was propping her up. She lead in polls and then came back down.

... yeah, her supporters love to scream sexism any chance they get.

 

Yet she was a leading person in debate speaking time almost every time, and was #1 at least twice if I recall last time I looked it up.

 

She didn't have any friends in media 'Propping her up' but the idea that she got slanted media coverage or ignored or that the moderators were sexist and wouldn't let her speak is just nonsense.

[NoCalMike]

Do you guys think the Warren-Bernie "confrontation" was a turning point for her, where a lot of fence-riders moved away from supporting her? It definitely seemed somewhat staged to be a "gotcha" moment, and it fell completely flat considering I don't think anyone bought into the idea that Bernie actually thought a woman couldn't be President and that it was purposely being manipulated to seem like it.  Things like that sometimes matter to people more than policy. 

[Destino]

4 hours ago, tshile said:

Can someone explain the snake emoji thing to me?

im so old

The future is stupid.  

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Do you guys think the Warren-Bernie "confrontation" was a turning point for her, where a lot of fence-riders moved away from supporting her? It definitely seemed somewhat staged to be a "gotcha" moment, and it fell completely flat considering I don't think anyone bought into the idea that Bernie actually though a woman couldn't be President and that it was purposely being manipulated to seem like it.  Things like that sometimes matter to people more than policy. 

 

I think her entire strategy there was rooted in dishonesty. Go back and listen to her words carefully. They were very carefully chosen. They were chosen to be accurate (as in the literal interpretation was not that sanders thought a woman was unfit to be a president because she's a woman) but they were presented to gloss over that fact and present an entirely different idea (that the comments were in the thought of a woman can't be president because she's unfit to be president because she's a woman)

 

I caught it on the spot. I couldn't believe Sanders didn't have his wits about him to catch that, but I also can't help but think that maybe having your wits about you is really, really hard when you're caught flat footed on national TV in one of the biggest moments of your life being accused of being a sexist when your life has been one of pushing the most progressive ideals constantly (including equal opportunity and treatment for women.)

 

but what really irked me was that the moderators were too busy making sure their popcorn was within reach instead of catching what was happening, understanding the seriousness of it, and calling it out and getting to the bottom of it.

 

I have always respected Warren, i was never going to vote for her in the primaries because it's not my preferred policy, and I would have had a hard time voting for her in November but I think I ultimately would (because she specifically said she's not hellbent on her specific policies, and will support ideas that can pass and improve peoples lives.)

 

That moment made me do a double take, and wonder why with such a stellar reputation for integrity would do something I would expect Rubio, or Cruz, to do (I can't name Trump cause he's not smart enough to plan that level of attack on someone, and execute it that well.)

[visionary]

I think one thing about Warren is that even if she did not win the primary, she certainly established herself as much more palatable to people who would never have considered her before before she ran. 

 

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I think her entire strategy there was rooted in dishonesty. Go back and listen to her words carefully. They were very carefully chosen. They were chosen to be accurate (as in the literal interpretation was not that sanders thought a woman was unfit to be a president because she's a woman) but they presented to gloss over that fact and present an entirely different idea (that the comments were in the thought of a woman can't be president because she's unfit to be president because she's a woman)

 

I saw it on the spot. I couldn't believe Sanders didn't have his wits about him to catch that, but I also can't help but think that maybe having your wits about you is really, really hard when you're caught flat footed on national TV in one of the biggest moments of your life being accused of being a sexist when your life has been one of pushing the most progressive ideals constantly (including equal opportunity and treatment for women.)

 

I still think it was badly overblown.  Reporters picked up on something and made a story out of it.  Warren was forced to bring up her side of the story after Bernie supporters starting tearing her up over the story, and one thing led to another.

[Spaceman Spiff]

15 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

I see like 2.. maybe 3 covers from this cycle. Even then being on a cover doesn't make you a media darling.

 

 

Quote

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): For the past several months, I think Warren’s gotten the most friendly stretch of media coverage of any presidential candidate since Barack Obama in 2008.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-there-a-problem-with-how-the-media-covers-elizabeth-warren/

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/03/no-wonder-elizabeth-warren-is-getting-great-press-media-looks-like-her-base/

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cnn-did-all-it-could-to-make-elizabeth-warren-win-the-democratic-debate

 

Quote

To learn who the media love, look at who they let speak.

 

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren spent the most time talking at the CNN/ New York Times debate on Tuesday night, clocking in at almost 23 minutes, according to tracking by CNN. For a lineup of 12 presidential candidates, that’s pretty good. (Then again, how much did we expect to hear from Tom Steyer?)

Warren’s long-windedness wouldn’t necessarily indicate bias if she hadn’t A) talked for almost seven minutes longer than the next-most-verbose candidate and already received such fawning coverage in the press.

Warren has benefited from consistently smooth coverage from the media (and even Hollywood). When a recent report questioned the truth in Warren’s story about getting fired from a teaching job for being pregnant, several outlets ran interference for her, with the Washington Post calling it a “fake GOP scandal” in spite of pretty compelling evidence from two independent sources that she made the whole thing up.

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[bearrock]

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

RE: Sanders/Warren Woman POTUS Issue

 

So this is the transcript from that night after Sanders is asked the question and he denies he ever said it

 

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/january-iowa-democratic-debate-transcript

 

Quote

Moderator 2: (43:37)
Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?

 

E. Warren: (43:44)
I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie. But look. This question about whether or not a woman can be President has been raised, and it’s time for us to attack it head-on. I think the best way to talk about who can win is by looking at people’s winning record.

 

E. Warren: (44:06)
So can a woman beat Donald Trump? Look at the men on this stage. Collectively, they have lost ten elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women. The only person on this stage who has beaten an incumbent Republican anytime in the past 30 years is me, and here’s what I know. The real danger that we face as Democrats is picking a candidate who can’t pull our party together or someone who takes for granted big parts of the Democratic constituency.

 

E. Warren: (44:54)
We need a candidate who will excite all parts of the Democratic Party, bring everyone in, and give everyone a Democrat to believe in. That’s my plan, and that is why I’m going to win.

 

The first highlighted part can be interpreted to address a woman's fitness to be POTUS if just that phrase is taken out of context.  But even in a vacuum, it can also refer to whether a woman can actually become a POTUS.  

 

But the remaining part of her answer clearly illustrates what she's talking about.  The next two highlights clearly shows that she's talking about electability, not fitness.  And also, the question itself clearly highlights what was being asked.  It clearly alleges that Sanders said a woman could not win the election, not that a woman is unable to perform the role of a president.  

[88Comrade2000]

2 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

I hope she tries again in 4 years. We're gonna need people like her in high positions of govt

Nah.  She's will be 75 then.  2022 and 20224 should see the Dem party get rid of all their old geezers. Everyone over 70 just needs to retire or be voted out.  It's time to populate the Dem party with Millennials and GenZers and even younger GenXers. 

[PleaseBlitz]

Quote

Now that Warren is out, her backers must come together behind Bernie so that a true progressive can have the votes to take the White House, and even flip the Senate.

Is there any evidence that Warren’s supporters will go to Bernie in large numbers?  I get that they are both further to the left in terms of policy, but people don’t vote entirely, or even mostly, on the basis of policy. Voters vote for the person. My first choice was Warren and my last choice was, and is, Bernie. I’ve seen pollsters saying the Warren vote is likely to be split 50-50 or 60-40 between Sanders and Biden. 

[visionary]