Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official Joe Biden Campaign Thread


Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, rockaction said:

schochet likes Abrams and makes a good case about her regional appeal. I think it's Harris, though traditionally VPs help win swing states of some sort. Or, like Pence, they ground the candidate in the base's graces. 

Abrams was linked to him way back right when he first announced he was running IIRC. 

The few times I saw her speak when she was in her race I was really impressed. She is a great speaker and likable. A little concerned she pretty green but if she can deliver great speeches and inspire voters that is exactly what Biden needs. Would think she has the highest upside, but pretty risky IMO but time for her to impress people.

I think I agree with you that it will be Kamala. She’s obviously qualified but I find something about her somewhat unlikable. And that’s coming from a Seattle liberal. 

Klobacher would be perfectly fine but man she is boring. Like really, really...forgot what I was even talking about.

Duckworth has an amazing story, total badass. Unproven, but like Abrams, time to impress. 

Have never heard Whitmer speak. Just keep seeing her on every list. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I live in a swing state. My top two issues in this election are Hunter Biden’s role in the Ukrainian natural gas industry and section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. I was undecided, bu

I gotta say, the amount of anti-Dems complaining about Biden getting the nomination, is probably a good sign that the Dems picked the right candidate.   Biden carries certain risks - but man

He’ll hate to lose true independents like you. 

First off I think it’s Harris or Stacy because blacks gave Biden the nomination. Sometimes these things are pretty simple. It’s also important to be aware: more than any other recent VP candidate, whoever Biden chooses is likely to be our next President, as early as 2024. So this really is a bigger deal than normal. 

Now personally I like Harris better than Abrams, because I know her better, being from California. She’s smart and tough. She’s not the greatest speaker and Abrams does put the south into play. California is going to be blue anyhow. On the other hand, Harris is better looking than Abrams. That’s stupid I know, and it’s sexist and every woman that reads this is going to hate me for writing it (if my wife read it she’d hate me too.) but the truth is, sadly, it matters with a woman candidate. Abrams is on the heavy side. That turns off people- including women. Sucks but it’s true. 

So it’s a tough choice. Still I would guess Abrams. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

On the other hand, Harris is better looking than Abrams. That’s stupid I know, and it’s sexist and every woman that reads this is going to hate me for writing it

I, for one, am never talking to you again.

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, roadkill1292 said:

I appreciate the concerns of Bernie supporters. I'm pretty far left by US standards, too. But I think it's also reasonable to point out that a Trump re-election means that he'll get to replace Ruth Ginsberg and the Supreme Court will then be impeding progressive issues in this country for the next two decades. Biden may not be your cup of tea -- he's not my first choice, either -- but not voting for him in November puts us even further away from our end goals.

Of course a lot of the "Bernie supporters" here aren't even liberal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

Of course a lot of the "Bernie supporters" here aren't even liberal. 

Like I wrote in either another thread or this one -- I forget -- the Bernie supporters are enamored with his authenticity on one hand, and his plain spoken cogitations against the rich and powerful. It's populism, and knows really neither left nor right. It respects the individual who isn't kowtowed by authority and desires that which it has no business acquiring other than by the force of the state's force apparatus. But it need not be liberal. It need only to be authentic and appeal to scientific materialism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The General said:

One of these women will be the VP pick:

Kamala

Tammy Duckworth

Klobacher

Abrams

Whitmer

Who else am I missing?

Who do people like?

 

 

There are a lot of other qualified women, but I don't expect any surprises coming here. I would be shocked if it isn't Klobuchar. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

He had choices about preparedness after first notice.

He did.  And he blew it.  But I still think it's outlandish to compare the deathtoll from an involuntary pandemic to a war of choice.  

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ren hoek said:

He did.  And he blew it.  But I still think it's outlandish to compare the deathtoll from an involuntary pandemic to a war of choice.  

I will say this: war and pandemics might indeed (and I would argue do) require the same centralization of plan and mobilization of resources not otherwise necessary in policy decisions. Pandemics and war require effective centralization of power into one coordinated spire rather than fifty different entities trying to address the problem willy-nilly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I will say this: war and pandemics might indeed (and I would argue do) require the same centralization of plan and mobilization of resources not otherwise necessary in policy decisions. Pandemics and war require effective centralization of power into one coordinated spire rather than fifty different entities trying to address the problem willy-nilly.

I can see that.  But he should be honest about the death toll.  US soldiers weren't the only casualty of the Iraq war.  It was a war that led to the deaths of a million people.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2020 at 10:32 PM, ren hoek said:

I can see that.  But he should be honest about the death toll.  US soldiers weren't the only casualty of the Iraq war.  It was a war that led to the deaths of a million people.  

That's really a normative issue and comparing the death toll to pandemics is almost a red herring without regard to whose bodies are counted. It was slightly sloppy logic in its application. I was dealing strictly with whether the technical logical claim of bad analogy would hold. I was just pointing out what a common and effective response to each situation might be, and why one would make the leap to compare the two.

I wouldn't. Pandemics require centralization for a different reason than war, and that's because pandemic responses deal with issues more akin to environmental third party effects because of the spread of killer contagions, whereas war deals with finite areas, set actors, a hierarchical structure in place for the most part. Which is why terrorism is so frowned upon and not practiced by civilized nation-states. Well, there's about eighty premises to that, but you know what I'm getting at...

They're different. Pandemics require a central authority because of spread and multiplication, war requires central authority for discipline and demarcation. 

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ren hoek said:

He did.  And he blew it.  But I still think it's outlandish to compare the deathtoll from an involuntary pandemic to a war of choice.  

I'd agree that the Iraq War and the 2020 pandemic are different things, pineapples and mangoes and all that. And we could get into comps/contrasts. However, I think I'm echoing Rock here in saying that it's about the old judgement issue and the use of executive authority. I'll add that as horrendous as the Iraq War was (is) we are in the midst of the pandemic right now, it will be front and center in November.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, timschochet said:

First off I think it’s Harris or Stacy because blacks gave Biden the nomination. Sometimes these things are pretty simple. It’s also important to be aware: more than any other recent VP candidate, whoever Biden chooses is likely to be our next President, as early as 2024. So this really is a bigger deal than normal. 

Now personally I like Harris better than Abrams, because I know her better, being from California. She’s smart and tough. She’s not the greatest speaker and Abrams does put the south into play. California is going to be blue anyhow. On the other hand, Harris is better looking than Abrams. That’s stupid I know, and it’s sexist and every woman that reads this is going to hate me for writing it (if my wife read it she’d hate me too.) but the truth is, sadly, it matters with a woman candidate. Abrams is on the heavy side. That turns off people- including women. Sucks but it’s true. 

So it’s a tough choice. Still I would guess Abrams. 

I am not trying to be unexcellent here so please don’t misunderstand, but no way they would ever pick Stacey Abrams. This pick is supposed to sooth and comfort the many many many people concerned about Biden’s age and mental capacity. Stacey Abrams has to be the most unhealthy looking politician/potential VP I’ve seen since Chris Christie. She would probably lose him votes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The General said:

One of these women will be the VP pick:

Kamala

Tammy Duckworth

Klobacher

Abrams

Whitmer

Who else am I missing?

Who do people like?

My own preference is to at least consider Val Demmings, and I do not see the magic in Abrams that so many others must see. 

But I'd have to think it has to be between Klobuchar and Whitmer right now. And I think Biden takes the VP position very seriously and there's no doubt that there's not only a decent chance he may not do a 2nd term but that people also view that as possible. Shades of McCain are here but given that that was a lesson learned. There won't be a clever pick appealing to xyz demographics or voter base, I think it will be someone serious, and also someone who can truly drill Pence knowledgeably in debates.  I'm guessing Klobuchar right now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phil Elliott said:

Cuomo leads Biden in Poll for POTUS  by 12 points.

Say it ain't so, Joe.

Hannity had Rove on the other night and Rove told him point blank to stop dreaming about Cuomo... and Hillary and Mark Cuban, etc., these names that have been floated over and over. 

This week's polls are doing fine for Biden:

The Economist/YouGov: Biden +6

Monmouth University: Biden + 4

CNN/SSRS: Biden +11

CNBC/Hart & POS: Biden +5

Quinnipiac University: Biden +8

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like Kamala Harris is going to be the pick...

https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/kamala-harris-vice-president/

Quote

Harris is hosting her own virtual fundraiser Thursday and has set up a joint fundraising operation with the Democratic National Committee.

This article elaborates on why those two fundraising moves are a pretty strong indicator that Harris is the likely choice...

https://www.ktvu.com/news/sen-harris-fundraising-effort-fuels-speculation-she-will-become-bidens-running-mate

 

Quote

Harris, who dropped out of the White House race in December, set up a joint fundraising operation with the Democratic National Committee, an arrangement that is typically reserved for nominees trying to attract large donations from the party’s biggest boosters. Hours later, she made a surprise appearance on a virtual fundraiser, introducing Biden to donors.

 

If Harris gets the nod for VP, I don't see how this helps Biden. Congrats on locking down California I guess.

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

My own preference is to at least consider Val Demmings, and I do not see the magic in Abrams that so many others must see. 

But I'd have to think it has to be between Klobuchar and Whitmer right now. And I think Biden takes the VP position very seriously and there's no doubt that there's not only a decent chance he may not do a 2nd term but that people also view that as possible. Shades of McCain are here but given that that was a lesson learned. There won't be a clever pick appealing to xyz demographics or voter base, I think it will be someone serious, and also someone who can truly drill Pence knowledgeably in debates.  I'm guessing Klobuchar right now.

Just don't ask her who the President of Mexico is. C'mon. Klobuchar is a stiff.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

My own preference is to at least consider Val Demmings, and I do not see the magic in Abrams that so many others must see. 

But I'd have to think it has to be between Klobuchar and Whitmer right now. And I think Biden takes the VP position very seriously and there's no doubt that there's not only a decent chance he may not do a 2nd term but that people also view that as possible. Shades of McCain are here but given that that was a lesson learned. There won't be a clever pick appealing to xyz demographics or voter base, I think it will be someone serious, and also someone who can truly drill Pence knowledgeably in debates.  I'm guessing Klobuchar right now.

I listened to Demmings a lot during the hearings and have seen her in interviews recently. Seems good. But she is low profile as is Abrams. I have only seen a little of Abrams but thought she was a really engaging speaker so if Biden isn't concerned with lack of experience in that seat go with the most dynamic person. 

I think with Biden's weaknesses they will go with high profile well-known Veep so agree with you there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, roadkill1292 said:

I had completely forgotten about Biden pledging to name a woman veep and so of course I was corrected on not one but two different message boards. I still think he could stand a little bit of a leftward lean with that choice; he's got the moderate side of the party locked down. I don't think Harris gets it done for the progressives and we'll need them (us?) too.

People like Tim have made it abundantly clear Biden can easily get the job done without progressives. So go on, win that election. I'll be cheering you all on from the couch.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing will fundamentally change Nothing Will Fundamentally Change NOTHING WILL FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE ℕ𝕆𝕋ℍ𝕀ℕ𝔾 𝕎𝕀𝕃𝕃 𝔽𝕌ℕ𝔻𝔸𝕄𝔼ℕ𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕃𝕐 ℂℍ𝔸ℕ𝔾𝔼 NOTHING WILL FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE  ƎᎮͶAHƆ Y⅃⅃ATͶƎMAᗡͶUꟻ ⅃⅃IW ᎮͶIHTOͶ

  • Laughing 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2020 at 7:17 AM, rockaction said:

Yeah, it's always harder to argue the "#### it" argument against the civics argument. Lose every time. And per usual, you've provided well thought-out reasoning for the engagement in civic behavior. It is, indeed, tough to argue against your passion and involvement, especially considering that democracies are based on informed participation. And especially when it seems like the know-nothing, non-pragmatic margins are running the show for both parties, an unusual state of affairs to be sure. But that the margins are running the show speaks to something civic-minded, to something deep. To something that's even more small "d" democratic than informed citizenry. And that is the seeming desire to get back to one-man, one-vote. We've constructed all of these systems to help us be secure, to be safe, to reduce the amount of democratic push and pull there is, but people seem to be fed up with systemic removals of power from them, now entrusted to institutions, organizations, and larger, bigger entities than a simple vote from a single person.

I think that's where the discontent comes in. Everything is too big. The government, the banks, the PACs, the schools, the workforce employers, everything is just out of the reach of the average and singular man, it seems. So they've reacted. With Trump and Sanders leading the way for the disenfranchised, the disaffected. The people who felt like their votes were counted, but didn't really count. And that's what you're seeing here, I think.

Anyway, I'm rambling. But this should at least make introductory sense on some level...

Lots of merit to this post, but I can't help but be frustrated when I see stuff like the bold. In fairness, rockaction is a conservative so I understand the convenience in both-sidesing this thing. But if anything, this election cycle is proving that one party is a complete conjob, while the other takes governing very seriously.  Even those who bought the "Trump hostile takeover" narrative now have to admit that Trumpism IS Republicanism, right?  And that's governance by an incompetence led by a corrupt, reality television show con man who is detached from factual reality.  Meanwhile, over the past 6 months the other Party has given us a glimpse of what their party, platform, and leadership is all about.  And that was governors, senators, and house reps in all shapes, colors, and sizes.  Expertise was rewarded!  In the end, voters coalesced around an experienced, safe, and steady former VP.  Even the "outsider" was a state Senator who has been in the US Congress for what, 30+ years?  

Make no mistake, progressive Democrats have a LOT of pull in shaping the Democratic Party - that's simply a fact.  But they aren't running the show.  On the other side, Trump-Con Republicanism IS the show. The parties aren't remotely comparable at this point, IMO.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, KiddLattimer said:

After all they went through to get Biden over Bernie, I hope they stick with him and see how it plays out. 

Plus I don't see how Cuomo can just pack up and run for president, he's going to have a lot of fallout to deal with. 

When you say "all they went through", do you mean counting votes?

Also, important to remember that outsiders not even running for President are often more popular than current candidates, largely because voters are seeing the good parts of Cuomo on TV every night, but there is no opposition point out the flaws in his life, experience, past votes, etc.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

nothing will fundamentally change Nothing Will Fundamentally Change NOTHING WILL FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE ℕ𝕆𝕋ℍ𝕀ℕ𝔾 𝕎𝕀𝕃𝕃 𝔽𝕌ℕ𝔻𝔸𝕄𝔼ℕ𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕃𝕐 ℂℍ𝔸ℕ𝔾𝔼 NOTHING WILL FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE  ƎᎮͶAHƆ Y⅃⅃ATͶƎMAᗡͶUꟻ ⅃⅃IW ᎮͶIHTOͶ

This is absolutely true if the folks who are the loudest change advocates take their ball and go home when their candidates do not win primary elections.  In order to change the system, you have to participate, and not voting or refusing to vote for the candidate that most aligns with your progressive platform out of spite does nothing to advance a progressive agenda.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I wasn't trying to both sides it. That sentence that you bolded says that to the disaffected and disenfranchised voter "it seems" as if the margins are running the show for both. I know why you would take it the way you did because my writing is colloquial and imprecise. So I'll be precise. I'm voting Democrat or Libertarian if Amash gets the nomination. That's putting money where the mouth is, rubber to road. I won't be voting Republican in 2020. It does sadden me a bit because the Republican Party, for a time, was the party where a libertarian/conservative fusionist could find a bit of a home. No longer. They have substituted fiction for fact, power for democracy, you name it. 2016 kicked the rot away and replaced it with something else -- a nebulous form of something the likes of which we don't even know yet. So there's no real "both sides" in that argument, other than from the perspective of the disaffected and disenfranchised.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Suprised Liz Warren isn't getting more VP love.  I would think a Warren pick does a lot to solidify the progressive base.  

I would love it if this happened, I think at least part of the reason is that Dems would temporarily lose a Senate seat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Yeah, I wasn't trying to both sides it. That sentence that you bolded says that to the disaffected and disenfranchised voter "it seems" as if the margins are running the show for both. I know why you would take it the way you did because my writing is colloquial and imprecise. So I'll be precise. I'm voting Democrat or Libertarian if Amash gets the nomination. That's putting money where the mouth is, rubber to road. I won't be voting Republican in 2020. It does sadden me a bit because the Republican Party, for a time, was the party where a libertarian/conservative fusionist could find a bit of a home. No longer. They have substituted fiction for fact, power for democracy, you name it. 2016 kicked the rot away and replaced it with something else -- a nebulous form of something the likes of which we don't even know yet. So there's no real "both sides" in that argument, other than from the perspective of the disaffected and disenfranchised.

I don’t consider a 2020 Trump voter any worse than an 04 Bush guy.  There wasn’t any lofty ideals or less affinity for lies and distortions then either.  People keep harkening back to the noble days of the Republican party- when was that?  Bush transformed this country for the worst in a way Trump could never dream of.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Suprised Liz Warren isn't getting more VP love.  I would think a Warren pick does a lot to solidify the progressive base.  

She doesn't help with a battleground state.  She doesn't comfort anyone who has concerns about Biden's age.  She's not a racial minority.  There are other candidates to reach out to progressives that also check one of the other boxes.

To be clear, I'm not arguing credentials in any way, I'm purely arguing demographic strategy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ren hoek said:

I don’t consider a 2020 Trump voter any worse than an 04 Bush guy.  There wasn’t any lofty ideals or less affinity for lies and distortions then either.  People keep harkening back to the noble days of the Republican party- when was that?  Bush transformed this country for the worst in a way Trump could never dream of.  

Yeah, I'm talking about the early to mid-nineties and the remnants of Goldwaterism that still reverberated within the party. And Bush campaigned very differently than how he governed. A vote for Bush in 2000 was radically different than a vote for Bush in '04.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rich Conway said:

She doesn't comfort anyone who has concerns about Biden's age.  She's not a racial minority.  There are other candidates to reach out to progressives that also check one of the other boxes.

She's like 7 or 8 years younger than Biden and shows no similar signs of aging.  She's 1/1064 Native American!  And other than Bernie and AOC, she's probably the most prominent progressive figure out there right now.  I'm not sure which candidates you're thinking of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

This is absolutely true if the folks who are the loudest change advocates take their ball and go home when their candidates do not win primary elections.  In order to change the system, you have to participate, and not voting or refusing to vote for the candidate that most aligns with your progressive platform out of spite does nothing to advance a progressive agenda.  

This is what Biden said to a room full of rich donors when his campaign was on life support.  It’s definitely a waste of time to try pushing Joe Biden to the left.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

She's like 7 or 8 years younger than Biden and shows no similar signs of aging.  She's 1/1064 Native American!  And other than Bernie and AOC, she's probably the most prominent progressive figure out there right now.  I'm not sure which candidates you're thinking of.

Well, AOC does check the racial minority and significantly younger boxes (although she comes with some baggage of her own).

Perhaps I should have phrased that as "I suspect checking multiple other boxes will be more important than reaching out to progressives via Warren."

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Yeah, I'm talking about the early to mid-nineties and the remnants of Goldwaterism that still reverberated within the party. And Bush campaigned very differently than how he governed. A vote for Bush in 2000 was radically different than a vote for Bush in '04.

Thanks, that makes more sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rich Conway said:

Well, AOC does check the racial minority and significantly younger boxes (although she comes with some baggage of her own).

Perhaps I should have phrased that as "I suspect checking multiple other boxes will be more important than reaching out to progressives via Warren."

AOC is ineligible, too young. 

Warren checks the "experienced and competent" boxes, at least in my opinion.  Those seem like really important boxes when you're the backup for a really old Presidential candidate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, KiddLattimer said:

After all they went through to get Biden over Bernie, I hope they stick with him and see how it plays out. 

Plus I don't see how Cuomo can just pack up and run for president, he's going to have a lot of fallout to deal with. 

Biden stepping down or dying are the only mechanisms by which he is not the Democrats nominee for president. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

AOC is ineligible, too young. 

Warren checks the "experienced and competent" boxes, at least in my opinion.  Those seem like really important boxes when you're the backup for a really old Presidential candidate. 

I have little faith in the American public.  "Experienced and competent" wouldn't enter into the equation much for me when deciding which boxes I want to check, if I'm thinking in terms of electability.  Different conversation if I'm thinking in terms of actually governing, obviously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tommyGunZ said:

Suprised Liz Warren isn't getting more VP love.  I would think a Warren pick does a lot to solidify the progressive base.  

I think she is an extremely unlikely choice. It would cost a Senate seat at least until a special election. Biden is going to want someone he agrees with in the position. He will view the VP as being much more involved than most people would. He also recognizes the chances that he doesn't serve out his term.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rich Conway said:

I have little faith in the American public.  "Experienced and competent" wouldn't enter into the equation much for me when deciding which boxes I want to check, if I'm thinking in terms of electability.  Different conversation if I'm thinking in terms of actually governing, obviously.

I think in a normal election I would tend to agree with you.  But Biden is really really old.  I think it's a box people will care more about this time.  But you're right that there's nobody out there that checks all the boxes.  So maybe a different box takes priority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I think in a normal election I would tend to agree with you.  But Biden is really really old.  I think it's a box people will care more about this time.  But you're right that there's nobody out there that checks all the boxes.  So maybe a different box takes priority.

We all may also be underestimating the possibility of a current unknown that becomes a superstar during the COVID crisis?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pick a VP that is popular. That’s all he needs to do.

Play Trump’s awful quotes leading up to COVID shutting down the country and costing trillions.

You think “you can keep your doctor” was good. It’s laughable how stupid that is in comparison to this guy’s number he has done.

That’s it. Ballgame. 

Edited by The General
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

She's like 7 or 8 years younger than Biden and shows no similar signs of aging.  She's 1/1064 Native American!  And other than Bernie and AOC, she's probably the most prominent progressive figure out there right now.  I'm not sure which candidates you're thinking of.

Trump already destroyed her with the Pocahontas stuff.  It’d be a bloodbath, 24/7 clips of Warren talking about her grandma’s high cheekbones.  

The irony of her partnering with the man whose bankruptcy legislation she entered politics to fight against would be pretty wild too.  A lot of the Sanders people feel she betrayed him (though perhaps some of them would come around).  

She was a much more compelling figure before she became a politician.  I think she comes off a bit mechanical and struggles to connect with poor/uneducated.  She’s a good politician to whom we owe a lot of gratitude for destroying Michael Bloomberg, but I don’t see her helping much in a general election.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Trump already destroyed her with the Pocahontas stuff.  It’d be a bloodbath, 24/7 clips of Warren talking about her grandma’s high cheekbones.  

I don't think this "destroyed" Warren at all.  It's extremely racist, and I think having that highlighted again in the general would be a good thing for Biden.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

AOC is ineligible, too young. 

Warren checks the "experienced and competent" boxes, at least in my opinion.  Those seem like really important boxes when you're the backup for a really old Presidential candidate. 

Biden's age is why he won't pick a nominee just for political purposes. He will pick someone he wants to rule if he cannot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...