Name recognition. I barely know who she is, let alone your average punter.
Yep, it is definitely early.
Probably if you’re Beto, Biden, or Harris you’re pretty happy to see that. If you’re Warren or Bernie, maybe less so. Booker, woof.
Yeah. At this point all a straw poll is measuring is who’s name has been in the news the most recently.
It’s MoveOn, these are activists who (you would think) would know who these Democrats are (I mean, we do here and few of us are activists.)
Do we know if she’s actually running? But same for Sherrod Brown (although I’ve cooled on him considerably after his support for trump’s tariffs.) It’s really hard for me to imagine how this is all going to suss out if we end up with twenty or thirty candidates.
This makes me so mad. They keep pushing someone who isn’t even the dang party. Warren is the new whipping girl, and mostly because she’s a girl and she’s older and it’s too damn easy for the GOP to make someone like that a target which, of course, the Democrats just accept.
It’s a little premature to narrow the list though. We have some unproven individuals to check out and test.
Yes, I don’t think it’s much to ask that if you want to be the party’s nominee, you actually join it. That, plus I think Sanders is probably not a good general election candidate. Not much charisma going there, which seems to matter when it comes to getting the vote out.
What should the Dems do? You act like they should somehow go on the offensive against GOP name calling. Doesn’t that just play into the GOP’s hand?
If the GOP says your candidate is no good for these xyz reasons, you ignore them. They’re not in the party. They are not looking out for the best interest of their opposing party. There is no reason to talk about shit they peddle. Buying into that actually let’s the GOP sway what the Democrats do and discuss, and they should not have that kind of power, like at all.
There shouldn’t be a single member of the Democratic party discussing anything DNA related when it comes to Warren. It’s a non-issue. And if someone is swayed by it, they’re lost anyway. They were just looking for an excuse. Now are there other concerns with Warren, maybe, talk about those but be careful about taking traits we consider strong in men and making them negative for women. Pelosi and Warren are easy targets for the GOP because of their sexist Trump supporter base. The Democrats don’t need to buy into that either. Those kind of people are not going to vote Democratic, but they will be more than happy to pretend and say they would have if only we didn’t present them with a man-eater.
Playing chess while everyone else plays checkers dept:
That she foolishly perpetuated by flaunting a “positive” DNA test.
But I agree the Dems should ignore whether someone is a woman or not as far as their acceptability goes because the GOP would never vote for a woman for president. In fact most the right would never vote democratic anyway.
What she said was factually true, and the fact the Democrats let the Republicans lead them into talking about it at all is a showcase of how weak the Democrats are. Traps are set and they fall right into them.
That’s not what I actually meant. Don’t let the GOP turn a strong woman with conviction who happens to be of a certain age and has a voice as into some sort of negative. They’ll consider a lot of women in power as not an okay thing so let’s not give them a voice to tell people what’s okay or not okay of a woman in a leadership position, not her looks, her age, how often she smiles or doesn’t… they’ll use all that, and it works. It can work on their voters. It should not even be entertained for ours.
I would say she walked into it.
The fact we are talking about it says we did too. Her remarks were years ago and the GOP did the Pochantas spiel relentlessly. She’s still human. The fact the DNA thing came up should not be a consideration at all when it comes to her running. Those are racist and sexist assholes dogging her, and the people who find that entertaining are a lost cause. Ignore them.
The same people who pilloried Hillary Clinton for not sufficiently addressing the email server issue are now the same people haughtily pillorying Warren for trying to get in front of Republicans using racial epitaphs against her (or more importantly, the media inevitably obsessing over it.) Remember: Ambition in men is good, ambition in women is unseemly. (Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris are going to face this once the campaign starts in earnest.) I’m hoping Warren doesn’t run, but solely because I want fewer septuagenarians running for the nomination.
Some of the folks criticizing Warren for claiming to be a native American are native Americans, although i didn’t really understand their complaint either, since i don’t think she claimed any affiliation with their tribe.
Mainly it was just dumb for her to respond to Trump’s childish goading.
The real reason not to run Warren is that she’s a rich, academic, new Englander. It just doesn’t have much broad appeal across the country, i don’t think
And rich, real estate mogul New Yorker does? How about rich CEO new Englander with a summer home in Southern California? How about a guy who owned so many homes he couldn’t count them? How about the rich scion of a century-old political dynasty? Do those have broad appeal?
If Warren decided to get way more racist, then maybe she would have broader appeal down south. That was basically how Trump did it.
Sorry, I’m not sure who you are talking about as the guy with the summer home in California.
Citing McCain seems odd since, you know, he never won.
In terms of Kennedy, JFK and Bobby had immense charisma. Warren just doesn’t have that. It’s absurd to pretend she does. And Ted? Yeah, he never cut in on the national level. He tried a bunch of times.
Clinton and Obama had charisma, and broad appeal across the country. You need that.
Honestly, and this may be a glass of wine talking, but it feels like this might not be the wide open thing it may have seemed to be six months ago.
If Beto jumps in, he’s going to:
- Raise funds like Obama '08, only adjusted to 2020 numbers, and
- Have his pick of people to work in his campaign, and
- Unless he just is an utter flat, incapable candidate…he’s gonna win the nomination, and it may not be close.
Beto is a valid option, but he is unproven and untried. We can’t hitch our everything wagon to candidates without real vetting and process and… he didn’t debate well. I’m pretty that was him that kind of fell flat in that area. Trump can fold his hands and say you’re the puppet but we need our candidate to actually perform.
And that was the criticism leveled against Barack Obama in 2008.