Red Mosquito

gonna be cray when Biden names E. Warren as his VP

this election will sizzle again

Sleepy Joe / Pocahontas 2020

2 kinds of incoherence, in one ticket

I'm all in

if we're gonna go down, this is how we're gonna go down (meaning like gettin all crazy and dgaf)

McParadigm wrote:

I'm sure their reasoning has something to do with family values and economics.

I mean, Warren should be the most favorable candidate among progressives, especially given that Biden may or may not last 4 years, let alone 8. She had a few awkward moments and did pretty much rabbit punch Bernie with the "a woman can't win" comments. But she also believes employees should have representation on the board of directors. The socialist left gets a boner when it talks about this. Given history, she would be a big victory for progressives. I have heard arguments, though, that suggest VP is kind of a waste. No real power, and she's not really going to negotiate well across the aisle (not only her fault). I hope she gets at least cabinet position (treasury?) but I guess 2nd in line to the presidency of old man Biden would be ok too. And Trump needs to go, so if the polling is accurate, then...

The strongest argument against Warren is that losing the MA seat dooms Dem senate hopes. Not really sure how to get around that, given how tight the senate will be.

Mickey wrote:The strongest argument against Warren is that losing the MA seat dooms Dem senate hopes. Not really sure how to get around that, given how tight the senate will be.

I would like to think that my liberal neighbors will be able to at least vote this year's Dem runner-up over a Republican. I could be wrong. New England likes GOP governors but I feel like a senate seat up here is safer than most other places.

Mickey wrote:The strongest argument against Warren is that losing the MA seat dooms Dem senate hopes. Not really sure how to get around that, given how tight the senate will be.

I feel like that's an understated, yet important part of this equation. Seems like she's pretty neutral:

"26 percent of registered voters said placing her on the ticket would make them more likely to vote for Biden, while 23 percent said it would make them less likely to back him."

Maybe Abrams, then?

Rob wrote:

Mickey wrote:The strongest argument against Warren is that losing the MA seat dooms Dem senate hopes. Not really sure how to get around that, given how tight the senate will be.

I would like to think that my liberal neighbors will be able to at least vote this year's Dem runner-up over a Republican. I could be wrong. New England likes GOP governors but I feel like a senate seat up here is safer than most other places.

Scott Brown owns a truck!

Rob wrote:

Mickey wrote:The strongest argument against Warren is that losing the MA seat dooms Dem senate hopes. Not really sure how to get around that, given how tight the senate will be.

I would like to think that my liberal neighbors will be able to at least vote this year's Dem runner-up over a Republican. I could be wrong. New England likes GOP governors but I feel like a senate seat up here is safer than most other places.

Yeah I mean, she's not Doug Jones, her seat isn't borrowed time, but the senate is going to be tight and those first two years would be pivotal to any Biden success. Personally I'd rather her on the ticket (there's no one else even remotely capable of getting me excited for November, Abrams lost all my respect when she took Bloomberg money). So I'd take my chances on the senate, but I do hear the argument.

There is risk, for sure. But I like a Biden/Warren ticket better than the other possibles too. I hope they risk it.

Rob wrote:There is risk, for sure. But I like a Biden/Warren ticket better than the other possibles too. I hope they risk it.

It's not a "risk," it's a given. MA has a Republican governor who would appoint someone to replace her.

tragabigzanda wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

Rob wrote:There is risk, for sure. But I like a Biden/Warren ticket better than the other possibles too. I hope they risk it.

It's not a "risk," it's a given. MA has a Republican governor who would appoint someone to replace her.

?? Wouldn’t there be a special election?

Yes, but unless she did something like the quote below, it would jeopardize a swift transition for Prez Biden (assuming Ds gain seats):

"Under [MA] state law, an outgoing senator could file a letter of resignation, triggering the 145- to 160-day period to hold a special election — but not make the resignation effective until a later date."

elliseamos wrote:

Rob wrote:There is risk, for sure. But I like a Biden/Warren ticket better than the other possibles too. I hope they risk it.

It's not a "risk," it's a given. MA has a Republican governor who would appoint someone to replace her.

I meant risk (and I'm assuming this is the usage Rob adopted) as in, they'll lose the seat in MA but they'll gamble on stronger progressive turnout leading to a better overall picture, i.e. still picking up the seats needed to win back the senate. Definitely a gamble--losing MA and AL (guaranteed) puts them down five, so they'd need to take five of seven from Arizona, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, Iowa, Montana, and Kansas. It's do-able, but it's definitely riskier than only needing four of those seven.

Biden needs to pick a younger woman of color, not some 70 year old white lady who is kind of a weirdo.

Why?

Do we really need TWO gaffe prone, senile whites in power?

There's a difference between what you posted, as a potential downside, and what *needs* to happen. I think he needs to pick a woman, since he vocally promised to pick a woman, but I'm not sure on voting metrics that she needs to be a woman of color.

Practically speaking, should she be old and weird like he is also old and weird? I'd like to see a little balancing out.