• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Dem VP - who ya' got

The reported VP list was narrowed to 6 a few days ago. Warren, Rice, Harris, Demings, Bottoms, Lujan.
 
No Whitmer. He's up double digits in Michigan.
 
Agreed that Warren would be a great Senate Majority/Minority Leader. Certainly light years ahead of Schumer, who has no spine.
 
Definitely. That's a great spot for Warren. Then hopefully Pressley gets her Senate seat.
 
I didn't realize Demings husband is Mayor of Orange County FL. Just an interesting tidbit.
 
Oh look! Name recognition.
 
one takeaway from that article -

it seems that white and black voters alike, voters more generally? are pretty sexist

not interested remotely in a female presidential candidate (they would prefer every geriatric white guy who didn't even bother to run a campaign over the female candidates, i turns out), but are now torn between female vice presidential candidates

both of these candidates ran for president and failed to gain traction. there were no magazine and newspaper profiles (like their significantly less accomplished male peers - from buttigieg to beto), no focused reporting on cable news (like sanders and bloomberg), no stalwart establishment support (like biden), etc.

you just have to want it and you want it by voting

some of y'all are gonna twist yourselves into pretzels arguing about electability, campaign strategy, etc. but at the end of the day voters just don't want to vote for a woman. it feels like a collective "we tried in 2016, but never again"
 
I think certain Democratic establishment voters were hesitant to support a woman after seeing Hillary Clinton get trashed by the far left and lose to a much less qualified Donald Trump.

Both Warren and Harris gained some traction in the race Warren was the leader of a crowded field at one short time and Harris made it up as far as low double digits.
 
Warren should have been the top of the ticket.

She is too old to be Biden's VP IMO, but she certainly would check the party unity box by adding an authentic progressive to the ticket.
 
I think certain Democratic establishment voters were hesitant to support a woman after seeing Hillary Clinton get trashed by the far left and lose to a much less qualified Donald Trump.

Both Warren and Harris gained some traction in the race Warren was the leader of a crowded field at one short time and Harris made it up as far as low double digits.

Neither Harris nor Warren had any sort of traction when it counted, during the immediate run up through the causes/primaries. The media and the establishment, alike, worked overtime to try to make the B Men happen, but couldn't be bothered to boost signals or draw up support for any of the female candidates in the race. This deliberate pandering is especially offensive given the fact that either of these women would be superior presidential nominees to Joe Biden in literally every way. Democratic voters really fucked themselves with this one, but luckily the combination of economic freefall and growing list of COVID-19 fatalities will probably make this mistake look much less consequential than it actually was in practice and should have been in outcome.
 
Well, I think you are clearly wrong in your opinion and don't appreciate swing state electoral politics.

Now perhaps with covid any democrat could win, but there is no evidence that Warren or Harris were stronger against Trump than Biden.
 
Last edited:
Well, I think you are clearly wrong in your opinion and don't appreciate swing state electoral politics.

So, let's work with this statement.

Do swing state electoral politics dynamics explain why only a man could beat Donald Trump? Am I interpreting you correctly that neither Harris nor Warren were electable given these dynamics?

If I'm misreading you, then could you clearly restate which parts of my opinion you disagree with and why?
 
Voters are playing it safe. That's why the two candidates with the most name recognition going into the primary were the top two candidates. That's why the two VP possibilities who have the most name recognition now poll the best.

Media coverage during the primary followed the polling. It wasn't some grand conspiracy. Warren and Harris got spikes in media coverage after they spiked in the polls. Same for Beto and Pete.

The Economist/YouGov poll is interesting. This is what NBC News says about it:
An Economist YouGov poll this month found that Harris led Warren by two points among black Democrats asked for their vice presidential preference, inside the margin of error.

That's not what the poll actually says. Sure, Kamala got 21% among Black Democrats (N=106) and Warren got 19%. But "Not sure" got 28%. Biden voters overall were 28% "Not sure." Here's another way to look at the polling among Biden voters:

30% Someone besides Harris or Warren (Abrams 9%)
28% Not sure
24% Kamala Harris
18% Elizabeth Warren

Here is the polling among Black voters:
32% Someone besides Harris or Warren (Abrams 14%)
28% Not sure
21% Kamala Harris
19% Elizabeth Warren

Then look closer. Here is the percentage among Black voters/Biden voters/Independents (there is some overlap) who list "Don't know" as the favorability for each potential nominee.

Abrams 39/35/50
Baldwin 62/60/68
Bottoms 48/58/65
Demings 57/62/70
Grisham 69/72/70
Harris 27/16/36
Rice 53/46/53
Warren 23/10/30
Whitmer 57/52/59

Warren, Harris, and Abrams are the only ones who we can even say are known among people who might support the ticket. And even then Warren and Harris don't have particularly strong support. "The media" are trying to make it seem like a two woman race when the reality is Black voters and Biden supporters in general don't really have a preference. Most likely they'll just roll with whoever is picked.
 
Last edited:
The clear front runners heading into the primary season were: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris. Two of those candidates gained a lot of traction and two of them didn't.

I agree with you that voters are playing it safe, but that's about as convincing of an explanation as electability imo, and seems to me like a lot of hand wringing to avoid calling out the Democratic electorate as inherently sexist in its orientation.

Why don't voters know about more female politicians? What does a comparative poll look like among male candidates?

And that leads me to my next point. Where does familiarity come from? You also mention that media coverage followed polling, but you're conflating cause and effect here. We've gone back and forth about this a lot, so I'm not going to rehash the argument, but at the time Buttigieg was the mayor of South Bend, Indiana and O'Rourke was best known as a milquetoast congressman who raised an absurd amount of money, but lost to Ted Cruz.
 
I mean, I'm not interested in rehashing all of this, but it's pretty damn shameful that at the end of the day, that the two presidential candidates that most had tapped as potentially next are vying for vice president for a guy who didn't even bother campaigning for 75% of the competitive period of the primary season. They'll do the majority of the work with the least amount of credit while the media continues to do its job of propping up the legacies of mediocre white men and obscuring those of the remarkable, typically overqualified women that make their legacies happen.
 
Back
Top