• 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 Pete thing is easy to explain. Pete set up an exploratory committee and he got some mainstream media coverage because he was the first openly gay presidential candidate. His announcement speech got some media coverage. Pete did a ton of media spots (radio, podcasts, local and national TV interviews) and people liked what they saw, so he rose in the polls ahead of more known candidates. Mainstream media coverage followed. Strick, are determined not to see people like about Pete, so you pretend he's a media creation rather than giving him credit for being the only new candidate to break through in the primary.

Beto is easy to understand. Same reason McGrath got a lot of attention and why Booker and Harrison are going to get a lot of attention. Democrats who take on hated Republican Senators in red states get attention. It's a good underdog story.

You make that seem like a white guy thing even though Abrams got plenty of underdog attention and has sustained that attention as well.
 
Last edited:
When is the last time that the US had a policy wonkish type president? It might appeal to you, but it hasn't proven to be electable.

To overtake the established names, you have to be able to sell a vision.

Warren needed to go after Sanders in the primaries much harder than she did. Ultimately, it was going to be him or her representing the progressive side of the party and often she seemed like she was running interference for him.
 
Last edited:
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.

On the other hand, any woman selected as the VP candidate has a pretty good shot (if Biden wins) of being the nominee in 2024 and running with name recognition, money, and media coverage.

Sucks that we had to have the two old fuckers refuse to step aside, but here we are.
 
The Pete thing is easy to explain. Pete set up an exploratory committee and he got some mainstream media coverage because he was the first openly gay presidential candidate. His announcement speech got some media coverage. Pete did a ton of media spots (radio, podcasts, local and national TV interviews) and people liked what they saw, so he rose in the polls ahead of more known candidates. Mainstream media coverage followed. Strick, are determined not to see people like about Pete, so you pretend he's a media creation rather than giving him credit for being the only new candidate to break through in the primary.

Beto is easy to understand. Same reason McGrath got a lot of attention and why Booker and Harrison are going to get a lot of attention. Democrats who take on hated Republican Senators in red states get attention. It's a good underdog story.

You make that seem like a white guy thing even though Abrams got plenty of underdog attention and has sustained that attention as well.

It's all easy to understand (and explain) because we live in a brutally sexist society that treats the glass ceiling as if it's a function of individual inadequacy rather than societal preference.
 
When is the last time that the US had a policy wonkish type president? It might appeal to you, but it hasn't proven to be electable.

To overtake the established names, you have to be able to sell a vision.

Warren needed to go after Sanders in the primaries much harder than she did. Ultimately, it was going to be him or her representing the progressive side of the party and often she seemed like she was running interference for him.

I know. You don't like Elizabeth Warren. She's not the entire story, though. Why did Kamala Harris fail to gain traction?
 
On the other hand, any woman selected as the VP candidate has a pretty good shot (if Biden wins) of being the nominee in 2024 and running with name recognition, money, and media coverage.

Sucks that we had to have the two old fuckers refuse to step aside, but here we are.

This is the truth. It's a shame that conventional wisdom suggests that the first female president can only be elected by riding on the coattails of an 82 year old male president, but here we are. I'll take it.
 
I know. You don't like Elizabeth Warren. She's not the entire story, though. Why did Kamala Harris fail to gain traction?

Harris did go after Biden hard but was unable to eat into enough of his black support base to move into the leading contender space. It was a crowded field. Biden had a huge name recognition advantage as a Senator for 26 years who moved up to chair the senate foreign relations committee and then VP for 8 years.

There were quite a few candidates who had their own compelling stories who weren't able to gain leading contender traction. It's hard to necessarily pinpoint one reason why.
 
This is the truth. It's a shame that conventional wisdom suggests that the first female president can only be elected by riding on the coattails of an 82 year old male president, but here we are. I'll take it.

You mean the 82 year old male president who rode the coattails of the first black president.
 
This argument that the Democratic establishment won't support a female candidate when four years ago the argument was that the Democratic establishment ordained a female candidate as the nominee is a peculiar one.
 
This argument that the Democratic establishment won't support a female candidate when four years ago the argument was that the Democratic establishment ordained a female candidate as the nominee is a peculiar one.

Agreed. Add that there has been no criticism or “whatabout this guy?” in response to Biden’s commitment to pick a woman VP.

All of these trends are name recognition or establishment trends. Obviously sexism is a thing. I just don’t think you can point to Obama’s Secretary of State and VP who are core establish figures winning back to back nominations and blame it on sexism.
 
I guess we'll just have to wait until 2024 to reevaluate, then? According to you guys, Vice President Warren/Harris will be frontrunner for POTUS and won't get jumped by every under qualified ego maniacal white guy who decides to throw their hat into the ring at the last minute. We'll see, I suppose.
 
I don’t think they automatically will be the nominee for the reasons I’ve stated plenty of times before and reasons I’ll state at the end of this post.

I also don’t think Biden will only be a one term president.

I do expect Warren and Harris to be part of the Biden administration. And if that happens, I expect Porter and Pressley to have a good shot at replacing them. If that happens, both would be strong contenders to the nomination.

I just don’t think there’s any experienced DC Dems right now who are great candidates. That’s one reason we got Hillary and Biden. That will change over this decade.
 
When is the last time that the US had a policy wonkish type president? It might appeal to you, but it hasn't proven to be electable.

To overtake the established names, you have to be able to sell a vision.

Warren needed to go after Sanders in the primaries much harder than she did. Ultimately, it was going to be him or her representing the progressive side of the party and often she seemed like she was running interference for him.

The answer to your question is most likely Jimmy Carter.
 
I don’t think they automatically will be the nominee for the reasons I’ve stated plenty of times before and reasons I’ll state at the end of this post.

I also don’t think Biden will only be a one term president.

I do expect Warren and Harris to be part of the Biden administration. And if that happens, I expect Porter and Pressley to have a good shot at replacing them. If that happens, both would be strong contenders to the nomination.

I just don’t think there’s any experienced DC Dems right now who are great candidates. That’s one reason we got Hillary and Biden. That will change over this decade.

How will Pressley and Porter get the name recognition required to overcome whatever the barrier is to nominating women not named Hillary Clinton?
 
How will Pressley and Porter get the name recognition required to overcome whatever the barrier is to nominating women not named Hillary Clinton?

Same way Hillary and Biden did, by being notable people who did a good job in a Democrat administration.

And hopefully the bench will be deep enough that plenty of great candidates actually don't end up winning.
 
I wish Warren was the nominee, but her as VP feels like a disappointment. She could do more as majority leader, or elsewhere in the cabinet.
 
Warren for Senate Majority or Treasury Secretary would be great. If it’s the former, Katie Porter for Treasury would work.
 
When is the last time that the US had a policy wonkish type president? It might appeal to you, but it hasn't proven to be electable.

To overtake the established names, you have to be able to sell a vision.

Warren needed to go after Sanders in the primaries much harder than she did. Ultimately, it was going to be him or her representing the progressive side of the party and often she seemed like she was running interference for him.

Warren couldn’t get Sanders’ supporters. They were and are sexist as fuck.
 
What ever happened to gaptoothed proven winner Stacey?

It will be Harris, as aggressive, combative intersectionality rules Dem minds this election.
 
Back
Top