VP picks are generally overrated in influence but which voters do you think she would improve his chances with?
Current Affairs 2020 Democratic Primary
- Thread starter abelard
- Start date
- Status
He won't, she's more valuable in the Senate.
TN Toffee
Player Valuation: £25m
Probably hang onto it. Doubt we’ve seen the last of him, as he’s not even 40 yet.
Kind of disappointed to see this because he was my favorite of the bunch, but like we’ve discussed, the moderates really need to start consolidating their votes ASAP, so this probably makes the most sense. He wasn’t winning the nomination.
Glad I didn’t go do early voting this time like I normally do. Would have sucked to have cast a vote for someone who wasn’t even still in the race by the actual day of the primary.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
Given that her campaign has been overwhelmingly rejected by voters, and now persists solely as a rump intermediary channel for dark money to dampen Sanders' momentum (as Warren's own campaign manager has more or less made explicit), the odds of Sanders choosing her as VP are about as likely as the cartoon mouse betting on a joint ticket with the cat. There was a time when the Sanders team had far higher hopes for her than just VP, but she has long since made her decision, poorly as usual. Nobody desperately needs Warren for anything, other than trying to stop Sanders.
In any case, she would be a serious electoral liability on the national stage, who would at once delegitimise Sanders in the eyes of his millions of more-informed supporters, depressing turnout in November and beyond, while also alienating the red and swing voters whom Sanders wants to win back by reinforcing the well-earned perception that the Democratic Party represeents rich, scolding hypocrites. She would be annihilated in any confrontation against Trump. Warren as Sanders' VP is even less likely than him choosing Gabbard, which... Lol.
My guess for a Sanders VP would be Tammy Baldwin, who checks many of the same boxes Warren does, but who represents a much more important constituency and who has not (yet) shown herself so politically toxic and inept.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
Good riddance. One of the slimier politicians in recent American history, which takes some doing.
I'm not so sure his political future is quite so bright.
He is certainly an enthusiastic errand-boy for the rich and powerful, which clears the first hurdle, but he's utterly toxic with ethnic minority voters, and is ill-placed to address the concerns of the Party's increasingly prominent youth base, which, unlike their parents, is mostly too discerning too fall for lazy, idiotic, vapid, and insulting platitudes like this:
Equally serious is that he is hopelessly unelectable in his own state - hence his initially far-fetched bid for President in the first place. And while there's no shortage of well-paid national-level sinecures that he might fill (Chairman of the DNC, for instance), there aren't many which offer the gravitas or the exposure that aspiring Presidential candidates tend to require.
Good riddance. One of the slimier politicians in recent American history, which takes some doing.
I'm not so sure his political future is quite so bright.
He is certainly an enthusiastic errand-boy for the rich and powerful, which clears the first hurdle, but he's utterly toxic with ethnic minority voters, and is ill-placed to address the concerns of the Party's increasingly prominent youth base, which, unlike their parents, is mostly too discerning too fall for lazy, idiotic, vapid, and insulting platitudes like this:
Equally serious is that he is hopelessly unelectable in his own state - hence his initially far-fetched bid for President in the first place. And while there's no shortage of well-paid national-level sinecures that he might fill (Chairman of the DNC, for instance), there aren't many which offer the gravitas or the exposure that aspiring Presidential candidates tend to require.
Quit faffing around Abelard, tell us what you really think about Pete Buttigieg
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
A campaign so devoid of substance that it has to settle for literally just writing 'substance' on its advertising.
It's beyond 'beyond parody'.
Only in America could you find an electorate this credulous.
D
Deleted member 48881
Guest
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
Respect.
Belonging.
Truth.
Teamwork.
Boldness.
Responsibility.
Substance.
Discipline.
Excellence.
Joy.
It reminds me of Communist Party billboards in Vietnam:
"The Ninth National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam: Solidarity Between all Races toward the goals of Prosperity, Strength, Democracy, Equality, and Civilisation"
Belonging.
Truth.
Teamwork.
Boldness.
Responsibility.
Substance.
Discipline.
Excellence.
Joy.
It reminds me of Communist Party billboards in Vietnam:
"The Ninth National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam: Solidarity Between all Races toward the goals of Prosperity, Strength, Democracy, Equality, and Civilisation"
What change is Sanders wanting ?
Last time I checked the US was doing pretty well.
Unemployment rates amongst all are low, the stock market and economy is doing well, trade deals look good, tax system appears we'll received etc.
D
Deleted member 48881
Guest
From The Economist;
Now I don't agree with Bernie on his fiscal policy as a whole, I also have my objections but the level of negative bias towards him from this magazine is shameful
Now I don't agree with Bernie on his fiscal policy as a whole, I also have my objections but the level of negative bias towards him from this magazine is shameful
The US is doing well economically so what else is there to change? Stunning insight mate, thanks for participating
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
The Economist is not actually a newspaper (a common misconception), in that its goal is not to explain to readers what is happening, but rather, to tell them how they should feel about what is happening.
This distinguishes it from, say, Financial Times, which, unlike The Economist, is relied upon by readers to make informed financial decisions.
For example, any prospective investor in US health insurance shares dull enough to heed The Economist's advice here (as if the image alone wasn't a warning not to take it seriously) likely lost their money, while the reader of the FT's much more balanced coverage from the same time was far likelier to have anticipated what lay ahead.
If anything, a shrewd investor would profit more from betting against The Economist's obvious editorialising, given its impressive track record of getting it wrong on just about every important issue or debate over the past 180 years
Liberalism According to The Economist
Founded in 1843 to spread the doctrine of laissez-faire, the magazine has wielded influence like no other. But at what cost?
In this sense, The Economist functions as a Fox News/Daily Mail-type service for educated self-serious liberals, albeit with one key difference: while many Fox/Daily Mail loyalists grasp on a visceral level that they are consuming propaganda, Economist readers largely fail to discern even from screamingly obvious hints like this that they are absorbing partisan opinion (which has its place, to be sure), and instead fancy themselves the high-minded-rational-enlightened-dispassionate observers of hard-hitting-neutral-even-handed-nothing-but-the-facts hard news.
Last edited:
- Status