Biden's VP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Warren would be a strong choice. Bernie supporters will be really disappointed. A proven progressive running mate would reassure many of them that there is still hope for their agenda.

No sweetheart. It's the Biden supporters who, in the end, will be "really disappointed."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women love Elizabeth Warren, they just didn't think she could win. As a black woman, I've had 20 conversations with random black women, all older and none activists. We all wondered where people got the notion that black women didn't like her.

How about rephrasing it to be black women don't like her enough to vote for her?

The point being that there are no Warren supporters who are likely to vote for Trump. It doesn't add anything to the ticket. Unlike the Sanders supporters who are fanatics, Warren supporters are not going to hold their breath and sit out the election. Warren supporters are educated supporters who know that an abstention is essentially a vote for Trump. Warren supporters will support the Democratic ticket no matter who it is. And there are very few to none in the moderate or Independent camps that will choose Biden because of Warren. Picking Whitmer, Klobuchar or Grisham will sway votes that might have gone to Trump to vote for Biden. At this point, that is the most important demographic to court, the ones that are uncommitted to either party, but can be convinced to vote for the Democratic ticket. And two key demographics that need to be courted are the moderate Midwest which reacted when Clinton decided to cancel campaign tour stops in the Midwest to court other votes and voted for Trump; and the Latino vote which supported Sanders. Unlike the Sanders fanatics, the Latino vote can be swayed to vote for Biden with the right incentives.

Grisham would certainly convince a lot of uncommitted Latino votes to vote for Biden and are also likely to convince a portion of the voters who might otherwise vote for Trump to vote for the Democratic ticket. Whitmer and Klobuchar would help with key battle states that Clinton lost. The main reason I think that Grisham is a better candidate is that the Midwest already leans left. Look at the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election. The liberal challenger upset the incumbent conservative judge even when Trump had lobbied for the incumbent. Trump is not that popular in the Midwest. Clinton's mistake in 2016 was that she canceled key campaign stops in the Midwest to visit other states that she felt were more important. Trump, on the other hand, actively campaigned in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Pundits said that the midwest was reliably Democratic, but when the dust cleared, Trump had narrowly won both Michigan and Wisconsin. It is quite likely that had Clinton campaigned in those states, she would have carried them. I think that Biden can carry those states by just making sure not to repeat Clinton's mistakes and to make sure to stop in the Midwest to consolidate the liberal leanings. It's not as easy to win Latinos over with a ground game.

I don't disagree with any of this. It seems obvious now though that the economy will be the primary focus. This is where Elizabeth Warren shines, few can compete with her chops there. If not her, then a governor for the same reason: executive experience and focus on the economy. Then there is the crucial intangible, with whom does Biden have great chemistry and who is perceived as likable? My top picks right now, then, are EW, Grisham, and Whitmer. But I'd also like to see him interact with more of his prospects.

You must be high.

What economic chops does Warren have, other than becoming a millionaire herself via highly-paid consulting to banks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he picks female, we’ve already lost. This isn’t the election year for who us actually best, but who can win. The only ticket that has a chance is Biden/Cuomo.

Too Amtrak corridor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is Amy. A done deal weeks ago.

Yes, I quite agree.

Not clear, her favorables are not as high as some of the other candidates:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/poll-biden-vice-president-experience-187056

Initially I assumed the strategy would be midwest-focused but the WI primary results suggest Biden might not need help there after all.

I think the fact that Klobuchar does not appeal to AA voters is a problem.

But Biden does — big time!!

And that’s not enough. The AA vote is the backbone of the DNC.

Warren was actually making a lot of inroads with the AA voters. Yvette Nicole Brown, Ashley Nicole Black, Imani Gandy... there were a lot of very committed AA voters for Warren, all of whom are now staunchly pro-Biden. I sincerely hope Biden doesn’t kick them in the teeth with my senator Klobuchar.

there was a great article on how warren attracted the black 'thinker' crowd but not actual voters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-black-vote.html

"Don Calloway, a Democratic strategist specializing in field operations with black voters, said Ms. Warren’s problems winning them over threatened the viability of her campaign moving forward but should also serve as a cautionary tale: The progressive activists who have showered her candidacy with validation have a different electoral lens than the black electorate at large.

That schism is a distinction some have labeled “grass tops vs. the grass roots” — or the belief that the leaders of liberal and progressive organizations have a different political lens than their more working-class members.

Ms. Warren “did a great job of galvanizing internet-savvy, well-known personalities, but unfortunately it doesn’t look like that support has translated into populations on the ground,” Mr. Calloway said."

Warren doesn't have the pulse of the streets -- which is weird because her life story is one of (relative) rags to riches.

She lost, and badly, both her native state and her adopted one.

She adds little except the "in" academic and media crowd which is voting Biden no matter what.

How much longer will we have an academic crowd with the upheaval in college and university education. All adjuncts on Zoom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women love Elizabeth Warren, they just didn't think she could win. As a black woman, I've had 20 conversations with random black women, all older and none activists. We all wondered where people got the notion that black women didn't like her.

How about rephrasing it to be black women don't like her enough to vote for her?

The point being that there are no Warren supporters who are likely to vote for Trump. It doesn't add anything to the ticket. Unlike the Sanders supporters who are fanatics, Warren supporters are not going to hold their breath and sit out the election. Warren supporters are educated supporters who know that an abstention is essentially a vote for Trump. Warren supporters will support the Democratic ticket no matter who it is. And there are very few to none in the moderate or Independent camps that will choose Biden because of Warren. Picking Whitmer, Klobuchar or Grisham will sway votes that might have gone to Trump to vote for Biden. At this point, that is the most important demographic to court, the ones that are uncommitted to either party, but can be convinced to vote for the Democratic ticket. And two key demographics that need to be courted are the moderate Midwest which reacted when Clinton decided to cancel campaign tour stops in the Midwest to court other votes and voted for Trump; and the Latino vote which supported Sanders. Unlike the Sanders fanatics, the Latino vote can be swayed to vote for Biden with the right incentives.

Grisham would certainly convince a lot of uncommitted Latino votes to vote for Biden and are also likely to convince a portion of the voters who might otherwise vote for Trump to vote for the Democratic ticket. Whitmer and Klobuchar would help with key battle states that Clinton lost. The main reason I think that Grisham is a better candidate is that the Midwest already leans left. Look at the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election. The liberal challenger upset the incumbent conservative judge even when Trump had lobbied for the incumbent. Trump is not that popular in the Midwest. Clinton's mistake in 2016 was that she canceled key campaign stops in the Midwest to visit other states that she felt were more important. Trump, on the other hand, actively campaigned in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Pundits said that the midwest was reliably Democratic, but when the dust cleared, Trump had narrowly won both Michigan and Wisconsin. It is quite likely that had Clinton campaigned in those states, she would have carried them. I think that Biden can carry those states by just making sure not to repeat Clinton's mistakes and to make sure to stop in the Midwest to consolidate the liberal leanings. It's not as easy to win Latinos over with a ground game.

I don't disagree with any of this. It seems obvious now though that the economy will be the primary focus. This is where Elizabeth Warren shines, few can compete with her chops there. If not her, then a governor for the same reason: executive experience and focus on the economy. Then there is the crucial intangible, with whom does Biden have great chemistry and who is perceived as likable? My top picks right now, then, are EW, Grisham, and Whitmer. But I'd also like to see him interact with more of his prospects.

You must be high.

What economic chops does Warren have, other than becoming a millionaire herself via highly-paid consulting to banks?

Uff da. That’s some hard core ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he picks female, we’ve already lost. This isn’t the election year for who us actually best, but who can win. The only ticket that has a chance is Biden/Cuomo.

Too Amtrak corridor

Agreed. And he just said no when someone specifically asked about Cuomo. I think a woman is fine (hopefully....maybe...finally) but age and race could be factors in a general election. It’s not right, but age because of Covid and Joes age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women love Elizabeth Warren, they just didn't think she could win. As a black woman, I've had 20 conversations with random black women, all older and none activists. We all wondered where people got the notion that black women didn't like her.

How about rephrasing it to be black women don't like her enough to vote for her?

The point being that there are no Warren supporters who are likely to vote for Trump. It doesn't add anything to the ticket. Unlike the Sanders supporters who are fanatics, Warren supporters are not going to hold their breath and sit out the election. Warren supporters are educated supporters who know that an abstention is essentially a vote for Trump. Warren supporters will support the Democratic ticket no matter who it is. And there are very few to none in the moderate or Independent camps that will choose Biden because of Warren. Picking Whitmer, Klobuchar or Grisham will sway votes that might have gone to Trump to vote for Biden. At this point, that is the most important demographic to court, the ones that are uncommitted to either party, but can be convinced to vote for the Democratic ticket. And two key demographics that need to be courted are the moderate Midwest which reacted when Clinton decided to cancel campaign tour stops in the Midwest to court other votes and voted for Trump; and the Latino vote which supported Sanders. Unlike the Sanders fanatics, the Latino vote can be swayed to vote for Biden with the right incentives.

Grisham would certainly convince a lot of uncommitted Latino votes to vote for Biden and are also likely to convince a portion of the voters who might otherwise vote for Trump to vote for the Democratic ticket. Whitmer and Klobuchar would help with key battle states that Clinton lost. The main reason I think that Grisham is a better candidate is that the Midwest already leans left. Look at the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election. The liberal challenger upset the incumbent conservative judge even when Trump had lobbied for the incumbent. Trump is not that popular in the Midwest. Clinton's mistake in 2016 was that she canceled key campaign stops in the Midwest to visit other states that she felt were more important. Trump, on the other hand, actively campaigned in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Pundits said that the midwest was reliably Democratic, but when the dust cleared, Trump had narrowly won both Michigan and Wisconsin. It is quite likely that had Clinton campaigned in those states, she would have carried them. I think that Biden can carry those states by just making sure not to repeat Clinton's mistakes and to make sure to stop in the Midwest to consolidate the liberal leanings. It's not as easy to win Latinos over with a ground game.

I don't disagree with any of this. It seems obvious now though that the economy will be the primary focus. This is where Elizabeth Warren shines, few can compete with her chops there. If not her, then a governor for the same reason: executive experience and focus on the economy. Then there is the crucial intangible, with whom does Biden have great chemistry and who is perceived as likable? My top picks right now, then, are EW, Grisham, and Whitmer. But I'd also like to see him interact with more of his prospects.

You must be high.

What economic chops does Warren have, other than becoming a millionaire herself via highly-paid consulting to banks?

Uff da. That’s some hard core ignorance.

English, plz

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women love Elizabeth Warren, they just didn't think she could win. As a black woman, I've had 20 conversations with random black women, all older and none activists. We all wondered where people got the notion that black women didn't like her.

How about rephrasing it to be black women don't like her enough to vote for her?

The point being that there are no Warren supporters who are likely to vote for Trump. It doesn't add anything to the ticket. Unlike the Sanders supporters who are fanatics, Warren supporters are not going to hold their breath and sit out the election. Warren supporters are educated supporters who know that an abstention is essentially a vote for Trump. Warren supporters will support the Democratic ticket no matter who it is. And there are very few to none in the moderate or Independent camps that will choose Biden because of Warren. Picking Whitmer, Klobuchar or Grisham will sway votes that might have gone to Trump to vote for Biden. At this point, that is the most important demographic to court, the ones that are uncommitted to either party, but can be convinced to vote for the Democratic ticket. And two key demographics that need to be courted are the moderate Midwest which reacted when Clinton decided to cancel campaign tour stops in the Midwest to court other votes and voted for Trump; and the Latino vote which supported Sanders. Unlike the Sanders fanatics, the Latino vote can be swayed to vote for Biden with the right incentives.

Grisham would certainly convince a lot of uncommitted Latino votes to vote for Biden and are also likely to convince a portion of the voters who might otherwise vote for Trump to vote for the Democratic ticket. Whitmer and Klobuchar would help with key battle states that Clinton lost. The main reason I think that Grisham is a better candidate is that the Midwest already leans left. Look at the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election. The liberal challenger upset the incumbent conservative judge even when Trump had lobbied for the incumbent. Trump is not that popular in the Midwest. Clinton's mistake in 2016 was that she canceled key campaign stops in the Midwest to visit other states that she felt were more important. Trump, on the other hand, actively campaigned in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Pundits said that the midwest was reliably Democratic, but when the dust cleared, Trump had narrowly won both Michigan and Wisconsin. It is quite likely that had Clinton campaigned in those states, she would have carried them. I think that Biden can carry those states by just making sure not to repeat Clinton's mistakes and to make sure to stop in the Midwest to consolidate the liberal leanings. It's not as easy to win Latinos over with a ground game.

I don't disagree with any of this. It seems obvious now though that the economy will be the primary focus. This is where Elizabeth Warren shines, few can compete with her chops there. If not her, then a governor for the same reason: executive experience and focus on the economy. Then there is the crucial intangible, with whom does Biden have great chemistry and who is perceived as likable? My top picks right now, then, are EW, Grisham, and Whitmer. But I'd also like to see him interact with more of his prospects.

You must be high.

What economic chops does Warren have, other than becoming a millionaire herself via highly-paid consulting to banks?

Uff da. That’s some hard core ignorance.

English, plz

NP, but my response is that you don’t know anything about Elizabeth Warren and you don’t know anything about “economic chops.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women love Elizabeth Warren, they just didn't think she could win. As a black woman, I've had 20 conversations with random black women, all older and none activists. We all wondered where people got the notion that black women didn't like her.

How about rephrasing it to be black women don't like her enough to vote for her?

The point being that there are no Warren supporters who are likely to vote for Trump. It doesn't add anything to the ticket. Unlike the Sanders supporters who are fanatics, Warren supporters are not going to hold their breath and sit out the election. Warren supporters are educated supporters who know that an abstention is essentially a vote for Trump. Warren supporters will support the Democratic ticket no matter who it is. And there are very few to none in the moderate or Independent camps that will choose Biden because of Warren. Picking Whitmer, Klobuchar or Grisham will sway votes that might have gone to Trump to vote for Biden. At this point, that is the most important demographic to court, the ones that are uncommitted to either party, but can be convinced to vote for the Democratic ticket. And two key demographics that need to be courted are the moderate Midwest which reacted when Clinton decided to cancel campaign tour stops in the Midwest to court other votes and voted for Trump; and the Latino vote which supported Sanders. Unlike the Sanders fanatics, the Latino vote can be swayed to vote for Biden with the right incentives.

Grisham would certainly convince a lot of uncommitted Latino votes to vote for Biden and are also likely to convince a portion of the voters who might otherwise vote for Trump to vote for the Democratic ticket. Whitmer and Klobuchar would help with key battle states that Clinton lost. The main reason I think that Grisham is a better candidate is that the Midwest already leans left. Look at the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election. The liberal challenger upset the incumbent conservative judge even when Trump had lobbied for the incumbent. Trump is not that popular in the Midwest. Clinton's mistake in 2016 was that she canceled key campaign stops in the Midwest to visit other states that she felt were more important. Trump, on the other hand, actively campaigned in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Pundits said that the midwest was reliably Democratic, but when the dust cleared, Trump had narrowly won both Michigan and Wisconsin. It is quite likely that had Clinton campaigned in those states, she would have carried them. I think that Biden can carry those states by just making sure not to repeat Clinton's mistakes and to make sure to stop in the Midwest to consolidate the liberal leanings. It's not as easy to win Latinos over with a ground game.

I don't disagree with any of this. It seems obvious now though that the economy will be the primary focus. This is where Elizabeth Warren shines, few can compete with her chops there. If not her, then a governor for the same reason: executive experience and focus on the economy. Then there is the crucial intangible, with whom does Biden have great chemistry and who is perceived as likable? My top picks right now, then, are EW, Grisham, and Whitmer. But I'd also like to see him interact with more of his prospects.

You must be high.

What economic chops does Warren have, other than becoming a millionaire herself via highly-paid consulting to banks?

Uff da. That’s some hard core ignorance.

English, plz

NP, but my response is that you don’t know anything about Elizabeth Warren and you don’t know anything about “economic chops.”

https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/experts/ewarren

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whitmer isn't popular in her own state, people.

True. She's now getting hit with a least two lawsuits. I haven't yet heard of any other Governors getting hit with lawsuits right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whitmer isn't popular in her own state, people.

True. She's now getting hit with a least two lawsuits. I haven't yet heard of any other Governors getting hit with lawsuits right now.

The protest the other day was sponsored by the De Vos family (the brother), was a pretty small group of MAGA fanatics with guns, and was widely criticized. Her approval ratings are up 20 points since this started. I personally think she's great, but too inexperienced for VP. I don't want anyone who hasn't served AT LEAST one full term as a legislator or governor. For that reason, don't want Harris or Abrams either. I like Warren and Grisham.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women love Elizabeth Warren, they just didn't think she could win. As a black woman, I've had 20 conversations with random black women, all older and none activists. We all wondered where people got the notion that black women didn't like her.

How about rephrasing it to be black women don't like her enough to vote for her?

The point being that there are no Warren supporters who are likely to vote for Trump. It doesn't add anything to the ticket. Unlike the Sanders supporters who are fanatics, Warren supporters are not going to hold their breath and sit out the election. Warren supporters are educated supporters who know that an abstention is essentially a vote for Trump. Warren supporters will support the Democratic ticket no matter who it is. And there are very few to none in the moderate or Independent camps that will choose Biden because of Warren. Picking Whitmer, Klobuchar or Grisham will sway votes that might have gone to Trump to vote for Biden. At this point, that is the most important demographic to court, the ones that are uncommitted to either party, but can be convinced to vote for the Democratic ticket. And two key demographics that need to be courted are the moderate Midwest which reacted when Clinton decided to cancel campaign tour stops in the Midwest to court other votes and voted for Trump; and the Latino vote which supported Sanders. Unlike the Sanders fanatics, the Latino vote can be swayed to vote for Biden with the right incentives.

Grisham would certainly convince a lot of uncommitted Latino votes to vote for Biden and are also likely to convince a portion of the voters who might otherwise vote for Trump to vote for the Democratic ticket. Whitmer and Klobuchar would help with key battle states that Clinton lost. The main reason I think that Grisham is a better candidate is that the Midwest already leans left. Look at the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election. The liberal challenger upset the incumbent conservative judge even when Trump had lobbied for the incumbent. Trump is not that popular in the Midwest. Clinton's mistake in 2016 was that she canceled key campaign stops in the Midwest to visit other states that she felt were more important. Trump, on the other hand, actively campaigned in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Pundits said that the midwest was reliably Democratic, but when the dust cleared, Trump had narrowly won both Michigan and Wisconsin. It is quite likely that had Clinton campaigned in those states, she would have carried them. I think that Biden can carry those states by just making sure not to repeat Clinton's mistakes and to make sure to stop in the Midwest to consolidate the liberal leanings. It's not as easy to win Latinos over with a ground game.

I don't disagree with any of this. It seems obvious now though that the economy will be the primary focus. This is where Elizabeth Warren shines, few can compete with her chops there. If not her, then a governor for the same reason: executive experience and focus on the economy. Then there is the crucial intangible, with whom does Biden have great chemistry and who is perceived as likable? My top picks right now, then, are EW, Grisham, and Whitmer. But I'd also like to see him interact with more of his prospects.

You must be high.

What economic chops does Warren have, other than becoming a millionaire herself via highly-paid consulting to banks?

Uff da. That’s some hard core ignorance.

English, plz

NP, but my response is that you don’t know anything about Elizabeth Warren and you don’t know anything about “economic chops.”

Two false claims right there.

Go on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women love Elizabeth Warren, they just didn't think she could win. As a black woman, I've had 20 conversations with random black women, all older and none activists. We all wondered where people got the notion that black women didn't like her.

How about rephrasing it to be black women don't like her enough to vote for her?

The point being that there are no Warren supporters who are likely to vote for Trump. It doesn't add anything to the ticket. Unlike the Sanders supporters who are fanatics, Warren supporters are not going to hold their breath and sit out the election. Warren supporters are educated supporters who know that an abstention is essentially a vote for Trump. Warren supporters will support the Democratic ticket no matter who it is. And there are very few to none in the moderate or Independent camps that will choose Biden because of Warren. Picking Whitmer, Klobuchar or Grisham will sway votes that might have gone to Trump to vote for Biden. At this point, that is the most important demographic to court, the ones that are uncommitted to either party, but can be convinced to vote for the Democratic ticket. And two key demographics that need to be courted are the moderate Midwest which reacted when Clinton decided to cancel campaign tour stops in the Midwest to court other votes and voted for Trump; and the Latino vote which supported Sanders. Unlike the Sanders fanatics, the Latino vote can be swayed to vote for Biden with the right incentives.

Grisham would certainly convince a lot of uncommitted Latino votes to vote for Biden and are also likely to convince a portion of the voters who might otherwise vote for Trump to vote for the Democratic ticket. Whitmer and Klobuchar would help with key battle states that Clinton lost. The main reason I think that Grisham is a better candidate is that the Midwest already leans left. Look at the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election. The liberal challenger upset the incumbent conservative judge even when Trump had lobbied for the incumbent. Trump is not that popular in the Midwest. Clinton's mistake in 2016 was that she canceled key campaign stops in the Midwest to visit other states that she felt were more important. Trump, on the other hand, actively campaigned in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Pundits said that the midwest was reliably Democratic, but when the dust cleared, Trump had narrowly won both Michigan and Wisconsin. It is quite likely that had Clinton campaigned in those states, she would have carried them. I think that Biden can carry those states by just making sure not to repeat Clinton's mistakes and to make sure to stop in the Midwest to consolidate the liberal leanings. It's not as easy to win Latinos over with a ground game.

I don't disagree with any of this. It seems obvious now though that the economy will be the primary focus. This is where Elizabeth Warren shines, few can compete with her chops there. If not her, then a governor for the same reason: executive experience and focus on the economy. Then there is the crucial intangible, with whom does Biden have great chemistry and who is perceived as likable? My top picks right now, then, are EW, Grisham, and Whitmer. But I'd also like to see him interact with more of his prospects.

You must be high.

What economic chops does Warren have, other than becoming a millionaire herself via highly-paid consulting to banks?

Uff da. That’s some hard core ignorance.

English, plz

NP, but my response is that you don’t know anything about Elizabeth Warren and you don’t know anything about “economic chops.”

Because you don't think expertise in bankruptcy law and consumer protections might be useful right now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women love Elizabeth Warren, they just didn't think she could win. As a black woman, I've had 20 conversations with random black women, all older and none activists. We all wondered where people got the notion that black women didn't like her.

How about rephrasing it to be black women don't like her enough to vote for her?

The point being that there are no Warren supporters who are likely to vote for Trump. It doesn't add anything to the ticket. Unlike the Sanders supporters who are fanatics, Warren supporters are not going to hold their breath and sit out the election. Warren supporters are educated supporters who know that an abstention is essentially a vote for Trump. Warren supporters will support the Democratic ticket no matter who it is. And there are very few to none in the moderate or Independent camps that will choose Biden because of Warren. Picking Whitmer, Klobuchar or Grisham will sway votes that might have gone to Trump to vote for Biden. At this point, that is the most important demographic to court, the ones that are uncommitted to either party, but can be convinced to vote for the Democratic ticket. And two key demographics that need to be courted are the moderate Midwest which reacted when Clinton decided to cancel campaign tour stops in the Midwest to court other votes and voted for Trump; and the Latino vote which supported Sanders. Unlike the Sanders fanatics, the Latino vote can be swayed to vote for Biden with the right incentives.

Grisham would certainly convince a lot of uncommitted Latino votes to vote for Biden and are also likely to convince a portion of the voters who might otherwise vote for Trump to vote for the Democratic ticket. Whitmer and Klobuchar would help with key battle states that Clinton lost. The main reason I think that Grisham is a better candidate is that the Midwest already leans left. Look at the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election. The liberal challenger upset the incumbent conservative judge even when Trump had lobbied for the incumbent. Trump is not that popular in the Midwest. Clinton's mistake in 2016 was that she canceled key campaign stops in the Midwest to visit other states that she felt were more important. Trump, on the other hand, actively campaigned in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Pundits said that the midwest was reliably Democratic, but when the dust cleared, Trump had narrowly won both Michigan and Wisconsin. It is quite likely that had Clinton campaigned in those states, she would have carried them. I think that Biden can carry those states by just making sure not to repeat Clinton's mistakes and to make sure to stop in the Midwest to consolidate the liberal leanings. It's not as easy to win Latinos over with a ground game.

I don't disagree with any of this. It seems obvious now though that the economy will be the primary focus. This is where Elizabeth Warren shines, few can compete with her chops there. If not her, then a governor for the same reason: executive experience and focus on the economy. Then there is the crucial intangible, with whom does Biden have great chemistry and who is perceived as likable? My top picks right now, then, are EW, Grisham, and Whitmer. But I'd also like to see him interact with more of his prospects.

You must be high.

What economic chops does Warren have, other than becoming a millionaire herself via highly-paid consulting to banks?

Uff da. That’s some hard core ignorance.

English, plz

NP, but my response is that you don’t know anything about Elizabeth Warren and you don’t know anything about “economic chops.”

Because you don't think expertise in bankruptcy law and consumer protections might be useful right now?

I think the pp to whom you’re responding agrees with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is Amy. A done deal weeks ago.

Yes, I quite agree.

Not clear, her favorables are not as high as some of the other candidates:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/15/poll-biden-vice-president-experience-187056

Initially I assumed the strategy would be midwest-focused but the WI primary results suggest Biden might not need help there after all.

I think the fact that Klobuchar does not appeal to AA voters is a problem.

But Biden does — big time!!

And that’s not enough. The AA vote is the backbone of the DNC.

Warren was actually making a lot of inroads with the AA voters. Yvette Nicole Brown, Ashley Nicole Black, Imani Gandy... there were a lot of very committed AA voters for Warren, all of whom are now staunchly pro-Biden. I sincerely hope Biden doesn’t kick them in the teeth with my senator Klobuchar.

there was a great article on how warren attracted the black 'thinker' crowd but not actual voters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-black-vote.html

"Don Calloway, a Democratic strategist specializing in field operations with black voters, said Ms. Warren’s problems winning them over threatened the viability of her campaign moving forward but should also serve as a cautionary tale: The progressive activists who have showered her candidacy with validation have a different electoral lens than the black electorate at large.

That schism is a distinction some have labeled “grass tops vs. the grass roots” — or the belief that the leaders of liberal and progressive organizations have a different political lens than their more working-class members.

Ms. Warren “did a great job of galvanizing internet-savvy, well-known personalities, but unfortunately it doesn’t look like that support has translated into populations on the ground,” Mr. Calloway said."

Warren doesn't have the pulse of the streets -- which is weird because her life story is one of (relative) rags to riches.

Black women love Elizabeth Warren, they just didn't think she could win. As a black woman, I've had 20 conversations with random black women, all older and none activists. We all wondered where people got the notion that black women didn't like her.

Are you southern?

I live in DC with family in Atlanta and Chicago.