Yes, exactly. And listen, I know Biden was not impressive on the campaign trail but it doesn't change the fact that people just genuinely like him. Maybe you (the figurative you not the YOU Major) think that's a dumb reason to vote for someone, but it is what is. Biden has high favorables, the black community likes him, he's just well liked. I mean watch the endorsement from Amy Klobuchar. My wife watched that with me and came away so impressed. She's not a political person but she said something like "Wow, he must be a great guy." You can't create that kind of affection. You see the way people interact with him and you can tell they genuinely love him. That's where Jim Clyburn was right about Biden. When people "feel him" they vote for him. He connects with people. Elizabeth Warren was essentially the third candidate in a race of 23 people. I do not doubt that there are is SOME sexism, but I just reject that the primary or even a large factor in her loss was sexism.
Biden can be real in his openness and doesn't shy away from it. He's one of the fewer Dem candidates that can connect to flyover demographics who normally fell ignored or looked down upon I just don't like that he's aging faster than Dream four years after his first final.
Well it has been reported (not in the news you consume, I guess) that the Sanders' campaign researched whether she could be VP and Secretary of the Treasury. The answer was "yes" Problem is that , she probably is not the VP pick for either Joe or Bernie as they need someone of color to balance the ticket. She does have more leverage with Sanders, especially now but her caution and moderate ideology might not be inline w. endorsing Sanders. Warren's main story line in life is that around the age of 47 it was researching the anti-consumer bankruptcy law, which has savaged so many ordinary Americans, and which Biden championed, that Warren turned from a Reagan Republican Federalist law prof to a fairly liberal Democrat. It will probably make her not Joe's Secretary of Treasury as the banks and Wall Street will object, though she has some fans on Wall Street.
This is a really important point. She wanted to stay in through the convention to have influence that way. But she likely has more power now than she ever has - her endorsement is the most valuable thing left to change the trajectory of the primary, so she has a lot of negotiating power if she wants to use - both with Bernie and Biden.
I'm honestly not sure she would want the VP slot. I could definitely buy a cabinet position if she was promised a lot of of autonomy.
Based on the Florida polling I saw it seems this is all buttoned up irregardless of a Warren endorsement but maybe you’re right.
So you know I had to include the "sexism" part because it's a factor, although the main point I was trying to make was "Likability". People have all different type of reasons for not liking someone but it's not something we can really try to stick in a quantifiable bucket. Some people are just likable, and some people just aren't well liked. Some of it is just sexism in that women who are very strong minded and feisty can turn off men of a certain age, and some of it comes down to body language, eye contact, tone of voice, verbal cues, listening skills, having a nice smile & laugh... etc. etc. But my point is that we as voters are overthinking the Warren conundrum and in the end, likability has ALOT to do with. And yes I do think that Warren and Hillary automatically just going to the "Sexism" card is just showing that they don't have people in their corners telling them what they need to hear which is that people don't like your personality for whatever reason so lets try and change that. To her credit, she tried at first with the Dog thing, and has tried to bring out the Oklahoma charm as much as she can, but look... she is who she is.... which is a fighter who is going to be a bit of a you know what... I personally didn't mind it by I know ALOT of people who did get put off by it. So I don't think we are really in that much disagreement here. Throwing in the "sexism" card isn't what I was trying to do because its probably more simple than that in a basic human sense.
I wasn't really attacking you Dobro, more this push that has happened this entire primary season. Last night was brutal. That Maddow interview and subsequent panels on MSNBC were essentially mourning the fact that it's not a woman candidate and essentially saying America is just sexist.
My take on her likability... She came off professorial years before she announced. I still remember Hillary's camp leaking her stuck up arrogance when they met four years ago. They don't have to love each other but they have similar bottom up stories that could definitely help weave narratives. So campaign managers told her to open up to the common people (see Hillary case file for what not to do). The zingers helped at first but then she had these weird unforced gaffes that gave a 'awkward nerdy girl trying too hard with the cool kids 'vibe. I mean she should've been proud of her two or three million net worth over Her Entire Career. Many coastal upper middle class residents are worth that much just by their houses, but she ran from it because it smelled Liberal Elite on paper. selfies were a good idea at first but how can you stop or increase the roi for something that amounted to autograph signing at a convention (who do I sign this to? Let's just go with...Kill me now) Now is it sexism if Bloomie or Bernie never tried really hard to connect personally with Da People? Who really knows because she went with her teams Makeover tips.
No I know, and I get it. I think those panels with people freaking out about this are wrong more than they are right about this issue. "Likability" in politics is a complex thing. Oprah and Michelle Obama are really likable.... Liz Warren is not. Hillary is not. But Oprah is not running for president. So Joe Biden it is who is likable and has a personality that Warren does not. So Joe's the candidate. There's just no evidence though that an Oprah would NOT be the front runner if she was running because we've never had a figure like that as a beloved woman figure at the top of the ticket. I just think we are trying to quantify elect-ability without really thinking about what makes America LIKE someone enough to build a movement around them to get them the presidency. But yes... I do think there is sexism involved though but its in a "likability" way more than it is a "women's place is in the kitchen" type of sexism that the MSNBC panel would like you to believe.
I think men face liability issues just as much as women, they are just different ones. John Kerry is a former SecState instead of former President today because people didn't think he was likable. Al Gore was boring. Michael Bennett gained ZERO traction. John Hickenlooper was dismissed. Martin OMalley was seen as a joke. Lincoln Chaffee was a dolt. George HW Bush lost his reelection largely because people didn't "like" him on a personal level. All candidates face these personality issues in different ways. Whenever someone says they don't like a woman though it becomes sexism. When a candidate chastises a male candidate it's ownage. When a male candidate goes at a female candidate it's rude or mansplaining. (eyeroll emoji) When Elizabeth Warren calls Michael Bloomberg a liar about the pregnancy discrimination she's a warrior! When Chris Matthews asks her why she thinks Bloomberg is lying he's sexist. When the hugely popular governor of Colorado drops out of the race because he got ZERO traction it's "what was he thinking lol." When Kamala Harris drops out of the race it's "Y U SO RACIST MERICA?" The reasons people like and support candidates are extremely complex and I can tell you that is a huge turnoff to get beat over the head with "You didn't support Kamala or Cory? You're racist. You didn't support Warren? You're sexist." Just GTFO with that.
When I was watching one of the debates where Warren was attacking Bloomberg, I tried to mentally ascertain myself whether I felt any sexism toward her because I expected the attack against "my guy" by a woman to feel "b****y" on some ingrained level (life experiences as a guy). But all I could note was that the "have it killed" attack despite the "deeply personal" claim didn't feel sincere. I'm not sure why. Could be because attacks on him by her were already an established trend. Could be because attacking while talking about motherhood is an incongruent juxtaposition. Could be because special ed job she so loved, and getting pregnant during her first year, clashes with her current persona of a nerdy professorial politician. Maybe, I subconsciously was effected by, "I got pregnant while my first year on the job" - which, phrased that way, sounded somewhat irresponsible. Anyway, it could be sexism for all I know and so I do wonder if that particular attack made her any new supporters and if the emotion behind that attack reverberated with anyone, especially women. Edit: I guess the question should be: was it insincere? And therefore, was it in fact an attack on a billionaire just simply because she doesn't like billionaires or is jealous that Bloomberg doesn't have to fundraise. And if that was the conclusion, could it have lost her moderate college educated supporters
So Warren calls herself taking one for the team by intentionally sabotaging Bloomberg presidential bid, knowing she may also be putting an end to her presidential run. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...nk-bloombergs-candidacy-debate-064301935.html T_Man
Here's what's telling to me about Warren. Going into the primaries there were already reports about how difficult it was for her to get along with people. I don't mean the Amy Klobuchar "she's mean" stuff I mean the type of reports where people said she was arrogant and dismissive and it made it hard for people to privately support her. Then during the debates, before the tiff with Bloomberg, the person she "feuded with" was Klobuchar who was visibly disgusted with her frequently in the early debates. I actually think it may have been those Amy-Elizabeth interactions that harmed her the most early on. Sanders is also someone that people say they can't get along with behind the scenes, but he has ran as an angry revolutionary and has captured the grievance lane.
It could be that Biden and Sanders are the last 2 standing because they are the tallest nominees (that is, after the early contractions -- Beto is taller at 6'4"). We know from studies that tall people are the beneficiaries of unconscious bias and the taller candidate usually wins presidential elections, at least since television. They're both 6'. Pete only 5'9", Bloomberg 5'8" (but looks smaller than that even), likewise Warren, and Klobuchar is 5'4". Warren is taller than the average woman, but she's not 6' and that's all that matters. There is no reasoning with the lizard brain. And at 6'3" Trump will trounce whatever nominee they get.
Yeah it was a bit much and I don't think that panel really believed it was that cut and dry they just where disappointed there is not a woman candidate. The biggest surprise for me was how Warren went in on the Bernie Bros.
I always knew it was personal and planned. I think was also calculated to give her a boost like Kamala but it did not work.
