I don’t have too much to say about Elizabeth Warren’s 2020 presidential bid…
…except I don’t think she’s got a chance.
I’ll let William Jacobson say the rest.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
…except I don’t think she’s got a chance.
I’ll let William Jacobson say the rest.
Yeah … and I’ll tell ya something else along these lines. While she’s popping & swigging from a beer-bottle like it’s an obnoxious military exercise she wishes she wasn’t having to do (which is, yeah, what it probably is) … check out the basics of this pushing-70 yo woman.
I’m here to tell ya Neo, if she has things going for her from the neck-down, like we see from the neck-up … she’s a physical phenomenon, point-blank.
She should hit the gym, get a body-makeup person, and contrive photo-ops in skinny-cloths … if she’s got it, she should flaunt. (I recommend a full-length old-time hay & grain scythe, they aren’t really all that hard to swing, then the camera comes walking out to her on the row she’s laying over, just as she’s peeling down to her sports-bra, light sweat visible all-over. “Yeah fellas, I’m practicing for what we’re going to do to the GOP here is a few weeks … now Stand Back!”)
When I first saw how old she is, I thought it was a typo. You can do stuff with an asset like that … but evidently there’s some kind of stoppage between the ears. Yet-again, the Orange-mopped Mouth nails it dead-on.
This morning I watched Ruth Bader Ginsburg work out with Stephen Colbert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oBodJHX1Vg
Not bad for 85, but not exactly inspiring either, and this was before her recent fall, three broken ribs and a lung lobectomy. We wish her well, but I’m betting Trump gets to replace her.
She’s a law professor with no executive experience who (big yuks) conned Harvard Law School into hiring her by pretending to be an injun. Her opposition will include Kristen Gillibrand (Emma Willard School, class of ’84) and Kamala Harris, a woman who knows how to leverage a personal relationship (when she’s on her back, the meter is running). Our political life is beginning to resemble that old Harvey Korman / John Ritter vehicle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqYoB6BLOMw
Every day–day in and day out–I’d hit ol’l Liawatha with her phony Indian shtick, and how her very deliberate, decades of deception were designed for her own self-advancement at the expense of actual Indians.
And I’d preface any mention of her by referring to her deliberate deception–over and over again–until no one could even think of her name or hear it mentioned without her deception coming to mind.
This is pretty much what Trump has been doing, and he should keep it up.
She is deluding herself that she has any chance after the DNA fiasco. Who in the world gave her that idea?
@Mike K: Yeah, but people were saying the same thing about Obama about 12 years ago. Remember how Republicans were voting for him in the primary to stop Clinton. Look how well that worked. Yeah, Clinton would have been worse, but what we got was still awful.
I’d love to see Elizabeth Warren nominated. Trump would have her for breakfast.
In the Grand Scheme of things, Ms. Warren is irrelevant.
What got me in Mr. Jacobsen’s piece was the highly unflattering shot of A.O-C making mac ‘n’ cheese. Yay! Let’s all get on board for the candidate who can make mac’n’cheese!
Speaking of irrelevant.
Remember how Republicans were voting for him in the primary to stop Clinton.
I remember Rush Limbaugh talking about a project to stop her in the primaries but her problem in 2008 was she ran out of money by super Tuesday. She made sure that was not a problem in 2016.
I’ll be meeting Liz on Friday in Iowa.
Did Ocasio-Cortez-Cortez make real homemade mac n’ cheese? You can’t do it in an Insta Pot. My kids were the only ones among their peers who never got that awful boxed macaroni product.
As to Warren drinking beer from the bottle: Oh. Yeah, that will really bring in the voters.
Cornhead, I hope you get a chance to post your impressions of Liz here.
Kate, I have to say that I too couldn’t help flashing on Kraft M-&-C. LOL
I think we might invite a cohort (or several large cohorts) of voters from across the nation to a special pre-Election supper party, to be hosted by the ladies.
They might find the party informative, sickening, or both.
.
Personally, I never could stand M-&-C, not even as a kid. (Although I did once make a version from Better Homes & Gardens. It involved good cheddar and white wine, and was actually pretty tasty. Would’ve probably been even better had I forgone the mac and served the sauce over toast, thus making a gussied-up Welsh Rabbit. Which I have indeed always enjoyed.
Edit AWOL again. So yes, again I forgot to close the parens above. :>(
At Rolling Stone in response to the immediate pundit columns on Warren’s electability, the often unpleasant Matt Taibbi makes some some surprisingly even-handed points about electablity:
In our current era, [“electability”] should be buried permanently, as the 2016 victory of Donald Trump – the most “unelectable” politician to ever run for president after David Duke (I’m including “free ponies for all” candidate Vermin Supreme) – exploded what Bloomberg View called “everything we know” about who is and is not electable.
The role of “electability” has always been to convince voters to pick someone other than the candidate they prefer. The idea is to tell audiences which candidate has the broad appeal to win.
The metric pundits usually employ is, “Which Democrat could most easily pass for a Republican?” and vice-versa.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/what-is-electability-774196/
The metric pundits usually employ is, “Which Democrat could most easily pass for a Republican?” and vice-versa.
No, it isn’t. The term or equivalent discourse was commonly seen after the McGovern and Goldwater debacles. It was buried in Republican circles when Reagan was elected. In Democratic circles, it breathed its last when John Glenn’s campaign imploded in 1984. If you run down the list of Republican and Democratic candidates in the intervening years who’ve competed satisfactorily in primary donnybrooks but have features peculiarly unpalatable to people outside their discrete constituency, you have Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, Tom Harkin, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, Howard Dean, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Bernie Sanders, and Ted Cruz. Dean and Sanders are the only ones on this list whose failure to secure the nomination is plausibly attributable to a critical mass of voters having abandoned them as ‘unelectable’.
The metric pundits usually employ is, “Which Democrat could most easily pass for a Republican?” and vice-versa.
David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign strategist, is semi-bullish on Warren, at least as a player in 2020. His arguments are basically promotional blurbs I don’t take seriously.
Anyone who makes confident predictions today about the next presidential election clearly didn’t learn from the last. Humility is in order, particularly in handicapping a field already as long as the holiday lines at Disney World.
With that disclaimer, let me dive headlong into the pundit pool and say that Warren will be a major player among the cavalcade of Democrats now queuing up.
https://www.waaytv.com/content/national/503767942.html
However, his commentary may indicate Warren, for all her faults, is considered seriously by the Obama machine. From what I read Obama is working behind the scenes to shape the Democratic Party and its candidates. Which might explain Warren’s bulling her way forward, no matter how tone-deaf she may appear at this stage.
As far as the Obama machine goes, I see only two plausible candidates: Warren and Kamala Harris. I don’t see Deval Patrick or Corey Brooker, nor Sanders, Biden or Hillary.
I was a little surprised that Hillary did not choose Booker as VP in 2016. The fact that she didn’t suggested to me that he is as stupid as he looks.
I would put a mild bet on Harris as she has the required genitalia and skin tone. She is also a four wheel drive bitch but that did not slow down Hillary.
The fact that she didn’t suggested to me that he is as stupid as he looks.
He’s not stupid at all. He’s bogus.
Wm Schneider offered a generation ago that the single best guess of public opinion researchers had been that the benefit you receive from a VP selection is to shift 2% of the electorate in the VP candidate’s home state, and that the VP candidate can cost you if he sucks up oxygen while fending off PR problems. If Schneider was right, you select a VP per the degree to which you assess he will be adaptable in a future administration, qualified by considerations for the campaign. Your considerations for the campaign would be to pick up some extra votes in a swing state and to avoid trouble. The Eagleton / Ferraro debacles would be the object lesson. Kaine’s been a successful salesman in a state (Virginia) up for grabs. By contrast, Booker is from a state the Democratic Party has carried reliably and there are all sorts of biographical lacunae there. No telling what turns up when reporters not of the subservient NJ media start turning over rocks.
Stupid and bogus are not mutually exclusive. Hillary had to get the Obama voters out.
He has a quiver full of handsome academic degrees. He’s not ‘stupid’ in the sense of ‘unintelligent’. He might be in the sense of ‘bad judgment’, but none of this bad judgments have really bitten him on the a** yet, though he did make a clown out of himself during the Kavanaugh hearings.
What is there to say? She is a historically bad candidate, I read someone the other day that opines that Warren will be worse then Hillary. She has no appeal outside of MA – even to Democrats.
A degree (or a quiver full of them) is no guarantee of intelligence these days, since universities appear to be granting grades and degrees without regard to the recipients’ actually learning anything. A case in point is Ocasio-Cortez, who, with a degree in economics and international relations, appears to know nothing about either.
On Booker’s being a phony, no argument there.
A degree (or a quiver full of them) is no guarantee of intelligence these days, since universities appear to be granting grades and degrees without regard to the recipients’ actually learning anything. A case in point is Ocasio-Cortez, who, with a degree in economics and international relations, appears to know nothing about either.
Three highly selective institutions admitted him and passed him through over a period of 10 years, not to mention the New York and New Jersey bar examiners. If the degrees he has are not indicators of general intelligence, than no degree is an indicator of anything and you should mail your diplomas back.
To quote Trump.
Yay. Warren 1/2020th.
A recent indication of Senator Corey B’s intelligence in spite of his credentials is his performance during the Judge Kavanaugh hearings.
Save the postage, performance outside the hallowed halls matters more. It seems that the senator’s credentials and education have prepared him for politics representing safe democrat state and that is all.
And as to the worth of passing the bar, well what we all need are more lawyers in positions of power. /s
@ Art Deco: Booker can get the grades, the test scores, and do all the “right” things to pile up the fancy degrees. He can’t necessarily think critically. All of his degrees are geared towards politics in one way or another and I’ve never been impressed with him, not because I don’t share his stances but because he truly hasn’t said or done anything that warrants fawning. He’s the product of the NE corridor liberal intelligentsia.
I pretty much agree with the take on Warren. The only thing is that the Democrat field is so weak and muddled right now that it’s hard to get a handle on who *will* overtake her. I think someone has to “catch fire” during the campaign. IMHO the two most likely are O’Rourke and Harris. I would pick O’Rourke as the most likely if he weren’t a white male. A lot of Dems want Harris to be the “female Obama” but I don’t think she has that BS quality Barry had that conned so many people.
You all are adamant in your insistence on confusing general intelligence with judgement, general intelligence with seriousness, and general intelligence with job performance. Intelligence is not any of these things. It is a tool which can assist you with other things.
I think the Democrats have put themselves in a box in that they’d look like hypocrites nominating a white male. This limits their list of qualified candidates significantly. Oh, wait, “qualified” is rarely a consideration. Regardless, by becoming the anti-white and anti-male party, they are hurting themselves.
And given that the Republicans, through Trump, are eating away at the black vote, they are going to have to work really hard in 2020. The downside is that they are very good at working really hard.
Art Deco, doesn’t a brilliant all-knowing individual such as yourself have something more enlightening to do with your time than lecture the rest of us dimwits who comment here? Oops, forgot that you were already fully enlightened, sorry.
And if you show poor judgement, are flighty and trifling, fail at tasks when the stakes are high but have all the credentials and test scores to prove you are highly “intelligent,” well that intelligence is of little worth to anyone including yourself.
Oh, wait, “qualified” is rarely a consideration.
Pretty much. You run down the list of Democratic presidential candidates of note in recent decades to find among them those who’ve been public executives and not embarrassed themselves in that realms and you get… Bernie Sanders, Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, Bilge Clinton, Bob Kerrey, Jerry Brown, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, and Jimmy Carter. To that you might add some capable wonks (Bill Bradley, the younger Al Gore, Gary Hart, and Henry Jackson). To that you might add people who know how to build relationships in Congress (Richard Gephardt, Morris Udall). Then you subtract Clinton (a sociopath who has polluted our public life), Gore (an exemplar of secular characterological decay), Dean (for serial offenses against good taste), and Gephardt (for general phoniness). That leaves you with Sanders, Clark, Kerrey, Brown, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, Bradley, Hart, Jackson, and Udall. Eleven candidates who between them waged 13 campaigns of note over 11 presidential elections. You’ll notice their median year of birth is 1936 and none of them were born after 1944. The Democratic Party does not have a deep bench.