I'm thinking Warren/Booker 2020

[struggle4progress]

So tell me why I'm wrong

[emmaverybo]

1. You are just wrong. How did you ever come up with this? But hey, you like them and they sound

exciting. In actuality, I think that combo hands Trump four more years. I don’t even think they compliment each other. Warren is not easy to work with by all accounts. She has lots of ego and so
does Booker.

[qazplm135]

2. you last sentence is just plain silly

and more of the only the old white guy moderate can win baloney.

[emmaverybo]

4. Has nothing to do with color or place on political spectrum. You jumped. Booker is not doing well,

has a low profile and is really too strong a personality to combine well with Warren. Why should
he play second fiddle? Warren and Harris a better combo. Balance would be good.

[athena]

7. Arguing

that Warren has too much "ego" and is "difficult to work with" is the same sexist bullshit that gave us President Donald Trump in 2016.

Go on and spew that sexist propaganda if you want to. But don't turn around and complain when Trump wins another four years.

[emmaverybo]

17. Wrong words. Difficult to work with does not convey quite what I meant as it has a pejorative

connotation.

Some of the world’s greatest leaders and geniuses, men and women, have been called “difficult,” as in not easily subordinate, not total team players, holding out for what they want to the extent of making waves, and have had strong egos, which are exactly the characteristics pointed out about Warren in the recent article about her sometimes being at loggerheads with Obama.

Yes, women have to stand up and stand out twice as much as men. She does. So does Booker.

In the end, none of the contenders have to pick another for VP, even if it would make for good theater.

[qazplm135]

20. your original last sentence was

"In actuality, I think that combo hands Trump four more years."

Which, again, is just plain silly.

Had nothing to do with Booker and the VP nomination is borderline meaningless as to who wins the election anyways.

[vsrazdem]

21. Biden didn't do well when he ran either, but he still was chosen for VP.

[emmaverybo]

25. A great deal more experience and profile than Booker. Chosen to give some foreign policy weight

to Obama ticket. But right, not a hot star when picked. I still don’t see a good chemistry here, but ya know, if Warren does...I would think Harris would better balance the ticket. In the end, I don’t think the contenders think mainly in terms of those also running.

[CTyankee]

22. I think it would be in Booker's best interest to be Warren's VP and go around the country and

talk to communities of color. He would complement her more aloof style and keep his eye on the future for his own candidacy. It would not be a bad career move for him.

[emmaverybo]

23. Well, that's a good argument.

[struggle4progress]

8. I like the whole line-up. And I'd vote for any of them.

So Biden would be fine by me: I'd work to put him in office

Excitement really isn't my thing. I'm looking for competence, and I think Warren/Booker offers that

On the heels of this administration of shizzwits, America needs to be sending a message of inclusion. And the centennial of the 19th amendment would be a great time to have a female president

[blm]

9. That's just not true. That article generated from Biden's campaign. Biden likes her

personally and professionally, and he even planned for her to be his VP when he wanted to run in 2015-16. But, a campaign is going to promote as much exaggerated and negative imagery it can to hurt those opponents they worry about.

“By all accounts” is horsepoo.

[BeyondGeography]

11. So she can't have a running mate because Summers and Geithner

and all their friends?

[pnwmom]

13. And your guy doesn't have lots of EGO?

Guess what? ANYONE who runs for the job of President of the United States has lots of ego.

It's a job requirement.

[Clash City Rocker]

47. But when it's a woman, that's viewed as a negative

A man can be arrogant and it’s a good thing because he’s assertive. But if it’s a woman, she’s shrill, she’s pushy, she doesn’t know her place. That’s largely why America has never had a female president.

[pnwmom]

48. Absolutely! How dare Hillary think she had the ability for the job.

Or Kamala, Elizabeth, or Amy.

I am very grateful to Hillary for placing some huge cracks in that glass ceiling.

[DownriverDem]

18. It's not who you like

or who I like, but who can win the Electoral College which is state by state. Biden can win the Electoral College. He has a diverse coalition and has deep support. Women make up a large number of the Democratic Party. Biden running with a strong, progress Dem woman would be a winning ticket. We have to win. We can't take a chance on this election.

[Desert grandma]

51. I absolutely agree.

Winning is the priority. Biden is the candidate that has the best chance of winning in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. These states voted Blue before the Orange Buffoon managed a narrow victory, took the EC, and therefore the presidency. It is all about the electoral college. As we saw in 2016, the person with the most votes does not necessarily become president.

[Kurt V.]

28. take a deep breath. lol

[athena]

3. Yes!

I've been for Warren/Booker for months now.

[DownriverDem]

19. Sadly

they won't win.

[athena]

31. If Warren/Booker can't win, then no one can.

That is my solid opinion. We were told in 2016 that Hillary lost the election because of blue-collar white males in the heartland. I never bought that. I believe she lost the election because of sexism on the part of both men and women -- men who didn't want to be led by a woman, and women who thought Hillary's presidency was inevitable and resented it. Those women have learned their lesson since then, and what makes the most sense now is a team that excites the base. Warren/Booker would excite all Democrats, and I believe they are our best chance to win this election.

[cilla4progress]

5. Hey, struggle -

this is my dream ticket and we have similar handles here! 👍👍🙂

[hlthe2b]

6. I don't see them as compatible. Warren is very cautious and Booker has considerable baggage from his

Newark days. Mayoral stints in NJ and several other NE states not infrequently lend to that. I'm not saying I don't like Booker (though his ingratiating attacks on Biden after the first debate and support/defense of Castro's abusive attack on Biden in the 3rd debate have given me pause).

I think if Warren did get the nod, she'd likely select someone not running for President as her VP.

[emmaverybo]

27. You nailed the description: "abusive attack." Ironic, ended up abusing his own political fate.

[VarryOn]

10. I'm with you on Warren...

I’d put money on her today as the nominee. She could do better than Booker. He comes across as ingenuine. Also, he tries too hard.

She should go with the Ga governor (Stacey Adams).

I’ve never been a fan of Senators as the nominees, and two on the ticket would really concern me. (Yes, I know about Obama/Biden.).

[NYMinute]

26. Sen Warren will not be the nominee

and .. it is Stacey Abrams ... not Adams.

[BeyondGeography]

34. She's up another point on Predictit today

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination

If you scroll down far enough you can find Beto.

[NYMinute]

45. Let's cancel the primary elections

and let predictit choose the nominee.

[BeyondGeography]

12. Unstoppable

[pnwmom]

14. I think they would be an excellent combination. n/t

[Joe941]

15. Uh. Nope.

[Dagstead Bumwood]

16. My personal prefernce would be

For a Kamala/Beto ticket, but, I like your combo, too. There's a lot of talent in this field and we could put some great combos together.

[NYMinute]

24. No. I am not thinking that.

[Kurt V.]

29. she needs a vp of midwest -ish cred. but yeah that would great in a nonpartisan world.

[enough]

30. How bout Warren / Sherrod Brown? There's no requirement that

the VP candidate has to be a former candidate for president. The ultimate Democratic Candidate for President will have a very large pool to chose from.

[athena]

32. It's too white.

We absolutely need minorities to be excited about the Democratic ticket. I don't think we can take women or Black people for granted.

[Tiggeroshii]

35. I think winning is the most important thing

And driving a strong progressive agenda. This ticket would be great at winning the midwest and flipping ohio were sherrod brown won double digits in 2018.

[athena]

36. We can't win without the Black vote.

I don't believe for one moment that it was the blue-collar white man's vote that caused Trump to win in 2016. It was the general lack of excitement on the left. We can't afford to repeat that. We have to excite women and minorities.

[Tiggeroshii]

37. Brown will win ohio for us and warren excites.

Which is what is driving her growing support. Brown is hugely popular in Ohio. But I do think Booker could do the trick too. Like I said in another post, there are few democratic tickets i wouldnt be overwhelmingly enthusiastic about.

[floppyboo]

41. Brown! Unions! Yes!

[Garrett78]

39. Your belief is backed up by the facts.

We lost because hundreds of thousands of people in key battleground states who voted for Obama didn't vote at all in 2016.

The key in 2020 is boosting turnout among the base (POC, youth, white suburban women). Not flipping Trump voters.

Jamil Smith of Rolling Stone nailed it by saying we need someone well-versed in anti-racism, and not just a non-racist--and certainly not someone who has made racist remarks, which will be used to neutralize the primary charge against Trump and, as a result, suppress turnout.

[JI7]

43. We need Brown to remain in Senate to keep the seat

[TexasTowelie]

53. So the Democrats would lose two senators

that would be replaced by Republican governors? We might get the executive branch, but we would likely give up the Senate to the Republicans which could keep the president from appointing Democratic federal judges (including the Supreme Court).

[Tiggeroshii]

33. Give me a democratic ticket without fascists on it ill enthusiastically support it!!

[rurallib]

38. Sometimes I think of the old days when geographic balance was a factor

With Warren & Booker that is quite the "east coast liberal" ticket.
I'll go with Warren as the nominee then what?
A Texas portion with Beto or maybe Castro?

Someone like Inslee or Bullock from the west?
Are two women possible? I really like Tammy Duckworth from Illinois, but we should win Illinois anyway.

Sherrod Brown would certainly be a good addition. Maybe Buttigieg from Indiana?

[pnwmom]

49. Warren grew up in Oklahoma and spent part of her career in Texas.

She was a Republican till she was 40. She's not a typical east coast liberal, and just listening to her twang will tell you that.

[greatauntoftriplets]

40. No regional balance with two candidates from the northeast.

[JI7]

44. demographics matter as much as region.

[Polybius]

46. In 1992 they said that

It worked anyway.

[kennetha]

42. Because Warren would lose bigly no matter her running mate.

Warren and her pie in the sky proposals are complete losers that will never become law and that would become albatrosses around the Democratic party’s neck for the next 20 years a la McGovern. If you think of politics as wish fulfillment then by all means support her. But if you think of politics as the art of the realistic possible you should drop her like a hot potato.


Think about her ardent support for Medicare for All and contrast that with adding the Public Option to the ACA. Given the political difficulty of starting from scratch in the American political system, given how heavy a lift the ACA was already ... what with the blue dogs causing the Democrats to lose nerve on the public option, and the Supreme Court dealing the ACA a serious blow on Medicaid expansion. ... and given that the ACA is now broadly supported, and given the public option seems now like it can be easily framed as the moderate sensible alternative in comparison with Medicare for All, and given the added fact that Medicaid expansion has actually gained some momentum, the public option would be much less of a political lift than Medicare for All and together with a renewed push on Medicaid expansion would get us to universal coverage from where we are now much more quickly, with far less division and disruption.

Or so it seems to me. Hence I have decided that I cannot support any democratic candidate in the primaries who is do or die for Medicare for All. That rules out Warren for me!

And remember the public option was once derided by the right as a stealth way of moving us toward “socialized medicine.” And even some on the left explicitly saw it as a foot in the door for single payer. It was in fact that combination that caused the blue dogs to lose their nerve and torpedo it. It is a measure of political progress that the public option can now be sold not as the “radical” proposal of the burn it all down and start over Sanders-Warren left, but as a sensible, centrist, mainstream proposal that even a blue dog could love and embrace!

On the other hand, Biden is just so...

Hence I think that leaves Klobuchar for me!

Took me awhile, but that’s the candidate I am plopping down for. No more sitting on the sidelines for me!

Personally, I am completely uninterested in debates about whether in a situation in which we were free to start from scratch and design a healthcare system from bottom up we would opt for the simplicity of Medicare for All or the hodgepodge complexity of ACA + Public Option + Medicaid Expansion. Politics is the art of the (really) possible, not the merely conceivable. The (really) possible is highly path dependent. Public Option, given our path, is really possible, perhaps even likely. Medicare for All is not.

[crazytown]

50. MA + NJ

[AlexSFCA]

52. and I'm thinking Biden/Warren

general election campaign should focus on middle class and working class. Beat trump with his own weapon - economic populism. Sanders can help to campaign, after all he and Biden are very good friends for decades. We need to show complete unity. All candidates united at the end for the winners.
Dems need to be strategic and really focus on swing states and not deep blue CA and the like which will vote for dem in 2020 no matter what. General election campaign should focus on MI, WI, PA, FL, AZ, maybe IA and IN.

[demosincebirth]

54. Stop thinking

[struggle4progress]

55. Not a chance of that

[Peregrine Took]

56. NJ is a blue state already - we need someone from at least a purple state

Population wise, he doesn't bring anything to the table