traderdave wrote:Kudlow also said "America should stay at work," arguing that the private sector is "going to solve this disease" and again reiterating, "I will still argue to you that this is contained. It can't be airtight, but ... in a relative sense, relative to our population, relative to ordinary flus ... I think it is relatively contained."

Its 100% propaganda 100% of the time with these people.

TomatoPie wrote:Warren is doing herself and her party and women in general no favor by crying that she lost because of sexist Democrats.

Democrats genuinely want a woman president - for all the good reasons and also for historical bragging rights.

They had some good candidates for that - Harris and Klobuchar. Warren was dearly beloved by the not-Bernie progressives, but that isn't a big enough coalition.

Dems will make a little history by having the first elected woman VP, so so many years after Geraldine Ferraro knocked on that door.

Joe Biden was nobody's first choice, but he's an adequate placeholder. His VP should be someone Americans want to be president too.

traderdave wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Warren is doing herself and her party and women in general no favor by crying that she lost because of sexist Democrats.

Democrats genuinely want a woman president - for all the good reasons and also for historical bragging rights.

They had some good candidates for that - Harris and Klobuchar. Warren was dearly beloved by the not-Bernie progressives, but that isn't a big enough coalition.

Dems will make a little history by having the first elected woman VP, so so many years after Geraldine Ferraro knocked on that door.

Joe Biden was nobody's first choice, but he's an adequate placeholder. His VP should be someone Americans want to be president too.

I am not sure just how far down the "sexism" road Warren went (i.e. I have not seen/heard her full comments) but I am beyond tired of "rejection"/"non-selection" (in all aspects of life, not just politics) being about race or sex. Related to the presidential contest, we have been hearing the gnashing of teeth for a few months now about how the supposed party of diversity was all white (save to Andrew Yang) and now that is it all male. Surely there are people who rejected Warren, Klobuchar, Booker, Harris, Yang, etc. because they were either female or non-white but those relative handful of people make up a tiny portion of those who simply did not like the candidate. Are people's egos so fragile that it HAS to be race or sex because they are so perfect in every other way?

swishnicholson wrote:If only candidates could figure out how to get as good press before they leave the race as they do after they leave, politics would be transformed forever.

thephan wrote:Six former wrestlers say Rep. Jim Jordan knew about abusive OSU doctor

As if we didn’t know the dude was garbage.

pacino wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:The thing that sank her campaign is being Elizabeth Warren.

Yes. If she was Chuck Warren she’d be the front runner.

Not if Chuck retained Elizabeth's personality

Yeesh

jerseyhoya wrote:It's so goddamn dumb how slow California counts its votes. And it's not like it has some amazing turnout rates to justify their system.

Everyone else is just about done from Tuesday, and California is at about 60%.

In about as non trolling of a stance as I can take, I think an important part of democratic responsiveness is being able to tell the people who voted relatively quickly after the election what the result was (barring like a 0.1% margin). This seems particularly important in a sequential primary. Obviously the margin is large enough that Bernie has won, but whether he wins by 5% or 10% or 15% has a massive impact on the viability of the entire Democratic campaign. And it's like, eh, maybe we'll know sometime next week.

In the general election, the state where this could be a huge issue is Arizona. Which is obviously run by Republicans, so it's not a partisan thing.

I just don't fucking get setting up or advocating for a system like this. Unless the election is well inside a point, you should be able to know who won it when you're having your morning coffee the next day. Or at least maybe by the time you hit happy hour on Friday?

Uncle Milty wrote:

pacino wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:The thing that sank her campaign is being Elizabeth Warren.

Yes. If she was Chuck Warren she’d be the front runner.

Not if Chuck retained Elizabeth's personality

Yeesh

I don't create the voter reaction to candidates I just share it here for y'all to mock and dismiss.

slugsrbad wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:

pacino wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:The thing that sank her campaign is being Elizabeth Warren.

Yes. If she was Chuck Warren she’d be the front runner.

Not if Chuck retained Elizabeth's personality

Yeesh

I don't create the voter reaction to candidates I just share it here for y'all to mock and dismiss.

On January 23, 2020, her net favorability rating was +49, only behind Bernie Sanders per 538.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... -4-charts/

For a more recent poll, the Morning Consult had her at 61% favorable and 26% unfavorable.

https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

It is one thing to say her campaign never took off for a variety of reasons, it's another thing to say that it was her personality. It sounds ignorant at best, sexist at worst... and I think you're neither of those things.

azrider wrote:An article on Elizabeth Warren from the sexist, ignorant Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/03/america-punished-elizabeth-warren-her-competence/607531/

Personally, I liked her and thought that because she wasn’t some carnival barker, it would serve as a genuine appeal for this election, but I was wrong.