Why we chose Elizabeth Warren as our second on the ballot

[Peacetrain]

Joe Biden was not viable at my caucus. He got 2 delegates at our sister caucus in my small town..

After all the votes, the Biden Klobuchar Steyer and Yang people gathered together to talk. Warren and Buttigeigs Precinct Captains came in and we looked at all the candidates. My family decided to put Elizabeth down as the second on our ballot. I know it seems philosophically to support the viable candidates in our caucus we would have went Buttigeig as a second choice.

Sen Warren gave numbers for her programs.. She thought them out. They would have to change if she actually got the nomination, but give her credit.. she sat down with her team and produced a plan and numbers to be critiqued, and not just that "we'll let you know when we get elected" canard.

I like Pete too. I think he has the sharp skills to handle things.. It was a hard pick

My hope above all hopes is that Joe can last through these first three and make his mark in South Carolina. There is nothing that has changed my mind, that he is the best for this job.

[Iliyah]

1. Cool . .

Discussion with my father-in-law who follows politics and he said that Pres Clinton in Iowa had a terrible showing and most wrote him off . .

Then he came back in NH and won . . .

What propelled him was South Carolina's African American vote for Presidency. People of Color will play a crucial part in this election.

Coupled with Whites, the focus is EC as well as the rest of the country. He did not see VP Biden initially but now he does in defeating shithole.

[Peacetrain]

3. That would be wonderful..but I have never seen him winning NH

Hope to heck I am wrong.. that would be nice.. South Carolina is our firewall and diverse communities. I live in Iowa, love my state, we are a mixed race family, but it is on the vanilla side here but love my family and neighbors and would live no where else, even if we do caucus..oh what a pain this has been

[Garrett78]

23. Iowa was nullified in '92 due to there being an Iowan in the race. Clinton didn't win NH, but...

...his strong 2nd place finish and the resulting "comeback kid" narrative propelled him forward (he went on to be the only person to win the nomination after losing both IA and NH). Biden, likewise, could really use a strong 2nd place finish in NH.

While caucuses are absurd and the fact that we start with 2 of the whitest states in the US is absurd, it's also absurd for people to be saying things like, "IA and NH don't matter" (as many laughable DU posts have claimed in recent days). Those folks are either in denial or brand spankin' new to following politics. History suggests that IA and NH very much matter, though this year's IA fiasco does dampen its influence. Those contests don't matter because they produce a lot of delegates but because they produce an influential narrative. Even if some within the DU bubble deny that, it's clear that the Biden camp knows Biden needs a strong showing in NH.

[Hortensis]

2. Warren's numbers are no problem. CONGRESS legislates.

So fwiw, I'm fine with her as your second.

IF she could be elected, and that's by far my biggest reservation, everything else fine, I'd like her as president with (hopefully) a Democratic-controlled congress to work with. Congress would write and pass legislation, given wings by her helping sell big steps to the nation, that nevertheless had both feet on the ground.

[Peacetrain]

4. Oh I know we need her in the senate..

In order to clean this up we need them all in the senate..but I really do have to give her a standing ovation for pushing back with numbers.. good on her. My first is Joe.. and always will be. He is just so ready for this.

[Hortensis]

5. Not quite what I meant, :) , but I'm hoping for a Biden-Warren ticket

since I am worried about her electability. We're 4 more years down the road, and maybe they both would have something different in mind in a couple months (and she was just reportedly "open" to the idea then), but what a team he seemed to think they'd make. And so do I.

[Peacetrain]

6. I love them both.. but the ageists will not let a 70 plus team survive

is my guess.. If either of them got the ticket they would need to pick a much younger compatible running mate..I think they would make a great team..but they have very different views on things.. I think both of them would be a whole lot better off with a Buttigieg or Klobuchar running mate. Just my views on it and have not been exactly hitting a 1000 lately

[MoonlitKnight]

8. Warren - Harris 2020

That’s the ticket.

[Hortensis]

9. Their ideals aren't that different at all, methods, timetables yes,

goals not actually so much. Universal healthcare for instance is just that, with various ways to achieve it. Difference would be not believing we should.

People put too much emphasis on stump speeches. It's critical for candidates to create very individual identities and sets of promises in order to draw voters to THEM. There has to be a reason to cheer happily for that person. So they do. But not to be fooled by exaggeration, or by media hyping of disagreements.

Plus, pros know that they have to get power to do anything, otherwise it's all just noise. Warren knows she could do great things as the kind of empowered VP Biden wants.

All anyone needs to understand how phony the media picture is is to know that when Biden was considering running in 2015 he reportedly wanted Warren, and ONLY Warren, to be his running mate. And that she met with him to discuss that and left the door open to the possibility. And, while we're at it, that she said yes to being Hillary's running mate, even though the media, and she to some extent, portrayed them as very different. Not too different to work with gladly as it turned out.

Agree about age as it affects electability, but I think/hope her energy would carry them. At some point we're going to get used to it, because the new longer life spans mean this is only the beginning of 35yo to septuagenarian, even octogenarian, candidates for the rest of our lives. And the older ones are often going to be the ones with the proven and most impressive records.

Poor Biden in the age respect. I believe he meant it when he said 8 years as an important part of the Obama WH was enough for him. Duty called, though, and he stepped forward for a planned 9 grueling years of work. But he knows how to do it from the first hour.

[BlueMTexpat]

11. Warren will not run as Veep for anyone.

She will stay in the Senate, where she can do her best to ensure that whoever is elected President lives up to their promises.

This is why Warren is #1 for me, and will remain that way unless or until someone else is chosen by the majority of Democrats.

[Hortensis]

12. :) She's very valuable in the senate and being brought

along for a top leadership position. But she would have been Hillary's VP, and she didn't tell Biden no way, Jose.

Btw, just a reminder that it is so not the job of the people we send to congress to see that the president lives up to his or her promises, but to live up to their own that they were elected to come through on. CONGRESS writes and passes legislation and controls the purse, not presidents. And all the presidential candidates' promises of "I'll do this" and "I'll do that" don't change that the tiniest bit.

[BlueMTexpat]

14. She was NOT running for President in 2016

and she is also much closer politically to Hillary, who is also an exceptionally accomplished woman. They totally respect each other. When Elizabeth first came to testify in DC, Biden was one of her antagonists.

In some ways, I wish that Hillary HAD chosen her as a running mate in 2016.

But "what-might-have been" is different from what is.

[Hortensis]

17. What IS is an overpowerful presidency, worrying people

concerned about our democracy even before the current Republicans brought it to this very dangerous point. A Democratic-controlled congress, if it turns out we still have a democracy, will act to rein in the presidency and reestablish a proper, functional balance. We already have a democracy reform bill passed, the first bill, HR1, that was waiting, ready to be passed by the 116th congress. No doubt additions will be made and other bills written to do our best to make embedding far-right extremism and corruption far less possible in future.

What's important to remember in listening to campaign promises in the context of an far-overreaching Trump presidency, is that congress is supposed to be a coequal branch, and the corruption instilled by the Republicans is not a template for what we will do. One of our president's main duties will be as administrator/implementer of congress's decisions, as it's supposed to be.

Our house committees, bless them!, have made it wonderfully and inspiringly clear that they truly understand and value the principles of democracy and what congress must do if ours is to survive.

As for Warren and Biden, look at actions, BlueM, not propaganda and media nonsense. Government is a team job; renegades in both congress and the presidency fail. They worked successfully together for years, regardless of how the press spin and dramatize to sell newspapers and smear Democrats, and they're both nice, intelligent people. How likely is it that she'd have implacable differences with a good, honorable, well meaning man who has the same principles as she? And vice versa. Neither are wingnuts, and respect for, ability to play well with others, and willingness to find middle grounds are integral to competence in representative government.

And, btw, the party leadership simply could not, and of course would not, bring her along for top leadership if she was a rigid ideologue, unable to cooperate and compromise, instead of a proven consensus builder, someone who can achieve by building winning coalitions.

Nor could Biden have wanted such a person for VP. Whoever his choice would be this time if it comes to that, he wants a partner to assist with this huge job, as he was to Obama, and in 2015 his admiration for her suggested he would want a dynamic, can-do iconoclast. Seems like that may not fit your image of him, so you might want to examine it again. People don't bring in the Warrens of this world to run in place.

[BlueMTexpat]

19. I usually love your thoughtful posts,

but this one has left me shaking my head.

I doubt that we'll ever quite see Biden in the same light. I remember his acts in the 90s and his pre-Barack Obama Senate career all too well. If he is ultimately the nominee, yes, I will certainly vote for him.

But right NOW, he is NOT my candidate and is, in fact, several candidates down in my preference order. He does precede Sanders, however, so we can certainly agree on that.

Warren IS a "proven consensus builder."

Check out her most recent GovTrack record, for instance: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/elizabeth_warren/412542/report-card/2018

In relevant part:

[

b]Ranked the 3rd top leader compared to Senate Democrats
Our unique leadership analysis looks at who is cosponsoring whose bills. A higher score shows a greater ability to get cosponsors on bills.

For more, see our methodology. Note that because on this page only legislative activity in the 115th Congress is considered, the leadership score here may differ from Warren’s score elsewhere on GovTrack.

Compare to all Senate Democrats (94th percentile); All Senators (91st percentile).

and

Got bipartisan cosponsors on the 4th most bills compared to Senate Democrats (tied with 2 others)
In this era of partisanship, it is important to see Members of Congress working across the aisle. 42 of Warren’s 80 bills and resolutions had a cosponsor from a different political party than the party Warren caucused with in the 115th Congress.

Compare to all Senate Democrats (87th percentile); All Senators (85th percentile).

Cosponsors who caucused with neither the Democratic nor Republican party do not count toward this statistic.

***********
She also serves with Mark Warner as Co-Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Democratic_Caucus

Again, in relevant part:

... For the makeup of the 116th Congress, the conference additionally includes two independent senators (Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine) who formally caucus with the Democrats for the purpose of committee assignments and structural organization, bringing the current total to 47 members. The central organizational front for Democrats in the senate, its primary function is communicating the party's message to all of its members under a single banner. ...

*********
She also worked her heart out for the 2018 election in fundraising and other events to elect Democrats to Congress. Few worked as hard or as effectively across the board.

*********
Elizabeth is clearly a team player and a committed Democrat. But she and Biden see things quite differently. A pairing would not bode well and she would be quite frustrated as his "second."

And Biden seems still to be somewhat in "lala land" wrt what today GOP composition in Congress is. He remembers a "kinder, gentler" time, or what nostalgically passes for one.

We are WAY beyond that now, I'm afraid.

[krissey]

21. I agree with you and well said. Thanks.

[Hortensis]

22. Agree, that is well said for Warren, and I also admire what that

shows about her a lot. And I always appreciate reading your posts also, BluePat (and was a little surprised to find us disagreeing this much). Would just note Warren's record of working across the aisle shows a lack of toxic partisanship similar to Biden's, a similarity in what Biden's castigated for around here.

We know she would do what she could to lessen toxic party divisions as well. The big question is when enough of the implacable RW hostility will finally break, but we have to keep trying because we are destroying ourselves, enabling our enemies to destroy us, through this level of division. It's not a secondary concern to me but an existential one.

Btw, Biden was completely off my list for nearly 20 years after Anita Hill and for not holding the line tighter on criminal justice and copying the states by passing a federal three strikes law -- no matter how much a majority of Americans wanted, even demanded, what the Republicans were selling. The dreadful effects of both live on.

But Obama's respect and trust over the 8 years of their working closely in the WH, and of course the searing experiences of constantly having to deal with what the Republicans had become, made me think Biden was no longer a too-agreeable marshmallow for the Republicans. Obama made it clear a number of times he would be glad to support him for president, and I feel he knows him and his capabilities well enough to listen to.

Went to bed early, so just listened to Romney's speech on his vote. Not bad. Romney spoke to our degraded nation about his character and conscience and that they must rule his decisions. Imo, we need a lot more of that.

Nice talking.

[BlueMTexpat]

24. Same here, Hortensis!

We're both veterans of the campaign for the Most Qualified Nominee ever, so we have a LOT in common.

I respect your thinking about Joe; I just don't share it. But that's OK; we can agree to disagree.

As to Romney: while I am happy that he voted to convict the President on one article, I find it inconceivable that he could not vote to convict on the other. So it's a very lukewarm clap for him from me. Too many GOPers want to have it both ways.

I knew quite a few Mormons in my youth, growing up as I did in the West. I respected many of them because the ones I knew valued both family and education. Unfortunately, too many of that generation (mostly the generation of Mitt's father) seem to have left us, but apparently their values were not left behind. Mitt's father would likely have turned over in his grave over his son's decision on the second count.

But yes, we do need a lot more character to combat the wholesale degradation in our nation today. It did not begin with Trump, but he has certainly exacerbated it ... and in such a short time.

[Karma13612]

16. Agree. She is much more useful than VP

And we must capitalize on this IF she is not the nominee.

I am really optimistic about her as the primaries unfold.

[MoonlitKnight]

7. And she has stated she will sign what Congress gives her

Nobody else has. She is realistic. Has a great story and message. She is starting negotiations by asking for what we want and is willing to give so that we get something better as a result.

[Hortensis]

10. :) Umhm. Warren would work WITH Democrats in congress to

achieve our common goals. We know what she's like at the podium. She'd be really good at building the national interest and confidence that adds that important lift to administrations, and helps reelect team members in the midterms.

[MoonlitKnight]

13. Actually, we could use Joe in the Senate

Have him move to a vulnerable red seat and turn it blue.

[Karma13612]

15. Great idea if he seems to fall behind after a few more

Primaries.

I think Liz is going to start to do better in coming states.

And if she hits 19% by the finish of Iowa reporting, then I still say she was viable in Iowa. If this had been a primary, I believe she would have proved to be better.

When you can’t vote your top choice in a “primary” election (I understand it was a caucus), then I think the methods are poor.

[krissey]

18. This is why I think we need to quit labeling Warren in the Sanders block. Warren has a lot of women

that are HRC supporters, solid Dems.

[BlueMTexpat]

20. Well-said!

Thank you for that comment!