After South Carolina and Super Tuesday, some Sanders supporters started to go through the five stages of grieving:
Thus far they have exhibited denial and anger.
After Super Tuesday II results tonight and beyond, we can only hope they will pass through bargaining and depression to arrive at acceptance.
Not only to unify the Democratic party but to defeat the Fascist Monster and then govern to move our country forward.
Please share widely!
There’s a lot more grieving to come: https://www.businessinsider.com/who-joe-biden-will-appoint-to-top-cabinet-positions-axios-2020-3
That’s a whole lot better than what we have now, and we can expect worse than what we have now if the Trumpists win in November.
I won’t be grieving about appointments like these. I hope that Ms. Warren turns down the cabinet position if offered, though.
I like Warren in a Treasury post a lot better than Jamie Dimon, however.
I think she’d make an excellent Treasury Secretary and can really restore that position as a watchdog. Or run the CFPB the way she wanted. Another friend suggested SEC chair. All are better jobs for her than coming back to the Senate as a wounded gazelle with a target on her back at home. I think people here underestimate how unpopular she is in MA and how vulnerable she is to a sane Republican or even a centrist Democratic challenger.
Do you have an approval rating poll for Warren in MA more recent than her Baker-level re-election margin? Otherwise I don’t see a basis for your assertion she’s unpopular, and no, I don’t think that’s what her showing last week tells us.
If there is a credible moderate primary challenger and Biden supporters vote for them and Sanders supporters stay home, she is toast. I think a third place showing in a home state is fairly devastating for any Senator running for president. The good news is she has a couple of years to turn it around. The other risk in making her a cabinet nominee is that seat opens up in a special election.
I’m not worried about a special election. She’s not up again until 2024, but again you seem to be making assertions without data.
The data is the record statewide primary vote where she won six towns and got crushed by a more moderate candidate who did not campaign here. Like I said above, she’s got few years to turn it around. Also Baker would get to appoint a Republican in a closely divided Senate until the special, and there’s a risk the special is lost as Scott Brown taught us. I am not arguing these things will happen, simply, that she’s been wounded by this result. Wounded is different than dead and I’m confident and hope she will bounce right back into the thick of things.
A presidential primary is not indicative of anything. The ballot did not ask if we approved or disapproved of Elizabeth Warren as our Senator. I’m an example of this difference myself. I absolutely love her as our Senator and she was a rare incumbent I was enthusiastic about re-electing, but my choice for President was Joe Biden.
Fair enough. I do think it bodes poorly for a progressive nominee to take on Baker as well. I think the electorate is a lot more center-left than left in this state. Something I have been slow to acknowledge, but it’s plainly obvious to see now.
I’m not as sure as you sound that Baker will run next time, but he is definitely also popular. Of course, it feeds a vicious cycle too. Baker being popular means the most prominent Dems might sit out the race. Then weaker Dems end up running then fall to Baker, thus confirming he is popular. Rinse and repeat.
I think you assume an ideological rigidity among the electorate that does not exist.
We elect Republican governors out a perceived need to balance the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature, which is widely perceived to be rather corrupt. (Never mind that the legislative leadership gets along better with Republican governors than Democratic ones.)
We elect a notably liberal senator to balance the rightward shift of the US Senate. The one recent time when we did not elect a notably liberal Senator, it was specifically to slow the roll of Democrats about to enact ACA, which at that time was not a particularly popular bill.
I don’t think that the primary result necessarily means that she is suddenly vulnerable to Scott Brown 2.0. Still, one hopes that whatever advisor suggested (1) the DNA test, and (2) to pick a petty fight with Sanders, is doing something else.
In addition to the above, I think more needs to be said about the one time that we did not elect a notably liberal Senator.
That was the time that we nominated a famously unpopular candidate who was NOT liberal in many of the ways that matter to Massachusetts voters — especially on issues like police brutality, excessive use of force by police, unwarranted expansion of government surveillance measures, attempts to impose puritanical limits on material accessible to adults on the internet, and so on.
My recollection is that the loss of Martha Coakley to Scott Brown in 2010 had much more to do with local issues than any reaction to the ACA. The seat that was being filled had been held by Ted Kennedy — arguably the most passionate supporter of universal health care in the Senate at that time.
I think the ACA was actually popular in Massachusetts in 2010. Martha Coakley was not.
You know what, you’re right about that. I had blotted AG Coakley from my memory, it seems.
I still maintain that MA is more willing to elect senators from the left than it is governors.
If it’s any consolation, I too avoid thinking about Ms. Coakley as much as possible.
I agree with you about our voting habits and preferences.
I don’t think there’s any risk of wounded gazelles or targets. Ted Kennedy became far more influential after his failed presidential run — and Ms. Warren is very unlikely to leave any dead interns in her wake..
I think Elizabeth Warren will be able to be very effective as, for example, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee in Democratic Senate.
Probably, although Ted Kennedy won MA late in the 1980 primary. He did not get third place to Carter or Jerry Brown. I think CMD’s comment is proof that there were a lot of Baker/Warren voters last time out and that could be the case again (presuming Baker or another popular figure decides not to run against her).
Neither Jimmy Carter nor Jerry Brown was from the neighboring state. Elizabeth Warren is not the sibling of an assassinated President and an assassinated presumptive nominee from a Massachusetts political dynasty. Neither Mr. Carter nor Mr. Brown attacked Mr. Kennedy from the left. I think the point remains that Mr. Kennedy’s failed presidential run increased, rather than decreased, his power and influence in the Senate.
Since the two men who finished ahead of Ms. Warren are significantly to each side of her — Mr. Biden, far more centrist and Mr. Sanders far more radical leftist — I don’t see any weaknesses that have to do with ideology or politics. Each of those two men are older, so any weakness isn’t about age. If anything, her Massachusetts base was split between radicals and reactionaries.
It seems to me that if she has weaknesses at all, it is that Massachusetts voters (a) don’t like women or (b) don’t like nerds. Scott Brown attempted to nail her on the latter with his snarky “Professor Warren” attacks and failed miserably.
In my view, Ms. Warren is centrist in style and approach, guided by wherever the truth leads her. If she faces a three-way primary with a centrist male attacking from the right and another centrist male attacking from the left, then she may have a more difficult time of it. I think that’s a somewhat remote scenario, and I think she has plenty of time to prepare for it.
I think Elizabeth Warren is more at risk from being infected with COVID-19 than any political challenge in 2024.
With the exception of the two banker CEOs at Treasury, that’s a solid list in my book. Pete could use the foreign policy experience, Kerry and Rice both did a great job and we need someone who can be ready to restore relationships on Day 1, Bloomberg would make an excellent World Bank president and it dovetails with his strengths in global philanthropy and fighting climate change, and Harris or Yates would be phenomenal AG’s.
So What’s the problem? Competency and experience matters so much more than ideological rigidity in those roles. Also newsflash-Other than the bankers at Treasury, Bernie would be looking at the same people for the other roles. Who would you prefer? Cornel West and Noam Chomsky are not giving up tenure or million dollar book deals for a government salary.
“With the exception of the two banker CEOs at Treasury, . . .” Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you like the play?
Pete, Rice, and Bloomberg would also be disasters, in my opinion. This is a list that should give pause to anyone who claims to be a progressive or a Democrat.
Wasn’t it you that just posted something about how we didn’t need so much cheerleading on this blog?
Come on, Bob. Perhaps you can answer the question James asked:
Who would you prefer?
It’s not November yet. I want to see how the rest of the debates and the rest of the primaries go. Why is everyone on this blog so cranky?
You would have thought I said something bad about Gerry Studds or something.
Not too early to post a comment about the “a lot more grieving to come”, though.
@You would have thought I said something bad about Gerry Studds or something:
More like trash talk from somebody who won’t tolerate any opinion different from yours and who clings tightly to imagined slights from a decade ago.
There is one more debate and it is highly unlikely the rest of the primaries will result in a Sanders nomination.
Biden is favored to win Florida, Arizona, Ohio and Illinois on Tuesday.
I’m not a cheerleader, I’m just being a realist. Joe Biden is objectively less of a progressive than Bernie Sanders and more of a progressive than Donald Trump. I already made my first binary choice between Sanders and Biden, and the voters of this state and a majority of voters in the party primary process went the other way. Now the second binary choice I have is in the Fall where Biden is clearly a more capable and progressive president than Donald Trump.
I am also arguing he needs a younger progressive woman of color as his Veep and needs to adopt the popular parts of the Sanders agenda in order to win the election.
Joe Biden is the “turnout candidate”, winning EVERY county in Michigan, Mississippi and Missouri!
Who woulda thunk?
Watch out, Imposter! Joementum is gonna kick your fat ass. 🙂
Keeping things reality based, Tom Edsall has some harsh medicine for us this morning. Turns out support for Bernie in 2016 among white working class voters was driven by misogynistic and racist anti-Hillary animus, rather than any desire for socialism. Sadly those suburban moderates Chuck Schumer predicted would come to aid Hillary have materialized for a man with a similar political profile.
So while I am a lot more confident we will win the White House, these are uncomfortable truths for Hillary and Sanders admirers alike. A woman or a socialist will have a harder time winning the presidency until enough young people vote to offset these voters.
Joe Biden is leading in Washington with 80% of the vote counted” :
Joe Biden : 446,833
Bernie Sanders : 424,803
That’s a lead of 22,030 or 2%.
Dave Wasserman is calling Washington for Biden.
“as reported by the Huffington Post
Joe Biden is still leading in Washington state by 26,000 with 87% of the vote counted.