On the day that Kamala Harris dropped out of the primary, I tweeted “Harris just became the MVP in the veepstakes.” That seems obvious in retrospect because nearly everyone else in the race has been tripping over themselves to let the media know they would definitely, absolutely, no-questions-asked be looking at her as a running mate. Now you can add one more name to the list. Elizabeth Warren is sure that America is ready for an all-female ticket and a “No Boys Allowed” sign on the door of the Oval Office. (Associated Press)
Elizabeth Warren said Sunday she believes Americans are ready for a presidential ticket with two women at the top, rejecting concerns from some Democrats that a woman can’t beat President Donald Trump.
“Sure, why not?” the Democratic presidential candidate told The Associated Press in an interview ahead of a town hall campaign event in Charleston. “I think (voters) would support a lot of different combinations.”
In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat, some Democrats have expressed hesitation about nominating another woman to take on Trump in 2020. But Warren argued that women notched historic wins during the 2018 midterms, suggesting voters are worried less about gender than the message candidates are offering.
So this wasn’t quite so much an invitation to Harris as it was a statement that she’s “willing to consider” Harris as her running mate. But she’s willing to consider all sorts of combinations in the interest of getting it right.
That range of choices includes Joe Biden, apparently. She was equally upbeat about offering him his old job back. First of all… ouch. That’s got to sting Biden a bit since it presumes that she’s going to beat him or he will (or should) drop out. It’s also rather silly because I can’t imagine a set of circumstances where Biden would agree to take the number two slot for anyone at this point. This is his last chance at the dance. He either wants the brass ring or nothing.
And what kind of a combo would Biden create for her? They disagree on some major issues, particularly on the question of Medicare for All. Does she think that his brand of centrism will soften her hard socialist edge and lure in some more voters from the middle? That’s doubtful since the VP doesn’t make policy. The President does.
If you click through and read the full article, there’s one assumption built into the report that really sticks out. I should try to drop a line to the reporter (Meg Kinnard) and ask her about the following statements:
“… concerns from some Democrats that a woman can’t beat President Donald Trump,” and also, “…some Democrats have expressed hesitation about nominating another woman to take on Trump in 2020.”
Really? Who are these Democrats? I’d really like to know because I certainly haven’t heard anyone saying that gender would be a disability in the general election. And I don’t recall any serious analysts saying that Hillary Clinton lost because she was a woman. She lost because she wasn’t a very good candidate and Trump just put in more work on the campaign trail.
If anyone is really fretting over whether or not a woman can win – particularly among Democrats – that’s a rather misogynistic assumption, isn’t it? If a Republican had said it they would already be strapped to a rail with a one-way ticket out of town.
If any voters are going to be scared off by a Warren candidacy (as they certainly should), it’s going to be because of her frightening socialist platform and promises to bankrupt the nation, ending the economic recovery. It won’t be because of her gender. Personally, I think the biggest threat to Trump next November would have been Amy Klobuchar, but fortunately for the GOP, Democratic primary voters appear to be avoiding her like the plague.
