Look at the vote spread in almost every other Massachusetts Senate election, outside of the one anomalous special election that put a Republican in. Warren didn’t do anything special to make "mincemeat " out of her opponent. She didn’t even have to fight for the Dem nomination.
She made me cringe every time I heard her stumping for Hillary and she seriously blew the Cherokee DNA stuff. She’s not the one for the job of campaigning against Trump.
Hi, you don’t know me. I was a Bernie supporter. I really, really loved Bernie; and I really, really did not want the Clintons back in the White House.
And not only am I fine with Elizabeth Warren running for President, I remember two different instances of progressives in early 2016 saying they would rather Warren were running, and they would support her over Clinton. One of those was after a meeting of Bernie supporters.
Maybe you think voters are dumb, but we’re not so dumb that we think there will only ever be one candidate.
Oh, and while this may not apply to you specifically, prediction time: In about a year, we’re going to see self-declared moderates claiming that Elizabeth Warren is a Russian plant, sent to undermine the “real” Democrats. :rolleyes:
I did already, we are talking about Warren, the cringe maker. Hence the point that since the Republicans have the governorship her victory was not a given in the age of Trump.
As pointed, most people in Massachusetts did not see that a deal breaker.
She may not be the best overall candidate but she could make an excellent stalking horse. Particularly considering the early announcing of her intentions. I think we can expect Fox news to make a swift pivot from Hillary bashing into Warren bashing. By the 2020 primaries Warren will be an ultra liberal comminist harpy who pretended to be an Indian in order to advance her secret agenda of stealing the Whiteman’s lands and forcing them onto reservations.
Meanwhile making whatever ho hum Bidenesque candidate actually ends up with the nomination seem like a reasonable choice in comparison.
Not all voters are dumb, but the reality is many voters are going to vote for one party or another no matter who they put up, and then you have about 5-20 million undecided voters who are low information and easily swayed. They are the ones that tend to decide an election. And if the democrats lose them they’ll probably lose in 2020.
I don’t care who it is. Just find somebody that all Democrats can vote for because, basically speaking, we need darned near all of them in order to overcome the Electoral College advantage that the Republicans have presently.
While I’m a long way from deciding who I’d like to see as the Dem nominee next year, I’m very glad that Warren is running.
I think she’s put more thought into the issues than any of the other likely candidates. By getting out there first, she forces the other prospective candidates to grapple with what she’s already said and written about the major issues.
Next to her, Bernie is a hollow man. They may occupy more or less the same ideological space, but she knows her shit much better than he does. He’s a show horse, she’s the real deal.
She’s openly taking on our generation’s version of what FDR called the “malefactors of great wealth” - the oligarchy of big banks, the oil companies that have fought against doing something about climate change, and so forth.
It needs to be said that this is actually a pro-entrepreneurship position. Small businesses can only get so far when big businesses have near-monopoly power.
She’s explicit about the structural factors that aren’t just keeping the middle class down, but that have kept African-Americans from accumulating wealth.
She’s thrown down one hell of a marker - sort of a ‘you’ve got to be at least this good to run for the Dem nomination’ statement. There ought to be at least a few of the couple dozen or so prospective candidates who see that video, and have the sense to take a pass on this race.
I’m not thinking of people like Beto or Kamala Harris or Sherrod Brown or Cory Booker, so much as the second-tier types like Eric Holder, Jay Inslee, Terry MacAuliffe, etc. But even the top-tier candidates might want to think about whether they can either (a) be a better spokesperson for a similar vision, or (b) lay out a strong case for a competing vision, of where this country needs to go, and what the Dems need to be doing about it.
No. I mentioned the brief interlude caused by the special election loss in an earlier post. So are you agreeing with GIGO that it’s super impressive that Warren “made mincemeat” out of a Trump booster in Massachusetts?
I’m afraid she’ll get bogged down in baggage just like Hillary did if she ends up winning the nomination and running against Individual 1. He’ll just keep on with the “Hurr durr Pocahontas!” and she’ll keep feeling the need to defend herself against it, which always backfires on her. I’m afraid that she’ll never get a coherent message out to the public that makes clear how harmful tRump’s “policies” have been and what makes her different or what she would do to improve things.
Elizabeth Warren is a genuine heroine but I desperately hope that she does NOT become the nominee.
In the past, Democrats have been faced with the choice:
*Inspire the Base.orAppeal to the Undecideds.*I don’t know which of the two approaches makes more sense in normal times. But these are not normal times. If the Democratic Base needs to be “inspired” to turn out and vote for any Democrat over D.J. Trump, then we’re beyond salvation.
The Don is going to personally trash whichever individual the Dems eventually settle on for his opponent. I am concerned that Warren, for whom I generally have a positive regard, will not have the sense of humor to deflect the insults and turn the ridicule back upon the born-to-be-ridiculed current president.
The double standards involved are pretty irritating. While listening to a little conservative radio talk in my car yesterday, the host gleefully asked, with no apparent self awareness at all, how “anyone could be dumb enough to vote for Warren after the native American kerfluffle.” For people like that, one minor misstep is disqualifying while the number of untruths from his own candidate is in the thousands.
It is based on the criticisms you and others point out, IOW: your criticisms are underwhelming in the the light of the support she did get in Massachusetts. The results showed that the criticisms are not deal breakers for liberals, moderate Democrats and even moderate Republicans.
I think that one should look at the debates for the senate to get a taste of what is coming:
Yes, there is indeed that, but lets remember that that and worse was tried in Massachusetts and it failed, as for what should happen in other places, remember that Trump and republicans like him lost suburbia and the cities vote for the House in the past midterms. For the conservatives, their echo [del]cave[/del] chamber is getting smaller.
Honestly I’m glad to see Warren is running. She is a very intelligent, well spoken individual and I agree with most of the things she stands for and supports. Also, she really gets under the President’s skin and that always is a plus.
I have no clue at this point if she really has a shot at getting the nomination or winning. I’ve said before that to win the Democrats have to put forward a nominee who can connect with middle-class, mostly blue collar voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania who went GOP in 2016. The midterms seemed to indicate a good percent of those voters are realizing they got flim-flammed. Is Warren the one who can bring them back to the blue side? Personally I have my doubts but I’ve been wrong before. I just have a gut feeling progressives from either coast will have a harder time connecting with the type of Midwestern voters needed to win in 2020.