Warren CAN Win!

[Fearless]

Why do I say this?

Because it is just as valid of an argument as those who claim to be clairvoyant about Hillary Clinton being the nominee.

No one is currently running. If we're going only on name recognition polls then clearly Santa Claus will be out next president, because 100% of voters know him.

The real question we need to ask ourselves is "Who SHOULD win?"

And that answer is certainly not pro-corporate, or pro-Wall St. Hillary Clinton.

We need to fight to elect the RIGHT people not just those who seem easiest to elect.

In summary...

Warren CAN win, if we fight for her.

[Vox Moi]

1. And … if she can stay to the left.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Will. nt

[ucrdem]

3. The nomination, possibly, but then what?

If she manages to screw up the immigration EO on account of what looks very much like a political stunt she's not going to win the general.

[stillwaiting]

18. We don't have to accept MASSIVE amounts of hideous legislation to get immigration.

E.W. can successfully put the blame on the assholes that are trying to make the American people do just that.

LEADERS that want to do right by the American people can do that. Those two things together have been missing within most of the elected Democrats for far too long.

This legislation that E.W. is fighting is the political stunt, and it's a very bad one that will do quite a bit of harm to many Americans. I don't know why some people here don't get that. It must be STRONGLY opposed and fought.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. She'll never survive a Democratic primary and she knows it

How can she explain the fact that she supported the GOP well into her 40's? She voted for Bush who ran the racist Willie Horton ad.

She voted for Reagan when he ignored AIDS and not so subtlety referred to blacks as welfare queens.

She supported Reagan when he was doing his best to deregulate everything and saying government is the problem.

She supported a party that employed the southern strategy and appealed to whites using race baiting.

She can't defend this in a primary and she knows it. That's why she supports Hillary for President in 2016.

[JDPriestly]

7. She could be elected because voters are sick of overly partisan politics and because she

can very clearly and easily explain what caused her to see the light and change parties. That's na interesting story. If you read her book, you will realize that she is typical of many, many Americans who fell for the Republican propaganda and voted against their interests and still do vote against their interests.

Elizabeth Warren changed parties because of research she did on bankruptcy that completely changed her understanding of the situation of the American middle class.

Read the book, please. I think the fact that she changed her party would probably help her in the general election. She would bring Republicans and independents to vote for her.

Hillary cannot. Hillary is liked by many Democrats -- mostly because they have a nostalgic affection for Bill and don't realize that he signed bills that were not good for our country and made other decisions that have been bad for us.

I think that Warren is speaking to the big issues of our times. Unless new issues arise that are more important than the economic situation of so many Americans today, Warren can win.

Hillary cannot break from the Clinton past well enough to offer the new solutions that Americans are beginning more and more to seek.

Today, the stock market is doing very well.

Yet we were told earlier this week that certain pension funds appear to be insolvent. How is that possible? Certainly the loss of membership by unions is one reason. But more important, cheating on Wall Street -- and lack of actually funding pensions AGREED TO BY CONTRACT are two important reasons for the failures.

The middle class and poorly paid have not been gaining in this economy. The recovery is still mostly felt on Wall Street.

I am just mentioning one symptom of serious social problems of political origin in our country.

Right now, right-wing solutions appear to be winning the day. But the right-wing ideas will not solve the problems. They will not help ordinary Americans. Now that the Republicans have majorities in the House and Senate, they will have to push the bills through, write the bills, set the agenda -- and that agenda is not going to be one that ordinary Americans want.

The game is up. The Republicans will either have to improve the lives of ordinary Americans or admit that their ideology benefits only the very rich.

Hillary is not the person to point out the perversity of the Republican ideology. Warren or Sanders both know the score and can point that out.

Every once in a while in our history, our country goes through a big change. It's about time again.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. War and Wall Street 2016

That'll bring home the gold.

No doubt.

[RobertEarl]

5. The last Clinton was impeached

The last bush should have been.

The only way Warren can win is she can get 90% of the women vote. Like that ever happened, eh?

[JDPriestly]

6. As a Social Security recipient, I am aware that the Clintons are allies of and associated with

Pete Peterson and his forums, and it scares me. Really scares me.

Pete Peterson is the guy who advocates for austerity on everyone but himself and his buddies on Wall Street.

Just sick.

If we cut back on our trade, brought our trade deficit closer to a surplus or at least a balanced account, we would in the process create more jobs and work in this country -- jobs that would pay working people and not just the big corporate bosses and middle-men decent wages, fair wages and salaries and austerity would not be an issue.

Can you believe that in the late 19th century when our government relied on tariffs for much of its income, we had budget surpluses?

Benjamin Harrison (August 20, 1833 – March 13, 1901) was the 23rd President of the United States (1889–1893); he was the grandson of the ninth President, William Henry Harrison. . . . .
Harrison, a Republican, was elected to the presidency in 1888, defeating the Democratic incumbent Grover Cleveland. Hallmarks of his administration included unprecedented economic legislation, including the McKinley Tariff, which imposed historic protective trade rates, and the Sherman Antitrust Act; Harrison facilitated the creation of the National Forests through an amendment to the Land Revision Act of 1891. He also substantially strengthened and modernized the Navy, and conducted an active foreign policy. He proposed, in vain, federal education funding as well as voting rights enforcement for African Americans during his administration.

Due in large part to surplus revenues from the tariffs, federal spending reached one billion dollars for the first time during his term. The spending issue in part led to the defeat of the Republicans in the 1890 mid-term elections. Harrison was defeated by Cleveland in his bid for re-election in 1892, due to the growing unpopularity of the high tariff and high federal spending. He then returned to private life in Indianapolis but later represented the Republic of Venezuela in an international case against the United Kingdom. In 1900, he traveled to Europe as part of the case and, after a brief stay, returned to Indianapolis. He died the following year of complications from influenza.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison%2C_Benjamin

I am referring to that Wikipedia article because it backs up my view that total "free trade" is not good for our country. We are buying and importing from other countries. We are dependent on our imports. We are losing our industry and impoverishing ourselves and our country and our children and grandchildren. And it is "free trade" that is to blame. We need to trade, but we should not be buying things from other countries that we cannot begin to pay for.

Republicans were in some respects liberal and in many respects the obnoxious conservatives they are today.

[world wide wally]

9. I'm on board now. And I am more focused on what she says, does and thinks now. Not in the past.

[MADem]

10. I don't think she can win.

She doesn't have the deep pockets. Donors who supported her Senate run enthusiastically with huge influxes of cash have already made it clear that they're not backing her for a POTUS run. I don't think she can make up the money difference with small, individual donors.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Voices/2014/0731/Elizabeth-Warren-s-own-donors-say-they-wouldn-t-support-her-for-president

Despite all of this speculation and hope in some quarters, though, the actual prospects for a Warren campaign seem dim at best. She has said on multiple occasions that she has isn’t running for president, and that she wants Clinton to run. Polling has shown her to be far behind the former secretary of State in hypothetical primary matchups, although much of that may admittedly be due to name recognition issues. Additionally, the argument that some have made to try to analogize a potential Clinton-Warren race to what happened in 2008 falls apart once you recognize the profound differences between the Democratic race in 2008 and the expected race in 2016. Perhaps the most important argument against a Warren run for the White House, though, lies in the fact that some of Warren’s biggest donors are warning her not to run for president if Clinton runs:

If Elizabeth Warren does in fact reverse her repeated denials of interest and decides to run for president, she will have to do so virtually alone. That’s because almost to a person, her earliest and most devoted backers do not want her to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

[ucrdem]

13. She seems to have a lot of wealthy friends.

I don't think money is going to be a problem.

[MADem]

16. Her wealthy friends have told her, already, that their cash is going to Clinton.

That's what the link is all about. Here, two more paragraphs from the above link,

There's no ambiguity here--this is crystal clear reality talking. EW knows it, too:

“If Elizabeth called me up and said, ‘I am thinking of running for president,’ I would say, ‘Elizabeth, are you out of your goddamn mind?’” said one New York-based donor who has hosted Warren in his living room. “I really like Elizabeth, but if Hillary is in the race it just makes no sense.”

This conversation was echoed again and again in more than a dozen interviews with big-ticket Democratic donors in Warren’s hometown of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and in cities that operate as ATMs for the Democratic money machine, like New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Over and over again, the message was the same: Stay in the Senate, Liz, stay in the Senate.

It is a valid point that she can do more good, even as "ranking" on Banking, than she could as POTUS. She has very specific skills, and those include tweaking legislation in ways that benefit the middle and working class. She wouldn't be doing that in the Executive Branch even if she did run and win (and frankly, that is the longest shot in town, to be blunt about it). There would be no time.

[RBInMaine]

11. She is not running. She has publicly and officially said so.What don't you get about "Not Running"?

[ucrdem]

12. Realistically, she's been running hard for two years.

I mean come on. Every Daily Show appearance, every WaPo op-ed, every speech to an empty senate chamber says it loudly and clearly.

[MADem]

17. If she's "running" for anything, she's running as the Clinton appointee to the Fed Chair.

A progressive Greenspan, if you will.

She is NOT running for President, though. She has said so, repeatedly.

[Hatchling]

21. Everyone says they are not running.

Right up to the day they say they are.

[JI7]

14. i think she could win the General Election but not the Primary against Clinton

[ucrdem]

15. If she alienates Clinton voters and Obama voters

who does that leave? White independents? That's an important bloc but not enough to win a national election.

[Fearless]

20. She is all alienating who? I thought she wasn't running?

[Hatchling]

23. A Clinton /Warren ticket would be interesting.

And put Warren next in line for the Presidency.

[MADem]

24. No balance. Too much east coat, no southern influence. No "value added."

They want a balancing act--MA is going for the Democrat, no matter who that is.

There's no gain in that matchup.

Someone from TX, OTOH, would bring in a passel of electoral votes.

[RiverLover]

19. I'll fight for her!

A gazillion times harder than I did for Obama.

[True Blue Door]

22. I want Warren to run.

But I reserve judgment on whether I want her to be the nominee.

All I know at this point is that I don't want Hillary.