Arguing Warren Can't Win, Oppresses Absurdly

[laserhaas]

Let hateful, spiteful mud slinging begin; but only after proper debate with verifiable, true/ factual documentations. Yes, yours truly wants Mass. Senator Elizabeth Warren to run, even if we have to draft her. The notion that Senator Warren shouldn't run because she can't win - is ABSURD! And anything/ anyone arguing she shouldn't do it because Hillary is running is oppressive and un-democratic.

Let's look at the FACTs apropos - below....after a brief word from another sponsor

Here's what MoveOn.org's PETITION has to say about Elizabeth Warren running for POTUS.

Elizabeth Warren is a fighter for working people and a champion for the middle class. And at this time of historic inequality, we need her to run for president.

Warren is uniquely suited to take on the tough challenges our country faces: income inequality, a skewed playing field, the middle class and working people constantly getting "chipped, squeezed, and hammered" while Wall Street gets bailed out. She will stand up to the lobbyists and the corporate interests, and go all-in to give the rest of us a fighting chance.

That’s what we need right now, and it’s why we are intent on showing her she has the support she needs to run for president and win.

[br]
[hr][br]
[center]

[/center]

[center][font size=4 color=burnt] Making the case for/against POTUS candidate Warren[/font][/center]
There are sooooo many things wrong with fellow Progressives going at each others throats about this issue. It actually sickens me and swells up fear within me, about being rejected by my fellow liberals, who are die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters. It's ugliness is heart wrenching. Be that as it may, I've put life and liberty on the line openly fighting Romney and helping to defeat him in the election; but I've not defeated him (yet) totally. It is my belief that with Elizabeth Warren as President of the United States, I can do so. Granted, some of you may argue this logic is bias; but I reply that all elections are voted based on bias beliefs.

Both fear and anger are ebol and suck the whammy big time.

In order to approach this properly, I'll be more verbose than usual, with each germane part of the argument broken down into it's own debate issue. This makes it easier for everyone to go to verbal civil war in the comment section, doing so on a particular point.

The following sections will address the issues moi believes to be germane.

1. Reasons for Elizabeth Warren to be POTUS.

2. Arguments Against Elizabeth Warren running to be President.

3. Comparing Hillary Clinton to Elizabeth Warren

4. Arguing IF Elizabeth Warren Can win the POTUS election.

5. Conclusion {of this thread poster}.

[br]


(pic is from "DailyBanter.com" that references "quickmeme.com"

1.[font size=3 color=navy] Reasons for Elizabeth Warren to be POTUS.[/font]

A. Elizabeth Warren is a woman and we've never had a female President
B. She is - unequivocally - extremely popular
C. Senator Warren beat an incumbent to become 1st female Senator of Mass.
D. She is an attorney at law (who specializes/taught at Harvard of bankruptcy law)
E. Elizabeth Warren brought U.S. the CFPB (Consumer Fraud Protection Bureau)
F. The Senator is outspoken against white collar fraud and student loan racketeering
G. Mrs. Warren is "among the most cited in the field of commercial law" (Wiki)
H. Elizabeth Warren is recognized by both Law Journal & Time as top 100 influential
I. Senator is one of the leading Progressives, during her first term in office
J. Often, Elizabeth Warren, as Senator, is quick of wit to nail bull chit arguments
K. She published many works, including 2014 book "A Fighting Chance" (says almost none).
L. Elizabeth Warren has won a fight against WS forming CFPB and becoming Senator.
M. Senator remains relentless in her stances and halted raising student loan interests
N. On the issue of raising the minimum wage - she is outspoken - GReatly!
O. When her opinion isn't popular - she doesn't lie to B.S. the crowd (Israel stance)
P. Wall Street has threatened to pull Democratic funding, if she doesn't back off
Q. Every crooked player fears Elizabeth Warren being President of the United States
[br]
We can go on and on with accolades for Senator Warren to become POTUS candidate Warren; but there's more than enough here already. And need I say, that Elizabeth Warren most certainly isn't a faux candidate?!?!?!?

[br]

(pic is from Boston Globe story "Warren casts shadow on Hillary&quot
[br]2.[font size=3 color=burnt] Arguments Against Elizabeth Warren running to be President.[/font]

Let's face simple facts concerning why Senator Warren should not be running for POTUS. In actuality, there are ONLY 2 major arguments against Elizabeth Warren.

A. Senator Warren is Not Hillary Clinton

B. (Based upon the logic of item number 1 {Item A.}) - Elizabeth Warren Can't Win.
[br]
If Hillary Clinton wasn't running, there would only be the question of item 2 {B.}. To both of those premises, I'm giving the following remarks and then we'll move on to the comparison (next item).

Of all the banter out there, the one argument that I find over looked (not properly addressed) is that Bernie Sanders can't win. Of the race of Sanders v Warren, I am (along with most others I talk to) hands down Senator Warren.

Getting beyond that and back to Hillary, if former Secretary of State Clinton was not running for POTUS, there can be only 1 other argument against Senator Warren doing such; and that's the absurd (out of the gate logic) that Elizabeth Warren could never possibly win.

PUHHHLLLLEEEAAASSSEEE!

On what basis can one argue that Elizabeth Warren could never win? Are not elections based upon popularity? If it was Warren v Bush/Romney/ Rubio/ Cruz and/or Walker or GOP anybody ---- Who are You going to Vote For?

Did Elizabeth Warren beat an incumbent Republican to become 1st female Senator of Mass.?

Was her battle against the entire RWNJ/ WS supporting establishment won, in order to create the CFPB?

As Senator, did she go about lining herself up for favorite positions; or did she come out and remain swinging against the status quo on behalf of average John/Jane Q Public?

Senator Barack Obama did not have 1/100th the popularity before he ran for POTUS - that Elizabeth Warren now enjoys. Not only has Warren been a Senator; but she has worked with Obama's Administration to create the CFPB. We will address more on this bogus notion that Warren can't win - in the section dedicated to it below. Meanwhile.....

Is Wall Street threatening to shut down any other candidacy?

Has that one item - Alone - earned any of your DEEP respect for Elizabeth Warren?

[center]IT SHOULD![/center]

There is no better test of a Hillary Clinton POTUS run, to be successful, than that of her engaging in Primary debates with Senator Warren.

[center]NONE![/center]
[br]

(pic is from HuffPo article that "Warren may not want to; but we need her to run&quot
[br]
3. Comparing Hillary Clinton to Elizabeth Warren
[br]
Outside of the fact that Hillary was also FLOTUS, it is almost a neck and neck run on ratings agencies about the comparison of Warren v Hillary. As seen at "Presidential-Candidates.insidegov.com", here is the ratings of Warren v Hillary - on the following issues;

DEFENSE and International Issues

Warren is rated a 6 (with 10 being most liberal) - and Hillary is rated a 7

ECONOMIC issues

Warren is rated a 9 ------------------------------ Hillary is rated an 8

DOMESTIC issues

Warren is rated an 8 --------------------------------- Clinton is rated at 9

INDIVIDUAL Rights

Elizabeth Warren is a 9 ---------------------------- Hillary is an 8
[br]

Compare charts at "insidegov.com" delves into many issues germane. Including "Absolute right to gun ownership" (that both Hillary and Warren 'strongly oppose').

There's also the issues of 'Prioritize green energy' and 'Expand ObamaCare'; which are both "strongly favored" by Hillary and Warren.

Both Senator Warren and Hillary oppose the "expand free trade" agreements.

Also, it is noted that both Clinton and Elizabeth Warren "strongly favors" that 'stimulus' works over market based recovery and 'higher taxes on the rich' (both, by the way, are millionaires).

ACLU and Planned Parenthood Action Fund have Elizabeth Warren at 100% (oddly enough there's NO Congressional record compare listing such stats for Hillary). Arguably, Hillary Clinton has been at it longer than Elizabeth Warren. Clinton also has the experience of Secretary of State and being the 1st lady. As much as one can argue Hillary has more experience, the opposing banter for Warren can be that she has become stronger, in less time and done more - than Clinton - in less time.

They are (arguably) equal in popularity. One has more time on the block; but is not as strong an opponent to Wall Street as we want or need. The other fights for U.S. every chance she gets.

The only thing Elizabeth Warren doesn't have (and never will) is a husband who has already been in the White House - that is very popular among many Democrats. As for me, I like Bill Clinton; but I don't give him all the accolades of praise as most Dem's do. For one, he had the dot com era make his policies against Reagan/ G HW Bush trickle down. Dot com won for U.S.

Outside of that - there's Glass Steagall that Bill Clinton publicly announced (as he was leaving office) on such no longer being necessary.

Do you recall how that logic actually panned out?

Just sayin.................
[br]

(pic is from MoveOn.org's PETITION - pleading for Warren to Run for President
[br]
4.[font size=3 color=Blue] Arguing IF Elizabeth Warren Can win the POTUS election.[/font]

As stated above, elections are popularity contests. Beyond any reasonable doubt, for the most part, this election, is based upon the right via left. As is most times (except for our pee poor snub of Obama during mid-terms) - this election will be about HARD right against anything left.

IMO - both Hillary and Warren stand a solid chance against Any RWNJ in 2016.

This particular section is about the fact that one of the main arguments of Democrats is, Warren can't possibly win. To that remark, yours truly says BULL C H I T!

Elizabeth Warren raised $40 million from U.S. for her Massachusetts Senator race.

If, at the end of the day, are you saying that you are SO pro Hillary and against Warren - that if Elizabeth won the primary - you're NOT going to support her in the POTUS race?

REALLY!

Senator Barack Obama was an unknown quality. We (that's right - YOU & I) along with the entire Democratic/Progressive realm, picked the unknown Barack Hussien Obama over Hillary Clinton.

The fact of the matter is, Warren is a better speaker than Hillary!

You say it ain't so.....HOW? Every word that comes out of Elizabeth Warren's mouth is for U.S. - the average John/ Jane Doe Q Public of America. She is so outspoken against Wall Street - that they have threatened to pull funding Democrats.

THAT's extortion/blackmail - and it should make U.S. all MORE pro Warren (not less)!

Of Campaign Finance, Do you Believe Clinton will do better than Warren?

Obama didn't have industries lined up behind him, nor Wall Street (that - granted - Hillary Clinton does have; but shouldn't be bragging about such). And - yet - we were able to raise enough money and get behind him with enough Grass Roots - that he beat the well funded (super rich) John McCain.

This time around, the Koch brothers have already promised $894 MILLION dollars (nearly a Billion) to help put a Republican in office. Along with that is Fox networks and the over 100 million listeners of Rush LameBlah, Beck, Hannity etc., of Clear Channel's 800 stations (renamed iHeart).

Factually, Democrats can never hope to outspend Republicans.

It is estimated with the programming already anti Anybody from the liberal side - that we are a $3 Billion dollar underdog in raising cash this election. Midterms alone (according to Open Secrets) costs almost $4 Billion.

Simply put, there's not enough outright Liberal ownership of media to balance the scales of Fox, Romney's iHeart and the money they can raise. Hence, we are going to have to do this by the same populace, Grass Roots actions that helped Obama win the Presidency.

But We're "Drafting" Elizabeth Warren

Yes, this is true, we are attempting to "draft" Elizabeth Warren, who is upon the public stage, many times, stating she simply - flatly - won't run.

Everyone argues with me that NO drafted person can possibly win;

REALLY?

Let's take a look at proof to the contrary, in the form of Dwight D. Eisenhower!

Wikipedia states that;

The Draft Eisenhower movement was the first successful political draft of the 20th century to take a private citizen to the Oval Office. It was a widespread American grassroots political movement that eventually persuaded Dwight D. Eisenhower to run for President. The movement culminated in the 1952 presidential election in which Eisenhower won the Republican nomination and defeated Democrat Adlai Stevenson to become the 34th President of the United States.

If they can do it - why can't we? - Did we not "Grass Roots" Obama to victory?

We, Democrats, hard side and medium ground alike, will be HARD behind who ever is the successful Primary nominated candidate. Even if it be Reid, Levin and/or Sanders.

Anyone saying Elizabeth Warren has no chance - is trying to rig it for Hillary;

[center]and that ain't kosher![/center]
[br]


(pic is from Reverb Press about Bill Maher's Million dollar offer for Warren to run)
[br]
[center][font size=5 color=navy]CONCLUSION[/font][/center]
[br]

If Hillary wasn't running, would there be ANY arguments against her? How about if Gore wanted to get back in; would you then say he shouldn't run? Are we telling Bernie not to try to run? Would you do the same to Harry Reid, Carl Levin and/or another quiet candidate popping out the woodworks?

Barack Obama came from relative obscurity, into our hearts, minds and dedication, in a fight against Hillary Clinton. He did not have 1/100th the popularity that Elizabeth Warren has today, as a Senator.

[center]We need change - SERIOUS Change![/center]

Have you ever seen such public demand, LONG before a campaign is to begin - with an Established choice already there - as there is for Elizabeth Warren?

The answer is a most resounding NO; especially for a Progressive candidate!

Bill Maher already has thumped the can't raise money nail, on its proverbial dam head - when he Up Front offered Elizabeth Warren, a million dollars to run.

Here's what Ian of Huffington Post wrote on this subject;

Democrats will never win by running as what Harry Truman called "phony Democrats." We can only win by contrasting what we believe and what we've done when in power with the beliefs and actions of our Republican opponents. There is no alternative. And there's no one in our party better suited to make that contrast to the American people than the woman who said this:

People feel like the system is rigged against them. And here's the painful part: they're right. The system is rigged. Look around. Oil companies guzzle down billions in subsidies. Billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. Wall Street CEOs--the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs--still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors, and acting like we should thank them.

And Ian then reiterated the issues of how popular Warren is, linking to DailyKos - this;

[br]

[br]

This is transcribed - in short - to be;

The Republican vision is clear: "I've got mine, the rest of you are on your own." Republicans say they don't believe in government. Sure they do. They believe in government to help themselves and their powerful friends.

Corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance. They live, they love, and they die. And that matters. That matters because we don't run this country for corporations, we run it for people.

[br]
Then Ian of HuffPo continued to state;

That woman, of course, is Elizabeth Warren. And damn if those words don't get me excited. Many people have said this before. I'm one of them. But I'm going to say it again, because it must be said after our losses in the midterms: We need Elizabeth Warren to run for president. Whether she wins or loses, no one else can more effectively reshape the message and policy agenda of the Democratic Party, and there's no better way for her to do so than with the platform of a White House run.

[br]

Do you see how excited we were about Elizabeth Warren in 2012 election? Can anyone be legitimate in any argument that we won't be more so, when she runs for POTUS?
[br]

[center][font size=5 color=burnt]What do we need a Progressive POTUS for, in 2016?[/font]
[/center]
[br]
The questions you have to ask yourself is - what do we really need, for 2016. Do we need just a Democrat? Or do we need a woman? Is the outspoken Warren that much different from Clinton, on women's rights, equal pay, Social Security, ObamaCare, LGBT?

On almost all issues, Hillary and Warren are the same - a l m o s t!

Where does Elizabeth Warren Stand FAR above Hillary Clinton?

Truth is, if there's any doubt in your answer, then you really have nothing but bias. For, as we ALL know (even on both right and left) that Elizabeth Warren is feared most by the Repub R{e}ich.

Wall Street can't stand - even Fears - Elizabeth Warren!

On that issue - Alone - Hillary and Warren are clearly at different ends of the spectrum. This, is in great part due to the fact that Clinton has been in D.C. many more years than Warren. Hillary was the first lady and knows that - as a politico - you have to go along to get along.

Elizabeth Warren has never been one to - go along - in order to get along!

There's no better place to test Hillary Clinton's popularity, than that of a Primary debate with Elizabeth Warren. Nor, on the flip side of the coin, is there any other place for Warren to prove her true viability - than that of debating with Hillary Clinton.

For Hillary - will pull no punches - against an opposing Warren.

I'm for Elizabeth Warren, due to the fact that Wall Street hates here and her best chance of rallying U.S. Progressive/Liberals/ Democrats behind her, is a strong platform on reigning the GOP in, along with Wall Street.

Can you say the same for Hillary?

REALLY!

Finally, before I release you to the POLL and video below, let U.S. take a look at another issue that most don't even dare talk about. There's this little thingy that we should never have had a Bush II in the White House (and most certainly not a Dallas Dynasty III - with Jeb). In the same accord, I'm of the very strong opine that we are opening up (setting a precedent - if you will) the issue of defeating the "No More than 2 Terms as President".

For the misogyny of our founding fathers, arguendo, never even dare consider the fact that George Washington's wife would run for President of the United States. With the history of Bush/Rove stealing elections (Romney's family owning voting machines/ stealing billions to buy media outlets like CCC/ iHeart), gerrymandering, voter blocking and money raising from Koch's, Adelson, etc., - can we ever stand such getting Barbara Bush in, or Ann Romney?

Hence, neither should we endure a world running around Bill Clinton, with his ex Sec. of State wife Hillary, now giving U.S. a Clinton Presidency Part II. For it is TOO much power in the hands of the same persons way of doing things. We've had a decade and a half, beyond the way of Bill Clinton's time. Besides, what would we call him, the POTUS 1st FMOTUS?

And let's not even get started on if/when Michele should consider....

Because there's also Joe Biden, silently waiting in the background.


I'm just sayin.........

7 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Warren Should Run
	5 (71%)
	Clinton will trounce her (remember - this is archived)
	1 (14%)
	Democratic party would ruin Warren, if she ran and lost
	0 (0%)
	I don't care who runs
	0 (0%)
	Joe Biden's the main man
	0 (0%)
	Warren shouldn't run now
	1 (14%)
	Elizabeth Warren never should run
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[zappaman]

1. I believe her when she says she is not running

And has no interest in running.
I don't think she is a liar.

[merrily]

14. Some hope she can be persauded to change her mind.

Implying people who are dying to support Warren think she's a liar is a tad silly.

[laserhaas]

27. It is smart to say no and see how much real support is out there.

Never -- and I mean - NEVER, have we seen such strong support for a non candidate,

begging her to run.


Just think of the holler and screams, if she announced it!


(and the sleepless night Hillary would have - a test of measure).

[merrily]

33. She has seen a lot of support.

I think it may be that she believes and/or has been convinced, that Hillary is the best shot the party has and that a real primary will weaken her chances

I read somewhere in GD today that Warren was asked to run against Hillary, then drop out. That is so insulting and dishonest I hope she says no.

[laserhaas]

34. She would never do such a corrupt thing.

It would be a wonderful thing to see - Warren v Hillary.

a GREAT place for U.S. Liberals to start the race...

[merrily]

36. I hope not.

Supposedly, LBJ got people who did not want to serve on the Warren Commission to serve by telling them it was their duty to their country.

[laserhaas]

44. Far cry different, in the premise you suggest.

Thing is, I don't know if such is beyond Hillary (as me thinks Romney had such with Newt);

but I sure would be disappointed IF Warren would even listen to such mishmash chicanery

[NYC_SKP]

2. If Warren wins the primary, we win the Whitehouse.

If Clinton wins the primary, we lose the Whitehouse.

None of the polls matter now because it's one Dem being polled against a dozen GOP.

Once they have their Scott Walker or Jeb Bush, she's going to go down.

She simply doesn't appeal to many independents and center-right republicans, and her scandals, real or imagined, are just too great.

We had better think long and hard and find an alternative.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. why not get behind sanders who is going to run

[NYC_SKP]

7. I am unless and until someone better comes along. If Warren is in, I'd prefer her.

But if not, then I'm with Sanders.

[merrily]

15. That's a terrible idea!

[laserhaas]

5. I don't concur; but do worry that Clinton is less prone to be a CLEAR choice

Nor, dare I hope - do I believe it is going to be Walker or Bush

(though a Rubio and/or Cruz is even more scary).

[NYC_SKP]

8. Walker scares me the most, people seem to like him.

They all suck, but Walker had gotten away with some mad shit in his day.

[laserhaas]

23. We know; but shouldn't forget - it took $30 million from out of state

in order to do so.......


I'm just sayin....... it was all bogus

[NYC_SKP]

28. Our real enemies in these races will be taking a LOT of money from outside the US.

It's a whole new ballgame this season.

[laserhaas]

49. Exactly! ... IMO it is more likely $10 Billion plus Fox/iHeart for Repugs

and (at best) $5 Billion on our side.....


BUT, if Warren were the nominee, the press would be frenzied

on what is she going to do - when she gets in.....

Just the idea of scares upon WS and such, rocks my world...

[JaneyVee]

10. Remember, this is archived.

[NYC_SKP]

18. Yes, it is, as is all of DU2...

Not one to bring up the past by posting my links and charts, but a few of us were calling Hillary's loss long before it was like even a remote possibility.

Rather than be proven wrong about my rhetorical prognostication, I'd prefer voters come to their senses and that other candidates step up.

In a field of five or more decent candidates (not including Warren) we have a fighting chance of selecting someone who can beat the GOP.

If we are so fortunate as to see Warren come in, then it's settled. Game over in the primary and in the general.

[laserhaas]

21. Concur!

GREATLY!

[JaneyVee]

22. The more the merrier.

Unfortunately some here wan't candidates to "step down" instead of having a robust primary. I prefer giving Dem voters more choice.

[laserhaas]

24. Absolutely YES. If Clinton can't beat a legit Primary run

then she has NO chance of beating the corrupt Repug machinations.

[JI7]

3. why not get behind Sanders who is going to run

[laserhaas]

20. Even the HuffPo guy and others, capitulates that Warren beats Sanders.

I like Bernie - but his bite is much less than his bark.

[cali]

41. complete uninformed horseshit

Warren is great but it's bullocks to claim what YOU just did. And he is demonstrating the courage of his convictions by running. Had she chosen to run, she would have had a far greater chance to win than he does,but she didn't.

[laserhaas]

45. Maybe you are forgetting (or don't know) who I am...

She hasn't chosen to run - YET.....still plenty of time to change her mind on that.

He's demonstrating what.....?

As for your horse tossed manure remark, where is the proof that his bite has done something like the CFPB? He talks much, but he never listens, or gives time to, people like myself (who are living much of what he barks about).

Then there's his stance for the NRA and his being against the Brady bill.

[Andy823]

55. Well, I don't know who you are

Care to explain who you are?

[laserhaas]

62. The guy suing Romney for racketeering

And can document that much to help defeat Romney...came from our case facts.

Whom Bernie n his staff always refuse time of day

[Scootaloo]

6. I think Warren SHOULD run, but have no illusions that she will

That said, the core of your point - that it's stupid to say "she can't win" is absolutely true. I've found it very puzzling to see so-called Democrats proclaiming that no democrat (except one!) could ever possibly win.

The thing is, the republicans shot down their only serious chance at competition in January - yup, that's right, Mitt the Shit was their last hope. so they're running, what, Waterboy, Aqua Buddha, and a wax sculpture of a keebler elf?

[laserhaas]

13. Ha Ha.... luv your coin of monikers for the opposing rethug'ees

[hrmjustin]

9. If you want her to run raise your voice as best you can and tell her.

Nothing wrong in asking her to run.


I doubt she will but you never know.

[laserhaas]

19. Um.... that is exactly what this thread is attempting to do.

She is THE Anti Wall Street committing 'Scot Free' crimes - candidate.

BAR NONE!

[hrmjustin]

25. Enjoy.

[JaneyVee]

11. Tl;dr But Warren already said no.

[cali]

12. she isn't running. you can't make her. this is getting creepy.

[spanone]

16. yes it is....how many ways does she have to say it?

[laserhaas]

17. No one can make anyone run. The "creepy" is name calling to make a point.

An item that is not only UN-Democrat;

but just plain WRONG!

[seabeyond]

26. how about warren isnt running? does that factor into the equation? nt

[laserhaas]

30. Did it factor into Bill Maher's equation of offering her $1 million

We have a RIGHT to voice our politico choices.

And it is wrong.... 100% Completely WRONG....

for everyone to just lay down and say Hillary is it - and nothing else!

[seabeyond]

35. I do not give a shit about maher and don't know his statement.

You had an argument about dismissing her run. I think the bigger argument is she isn't running. Sanders declared and I am on board. What is the raggin' on Clinton?

[laserhaas]

38. There's NO rule that one has to be pro "any" Dem, just cause....

I'm ragging on Clinton part 2 (a legitimate Constitutional argument).

Though, I'm also, all for swatting that argument misogyny meme....
(especially since we had a Bush part 2 - already).


Be that as it may, Hillary is full of hubris and more "entrenched" in D.C. ways;
and is also loved by Wall Street (an alarm begging for review - at the very least).

If there was no Clinton, would there be ANY argument against a Warren?

(by the way, your going down the vulgar banging - should be reserved for elsewhere).

[seabeyond]

40. you are arguing a whole lot of shit, i have not even brought up, or care to debate.

[Xyzse]

29. I really don't care who runs.

If they want to run, they should.
I haven't found any Democrat who has a chance to be worse than any Republican alternative, so I would vote for any of them.

I am beginning to despise all of these little things.

[laserhaas]

32. I despise any restraints to the Democratic process.

And, I agree with you - there's No repug (other than maybe the Judge) whom I'd listen to.

[Agnosticsherbet]

31. Warren can not possibly win because she is not running.

In order to win, she would have to change her mind, contact donors who will help her raise 50 or 60 million for the primary, build a organization in 50 states, and then declare a run.

Then she has a chance to win the primary.


Until the does all those things, she can not possibly win because she is not running.

[laserhaas]

37. The "Until she does" is the key - and that's NOT impossible

If you will remember, Obama was the DNC speaker - then ran for POTUS

Elizabeth Warren demonstrated fantastic popularity in 2008 DNC speaking


and that popularity has grown, immensely, since that time.

[Agnosticsherbet]

50. Until she runs it is impossible for her to win

She can't win if she doesn't join. I won't hold my breath.

[laserhaas]

52. Hey... I agree....THAT's why I'm pushing to stop the B.S.

We need many candidates to prove who is the TRUE ... The ONE....

Nobody can (legitimately) argue that Warren has no chance.


The POLL here slam dunks that.....

------------------------------------------------------------

She is Anti Wall Street and Hillary is not... it is JUST that simple.

We need to reign the 1% in ---- and that's what WE (and our country)
have to halt, in order to for this income disparity to stop.

[rock]

39. It's Warren's choice

She knows better than I do if it's a good idea. Personally, I'm for it, but that don't count.

[laserhaas]

46. If we could POLL everyone, without a backlash -

I wonder how many would be of the same frame of mind - as you or I?

[Hutzpa]

42. She will be a very good POTUS but at this present moment there is too much dithering going on.

nt.

[laserhaas]

47. Too much. I would argue that to the contrary...

there's NOT enough......

Warren would have an excellent chance (if she would run);
and the outcry of support would be HUGE....

She's never presented any quantifiable reason - as to why she won't....

[Hutzpa]

54. I will truely like to see her be much more decisive

rather than show indecision. Her name has to be out there for the American public to acknowledge who she is and time is quickly running out.

[laserhaas]

58. It may be a perfect strategy.... to wait in the background and see HOW strong

Hillary really is...

This LBN thing (today) that appears to be the New York Observer...


claims that big DNC people are secretly trying to recruit Warren.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026583881

[Hutzpa]

59. Oh absolutely!

I've been to the promise land and I can tell you word from the land is Hillary ain't it, she does not excite people because they've seen that playbook before. What we want is someone who believes in what they say rather than offer lip service of another.

[laserhaas]

63. my sentiment..exactly

Warren....WARREN

W A R R E N

[Hutzpa]

64. Warrenistas

#warrenistas

[laserhaas]

65. :)

[L0oniX]

43. Sanders/Warren or Warren/Sanders 2016 ...anyone but Hillary.

[laserhaas]

48. Warren / with VP Sanders is wonderful

Though, if I had my druthers, I'd rather have Warren as POTUS and Sanders over SEC

or the FED

Something of that kind.....

------------------------

[Hutzpa]

56. We have to be realistic

the American people are not going to go for that, and to top it off the media will have a field day with that duo. REAL TALK.

[L0oniX]

60. Yeah what ever. I've heard enough about how Hillary is "realistic" to make me...

want to become an undocumented alien in Ecuador.

[laserhaas]

51. The POLL is telltale. If the "you're scum to suggest anyone but Hillary" thingy

wasn't part of the discourse......


Just dare to T H I N K of the possibilities......


Wall Street, Koch brothers, bad faith people inside the DOJ

ALL shaken up.........

[ohheckyeah]

53. The only

relevant fact is she's not running.

[laserhaas]

57. Here's a DU - LBN - Thread on Democratic Party pushing for other than Hillary

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141079266

This is also... just sayin.......

[bigwillq]

61. Warren should run.

As should Biden, O'Malley, Sanders, Hillary. I welcome them all into the race.