General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm getting more excited now about an Elizabeth Warren run for 2020 as our
woman for president. But we'll see how things progress.
I think she went bold in her challenge to Trump (and I know some here will disagree). To me it showed guts and a willingness to step out and speak out.
I think she'd be such a huge contrast to Trump (if he runs again in 2020). Or whoever the pukes nominate. People are fed up after this disaster.
Elizabeth might just be what the people want. It's already on the news about how jangled the American people's nerves are. Trump just jumps out at us every day. He is unstable and a worry to all of us.
Elizabeth offers calming but diligence. Her work in the Senate has been unblemished by scandal.
Let's give her a shot, I say. Let's hear her out.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Presidents have to jugle hundreds of policies and relations at the same time. Warren has cultivated a reputation, specialty, and voice that she is using very well. Don't forget, POTUS can't do much without a strong allied congress.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)replace her should she run for President. As for her reputation and voice, isn't that what we need for our next president? Remember, JFK was from MA and a rep and a Senator.
I think Warren could rally other Dems, esp. women Dems at an uncertain time when they need an uplift to the party.
Our candidates have to come from somewhere. We've seen what a fake real estate mogul could do. Let's try a person who has experience juggling lots of issues and doing well at it.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)We got Scott Brown AND a Repuke Governor. We lose the the GOP far to often.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Like my state next door, MA tends liberal. I have family there and they are active Dems...can't wait to hear what they say about a Warren run for POTUS...
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)And I think she is doing a fantastic job of upholding it. The president has relatively little power when it comes to what Sen. Warren has been focusing on. She is leading from inside of where it truly begins. I think her work is too strong to give up.
Aside from that, it is to our advantage be able to confident that we will have the strength of incumbency in 2024. That likelihood decreases with age.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)the time will choose. All I know today is that Trump is at about a 38% approval rating. He's plummeting fast. People are waking up. This guy could get us all killed. and he's probably deranged.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)positions when we once again have a majority in the senate. Her colleagues value her.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)Her strength is in her seat as our Senior Senator from MA.
northoftheborder
(7,572 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)I think I will pass on Warren. She is better in the Senate.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)Alice11111
(5,730 posts)GeneMcM
(69 posts)Sanders, Warren, or any other uber-left New England far left showboat that appeals to the uber-white uber-left and absolutely no one else on God's green earth.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...referring to her as "far left" only goes to show how ridiculously far the Republican Party has moved the Overton Window.
Polls demonstrate that a clear majority of the population agrees with positions taken by Sanders, Warren, et al. As well they should. My gripe with Sanders is how dismissive he has been of the role racism played in the 2016 election. I attribute that ignorance to his age and his being from the whitest state in the US. Do away with racism and the Republican Party would cease to be viable.
GeneMcM
(69 posts)whatever far left is in Scandinavia is irrelevant. Whatever someone thinks far left was 70 years ago is irrelevant. in today's political climate she is second to Sanders on the left scale. That won't fly outside of New England (and by New England I mean Vermont and MAYBE Mass) and a few regional west coast cities. And she doesn't appeal to minorities either which is a huge problem in it's own.
She appeals to the most liberal of the left. I get that they like her and it's their right to do so. The mistake is in thinking that enthusiasm is universal once stepping outside of these areas. It's a lesson the left never learns and outright deludes themselves over. For example they talk about the razor thing margin Clinton lost Wisconsin to all the time and insist she should have run further to the left (she ran well to the left of my comfort as a Midwesterner familiar with the culture) But they never notice that Russ Feingold and other further left candidates lost by much bigger margins than did Clinton. It doesn't fit with the fantasy that running to the left in a center-right country is going to finally work.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)records of all Democratic senators. Sen. Sanders is among the most left, and probably would be showed to be much farther left if there was anything out there he could vote for. They are very different in basic personality orientation and how that plays out in politics.
This may surprise you. But Warren was a Republican for decades and of course must still be a moderate conservative by personality; personality is malleable, but it'd take a brain transplant to get rid of that basic orientation. She was, however, one of the relatively few principled, aware, responsible Republicans who became a Democrat when the GOP left traditional conservative principles far behind and moved to economic and socioreligious extremism. But she was there all through the GOP's move to the strong-to-hard right during the Reagan era.
All this is less confusing when one remembers that "radical" personality and "radical" position (i.e., out of the standard box) are two extremely different things. Pew says it's common, for instance, for political moderates (liberal and con, there is no "moderate" personality type) to hold at least some positions that are not considered mainstream.
Warren is like that on economic issues except far stronger and more committed than most.
Sanders tends radical in personality and positions.
However, imo, the official positions of both aren't actually very radical at all. Most of those they espouse are long established in progressive liberalism and the Democratic Party supported them all at various times (such as the New Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society, Obama's not-deal advances). What makes pushing them seem radical now is merely timing while an extreme right GOP holds the nation in thrall. Most genuinely radical factions definitely believe that and consider Warren and Sanders not much different from typical Democrats.
Ability and integrity, btw, are other places I see huge differences between Warren and Sanders, and I do think that comes from their very different personalities. She's basically honest and honorable and a strong doer with bold goals, but she is also very practical and understands what can be accomplished under the circumstances she'd be working with. He has a long record of demonstrating lack of all this.
Btw, in considering all this, it's worth remembering that Warren endorsed Hillary for president. I imagine she felt she'd make a better president, but she could work with Hillary and would have accepted the VP slot.
Oh, and back to your premise that Warren only appeals to the far left. Her talented rhetoric has strong appeal to populists across the spectrum. And in future she'd have absolutely no trouble blasting the notions of anyone who imagined she was some kind of female version of Sanders.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Changing nothing means not gaining any new votes.
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)oasis
(49,381 posts)Not my choice.
GeneMcM
(69 posts)delisen
(6,043 posts)Don't think she can make it through the Republican initiation rites.
BannonsLiver
(16,370 posts)If you believe that work from behind the scenes to change things. She ensured Donnas idiotic book would dominate another news cycle. Street smarts appear to be lacking.
nini
(16,672 posts)Homey ain't playing this game anymore.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)sarah FAILIN
(2,857 posts)I feel like she is an opportunist as it is and this was way too much. I will not vote for her.
blue cat
(2,415 posts)kentuck
(111,089 posts)Would that be good or bad for her politically?
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)emulatorloo
(44,120 posts)I can say right now I won't vote for any candidate in the primary who pedals the fake "rigged" meme.
My other litmus test is I won't vote for any candidate who won't release their tax returns.
I admire Warren a lot and would be very excited if she ran. But if she promotes "rigged" meme she won't get my vote in the primary
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)though many believe the smoke that's been pouring out of some quarters.
This article from Feb 2014 pretty much tracks with Brazille's take, with lots more detail:
Democratic Party fundraising effort helps Clinton find new donors, too February 20, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-party-fundraising-effort-helps-clinton-find-new-donors-too/2016/02/19/b8535cea-d68f-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html
bobbieinok
(12,858 posts)Why would she play into the hands of those profitting from democrats' disarray?
Why add fuel to the fire? It makes her seem oblivious to the clear political damage such comments can cause.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)and hard truths. It is always thus in politics but politics is what we have when we have a democracy. We can live with it and make reforms or just turn our backs and say the hell with it all. I choose to deal with it...and I think EW would be a great choice for us...
LuvLoogie
(6,999 posts)Alice11111
(5,730 posts)publicly, if there is a problem. Settle it within.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)sowing discord saving it? Hard truth is that, at best, Brazile peddled misinformation and took a while to own it. Warren acted as her Greek chorus and doubled down on it even after it was debunked. That's a gimmick straight out Trump's playbook. At least, Sanders tried to correct the record. I'm extremely disappointed in Warren over the past few days.
The last thing this nation needs is left wing tea party playing right wing games. I'm disgusted at the cutesy game she and Sanders are playing around Northam. We need to win this seat. This weakens the entire left further. This idea that you need to burn the village to save it is sick and harmful to vulnerable people. Periello would have been the candidate for that Virginia race if Dems had voted that way. They didn't.
Oh, and I will vote for a Democrat in 2020, which rules Sanders out. Warren is not high in my regard now and should join Brazile in apologizing for this mess. I've seen several who would be good choices and it's a little early to decide.
delisen
(6,043 posts)Response to CTyankee (Original post)
WinkyDink This message was self-deleted by its author.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)She is raising money elsewhere for Democrats.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I don't trust her judgement or temperament. I would not vote for her to be the Democratic Party's nominee.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... some may like that type of person (or personality)... but I don't. I've seen all I need to see. I have heard all I need to hear. Her knee-jerk response and her willingness to repeat (or amplify) lies and misconceptions are a strong indicator that she doesn't think things through and that she's impulsive rather than thoughtful and careful. Personality traits like that are not ones that I seek out, or that I'd value in a presidential candidate.
She may be a "scrappy fighter" in the Senate, but in my mind, she's NOT presidential material, and I'd never support her during the Democratic Party's primary voting.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)she is presidential material. For a number of reasons. But one of the big ones is that she has a grating, school-marmish personality and that is not going to play well on the national stage. Whether we like it or not, a presidential candidate has to be charismatic and charming and she just doesn't have those qualities.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)around that time.
I did not say anything but I noticed.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Kirk Lover
(3,608 posts)progressoid
(49,988 posts)Remember the good old days when saying something like that about a female candidate (i. e. Hillary Clinton) would get your post hidden.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)The speed at which things/people/opinions can flip here is beyond following.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)That school marmish look was evident before I even knew her name. She's lucky that Trump calls her Pocahantas instead of Scoldilocks.
We need a fresh face this time around, and as long as we spend time rehashing 2016, we take away media time for the new faces that would be the Democratic Party's deliverance in 2020.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)has to say, but her presentation always puts me off. It's unfortunate, because she is a fighter and I think she does great work, but she just doesn't present well.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)about Secretary Clinton?
In my view, it was wrong then and is wrong now.
nini
(16,672 posts)She blew it and to think she went out and stood with Hillary back during the campaign if she really felt that. She's either a hypocrite or trying to play the far left for her own wants moving forward. There's no integrity in either of those scenarios. .. She's a better senator than a nominee in my mind.
Hamlette
(15,412 posts)Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)a day of disappointments
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)PufPuf23
(8,774 posts)kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)Unlike many others here. So refreshing!
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)here at DU.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Amazing how things can suddenly flip.
PufPuf23
(8,774 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)DonViejo
(60,536 posts)against Senator Warren. The article also reports polls showing the Senator defeats both the candidates ID'd as frontrunners in the GOP race
demmiblue
(36,845 posts)Right now, I want to see what pans out. I have a few favs in mind (e.g. Gillibrand, Harris, Schiff), but I want to learn more about all of the potential candidates.
Part of me doesn't want to see Warren constrained by a campaign for the presidency (though, I am not sure that would stop her... she always speaks truth to power). Either way, she is fierce and we are lucky to have her on our side!
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)Look how they speak about any female who gets too much power.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)and out and out disaster for women in this country. Look at his poll numbers!
Kirk Lover
(3,608 posts)delisen
(6,043 posts)Human race will not survive the march of males only.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)Terms in the House AND the Senate.
I bet a lot of those who hated Hillary just because she's female would be confused by Tammy's service record and let their misogyny rest for a bit.
mcar
(42,307 posts)Why would any Democrat get in the way of the Republican train wreck?
I have been a big fan of hers. She has sorely disappointed. I'll be reserving judgment for now.
WTF is wrong with her?
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)We have too many more immediate problems, among them the smaller number of Democrats elected to the thousands of state and local offices each year.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)of presidential campaigns. Trump is a monumental disaster. People are fed up.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)there are a lot to choose from and in two years there will be more.
kentuck
(111,089 posts)I think Democrats should should be very slow and deliberate in choosing the next candidate.
Just my opinion.
jodymarie aimee
(3,975 posts)the best of Bernie and HRC and NO baggage....brilliant straight talker.
delisen
(6,043 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)at Bush, Jr. Warren isn't a former governor of Texas...again, JFK had no foreign policy experience except for his time in the Senate...
delisen
(6,043 posts)showed in his presidency-Bay of Pigs to Cuban Missile Crisis. Bush's lack of serious focus initially led him to personalize Iraq's Saddam Hussain as the guy who tried to kills father. ....and led him initially to turn over a lot of foreign-policy decision making to his vp Dick Cheney-with dreadful results.
I consider international issues today to be extraordinarily complex and dangerous. I do not see that Warren has had a strong enough focus on foreign policy issues to be immediately effective.
She is a strong fighter on certain domestic issues and refreshing in speaking her mind (as well as clever in her comments).
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)A bunch of dry policy statements doesn't win the day, IMO. It takes passion for her issue and it is always true for her...
Response to delisen (Reply #59)
WinkyDink This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kirk Lover
(3,608 posts)kentuck
(111,089 posts)Just my opinion.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)Raine
(30,540 posts)rockfordfile
(8,702 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Let's face it: Trump is worse than Nixon or Bush. We have a real crisis called Trump in our country. He is unhinged. Not just bad like Nixon or Bush, but totally crazy.
Let's see how this plays out, tho. She may prove to be a stabilizing force or she might not...
Baconator
(1,459 posts)... but incredibly polarizing to an even larger part of the voting populace.
I think she is best suited to her current position.
We need someone with broad appeal, relative youth and can act as a new face of the party.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Baconator
(1,459 posts)In any case, we are almost two generations behind at this point with party leadership in its 70s, and looking to push into the 80s.
Bradshaw3
(7,517 posts)Do you have any polling or any other data to back up that claim? I understand her one-word comment has made some Hillary supporters mad, but except for them and RW and repub pundits and voters I've seen nothing to validate that claim.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)the popular vote. Now we know what we apparantly weren't aware of back in 2016 when we all thought she had this wrapped up, and so did the polls. We now know the path to victory just has to be with the Electoral College.
The good news is that Trump's presidency is coming apart at the seams...all these scandalous people...
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I will fight i9n the PRIMARY, but if opur party nominates a ham sandwich, I will be voting for team ham sandwich, because sadly a ham sandwich would literally and actually be less dangerous to the world than trump. If instead of ham sandwich we get warren, I expetc man y of those who poo poo her NOW to support her in 2020.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)are using a commonly used term, but it's really terrible to call her that because she is so much more! She is truly outstanding.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I mean, any generic demo is better than any gop, especially trump.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)Definitely have my vote.
But we have to make it through the 2018 midterms first.
BannonsLiver
(16,370 posts)And she hasnt done herself any favors this week.
bagelsforbreakfast
(1,427 posts)for a long time.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)come, though. He looks just fine to me. But, really, don't we need a good, liberal woman as our leader?
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)LexVegas
(6,060 posts)SCantiGOP
(13,869 posts)She would be 76 when her term ends. She, Hillary, Bernie and Biden are all too old.
A candidate that age only needs one episode just before the election - after a grinding, tiring campaign - to swing an election.
Kennedy, Obama, Bill Clinton - we do best when we run young, vigorous candidates.
And before you blast me for ageism or some nonsense: I will be 67 by the end of the year and I have donated money to all of the above mentioned candidates except Warren (Biden when running for VP) in the past.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I don't think she'd be a great choice. I don't think she's calming at all. She seems nervous and hectic.
A calm leader, to me, is one who smiles, gives a funny quip, and moves on. I don't think I've ever seen her smile or tell a joke.
But...who else is there? There aren't many stars in the Democratic Party right now.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)see as nervous and hectic.
Hell, I'm nervous and hectic right now and probably too much so. But I see our country's problems the worst I can remember (except the Vietnam War). Trump is a horrible disaster for us...
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)and she was great. Somehow on tv they show her as always shouting, but live, she seemed reasonable and logical. I don't know what can be done about that, but the media folks could help.
Lotusflower70
(3,077 posts)I was until she said what she said about HRC today. That was not a good idea on her part. I like her going after Trump though.
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)She is too polite. I'd have more respect of she was well known for calling trump an asshole and fool. You know he would back off if she fought back, but she won't do it.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Although.......
Persondem
(1,936 posts)She is much more useful in the senate than as a failed presidential candidate.
You want a candidate that can win, check out the governor of Washington state.
highplainsdem
(48,975 posts)mvd
(65,173 posts)But while the field develops, I have to personally have Warren and Sanders high on my list. A new face would be great, so we'll see what happens. I like the fact she isn't afraid to speak her mind. I think she handles Trump with a good mixture of class and attacks. I mean, what do you say to the "Pocahontas" stupidity? It is an insult worthy of a 6-year-old.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)at Hillary and my Democratic party.
ecstatic
(32,701 posts)Seems like a lifetime ago. But she lost my support when she did that.
Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)Her political instincts and choice of words are incompetent. Based on this example she would guarantee to say the wrong thing at the wrong time and be simple prey
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)her interviewed and she rarely answered the specific question...she went off on tangents...and you could literally hear the frustration in the interviewer's voice.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)Turbineguy
(37,324 posts)of the right wing hate machine.
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Definitely NOT presidential material.
Doodley
(9,088 posts)Response to CTyankee (Original post)
Skittles This message was self-deleted by its author.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)a general. It's all in the image. Forget everything about the politics...she has a horrible image. She whines. She repeats herself. She repeats "so here's the deal" over and over.
romanic
(2,841 posts)I know people are going to turn on her after what she said about Hillary, but you can't deny the woman has balls to say anything period.
dreamland
(964 posts)She may have great ideals regarding corporate greed and financial biggies but she jumps the gun on political reasoning. After her comment, I doubt she'd be able the play a good chess game with the repugblicans.
Rhiannon12866
(205,294 posts)I'd certainly vote for her for anything.
Mike Nelson
(9,953 posts)...but I think Elizabeth Warren has peaked.
NJProgressive
(6 posts)Elizabeth Warren would go into the 2020 election against Trump and beat him.She will carry the Sanders populist progressive wing of the party which is popular by most of the country if we go by all the issues. Trump is getting less and less popular each day that goes by to the point he's bound to become an irrelevant president that people can't wait to vote him out. Warren would campaign on a progressive agenda much like Sanders did in 2016. She will most likely pick a VP from the Midwest/Rust Belt someone like Sherrod Brown that can attract working class voters who didn't vote in 2016 or win back votes that Trump won. Also Warren has her own coalition of women,millenial,and minority voters. That's something Clinton failed to win. So I say Elizabeth Warren for President 2020!!!!!!!