Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

CTyankee

(63,912 posts)
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 05:35 PM Nov 2017

I'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.

135 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I'm getting more excited now about an Elizabeth Warren run for 2020 as our (Original Post) CTyankee Nov 2017 OP
I think her talents are most valuable in the senate loyalsister Nov 2017 #1
Well, she represents MA, which is pretty solidly blue. It is doubtful that a puke would CTyankee Nov 2017 #5
I am from MA. sheshe2 Nov 2017 #18
Even your state's GOP candidates are pretty much mild. CTyankee Nov 2017 #25
Ted Kennedy set a high standard for what a committed senator can do loyalsister Nov 2017 #28
You are right. It's a trade off, age v. experience. hard to know what the electorate at CTyankee Nov 2017 #63
She's also been moved up to be in line for top leadership Hortensis Nov 2017 #119
I agree 100%. sheshe2 Nov 2017 #21
Agree - she is most valuable in the Senate. northoftheborder Nov 2017 #40
I prefer someone else like Kamala Harris or Cory Booker leftofcool Nov 2017 #2
Tammy Duckworth! Squinch Nov 2017 #52
Wow! Inspiration personified. Alice11111 Nov 2017 #127
I would support either of them long before I would GeneMcM Nov 2017 #93
I don't think Warren would be a wise choice, but... Garrett78 Nov 2017 #99
you have to deal with the reality of what is. GeneMcM Nov 2017 #101
Sen. Warren is among the most CONSERVATIVE in voting Hortensis Nov 2017 #120
WOW. ! pangaia Nov 2017 #108
Kamala could be ok...but Cory means changing nothing, running the same campaign over again Ken Burch Nov 2017 #125
Pass. At this point, not electable. Plus, she agreed with D Brazille Alice11111 Nov 2017 #126
I would love to see her throw her hat in. Nt NCTraveler Nov 2017 #3
I disagree. But glad you are so excited & such. Madam45for2923 Nov 2017 #4
She lost my primary vote today. VermontKevin Nov 2017 #6
She may be vulnerable to setups by GOP opponents or the press. oasis Nov 2017 #27
The far left never learns GeneMcM Nov 2017 #94
Her answer to the "rigged" question was appalling delisen Nov 2017 #32
+1 grantcart Nov 2017 #123
Yep. It was inexcusable. BannonsLiver Nov 2017 #51
She's dead to me nini Nov 2017 #57
Yep. nt Honeycombe8 Nov 2017 #76
I agree sarah FAILIN Nov 2017 #98
+1 n/t blue cat Nov 2017 #118
Did she distance herself from Hillary by saying that the primary was "rigged"? kentuck Nov 2017 #7
I trust that she said what she meant. Let's give her a hearing...OK? CTyankee Nov 2017 #8
Brazile's book has been debunked, let's see what Warren does now. emulatorloo Nov 2017 #90
FWIW, In my book Brazille has NOT been debunked RandomAccess Nov 2017 #124
With the dangers of Trump so obvious bobbieinok Nov 2017 #12
I see it as wanting to save our Dem party. Sometimes we have to face tough love CTyankee Nov 2017 #79
Except that she was wrong, factually AND politically, and that is going to cost her. LuvLoogie Nov 2017 #96
Yeah, but like family, you don't hang your fam out to dry Alice11111 Nov 2017 #129
And, pray tell, how is weakening the party by Skidmore Nov 2017 #135
I think she just lost a lot of support. delisen Nov 2017 #34
This message was self-deleted by its author WinkyDink Nov 2017 #9
Hillary won't be raising money for the DNC leftofcool Nov 2017 #29
I don't think she's the leader, any more. nt Honeycombe8 Nov 2017 #77
Nope. NurseJackie Nov 2017 #10
Can't we keep an open mind? Let's hear her out and then make up our minds... CTyankee Nov 2017 #13
No. Why bother? Waste of time. She's pretty much revealed to me the type of person she really is... NurseJackie Nov 2017 #24
I agree. I am a MA resident and have voted for her and support her in the senate, but I don't think smirkymonkey Nov 2017 #58
I swear I noticed that too: In her 1st appearance together w HRC AND her intvw w/Rachel Maddow 2016 Madam45for2923 Nov 2017 #71
SMH. n/t Curmudgeoness Nov 2017 #85
Yes it's all about the likeablity...it's very shallow but true. Kirk Lover Nov 2017 #89
Huh. progressoid Nov 2017 #95
Yeah, tell me about it. pangaia Nov 2017 #113
+1 Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2017 #106
Yep, that's what I picked up right away customerserviceguy Nov 2017 #121
It's her voice as well. She has a very annoying voice. The thing is, I usually like what she smirkymonkey Nov 2017 #122
Do you remember what happened when people here made similar statements pangaia Nov 2017 #130
I'm with you on that completely nini Nov 2017 #61
Agree. It's not just this time, she's a bit kooky in my mind. n/t Hamlette Nov 2017 #64
Yes! This! Madam45for2923 Nov 2017 #72
Same Here Me. Nov 2017 #30
LOL, ok! n/t USALiberal Nov 2017 #83
Loser. Time to move on. nt PufPuf23 Nov 2017 #86
Thank you for being unique and talking about the future. kerry-is-my-prez Nov 2017 #11
Yeah, there's just too much handwringing going on what what I've been gathering CTyankee Nov 2017 #17
Thanks for stating your opinion and sticking with it. pangaia Nov 2017 #115
I second that opinion. CTY is the bomb!! nt PufPuf23 Nov 2017 #87
She be lucky to get re-elected as the cast aganist her lines up Historic NY Nov 2017 #14
Those are all Republicans, only one of whom will run... DonViejo Nov 2017 #67
I would proudly vote for her in the General! demmiblue Nov 2017 #15
This country is too misogynistic to elect a woman. kerry-is-my-prez Nov 2017 #16
After Trump, some middle of the road women are truly pissed off. He has really been CTyankee Nov 2017 #22
Technically we did elect a woman. Kirk Lover Nov 2017 #35
I expect a woman president. We need it. delisen Nov 2017 #36
They'd elect Tammy Duckworth. Bad ass ex-army, wounded vet, great voting record. Squinch Nov 2017 #55
She knew her comment would cause/add to the "Dems in disarray" idiocy mcar Nov 2017 #19
agreed Skittles Nov 2017 #31
+1 SunSeeker Nov 2017 #69
Way too early to choose a candidate Progressive dog Nov 2017 #20
I think the groundwork has to be laid this far in advance, judging from our history CTyankee Nov 2017 #23
Democrats will nominate a non-Trump; Progressive dog Nov 2017 #132
I agree. kentuck Nov 2017 #44
she was my candidate 2016 jodymarie aimee Nov 2017 #26
with zero foreign policy experience. delisen Nov 2017 #37
We've had disastrous presidencies with those without real policy experiences...look CTyankee Nov 2017 #49
JFK lack of extensive foreign policy experience delisen Nov 2017 #59
She needs a megaphone, IMO. People are hurting. She has a passion for that. CTyankee Nov 2017 #66
This message was self-deleted by its author WinkyDink Nov 2017 #134
There is no way she would win a general election in my opinion. Kirk Lover Nov 2017 #33
I like Elizabeth but I think she would be more valuable in the Senate. kentuck Nov 2017 #38
IMO, She has to address UBI closing banks is a thin thread. CK_John Nov 2017 #39
Yes, absolutely! nt Raine Nov 2017 #41
Not even thinking about 2020 election rockfordfile Nov 2017 #42
I think we have to. It's called "vision." CTyankee Nov 2017 #84
She is highly motivating to a small percentage... Baconator Nov 2017 #43
"New faces" are not always best faces. I guess you could call Trump a new face... CTyankee Nov 2017 #47
There were other requirements... Baconator Nov 2017 #103
"Incredibly polarizing" to a large part of voters? Bradshaw3 Nov 2017 #56
Not sure about that. Remember, Trump's victory was an Electoral College deal not CTyankee Nov 2017 #68
let me put it to you this way DonCoquixote Nov 2017 #45
ham sandwich, really? She is a highly respected woman in the Senate. I know you CTyankee Nov 2017 #46
thta is not about her or any him DonCoquixote Nov 2017 #48
She will have my vote! roamer65 Nov 2017 #50
Time for fresh faces BannonsLiver Nov 2017 #53
I love her but think I'd rather see her as majority leader in the Senate bagelsforbreakfast Nov 2017 #54
I love her, and will most likely support her if she decides to run. Crunchy Frog Nov 2017 #60
Adam Schiff Tavarious Jackson Nov 2017 #62
I like him. But I worry that he hasn't had enough media exposure...perhaps that will CTyankee Nov 2017 #75
I'm ok with Kalama Harris too Tavarious Jackson Nov 2017 #88
Nope. nt LexVegas Nov 2017 #65
Agree. SCantiGOP Nov 2017 #70
I find her irritating. Honeycombe8 Nov 2017 #73
She has always had a sense of urgency about her beliefs and that could be what you CTyankee Nov 2017 #78
I saw her talk live at Netroots Nation greymattermom Nov 2017 #74
Hmmm Lotusflower70 Nov 2017 #80
Too meek when it comes to trumps name calling and attacks. The_Casual_Observer Nov 2017 #81
I found Obama to always be polite and greatly respected him for it. pangaia Nov 2017 #131
NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo Persondem Nov 2017 #82
She's lost my vote for a presidential run, but I'm okay with her staying in the Senate. highplainsdem Nov 2017 #91
Yes, she'll be old mvd Nov 2017 #92
She blew her chance with her cheap shot DURHAM D Nov 2017 #97
And don't forget her cheap shot at Pres. Obama back in April. ecstatic Nov 2017 #114
Nominating Elizabeth Warren would essentially be a forfeit Awsi Dooger Nov 2017 #100
Here's what bothered me the other day...saw Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2017 #102
She will win every debate Not Ruth Nov 2017 #104
She has to run the gauntlet Turbineguy Nov 2017 #105
OK for the Senate. democratisphere Nov 2017 #107
After her comments yesterday, she has no chance. Doodley Nov 2017 #109
This message was self-deleted by its author Skittles Nov 2017 #110
She could never in a million years win Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2017 #111
I think she'd be a great canadiate. romanic Nov 2017 #112
She's flawed dreamland Nov 2017 #116
I have always admired her courage in speaking out for us - and her "persistence." Rhiannon12866 Nov 2017 #117
I'd be willing to give her a shot... Mike Nelson Nov 2017 #128
Elizabeth Warren would beat President Trump NJProgressive Nov 2017 #133

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
1. I think her talents are most valuable in the senate
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 05:40 PM
Nov 2017

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)
5. Well, she represents MA, which is pretty solidly blue. It is doubtful that a puke would
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 05:47 PM
Nov 2017

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.

CTyankee

(63,912 posts)
25. Even your state's GOP candidates are pretty much mild.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:03 PM
Nov 2017

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)
28. Ted Kennedy set a high standard for what a committed senator can do
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:07 PM
Nov 2017

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)
63. You are right. It's a trade off, age v. experience. hard to know what the electorate at
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:03 PM
Nov 2017

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)
119. She's also been moved up to be in line for top leadership
Sat Nov 4, 2017, 04:01 AM
Nov 2017

positions when we once again have a majority in the senate. Her colleagues value her.

leftofcool

(19,460 posts)
2. I prefer someone else like Kamala Harris or Cory Booker
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 05:45 PM
Nov 2017

I think I will pass on Warren. She is better in the Senate.

 

GeneMcM

(69 posts)
93. I would support either of them long before I would
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 10:21 PM
Nov 2017

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)
99. I don't think Warren would be a wise choice, but...
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 11:17 PM
Nov 2017

...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)
101. you have to deal with the reality of what is.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 11:35 PM
Nov 2017

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)
120. Sen. Warren is among the most CONSERVATIVE in voting
Sat Nov 4, 2017, 04:24 AM
Nov 2017

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)
125. Kamala could be ok...but Cory means changing nothing, running the same campaign over again
Sat Nov 4, 2017, 04:25 PM
Nov 2017

Changing nothing means not gaining any new votes.


delisen

(6,043 posts)
32. Her answer to the "rigged" question was appalling
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:40 PM
Nov 2017

Don't think she can make it through the Republican initiation rites.

BannonsLiver

(16,370 posts)
51. Yep. It was inexcusable.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:40 PM
Nov 2017

If you believe that work from behind the scenes to change things. She ensured Donna’s idiotic book would dominate another news cycle. Street smarts appear to be lacking.

kentuck

(111,089 posts)
7. Did she distance herself from Hillary by saying that the primary was "rigged"?
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 05:48 PM
Nov 2017

Would that be good or bad for her politically?

emulatorloo

(44,120 posts)
90. Brazile's book has been debunked, let's see what Warren does now.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 10:08 PM
Nov 2017

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)
124. FWIW, In my book Brazille has NOT been debunked
Sat Nov 4, 2017, 04:16 PM
Nov 2017

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)
12. With the dangers of Trump so obvious
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 05:55 PM
Nov 2017

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)
79. I see it as wanting to save our Dem party. Sometimes we have to face tough love
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:31 PM
Nov 2017

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...

Alice11111

(5,730 posts)
129. Yeah, but like family, you don't hang your fam out to dry
Sat Nov 4, 2017, 04:44 PM
Nov 2017

publicly, if there is a problem. Settle it within.

Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
135. And, pray tell, how is weakening the party by
Sat Nov 4, 2017, 05:22 PM
Nov 2017

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.

Response to CTyankee (Original post)

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
10. Nope.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 05:53 PM
Nov 2017

I don't trust her judgement or temperament. I would not vote for her to be the Democratic Party's nominee.

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
24. No. Why bother? Waste of time. She's pretty much revealed to me the type of person she really is...
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:03 PM
Nov 2017

... 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)
58. I agree. I am a MA resident and have voted for her and support her in the senate, but I don't think
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:53 PM
Nov 2017

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)
71. I swear I noticed that too: In her 1st appearance together w HRC AND her intvw w/Rachel Maddow 2016
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:17 PM
Nov 2017

around that time.

I did not say anything but I noticed.

progressoid

(49,988 posts)
95. Huh.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 10:36 PM
Nov 2017

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)
113. Yeah, tell me about it.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 11:55 PM
Nov 2017



The speed at which things/people/opinions can flip here is beyond following.


customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
121. Yep, that's what I picked up right away
Sat Nov 4, 2017, 05:39 AM
Nov 2017

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)
122. It's her voice as well. She has a very annoying voice. The thing is, I usually like what she
Sat Nov 4, 2017, 07:53 AM
Nov 2017

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)
130. Do you remember what happened when people here made similar statements
Sat Nov 4, 2017, 04:47 PM
Nov 2017

about Secretary Clinton?

In my view, it was wrong then and is wrong now.

nini

(16,672 posts)
61. I'm with you on that completely
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:59 PM
Nov 2017

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.

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
67. Those are all Republicans, only one of whom will run...
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:08 PM
Nov 2017

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)
15. I would proudly vote for her in the General!
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 05:57 PM
Nov 2017

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)
16. This country is too misogynistic to elect a woman.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 05:57 PM
Nov 2017

Look how they speak about any female who gets “too much” power.

CTyankee

(63,912 posts)
22. After Trump, some middle of the road women are truly pissed off. He has really been
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:00 PM
Nov 2017

and out and out disaster for women in this country. Look at his poll numbers!

Squinch

(50,949 posts)
55. They'd elect Tammy Duckworth. Bad ass ex-army, wounded vet, great voting record.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:43 PM
Nov 2017

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)
19. She knew her comment would cause/add to the "Dems in disarray" idiocy
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 05:59 PM
Nov 2017

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.

Progressive dog

(6,900 posts)
20. Way too early to choose a candidate
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 05:59 PM
Nov 2017

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)
23. I think the groundwork has to be laid this far in advance, judging from our history
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:01 PM
Nov 2017

of presidential campaigns. Trump is a monumental disaster. People are fed up.

Progressive dog

(6,900 posts)
132. Democrats will nominate a non-Trump;
Sat Nov 4, 2017, 04:52 PM
Nov 2017

there are a lot to choose from and in two years there will be more.

kentuck

(111,089 posts)
44. I agree.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:03 PM
Nov 2017

I think Democrats should should be very slow and deliberate in choosing the next candidate.

Just my opinion.

CTyankee

(63,912 posts)
49. We've had disastrous presidencies with those without real policy experiences...look
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:37 PM
Nov 2017

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)
59. JFK lack of extensive foreign policy experience
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:55 PM
Nov 2017

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)
66. She needs a megaphone, IMO. People are hurting. She has a passion for that.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:07 PM
Nov 2017

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)

CTyankee

(63,912 posts)
84. I think we have to. It's called "vision."
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 09:13 PM
Nov 2017

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)
43. She is highly motivating to a small percentage...
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:56 PM
Nov 2017

... 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.

Baconator

(1,459 posts)
103. There were other requirements...
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 11:37 PM
Nov 2017

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)
56. "Incredibly polarizing" to a large part of voters?
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:49 PM
Nov 2017

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)
68. Not sure about that. Remember, Trump's victory was an Electoral College deal not
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:13 PM
Nov 2017

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)
45. let me put it to you this way
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:10 PM
Nov 2017

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)
46. ham sandwich, really? She is a highly respected woman in the Senate. I know you
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:33 PM
Nov 2017

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.

roamer65

(36,745 posts)
50. She will have my vote!
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:39 PM
Nov 2017

Definitely have my vote.

But we have to make it through the 2018 midterms first.

CTyankee

(63,912 posts)
75. I like him. But I worry that he hasn't had enough media exposure...perhaps that will
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:24 PM
Nov 2017

come, though. He looks just fine to me. But, really, don't we need a good, liberal woman as our leader?

SCantiGOP

(13,869 posts)
70. Agree.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:17 PM
Nov 2017

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)
73. I find her irritating.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:24 PM
Nov 2017

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)
78. She has always had a sense of urgency about her beliefs and that could be what you
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:28 PM
Nov 2017

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)
74. I saw her talk live at Netroots Nation
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:24 PM
Nov 2017

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)
80. Hmmm
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:39 PM
Nov 2017

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)
81. Too meek when it comes to trumps name calling and attacks.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:42 PM
Nov 2017

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.

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
82. NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 09:00 PM
Nov 2017

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.

mvd

(65,173 posts)
92. Yes, she'll be old
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 10:15 PM
Nov 2017

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.

ecstatic

(32,701 posts)
114. And don't forget her cheap shot at Pres. Obama back in April.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 11:56 PM
Nov 2017

Seems like a lifetime ago. But she lost my support when she did that.

 

Awsi Dooger

(14,565 posts)
100. Nominating Elizabeth Warren would essentially be a forfeit
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 11:28 PM
Nov 2017

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)
102. Here's what bothered me the other day...saw
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 11:36 PM
Nov 2017

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.

Response to CTyankee (Original post)

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
111. She could never in a million years win
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 11:52 PM
Nov 2017

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)
112. I think she'd be a great canadiate.
Fri Nov 3, 2017, 11:54 PM
Nov 2017

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)
116. She's flawed
Sat Nov 4, 2017, 12:05 AM
Nov 2017

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)
117. I have always admired her courage in speaking out for us - and her "persistence."
Sat Nov 4, 2017, 12:17 AM
Nov 2017

I'd certainly vote for her for anything.

NJProgressive

(6 posts)
133. Elizabeth Warren would beat President Trump
Sat Nov 4, 2017, 05:18 PM
Nov 2017

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!!!!!!!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I'm getting more excited ...