2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumShould Hillary step aside?
To be brutally honest she isnt the most ethical and forthright candidate. We need someone younger and someone that isnt a walkin ethical nightmare.
Cant Elizabeth Warren be persuaded to run?
babylonsister
(171,029 posts)Ask your friends, and let us know!
mgcgulfcoast
(1,127 posts)not a choice forced upon us.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Your reference that HRC is being forced on you is pretty inane
arcane1
(38,613 posts)but Warren isnt seen as corrupt and she is new as far as politics goes.
Reter
(2,188 posts)Warren looks 10 years younger, and is likely in better shape physically.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)WTF
Is this a beauty pageant?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Perry vs McCain:
They'd say, "Look at that old dude, wrinkly and probably not quite right in the head, I can't stand looking at that shit face smile, he's such an old creepy thing."
And about Perry, "He looks like he takes good care of himself, I trust him."
That's just the way people are, DSB.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)She's probably never:
But in Buffalo, the fruits of the Tata deal have been hard to find. The company, which called the arrangement Clinton's "brainchild," says "about 10" employees work here. Tata says most of the new employees were hired from around Buffalo. It declines to say whether any of the new jobs are held by foreigners, who make up 90% of Tata's 10,000-employee workforce in the United States.
As for the research deal with the state university that Clinton announced, school administrators say that three attempts to win government grants with Tata for health-oriented research were unsuccessful and that no projects are imminent.
The Tata deal underscores Clinton's bind as she attempts to lead a Democratic Party that is turning away from the free-trade policies of her husband's administration in the 1990s and is becoming more skeptical of trade deals and temporary-worker visas.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/30/nation/na-buffalo30
Reter
(2,188 posts)Just that Warren looks quite a bit younger. I prefer (key word prefer) a President to be in great shape, since it really takes a toll on your body. Obama is in awesome shape. Bush sucked in nearly every way, except that he kept up his body with regular exercise and was in phenomenal shape for a man his age. Bill Clinton, not so good at all, but he gets a pass because he was in his 40's.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)mgcgulfcoast
(1,127 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Here are four reasons Warren will run, a total of 20 reasons in the full article:
1. Warren is the only national politician today from either party who conveys a sense of outrage over our current deteriorating national situation. Her passion is her signature calling card in a time when all the other candidates for president seem to have passion only for themselves and their candidacies.
2. At a recent 12-person in-depth focus group in Denver conducted by Peter Hart and reported in The Washington Post by Dan Balz, the only national politician who was viewed favorably was Warren even by some of the Republican voters in the focus group.
3. Why? Because she is the only politician who is even talking about the powerlessness of the average person and the seemingly too powerful corporate and Wall Street entities.
4. This issue cuts across all political lines. It is the issue that catapulted President Teddy Roosevelt into the political hall of fame. His trust busting led to today's anti-trust regulations and the belief that the federal government's role is to act as a neutral referee to ensure a fair playing field. But no one today believes the feds are neutral or fair. Instead, big government is seen as corrupt and as "rigged" as big business.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/231599-why-warren-will-run-against-clinton-in-2016
mgcgulfcoast
(1,127 posts)Lets face it, Hillary is 100% wrapped up in big money and wall street.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)So let's face the truth on tho talking point.
I do not think Warren wants to handle the problems a president has to work with. Warren is very good in her field of expertise and has indicated she wants to remain in that position. She has stated over and over she is not running. If you listen to all the talking points thrown out about Hillary and if Warren or others ran it would be the same thing.
I would like to see more than three people running in the DNC primary but a lot of hate and falsehoods are delivered about candidates and their families, I think it discourages candidates from running.
still_one
(92,060 posts)in 2016.
If it turns out that she does NOT run do you think the Hill will come out and say, hmmm, I guess we got that one wrong, or rather they will kinda brush under the rug like 90% of the blowhard stock analysts on the financial networks do when their predictions are wrong, which they usually are
Cal33
(7,018 posts)it make, whether he publicly apologized for having been wrong, or not? If he should
turn out to be right, it's not likely that he'd be writing another article crowing about
how right his reasoning had turned out to be.
still_one
(92,060 posts)to politics, stocks, or whatever, spew whatever prognastications out constantly, and are never called to account for their track record.
Not in this case, but those that come to mind are the wonderful folks on fox news, such as hannity, morris, etc. along with those on the financial networks. They speak with such conviction at the time.
That's all I was saying, and you are right, they will only discuss their success, not their failures
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)There are 9 months between now and the primaries.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)sabbat hunter
(6,827 posts)and how many ways does Warren need to say she is not running for president in 2016 before everyone believes it?
still_one
(92,060 posts)wants to start a draft Warren movement
As for your first point why would any candidate who is polling well step aside. As far as your assumption that she is unethical and not forthright then you obviously have your own bias, and most likely this post is just typical flame bait
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Fox News Sabotages Its Own Propaganda With Poll Showing Democrats Happy With Hillary Clinton
By: Jason Easley
Thursday, April, 23rd, 2015, 7:07 pm
Fox News has been undone by facts again as a new Fox News poll debunked the networks myth that Democrats are unhappy with Hillary Clinton.
Fox News broke down the data that destroyed their hopes for Democratic disunity:
In the quest for the Democratic nomination, former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton remains on top with 62 percent support among self-identified Democratic primary voters. Shes the only declared candidate on the Democratic side. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (12 percent) and Vice President Joe Biden (9 percent) lag far behind.
Despite far fewer options, Democratic primary voters (71 percent) are a tad bit more likely than their GOP counterparts (67 percent) to say they are satisfied with their 2016 choices.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/23/fox-news-sabotages-propaganda-poll-showing-democrats-happy-hillary-clinton.html
spin
(17,493 posts)important question.
It might be an excellent time to start looking for good backup candidates and convincing them to run against Hillary in the primaries. After all Hillary has been way ahead before and flamed out to a basically unknown opponent. At times I think that Hillary is her own worst opponent.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... when many here on DU were too busy demanding that we have a primary against Obama for the 2012 elections.
That was the time to start building up a set of "acceptably liberal" alternatives.
Now folks seem to expect this magic candidate to materialize out of thin air.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)And that's going to take focus, determination and Kick-ass-girl power. Hillary's got the Republicans all freaked out...that, to me, is a 2-fer. We can have them both, rather than them battling it out.
napi21
(45,806 posts)that there definitely will be more candidates joining the race and there will be a primary. Please calm down for now. It's April 2015!!!!! The primaries aren't for another 9 months or more! The election isn't for well over a year!
Personally, I wish there were a regulation that forbad any campaigning until January 2016! 3 months or more is enough time for all the candidates to do their campaigning and not get all of us sick from listening to all the crap! Having the General 5-6 months after the primaries is more than enough time.
Don't you remember 2011/2012? Weren't YOU sick of all the damn political ads on your tv and in your mail box? I sure remember. Please lets not force a rush to anyone!
spin
(17,493 posts)Like you I grow tired of the constant discussion about the upcoming election which is well over a year away. I also feel it adds to the division and hatred between the two parties and consequently to our nation's inability to make progress on many important issues.
I am glad to hear that there will actually be a Democratic primary race. I hope some well qualified candidates will be willing to take on the Clinton machine and all its money. Hillary is not the only good presidential candidate the Democrats can nominate. Not by any means.
Cosmocat
(14,558 posts)okaawhatever
(9,457 posts)viable candidate will be torn apart by the GOP and their media machine. What's funny is that despite all the investigations (for 8 yrs when Bill was President) and every document examined, there wasn't ONE unethical thing they could find that Hillary had done.
If you actually believe the tripe that is coming from the discredited reporter/Koch hack who wrote Clinton Cash you need to ask yourself why.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)You sure sound like it, especially when Warren said she wasn't running period.
As a matter of fact you are a troll...\\\ Operation Kaos
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251404269
Mods.....
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)There have been 915 posts too many from this poster
bvf
(6,604 posts)the most ethical and forthright candidate?
P.S.
Elizabeth Warren isn't running.
youceyec
(394 posts)Maybe you should step aside?
world wide wally
(21,734 posts)gwheezie
(3,580 posts)Do you think we can get warren to run? Maybe someone can ask her?
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Response to mgcgulfcoast (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
merrily
(45,251 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)there WILL be challengers. So please, let the right wingers be the delusional ones.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You seem to think unprovoked insults make your posts seem more intelligent. Let me disabuse you of that.
The opposite is so.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Seems contrary to all other party rhetoric I've been hearing. Challenges and debates are good for opportunities at messenging.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 24, 2015, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)
of course not. I would not expect such a thing. Would you?
However, a number of high ranking Democrats have said publicly that no one should challenge Hillary. They have also said primaries are not a good thing.
Given the potential impact of their statement, am I amazed that they made the statements they did, so, publicly and plainly? Yes.
Did the content of what they said come as surprise to me? No.
What they said is very consistent with things ""rank and file" Democrats they have been complaining of for years. Things like the Lieberman Lamont primary and the Lincoln Halter primary that many Democrats in those states are still upset about. Things like every pundit saying the same thing about Hillary since at least 2012.
Do I think Democrats like Schumer, Brown and Frank have been saying things that in no way represent party policy? Absolutely not.
Have people in much more of a position to know than I am referred to a coronation or anointing of Hillary, and urged the party not to do that, you bet.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776064 (links that support my comments in this post to you are within that OP)
Note that Schumer had also made discouraging primaries the official policy of the DSCC in 2005. And, now he's Senate Party leader.
As far as more sources with more info than I publicly calling this Presidential primary an anointing or a coronation and urging more of a battle, Sanders was one of the earliest. (As you know, he caucuses with Democrats, to their delight)
If you need mor,e I invite you to google those words (coronation and anointing), along with other key words.
JustAnotherGen
(31,780 posts)She's got the Republicans drawers in a twist.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)be a bad idea for people to ask other Democrats to jump in instead of constantly pestering one who repeatedly turned it down. There must other perfectly-qualified D's aside from Warren out there who might want to run, but...maybe I'm wrong.
The clock is running out, so whoever else that wants to jump in and challenge HC needs to do it soon instead of waiting.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)No. Try Gov O'Malley
rtracey
(2,062 posts)Does anyone ever read, listen, see?.... HOW MANY TIMES DOES SHE NEED TO SAY IT.....Elizabeth Warren is a wonderful lady, true champion for the middle class, but is not going to be president in 2016...not going to run, said it several times...Bill Maher offered her 1 million to run, she said NO....
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)vote for McGovern. People change...it's good for you.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)attacks on Democrats with stupid meme pics. I still don't get putting the pic link in the subject line every time. Maybe it's just click bait.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,220 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)If by "persuaded" you mean "forced", No.
If you mean "coerced", No.
If you mean "talked into", knock yourself out...
Even if Warren were to enter the race, calling for a candidate to "step aside" is a ridiculous notion. Picking the nominee is exactly what the primary is all about.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)Uranium
Haiti
(any others)
.................
are the any facts in dispute?
until those questions are settled,
too early to call for HRC
to step aside.
Aristus
(66,275 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)BlueStater
(7,596 posts)I've had enough Clinton bullshit to last me a thousand lifetimes.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I think it's primarily an exercise in how high she can go, I don't think she's capable of understand the impact her decisions will have, I don't think she can think beyond her own ambition.
It's not nice for me to say that but it's how I feel.
mgcgulfcoast
(1,127 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)A couple of her more ardent fans here advised that in that scenario she would run as an independent or under the No Labels party. Those folks have subsequently been tombstoned, but have lent further credence to the notion that Hillary belongs to the Clinton Party first and foremost.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I think the end of her validity needs to come in a decisive primary defeat. More than that, I think anybody who wants to should run so that their ideas can be heard then rejected or adopted.
TheKentuckian
(25,018 posts)and there are plenty more like her and some plausibly worse seeing that some are just as corporate and softer on choice and equality as well, you know they are out there the ones you can find cosponsoring theocracy inspired amendments or ones even tighter with the Republican establishment like Debbie Wasserman - Schultz or Andrew Cuomo.
She is pretty damn deep into the neocon levels though, I'm not sure there has been a Saber rattling opportunity, by very consistent account she and Betrayus were the heart of the hawk wing in the Obama administration. Maybe less war crazy than McShame, maybe.
We have to eradicate or at least render moot the Turd Way this isn't about particular politicians but a broad ideology, a worldview, a consistent policy agenda.
Yeah, I do wish they would just slink off but that isn't how power works. Power has to be taken, it is surrendered extraordinarily rarely and never by those who's lives are dedicated to it's acquisition.
hijinx87
(1,806 posts)if she withstands the competition, fine. but we need to fully vet whatever it is the clintons have been doing with their foundation.
the nightmare scenario is that we nominate her, and in october of 2016, the toads at faux news set of some bomb that can't be refuted fully or quickly enough before election day.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)you can't.
Squantoish
(20 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Ageism, and right wing bull. Another great day at freerepublic...
I mean DU.
Splinter Cell
(703 posts)She won't though. She couldn't possibly bring herself to put the country ahead of her own ambition.