Forum Thread

Elizabeth Warren for President ?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 30 of 94 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 .. 7 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Sorry; someone forgot Palin; she will make a great president because she can see Russia from her home so is perfect to make peace with the Russians and can cook a fish stew. So suited for the job. Or may be one of the Koch brothers, because then we do not have to pay taxes anymore, because they are so rich they foot the bill for all of us. 2016 may surprise us yet!!!
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jamesn Wrote: jared I think we agree on lots of things, just not so much on what we post on this forum.

    What kind of world would it be if everyone agreed on everything?

    Yes, the talking heads are already predicting the results of the 2016 election, such as Chris Matthews, who made his final prediction a while ago. Until he changes it perhaps several times. His prediction means just as much, and is just as worthless as yours or mine.

    At least he's occasionally funny, though not intentionally.
    I've seen old tapes prior to previous elections where Chris Matthews predicted who he thought was going to win.... in some cases he was just very wrong. I'll admit he probably does influence a lot of people but he's not always the sharpest knife in the drawer. I think as shown in the old poll posted by jared, it's still far too early to know. I agree though, HRC has the infrastructure in place to be a strong candidate. Especially the only ex-president who can speak in full intelligent sentences. Sorry Mr. Carter, you're smart also but not in the current days political mix.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I am a white male, over 65, and registered as Independent. However, I will be changing my party affiliation to Democratic so I can vote in my state's primary election (Kentucky). I am VERY impressed with Sen. Warren but believe Hillery Clinton has a better chance of being elected president. However, I think a Clinton/Warren team would be unstopable. Anywhere I can get a bumper sticker for that ticket? :-)
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I don't think a Clinton - Warren match-up is in the cards. More likely a Clinton-Castro or a Warren-Castro, maybe even a Biden-Castro. Julián Castro, the current mayor of San Antonio, is a rising star in the Democratic Party and would bring in the Latino vote. He is currently 39 years old (will be 42 on 2016 election day) while Clinton is 66 and Warren is 64.

    Pew Research: Inside the 2012 Latino Electorate

    "Overall, 48% of Hispanic eligible voters turned out to vote in 2012, down from 49.9% in 2008. By comparison, the 2012 voter turnout rate among blacks was 66.6% and among whites was 64.1%, both significantly higher than the turnout rate among Hispanics.

    "Hispanics made up 17.2% of the nation’s population in 2012, 10.8% of eligible voters, but just 8.4% of all voters. Much of this difference is driven by the relative youth of the nation’s Hispanic population and the high number of non-citizen adults among its population. Just 43.9% of Hispanics are eligible to vote while more than half (51.7%) of Asians, 69.1% of blacks and 78.6% of whites are eligible to vote."


    Both Republicans and Democrats would do well to start seriously addressing the needs of the Hispanic community and that starts with comprehensive immigration reform. That will then garner them votes. One party is serious...the other still caters to old white Americans.

    With Barack Obama as president, the participation rate of African - Americans shot up to be comparable to that of whites. The Latino vote is a huge untapped potential, not only for 2014 and 2016, but well into the future as the nation's youth become voter eligible. However, I will say this: that vote has to be earned. Latinos will vote based on one's policies and not necessarily ethnicity. And if neither party addresses their issues, then they will stay home on election day...kind of what Republicans want.

    Marco Rubio will likely not get nominated by Republicans. They are not ready yet to nominate a Latino.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I would think Julian Castro would be a Secretary State first and than there's Wassmerman-Schmidt (Arizona).

    My forecast card: Hillary, Warren (Prez, VP), Castro/Schmidt (Sec. State), and of course Spkr of the House.....comes Pelosi. John Boehner is going down mostly likely from not being reelected. I'm hoping for a Democratic House, which will put Pelosi back in the drivers seat.

    This is just like March Madness...................bets anybody?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Amc yeah, I'll bet. I'll bet that your predictions, like everyone elses predictions, about the results of the 2016 elections, will have about the same accuracy as the average bracket for March Madness.

    Here's an example of March Madness accuracy; the Billion Dollar Bracket contest which accepted 15 million brackets, and after the first round every bracket had been knocked out. That's zero out of 15 million and that's after the first round only.

    Remember a couple of weeks ago when jared posted a poll from well before the 2008 election and it showed Hillary with a commanding lead and Obama didn't even register in the poll?

    I would say that your prediction would be at least that accurate.

    Hillary is the BIG favorite right now just like she was before 2008. At this point, 2 1/2 years out, the polls and predictions mean nothing. They are just something to talk about.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jamesn Wrote: sb ..."impassioned speeches, clarity of mind, genuineness"... all great qualities, but that alone won't get her elected.

    Hillary has big money, big name recognition, big support mechanisms already in place, and maybe most importantly she has Big Bill as her main supporter/puppet master. Of course she had that before the 2008 elections, as well.

    Hillary has a big lead at this early stage.
    My guess is that someone may come out of the woodwork whom no-one knows. Why? Because it depends where the money "flows to" or "from";
    It is the "money" honey!!! For all I know some billionair may run.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Someone may indeed yet come out of the woodwork, but for Democrats at least, that person will have appeal to a large segment of the electorate. Barack Obama did not have a big sugar daddy early in his campaign. He earned his spot through running a smart grassroots campaign, and that included focusing heavily on caucus states, spending long hours meeting voters personally in townhalls and other venues , something that Hillary didn't do at first...big mistake.

    I was an Obama supporter in Colorado in 2008, and it was a highly spirited and intense process from the neighborhood caucuses through the county assembly and finally the state convention. I attended all of them and saw the process at work. Us Obama delegates outnumbered Hillary's delegates from the get go in Colorado.

    Once Obama won Iowa early in the campaign, the doors opened wider for him. But before then it was a hard slog. Other than Clinton and Warren, I don't see anyone on the democratic side that has the wide appeal of an "Obama 08".
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    ..."I don't see anyone on the democratic side that has the wide appeal of an "Obama 08" "...

    I agree, but the same thing was true 2 1/2 years before the 08 election...until Obama came rather abruptly onto the scene.

    That's what makes Hillary's lead in the polls so eerily reminiscent of 8 years ago.

    It's like deja vu all over again. Is there another Obama out there?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I sincerely doubt that Warren will run, though I would really like it if she did...

    I suppose that the most probable ticket for 2016 would be Hillary, as we kinda have to lean more to the middle in order to appeal to those essential, yet sometimes slightly ignorant moderates that oppose Obama because of peer pressure. I mean we've seen that distancing Democratic candidates from Obama doesn't really work, but unfortunately, he's pretty unpopular...

    I wonder what would happen if Michelle ran.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Also, the Tea Party could basically act as the spoiler effect for the GOP in 2016, though they'll probably unite against progressives sometime after the national convention... hopefully they won't have the time to.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    As you're probably aware by now, Elizabeth Warren was just appointed to a new leadership position in the Senate that was designed specifically just for her. In her new role, she "will have a role in shaping policy and messaging," and messaging is obviously an area that Democrats need a lot of work on.

    The net result of her new position is that the former Harvard professor is going to be a very powerful "behind the scenes" player.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/elizabeth-warren-harry-reid-senate-leadership-112847.html
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Hillary may be able to crack the glass ceiling into the Presidency, but Warren will blast through with energy to spare. I used to think Warren was too new at this politic game play, but she is moving in all the right directions. I am still for a Hillary & Warren ticket, because face it, Hillary holds the political key and with Warren at Hillary's side, the 2016 election has been made..........match-point.

    Democrats have to move smartly these next two years, because the Republicans are grooming women candidates for their cause. I'm voting for woman in our office in 2016, no matter what. If it's a Democrat, I'm happy. If it's a Republican...........not so happy, but a woman nevertheless, I'm voting for her. Except Palin, I don't think she's a woman, she's a bear.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    It is nice to discuss all of this, but the real deal is the huge "money" pot and who is behind it. Romney at that time was not even in the picture but got shoved in there by the mormon "money". Things like that could happen again. So I would n't bet on anything. Do not forget that our billionairs are even richer than ever before; so they can push certain people forward to get it their way. The Koch brothers even advertise their industries on TV; The only way Warren may succeeed is having these billionairs in her camp. 2016 may hold some surprises: I'm running; vote for me; I'm poor so I never will win!!! Sure they call this a "democratic honest blessed" country? You must be kidding.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Although polls this far ahead of the 2016 Presidential election have been misleading historically, a poll just released by a group called Democracy for America shows Elizabeth Warren to be a very strong front runner, since she captured 43% of the votes.

    Bernie Sanders came in second, with 25% of the votes .
    Hillary was a close third, with 24%

    Robert Reich, Joe Biden, and Jim Webb also got votes in the poll, but all of them got less than 5%