Could Elizabeth Warren beat Hillary Clinton?

[LadyGunSlinger]

OMG.. You gotta watch the fake southern accent clip that I posted.. That biatch is too much LOL

 

[TemplarKormac]

Interesting question.

Could Elizabeth Warren beat Hillary Clinton? - The Washington Post

By Ezra Klein November 11, 2013
The question in the background of Noam Scheiber's exploration of whether Elizabeth Warren could challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016 is whether, come 2015, Democrats will care very much about cracking down harder on Wall Street.
<more>

No. Ms. Warren could not beat Ms.Clinton.

How do you know? Because you said so?

No, because that 'war on women' is about to become a 'war between women' in the Democratic Party. Oh how I love picking out the many paradoxes of the two party system!

 

[candycorn]

No. Ms. Warren could not beat Ms.Clinton.

How do you know? Because you said so?

No, because that 'war on women' is about to become a 'war between women' in the Democratic Party. Oh how I love picking out the many paradoxes of the two party system!

I've forgotten more about politics than you two will ever know. Warren is not Ms. Clinton's equal in any sense of the word. And Ms. Warren would likely be the first to admit that.


What you losers should be hoping for is that Ms. Warren doesn't join Ms. Clinton's ticket once Clinton is nominated. That would pretty much seal the white house for the Dems in 2016. The GOP war on women would be front and center 24/7 for the entire campaign.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How do you know? Because you said so?

No, because that 'war on women' is about to become a 'war between women' in the Democratic Party. Oh how I love picking out the many paradoxes of the two party system!

I've forgotten more about politics than you two will ever know. Warren is not Ms. Clinton's equal in any sense of the word. And Ms. Warren would likely be the first to admit that.


What you losers should be hoping for is that Ms. Warren doesn't join Ms. Clinton's ticket once Clinton is nominated. That would pretty much seal the white house for the Dems in 2016. The GOP war on women would be front and center 24/7 for the entire campaign.

Whoops! That 'war on women' rhetoric your party is so fond of using is now out of your control. When a woman goes after a woman in the Democratic Party, just who is the misogynist? Who hates women? Seriously, you guys want all women to be equal, but in one fell swoop however, you reveal your hypocrisy by saying one woman (Warren) is no equal to the other (Clinton). I'm sorry, is that another conflict of interest I smell?

Such a clash would divide your party as it would ours if they were Republicans. Don't count on it. This war on women thing is backfiring in your faces.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The situation for the Democrats is similar to that of the Republicans.

Just as the Republicans have the Tea Partiers characterizing any non-absolutists as RINOs and socialists (too funny), the hardcore Left wants Warren, and they'll paint Hillary as an establishment hawk. But they're not as rabid as the Tea Partiers, of course, who treat RINOs as something to the left of Democrats.

Either Warren or Clinton could conceivably win in the general, depending on who the GOP runs. The Republicans have made shooting themselves in the foot into an art form.

.

 

[Sallow]

Interesting question.

Could Elizabeth Warren beat Hillary Clinton? - The Washington Post

By Ezra Klein November 11, 2013
The question in the background of Noam Scheiber's exploration of whether Elizabeth Warren could challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016 is whether, come 2015, Democrats will care very much about cracking down harder on Wall Street.
<more>

Not at this point.

She still lacks the Charisma to be President.

Hillary's got it..and down pat.

 

[jasonnfree]

So republicans hate Warren. I'm so surprised.

 

[Sallow]

.

The situation for the Democrats is similar to that of the Republicans.

Just as the Republicans have the Tea Partiers characterizing any non-absolutists as RINOs and socialists (too funny), the hardcore Left wants Warren, and they'll paint Hillary as an establishment hawk. But they're not as rabid as the Tea Partiers, of course, who treat RINOs as something to the left of Democrats.

Either Warren or Clinton could conceivably win in the general, depending on who the GOP runs. The Republicans have made shooting themselves in the foot into an art form.

.

Warren's only "Hard Core" left to folks who are ridiculously far right.

There is no one, currently serving in elected office as a Democrat, that is "hard core" left. I would say Kucinich and Sanders are more "leftist" then most, but even then?

These guys are like the Democrats during Hubert Humphrey's time.

How ever, for the type of Right wing folks we have from the tea party?

Those folks are very radical. Even more so then the John Birch Society.

They want to bring down the government.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The situation for the Democrats is similar to that of the Republicans.

Just as the Republicans have the Tea Partiers characterizing any non-absolutists as RINOs and socialists (too funny), the hardcore Left wants Warren, and they'll paint Hillary as an establishment hawk. But they're not as rabid as the Tea Partiers, of course, who treat RINOs as something to the left of Democrats.

Either Warren or Clinton could conceivably win in the general, depending on who the GOP runs. The Republicans have made shooting themselves in the foot into an art form.

.

Warren's only "Hard Core" left to folks who are ridiculously far right.

There is no one, currently serving in elected office as a Democrat, that is "hard core" left. I would say Kucinich and Sanders are more "leftist" then most, but even then?

These guys are like the Democrats during Hubert Humphrey's time.

How ever, for the type of Right wing folks we have from the tea party?

Those folks are very radical. Even more so then the John Birch Society.

They want to bring down the government.

Hardcore leftists often think of people like themselves as "mainstream".

Same problem on the right.

Yet another example of why partisan ideologues have zero credibility.

.

 

[jasonnfree]

.

The situation for the Democrats is similar to that of the Republicans.

Just as the Republicans have the Tea Partiers characterizing any non-absolutists as RINOs and socialists (too funny), the hardcore Left wants Warren, and they'll paint Hillary as an establishment hawk. But they're not as rabid as the Tea Partiers, of course, who treat RINOs as something to the left of Democrats.

Either Warren or Clinton could conceivably win in the general, depending on who the GOP runs. The Republicans have made shooting themselves in the foot into an art form.

.

So if a democrat doesn't want another corporate democrat like Obama or Clinton, he's far left? This is how far to the right the country has swung since reagan.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The situation for the Democrats is similar to that of the Republicans.

Just as the Republicans have the Tea Partiers characterizing any non-absolutists as RINOs and socialists (too funny), the hardcore Left wants Warren, and they'll paint Hillary as an establishment hawk. But they're not as rabid as the Tea Partiers, of course, who treat RINOs as something to the left of Democrats.

Either Warren or Clinton could conceivably win in the general, depending on who the GOP runs. The Republicans have made shooting themselves in the foot into an art form.

.

So if a democrat doesn't want another corporate democrat like Obama or Clinton, he's far left?

Precisely what the Tea Party says about "RINOs".

Do you realize that?

.

 

[jasonnfree]

.

The situation for the Democrats is similar to that of the Republicans.

Just as the Republicans have the Tea Partiers characterizing any non-absolutists as RINOs and socialists (too funny), the hardcore Left wants Warren, and they'll paint Hillary as an establishment hawk. But they're not as rabid as the Tea Partiers, of course, who treat RINOs as something to the left of Democrats.

Either Warren or Clinton could conceivably win in the general, depending on who the GOP runs. The Republicans have made shooting themselves in the foot into an art form.

.

Warren's only "Hard Core" left to folks who are ridiculously far right.

There is no one, currently serving in elected office as a Democrat, that is "hard core" left. I would say Kucinich and Sanders are more "leftist" then most, but even then?

These guys are like the Democrats during Hubert Humphrey's time.

How ever, for the type of Right wing folks we have from the tea party?

Those folks are very radical. Even more so then the John Birch Society.

They want to bring down the government.

Hardcore leftists often think of people like themselves as "mainstream".

Same problem on the right.

Yet another example of why partisan ideologues have zero credibility.

.

The country has swung so far to the right since reagan, even moderates like Obama seem far left to some. (thought I posted this a few minutes before, must not have)

 

[Mac1958]

The country has swung so far to the right since reagan, even moderates like Obama seem far left to some. (thought I posted this a few minutes before, must not have)

Well, yes and no.

The country has clearly swung significantly to the left on social issues. I'd agree that it's swung far to the right on fiscal issues.

It's the absolutism on both ends that is killing us.

.

 

[jasonnfree]

.

The situation for the Democrats is similar to that of the Republicans.

Just as the Republicans have the Tea Partiers characterizing any non-absolutists as RINOs and socialists (too funny), the hardcore Left wants Warren, and they'll paint Hillary as an establishment hawk. But they're not as rabid as the Tea Partiers, of course, who treat RINOs as something to the left of Democrats.

Either Warren or Clinton could conceivably win in the general, depending on who the GOP runs. The Republicans have made shooting themselves in the foot into an art form.

.

So if a democrat doesn't want another corporate democrat like Obama or Clinton, he's far left?

Precisely what the Tea Party says about "RINOs".

Do you realize that?

.

so goal posts have moved, or paradigms have shifted or whatever it's called now. We do have a tea party with some power, there are no far lefties even on the horizon that I know of.

 

[Peach]

Interesting question.

Could Elizabeth Warren beat Hillary Clinton? - The Washington Post

By Ezra Klein November 11, 2013
The question in the background of Noam Scheiber's exploration of whether Elizabeth Warren could challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016 is whether, come 2015, Democrats will care very much about cracking down harder on Wall Street.
<more>

Not at this point.

She still lacks the Charisma to be President.

Hillary's got it..and down pat.

I'd prefer skills rather charisma, but that hasn't been working out too well since Truman, and Eisenhower.

 

[JoeB131]

NEITHER have a chance in HELL of becoming POTUS. So NO...but would be a great CATFIGHT. Bring on the MUD.

One more time guy.

Where are you guys going to get the six million votes you didn't get in 2008 or 2012?

 

[jasonnfree]

The country has swung so far to the right since reagan, even moderates like Obama seem far left to some. (thought I posted this a few minutes before, must not have)

Well, yes and no.

The country has clearly swung significantly to the left on social issues. I'd agree that it's swung far to the right on fiscal issues.

It's the absolutism on both ends that is killing us.

.

But the country hasn't swung left on social issues. The last two democrat presidents have actually done cuts to safety nets, something a republican couldn't accomplish. Clinton ended welfare as we know it, Obama proposed cuts to social security. The democrats wanted single payer or at least a public option, Obama gave us ACA, basically a republican program.

 

[occupied]

Someone needs to remind the left that it's job is not to prop up corporate democrats. I do expect her to at least show up for the primary if only to make Hillary remember that too.

 

[Sallow]

.

The situation for the Democrats is similar to that of the Republicans.

Just as the Republicans have the Tea Partiers characterizing any non-absolutists as RINOs and socialists (too funny), the hardcore Left wants Warren, and they'll paint Hillary as an establishment hawk. But they're not as rabid as the Tea Partiers, of course, who treat RINOs as something to the left of Democrats.

Either Warren or Clinton could conceivably win in the general, depending on who the GOP runs. The Republicans have made shooting themselves in the foot into an art form.

.

Warren's only "Hard Core" left to folks who are ridiculously far right.

There is no one, currently serving in elected office as a Democrat, that is "hard core" left. I would say Kucinich and Sanders are more "leftist" then most, but even then?

These guys are like the Democrats during Hubert Humphrey's time.

How ever, for the type of Right wing folks we have from the tea party?

Those folks are very radical. Even more so then the John Birch Society.

They want to bring down the government.

Hardcore leftists often think of people like themselves as "mainstream".

Same problem on the right.

Yet another example of why partisan ideologues have zero credibility.

.

I pretty much provided a criteria for radicalism.

Closing down and/or wanting to remove the government is neither found or advocated in the Constitution.

Neither is "Second Amendment" solutions.

Those are very radical concepts. And it's basically used by the far right world over to bring down representative governments and install oligarchy.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Who knows, your dear leader has been courting her via Valerie Jaret for months now, promising her his full support and the assets of OFA. I'm not sure the commiecrats are ready for a person with even weaker credentials than maobama.

Warren is even more leftist than Obama. God help us if she wins the presidency.