The Left’s real choice in 2016: Why it doesn’t need Warren to run to take over party and -- America

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Good gawd, progressives/liberals do go on and on and on and on. This is from the leftwing hate site, Salon. Don't call them fascist in that they want to TAKE OVER AMERCIA

SNIP:
The left’s real choice in 2016: Why it doesn’t need Elizabeth Warren to run

For all the talk of needing to primary Hillary, here's how liberals really take over the party -- and America

Disheartened progressive Democrats face the prospect of a 16-year gap between the last closely contested presidential primary in 2008 and what would likely be the next one in 2024. Elizabeth Warren isn’t running. Hillary Clinton is and she starts out with very large leads in the early states. But hope is not lost. The choice facing progressives is not and never has been to somehow make Warren vs. Clinton happen or to spend the next 22 months enclosed in a political hellscape fit for only Sean Hannity and Lanny Davis. The 2016 election season does not have to be devoid of purpose or redeeming value.

If something changes in Iowa or New Hampshire Hillary Clinton could be in danger of being upset. At this point she looks like a strong favorite for the Democratic nomination and, by extension, if people feel their economic security is headed in the right direction from around this time next year to the election in November, a pretty good bet to be the next president. Progressives may not be able to change who is nominated but they can affect who is in the room with the nominee and the forces the nominee has to contend with if they reach the Oval Office.

Sure, garbage will not be in short supply this cycle. Democrats will be alleged to “be in disarray,” as in having a healthy internal debate. Declarations that the Republican establishment is putting the Tea Party in its place will abound in spite of what is happening around those making the declaration. The strange notion that we live in a nation of political junkies closely following every single development will inform a lot of analysis. Lindsey Graham, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush will be to this cycle what John McCain and Jon Huntsman were to cycles past as much of the DC press barely manages to conceal its affection.

Surrogates will say things that will make people in every campaign including their own wonder what they could possibly have been thinking. Candidates’ physical appearance and meaningless “gaffes” (Marco Rubio took a sip of water as human beings are known to do and it became a thing) will get much more attention than they should. It would not be entirely shocking to see a prominent pundit assert that Michael Bloomberg should be nominated by either party or a new vehicle party designed for him; or preferably given the nomination of both parties and the new third party by acclimation because there’s nothing so wrong with America that cannot be fixed by what is right with a soft plutocrat in the guise of a “centrist” technocrat. Polarization will be roundly condemned.

The things voters in both parties tend to agree on that run counter to elite preferences will be overlooked.

In the midst of all of this lies an opportunity for progressives to seize and wield for substantive purposes a dynamic they’re used to rightly bemoaning: whether through the actions of a current president or the candidates in the running for the office, the presidency is the surest access point to a discussion about pretty much anything. A constant pivot from rebuffing attacks from the right to giving credit to a national Democrat when due, to giving strong criticism of that same Democrat when it’s warranted, may appear dizzying but it’s something a lot of Democrats have gotten used to over the last seven years. Yes, elected Republicans are awful on practically everything with a few exceptions on select issues. No, this is not a free pass for a Democrat to simply affirm their Not A Republican status and have whatever they do go uncritically accepted.

Individuals and organizations are perfectly capable of deciding which candidates merit what kind of support while as an overall force engaging in more definitive agenda-setting. The right uses (insert event here) to talk about (insert one of their issues here) all the time. There’s no reason progressives can’t do more to use legitimate access points like, say, the ongoing HSBC scandals to elevate questions about the Justice Department’s application of the “collateral consequences” doctrine to megabanks or the need for a fee on financial transactions within the Democratic debate.

The usual argument against progressives more assertively doing this is that it undermines party unity. This claim has even less to it than the similar assertion that a long nomination fight would spell disaster for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and hopes for a Democrat in the White House circa 2008. The specter of a substantive fight jeopardizing unity and therefore electoral victory has already been raised by people like Steve Rattner, a lead member of the Wall Street wing. Rattner conflates operational unity among the groups that make up the Democratic voting and activist base, which is important, with the struggle for influence between what Thomas Edsall aptly summed up as “the money wing” and “the voting wing.”

sheesh, all of it at
The left s real choice in 2016 Why it doesn t need Elizabeth Warren to run - Salon.com

anyone who votes for Warren is also voting for another 9/11 event. you think she will protect the USA from terrorists?

I think Warren is a hateful socialist who will never be elected prez. Hopefully the Dems will try it.

That's just it. The Demons have no good choices. A dinosaur or a rabid shrew? All they have is the desperate hope that another black upstart will appear out of thin air.

 

[SAYIT]

Let me respond in my new Stephanie voice:

gawd more whine from the right they do anything they can to HURT MAIM or KILL us. this article shoving IT down OUR throats well nobody buys IT WHY don't GO and make up SOMETHING new to GET YOUR rocks off. i CAPITALIZE at WILL grammaris STTOOPID

Do you think Stephanie is actually Ann Coulter?

I think Hillary is a political dead man walking and Obama's actions over the next 18 months could spell a long walk in the desert for the Dems.

Remember of the 18 seats up for grabs in the senate in 2016, 17 are Republican.

Senate elections won't win the White House but the presidential elections may well decide the Senate races. As a centrist I'm not crazy about a 1 party gov't but 2016 may well see a GOP sweep.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Good gawd, progressives/liberals do go on and on and on and on. This is from the leftwing hate site, Salon. Don't call them fascist in that they want to TAKE OVER AMERCIA

SNIP:
The left’s real choice in 2016: Why it doesn’t need Elizabeth Warren to run

For all the talk of needing to primary Hillary, here's how liberals really take over the party -- and America

Disheartened progressive Democrats face the prospect of a 16-year gap between the last closely contested presidential primary in 2008 and what would likely be the next one in 2024. Elizabeth Warren isn’t running. Hillary Clinton is and she starts out with very large leads in the early states. But hope is not lost. The choice facing progressives is not and never has been to somehow make Warren vs. Clinton happen or to spend the next 22 months enclosed in a political hellscape fit for only Sean Hannity and Lanny Davis. The 2016 election season does not have to be devoid of purpose or redeeming value.

If something changes in Iowa or New Hampshire Hillary Clinton could be in danger of being upset. At this point she looks like a strong favorite for the Democratic nomination and, by extension, if people feel their economic security is headed in the right direction from around this time next year to the election in November, a pretty good bet to be the next president. Progressives may not be able to change who is nominated but they can affect who is in the room with the nominee and the forces the nominee has to contend with if they reach the Oval Office.

Sure, garbage will not be in short supply this cycle. Democrats will be alleged to “be in disarray,” as in having a healthy internal debate. Declarations that the Republican establishment is putting the Tea Party in its place will abound in spite of what is happening around those making the declaration. The strange notion that we live in a nation of political junkies closely following every single development will inform a lot of analysis. Lindsey Graham, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush will be to this cycle what John McCain and Jon Huntsman were to cycles past as much of the DC press barely manages to conceal its affection.

Surrogates will say things that will make people in every campaign including their own wonder what they could possibly have been thinking. Candidates’ physical appearance and meaningless “gaffes” (Marco Rubio took a sip of water as human beings are known to do and it became a thing) will get much more attention than they should. It would not be entirely shocking to see a prominent pundit assert that Michael Bloomberg should be nominated by either party or a new vehicle party designed for him; or preferably given the nomination of both parties and the new third party by acclimation because there’s nothing so wrong with America that cannot be fixed by what is right with a soft plutocrat in the guise of a “centrist” technocrat. Polarization will be roundly condemned.

The things voters in both parties tend to agree on that run counter to elite preferences will be overlooked.

In the midst of all of this lies an opportunity for progressives to seize and wield for substantive purposes a dynamic they’re used to rightly bemoaning: whether through the actions of a current president or the candidates in the running for the office, the presidency is the surest access point to a discussion about pretty much anything. A constant pivot from rebuffing attacks from the right to giving credit to a national Democrat when due, to giving strong criticism of that same Democrat when it’s warranted, may appear dizzying but it’s something a lot of Democrats have gotten used to over the last seven years. Yes, elected Republicans are awful on practically everything with a few exceptions on select issues. No, this is not a free pass for a Democrat to simply affirm their Not A Republican status and have whatever they do go uncritically accepted.

Individuals and organizations are perfectly capable of deciding which candidates merit what kind of support while as an overall force engaging in more definitive agenda-setting. The right uses (insert event here) to talk about (insert one of their issues here) all the time. There’s no reason progressives can’t do more to use legitimate access points like, say, the ongoing HSBC scandals to elevate questions about the Justice Department’s application of the “collateral consequences” doctrine to megabanks or the need for a fee on financial transactions within the Democratic debate.

The usual argument against progressives more assertively doing this is that it undermines party unity. This claim has even less to it than the similar assertion that a long nomination fight would spell disaster for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and hopes for a Democrat in the White House circa 2008. The specter of a substantive fight jeopardizing unity and therefore electoral victory has already been raised by people like Steve Rattner, a lead member of the Wall Street wing. Rattner conflates operational unity among the groups that make up the Democratic voting and activist base, which is important, with the struggle for influence between what Thomas Edsall aptly summed up as “the money wing” and “the voting wing.”

sheesh, all of it at
The left s real choice in 2016 Why it doesn t need Elizabeth Warren to run - Salon.com

anyone who votes for Warren is also voting for another 9/11 event. you think she will protect the USA from terrorists?

I think Warren is a hateful socialist who will never be elected prez. Hopefully the Dems will try it.

That's just it. The Demons have no good choices. A dinosaur or a rabid shrew? All they have is the desperate hope that another black upstart will appear out of thin air.

^ says the guy who walks around little kids with his dick hanging out.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Let me respond in my new Stephanie voice:

gawd more whine from the right they do anything they can to HURT MAIM or KILL us. this article shoving IT down OUR throats well nobody buys IT WHY don't GO and make up SOMETHING new to GET YOUR rocks off. i CAPITALIZE at WILL grammaris STTOOPID

Do you think Stephanie is actually Ann Coulter?

I think Hillary is a political dead man walking and Obama's actions over the next 18 months could spell a long walk in the desert for the Dems.

Remember of the 18 seats up for grabs in the senate in 2016, 17 are Republican.

Senate elections won't win the White House but the presidential elections may well decide the Senate races. As a centrist I'm not crazy about a 1 party gov't but 2016 may well see a GOP sweep.

One party governments are awful. But don't worry about a GOP sweep. They're going to lose the senate and all signs point to a Democrat President.

 

[Stephanie]

Wow Stephanie! You actually read Salon articles???? I'm impressed, I know they're a bit harder than the stuff you'd see in the "Obama is evil" websites.

I hardly read anything you write. They have no value, just like that oh so boring article from Salon. It seems all you libs do is SPEW

 

[Old Rocks]

Good gawd, progressives/liberals do go on and on and on and on. This is from the leftwing hate site, Salon. Don't call them fascist in that they want to TAKE OVER AMERCIA

SNIP:
The left’s real choice in 2016: Why it doesn’t need Elizabeth Warren to run

For all the talk of needing to primary Hillary, here's how liberals really take over the party -- and America

Disheartened progressive Democrats face the prospect of a 16-year gap between the last closely contested presidential primary in 2008 and what would likely be the next one in 2024. Elizabeth Warren isn’t running. Hillary Clinton is and she starts out with very large leads in the early states. But hope is not lost. The choice facing progressives is not and never has been to somehow make Warren vs. Clinton happen or to spend the next 22 months enclosed in a political hellscape fit for only Sean Hannity and Lanny Davis. The 2016 election season does not have to be devoid of purpose or redeeming value.

If something changes in Iowa or New Hampshire Hillary Clinton could be in danger of being upset. At this point she looks like a strong favorite for the Democratic nomination and, by extension, if people feel their economic security is headed in the right direction from around this time next year to the election in November, a pretty good bet to be the next president. Progressives may not be able to change who is nominated but they can affect who is in the room with the nominee and the forces the nominee has to contend with if they reach the Oval Office.

Sure, garbage will not be in short supply this cycle. Democrats will be alleged to “be in disarray,” as in having a healthy internal debate. Declarations that the Republican establishment is putting the Tea Party in its place will abound in spite of what is happening around those making the declaration. The strange notion that we live in a nation of political junkies closely following every single development will inform a lot of analysis. Lindsey Graham, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush will be to this cycle what John McCain and Jon Huntsman were to cycles past as much of the DC press barely manages to conceal its affection.

Surrogates will say things that will make people in every campaign including their own wonder what they could possibly have been thinking. Candidates’ physical appearance and meaningless “gaffes” (Marco Rubio took a sip of water as human beings are known to do and it became a thing) will get much more attention than they should. It would not be entirely shocking to see a prominent pundit assert that Michael Bloomberg should be nominated by either party or a new vehicle party designed for him; or preferably given the nomination of both parties and the new third party by acclimation because there’s nothing so wrong with America that cannot be fixed by what is right with a soft plutocrat in the guise of a “centrist” technocrat. Polarization will be roundly condemned.

The things voters in both parties tend to agree on that run counter to elite preferences will be overlooked.

In the midst of all of this lies an opportunity for progressives to seize and wield for substantive purposes a dynamic they’re used to rightly bemoaning: whether through the actions of a current president or the candidates in the running for the office, the presidency is the surest access point to a discussion about pretty much anything. A constant pivot from rebuffing attacks from the right to giving credit to a national Democrat when due, to giving strong criticism of that same Democrat when it’s warranted, may appear dizzying but it’s something a lot of Democrats have gotten used to over the last seven years. Yes, elected Republicans are awful on practically everything with a few exceptions on select issues. No, this is not a free pass for a Democrat to simply affirm their Not A Republican status and have whatever they do go uncritically accepted.

Individuals and organizations are perfectly capable of deciding which candidates merit what kind of support while as an overall force engaging in more definitive agenda-setting. The right uses (insert event here) to talk about (insert one of their issues here) all the time. There’s no reason progressives can’t do more to use legitimate access points like, say, the ongoing HSBC scandals to elevate questions about the Justice Department’s application of the “collateral consequences” doctrine to megabanks or the need for a fee on financial transactions within the Democratic debate.

The usual argument against progressives more assertively doing this is that it undermines party unity. This claim has even less to it than the similar assertion that a long nomination fight would spell disaster for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and hopes for a Democrat in the White House circa 2008. The specter of a substantive fight jeopardizing unity and therefore electoral victory has already been raised by people like Steve Rattner, a lead member of the Wall Street wing. Rattner conflates operational unity among the groups that make up the Democratic voting and activist base, which is important, with the struggle for influence between what Thomas Edsall aptly summed up as “the money wing” and “the voting wing.”

sheesh, all of it at
The left s real choice in 2016 Why it doesn t need Elizabeth Warren to run - Salon.com

anyone who votes for Warren is also voting for another 9/11 event. you think she will protect the USA from terrorists?

Buddy boy, 9-11 was your fuck up. People in Bush's administration were publically stating they thought Clinton had a 'fixation' concerning Bin Laden just before 9-11.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Wow Stephanie! You actually read Salon articles???? I'm impressed, I know they're a bit harder than the stuff you'd see in the "Obama is evil" websites.

Yea, Keep writing how the Leftist elites are smarter than everyone else. You only further validate what John Gruber said in that the success of your platform is dependent on the stupidity of the American voter. Then, you have the audacity to call Conservatives 'stupid' for not supporting your platform or questioning it. To the Leftist elites, everyone else is stupid. The Left has no unconditional love of US.

 

[Wildman]

you think she will protect the USA from terrorists?

there is NO ONE in the demorat party who will defend the U.S.A.

our only hope lies in electing Scott Walker for POTUS !!

 

[Wildman]

I think Warren is a hateful socialist...

worse than Hitlery ?

 

[Nyvin]

Because abortion is the law of the land and is available through much of the world. It is not murder and never has been

To make it a racial issue is not worthy of response

Religious pro-life blacks disagree with that statement. They consider abortion to be killing a living baby. That's what pro-life means.

Your answer did not address my question at all.

If pro-life blacks really consider the 300k black "babies" that are aborted each year to be actual living, just unborn babies,

why are they voting FOR the candidates that support the "murder" of 300k black babies a year?


This behavior seems to indicate that black voting patterns have nothing to do with issues.

I answered in a previous post

Because Republicans are assholes and blacks realize it. Why would a black ever vote Republican? They hear what is said in the rightwing media

Nothing "said" in the Rightwing media is more important that a pile of 300k dead babies.

Explain why that perspective (consider 300k abortions a year to be 300k dead babies) is not important enough to get religious pro-life blacks to vote for the Pro-life party?

Because, on the face of it, this seems to show that black voting patterns are NOT issue driven.

OK.....I'll bite

Because those black evangelicals realize that Republicans will not lift a finger to help support those 300,000 additional babies. In fact, Republicans are trying to cut support for existing black children

Does that help?

I do not find it convincing.

Even if your claim is believed by the majority of religious pro-life Blacks, it is better to NOT be killed and be poor, than to be killed.


Who would your rather vote for? The guy that wants to reduce your check, or the one that wants to commit mass murder on your people?

I cannot see how religious pro-black voting patterns make any sense if we assume that issues drive voting patterns.

Wow Stephanie! You actually read Salon articles???? I'm impressed, I know they're a bit harder than the stuff you'd see in the "Obama is evil" websites.

Yea, Keep writing how the Leftist elites are smarter than everyone else. You only further validate what John Gruber said in that the success of your platform is dependent on the stupidity of the American voter. Then, you have the audacity to call Conservatives 'stupid' for not supporting your platform or questioning it. To the Leftist elites, everyone else is stupid. The Left has no unconditional love of US.

There are some people I have no guilt in saying I think I'm smarter than them.....

 

[Rexx Taylor]

you think she will protect the USA from terrorists?

there is NO ONE in the demorat party who will defend the U.S.A.

our only hope lies in electing Scott Walker for POTUS !!

we will be buying stock in fallout shelters if Warren is elected.

 

[Wildman]

the guy who walks around little kids with his dick hanging out.

so...., why do you do that ? you liberscum are the most deviant fucktards on this Earth !

oooooh ! BTW..., .....

 

[Wildman]

all signs point to a Democrat President.

...... ........

 

[Roadrunner]

Let me respond in my new Stephanie voice:

gawd more whine from the right they do anything they can to HURT MAIM or KILL us. this article shoving IT down OUR throats well nobody buys IT WHY don't GO and make up SOMETHING new to GET YOUR rocks off. i CAPITALIZE at WILL grammaris STTOOPID

Do you think Stephanie is actually Ann Coulter?

I think Ann Coulter deserves many insults, but that one goes too far

Well, I wasn't expecting that.

I think those much like her, or the impression I get of her, from my limited exposure on this site...is of what I think people would be like if they believed what Sean Hannity, Rush LImbaugh, and Ann Coulter say.

It's a far removed mindset, that I can't comprehend, much like they can't fathom my thinking.

Having said all that.....

She seems like she's probably a nice person....

But I also think her political opinions are bat shit crazy

Oh I'm sure most posters on here are nice enough in real life.

Speak for yourself, asshole.

; - )

 

[Wildman]

It seems all you libs do is SPEW

SPEW and more

 

[Wildman]

The Left has no unconditional love of US.

the leftards have an absolute HATE of the U.S.A., they would much prefer a government like China or better yet, one like Iran's

 

[Wildman]

There are some people I have no guilt in saying I think I'm smarter than them.....

with an IQ of 53 ?? or less ? if so, you just might be correct.

 

[Nyvin]

There are some people I have no guilt in saying I think I'm smarter than them.....

with an IQ of 53 ?? or less ? if so, you just might be correct.

Yeah, I think the person I'm thinking of falls into that category, thanks.

 

[candycorn]

Wow Stephanie! You actually read Salon articles???? I'm impressed, I know they're a bit harder than the stuff you'd see in the "Obama is evil" websites.

Who helped her with the multi-syllable words?

It probably doesn't matter, Hillary/Warren would be a winner in 2016.

 

[Stephanie]

There are some people I have no guilt in saying I think I'm smarter than them.....

with an IQ of 53 ?? or less ? if so, you just might be correct.

Yeah, I think the person I'm thinking of falls into that category, thanks.

lol, braggarts are such a bore. zzzzzzzzzzzzz