Elizabeth Warren announces bid for Presidency
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/u...ouncement.html

Senator Elizabeth Warren, a critic of big banks and proponent for financial regulation, has formed an exploratory committee to seek the office of President of the United States in 2020.

__________________________________________________ __________

This is pretty big news, considering.

I wonder if being so early will cost her, as it gives political rivals a longer time to mount smear campaigns.

Also, I'd like to get ahead of the crowd by making this clear:

If you have an opinion to offer, keep it civil and grounded. Baseless claims and attacks will not be tolerated if made.

Well, that would be really good news for Trump if she ran. Especially if she scored the democratic nomination.

Yeah, no way she can win.

Thing is, whoever runs on the Democratic ticket is going to have to have a platform other than "Trump Sucks" to have any chance. And there is pretty much no chance of that happening. So...

Very true. They don't have any policies to speak of on the table, let alone ones that are votable. And it's not even really "Trump sucks," it's just this kind of united, "We hate Trump! Don't you hate Trump, too?" Cue the high-fiving and exchange of "... and this is why we hate Trump!"/"He said something bad again!"/"*mumble*Russia!*mumble*"/"More investigation!" sort of stuff. Devoid of, again, anything about policies, whether positive or negative. They're just sailing on "the feels" right now, riding the hate/outrage train.

I mean, I'd love to vote democrat again.

Wasn't it Hilarity main gimmick during her run: "Vote for me, because, I am not Trump!"?

Didn't work that much for her.

I figured it'd be Warren or Joe Biden.

I'm not the first one to say it, but I doubt she can beat Trump. Doesn't mean I won't vote for her, but it'd be nice if the Libertarians could mount a more imposing figure than Gary Johnson this time around. :tlol:

Wasn't this the one claiming to be super Native American, was made fun of for it, took a test and it turned out no, didn't have any significant Native American heritage? Like, recently?

Yup. :tlol: There was a far easier way out of that PR mess for her; just say "Huh, my parents and grandparents always told me I was part-Cherokee (or whatever)... turns out they were wrong. Well, that's embarrassing!" and move on.

But then, I guess she has made a history of using that affiliation to her gain in policy and speeches and what-not...

You know, despite so many hating him or considering him a joke, Trump is proving to be a tough opponent to defeat.

In order to defeat Trump you'd need a ver charismatic candidate wit ha strong personality. Perhaps a blue version of him, even.

Well, things can change until 2020, so who knows. But, as it stands now, I don't see Trump not being re-elected. And tbh, despite his tantrums, dumb sayings and such, it's not like his presidency is being the "end of the world" as some predicted, thus far. No WW3 or Day of Reckoning yet. So perhaps he might conquer some neutrals until then. "hmm, that Donald guy ain't so bad after all..."

Yeah, this. Someone like the Rock, but with actual political experience. That could probably move the meter.

Democrats seem to be looking at Beto O'Rouke as some kind of second coming of Ted Kennedy. I don't see it. Plus he's pretty annoying to listen to.

Last President to not be elected for a second term was George H.W. Bush, and that's only because of the "no new taxes" pratfall.

Hopefully, Democratic contenders with a real chance of beating Trump-Republicans are waiting for 2024.

If Beto couldn't beat Ted Cruz of all people, he doesn't have a chance at Trump.

Oprah could easily win, but I doubt she'd actually run.

Michael Bloomberg could be the Democratic Trump.

Bernie and Biden would get a lot of support, but I'm pretty sure they'd lose in the end.

Hopefully Hillary is smart enough not to run again. She didn't beat Trump in 2016, she won't beat him in 2020.

Kamala Harris, maybe. But I'd throw my money behind Tulsi Gabbard if she ever runs.

LMAO I actually thought of that more or less. i was gonna say The Rock, but he has zero political experience(well so did Trump, to be fair) and I dunno if people would trust him to lead a country. At least Trump has the whole business tycoon thing going for him.

Well, I'd say Obama was someone like The Rock with political experience :lol:. But I don't think he can run again. And if he can he won't, anyway.

Wasn't Bernie Sanders supposed to be "blue version" of Trump?

They need someone who can beat trump in a debate. Not someone who lets him walk all over them. For example, like that time Obama made Trump look like a fool when Trump asked him to show his birth certificate. They need someone like that if they want to beat Trump.

Doesn't matter if a candidate has great ideas or if he/she is very intelligent if they end up having zero personality or gonads.

You really think so?

I guess? Is he running again? I remember opinion polls back then asking about the possible scenarios, and Sanders apparently would beat Trump easily... but then again Hilary was supposed to beat Trump and we all know what happened.

I think it wouldn't have even been close if it had come down to Trump vs. Sanders. 51% of voters won't vote for straight-up socialism.

I think Ross Petrol splitting off and running as a 3rd party independent had something to do with it too :lol: If Ross Petrol had not split off from the republican party I think Bush would have won the election. I am wondering if this will happen in 2020 election again with Republicans. The republican party has many members who despise Trump and refuse to support him.

Bernie has actual experience in politics and has been a senator for years. If the Democrats(The party, not voters) would not have been so freaking stupid to hand hand the nomination to Hillary I think Bernie would have beat Trump. But the Democrats refused to open up the race until it was too late.

I really wish Bernie would have won this last election. I think he would have been a great president. He is not extremely divisive or polarizing, he is a democratic senator for a gun-pro state and had really good common sense ideas/platform.(Invest in education and infrastructure.)

I hope a good candidate emerges from the democratic party to take down trump. I wish Bernie would run, but I fear people will not vote for him bc of his age. :ohwell:

I'm gonna assume Oprah could rally 50%-75% of the female vote, which SHOULD be 50% of the votes in general (but probably isn't). I freely admit this is EXTREMELY lazy guesswork on my end, but what the heck. :tsmile:

Agree with the bolded but what do you expect from Crooked Hillary and the Dems pulling that shady **** to make Hillary the Nominee. I also think Bernie would have won over Trump too.

No way. Zero chance.

Bernie would have had a far better chance than hillary.

They tried the 'like trump' option with hillary.
Hillary was rather unlikeable. and too much like trump in her approach/public appeal. at least trump could smile a little and pretend to be likeable to his base. hillary didn't even come out to thank hers when she lost.
I personally think they had a better shot with Bernie.

This was the first time around I actually paid attention to what was going on. if only because all this SJW crap infested my movies and you basically had to get into politics in order to even begin to have an opinion on things, or else have what you said mis understood, or mis stated by the crazies out there.

I thought Obama might be the change that was needed, but he proved to be just as bad as everyone else.

As far as Trump goes... it's really REALLY sad that people where so hysterical over it, folks had to come on the next day after the election and say 'Everything will be OK'...... I actually saw that on my FB feed. Yet, here we are 3 years later, and still pretty much status quo.

More chance than Hillary, but that is NOT saying much. :tlol:

I don't see it. Bernie's whole ideology is simply not consistent with even half of the democrats' out there. Literally the only thing that would give him any sort of an edge over Hillary would be that he's not a woman.

Not true. Hillary had 8 years of baggage from Bill's presidential terms, plus her time in the Obama administration.

That's a LOT of fodder for dislike and hate. Bernie, comparatively speaking, has far less animosity directed towards him.

People vote AGAINST candidates as often, if not more, as they vote FOR candidates.

I don't know.... Maybe some transparency........ They are accusing Trump of cheating and Russia of manipulating the process, but they did the exact same thing!!!!! They both manipulated the democratic process.

That is an ignorant statement. Bernie was winning independent voters over. He had a very good chance of winning especially coming from a pro-gun state demonstrating his ability to appeal to the other party and gun owners. IMO he would have beat Trump. Hillary won the popular vote, but loss the electoral. Bernie probably would have won.

Hillary all most won. She won the popular vote and many of the swing states were very close to going blue. I think people forget how close that race was.

Maybe so, but I'd wager if Bernie had been on the ballot it would just translate into less Democrats even bothering to vote at all. Like him more or less than Hillary, there just isn't that many people into socialism beyond an outspoken minority.

I feel like there are a LOT of dumb college kids who buy into Bernie, but that might just because of my personal locale.

You're definitely right. Mostly because they haven't actually had to earn their own money yet and just being handed the things you need sounds like a better option than working.

Oh come on... Free college for everyone is a wonderful idea! Don't bother asking where the money comes from, or how many of those students make good on their educations to become successfully employed and tax-paying citizens.

Feel the burn! :trazz:

In no other civilized country, politicians like Bernie Sanders would be considered "straight-up" socialist. He is a moderate left-winger, nothing more.

Are these countries other than the ones where you can (and will) go to prison for posting something funny on Twitter?

No, he's right. Most other Western countries have a mix of socialist and capitalist elements to their government and economy.

The US isn't all that different. Anything we have that's funded by tax dollars is a social program. Roads, schools, libraries, and even the police and military are all social programs.

The difference being that other countries tend to invest more of their tax revenue back into the middle class. America is far behind on public transport and healthcare, for example.

I think one of the biggest issues we face in America is a giant false dichotomy fallacy. We're under the impression that we can have one or the other, but not both.

For example, I currently live and work abroad. In this country, I can get healthcare from the government, through my work, or through a separate insurance company. I can also refuse it all together.

One thing that made the ACA so unpopular was the mandatory nature of it. This "you have to have insurance" edict was not going to fly in a country like America, where we have a tendency to disobey orders for the hell of it.

But that doesn't mean we can't have some kind of comprehensive system that suits everyone.

To bring this back on topic, Warren's policies aren't so much left-wing wet dreams as much as they are solid suggestions for fixing the real problem of monopolies in America.

Currently, most people have two or three options for cable/internet service. Our healthcare is exorbitant. Wages are stagnant. Competition is stymied by larger corporations. The common man is pretty put out. I think everyone in the middle class, regardless of political affiliation.

Trump had some good suggestions, too. I liked his plan about increasing competition in the healthcare industry. It has yet to materialize, but it was at least a suggestion for a problem we're all suffering from.

In the end, I agree with everyone else here: Warren's chances are pretty low. I think Biden might be the way to go on this one. Trump's strength is running the election like a WWE main event. Warren's going to bring droning policy to what's essentially a rap battle. Unless she's about to 8 Mile this ****, I don't think it's going to happen.

How she intends to regain the spotlight:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/u...en-nevada.html

“We can’t count on the media to cover our campaign fairly, so we’re taking our case directly to voters.”

LOL what?

This is coming from a person who is backed by CNN, who will do everything in their power to make sure Bernie doesn't win the primaries.

Both that woman and Hilary Clinton are the archetypes of what you don't want in the White House as far as female candidates go. They are both at different positions on the same spectrum, but they are exactly the female boss you don't want to have, they both project personality that you absolutely do not want in leadership.

Meanwhile, the Dems have Tulsi sitting on the sidelines, and while she's not a perfect candidate either, I would at least trust her to lead the country in it's best interests and I'd give her serious voting consideration. I just disagree with her positioning and her framework regarding what kind of Federalist system we live in. But that's it.

Clinton? Corrupt, manipulating POS. Warren? Softly enunciating overcompensater who plays the "woman" card rather than having any real skills. Tulsi? Completely valid, respectful person with the look of a leader and a skilled speaker and clear thinker who just happens to have a systems-ideology that I don't agree with.

And I'm barely right of center.

She's right, they can't count on the media to cover campaigns fairly because they're actively trying to knock Bernie Sanders all the way down because he's not the candidate the media wants.

Well, he's not a candidate that's electable. If way less than 50% of Americans want socialism, how is more than 50% going to vote him in? By him explaining the virtues of "democratic" socialism over and over again?

When you have someone's grandfather talking about how we're getting all of this stuff for free without having to work for it, why wouldnt that be electable?

Because most of the country wants aboslutely nothing to do with socialism.