Bernie is really really old (he'll be 79 in 2020). Warren is probably the closest thing there is to Bernie's stances out there. I think Warren's biggest problem is that she may be too intelligent. I feel she struggles with reaching the less educated. Beto would play 2nd fiddle because he won't win the 2020 nomination (most likely at least).
she's a terrible candidate because she's a terrible candidate and no @Rocket River it's not because of her Gender. She's always been purposely divisive and even mean-spirited. It will haunt her during her entire run just as Hilary's arrogance and mean-spiritedness haunted her. Really solid Dems CAN and do win with the media (just ask Beto as he was the media darling). as for the GOP machine, Warren brought the Native American issue on herself as she boldly proclaimed her "heritage". Beto never ever claimed to be hispanic, and only a very few on the far right bought in to that crap anyway. Just as many morons on the far left bought in to the Rafael Cruz is trying to be white BS as did with the Beto nonsense on the right.
Just stop. This is just stupid. Purposefully divisive? Wtf are you taking about? If you are going to dismiss Warren's renown work and qualifications as one of the most productive proggresive legislators in recent memory, then I hope you are too lazy to vote in the DNC primaries because you are obviously too lazy to look at the actual work she's done. She's the only candidate where you can point to her actual work instead of rhetoric and "electability" as a reason to support her . She by far is the most qualified candidate. And has pretty much zero corruption baggage as a politician.
and as sh*tty as Hillary was . . .if she were a white male. . she would have won She was literally the only Demo Trump could beat . . . Rocket River
I don't believe she is purposefully divisive. I haven't seen evidence of that. It might exist, but I just haven't seen it. The Native American thing will definitely haunt her, and that's a shame. That is the 898,785th on the list of issues that should be part of a presidential race. For some reason though, people love to make a big deal out of it. It would be different if it was one part of a pattern of exaggerated claims, but it isn't. So the fact that anyone cares about it, is silly. But I agree that people do care about it and we know that it will be brought up again and again.
Yes, let's use Massachusetts as an example of why braineggs are bad for the country... A state that has by far the best k-12 public education system in the nation. The most ironic part about your statement is that her core essence of what she fights for as a Senator overwhelmingly helps middle America. Why would middle America not want banking regulation reform or money out of politics? Why would they not want to mitigate corporate lobbying?
It would be an actual issue for me if she actually used the claim as a reason that she should be a candidate. But nope. She has ONLY brought it up in a defensive posture starting from when her GOP opponent in her senate race spammed it as the number one reason to not vote for her.
Agreed. She never brought it up as a qualification for being a candidate or serving in the Senate. But sadly, why or when she brought it up won't matter to the GOP, to the media, nor to most of the folks that are barely interested or following politics anyway.
Yall are probably right that she doesn't score highly on the electability scale. But I'd take her as a president. She's smart, principled, and detail-oriented. I'm a little concerned about her ability to administer a large organization, but that's it. I like her better than Beto who is a bit green, better than Sanders in whom I have no confidence as an executive, better than Biden whose skillset is still a mystery to me. Of course, in the end, the nominee probably won't be any of these early names. So I'm not really going to torture myself too much on evaluating candidates now.
That's the whole problem. She is capable, qualified, and as you say, principled. But those qualifications don't matter as much as a DNA test to people. When that's the case, we won't get many qualified, principled, and capable candidates.
I'm not dismissing her work at all - there are plenty of great workers who are terrible candidates. In the public eye she comes off as arrogant and mean-spirited. When looking at candidates, it's best not to try and elect someone who's already hated by half the country. It was THE main problem with Hilary..she's been hated and divisive since she was in Arkansas. Look at it this way..Beto almost won in Texas..if Warren would've ran, Cruz would've won by a landslide. Yes, I know it's Texas..but Beto comes off as likable..Warren never, ever has.
She has been hated in Washington since she was just the Arkansas governors wife, and much more hated after she became First Lady. Her arrogance (not her sex) was her undoing. You DON'T go into a huge coal-mining state like Pennsylvania..talk about closing coal mines..and then act surprised and shocked when you don't win that state. The last election should've been a cakewalk against a moron like Trump.
When I vote in a primary, I don't try to game the system to get a candidate other people will like. I vote for the candidate I want. Won't it be ironic if the Democrats all love Elizabeth Warren but she can't get elected because of a communal fear that other people won't love her. I think people have a lot of trouble coming to terms with the idea that the power of their vote is infinitesimally small. It's so small they want to "maximize" their leverage by voting strategically, even if it means not voting for what they really want. But even maximized, your vote is a fart in the wind. You're not responsible for the electability of your candidates or whether they win or lose. So go vote, vote for who you want, and then tune in the news to see what happened.
If anyone cares what an actual Democrat thinks of her chances, here you are. She won't be the nominee. Book it. I know a lot of (t)rump supporters would love for her to get it, right after Ocasio-Cortez (who is not eligible, as much as they would like her to be), but it's not happening. Sorry. You'll have to come up with some new "favorite GOP propaganda targets."
Who will be? It would be Biden if he were younger, but I have serious doubts about a 78 year old running for President. Maybe Kamala Harris?
