Elizabeth Warren surges in close Iowa race, new poll shows

In the same poll:

Bernie is at 11 percent

Pete is at 9 percent

Kamala is at 6 percent

Nice to see Pete move up to the fourth position. Keep going.

I hope she wins the nomination.

I'm fine with Elizabeth Warren, but can she beat Trump? Because that's all that matters.

If Biden can beat Trump. then I'm all in for Biden.

Warren cant beat Trump in a General, but the dolts in the Democrat base don't get it and will go with ideology rather the pragmatism.

They deserve to lose.

Man, what idiots. Trump is laughing.

I'm registered Republican. I'll vote for Weld in the primary and then Libertarian in the general (unless Weld wins the GOP nomination, lol). I did send Pete $100 cause gay. But if Warren is moving ahead that shows the system is working on your side. I don't support her economic policies but she is the adult in the room over there. Other than Warren and Pete that debate convinced me those are not serious people.

R5 you all said that we had to vote for Hillary by that logic. Look where that got us.

That's an interesting take from you as a Republican r6. It is obvious to me also that Warren and Pete are the ones who are real.

Thanks for donating to Pete as a gay candidate. It's a momentous historic campaign.

I hope it takes him where he wants to go. It's very well thought out. The guy is brilliant. Like Warren. Both are good for America.

r6 and r8, you don't think Bernie Sanders is an adult in the room?

I don't think about Bernie at all.

“Surges?” Oh, my.

[quote]Warren cant beat Trump in a General

This assertion is not supported by the available data.

I think Warren is a candidate people like more as they get to know her.

That's certainly been true of the debates thus far, R13, where Warren has been doing about the best of any of the candidates in terms of net favorability improvement.

R5. The Dems don’t deserve to lose. No matter who they nominate, that person is far superior to the criminal Trump.

The Dems may not be perfect, but they do not deserve to lose. No one deserves to lose against Trump. Hell, the other Repugs (Sanford, Weld) running against Trump don’t deserve to lose.

Warren has it, especially if the Ukraine thing brings down Biden.

Down towards the end the list of What Democrats Should Do in 2020:

#2,553,443: elect New Gingrich as head of the DNC #2,553,444: Hilary 2020! #2,553,445: take unsolicited advice from Republicans

R15 Hilary didn't deserve to lose either. That's what's so sickening about the Trump phenomenon. A lump of poop is more qualified to be president than this guy but people keep supporting him.

I foresee an Indiana VP debate.

I know the usual logic being spewed is that "they didn't vote for Hillary, so they won't vote for Warren" but I think it's exactly the opposite. I think people will think, "We didn't vote for Hillary last time and look at the piece of shit we ended up with. Sure as hell going to go that extra mile to vote for Warren this time!"

Plus, if you look at how large businesses work, women are often chosen to clean up the mess after a particularly horrendous disaster. Women are also usually the trusted whistle blowers. The country wants a mommy to fix everything right now. She'll win over a lot of unexpected people. She's winning over coal miners in West Virginia if the reports from her various town halls are correct. Warren is change. Huge change. This country is voting for change.

I never thought she could win...we need to wait for the primaries and see how people will really vote. Anything is better than Trump. I will always vote For the Democrat.

Why did so many people support Hitler? I am scared of stupid and ignorant Deplorables. Scared to death. I don't want to see the death of our democracy in my lifetime.

We were having this exact conversation about Kamala after the first debate when she surged in the polls? Where is she now? Primaries still some way off.

Dream ticket: Biden for Pres., Warren for VP. They'd win bigly.

Warren lost when she endorsed reparations.

Nobody cares one way or the other about reparations except some obsessed trolls on DL.

Biden's standing, thus far, has all been based on perceived/imagined ability to beat Trump. Now that more voters have seen more of him and of Warren that perception is changing. The most interesting part of the article is as follows:

"The poll sought to gain insight into what it is likely caucusgoers think an electable candidate would be. Nearly three-quarters said a candidate who can excite new voters (74%) is closer to their vision of electability than one who would excite the base (16%). And most preferred a candidate who would represent a new generation of leadership (57%) over one with a long history in government (28%), as well as one who would take the high road against Trump (54%) vs. getting in the mud as needed to take on the President (35%)."

[quote]Dream ticket: Biden for Pres., Warren for VP. They'd win bigly.

For those of us under 70: Warren for President, Castro for VP. They're going to win!

For those of under 70, with brains: Warren and Pete! Total win.

Now look. Joe is—Biden, Joe Biden—he’s, he’s clearly the top, the top choice. He has the record and the focus—when I way focus, I mean that Biden has the. Look, when he rode the Acela every day from Delaware he would talk to people and, well, they called him Uncle Joe because. Now listen. Joe is the man with the plan is what I’m sayin’. He knows the, he knows the heart of America. He knows the men and the women and the children and he’s—LOOK! He’s not. [sigh.] I’m out of time.

What R30 said. I appreciate the Obamas thought highly of Joe but we need someone a little less... blowhard. If Hillary, with all the history and baggage and Russian interference against her ,can get 3 mil+ votes over Trump I am not worried about Warren. Of course Warren can win. We all decide we want her to win.

Already a thread about this exact poll. I'm already posting it because some have complained that there have been too many poll threads.

Don't worry r31. Warren has a betty chance to win than Biden

*I'm "only" posting it, not "already" posting it

Neither Biden, Warren, nor Bernie will be the eventual nominee.

R35 Yay Pete!

Warren/Pete. Ladies revenge. A progressive step into the future but at the same time she was a Republican so she know what's going on.

I do think Pete will be the nominee. He’s really grassroots.

I have a morbid curiosity about how overtly antigay Republicans would become if Buttigieg were to get the nomination. I think we’d see even our hypocritical littlebig former GLAAD board member Meghan McCain begin to use coded homophobic language to suggest he’s too weak to handle the demands of the job. And then, of course, the non-media Republicans would be totally overt about their hatred.

R39 Let's not worry about what the GOP will do. Let's do worry about what the Dems will do.

[quote] especially if the Ukraine thing brings down Biden.

What kind of nonsense is this? This is the Repuke ideal — rumors of a scandal that taint a Democrat without any basis in fact. Biden did nothing wrong. There is nothing in this fiction that would bring him down. Please don’t perpetuate this falsehood.

Iowa is one small, rural state filled with a lot of older white voters. The judgments of those voters about candidates seems wholly out of proportion to their standing vis-a-vis the rest of the country.

The issue is the Prez not biden. Don't let them distract you.

Biden is the only one Trump is afraid of. There’s a reason.

[quote]Biden is the only one Trump is afraid of. There’s a reason.

Trump is stupid. That's the reason.

Warren has a bit of down-home folksiness about her that Hillary never did. This is allowing her to do well with Midwest and rural voters, where Hillary failed badly.

r45 Warren support is heavily concentrated in liberal white areas. Not midwest or rural voters.

Michigan: Warren leads Trump by 6 points.

Pennsylvania: Warren leads Trump by 3 points.

Wisconsin: Warren is tied with Trump.

Florida: Warren is tied with Trump.

Colorado: Warren leads Trump by 7 points.

I don't think that Warren's support is as "heavily concentrated" as you think, R46.

[quote]Florida: Warren is tied with Trump.

FYI: Republican strategist Rick Wilson says Dems have to poll 6-7 points ahead in FL to overcome voting "irregularities."

R46, you don't know what you are talking about.

R48, I don't actually expect the Democratic candidate, whoever it is, to win Florida, unless we get a blue tidal wave or unless Trump is so weakened that we're into landslide territory. The point still stands that Warren is competitive in the swing states, including midwestern swing states.

Assuming right now that Warren is doomed or that Biden is the only one who can beat Trump or the only one Trump is afraid of really doesn't match what we're seeing in the polls and in the leaks from the Trump campaign.

I am definitely not saying that Warren [italic]will[/italic] win or that the election is a foregone conclusion for Democrats or anything like that because that would be just as stupid in the other direction. I am saying that the data we have right now indicate that Warren absolutely [italic]can[/italic] beat Trump, as can the other top Democratic candidates. Trump is in real trouble right now and his campaign knows it.

Let's face it -- Warren WILL be the nominee.

r47 The Michigan poll you are quoting conducted by an unrated and unreliable pollster, Climate Nexus. Every one from Biden to Pete is beating Trump in that pollster comfortably.

There is only quality poll that polled head to head matchup against Trump in a midwestern swing state and that is Marquette Law School poll of Wisconsin. Biden is the only one beating trump in that poll.

R52, Warren is ahead in Michigan in the EPIC-MRA poll, the Detroit News poll, and the Emerson poll. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

As for Wisconsin, Emerson has her up by 4 and the Marquette poll you mention has her tied, which is precisely what I said. Again, she's doing just fine. Your claim in R46 was flatly incorrect, which is why you're having so much trouble finding the data to back it up. You are mistaking your own personal prejudices for actual data.

R51 Gawd, I hope so.

CNBC: Wall Street donors are privately warning: We'll sit out, or back Trump, if you nominate Elizabeth Warren. “You’re a Democrat and you’re thinking, ‘I want to help the party, but she’s going to hurt me, so I’m going to help Trump,’” an executive said.

Probably good news for Liz as this gets out.

Wall donors don’t want Warren. They wanted Hillary, and now they want Biden.

Wall Street^^

No wall st does not want Trump this is a bluff. He is going to tank the economy before any dem.

That was a push from Biden’s ppl. Mark my words.

My dream ticket is Warren/Pete. I might feel differently if Biden and Sanders weren't so damned old. And if Sanders had stayed in the Democratic party after he lost in the primary instead of immediately dropping the Dems and going back to Indie. WTF? So they're good enough for him when he wants something from them...

Though would Liz win over the African Americans with either Kamala or Cory as VP?

I'm Black and Liz has been my # 1 choice from day 1. She doesn't need to win me over by choosing a Black VP - I'd still vote for her regardless.

Kamala is not going to be VP. She’d be a better Attorney General.

Liz is too progressive for me. I would prefer a moderate and I think the extremes on both sides (left and right) alienate the vast majority. I want someone who can get something done and not be held up by congress because they oppose the extreme views. Compromise is the key to making sure all sides have some skin in the game and have some buy in.

We shouldn't have to settle for candidates - which is what we have done in the past!

Elizabeth Warren is not "settling" for a candidate. People under 70 can't wait to vote for her.

Biden is "settling for a candidate."

R61

I think this strident insistence that a non-white candidate must be on the ticket is far more of a white liberal "thing."

What is so radical about telling Wall st to go duck themselves. They’ve made enough money off the backs of working people to last them many lifetimes.

What’s so progressive about standing up to insurance companies and their shady tactics?

What’s so radical about pushing back against outrageous and pervasive corruption that benefits a small group at the expensive of average families?

I don’t get it. Are you a doormat?

I watched Biden on Colbert the other night. He's totally there, not senile or anything. BUT. But he can't finish sentences. He starts and changes course rather often. He drops sentences completely all the time. I don't think it means his judgement or character is damaged - perhaps its just his language synapses of some kind? I'm not a brain expert.

R64, I would be settling if I voted for her. We need someone who is more moderate and who can work with the other side. She is too progressive. The vast majority of voters in the US are moderates....we shouldn't have to be forced to deal with extremes. I'm an independent leaning democrat and actually none of the dems get me excited...however, I will probably settle for one and hope things work out the best the can. It would be more promising if a moderate won and more things could get accomplished.

If someone is a multimillionaire that is never going to become sick, or have any family members who will even need medical attention then I completely understand why they wouldn’t want a progressive.

I don't want a progressive. I'm an independent, middle class and have my health insurance through my employer which I would like to keep.

You will see snail paced changes with a progressive as the other side will put up obstacles at every turn. You are not going to get what is being promised OR will take decades for it to materialize.

R70, the "other side" will put up obstacles at every turn regardless of who the Democratic President is. We saw that with Obama and, prior to that, with Clinton when the Republicans took over the House.

[quote]But he can't finish sentences. He starts and changes course rather often. He drops sentences completely all the time.

Simplest explanation: he's over coached. His delivery has all the hallmarks of somebody who is struggling to recall the three thousand lines pushed at him by 300 advisors who are trying to preserve his authenticity while avoiding any gaffes. Struggling not because his brain is fucked, struggling because they're trying to cram him full of things to say that they think work safely.

Let Joe be Joe. It will work or it won't.

It worked before.

I'm not supporting her in the primary, but will enthusiastically vote for her if she gets the nomination. I am still not convinced that she will get us swing states and independent voters, regardless of what the current data says. She's gone too far left in the primary and I just don't see how she pivots back to the center for the general. But I would love to be proven wrong.

I still say that I would rather lose with Pete at the top of the ticket, than Warren. Pete is a superstar. Warren is not. The only thing Warren has is a vagina.

She would win in a landslide! (In California.)

It's very possible she would win the U.S. popular vote! (And lose the Electoral College.)

It's Victory, as far as we can see! (But our vision may be somewhat limited.)

Any Dem in California will win by a landslide....not breaking news!

He's trying to be funny, R75, pretending that Warren can't win and that we're just too blind to see that. It was a stupid post and not worth a response.

[quote] My dream ticket is Warren/Pete.

What about Pete/Warren instead?

[quote]I still say that I would rather lose with Pete at the top of the ticket, than Warren. Pete is a superstar. Warren is not. The only thing Warren has is a vagina.

This dude above ^

His mentally deficient misogynist vote still counts. And he'll help Warren by voting for Pete. Pete will never be top or bottom of any ticket. He's heading straight for a CNN panelist gig. He's too dull for even that. He's barely a good affirmative action political gay. Because he's homely, conservative, non sexual and no fun.

No matter if Warren or Biden or Sanders wins the nomination - Pete's name will not be on any ticket but AMC @ 1:35 pm.

[quote]You will see snail paced changes with a progressive as the other side will put up obstacles at every turn. You are not going to get what is being promised OR will take decades for it to materialize.

With a moderate like Biden, you will see NO changes.

At least Warren represents progress, even if it’s incremental.

[quote]She would win in a landslide! (In California.). It's very possible she would win the U.S. popular vote! (And lose the Electoral College.). It's Victory, as far as we can see! (But our vision may be somewhat limited.)

Uhhh... that’s Hillary you’re talking about.

Warren isn’t plagued by Hilz’ decades of scandals, her aversion to campaigning, and her propensity to insult the voters.

I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility for Pete to be the VP candidate, but anyone who thinks he's a stronger Prez candidate than Warren, or that she's got nothing going for her beyond a vagina, is of sub-moronic intelligence. Also, what is with the people insisting that only a moderate/centrist candidate could possibly win? Did you sleep through our last election?

^ Did you? The Dems need to win swing voters who went for Trump. Not exactly Warren territory.

^ Might be much more Warren's territory than you think. A lot of those swing voters went for Trump because they wanted to shake things up, or because they just really hated Hillary in particular, rather than because they thought Hillary wasn't centrist enough.

Warren has my vote. I will not vote for Biden.

Warren is the best candidate out there, so far.

R70, so you think the way to get things done is have the far, far right Repug party start from their end and have the Democrat start in the middle and then compromise from there? Wow, that's fucking genius. Why have the far left and the far right meet in the middle when you can let the far right win by having the liberal side start in the fucking middle and move right?! Fuck off. Go vote for Trump.

[quote]Warren has my vote. I will not vote for Biden.

Ditto R84.

[quote]We need someone who is more moderate and who can work with the other side

There's no "working with the other side" at this point. There is simply doing what they say or doing nothing at all.

We need someone who can stand up to them, not bend over for them! The Republicans don't compromise. For some odd reason we're always the first to do so. It's time for that to end now that we've seen their true faces.

[quote]Though would Liz win over the African Americans with either Kamala or Cory as VP?

R60, Once again black people do not automatically vote for other black people.

For the primary, so far in Florida, Biden is their first choice and surprise, surprise, Warren has moved into second place in Tyson's polls over Sanders.

However, "winning over" African Americans isn't a problem during the national election since they by and large always vote Democrat no matter who the nominee is.

58% of white voters and 29% of Hispanic voters, voted Trump last election.

Only 8% of black voters voted Trump.

Warren, Biden, and Sanders at the top.

That sounds about white.

Fuck this 99% white rural state determining leadership for our large, diverse, and mostly urban country.

[quote]that she's got nothing going for her beyond a vagina, is of sub-moronic intelligence.

Name calling is really helpful. There are a lot of democrats who feel that since we got a black guy out of the way, that now it's a woman's turn. That is no way to choose a president. Warren is the type of candidate who turns off swing state voters and independents. Let's be honest here, some of you are so pissed off that black and rural and moderate democrats are locked in with Biden, that you are going to stamp your little feet until you can push Warren through.

Warren is a not a bad candidate, but if she was just some white guy saying the exact same shit, you guys wouldn't even give her a second glance. It's a woman's turn, that's all you care about. Not about getting Trump out of office and winning this fucking election. And all of you fuckers who are trashing Pete, should be ashamed of yourselves. You don't have to vote for him, but you don't have to trash a gay man here on a gay message board.

[quote]Might be much more Warren's territory than you think. A lot of those swing voters went for Trump because they wanted to shake things up,

This is pretty much correct. Warren is the “shake things up” candidate this time around, and a lot of former Trump-supporting swing voters are interested in her.

[quote]Warren, Biden, and Sanders at the top. That sounds about white.

Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are running. The problem is black voters aren’t interested. They’d rather have ancient white Uncle Joe. So, go blame black voters if you’re upset that none of the “of color” candidates caught on.

[quote]So, go blame black voters if you’re upset that none of the “of color” candidates caught on.

That rates as one of the most stupid statements I have ever read here on DL.

[quote] There are a lot of democrats who feel that since we got a black guy out of the way, that now it's a woman's turn.

That may be true, but while I'd agree we shouldn't vote for someone just because she's a woman, there are many other excellent reasons to vote for Warren. And pointing out that anyone who thinks a vagina is ALL she has going for her is not bright isn't "name-calling," it's just a statement of fact.

[quote] Warren is the type of candidate who turns off swing state voters and independents.

I disagree. She's a self-made woman who grew up poor in OK and pulled herself up by her bootstraps and became a success; there's plenty about her for swing state voters to relate to and she's been doing an effective job of getting that across and expanding her base of supporters. And she's got more appeal than Biden for the kind of swing state/independent voter who went for Trump just because they wanted something new and different.

[quote] Let's be honest here, some of you are so pissed off that black and rural and moderate democrats are locked in with Biden, that you are going to stamp your little feet until you can push Warren through

I don't think anyone's necessarily "locked in" with Biden (or Warren) at this point, and the only thing I'm going to stamp my feet about is the importance of voting for whomever gets the Dem nom. I'd prefer that it be Warren, but it doesn't have to be to get my vote.

[quote]Warren is a not a bad candidate, but if she was just some white guy saying the exact same shit, you guys wouldn't even give her a second glance.

Bernie Sanders, anyone? He is a white guy saying very similar things to Warren and there he is among the top three candidates. And, yes, he's got his supporters right here on DL.

[quote] It's a woman's turn, that's all you care about.

I AM a woman and I don't care about that at all, and given the rampant misogyny on DL, it's ridiculous that you think lots of DLers care about that. I care only about nominating the best possible candidate who can beat Trump; I just don't happen to agree with your assessment that Warren can't do it. But as I said, if she doesn't get the nom, I will happily vote for whomever does. And I think Mayor Pete's a great, smart guy with a great future, I just don't happen to think he's the best or most electable candidate this primary season.

R92, that's not true at all.

You clearly don't know many black people.

Kamala Harris is the best option. The media is practically ignoring her. And so are white people.

Warren was a republican until 1996. NINE-TEEN NINTY SIX. She was a happy Reagan supporter and voted for Bush Sr. She was fine with the racism and sexism. And that's one reason she gets virtually zero support among black people.

Further, she was very quick to smear Hillary (she ORIGINATED the "Hillary is Corrupt" lie that Sanders and the BernieBros picked up and ran with), VERY quick to constantly attack the Democratic Party (dumping on the "primaries were rigged' bandwagon even though that was a blatant lie she had to walk back later).

She's so easily lead around by the nose too... like Trump goading her into taking that DNA test. And her attempts at claiming minority status also don't sit well with minorities.

She's the "white people" candidate, because White people don't know or care about any of this stuff. Though they should.

She does not have my support because nobody that engages in Hillary-bashing and who voted Republican until she was 50 deserves the full-throated support of real, true-blue Democrats.

Oh yeah, and she's cribbed most of her "plans" from other candidates, even blatantly plagiarizing things from other candidates.

She's a fraud. She's better than Bernie, but that's kinda damning with faint praise because Bernie is fucking terrible.

r96 wins the thread. Mic drop and close this thread.

R96 is a Pete Butt fanatic. Crazy flat ass old fag. Agreeing with his own posts. Pete has no chance this time or next time. He can't even run a small town. Datalounge is not the real world. Pete is not qualified and not in consideration. It's important that he be funded because gay people may one day find a viable candidate and he sets a (weak) precedent. It's between Warren and Biden. And Warren will lap Biden before years end. It's not a race in the usual sense. It's an awakening. People are giving old crazy joe some respect. But nobody wants him. Warren will be the first woman president of the US and more importantly the first (mildly) progressive candidate in 40 years. A change gonna come.

[quote]Warren was a republican until 1996. NINE-TEEN NINTY SIX.

She stopped voting Republican in 1976.

She switched her affiliation after a long time of not voting for Republicans in 1996.

[quote]She was a happy Reagan supporter and voted for Bush Sr. She was fine with the racism and sexism.

She didn't vote for Reagan. She didn't vote for Bush Sr.

[quote]And that's one reason she gets virtually zero support among black people.

She is second place with support from black voters now as of Quinnipiac's last survey behind Biden and before Bernie, Mayor Pete, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, etc.

You can argue whatever you want but making up lies that are easily verifiable is insane.

r99 One question. You say she stopped voting Republican after 1976. So did she vote for democrat after that or she didn't vote for anyone in the twenty years of her life from 1976 to 1996 ? You have to answer

Warren was a republican until 1996. NINE-TEEN NINTY SIX.

It's spelled NINETEEN NINETY-SIX, ffs. And as r99 pointed out, the last and I think only GOP presidential candidate Warren ever voted for was Gerald Ford, when she was 27. She was not very political as a young woman, and she was never socially conservative. She WAS financially conservative, but when she began visiting bankruptcy courts for work and really digging into economic policy, her views were transformed—and frankly, I respect someone who can actually absorb new information and alter her views based on the what she's learned and the data she's examined. Requiring someone whose current views are perfectly acceptable to have been a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat all her life makes as much sense to me as getting all bent out of shape because some gay person isn't a "gold star gay."

r101 who did she vote for after Gerald Ford then ? You know till she was almost 50 ?

r101 and where is your proof that she was never socially conservative ? Did she speak up for LGBT rights, anti racist policies when she was a registered republican ? What is your proof ?

Nobody has to answer shit if they don't want to, Lady Miss r100. You could look up Warren's voting record yourself, you know. But I will answer for r99—yes, she voted for Democratic presidential candidates between 1976 and 1996.

r104 Where is your proof that she voted for democrats ?

R98 is wrong on all counts.

And why would anyone in this forum believe a guy who posts 'fag' as a derogatory term anyway? You're in the wrong place, buddy.

And she stated flat out she voted for Reagan, so this revisionist history that she somehow never voted in 1980 until the 1990s is ridiculous.

She was a fucking republican until the late 90s and no amount of excuses you make will change that fact.

Or the fact that she steals ideas, and that many of her "plans" are disasters in the making.

She's a fraud. And she has very little support from people of color, don't even try to pretend otherwise.

Where is your proof that she didn't? Look it up yourself, you lazy pile of shit.

R101, it took "economic reasons" to "transform" her and make her finally leave the Republican party... but apparently the racism and sexism was fine with her then. Because THAT wasn't enough to do it. Huh.

I'll take a life-long Democrat like Kamala Harris over a Johnny-come-lately like Warren, thanks.

r107 Because she never revealed who she voted for when she was a Republican. If she voted for Democrats she would have openly said that. She is despicable human being who was a Republican when Gay men were demonized by Republicans. She was a Republican when crimes against racial minorities were common by Republicans. Any one who thinks she is fine deserves to be beaten till they bleed.

If Warren is the nominee not only will sit out during the election but will campaign actively against her.

Pete can't be elected dog catcher so give it up R105. You're being nuts again at R106. Same poster tag teams itself on this thread. (It's that Tatum O'Neal nutjob and someone we know by another name, so don't waste time arguing with him.) You're one nutty internet troll. No one cares who you vote for. You don't get to take anyone. Kamala would be great, but she's not in the mix. So stay home nutty bitch. Pete is your obsession. You ain't fooling anyone here with your multiple posts.

Elizabeth Warren WILL be the nominee and the NEXT President of the U.S. !!

[quote] And she stated flat out she voted for Reagan,

No, she did not state that, flat out or otherwise. She has stated that she voted for Ford (1976), Carter (1980), Dukakis (1988), and Clinton (1992) prior to becoming a registered Democrat in 1996. Not sure if she voted for Mondale or what in 1984, but she says she never voted for Reagan.

[quote] If she voted for Democrats she would have openly said that.

She has openly said it.

[quote] If she voted for Democrats she would have openly said that. She is despicable human being who was a Republican when Gay men were demonized by Republicans. She was a Republican when crimes against racial minorities were common by Republicans. Any one who thinks she is fine deserves to be beaten till they bleed.Any one who thinks she is fine deserves to be beaten till they bleed.

You're not only full of shit, you're certifiably insane.

[quote] If Warren is the nominee not only will sit out during the election but will campaign actively against her.

Well, that's probably to her benefit, because you sound like the kind of guy who could quite easily persuade others to do the exact opposite of whatever he chooses to do. But lemme see how this works: You're going to go out and campaign for Trump (which is what campaigning against Warren will amount to, even if you nominally support some no-chance third-party candidate) and that's cool, despite the fact that Trump and his administration are actively and virulently anti-gay now. But others in this thread deserve to be beaten til we bleed for supporting a candidate who has never been actively anti-gay, because she used to belong, though rarely voted with, the party of anti-gayness, some 20+ years ago. Yeah, that makes sense.

r114 I campaigned against hillary and look how that turned out in 2016. I don't care if trump gets elected, this bitch is fucking lunatic, hypocrite and she needs to stay far away from any public office. She also shares traits with Trump such as homophobia and racism. Like how Trump is a fraud, this cunt fraudulently grew her career by lying about her race. Like Trump, this old slut has same foreign trade policy. So having her or Trump will make little difference. I will spend every fucking minute to actively campaign against her.

Newsflash, nutbag at r115. Warren already holds public office and the country doesn't seem to be spiraling down the shitter because of it. Your boy Trump on the other hand ...

[quote]Name calling is really helpful.

Followed by two paragraphs of text that was nothing [italic]but[/italic] "name calling." You might want to look in a mirror, R90.

Every person that prefers Warren to other candidates says it’s because of her plans. But I’m not sure they’ve actually read them. Most of her plans are actually quite terrible.

Just one example: Her "plan" to financially punish hospitals with high maternal mortality rates and other bad outcomes puts an undue burden on underfunded hospitals in low-income areas, which will result in hospitals closing and those patients not having access to ANY care.

And recognizing that Warren is kind of a fraud and not to be trusted and that she has very low minority support does not mean one is pushing Pete, who doesn't have the experience required.

Preferring a life-long Democrat who has far better, more well-thought-out plans to someone who spent more than half her life as a Republican and fraudulently claimed to be a racial minority when she wasn't isn't insane.

If she wins the primary, of course I'll vote for her, because I'm not fucking stupid and insane like R115. She's far, far better than Trump.

However, this is a primary and we don't have to settle for a dishonest mediocre white lady with no real record. We have better candidates running.

One of my many problems with Warren is that she can't keep her story straight because she is dishonest.

Example:

Let them duke it out now. Soon, Tulsi will come from behind and beat them all with the spirit of aloha~

Tulsi is a fucking Republican, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a fascist in progressive drag, a fraud and a liar, a homophobe and a racist, she doesn't belong anywhere near the Democratic party.

What Democrats have to decide is whether what Liz Warren (or any candidate) is offering translates into votes and what the Rethuglicans can do with her and her platform to prevent losing those votes from people who chose to vote for Dump last time but may not this time. She hasn't been tested or attacked in this process. Not like she will be in the general.

She is ultra-protectionist by conviction, she wants a wealth tax, healthcare for all, workers on company boards, the immediate shutdown of oil and gas fracking and an active devaluation policy, which means currency war. Liz Warren is currently preaching to the choir. In due course, she's got to preach to the country. It all sounds lovely but it's pretty radical compared to most candidates. That may be what the party wants. But it makes me nervous. I will vote for whoever the nominee is. Even Bernie (which I can say because obviously it isn't going to be Bernie.)

That's all completely untrue, R121. I'm sorry that you cannot feel the ALOHA SPIRIT.

R122 makes a sound point. Democrats do not have the luxury of running too far to the left, because we depend on independents and swing states more so than republicans do. Democrats are lazy voters, which is why we have to court the middle. I understand that Warren is trying to win the democratic primary, but everything she says now can be used against her in the general. If she walks back on everything she said in the primary, then she's basically Kamala Harris and she's going to disillusion a bunch of people and be labeled a flip flopper. She has plans, I'm just not convinced that her plans will get broad support. And we need broad support in the swing states.

Wow! This thread is chock full o' trolls!

I love Liz. I don't have much money, but I just sent her another $20.

So there.

You're a gullible fool then, R125. But I guess at least you didn't waste money on Bernie, so there's that.

Hey, R126, you and Wall Street completely agree with each other! You might want to think about that for a bit.

That was a really dumb hot-take, R127... but I'm sure you don' understand why. You probably think it's clever. It's not.

Warren-stans are the new Bernie-Bros.

WARNING: The Republicans really want her to be the nominee. They feel Trump would have a better chance against a woman (again) than an intelligent, experienced (though elderly) alpha male.

I'm all about Kamala at this point. Moderate, VERY intelligent, senate experience, skilled attorney, AG background, polished, appeals to all races IMO (I am a white male), very well-spoken... I love Warren, but she pushes policy decisions that I don't back (free college, etc). I love Pete but he is too green and has zero congressional experience - he's best as a VP. I love Biden, but he seems to be faltering and also just doesn't stand for much of anything outside of being Obama's VP. Sanders is lovely and amusing as always but too wacky and exactly Warren's ticket. I'll vote for any of the above, but I LOVE Kamala.

R129, it's the sexist white male Biden Brigade that echoes the BernBro lunacy of 2016.

[Quote] And if Sanders had stayed in the Democratic party after he lost in the primary instead of immediately dropping the Dems and going back to Indie. WTF?

Not the sort of character we want as president.

Trolls............

Is it Biden or Sanders who's the "alpha male" R130.

They'd tear it up in the nursing home shuffleboard tournament, no doubt.

Which candidate has the best chance in Florida? If the D's could win that state, they'd only need one of PA, MI or WI. (assuming they don't lose any of Hillary's states from 2016)

Ohio would work too but strategists seem to be saying it's turned red, likely for a long time. Damned Appalachians.

R136, they all are roughly even with Trump in Florida. There is one outlier poll from earlier this summer that had Biden +9 against Trump but two later polls had them basically tied. Florida is worth fighting for, particularly in a wave election, but they don't really need it, as they are all beating him in Michigan and Pennsylvania and and they're all beating him or tied with him in Wisconsin.

Can't we just move up the primary dates so Warren will be sure to win?

This is 100% going to be won in PA, MI, and WI.

FL and OH are lost causes for Democrats.

[quote]WARNING: The Republicans really want her to be the nominee. They feel Trump would have a better chance against a woman (again) than an intelligent, experienced (though elderly) alpha male.

I’m not sure why they feel he has a better chance against a woman... considering that Nancy Pelosi is destroying his Presidency.

[quote] Warren-stans are the new Bernie-Bros.

Since I've seen virtually no Warren supporters promoting a "Warren or bust" philosophy, either here in DL or in the real world, I must conclude that you are full of shit.

Is Impeachment the End of the Road for Most of the 2020 Field?

Impeachment, for anyone not named Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Pete Buttigieg, couldn't have come at a more delicate time. This is the exact moment they were banking on generating as much coverage and attention as possible, to raise as much money as possible.

The problem: "Now there's a solar eclipse of a message that will make it really, really difficult to drive any message," says an advisor to Kirsten Gillibrand's ill-fated campaign. A senior aide to one candidate still in the race put it a little less delicately: “It sucks, actually. Impeachment’s gonna kill anyone who’s not a senator or in the top five. We’re fucked.”

It's not a coincidence, R143.

[quote]The problem: "Now there's a solar eclipse of a message that will make it really, really difficult to drive any message," says an advisor to Kirsten Gillibrand's ill-fated campaign

Anything that’s said by an “advisor” to Kirsten Gillibrand can be assumed to be bad advice.

It's true, though. While the campaigning goes on behind the scenes, who's heard anything from anybody? All the principals have had a clip or two. Even Harris got on CNN despite her collapse being complete. Same for Amy, who never even got far enough to collapse. But for the most part you wouldn't know there is a nomination race going on. Maybe it's a good thing. The candidates can battle it out in private, without the distortion of the media lens.

Representative Tulsi is getting headlines because the Russian cunt is still against impeachment.

[quote]A senior aide to one candidate still in the race put it a little less delicately: “It sucks, actually. Impeachment’s gonna kill anyone who’s not a senator or in the top five. We’re fucked.”

Yeah, it’s impeachment that’s killing these third-tier candidates... not the fact that they were polling at 1%.

Gabbard came out for an impeachment inquiry today, R147.

Took the bitch long enough. Is she literally the last Democrat to get on board??

R139 is apparently in favor of rigging primaries. I'm going to bet they're a berner from 2016 who whined about non-existent primary rigging, because the hypocrisy is a dead giveaway.

Shorter R142: "Since I don't see it, it doesn't exist"

Besides, we're referencing the bullying cult-like following, not necessarily the 'or bust' part. Not all BernieBros were "Bernie Or Bust", dumbass.

R146 is a bit premature in considering Harri's collapse being complete. She's had VERY strong messaging and appearances the past few weeks, and the impeachment has re-raised her role in the Kavanaugh hearings as well, to good effect. She's rising as others are sinking.

If the next debate were limited to, say, eight candidates as a maximum I'd agree that Harris stands an outside chance. However, as it stands now no minor candidate is going to have much of an opportunity for a breakthrough. The only suspense of the evening will be a possible stumble by one of the top three.

She's sinking like a stone, R153. Accept it.

Remember that Harris had Barr’s number way back in May when he couldn’t answer if Trump had ever asked him to investigate anyone. She knew he is corrupt as fuck.

She's averaged 4.7 in six polls over the last two weeks. She's fourth in Nevada, South Carolina and California... 5th in Iowa, New Hampshire, Texas and Mass. Kamala Harris really isn't part of this any more.

She’s a good candidate, but isn’t competitive with Warren.

Pete has moved up to where Harris was in polls.

[quote] Besides, we're referencing the bullying cult-like following,

I haven't seen that, either. Of course that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But if you think it does, how about providing some examples?

r160 MSNBC analyst calling everyone who wont support Warren, a sexist

That's troubling, R161. Warren doesn't need that kind of "support" - she can win on her own merits.

[quote] [R160] MSNBC analyst calling everyone who wont support Warren, a sexist

First of all, to be clear, what she actually did was quote someone who said that people who support Bernie over Warren are sexist, then noted that she thought that person might have a point. As to whether the analyst herself is a Warren supporter, or supports someone other than Bernie or Warren, we don't even know.

And while I do not agree that all Bernie supporters are sexists, I don't think that one analyst commenting on that notion constitutes "bullying."

Not long ago, another MSNBC analyst said that Bernie makes her skin crawl R163

These are not just singular instances. MSNBC is forcibly pushing Warren and Harris down the throats of people while completely demonizing Biden, Bernie and Buttigieg (and Beto till he became irrelevant).

Okay, whatevs, r164. I don't watch MSNBC, so I don't know what goes on there. If what you're saying is accurate, that's obnoxious; however, I don't see how what some talking heads on cable network do represents the attitude or behavior of those in the general voting public who support Warren.

[quote]Not long ago, another MSNBC analyst said that Bernie makes her skin crawl [R163]

He makes most people’s skin crawl.

r166 So does Warren but no one is saying that on TV

Here is Pete vs Warren would look like

[quote] [R166] So does Warren but no one is saying that on TV

Oh, could you both grow up? If either Warren or Sanders made most people's skin crawl, they wouldn't be a beating a whole flotilla of younger and more (physically) attractive candidates in the polls.

Deja vu all over again with "We must rally around the establishment candidate right off the bat!"

[quote]"We must rally around the establishment candidate right off the bat!"

Both Warren and Bernie are in the Senate so I'm not really sure why you wouldn't consider them as part of the establishment. Warren doesn't bring anything new to the discussion, just a bunch of wild proposals that are going to turn off swing voters.

I am supporting Pete and Biden with Beto as a close third. Biden for obvious reasons. Beto for his energy and youth. I support Pete because he has impressed me more than anyone else. He's smart and thoughtful and he's not tainted by DC. He's going to bring a fresh and youthful view to the White House, and it just pleases me to no end that he's gay and is in a loving, committed relationship.

I was referring to Biden as the new Clinton.

[quote]Is Impeachment the End of the Road for Most of the 2020 Field?

Probably not. The initial wave of impeachment news appears to be slowing down, as the investigations ramp up. This is going to be a months-long process. There should be room to have an impact. And a dozen of them made it to the next debate, where they can try to have even more of an impact.

Harris is the only viable, qualified, capable candidate. People will eventually see that. It's early yet. She's the only one that actually inspires or excites me at this point.

Yeah and pretty much only you R174, but thanks for letting the rest of us know about the inevitable.

Pete is so smarmy and pandersome.

TOTALLY AGREE, R174. Kamala is by FAR my favorite of the bunch, but I will vote Dem across the board - no matter the nominee. That said, it seems SO obvious that she is the most capable on all fronts.

It boggles the mind that in 2019 the Democrats have a top contender who pretended to be a minority most of her adult life. And I say that as someone who has liked a lot of what she’s done in politics.

Everyone should be offended by it, but even the ones pretending it's totes cool have got to acknowledge that she was asked repeatedly by GOP if she claimed NA status for educational or employment purposes and she straight up lied for over a decade. They will produce receipts.

Liz's support is overwhelmingly white. She has very little in the way of black-voter support, and that's because Liz Warren doesn't deserve the Black Vote. She hasn't earned it.

Think about it: Warren managed to get an all-White crowd at an all Black University. This is because she has literally never given a fuck about Black People until she needed black votes.

What has Liz EVER done to show she understands black lives?

She is unworthy of representing the Democratic Party as its leader, when our base is people of color and especially women of color.

[quote] Harris is the only viable, qualified, capable candidate. People will eventually see that.

No, she's not, and no they won't. I don't mind her, and would happily vote for her if she somehow did get the nom, but that seems highly unlikely.

[quote] I don't mind her,

Lol. Such enthusiasm.

[quote] Lol. Such enthusiasm.

Ha; obviously I am not very enthusiastic about her, but I don't hate her, either. I recognize that she is a reasonably smart and competent person and obviously, I would never pull some kind of stomp-my-hooves-and-refuse-to-vote-for-her shit just because she isn't my top choice..

r178 What are you talking about, no votes have been cast yet so you can't declare who black people support. We'll see where the votes fall when this thing finally gets underway for real. Kamala fyi is way to careful, contrived and centrist, will do and say anything to win and i don't see that winning over democratic voters in todays age. Bitch thought she would end Joe Biden by declaring him racist and stealing all his black support and then turned around the next day and said she really agreed with him.

[quote] It boggles the mind that in 2019 the Democrats have a top contender who pretended to be a minority most of her adult life.

Whatever, Donald. She wrote Native American on a couple of forms; it's not like she was out there leading pow-wows or trying to join a tribe and open a casino.

[quote] She did not "straight up lie." She never claimed NA status to gain educational or employment advantages, as the Boston Globe demonstrated in a lengthy and extensively researched investigative piece. Admittedly, it was a fucking weird and ill-advised choice to ever write she was NA on an official document, when she had to know her NA ancestry was very distant, but there's no evidence she gained anything, or even tried to gain anything, by doing so. My guess would be she was simply unduly pleased and proud about the idea of having an NA ancestor. To me, it is a total nothing in terms of her fitness as a candidate.

[quote] She has very little in the way of black-voter support, and that's because Liz Warren doesn't deserve the Black Vote. She hasn't earned it.

Aside from possibly Cory Booker (who's not polling well among black voters), what have any of them done? I know Bernie was involved in the civil rights movement, which is great, but then he moved to Vermont, where there are like two black people and hasn't been in a position to do much for the Af Am community since then. At least Warren's consumer protection work has helped everyone in the lower income brackets, of which people of color make up a disproportionate number. And her support among black voters is growing; her poll numbers increased by 9 percent over the past month.

I just realized earlier today that the presidential election is not happening for another full year. I can't believe we have another year of this mess. It already feels like campaign season has gone on forever.

r183 Bern victims are feeling it slip away and are going hard after Warren, i'm still undecided but i'd take Warren over Bernie anyday.

I like listening to warren Harris and pete. Rest, I have tuned out.

If Warren is the nominee, we're toast. Socialist toast.

[quote] I like listening to warren Harris and pete.

Yet you only capitalize "Harris".

[quote]I know Bernie was involved in the civil rights movement, which is great

He absolutely was not. He attended one march, got a fine, and high-tailed it to lily white Vermont for 30 years where he was completely AWOL on civil rights. He LOVES to try and claim he's some civil rights hero, but he absolutely was not, period. Hillary did a thousand times more for civil rights than Bernie ever did.

I'm so fucking tired of ignorant people just mindlessly parroting the lies they're fed... whether it's Trumpsters or Berners.

I said upthread that I'd not vote for Warren if she were the nominee. I have thought about what I said for a day and then I realized that i made a mistake. I shouldn't just not vote for Warren but I will vote for the Republican nominee and will volunteer for that Republican. Democrats need to learn a lesson.

Calling Harris a 'centrist' is kinda stupid and ignorant, and just proves you know nothing about her. Look deeper.

The fact that in spite of being pretty progressive, that she can still appeal to centrists because of her pragmatism, is a GOOD things for the General election. You cannot win without the center. Moderates are the majority, like it or not.

[quote]If Warren is the nominee, we're toast. Socialist toast.

Whoever the nominee is they'll be up against the worst President this country has ever had. He's divisive. He's racist. He's a traitor to this country.

If they can't all beat him then there's a bigger problem here.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren changes her stories a LOT about exactly when she stopped being a "staunch Republican". Now she says she never voted for Reagan and Bush 41, but that's different from what she said a few years ago! I don't trust her after she stated that "Bernie was cheated by the DNC".

Plus, she is never going to beat Trump! She'll be the third Massachusetts wipeout in recent memory! Are African American women excited about Sen. Elizabeth Warren? No!

Expound please R191? Kamala, Biden and Pete are the moderates. But I want to hear your opinion before I block you.

Or not.... I'm trying to get your point?

Most of us are moderates for sure... Sorry, if I over-reacted, but I'm confused by your post.

...and Kamala is my first choice BY FAR.

People need to understand that carefully scripted politicians like Kamala are not in vogue at the moment, she's falling like a rock.

Warren is unelectable except in the minds of deluded ultra left Democrats.

She wont be the nominee.

Bye-Bye-Biden

There was a women of color summit earlier this year. Harris received decent polite applause, while Warren received standing ovations. You do the math. It's older black voters who are propping up Biden in South Carolina.

Yes, R198, relevant experience and competence and intelligence are all SO out of vogue (rolling eyes)

Fuck it, I'll say it.

Liz Warren showed horrible judgement for YEARS in claiming another race/culture.

Beyond the lack of cultural awareness and unfettered White Privilege of her "Cherokee" claims? She looked fucking ridiculous. The news clips make her look like an idiot.

I mean really:

"I have pictures that prove I'm Native." (no, she doesn't)

"I knew it because of my high cheekbones!" (they are not that high, FYI)

"I don't know what my parents' party was." (uh-huh)

I really really liked her at first. But the more I see of her, the more I pay attention, and the more I research, the less I like her.

My fear with Biden as the nominee is that he won't excite younger people to vote.

Does anyone else remember when MTV used to do a huge "Rock the Vote" event every election? For me, as a teenager, it was pretty great to see. I wish they still did more nationally broadcast forums for younger people on networks they watch. (Although I think younger people are pretty over MTV except for reality shows.)

I hope it clarifies quickly so attention can be given to the impeachment. Every configuration will have it's pluses and minuses. I hope it's Warren and Pete. The best and the brightest.

[quote] There was a women of color summit earlier this year. Harris received decent polite applause, while Warren received standing ovations.

What color did Warren claim to be?

[quote]Warren is unelectable except in the minds of deluded ultra left Democrats.

Statements like this are genuinely stupid. Seriously. They are belied by all of the available data. The delusion here is entirely yours.

Have any of you been getting the Bernie videos on youtube that ask you to put your name on a list supporting his campaign ?

He's walking in the grass in it.

Biden is the only candidate that can beat trump. Only DListers believe others can beat trump. Most of you are obessesed with personal passion candidates who have no real shot against trump.

Warren will be a disaster for Dems.

[quote]Biden is the only candidate that can beat trump.

Statements like this are genuinely stupid. Seriously. They are belied by all of the available data. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Biden will not beat Trump. If he's the best they've got, they're fucked. And lying and cheating isn't working out so far either.

And more stupidity. All of the major Democratic candidates are beating Trump in the polls and absolutely can beat him in the 2020 election. Anyone who insists that only their candidate can win or that any other candidate cannot possibly win is full of shit.

R213. Sure jan

I'm sorry that reality is so difficult for you, R214. Maybe someday you can join us here in the real world. You might even like it here.

The only thing that makes me nervous about the polls showing any candidate can beat Trump is that those polls are now. Few of the potential nominees have been through the general election mill. Biden, as less than ideal as he may be, at least has demonstrated the highest level of support for beating Trump, most consistently. It may change. I have yet to be convinced Biden isn't the best odds to beat Trump, but I remain open to changing that point of view.

R216, it's fine to be cautious and it's fine to look at the respective support against Trump of each of the candidates. This is a snapshot in time, a year before the election, so all we can do is look at trends over time and look at how the various campaigns are doing.

What I'm objecting to, for very good reason, is the idiots who are insisting right now that the election a year from now is a foregone conclusion and that only [my candidate] can win or that [your candidate] cannot possibly win or [this is why Trump will win]. These are all genuinely stupid remarks to make, given these data:

- Right now, all of the major Democratic candidates are polling well against Trump, not just nationally but in the swing states that are needed to win. Biden's numbers are a bit higher in most of these polls but Trump's numbers are terrible in all of them and he's losing to all of the major Democratic candidates.

- Trump's campaign knows this, as they've pretty much acknowledged that states like Pennsylvania and Michigan aren't going to vote for him again, so they're trying to figure out how to raise support in purple states like Colorado and New Mexico.

- The generic Congressional ballot is still showing Democrats at +7, which is what it was in 2018 when we had the blue wave. If the 2020 vote is like the 2018 vote, Trump loses.

- Trump has no accomplishments to run on, as the tax plan remains unpopular. A plurality of voters don't give him credit for the economy and even among those who do, a sizable percentage still think he should not be reelected.

- Trump's unpopularity remains at historically high levels, particularly the "strongly disapprove" number. He's lost suburban voters and white women and, so far, hasn't been able to find a winning strategy to bring them back.

- He needs an additional 8 to 10 percent of the voters in order to win but he's doubling down on his base, on the whining, on the frantic tweeting, on playing the victim, on the grievances, on the racism, on the childish attacks. None of these tactics are going to get him the votes he needs and there is a very real risk, which we're already seeing, of "Trump fatigue."

- Trump is unfettered now. In 2016, his advisers were able to get him to listen, at least occasionally, and were able to pull him off of Twitter during the critical periods. The sane people have all left and the rest aren't even really trying to rein Trump in. He's convinced he's the best political strategist ever and nobody is going to tell him what to do.

- The economy and stock market are volatile right now and both are giving signs of an upcoming recession and/or correction. Should that happen, Trump will take a real hit.

There's more but you get the gist. I'm not so foolish as to pretend I know what will happen next year and I'm not going to make any absolutely predictions about who will win the Democratic nomination or who will win the election. But right now, given the data we have, Trump is in real trouble and all of the Democratic candidates can beat him. Anyone who pretends otherwise is either an idiot, a troll, or a blind partisan.

[quote] He absolutely was not. He attended one march, got a fine, and high-tailed it to lily white Vermont for 30 years where he was completely AWOL on civil rights.

R189, dude. Despite your frothing at the mouth that I am "mindlessly parroting lies," we are in agreement here. You just said basically the same thing I said: Bernie was involved in the civil rights movement (briefly, yes, but it was more than one march), but then moved to white Vermont, where his involvement ceased. Chill.

[quote] Now she says she never voted for Reagan and Bush 41, but that's different from what she said a few years ago!

Can you provide a link to where she ever said she voted for those two?

That so many white liberals honestly & sincerely believe that Eizabeth Warren can win the Electoral College without Obama-level turnout among nonwhite voters derives from our deeply segregated society. If white people truly cared about how nonwhites thought, we wouldn't be here.

FYI: Crowd size at rallies isn't a huge indicator, but the ethnic mix is: If Warren is only exciting non-Latino white voters in coastal liberal enclaves, that's not a winning indicator. The fact that Warren went to an HBCU and the crowd she drew was almost completely white should say something loud and clear... but I don't see very many white people hearing it.

Well, not on here, R220, but DL has an outsize contingent of posters who see elections as a chance to soothe wounded feelings or indulge archetypes as president fantasies (witness the need to refight the Clinton defeat that always lurks right beneath the surface, ready to erupt at any time.) They do not see politics with the cold, clear eyes needed to win. That said, am personally impressed by the number of people fighting for a candidate who also repeatedly stress they will vote for the nominee whoever it is. I hope that's true.

You made in insightful post in my view, R220.

I am so tired of the pandering to blacks. White people don't care if blacks don't like Elizabeth Warren. If the blacks in South Carolina want Joe Biden, then they can vote for him. Whites are a far larger voting block, and we're going to go with Warren because she's a better candidate.

I'm a white for Biden. My partner is a white for Pete. You might want to consult with the rest of the whites there, R222.

Oh fuck off you racist asshole at R222. We've been pandering to whites for 250 fucking years in this country.

If you don't care that blacks don't like Warren, then you're going to lose. You better fucking START caring.

Warren is better than Biden, maybe, but she's not going to win. Harris is better than both Warren or Biden, bud you're not paying attention to her or acknowledging that fact because you're a racist arrogant white-privileged moron.

Wake the fuck up, or we're going to lose this again.

Unfortunately for you, R222, no Democrat can be elected President without the active support of African Americans.

I'm a white man for Kamala Harris. And being a gay man, I recognize she has by far the longest and best record on LGBT issues of anyone running (including Pete). And she's got the legal smarts as a prosecutor to tackle the criminal corruption of Trump and the GOP. She's pragmatic as well as progressive, and has a record of achieving both success and change within the system.

[quote]If Warren is only exciting non-Latino white voters in coastal liberal enclaves

It's been pointed out many times in this thread, the title of which references Iowa, that Warren has broad support and is drawing huge crowds in rural and Midwestern areas, as well as "coastal liberal enclaves".

The fact that you refuse to believe it isn't her problem.

[quote]Harris is better than both Warren or Biden, bud you're not paying attention to her or acknowledging that fact because you're a racist arrogant white-privileged moron.

So all the black people who are ignoring Harris in favor of Biden...are they also "racist arrogant white-privileged morons"?

No, R228, they're terrified of a Trump win, and they think maybe white people would vote for Biden but are too racist to vote for Harris. Further, if you look a little deeper, you'll see none of that support of Biden is enthusiastic, nor are they fully committed... they're all open to others.

You really don't look at things very deeply do you? I'm betting you don't have many black friends. Or any.

I really hate how the Dem primary field is the most diverse candidate pool ever put forward in this country’s history, three old white people are in the lead... and two of them are men.

2020 is a referendum on white supremacy, and you fucking idiots don’t care.

Even the most milquetoast centrist woman or POC is a better candidate than a perfect progressive white man in this climate, because the most progressive platform in the world is not a refutation of the root causes of Trump’s rise to power

If a white guy with a perfect progressive record and policies wins, that will still center white masculinity as the solution to America’s problems. It will call itself a ‘revolution’ but reinforce the extant hierarchy.

Let’s take this a step farther: electing another white man, even if he shits rainbows and fixes all of the problems in this country, vindicates the ‘economic anxiety’ narrative that has been used to whitewash and justify Trumpism. It absolves every hate crime and injustice.

It lets white supremacist patriarchy off the hook for its crimes by playing into its own revisionist narrative. By saying ‘see, they weren’t REALLY hateful, it was just the economy and therefore Obama’s fault’ Trump’s entire movement is rationalized and excused.

Older black voters will dutifully vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is, but young black voters have a more independent and contrarian spirit that is partly to blame for Hillary’s loss. They are prone to stay home if they don’t love the nominee, which is essentially throwing the election to Trump,

R231, the same is true of younger progressive voters, so don't make that into a race thing. Them staying home or voting Stein becaues they were throwing a tantrum that Saint Bernard didn't win threw the election to Trump.

I just don’t see black or latin youth getting excited about Warren.

My point as a black person is that Warren doesn’t energize us. She doesn’t electrify the urban or Youth vote.

[quote]No, [R228], they're terrified of a Trump win, and they think maybe white people would vote for Biden but are too racist to vote for Harris. Further, if you look a little deeper, you'll see none of that support of Biden is enthusiastic, nor are they fully committed... they're all open to others.

Yeah, but none of those black Biden supporters would ever vote for Warren according to almost everyone in this thread... so how really "open to others" are they??

Iowa Democratic primary voters aren’t just extremely white, but also extremely progressive relative to the overall General election voter.

[quote}young black voters have a more independent and contrarian spirit that is partly to blame for Hillary’s loss. They are prone to stay home if they don’t love the nominee, which is essentially throwing the election to Trump,

That's why it's a mistake to pander to them, since they can't be bothered to show up to vote anyway. We should nominate the candidate that most excites white voters, specifically in PA, WI, and MI to vote Democratic.

[quote]That so many white liberals honestly & sincerely believe that Eizabeth Warren can win the Electoral College ... derives from our deeply segregated society.

No, R220, it derives from reviewing all of the available data. Against all of the available data you have ... absolutely nothing but this self-evidently stupid drivel.

Warren doesn’t do that

[quote]Warren is better than Biden, maybe, but she's not going to win

I rest my case.

White progressive elites think Warren can win. Everyone else knows better

For better or worse, the people who show up on election day, every election day are supporting Biden. The people who are always trying to teach lessons, and who like to call others stupid and moronic for having different opinions and who think they know better from their woke blue bubbles support Warren. This is the same crowd who didn't show up for Obama in 2010. This is the crowd who stayed at home in 2016. This is the crowd who thinks they know better than black, rural, and moderate democrats. This is the crowd who wouldn't give Elizabeth Warren a second glance if she weren't a woman. And let's be honest, this is the crowd who just wants a bunch of free shit, while knowing full well that this doesn't play well to independents and swing voters, because they can't see what the world is like outside of their lily white blue enclaves.

I think it's clear from this past week's news who Trump fears the most.

Massachusetts politicians are National losers. Americans love to reject and hate on them. It’s a sport.

warren and Buttigieg!!!

You’re not gonna get your average General election voter in North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, or Wisconsin to vote for a largely secular Massachusetts professor. Common sense

[quote] For better or worse, the people who show up on election day, every election day are supporting Biden. The people who are always trying to teach lessons, and who like to call others stupid and moronic for having different opinions and who think they know better from their woke blue bubbles support Warren. This is the same crowd who didn't show up for Obama in 2010. This is the crowd who stayed at home in 2016.

Blah, blah, blah. I'm supporting Warren and I campaigned for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and for HRC in 2016 and have never missed an election. And I know many others like me.

[quote]White progressive elites think Warren can win. Everyone else knows better

Black South Carolinians think Biden can win. Everyone else knows better.

I fear Biden will continue to be a continuous gaffe machine, but I’ll take my chances with him because he can win the general election in virginia, nc, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida by neutralizing the cultural issue that win elections for Republicans. Warren will only ignite the cultural Wars, like Hillary.

[quote]Even the most milquetoast centrist woman or POC is a better candidate than a perfect progressive white man in this climate, because the most progressive platform in the world is not a refutation of the root causes of Trump’s rise to power

So by your logic...Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker should be the frontrunners at this point.

Sure Jan.

[quote] That's why it's a mistake to pander to them, since they can't be bothered to show up to vote anyway.

What's a mistake is to shrug your shoulders and give up on the youth (of all races) vote, instead of trying to get them to the polls.

[quote]Yeah, but none of those black Biden supporters would ever vote for Warren according to almost everyone in this thread...

LOL... Wow... you really are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

Either that, or a deliberate troll.

Ask any Warren supporter why they support her. They all give the same basic answer, "it's a woman's turn".

[quote] Whites are a far larger voting block, and we're going to go with Warren because she's a better candidate.

No, honey. Whites are a far larger block, it's true, but unlike black and latino voters, a large percentage of white people vote Republican, which is (one reason) why we can't just pander to white voters and think that's enough to elect Warren or any other Dem. I am a Warren supporter but I think she's going to make herself electable by expanding her support among voters of color, not by saying, "fuck it; white people love me."

[quote]The people who are always trying to teach lessons, and who like to call others stupid and moronic for having different opinions and who think they know better from their woke blue bubbles support Warren.

With your every post here, you're confirming the "stupid and moronic" accusations. You're being called out for the stupidity of what you're writing here. Statements like:

[quote] I am still not convinced that she will get us swing states and independent voters, regardless of what the current data says.

[quote] There are a lot of democrats who feel that since we got a black guy out of the way, that now it's a woman's turn. That is no way to choose a president. Warren is the type of candidate who turns off swing state voters and independents.

[quote] Let's be honest here, some of you are so pissed off that black and rural and moderate democrats are locked in with Biden, that you are going to stamp your little feet until you can push Warren through.

[quote] It's a woman's turn, that's all you care about. Not about getting Trump out of office and winning this fucking election.

[quote] Democrats do not have the luxury of running too far to the left, because we depend on independents and swing states more so than republicans do.

[quote]Warren doesn't bring anything new to the discussion, just a bunch of wild proposals that are going to turn off swing voters.

[quote]For better or worse, the people who show up on election day, every election day are supporting Biden.

All of these statements are pretty damn stupid. Deal with it.

Speaking of stupid:

[quote]Ask any Warren supporter why they support her. They all give the same basic answer, "it's a woman's turn".

Wow.... Just ... wow....

[quote] Ask any Warren supporter why they support her. They all give the same basic answer, "it's a woman's turn".

I've asked many and have yet to receive that answer from anyone but one person (and she had many other reasons, too). Some of you pulled a list of talking points out of your asses at the beginning of primary season and you refuse to let them go no matter how much evidence and data contradicts them.

Her reparation views and taxes to pay for her health care proposal make it very difficult to get the votes needed to win. She may be the most thoughtful candidate but she is not the most electable.

If black and Latin youth don’t show up, we lose. It’s simple

Reparations are not going to be a campaign issue, R257, as that's not where any of the candidates, Democrat or Republican, are going to be spending their time. Her health care proposal certainly stands up better than does Trump's, since Trump doesn't have one.

As for being "the most electable," what difference does it make if she is, in fact, electable, which is what literally all of the available data indicate?

Republicans please white evangelicals because they would lose without them. Democrats need to realize the same about black, Latin, and youth

[quote] Her reparation views and taxes to pay for her health care proposal make it very difficult to get the votes needed to win.

Taxes for health care may become a legit issue—she needs to admit taxes will rise while driving home the message that overall health care costs will decrease more than enough to make up for it—but only the racists of DL are obsessed with the freaking reparations thing. For most voters, whether they support or oppose reparations or have never even thought about it, the issue is at the bottom of their list of priorities. No matter who is elected, reparations are one of those things that won't happen any time soon, if ever, because there are so many more pressing things to address, so for most voters, it is rightfully a big "who cares?"

One of the trolls above also had things like this to say in other threads:

[quote]I think a lot of people publicly pretend to be repulsed by Trump, but secretly cheer him on or think he is doing enough things they support that it supersedes things they dislike about him.

[quote]I fear North Carolina has become fool’s gold for Democrats.

[quote]And Republicans still have an electoral advantage disproportionate to their population. Notice, they gained in the Senate because all these rural red states get two senators just the same. Also, almost all experts agree Florida and Ohio have become even More Republican than in 2016. Iowa is lost.

[quote]I think [Warren]’s a huge loser of The Dukakis/Kerry mold.

[quote]WARren [sic] is not likable in swing states

[quote]True. Democrats show contempt for the values of Middle America, yet are amazed they can’t get their votes

[quote]If messaging is the only problem, Democrats can’t win

[quote]Dumping the world “liberal” may be a good decision

[quote]Yeah gun control is a losing issue for a presidential candidate in swing states

[quote]The rock bottom problem is there are a lot more people who identify as conservative than who identify as liberal

[quote]There is a radical segment of progressives that would rather push their deeply unpopular views and cause Democrats to lose than to lay low and compromise to help Democrats get elected. These wild-eyed radicals are enemies of the Party.

[quote]Democrats need to focus on winning Midwest and upper South swing states, and leftwing policies on immigration or socialism won’t do it.

Concern troll is terribly, terribly concerned. Film at 11.

[quote]only the racists of DL are obsessed with the freaking reparations thing

Bingo. Hours of debate content, hundreds of hours of speeches, thousands of words on various campaign websites, hours of commercials: just how much of this has been devoted to reparations? One percent? Less?

It will be used effectively by Republicans to motivate people to the polls. She said it, it is a weak spot. You can be as high-minded as you like but it's real.

No, it really isn't "real," r264, which is why you can't find any actual data to back up your "concern."

Which is why a lot of Democratic operatives are chilly to Warren. They know she won’t play well in Middle America

[quote]she needs to admit taxes will rise while driving home the message that overall health care costs will decrease more than enough to make up for it

Actually, I would advise her to not do any such thing. She doesn't need to admit to the taxes issue because it's actually not clear that taxes on the middle class will necessarily rise. That depends on how this is funded.

What I'd focus on is the overall costs coming down and the benefits of never having to worry about health care: no health care bankruptcies, being able to start your own business without having to worry about health care, being able to take your children to see a doctor without having to worry, etc.

[quote] It will be used effectively by Republicans to motivate people to the polls. She said it, it is a weak spot.

It may used, but not effectively. She said it, but no one's going to care one way or the other.

Now if you actually had the data to back up either of those assertions, R266, people here might be taking you a bit more seriously. Sadly, you don't.

[quote]All of these statements are pretty damn stupid. Deal with it.

People can disagree, but that's not the kind of language you use to build bridges, but you do you. Those of us in the real world know and understand just how unelectable Warren is in a general election. But, bury your head in the sand.

You keep telling yourself and for efficiency's sake, draw on your experience in emotion management after Hillary's win.

[quote] Actually, I would advise her to not do any such thing. She doesn't need to admit to the taxes issue because it's actually not clear that taxes on the middle class will necessarily rise. That depends on how this is funded.

Okay, but she's going to keep being asked whether taxes on the middle class will rise, so she needs to figure out whether the answer is yes, no, or maybe and give that answer before segueing into the reduced costs and added benefits of her health care plan (which I fully agree should remain the main focus).

LOL... Oh, I do love the idiots who keep bringing up Clinton, refusing to acknowledge just how much the electoral landscape has changed in the past three years. Note how that statement at R271 does nothing at all to back up anything that the poster has written on this thread. All he has are these pathetic attacks.

R270, I'm not even going to bother to try to "build bridges" with someone so genuinely stupid. There is no point.

You don't live in the "real world," as you yourself admitted when you said "regardless of what the current data says." In other words, you're living in your own fantasies, burying your head in the sand, and refusing to live in the real world. But hey, you do you.

R272, that's not the way a smart politician operates. You take the question, reframe it, and answer the question you want to answer. Politics 101.

Except Republicans and others will gladly propagate the narrative she will raise taxes on the middle class. Obama was very careful to promise that he would not raise taxes on the middle class. Will she?

Of course they will, R276, regardless of what her answer is. And she can turn that one right back to them and ask about their plan. And then pivot to talking about the benefits of her plan.

"As race relations, racial disparities and perceptions of discrimination play a more central role in American national politics, some leaders on the left have proposed revisiting the issue of reparations for Americans who are the descendants of slaves. While there may be serious disagreement between racial groups and even among Democrats on the efficacy of government-initiated cash payments, Republicans are nearly unanimous in their opposition to such a policy. Not only does this present a formidable roadblock to passage of such a bill, but President Donald Trump and his party could use it as a wedge issue to further split the Democratic voter base."

Facts/data enough for you?

Exactly R276, she is going to painted as a Massachusetts Limousine Liberal who will tax the fuck out of "hard working Americans" and give their money away to "lazy Americans". I can already see the ads.

[quote] You take the question, reframe it, and answer the question you want to answer. Politics 101.

She's been doing that, and getting a lot of shit for it, even from probable supporters such as Stephen Colbert.

Nope, sorry, R278, because you're ignoring one teensy little bit of contradictory data that makes your point moot, as already noted above:

[quote]Hours of debate content, hundreds of hours of speeches, thousands of words on various campaign websites, hours of commercials: just how much of this has been devoted to reparations? One percent? Less?

No matter how much you want it to be, it's not going to be a campaign issue in 2020, which is why you haven't been able to find any data that it is now, or that it will be next year. This isn't what people are talking about; this isn't what voters care about.

She's trying to have it both ways. She's been called out several times on the tax implications of her health care plan and she pivots, obviously, every time. She won't answer the question. That's a problem. You can hear the Republican ad now 'But Elizabeth Warren won't answer the question. That's because she's going to raise your taxes and take away your health care coverage.'

And if she's smart, R280, she'll keep doing it, despite the hand-wringing.

Any politician from Massachusetts already has a scarlet letter around their neck as a tax and spend elite

And I can hear the Democratic ad in response, R282, since there is no Republican plan. I'm fine with a fight on health care, regardless of the Democratic candidate.

Meet Frank Luntz and lets see if what isn't an issue today can't be made into one.

Can we get some smarter trolls? Clearly, R284 is not one of their best.

Powerful arguments. Warren troll, heal thyself.

I've already provided the "powerful arguments, R288, multiple times in this thread. Clearly, you have no answer for those arguments, which is why all you have left is the genuinely stupid trolling. Come back when you actually have any data to back up your ridiculous assertions.

Sure dear. Arrogance isn't arguments. Though reading your back catalogue, you've mastered arrogance, I'll give you that. Interpret the silence going forward. You have a nice life.

[quote]Meet Frank Luntz and lets see if what isn't an issue today can't be made into one.

LOL.... Oh, you poor thing. Is that really the best you can do? I'd be delighted to have the Republican Party go all in on "reparations," as the Democrats point out that Republicans don't give a shit about the issues that *really* matter to the voters. That's a slam dunk.

We already know the issues that are likely to be a factor in 2020: health care, the economy, jobs, immigration, Trump corruption, plus a few more. Reparations won't be one of them.

LOL.... I've already "interpreted" your responses, R290, as I've run into you on other threads. You are hilariously inept, and hilariously predictable. And you still have no answer for any of the points I've raised, as your "silence" throughout this thread demonstrates.

You got nothing. Deal with it and move on.

R288; I’m a Troll for any Democrat but Warren. At least Beto is from Texas and can connect with Middle America. At least Warren can rub elbows at county fairs and go to churches and sound like a regular small town American.

I meant “at least Harris can” ⤴️

I meant “at least Harris can” ⤴️

R293: Warren is from, and spend the majority of her life in, OKLAHOMA. So take your concern trolling and anti-Massachusetts talking points and shove em in your cunt.

The Warren troll is clearly rabid and unhinged. What's going to happen when she's doesn't get the nomination? Will we have to suffer through a bunch of meltdowns?

ROFL.... Says the person who wrote:

[quote]Ask any Warren supporter why they support her. They all give the same basic answer, "it's a woman's turn". Elizabeth Warren surges in close Iowa race, new poll shows

Oh, and R297, I'm fine with any of the Democratic candidates, even Bernie, and haven't picked my final choice yet. I just don't like stupidity and don't see the need to pretend that such stupidity is worth taking seriously. It's telling how none of you can actually defend your remarks here.

R296, does the American public and media perceive her as an Oklahoman? Do you think she can win Oklahoma and is popular there?

I’m Pro Concern Trolls who are Democrats trying to win. It’s foolish not to fully vet and criticize your own candidate for the nomination. Head in the Sand Pollyannas aRe enemies of the Party.

I'm fine with "vet and criticize," too, R300. This isn't it:

[quote]I just don’t see black or latin youth getting excited about Warren.

[quote]Iowa Democratic primary voters aren’t just extremely white, but also extremely progressive relative to the overall General election voter.

[quote]White progressive elites think Warren can win. Everyone else knows better

[quote]Massachusetts politicians are National losers. Americans love to reject and hate on them. It’s a sport.

[quote]You’re not gonna get your average General election voter in North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, or Wisconsin to vote for a largely secular Massachusetts professor. Common sense

[quote]Warren will only ignite the cultural Wars, like Hillary.

[quote]Which is why a lot of Democratic operatives are chilly to Warren. They know she won’t play well in Middle America

[quote]Any politician from Massachusetts already has a scarlet letter around their neck as a tax and spend elite

None of these statement is about "vetting" or "criticizing." None of them are backed up by anything resembling actual data. Most of them are foolish. All of them are about your own personal prejudice.

You were also the troll whose statements were displayed in R262, R300. As with your statements on this thread, those others were not backed up by anything resembling actual data. Most of them are foolish.

Yes, Warren does keep dodging the tax question. And yet, her polling numbers continue to go up.

She knows what she's doing. Republicans want a sound bite of her saying she'll raise taxes, and she's not giving it to them.

She's framing the healthcare debate how she wants to, which is the smart thing to do.

Her temporary poll bump in a democratic primary means nothing in the general election. When they are not hammering her for being a tax and spend liberal, they are going to hammer her for the Native American thing, then they will throw in the being out of touch with regular Americans. She needs to stay in the Senate.

And she can hammer back with "Trump was impeached because he is a criminal".

Her polls numbers are going up in a crowded Democratic primary. I think most Democratic criticism of Warren focuses on her appeal or lack thereof in the general election.

[quote]Her temporary poll bump in a democratic primary

It is, so far, a slow but steady rise in the polls, which cannot by any reasonable definition of that term be called a "bump." And it has been a rise in her numbers against Trump, as well, so you're wrong on both counts.

[quote]they are going to hammer her for the Native American thing

Lord, I hope so, as that's been done to death and it's just not going to work.

[quote]then they will throw in the being out of touch with regular Americans.

I hope they try that one, as well, since it's so clearly false that it won't need much refutation. Warren's recent career has been all about "regular Americans." Hell, she's running a populist campaign, which is why we've heard comments from the Trump campaign that they're worried about her message.

Yeah, we know, r306, but that criticism, so far, has not been backed up by anything resembling actual data. Her poll numbers show her doing just fine in the general election, including in the swing states.

Oh God, more from the Warren troll.

I’ll Change my chilly reception to Warren if I start seeing major enthusiasm for her among Midwest, Florida, and North Carolina Bubbas, Latinos, African Americans, suburbanites, and Millennials.

CNN: Elizabeth Warren's rising popularity has been limited to Democrats | Analysis

Warren's "bump".

April: 6%

May: 8.4%

June: 9.2%

July: 13.8%

August: 14%

September: 16%

Today: 21%

Now what was that you were saying about a "temporary poll bump?"

[quote]Warren has not really seen any improvement with non-potential Democratic primary voters over the summer, even as she has dramatically improved with Democrats.

R311: "i.e. those who are not Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents."

Gee, what a surprise; Republicans and Republican-leaning independents don't like Elizabeth Warren. I think I'm going to have a heart attack from that surprise.

[quote]Oh God, more from the Warren troll.

Well, if you'd stop writing such genuinely stupid shit, R309, I wouldn't be having so much fun countering it.

[quote]Warren has not really seen any improvement with non-potential Democratic primary voters over the summer

You know who else didn't see any improvement with non-potential Democratic primary voters over the summer, per that CNN article? Joe Biden. In fact, his unfavorability climbed with this group.

Touché

[quote]The fact that Warren went to an HBCU and the crowd she drew was almost completely white should say something loud and clear... but I don't see very many white people hearing it.

Harris actually attended school at an HBCU, but you won't find a single black person supporting her.

Wrong

R246, if you supported Hillary, why are you now supporting a candidate that takes every opportunity to smear, slander, and throw shade at HIllary.

She lost my support with her constant attacks on Obama and Hillary, and even pushing (and having to retract) that stupid "DNC rigged the primary for Hillary" talking point bullshit.

Why do you trust her when she bashes Dems so much? She's like a female Bernie.

R252, Harris is a woman. What they're saying is that it's a WHITE woman's turn. They don't want a woman of color to be the first woman president. It's fucking racism.

This piece on Warren came out earlier this year and seems to have gone unnoticed since. It’s is a doozy. Just an endless list of contradictions, loose facts and questionable stories.

This thread reeks of desperate Pete supporters.

Or irrational Warren supporters.

[quote]Harris actually attended school at an HBCU, but you won't find a single black person supporting her.

So that somehow solves Warren's African American problem? My house is on fire, but look at the neighbour's lawn.

Every candidate except Biden has an "African American problem". Sounds like it's more African Americans that have a problem, because Biden is not going to be the nominee.

Democrats better make sure they please African Americans if they want to win. Otherwise, they will lose

Biden will be a spectacular failure. He's already ran several times and failed. But let's make him the nominee because we need to "please African Americans".

Like Trump needs to please evangelicals to win, Democrats need to do the same with African-Americans

I'd take Bernie over her, at least he's been consistent over the years.

I think Bernie has more electability in swing states than she does

I agree r331. I'm actually surprised DLers like Warren so much since she supported Reagan during the AIDS crisis.

[quote] This piece on Warren came out earlier this year and seems to have gone unnoticed since. It’s is a doozy. Just an endless list of contradictions, loose facts and questionable stories.

Uh, like what? That she had a car (possibly paid for by her brothers) her senior year in high school despite her family's earlier financial struggles? That it's unclear to what extent her mother supported/opposed her college ambitions? Wow, what a doozy! So scandalous.

You don't need to support Warren in the primary, but is it really necessary to be such an idiot about it?

[quote] I agree [R331]. I'm actually surprised DLers like Warren so much since she supported Reagan during the AIDS crisis.

She never voted for Reagan.

Out of the top 5. Biden, Bernie, and Pete are all more electable in swing states than Warren. Outside of the top 5 Beto and Klobuchar are more electable than Warren. But the Warren brigade seems to think that only democrats vote in the general election. They are all in for a rude awakening.

And out of the top five, R335, all of them beat Trump, including Warren. But the anti-Warren brigade seems to think that this cannot possibly be true, since it disagrees with their personal prejudices.

They are all in for a rude awakening.

I read this article a few months ago, it's an interesting piece. I don't really care that she used to be republican, but she and her surrogates are always changing the conversation and being vague about that time. I don't believe in purity tests, because people evolve.

As in most things, those on the fringe have the loudest voices. Those at the rally aren't indicative of the majority. Warren is a long way from the nomination (and thank God for that or we're sunk.)

General election polls:

Trump vs. Biden: Biden +7.7

Trump vs. Sanders: Sanders +4.8

Trump vs. Harris: Harris+1.6

Trump vs. Buttigieg: Buttigieg +2.0

Trump vs. Warren: Warren +4.0

Clearly, Warren cannot possibly win. How could anyone possibly think otherwise?

[quote]and thank God for that or we're sunk.

Repeating a genuinely stupid assertion doesn't make it any less stupid, R338.

That data is somewhat misleading. Show us the head to head matchup in swing states. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Virginia.

She's doing fine there, as well, R341. The most recent Florida poll, for example, has Biden -1 to Trump and Warren tied with Trump.

Overall, Warren is +2 over Trump in Florida, +3.5 over Trump in Pennsylvania, +4.0 over Trump in Michigan, tied in Wisconsin, and -1 in Ohio. RCP doesn't have a Virginia poll. 538 has a Virginia poll showing Warren +13 but it's from a C++ pollster.

Look, I've never once said that Warren is our best candidate or that she's polling the best against Trump. I'm only speaking out about the remarkably clueless people who are claiming that she cannot possibly win. That's belied by all of the available data. See R217 for a longer list of all of the reasons those assertions are nonsensical.

The other reason that I think the claims about Warren's unelectability are bullshit is how Warren has handled this process thus far. Her campaign was supposed to be dead in the water after the "Pocahontas" story. She was fifth in the polls at 4.5%, behind Biden, Sanders, O'Rourke, and Harris, and most political pundits had written her off.

She's run a steady campaign since, has come up with some good strategies, has invested heavily in campaign infrastructure in Iowa and Nevada, in particular, two early caucus states where that really matters and where some strategists believe she's assembled the strongest teams, has come through the early debates without a hitch, improving her net favorability in the process after each debate, pushed herself ahead of Sanders in the polls and is now challenging Biden.

That kind of slow, steady progress over a nine-month period doesn't happen by accident and doesn't come from a single "bump" in the polls. I think that, right now, she has run a better campaign than any of the other Democratic candidates.

I repeat: I've never said that she's the best candidate but the data we have show that she has the political skill to win. Whether she will win or not, either the Democratic nomination or the Presidency, is too damn soon to say. But it's also too damn soon to write her off and insist that she cannot win.

As to who I'm backing personally? All of them. I like all of the major Democratic candidates, think that they each would make a good President, albeit with differing strengths, and I'm not selecting one or ruling any of them out until a few weeks prior to the primary in my state. I've donated small amounts to three of them and will likely donate again in a few months as the campaign firms up.

I'm comfortable with the data that show they can all beat Trump and comfortable that Trump remains his own worst enemy as this campaign unfolds. I like the Democratic Party's chances in 2020. If I get new data that show that these early prognostications are wrong, I'll change my position based on that data at that time.

Minor clarification: "I've never said that she's the best candidate...." Specifically, I've never said that she's the best candidate [bold]against Trump[/bold].

[quote] I campaigned against hillary and look how that turned out in 2016. I don't care if trump gets elected

Oh, so you're the reason Hillary Clinton lost? ::eyeroll::

[quote] She also shares traits with Trump such as homophobia and racism. Like how Trump is a fraud, this cunt fraudulently grew her career by lying about her race. Like Trump, this old slut has same foreign trade policy. So having her or Trump will make little difference. I will spend every fucking minute to actively campaign against her.

Good luck with your insane narrative. No sane person believes that she is as bad as Trump. And make sure you use as many gendered slurs as possible when campaigning against her. That way, there will be no question as to why you really don't want her.

There is no "best candidate" - we shouldn't destroy each candidate. Listen and consider. Then the one who wins the nomination we should rally around. This is very simple. Unfortunately, it does not provide fodder for MEDIA profits. Nor for you social media pundits to shart and squawk and skree for another year. Too many people are being very exhausting and stupid about this.

So those guys on the El Chapo Trap House podcast are all Bernie bros, right?

God, they hate Elizabeth Warren.

Ok I am watching Carnival Ep 1. I am immediately disappointed with the lighting - it's one of those murky look series, with toned down colours, inky night scenes, and grey or sepia filters over everything! Tourmaline looks promising.

R299: She has the twang. And she can relate based on her story. I have no idea if she is popular there, and she won't win the state. That doesn't matter of course, as no Democrat will. The point is, the character assassination of her because she's form MA is just Republican level stupidity, and it's not even true. As is this retarded notion that she wanted gays dead during the AIDS crisis. Really sick shit from you trolls. But most of these posts are straight alt-right trolls come here to cause problems since they have no life.

And bless R301 for doing the Lord's Work of calling these straight, right wing trolls out on their unsubstantiated bullshit. We can see their pathetic rage at being exposed by the sputtering of the posts that have followed since.

God, what a windbag.

How is she polling with African Americans and Independents?

[Quote]And bless R301 for doing the Lord's Work of calling these straight, right wing trolls out on their unsubstantiated bullshit.

I appreciate the fact that R301 is doing this but as someone else who has done this: they'll just come back in the next thread about the election/polls and repeat the same stuff over and over again.

The people who just make up things and state them as fact are not going to listen to actual facts.

Opinions are sometimes reached on experience, precedent, common sense and gut. Not every point of view has a footnote or a citation and it doesn't always mean they're hopeless or wrong. The narrow-mindedness on this thread is far more disappointing to me than most else. You can't seem to have a conversation on this thread, exchange ideas or points of view, unless you first declare Warren the winner of all things.

R353, it's the people who dislike or discount Warren who are making the concrete declarations on this thread.

You can't find one? Get serious. Blocked.

She'll do as well as another MA politician, Michael Dukakis.

[quote]Opinions are sometimes reached on experience, precedent, common sense and gut. Not every point of view has a footnote or a citation and it doesn't always mean they're hopeless or wrong.

True enough, not every intelligent opinion is supported by data, but what people are responding to in this thread is the stubborn and repeated spewing of opinions that are *contradicted* by data and evidence, and of so-called "facts" that are actually just made up. Obviously, you can continue to spew them all you like, but you can hardly expect us to be all, "You're so right! Those thoughts you pulled out of your ass are vastly superior to anything actually supported by outside sources."

[quote] You can't seem to have a conversation on this thread, exchange ideas or points of view, unless you first declare Warren the winner of all things.

Huh? There are a zillion anti-Warren comments on this thread. You sound an awful lot like someone who's just licking his wounds because no one declared him the cleverest little boy in the thread.

[quote] Not every point of view has a footnote or a citation and it doesn't always mean they're hopeless or wrong.

No, but it is hopeless and wrong when it is backed up by lies and false assertions. Posters throughout this thread have lied about Warren and the people who support her. Now, why would someone lie about a democratic candidate strongly leading in the polls? Who could possibly gain something from that? I don't think you need to be a genius to figure that out.

The Warren Troll loves to call people stupid and has been sucking the life out of this thread. Not everyone who is not supporting Warren in the primary is a troll or stupid. But she is indicative of many Warren supporters.

R356

Her credentials as a POC will guarantee her victory!

Harvard made her their first Professor of Color!

[quote]She'll do as well as another MA politician, Michael Dukakis.

Another wicked retah-ded comment from someone obsessed with MA. Makes every bit as much sense as saying, "She'll do as well as another MA politician, John F. Kennedy."

[quote] Not everyone who is not supporting Warren in the primary is a troll or stupid.

No, of course not. But there are some really stupid comments and outright lies from non-Warren supporters in this thread.

[quote]But there are some really stupid comments and outright lies from non-Warren supporters in this thread.

In YOUR opinion. Acting like a smug know it all turns people off. What happens if she gets the nomination? Do you expect all the people you called stupid and treated like shit to just forget all that.

I cannot imagine a scenario where she wins.

Trump would have to drop out tomorrow for her to beat Pence.

Tulsi is the only one who can actually beat him.

Is R364 a parody post? It has to be.

[quote] What happens if she gets the nomination? Do you expect all the people you called stupid and treated like shit to just forget all that.

LOL. Treated like shit? An anonymous poster has a difference in opinion and you think people are calling you names and treating you like shit. Damn, grow a thicker skin!

[quote] What happens if she gets the nomination? Do you expect all the people you called stupid and treated like shit to just forget all that.

One hopes nobody is actually SO stupid as to base his voting decisions on whose anonymous supporters hurt his little feelings on DL! But if the 2–3 people I have insulted in this thread decide not to vote for Warren because of it, I'm sure the earth will keep spinning.

BTW, though you just addressed me as though I'm the only person in this thread who's pointed out stupidity and lies, there are actually at least two of us, probably more.

LOVE THEM ALL - every Dem in the primaries (with the exception of Tulsi, who is a homophobic CUNT and polling at 0%). Almost ALL of them are better than the HELL that we are experiencing now. So let's just celebrate any of them and promote them all.

With that I cannot argue, r368!

I've been a Biden supporter, but I'm starting to lean slightly towards Warren at this point. Biden, like Harris, has run a horrendous campaign. You can't look at what they've done so far and feel confident in a matchup against Trump, much less their ability to have a successful presidency.

I feel more confident about Warren's electability, since several recent polls have shown her running about equal with Biden vs. Trump.

One very important thing to remember is that Warren has the ability to expand the electorate. Rachel Bitecofer, who was the most accurate pundit in 2018, said that Warren would bring out voters who don't usually vote, and who aren't showing up in the polls. Trump did this in 2016 and that's why he won. He brought out unlikely voters in droves because his message appealed to them. Bitecofer is convinced that Warren would do that for our side. It's a compelling argument. Biden is not going to do that, just like Hillary couldn't.

[quote] In YOUR opinion.

It's not an opinion that some of the statements in thread are lies. It's a fact that can be proven with other facts.

[quote] Acting like a smug know it all turns people off.

So does expecting a hug and a participation trophy because you contributed some falsehoods and uniformed opinions to a discussion.

[quote] One very important thing to remember is that Warren has the ability to expand the electorate. Rachel Bitecofer, who was the most accurate pundit in 2018, said that Warren would bring out voters who don't usually vote, and who aren't showing up in the polls.

Just read a similar thought in an article discussing the results of a Reuters/Ipsos poll:

[quote] Eight in 10 Warren supporters said they were “completely certain” to vote in the presidential election, compared to 7 of 10 Biden supporters and 6 of 10 Sanders supporters. The findings suggest Warren may outperform her poll numbers in some nominating contests because her supporters are more likely to vote.

On a note completely unrelated to any of the primary candidates, why does this thread feature an ad for "Adam and Eve" sex toys, with a pic of a straight couple making out? (Yes, I know I could cough up a couple bucks and see no ads, but DL annoys me in too many ways to give it my money.)

I love it when trolls are so abundant that tons and tons of messages are not readable. SPANK THOSE TROLLS!

White suburban women will decide this election. All the other groups will go the same way they went in 2016 with a slight variation in Independents (who are all just embarrassed Repugs at this point anyway) who will just not vote and blacks who will show up in slightly higher numbers (that is if they are allowed to fucking vote!) because they fucking hate Trump. But, the huge swing away from Repugs toward Democrats will be white suburban women and, I believe, even white non-college educated women. Warren speaks to them. Warren excites them.

Warren/Buttigieg 2020

Middle-Class Liberal White College-Grad Gay Guy says Warren/Buttigieg 2020 sounds like a losing ticket.

Selfie lines/calls from your kitchen will not get this job done. Warren is appealing to a low information group of voters who simply want Trump out. She sat out every big fight in this nation including Civil Rights, Women’s Rights & AIDS Epidemic. Think about this. She's not the fighter we need to clean up this mess.

R367, if "the kinds of people the candidate attracts" isn't in your calculus of support, it should be.

I look at who Bernie attracts, and know for damn sure he'll never get my vote under any circumstances. And now I see Warren attracting some of the same people, or people with some of the same bullying ignorant racist problems.... and it does concern me, and should concern you.

In what POSSIBLE universe has Harris run a "horrible" campaign?

R379, her advisers allowed her to discuss busing in a debate as some "gotcha" point, then they allowed her to go a candidates forum and promise millions of dollars towards black home ownership. The latter is not a bad thing, in theory, but pisses other constituencies who may also want houses. She has flip flopped on several issues and has not been able to adequately explain or defend her criminal justice record. And quite frankly, the main failure of her campaign, is not being able to explain to the American public why she wants to be president and why we should vote her.

Everyone else is pretty clear:

Biden wants to continue Obama's legacy and reset the country to back to something more normal.

Bernie wants to bring in sweeping progressive reforms and start a revolution.

Liz Warren wants to bring in sweeping progressive reforms in a softer, gentler, more thoughtful way.

Pete and Beto want to bring in a new generation of leadership based in moderation and thoughtful policy with broad support.

So R368, if it came down to Tulsi vs Trump, who would you vote for?

[quote]True enough, not every intelligent opinion is supported by data, but what people are responding to in this thread is the stubborn and repeated spewing of opinions that are *contradicted* by data and evidence, and of so-called "facts" that are actually just made up.

That's it exactly, R357. You summed it up better than I could. The particular whiner you were responding to also had these remarks to make:

[quote]DL has an outsize contingent of posters who see elections as a chance to soothe wounded feelings or indulge archetypes as president fantasies ... They do not see politics with the cold, clear eyes needed to win.

[quote]Her reparation views and taxes to pay for her health care proposal make it very difficult to get the votes needed to win.

[quote]You keep telling yourself and for efficiency's sake, draw on your experience in emotion management after Hillary's win.

[quote]Sure dear. Arrogance isn't arguments. Though reading your back catalogue, you've mastered arrogance, I'll give you that. Interpret the silence going forward. You have a nice life.

[quote]Or irrational Warren supporters.

[quote]As in most things, those on the fringe have the loudest voices. Those at the rally aren't indicative of the majority. Warren is a long way from the nomination (and thank God for that or we're sunk.)

[quote]The narrow-mindedness on this thread is far more disappointing to me than most else. You can't seem to have a conversation on this thread, exchange ideas or points of view, unless you first declare Warren the winner of all things.

These opinions were clearly not "reached on experience, precedent, common sense and gut." They were, in fact, "narrow-minded" bullshit based on personal prejudice and have been called out as such. The poster clearly did not like being called on his bullshit and he lashed out accordingly, pretending that he's being picked on by "narrow-minded" people who insist that he "first declare Warren the winner of all things." That whole whine was completely false.

That poster was also whining on one of the Brexit threads because people weren't bowing down to his screeds. And also whining about the "arrogance" of another poster in that thread who dared to disagree with him. It seems this is an attack he's used before. His last post on that thread:

[quote]Ah, the comforting refuge of the gotcha thread check. The echo chamber thrives. I'm content to leave you to it.

[quote]You realize your insularity makes you every bit as bad as those you deplore? Because if you don't, it does. It really, really does.

[quote]Bed at eight, children.

I rest my case.

Hallelujah, R359 and R363. I couldn't put my finger on it but it's the condescension, the snideness. If this poster indicates anything about Warren... in my unsubstantiated by data opinion but based on my interpretation of their tone and content... she attracts the same kind of unreasonable, obstinate cult support as Bernie, Hillary and Kamala. But it may just be a DL thing.

Anyway, she won't win the nomination and if she does we won't win the White House, so I am off this thread. It's a waste of time. Nice lady. Best in the Senate. She's not Presidential material.

[quote]The Warren Troll loves to call people stupid

Well, there's an easy answer to that: stop writing stupid posts, like:

[quote]Ask any Warren supporter why they support her. They all give the same basic answer, "it's a woman's turn".

[quote]The Warren troll is clearly rabid and unhinged. What's going to happen when she's doesn't get the nomination? Will we have to suffer through a bunch of meltdowns?

[quote]Her temporary poll bump in a democratic primary means nothing in the general election.

[quote]Oh God, more from the Warren troll.

[quote]Out of the top 5. Biden, Bernie, and Pete are all more electable in swing states than Warren. Outside of the top 5 Beto and Klobuchar are more electable than Warren. But the Warren brigade seems to think that only democrats vote in the general election. They are all in for a rude awakening.

[quote]But she is indicative of many Warren supporters.

I rest my case.

As for your other comment:

[quote]Do you expect all the people you called stupid and treated like shit to just forget all that.

If you're all hot and bothered by a single poster on an anonymous forum and pretending that this will affect your vote and your actions in the general election, then you're just admitting that you're, well, kinda stupid.

[quote]Anyway, she won't win the nomination and if she does we won't win the White House,

LOL.... And he wonders why people criticize him.

Oh look, the stalkery Warren troll has risen from its coffin, y'all. Does anyone have a stake and a cross? Maybe a clove of garlic?

[quote]Is R364 a parody post? It has to be.

Probably not. That's the Idiot Libertarian Troll, emphasis on the first word of that handle. He really is that clueless. He's pretty much wrong about everything he posts here, whether it's politics, economics, finance, or history. He insisted, for example, that Republicans would not only hold the House in 2018 but that they would gain seats there, which tells you a lot about his political acumen.

[quote]And now I see Warren attracting some of the same people, or people with some of the same bullying ignorant racist problems.... and it does concern me, and should concern you.

Oh, yes, R378. We're all just terribly, terribly concerned about "bullying ignorant racist problems." Really. Terribly concerned.

R386: Classic projection, as you, the biggest troll on this thread, call all of us who are using facts and reality The Warren Troll. Cute. But bitch I'm not R301. My posts concerned the idiocy that no one from MA can win, along with the fact that she is from OK, further destroying that ridiculous line of attack. All other "attacks" have been dealt with by other posters masterfully. But I can see how to keep your fragile ego in check, you have to pretend that it's just one poster, otherwise you'd have to admit that this entire thread has been a line of people lined up with paddles just whacking your bare ass over and over while the bystanders point and laugh at you.

I don't like that Warren is so progressive, but now I'm thinking she isn't and only co-opted Bernies policies to get his supporters. She isn't actually going to do Medicare for All based on her hedging about it.

If there's more than one snide cunt on this thread there's also more than one qualifies as a troll.

R389 needs her meds, stat!

Gee, R391, I thought you were "off this thread" since "it's a waste of time." As to your comment, I'll just leave it there, as you continue to do far more damage to your case than I ever could.

If you're not an American, I'm not interested in your opinons about electability. And I know that one of the posters here trashing Warren is a non-American.

It's always funny to watch the high intellect give way to raving lunatic just underneath.

r394 has stated her boundaries!

LOL @ r395 for the projection in that comment. What's even funnier is that he continues to whine and attack after just getting through saying that he was "off this thread" because "it's a complete waste of time."

Ah, the old block stalk. It's called a parting shot. I suspect with your charm and warmth, you're very used to them in real life too.

ROFL.... I do love this guy. He did the same thing on the Brexit thread, as well. Just couldn't bear to let anyone else have the last word. We're up to three "parting shots" now. Anyone want to bet on a fourth?

Warren andSanders are turning independents off who are crucial for winning GE according to this survey by nytimes

r400 You aren't allowed to point that out here without being called a troll/right-wing nut. I believe Warren will likely get the nom and steer her talk in a more centrist direction, she has already backtracked on Medicare for All.

[quote]I don't like that Warren is so progressive, but now I'm thinking she isn't and only co-opted Bernies policies to get his supporters. She isn't actually going to do Medicare for All based on her hedging about it.

Newsflash: Medicare for All isn't going to happen, regardless of who becomes President. With Warren, we'll end up getting some compromise that expands Obamacare and probably will cover more people and reduce costs, which are good things. At least with her, she's starting out with a progressive position, so when she has to compromise and move to the center to get anything passed... the end result will probably be something better than what exists now.

That's better than Biden, who plans to do absolutely nothing.

[quote]I don't like that Warren is so progressive, but now I'm thinking she isn't and only co-opted Bernies policies to get his supporters.

She also shrewdly adopted most of Bernie's policies, so that the other moderate candidates have gone after him in debates and on the campaign trail. She's positioned him as a punching bag, while she has managed to stay above the fray and look Presidential without engaging in attacks.

It's actually a brilliant political strategy. I believe she's strategic enough, if she becomes President, to outmaneuver McConnell and get a lot of her agenda passed. That's what makes her a good candidate.

Anecdotal, but I was speaking with two older females, one a Republican and one a Democrat, not long ago. The Democrat had long seen Warren has unelectable, and the Republican had long loathed her. In this discussion, they both said they were now open to the possibility of voting for her.

The Native American the thing reached diminishing returns a while ago, being something that is only furiously whispered among the base to rile each other up.

I'm kind of becoming a fan. Yanggang here, but she's smart and has so many detailed plans. I like her energy. It's just the Native American DNA thing that detracts a bit. And reparations.

You don't get it, do you, R401? You're allowed to say anything you want here but if you don't have the data to back up your views, you get called on it. It's pretty much that simple.

R400, for the first time on this thread, actually had a link to some real data rather than the kind of ridiculous nonsense they've been spewing here, such as:

[quote]I campaigned against hillary and look how that turned out in 2016. I don't care if trump gets elected, this bitch is fucking lunatic, hypocrite and she needs to stay far away from any public office. She also shares traits with Trump such as homophobia and racism. Like how Trump is a fraud, this cunt fraudulently grew her career by lying about her race. Like Trump, this old slut has same foreign trade policy. So having her or Trump will make little difference. I will spend every fucking minute to actively campaign against her.

That comment is loony and doesn't warrant anything but contempt. The comment at R400 warrants being taken seriously, more for what it says about messaging than it does about positions or about Warren as a candidate, though. The issue with the study is that it didn't have the voters react to Warren's speeches, Warren's advertisements, Warren's debate appearances, or Warren's policy papers: it had them react to stories about a "leftward shift." The study also doesn't address a Warren vs. Trump messaging, a "rightward shift" Republican Party story, etc.

The researcher, on Twitter, acknowledged that this was an issue with the study, one that they had thought they might address but didn't have the data to do so, at least not yet.

If it's a caution on messaging, I think it's wholly appropriate. If you try to use that as a prediction for the 2020 election, I don't think it's anywhere near definitive. The discussion on Twitter is worth a look as it's a bit more informative and calmer than most such discussions.

I think Beto owns the reparations issue; he's been far more (openly) into the white guilt thing, at least since Tracy Flick dropped out.

In 2016, everyone went with the data and ignored what people were seeing on the ground. People in Pennsylvania were talking about what they were hearing and seeing and they were ignored, in favor of the data. People in Wisconsin were complaining that Hillary never showed up in Wisconsin, but they were ignored in favor of the data. Why should Hillary waste time in a state that was locked in for her, look at the data.

Data is a not bad thing, but remember that polls are snapshots in time, and can be flawed. Don't just dismiss what you hear people say is happening where they live because it doesn't jive with the data.

She engaged in that bullsgit about Hillary conspiring with democrats to keep Bernie from being the candidate.

In no way, shape or form should non-democrat Bernie Sanders, who hasn’t done shit in his entire life, have been allowed to run as a democrat. He should never have been let near a democratic primary. Warren can go choke herself.

Also — give America a choice between a Harvard professor and a crooked game show host, they’ll pick the game show host.

Give America a choice between a Harvard professor and anything, they’ll choose anything. Because librul east coast wine sipping, bmw driving, Brie-nibbling, hoity touts vs red blooded, Mountain Dew drinkin, meat and pertaiters murkan patriots, USA! USA! USA!

[quote]Data is a not bad thing, but remember that polls are snapshots in time, and can be flawed. Don't just dismiss what you hear people say is happening where they live because it doesn't jive with the data.

People “on the ground” are saying that Warren is drawing huge crowds, even in rural and conservative areas.

People are interested in her everywhere. That’s not to be ignored.

Nominate Joe Biden at your own risk. He’s Hillary 2.0.

I wonder why Warren's huge crowds make her electable while Buttigieg's who draws bigger crowds than any one in the early states is a losing bet. And he doesn't have a fraction of media coverage that Warren has.

Ah, more false assertions. Many DLers are students of the Trump school of lies, lies and more lies. And if they don't believe you, keep lying.

[quote] In 2016, everyone went with the data and ignored what people were seeing on the ground. People in Pennsylvania were talking about what they were hearing and seeing and they were ignored, in favor of the data. People in Wisconsin were complaining that Hillary never showed up in Wisconsin, but they were ignored in favor of the data. Why should Hillary waste time in a state that was locked in for her, look at the data.

This is a very good point in terms of what Warren's (and everyone else's) campaign needs to keep in mind, but not really relevant to this thread, where the issue with some posts is that they are based on neither data nor what people on the ground are saying, just on what someone pulled out of his ass.

[quote] I wonder why Warren's huge crowds make her electable while Buttigieg's who draws bigger crowds than any one in the early states is a losing bet.

Her crowds don't necessarily make her electable, but they do show that the "people have no interest in her—or actively dislike her—outside of east-coast liberal cities" thing is untrue. As for Pete, not sure why he's drawing huge crowds despite polling way behind the top three, but it's pretty hard to look at his poll numbers and imagine he's going to catch up. The race is young, though, so who knows? I think it's too early to *entirely* write off Pete and Kamala.

r414 He is not polling way behind the top three in early states. He is tied with Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire. National polls are meaningless.

Presidential elections are won by the candidate who best fits the mood of the country at that point in time. So much of it is based upon luck, in that some unforeseen event can occur that ends up boosting a particular candidate.

Right now it's looking like Elizabeth Warren is that candidate. Her whole persona is built around cleaning up corruption in business and government. I can't think of anyone more qualified to clean up the unprecedented amount of corruption that Trump and his administration have racked up for the last 3 years. All of this is playing right into her hands.

I believe that Warren and Pelosi will go down in history as the two women who rose to the occasion and saved our country. It just feels that way, doesn't it?

[quote]Her whole persona is built around cleaning up corruption in business and government

This is why Warren will be the nominee. She has the right message at the right time. Simple as that.

[quote][R414] He is not polling way behind the top three in early states. He is tied with Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire. National polls are meaningless.

Not tied, but yes, not that far behind Sanders in IA and NH. I realize national polls indicate nothing about how Pete will do in those two states, but was responding to a question about how he can be drawing huge crowds yet not seem as electable as Warren.

Elizabeth Warren is every Becky who wants to speak to a manager.

Kamala Harris IS the manager.

^ Both of those analogies are silly.

Kamala Harris has the experience prosecuting criminals and cleaning up corruption. She knows the law, and knows what needs to change, and what needs to be enforced.

She wants to up-end sexism and racism, and break the chains of white supremacy.

Kamala is the perfect anti-Trump, the opposite of him in every way. More than just being a vibrant black woman to a dottering white man, she's the law while he's corrupt, she's smart while he's dumb, she's highly competent while he's a bumbling buffoon, she's working for the people while he's a narcissist who only works for himself. She's loyal, while he's a traitor.

She's also the only one of the top 5 that hasn't smeared or slandered or thrown shade at either Obama or Hillary. She's a true Democrat, who fights for Democratic principles, and helps others in the party get elected. She has a much bigger view than just the White House. She's helping Senate and House campaigns, as well as state campaigns.

[quote]Kamala Harris IS the manager.

Kamala Harris is "The Manager" on TNT this Fall.

[quote]Kamala Harris has the experience prosecuting criminals and cleaning up corruption. She knows the law, and knows what needs to change, and what needs to be enforced.

Which is exactly why she will make a great Attorney General.

She's not running for Attorney General. She's the most experienced and qualified person running. Why exactly are you trying to diminish her, I wonder?

R424, she's polling in sixth or seventh place at this point. Her campaign lacks energy and focus. She's not doing well. Why are you holding on so tightly while the ship sinks?

And, how, exactly is she the most experienced and qualified person? She running against people who've been the Vice President, who've been Senators for multiple terms, who've created national government agencies, who've been governors, etc.. I think you've lost touch with reality a bit.

r424 Harris who spent 2 years in the Senate is more experienced than a former Vice President, senators who spent decades in the senate, a two term governor of a red state. Sure.

She ran the justice department for the state that is the 5th biggest economy in the world, and you think that administrative experience doesn't count?

It counts a lot more than being a Senator or a Mayor.

And she's in the top five, not 6th or 7th you delusional twit.

Just a reminder that at this point in 2008, Hillary was 30 points ahead of Obama.

It's still VERY early. We're months and months away from the first primaries & caucuses.

A lot can happen.

Apparently none of you saw Harris in the Senate Kavanaugh hearings. She was masterful.

I saw her R429, which is why I think she would make a great AG. She's not presidential material. Her campaign is fucking mess and doesn't have message. I'm not even sure if Kamala knows why she's running.

R428, no one was paying attention yet at that point. People have been paying attention to this election cycle. The comparison doesn't hold.

R429, no, she wasn't. Do you remember her line of questioning where she repeatedly asked him if he was sure about something she had asked him? She did it in a way that suggested she had something on him and was about to have a gotcha moment that would end Kavanaugh in a spectacular way. Then, nothing. She did better with calling Fatboy Barr out during his hearing. Just makes more of the argument that she's better suited to AG.

Politico article on Harris's flailing campaign that she is currently in the process of "shaking up" from four hours ago...

I just wonder what planet you're on when you say shit like that. You're either making it up, or you're not paying attention.

True, the media is basically ignoring her, but your assertions just aren't true, R430

Bernie -- too damn old, sexist & racist, and a mediocre unaccomplished old lazy do nothing.

Biden -- too damn old, out of touch, problematic MeToo issues. A gaffe factory with foot-in-mouse disease.

Warren -- a flip-flopping, plagiarizing, untrustworthy panderer that is too easily lead around by the nose, too easily manipulated, and a Dem/Hillary/Obama basher with almost zero traction in the black community

Pete -- too young, too inexperienced, seriously race problems in his community

Beto -- all nervous energy, lacking in experience (especially foreign policy)

That kinda leaves Harris as the best option. Beto second best. Castro probably third best.

But hey, you want to let racist, sexist, white male supremacy dictate your choice, go right ahead.

R433, you have the absolute worst political acumen. I mean, painfully bad. Harris, Beto, and Castro? Absolute insanity.

The Warren defenders on here are batshit crazy, calling people retarded. Sounds like classic projection to me.

No, R434, those are clearly the best options. They're also clearly not the most popular options. But objectively, Harris, Beto, and Castro are the best people we have running (in that order, with Harris being the best of those options). It's really not even arguable.

The worst people running are Sanders, Tulsi, Williamson, Yang, and Biden, in that order (with Biden being the best of the bad options).

In the middle are Klobuchar and Warren and Pete.

Again, I'm only speaking from a talent, qualification, and character point of view, not "who is most popular or who is most electable", but the ones that are best suited for the job.

[quote] No, [R434], those are clearly the best options. They're also clearly not the most popular options. But objectively, Harris, Beto, and Castro are the best people we have running (in that order, with Harris being the best of those options). It's really not even arguable.

It's extremely arguable. Harris would make a decent enough president, but what experience and qualifications do Beto and Castro have that make you think it's even remotely possible they'd be better than all the other candidates?

R433 (and quite a few of your other posts) - I LOVE YOU. WW for them all. Harris is by far and away the greatest candidate in the race for so many reasons. You did a great job of delineating those already. Whether or not she actually gets the nom - her campaign is going to upswing; it is inevitable with all of the recent corruption being publicly unveiled. We desperately NEED her experience and I love both her intellect and elegance. She sure as Hell has my vote (and I will vote Dem down the line no matter who becomes the eventual candidate). Thank you for your posts!

R438, you sound like a cult member.

Has the over-the-top idolization and fawning adoration of politicians always been with us? It seems really damaging to me.

r440 I think it started with all the false outrage the right hurled at Obama, the tan suit BS, that made people on the left go in too extreme of an opposite direction to never criticize anything. Same with when Hillary was running, all the false outrage about her e-mails was countered with the left not criticizing her for things that maybe they should have, you couldn't say a bad word about her without being accused of having a right-wing agenda. What I notice everywhere, is that with Social Media everything has become black and white and no grey is allowed. You must be completely up celebrities or politicians asses or you are a "hater", you are accused of having an agenda/being a Boris or whatever.

There is legitimate criticism of all politicians, I have experienced first hand corruption from a certain Democrat politician in my state but you have to act like Dems are only good and honorable people. Eventually I believe this will backfire, but the Republicans are so corrupt that it is easy (for now at least) to overlook the corruption of the left.

R441: It's DEMOCRATIC, not Democrat. If you don't want to be called a troll, you're doing a damn bad job of avoiding the label.

r442 This is what I am talking about, get over yourself. You aren't doing anyone any good calling everyone trolls, you are embarrassing yourself.

[quote]you are embarrassing yoursel

Oh, the irony, coming from someone who writes such drivel as:

[quote]I'm actually surprised DLers like Warren so much since she supported Reagan during the AIDS crisis.

[quote]I don't like that Warren is so progressive, but now I'm thinking she isn't and only co-opted Bernies policies to get his supporters.

[quote]You aren't allowed to point that out here without being called a troll/right-wing nut. I believe Warren will likely get the nom and steer her talk in a more centrist direction, she has already backtracked on Medicare for All.

[quote]... that made people on the left go in too extreme of an opposite direction to never criticize anything.

Talk about "embarrassing yourself!"

I have to admit-it would be highly amusing if Trump put his presidency in peril to sabotage Biden and then Biden doesn't even get the nomination.

[quote]There is legitimate criticism of all politicians, I have experienced first hand corruption from a certain Democrat politician in my state but you have to act like Dems are only good and honorable people.

Are you kidding? We Democrats are infamous for eating our own. Hell, Al Franken was driven out of office without an investigation, over what was probably pretty much nothing. No one on the left is guilty of acting like all Dems are above criticism.

R446, there are only two options for the person you are addressing. They are either a Repug fuckwad troll or they are so politically disconnected that they don't know that using "Democrat" like that is a slur used by Fox news fanatics. So, either way, just ignore it.

Biden is the most qualified by miles. And years. and years and years and years.

R448, He's also too old, too out of touch, and doesn't seem to grasp how things have changed, still thinking there are Republicans of good faith he can negotiate with.

If Biden is too old, then Bernie is definitely too old. And let's throw in 70 year old Warren as well.

How about we throw you in a grease fire. Warren has more energy than most people 20 years younger.

R450, Warren is only 70. The two guys would be 80 during their first term. Women also live longer than men in general.

The age thing doesn't really hurt Warren. But it can, does, and should hurt Biden and Sanders. The chances of them dying in office seem pretty high, and the chances of them being a viable incumbant for the 2024 election seems exceedingly low. Never mind the mental decline both are already suffering, and which would only accelerate over the next few years.

Warren acts 20 years younger.

Bernie shows his age.

Biden seems 10 years older.

When Oprah enters the race, it's GAME OVER MAN, GAME OVER!!

R454, Was that an attempt at a bad joke? Exactly who would ever vote for Oprah?

Rightwing is reportedly going to attempt a smear on Warren tomorrow with a former lover coming forward

R456, Why would a former lover being exposed be a smear?

Warren's fierce attachment to the myth of her Native American ancestry is an interesting psychological case.

She's made up:

- fake family photos

- a fake story about her parents having to elope

- fake "family recipes"

- etc.

Seriously, it's just weird. It's almost like the way a pathological liar behaves, and I'm not sure I can trust her.

Warren has zero support among African Americans.

She will drop out soon enough.

[quote]Rightwing is reportedly going to attempt a smear on Warren tomorrow with a former lover coming forward

Yes, noted truth-teller Jacob Wohl is holding a press conference today to introduce a 24-year-old Marine who claims to have had a an affair with the 70-year-old grandmother.

[quote]Warren has zero support among African Americans.

Keep repeating this lie all you want, R459. It's not going to make it true.

She's at 19%, above Sanders' 12% and below Biden's 40% according to Quinnipac. It's the same in other polls as well.

So she actually has more black support than any candidate other than Biden.

Is the Marine hot?

As a woman I don't see how Warren having a much younger lover is so damaging unless he has a wife and family.

I have to confess that I will never understand the sheer stupidity of someone like R459.

[quote]Warren cant beat Trump in a General, but the dolts in the Democrat base don't get it and will go with ideology rather the pragmatism. They deserve to lose.

[quote]Man, what idiots. Trump is laughing.

[quote]Warren is unelectable except in the minds of deluded ultra left Democrats.

[quote]She wont be the nominee.

[quote]When Oprah enters the race, it's GAME OVER MAN, GAME OVER!!

[quote]Warren has zero support among African Americans. She will drop out soon enough.

What can you say about someone so deluded? Even as a deliberate troll, it's pathetic. And if he's dumb enough to believe what he's writing, well, that's even worse.

[quote] What can you say about someone so deluded?

I think there are a few people in these threads who decided what they thought about Warren and her candidacy before the primary race even really began, and goddamnit, they are digging their heels in and sticking with those opinions no matter how much evidence accumulates to show that they were wrong.,

New (pre-debate) poll out of Iowa: Emerson, B+ rating

*Okay, one day after the debate was also included, which I don't really like.

When Joe exploded at Elizabeth and started yelling about "I got you the votes!!!!!" I was through with him. He reminded me of my long dead abusive father who would use my mother as a verbal punching bag every time he was upset about something else. Joe knew he was slipping in the polls, he is probably more upset about the Hunter thing than he lets on, and he just need to explode at someone and she got on his nerves. Fuck "Uncle" Joe Biden. Yes.

He did get her the votes, but he shouldn't have shouted. Really, no one should be shouting at any point during those debates. They're all mic'd and we can all hear them just fine.

Honestly, ending his inspiring closing statement with shouting bothered me far more. Can we maybe not with the battle screams like we're in 1819 and not in 2019?

He did get her the votes? Fuck it. He was doing his job. He seems desperate to make sure he gets credit for every fart he pushed out. He helped get votes for a lot of shit. That was his job. And others also helped. To hear him tell it, he was in the stable helping Mary give birth. he takes credit for things he didn't have much to do with, and he made some real bad deals too. Every single appearances he lapses into this recitation about how he did this and that and was the first guy to think of something, etc. I'm tired of his stank ass. I never thought I would ever find Bernie more palatable than Biden. But honestly both of them need to just go home. Bye.

I know, it's only technically true that he got her the votes, so it's good enough for the debate stage I guess.

Though I agree that he should've just kept quiet and not butt in when she was talking about her accomplishments.

Oprah is not going to run. I think she actually considers Trump to be one of her billionaire friends.

Now - maybe Michelle Obama.

Michelle Obama would need to start cramming foreign policy yesterday if she wanted to run. People love an exotic candidate... right until the moment that candidate opens their mouth and becomes the same as just any other candidate.

I say draft Carrot Top

IOWA POLL:

General Election Head to Heads:

@BernieSanders 51% | Trump 49% @JoeBiden 49% | Trump 51% @ewarren 49% | Trump 51

The elephant in the room that nobody talks about....there are MANY, both men and women, WHO WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A WOMAN. I know its absurd, but I hear that A LOT.

Biden has no business running....same with Sanders. Neither will ever be President.

[quote] The elephant in the room that nobody talks about....there are MANY, both men and women, WHO WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A WOMAN. I know its absurd, but I hear that A LOT.

So, people don't talk about it, but you hear it A LOT. Okay, then. You trolls really need to work on your schtick.

r477...dont be a dick...there is a lot of misogyny out there...and yes, people say it A LOT whether you want to hear it or not....but media and pundits refuse to acknowledge that its a problem. Thats why the majority of attacks you see are against the women running and not the males. People say, but Hillary had over 3 million votes more...OK...but she didnt win.

R476, that's the kind of thing people said about Obama when he was poised to become the nominee. The people who think like that probably aren't voting Democratic anyway, no matter who the candidate is.

And the voters have already shown that they are prepared to elect a woman, since a woman won the popular vote in 2016 and was less than 80,000 votes away from winning the election and almost certainly would have were it not for James Comey, an issue that will not affect any of the current Democratic nominees.

So the reason that "nobody talks about it" is that most people think it's just not going to be a factor in 2020. As for your remarks as to "neither will ever be President," given that we are over a year out and not a single vote has been cast, primary or election, that's kind of a foolish statement to make.

The people that are old to remember should know that Biden is a blithering idiot...always was, always will be. Yes, hes a nice guy...but his career only received a boost because Obama picked him for VP. His name recognition is the only reason he has support.

As for Sanders, people forget he has some shady connections to Russia also....aside from Tad Devine, who was also Paul Manaforts partner in the Ukraine, the Mueller Report even stated the Russians were helping Bernie. With all the stuff about to explode on Trump, I think were going to find out quite a bit more.

As more and more time goes on, I'm liking Elizabeth Warren less and less.

Considering that you've been rabidly anti-Warren on this and other threads for some time now, your statement isn't worth taking seriously. Clearly, you never liked Warren.

I started out liking her. She's been steadily losing me. And with each week that passes, she pulls more tone-deaf shit, more smearing of Hillary and Obama, more attacking Dems, more cluelessness on racial issues, and the more I learn about her past... being a Reagan Republican, having virtually ZERO history of supporting civil rights, the more I see how easily manipulated and lead around by the nose she is, the more I see those flashes of imperiousness, the dishonesty … the less and less I like her. She was as high as number two in my rankings a few months ago, and is steadily dropping down the list. She hasn't been in my top five for a while.

My reasons are all valid, and I'm holding all candidates to the same standards, and she just keeps failing.

I'm sorry if you don't want to look that closely, but that's on you, not me.

I agree, the more exposure she gets the less likeable and appealing she is. One thing I've noticed is that she comes off like a bot repeating the same exact script over and over like a lecture as opposed to a conversation, there's no real humanity to her. Every interaction she has with someone, whether it be a reporter interviewing her or another candidate, her demeanor stays exactly the same regardless of who the other person is, like there is no connection on her part between her and the other person.

I agree, the more exposure she gets the less likeable and appealing she is. One thing I've noticed is that she comes off like a bot repeating the same exact script over and over like a lecture as opposed to a conversation, there's no real humanity to her. Every interaction she has with someone, whether it be a reporter interviewing her or another candidate, her demeanor stays exactly the same regardless of who the other person is, like there is no connection on her part between her and the other person.

I started out as a total Warren stan and recall being so vicious towards Pete and Biden here on DL that I'm embarrassed to this day. People switch allegiances all the time. Don't think there's anything wrong with that.

The other elephant in the room is that Joe Biden is running out of money.

In the last three months he has spent more money than he has raised. Also in Q3 Sanders and Warren raised $25-ishM and Buttigieg $19M. Biden only raised $15M but since he overspent in Q2, he only has $9M left in the bank. Can you see the writing on the wall? Also did I mention that in Iowa, both he and Warren lose to Trump 49-51 (while Sanders takes it 51-49) and that Buttigieg is getting uncomfortably close to him considering the statistical margin of error (22 to 17). Poll Troll might want to chime in on the relevance of that.

I don't think Biden and his people really gave much thought beyond assuming he would be the presumptive nominee by the morning after super Tuesday.

Warren wont get the nomination.

The hard hats in the Democrats arent going to write their own collective suicide note by putting her up as their alternative to Trump.

They aint that stupid.

They know how to be pragmatic and not blinded by stupid ideology.

And precisely which "hard hats" are these? And how, precisely, are they doing to block Warren?

I do love the sheer stupidity of posts like that. The combination of arrogance and total ignorance is hilarious.

[quote]I started out liking her.

LOL.... Right. Sure you did, R483. You realize that we can see your posting history, right?

[quote]She's been steadily losing me.

Uh-huh. Since every word you wrote about Warren is not only false, it's stupidly false, it's pretty clear that you're lying about this other shit, too.

[quote]My reasons are all valid

Since you basically just made all of that up, no, they really aren't.

[quote]I'm sorry if you don't want to look that closely, but that's on you, not me.

I'm sorry that you had to make up a bunch of shit about Warren but that's on you, not me.

The hard hats in the Democratic Party? Are you George Meany? Have you just woken up from a coma?

[bold]Poll: Iowa caucuses are 'up for grabs' as Pete Buttigieg surges into top tier[/bold]

[quote]It's a new three-way race in Iowa.

Suffolk University/USA TODAY Iowa Poll, B+ rating

For the visual types...

Wow, Bernie really dropped. Must be the heart attack.

Don't worry, that AOC endorsement will do wonders for Iowans in the next poll. 😄

Also, quo vadis, Kamala? I suspect her next poll out of Iowa might look better because she's finally starting to get serious there.

Iowa is still very undecided:

[quote]The number of caucusgoers who say they are undecided has spiked 8 points since June to 29%. Among those who have a preferred candidate, nearly two-thirds (63%) say they might change their minds before the caucuses.

Also, Amy and Tulsi each got one qualifying poll for the November debate. Amy now needs two more and Tulsi three more.

Kamala was once top tier candidate so some moving up a little means nothing. Bernie will probably be back to been in the top three. Besides Bernie, Biden and warren have been consistent in all states poll.

Kamala was once top tier candidate so some moving up a little means nothing. Bernie will probably be back to been in the top three. Besides Bernie, Biden and warren have been consistent in all states poll.

It's the Q4 funding that's going to become an issue for many. People are done with a large field at this point and will start backing the top contenders, while jumping ship from the lower-polling candidates. The less money you have, the fewer things you can do in early states and the worse the polling gets for you there. It's a vicious cycle. That's where the stunts and the desperate tweets come in as they try to claw back some support with outlandish proposals and/or actions.

Kamala and Castro are the only two that haven't backed Tulsi AND haven't thrown Hillary under the bus.

Those are the only two I'm considering going forward.

R501 ...and when those two are forced to drop out?

Booty Judge is going to win the nomination. The Establishment has lost confidence in Biden, and Tulsi pulled a Tonya Harding on Kamala, so Booty is the new Establishment pick. The Establishment does not want Bernie and they’re wish washy on Warren.

I live in Michigan where Obama won in 2008 and 2012 but Trump won in 2016. Don't shoot the messenger but I think a lot of people are sick of the Trump drama and just want a return to normality and I think in this area Warren or Bernie may scare them off. I can see them voting for Biden though. I have said this before but I will vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is.

R503. The establishment want trump to win. Why pick a very risky candidate when Biden is very safe.

R503. The establishment want trump to win. Why pick a very risky candidate when Biden is very safe.

CNN just did story about how some big Democratic Donors are unhappy with the candidates and are seeking a savior candidate to come in and get the nomination

r506 This characterisation of Biden as the "safe pair of hands" candidate is way off the mark. His age, demeanour and continual gaffs make him anything BUT a safe choice. In truth there are no "safe" choices in the race, but that's not a bad thing since a safe choice is never going to inspire anyone to actually get out and vote.

I'll bet the old guy knows how to spell demeanor.

R508. A safe candidate and a risky candidate are both bad but at least the safe one will get people who are not comfortable with risk to come out and vote. People who vote for safe candidate do not care about been inspired they just want to win.

I used to like Warren. She was a good consumer advocate and used to go on Bill Maher’s show and very clearly explain how banks were ripping people off. But the 2016 election put an end to it. First, she held out on endorsing Hillary - who has faults to be sure - but she is someone who spent her whole adult life trying to get laws passed to help children and women.

. Then she said the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders - and she knew she was lying when she said it. You could see it in her face, calculating “Should I tell the truth and say no, or should I say yes so I can get Bernie voters in 2020?”

She’s an opportunist. I admit I actually thought about claiming NA ancestry back in the 70s when I was applying for college. My family has been here since the 1600s and moved around - records were incomplete. I could claim NA ancestry and no one could prove it wasn’t true. But then I thought “Karma will catch up to me.” Or in the immortal words of Maude, “God will get you for that, Walter.” I just couldn’t do it, my id was too strong. But Warren’s ego was stronger than her id and she went for it. So when she didn’t endorse Hillary & lied about the DNC, I was over her for good.

I’ll hold my nose and vote for her in 2020 but I’m positive she won’t win. And I’m sure there are going to be other things dug up on her via opposition research that Trump will use like a cudgel.

At least she doesn't throw binders at her staff - but I'll definitely vote for her, the tantrum thrower, the Franken destroyer, the elderly men, just anybody on the Democratic side.

Come on guys, please don't be picky! Your future depends on it - maybe literally.

R512. That ship has sailed. People might stay home if their favorite don't make it. Almost all the candidates are a risk except Biden. At least with him minorities will come out and vote which also includes straight men.

R512. That ship has sailed. People might stay home if their favorite don't make it. Almost all the candidates are a risk except Biden. At least with him minorities will come out and vote which also includes straight men.

Why are comments repeating again???

I hope Booty Judge gets the nomination.

But I’m not sure America is ready for Booty Judge as president because Booty Judge is too Bootylicious!

R509 I'm British, that's how we spell demeanour here....like colour, but thanks anyway.

[quote]Almost all the candidates are a risk except Biden. At least with him minorities will come out and vote which also includes straight men.

Here comes that minorities don't vote BS again at R513.

Once again you'd probably do better to figure out why so many white women voted for Trump.

[quote] I admit I actually thought about claiming NA ancestry back in the 70s when I was applying for college. My family has been here since the 1600s and moved around - records were incomplete. I could claim NA ancestry and no one could prove it wasn’t true.

Here's this other tired topic. This story has everything ....

Once again she does have Native American ancestry just not enough to mean anything to the tribes or enough for her to claim herself as part of the group.

R518. Listen white liberal. Minorities are not as reliable as they once used to. If most of you pick some other candidate besides biden then trump wins again. I live in a majority black community and they tend to vote Democrat but they have expressed a great discomfort with the selection of nominees.

[quote]I hope Booty Judge gets the nomination.

I hope his father has his teeth fixed.

I like Amy. She doesn’t want snowflakes & delicate geniuses working for her. You hand in bad work, she sends it back to you with an email saying it’s bad.

My husband knows a guy who gave up his business because he couldn’t get anyone to do a day’s work. The business was making and fixing vehicles like ambulances and fire trucks - old timey, hands-on work. All the guys he hired were lazy. He’d yell at them for smoking weed outside instead of working. He said they all smoked weed all the time and he couldn’t rely in them to fix things because they were so high He’d yell at them for making a mistake that could cost the company thousands of dollars and they’d get their feelings hurt. He said, “I can’t believe it. They come and tell me I hurt their feelings! I worked here as a kid under my grandfather, then under my father. Never in a million years would any of those guys i worked with get their feelings hurt. They did their jobs and we had laughs and good times. Now they’re all a bunch of crybabies.” So he sold the business.

Now they all want to talk about their feelings. Fuck em.

A big talking point among Trumpsters is that family income has gone up by $5,000 since he became president, And that the economy is chugging along, lowest unemployment rate for blacks in history, etc, etc.

Democrats need to be able to come back at Trump about the economy, Americans are simple minded people. They don’t want to hear about 2.5% of this and 3.7% of that. Make it simple . I dont know how to do that - I’m not a politician or a political consultant. But political consultants need to come up with snappy comebacks. Trump repeats things endlessly . The economy isn’t doing badly and it’s going to be a big issue. Democrats are going to have to frame the economy negatively and I don’t know if voters will like that. They want to hear positive things about America.

I can foresee Trump using the economy in the immigration issue. “They all want to come here because we’re so successful. America is the greatest and has the greatest economy in its history. Of course everyone wants to come here, but we can’t let them in or they’ll make us poor, using all of our services without paying for them.”:

None of the Democrats has to "frame" anything, R522. It's the other way around. The economy is only good for the 1%. For everyone else, it's stagnant wages and lost opportunities. Trump is in the position of having to explain to everyone just how good things are, which they know by their own experience isn't so.

If you're explaining, you're losing.

Who are these simpletons who still don’t realize the rise of Trump is not about the Economy. It’s culture.