Is Warren ready for Trump?

I think the latest controversy about her lying is gaining legs due to her continued evasiveness regarding her implication that she was fired because she was pregnant. Now, when pressed repeatedly, she refuses to say she was "fired," only that she was "shown the door". Whether it's true or not, she's not doing herself any favors.

I don't think this alone would hurt her if it weren't for the whole Native American controversy, and the fact that other candidates are calling her out for being "extremely evasive" (to quote Buttigeg) regarding how she plans to fund her expensive campaign promises like Medicare for all. When asked the question directly, she always deflects and never directly responds, which always feels dishonest and cringeworthy to watch.

Its starting to appear to voters like a pattern of evasiveness/ untruthfulness, whether it is or not.

So, people will vote for Trump instead, r1? Or be so thoroughly demoralized that they won't vote at all?

Trump is imploding right now, proving to be an outright existential threat to our democracy. None of this "controversy" shit will have any traction given the psychopathic, prevaricating monster that is occupying the White House right now.

As for her mettle dealing with him - I don't think he intimidates her in the least.

I was wondering when this type of propaganda was going to start in earnest. It is going to be a looooooong year.

No one cares about how she funds her campaigns. NO ONE.

No one care about the American Indian Controversy. NO ONE.

We're dealing with how bad a president can be. The little stuff doesn't bother anyone any more.

THis might sound strange, but if Trump is gone and we face Pence we have to be careful. If we get too agressive and attack him he will generate a backlash of sympathy. What has to happen in a Warren Trump confrontation is to provoke Trump into attacking and ranting like a maniac, a huge tantrum whileElizabeth remains calm, and that will do it.

I’m floored when the media acts like Trump is this great force to be reckoned. At his core, he’s a bully. ALL he does is call people names. Clinton trounced him in policy and his inbred crowd cheered when he said: “I'm putting you in jail.” He’s going to call Warren “Pocahontas” and Biden “Criminal Joe” or some bulllshit. They need to strategize like they’re debating a candidate AND a dumb high school jock.

I don't mean to sound flippant but let's call a spade a spade.

Despite Pence's discriminations, he seems wayyy more levelheaded than Trump. Lesser of two evils by far.

[quote] the writer is a social conservative nutjob: he has, for example, proposed the banning of all pornography.

This isn't 1950's, OP, most of the anti-porn force is from the far left now.

Whoever the nominee is tney won't be up against Trump or Pence. It'll be Romney or Kaisch.

The goal of the Trump campaign is to get the media and Twitter posters and the public to react to the American Indian jabs, and not shut up about it. (like I'm doing right now!)

THAT'S the goal. They couldn't care less how Warren herself or her campaign reacts to them, or doesn't.

This has always been the Trump campaign strategy.

[quote]If you don't think Trump is capable of getting under her skin, remember that last year he single-handedly convinced her to take a freaking DNA test, the results of which she proudly reported, not-so-accidentally endorsing the "one-drop" theory.

I still can't believe she did that. Beyond surreal. Though to be fair, she hasn't made a similarly huge mistake since.

These little stretching of the truth are nothing compared to his HUGE lies to our face. He is not going to change any liberals and he is not going to lose his base. It will whose platform effects the middle. His platform is chaos and hers it sticking it to corporations and 1%.

She is the only one that will fight in the mud with him. Even Biden is not quick enough.

Although, Klobuachar would be a much better POTUS.

r5 and r9. If the nominee is anyone but Trump. Democrats will win in a landslide. His base will stay home. The Republicans know this. That is why they are sticking with him. You know 90% of them would rather have Pence finish the term and someone else be the nominee. That is why he keeps firing up his base. He knows if he still has them, he still has the republicans.

R14, the Republicans may not have a choice, especially if things get worse for Trump.

r15, I hope that is the case.

Klobuchar, Harris and Mayor Pete are working their asses off in Iowa and New Hampshire. Booker too. Remember. No votes have been cast. We have until what? January or February. 4 months. And after that North Carolina I think. The Republican/Russian/ Brad Parscale smear machine is going to saturate us with negative distorted, divisive charges and try to damage and destroy the candidates. We absolutely must make sure we're out here telling people to ignore the noise, and just vote for the person you like. If they want to see their favorite go to C Span, and avoid the chatter and bullshit. And for fuck's sake, stop allowing Facebook to throw ads at you. My facebook is totally non political on purpose. I highly recommend it. Movies, gossip, special events, family & friends, etc. Dogs or other pets, WTF ever. But no political feeds and no political discussions. That's one way to get back at Zuckerberg.

Warren cannot beat Trump or any Republican candidate.

Her rabid fanbase have no clue about what it takes to win a general election.

She gets no Repub votes and she frightens away the Independents with some of her policies.

Her support in the minority communities is also weak.

She would be a disaster as a candidate.

We in Massachusetts know what a phony Elizabeth Warren is.

R7

Pence is pretty bad in his own right.

I really hope the US has another Obama type young male candidate who is classy, educated and a commanding presence to lead the Democratic Party. Or finds one FAST.

Can't imagine Warren or any of the other current front-runners beating Trump. That's scary.

Geez, Hillary 2.0? She easily is caved in for votes. That is her problem. She took the DNA test, supported reparations just because she is easily rattled. She can't handle Trump.

Biden did none of those attention whoring things and he already trapped Trump into impeachment inquiry.

Maybe I'm projecting by there does seem to be this swell of anti-Trump on social media. It's really noticeable and probably doesn't mean shit, but I just hope that he continues to hang himself. Even a very small number of Repub Congresspeople are turning.

NOT including that smug date-rapy Gaetz who was licking Trumps' butthole yesterday. THAT is a face that only a curb stomp could love.

^^rapey^^

I don't trust the surge in support for Warren. I love her enthusiasm and many of her ideas. But she could not work with Congress unless she is willing to compromise and if she is willing to compromise her supporters will desert her. Klobuchar is not exciting. In fact she is BORING. But she would get stuff done. Harris would get stuff done. Booker would get stuff done. Pete would get stuff done. Warren is being sued by the same people who pumped up Bernie. I'm not a Biden fan. Never was. But we have to get Trump out of there.

I believe there are Republicans who are of the Karl Rove school. Karl Rove allegedly felt that in 2008, the Republicans might have to sacrifice a term, and try to hold on to as much ground as they could in Congress, (they were in the minority) and let the Dems take it in 2008. They all believed that the young, untested Obama would be a one term disaster. They had no respect for Biden, whom they considered an affable light-weight.

In 1980, the Democrats believed Reagan was a lightweight, one-term, movie star President. Carter was such a disaster with the hostage crisis, etc. They were confident that Walter Mondale, Carter's popular, seasoned VP, could win in 1984. He was supported by all the right politicians, union leaders and faith communities. He had tons of support in the African American community too, in spite of Jessie Jackson's divisive posturing. I sure hope Biden isn't 2020's Mondale.

I meant to say "Warren is being pursued by the same people who propped up Bernie." Not "sued."

Yesterday a Warren supporter told me how Warren will move to center if she gets the nomination and broaden her appeal. I asked if all the video of her discussing her progressive policy positions during the primary was just going to vanish? She didn't answer and I just dropped the subject. I've starting to believe that the democratic party is approaching this election all wrong and it will blow up in our faces. But, oh well... RBG is not getting any younger or any healthier. But, you all do what makes you feel good.

Look. Primaries are important. But we have to commit to go with who ever wins the nomination.

Setting aside the politics for a moment, it's stunning to me that someone like Warren is even in the discussion to be president.

It was barely more 10 years ago when Obama's lack of experience was a big issue for many people. 20 years ago people would have outright laughed if she tried - she'd be another Nader, Johnson, or Stein.

Today, she's viewed seriously.

R29, ?

She's been a senator since 2013.

"She gets no Repub votes and she frightens away the Independents with some of her policies."

She was wildly popular at the Iowa Fair- pulling in huge crowds, more than a few of whom were Republicans. I know because I was there.

And if Tucker Carlson can concede that her Economic Patriotism plan makes sense, I'm sure other Republicans will too.

Finally, this thread is packed cheek to jowl with oily pro-Trump trolls.

IMHO, if Trump is the nominee it doesn't matter who the Democratic nominee is - the campaign will be an ugly, mud-slinging free for all (with Trump being the worse one, of course).

"the campaign will be an ugly, mud-slinging free for all (with Trump being the worse one, of course)."

And that will only animate his base - and serve to galvanize everyone else.

I think many people here a totally glossing over the ABT enthusiasm of the Democratic party (Anyone But Trump).

[quote]Warren cannot beat Trump or any Republican candidate.

Not according to literally all of the available data. This is a genuinely stupid remark that you cannot back up.

[quote]Yesterday a Warren supporter told me how Warren will move to center if she gets the nomination and broaden her appeal.

That's pretty unlikely and also likely to be unnecessary. Trump certainly won't be "moving to the center to broaden his appeal."

[quote]I don't trust the surge in support for Warren.

It's not a "surge." It's been a long, slow, steady rise going back nine months or more. She has out-campaigned her Democratic rivals thus far.

[quote]We absolutely must make sure we're out here telling people to ignore the noise, and just vote for the person you like.

Completely agree. They are all running against Trump, a historically unpopular president, whose coalition has already frayed at the ages, losing white women and losing the suburban voters, losing swing states like Pennsylvania and Michigan. And he's no longer listening to anyone, which makes things worse for him. All of the major Democratic candidates can beat him.

Look. If the Parscale crowd have internal data and polling information, and they have a formula and an effective pitch for how they attack her, then of course Tucker and every other pundit who supports Trump will say she "makes sense." Always remember they are determined to chose their opponent and to attack, smear, and damage anyone who looks like they can defeat Trump. And the dumb assed Media has learned nothing form 2016,and will assist them. So we need to pay close attention and especially go after the media when they get it wrong. They want a horse race that will generate ratings and revenue and they don't care what it costs us.

Trump is already running anti-Biden ads in my market. In fact, the fucker is about to be impeached because he’s so afraid of Biden.

[quote]I still can't believe she did that. Beyond surreal. Though to be fair, she hasn't made a similarly huge mistake since.

Dems should not fall for this trick. Trump's also using it in the impeachment fight by demanding that the House holds a vote on opening the impeachment inquiry.

It's the Obama birth certificate maneuver. Remember what Trump said and did after Obama released it.

If you comply, the GOP / Trump immediately move the goalposts and bash you anew.

Just attack their demands as propaganda and move on.

[quote]She's been a senator since 2013.

The fact that you would even put forth one term as a senator as being qualified supports my point.

She has no executive experience and limited legislative experience, even if you count this single term as a senator prior to this election cycle starting.

R38, if you count 7 years as no experience. You don't decades of experience to be president. A senator with decades of experience doesn't know any more than a senator with 7 years. It's not like studying to be a doctor.

[quote] Trump is imploding right now,

I've heard that one before, lots of times. But CNN and MSNBC over-saturation notwithstanding it never seems to actually happen.

Yesterday Politico and Economist released their latest polls. With both casting a wide net of "Registered Voters" Politico has his approval at 41% which is unchanged from September and Economist has his at 46% which is 4 points higher than the end of September,

[quote][R38], if you count 7 years as no experience. You don't decades of experience to be president. A senator with decades of experience doesn't know any more than a senator with 7 years. It's not like studying to be a doctor.

You continue to prove my point that such limited experience is now viewed as more than adequate.

At a minimum you'd want to see someone who had experience through multiple political, diplomatic, and economic cycles. While is also the grist of attack ads, it also shows how these people vote on issues and provides a meaningful track record of both accomplishments and failures. Additionally, when proven wrong, it shows character both in how they address being wrong, what they learned, and insight into how they might deal with such in the future.

If you want to believe that Warren has had sufficient experience in executive and leadership positions, as well as having sufficient view on her track record, that's your prerogative.

I stand by my initial statement that it's stunning to me that someone with her bona fides is taken seriously when even 10 years ago she would not have been.

[quote]You continue to prove my point that such limited experience is now viewed as more than adequate.

That's because it is. The flaw in your hypothesis is twofold:

1. Every president has said the same thing: there is [italic]no[/italic] experience that adequately prepares you for being president other than actually being president.

2. We've had presidents with all ranges of experience. There is no correlation at all between "experience" and performance in office.

I loved Obama’s presidency, but his naïveté on certain matters, due to lack of experience as well as other extenuating circumstances, showed in the first half of his first term. He grew into the role and did a great job, but a few more years in the Senate may have better prepared him for the realities of the job and navigating DC and Congress.

I think Warren is smart and would be a fine president, but I still feel that she is a little too progressive for a country that is more center-right.

R41, Bernie Sanders is no more prepared than Elizabeth Warren. And if you want to keep up your stupid argument, it's astounding that Congresspeople and Senators, with no experience outside the chambers, are elected president since they have zero experience governing.

R43, it's something of a myth that the U.S. is "center-right."

[quote]When we look past ideological self-identification to polling on discrete public policy questions, America appears to be far more center-left than center-right. In a recent analysis of Democracy Fund Voter Study Group survey data, the political scientist Lee Drutman found that 73.5 percent of the 2016 electorate espoused broadly left-of-center views on economic policy.

[quote]That finding is supported by polling on individual fiscal issues over the past year. Recent surveys have shown that most Americans — including majorities of Republican voters — support increasing federal financing of health care and oppose cutting taxes for the wealthy. And there’s little evidence that the Democrats’ left flank is exhausting the public’s tolerance for government intervention in the economy: Recent polls have found that over 60 percent of Americans support tuition-free public college (a majority that includes 58 percent of independents and 47 percent of Republicans); that over 60 percent of all voters favor Medicaid and Medicare buy-in programs, while a slim majority likes the sound of single-payer; and that 82 percent of voters, including 70 percent of Republicans, support new legislation expanding access to paid family and medical leave.

The people insisting that the U.S. is "center right" usually point to polls that show that voters often balk at some of the Medicare for All provisions once these are explained. But the thing is that federal support for health care [italic]at all[/italic] is a "center left" position, the ACA is "center left," Medicare and/or Medicaid buy-in is "center left," etc., and all of these are supported by the majority of voters.

Thanks for posting that link. It was interesting read. I think that often the difference between center-right and center-left is not the message, but the messenger. For example, the studies in places where people loved the ACA, but those same people hated Obamacare.

[quote][R41], Bernie Sanders is no more prepared than Elizabeth Warren.

And this thread is not about Sanders, now, is it?

If you want to keep stamping your feet and insisting she's as qualified as past candidates, then you're welcome to do so. I am not out to convince you, and you have not provided ANY substantive proof that she is more qualified, merely spouting ad hominem, strawman, and tu quoque fallacies.

"What about Bernie" is not a support of her candidacy, but a deflection.

Now, if you want to identify specific experience that refutes my points, great. Not simply stuff she's said, but actual actions taken (you know, like siding against women suing companies over faulty breast implants), am happy to be better informed about both her qualifications on paper and actual actions she's undertaken.

Pointing at the inadequacies of other candidates about whom I have not opined does nothing to

Ah, got it. R47 is a BernieBro. See r42.

Christ, she took a DNA test because she wanted to. She has a pretty high amount of it since we don't have a lot of native DNA examples. She didn't lie and she didn't get special treatment. I wish everyone would fuck off. Trump literally lies 10-50 times a day and the media can't bring itself to call it lying. Just that Trump "asserts" Trump "claims" Trump "insists". No, he's a murderous fucking liar.

[quote]Ah, got it. [R47] is a BernieBro. See [R42]

LOL - I think that Bernie is the worst thing to have happened in decades.

"What about Bernie" arguments simply demonstrate that the majority of the field is unqualified. This thread is titled "Is Warren ready for Trump?"

I generally try to stay within spitting range of the topic which in this case is Warren. Ad hominem attacks calling me, incorrectly, a BernieBro, does not make her a better candidate.

Pointing to his inadequacies, like those of so very many of the others currently in the race, is simply saying she's the best of bad options. I'd rather have someone like Obama who I actually believed was a good option, rather someone who is the best of the worst.

But again, show me that she does have sufficient experience, and she's more than having been a conservative rethug until the 1990s who consistently took the side of corporations against individuals until it was politically exigent not to do so.

No, she's not ready for Trump. None of the candidates are. You just have to hope that people are sick enough of Trump's shit and are able to stomach the other candidate.

[quote]"What about Bernie" arguments simply demonstrate that the majority of the field is unqualified.

So, BernieBro.

[quote]This thread is titled "Is Warren ready for Trump?" I generally try to stay within spitting range of the topic which in this case is Warren

Yet you didn't in your post at r29 and you opened the door for comparisons in your own post. I suggest you reread your post.

And, newsflash, Warren is engaged in a primary with 19 other people, one of whom is...wait for it...Bernie Sanders! Soooooo, comparing her experience to a democratic rival is on point.

[quote]Pointing to his inadequacies, like those of so very many of the others currently in the race, is simply saying she's the best of bad options. I'd rather have someone like Obama who I actually believed was a good option, rather someone who is the best of the worst.

Please point to the post where I "pointed to his inadequacies". I'll wait.

[quote]But again, show me that she does have sufficient experience, and she's more than having been a conservative rethug until the 1990s who consistently took the side of corporations against individuals until it was politically exigent not to do so.

Ahhhh, this says all I need to know about you..."she's more than having been a conservative rethug until the 1990s".

Sorry, BernieBro, you have a stupid argument.

R4 you are completely wrong in every sense of the word.

MOST care about funding and Trump can insult her out of the race.

Bernie is our only hope.

Bernie had a heart attack. Why are you fuckers pretending that he's okay?

R50 is the "SHE WAS A REPUBLICAN AND KILLED GAYS" troll. That explains the stupid insistence she doesn't have experience and all the other unsubstantiated bullshit about Warren it has posted. Newsflash, R50, she has more experience than your beloved Obama had in 2008. So shove it.

[quote][R50] is the "SHE WAS A REPUBLICAN AND KILLED GAYS" troll.

Um, no. I said nothing about her position regarding gay people. Her previous affiliation with the rethugs is on record. She was a rethug until the she was 47 years old.

[quote]Please point to the post where I "pointed to his inadequacies". I'll wait.

The statement: "[R41], Bernie Sanders is no more prepared than Elizabeth Warren" points to his inadequacies as much as hers or do you not get that.

[quote]she has more experience than your beloved Obama had in 2008. So shove it.

Yes, and I wrote: "It was barely more 10 years ago when Obama's lack of experience was a big issue for many people." I would have preferred HRC to him at the time because of his lack of experience, but came to appreciate his capabilities during his second term.

Frankly, at this point, I'm hoping someone not currently in the race (and not HRC regrettably) would enter the race and capture people's imagination as I am not particularly enthusiastic about any of them.

But, rather than your continued attacks on me and claims that she's qualified and has experience in governing during different political and economic cycles, why don't you provide some examples.

THIS is the problem with political discourse today. My originally point was: "Setting aside the politics for a moment, it's stunning to me that someone like Warren is even in the discussion to be president..It was barely more 10 years ago when Obama's lack of experience was a big issue for many people. 20 years ago people would have outright laughed if she tried - she'd be another Nader, Johnson, or Stein...Today, she's viewed seriously."

You have failed miserably to notice that I, in fact, acknowledged upfront that she is a serious candidate and taken seriously.

It seems the same people who were insisting last time that we had to nominate Clinton because she could beat Trump are the same ones now echoing that about Biden.

Awww, honey troll at r56, you know damn well that this...

[quote]The statement: "[[R41]], Bernie Sanders is no more prepared than Elizabeth Warren" points to his inadequacies as much as hers or do you not get that.

Was in reference to this...

[quote]You don't [need] decades of experience to be president. A senator with decades of experience doesn't know any more than a senator with 7 years. It's not like studying to be a doctor.

You're a stupid troll, r56.

And yet, no response to the Politico article, r58?

Dance, dance, dance like the fool you are.

Trump is a literal piece of shit who has take a dump on the Constitution.

Warren will wipe her ass with him.

I’m a Pennsylvania swing voter, and she has my vote.

[quote] The Native American ancestry controversy is not going away,

But it did go away. She's a leading contender for the Democratic nomination. Why are we discussing articles from The Week?

She’s in first place among Democrats. So Trump will have to beat her... except he can’t.

Anybody can take on Trump. He's an asshole, and the way to make an asshole shut the fuck up is to be a bigger asshole. Besides, the Deplorables love when people are assholes (after all, they're assholes themselves so they know from assholes). Once you've been a bigger asshole to him, he'll run off crying like the little bitch he is, seeking the solace of Melania's smelly twat (if she isn't hooking up with her secret service guy).

[quote]She’s in first place among Democrats. So Trump will have to beat her... except he can’t.

No she's basically neck and neck with Biden. The polls are all over the place. Politico's poll just out today puts Biden ahead by TWELVE POINTS.

Here's a more significant poll consideration. Biden has consistently been at the top of the pack when it comes to beating Trump in the GE. Warren and Trump run neck and neck. Biden is beating Trump by seven, Warren only by ONE.

So, do we want to win in 2020, or not?

She had to address the Native American issue because it is an issue for her and she did it early which was the right thing for a campaign to do. I'm not sure you can use that and say she'll be constantly caught off guard during the day to day events of a general election. She's run the best campaign of all the candidates so far so that's evidence that she knows what she's doing

r64 You just said polls are all over the place. You show me a poll where she's leading Chump by 1, i'll show you a poll where she's leading Chump by 8

Adlai Stevenson has a better chance than Elizabeth Warren to beat Trump in 2020.

R64 = black South Carolina voter who is in love with ancient senile white man Joe Biden.

Nice racism, r68.

Awww, r59, I've already commented on your whole Warren is a Republican shtick...

You're a BernieBro.

I also take it that you didn't read the article that you linked to because it doesn't say what you were hoping. Here's an excerpt for ya, spanky!

[quote]The story of Warren’s awakening—from a true believer in free markets to a business-bashing enforcer of fair markets; from a moderate Republican who occasionally missed an election to one of the most liberal senators in America vying to lead the Democratic Party—breaks the mold of the traditional White House contender and is key to understanding how she sees the world: with a willingness to change when presented with new data, and the anger of someone who trusted the system and felt betrayed.

The only one on this thread who is dancing is you, r59, and you look like Sean Spicer on DWTS.

Trump's "re-election" is not possible. The continued existence of the GOP is. The latter is the rot that permitted the rat Trump.

And R68 is the turd of the rat.

Nothing here is useful to anyone seriously thinking about the election. And the posturing and denunciations smell like baiting.

Pft.

Okr66, look at the averages of the head to heads so far. Warren is +4.5 in the cumes as of today. Biden is +7.4.

Something else to consider -- independents vote primarily on how much they like the candidate, because they are not very political. We MUST have independents to win the switn states. Take a look at this:

Trump’s election is a symptom of a country that is in severe distress.

A country that troubled needs deep structural change.

That’s why Warren is the answer.

[quote]I also take it that you didn't read the article that you linked to because it doesn't say what you were hoping. Here's an excerpt for ya, spanky!

[quote]The story of Warren’s awakening—from a true believer in free markets to a business-bashing enforcer of fair markets; from a moderate Republican who occasionally missed an election to one of the most liberal senators in America vying to lead the Democratic Party—breaks the mold of the traditional White House contender and is key to understanding how she sees the world: with a willingness to change when presented with new data, and the anger of someone who trusted the system and felt betrayed.

Wow - reading comprehension is really not your thing.

And, if I had to vote for one person right now, I'd vote for Warren before Bernie, if you really must know. While she may be questionable, there is absolutely no question in my mind about Bernie and his grifter wife.

[quote]"I wrote a best-selling book," Sanders said then. "If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too."

This quote says all I need to know about Bernie. He knows that offering people free stuff is the way to get elected and his entire campaign is about being Bernie Claus, not people or sound policy.

Actually, r73, the sad truth is, Trump's election is an indication that Warren is exactly the wrong person to nominate. In terms of election results she will be Hillary 2.0.

I bet you look lovely in a lime green Samba shirt, Spicey @ r74.

You really have no point beyond she was once a Republican.

[quote]You really have no point beyond she was once a Republican.

And you continue to demonstrate your utter lack of reading comprehension skills.

And get your own damn allusion, you silly, silly child.

[quote]And you continue to demonstrate your utter lack of reading comprehension skills.

Nope, my comprehension skills are just fine. This is exactly what you said...

[quote]Um, no. I said nothing about her position regarding gay people. Her previous affiliation with the rethugs is on record. She was a rethug until the she was 47 years old.

And, then, at some point you linked to an article that basically said that she was once a Republican but now she's not.

Come on, Spicey, let's see you dance some more.

Do you think Warren sounds/appears like a president should? The Klob seems more presidential than Warren. I see her as a grammar school principal telling kids not to run in the halls.

[quote]Come on, Spicey, let's see you dance some more.

And I reiterate, get your own damn allusion, rather than copying mine.

Then again, consistent with your overall tact of being like a dog with a bone.

[quote]an article that basically said that she was once a Republican but now she's not.

Yes, it's just that simple. Your failure to read the details and sucking in the editorial point of view of the author is both saddening and not surprising.

'Sober-minded'??? Trump is the least sober-minded President we've ever had.

I actually think it will be tough for Warren because of A) sexism/misogyny and B) Democrats are not only a group of divided people with varying interests but we also hold people to higher standards

do any of the lies Warren has told compare to those of Trump's? ABSOLUTELY NOT but I don't have any expectations for the American voting public. Many of us are beyond stupid and biased.

We had people saying Hillary and Trump "are just as bad". YOU KNOW there will be people saying the same about Warren

any Democratic candidate should kick Trump's ass but Americans are largely dumb. Bush Jr 2 terms and Trump are proof of that

Warren would easily beat Trump in the popular vote, just like Hillary did. It's the archaic electoral college that's the problem. Will voters in PA, WI, MI vote for her? My guess is that it would be extremely close, which is disheartening considering all of Trump's scandals and how unpopular he is.

It's scary that of all the Democratic nominees, we don't have at least 2 or 3 surefire winners. It doesn't give me a lot of hope going forward. A halfway decent Republican nominee would beat any of our candidates easily. Even if a Democrat wins in 2020, it feels like he or she will only get one term. Now that the midwest is turning whiter and more Republican, I don't see how we win the electoral college in the future.

R83 not only that but you just know that if the Democrats do win in 2020, right wing anger will be so large that they'll win the 2022 midterms. America will magically forget all the bullshit Trump & repubs are putting us through now and will be outraged at whatever Democrats do between 2020-2022

We can go back and forth from now until the end of this insanity on whether it is Biden or Warren who is better positioned to get rid of Trump. But to break it all down, we just need 80,000 votes in three states. Which one can deliver that 80K in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan?

Biden is already a two-time loser, so he’s a “no” for me, y’all.

Watch Trump get impeached by the House and then have a record win in 2020. We’re living in The Twilight Zone these days.

One of the many things I like about Klobuchar is how much time and outreach she is doing in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan in addition to Iowa and NH.

I really wish Americans weren't so juvenile about their politicians, needing them to be insanely charismatic, big impossible promise-makers (not big in the FDR-Truman-Eisenhower-JFK aspirational sense, but in the "EVERYBODY gets a pony--and FREE COLLEGE!!!" sense).

[quote]One of the many things I like about Klobuchar is how much time and outreach she is doing in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan in addition to Iowa and NH.

One of the bad things about Klobuchar is that she’s polling at 1%.

So yeah.... next.

I thought that Klobuchar would have been an awesome choice, but someone clearly had it out for her and basically stymied her chances. It's a shame, she would have been great in the Rust Belt.

2 things that could sink Warren:

A) she keeps dodging the question about how much taxes middle class will pay for her plans. Yes she has said she'll raise taxes on the rich but she avoids middle class tax questions

B) a lot of people like their insurance plan and want to keep the private option. She wants to get rid of it. The candidates who plan on keeping the private option will do better. I know Congress passes laws but the public doesn't care about that-they will think Warren will force people to give up their private option

Who would be stupid enough to keep private insurance?

[quote]Ah, got it. R47 is a BernieBro. See R42.

Moron, R47 and R42 were posted by different people.

And you don't have an answer for either of us.

[quote]But again, show me that she does have sufficient experience,

We already have, in posts that you have no answer for, other than to mindlessly regurgitate your talking point, a talking point that was debunked in R42. You first have to demonstrate what "sufficient experience" is and then you have to demonstrate that there is a correlation between that "sufficient experience" and performance as President.

You cannot do either one of those things, so you will instead continue to play silly games rather than admit that your entire premise was false.

[quote]Which one can deliver that 80K in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan?

Based on the available data, all of them, which means that we are free to vote for whomever we wish in the primary.

[quote]In terms of election results she will be Hillary 2.0.

So you've repeatedly asserted, without ever once providing any data at all to back up that assertion. But then, that seems to be a habit with you.

[quote]Warren and Trump run neck and neck. Biden is beating Trump by seven, Warren only by ONE.

That's false, of course. The most recent Quinnipiac poll has her up by 8 and her polling aggregate has her up by 4.5. I'm curious as to why you thought you could get away with such a clumsy lie?

[quote][italic]Ah, got it. R47 is a BernieBro. See R42.[/italic]

Ah, it figures. You're the moron who kept lying about rural hospitals and Medicare. Reality does seem to be a problem for you.

Ah, yes, the guy who can't read. Thanks for identifying yourself so I can put you back on ignore, r98.

No! Warren is on a smooth patch, but has so much shit Trump will throw at her, she will lose to him badly. I don't find her a compelling candidate outside of upscale white liberals.

Elections against incumbents are almost always elections about the incumbent, not the challenger. Not sure why everyone is pretending that won't be the case in 2020. especially with such a hated incumbent, really hated by most voters.

I live in wisconsin, Warren is not well liked here. Women and men both comment that they don't need some coastal elite telling them how to live. They love Trump's down to earth attitude and him telling it like it is. She'll lose badly I fear.

nobody loves Trump r102. Nobody loves his nonexistent "down to earth" attitude. Please stop whoring for him. It is not effective.

"they don't need some coastal elite telling them how to live"

you fucking retard - you do realize Trump is from NYC - the coast! - and born a gazillionaire - elite!

my god, the utter dipshits on this thread.

The trolls are just so sad. This is a good sign, actually.

How have Massachusetts liberals done the last few times as the democratic nominee?

Exactly. Warren will ne just as successful as Dukakis.

Or Kerry.

This is such a trolling thread. Arguing over one word Warren said might not make her someone you could vote for as compared to Trump who lies EVERY DAY? Really?

I find it hard to believe that any of this bitty stuff will find any traction in the face of the HUGE CRIMINAL AND MORAL CORRUPTION WE KNOW ABOUT TRUMP.

I just don’t.

[quote]Or Kerry.

Warren doesn’t have Kerry’s, or Hillary’s, or Biden’s Iraq War votes that they’ve always failed to justify.

[quote] Warren doesn’t have Kerry’s, or Hillary’s, or Biden’s Iraq War votes

Yes. She has reparations instead.

Id rather see reparations than another Trillion dollar tax cut for the super rich. Just saying.

Even most Democrats and independents are against reparations.

The stories will come out about how Warren benefitted from affirmative action for "Native Americans," and then she will be toast.

Nobody cares about Native Americans. As long as she didn’t wear blackface, she’s fine.

Sorry to disappoint you, R115, but that story has been thoroughly explored. There's nothing there; there's never going to be anything there. Sucks to be you.

[quote]Ah, yes, the guy who can't read. Thanks for identifying yourself so I can put you back on ignore,

Strange; this is the third time you've insisted that you've "ignored" this individual.

I read the thread; he's right; you lied.

[quote]The trolls are just so sad. This is a good sign, actually.

Yup. They really don't have anything and cannot argue with what we are seeing today. Seriously, if all you have is "Pocahontas!!!!" and "reparations!!!!" and "Massachusetts liberal!!!!", she's doing just fine.

Ah, good you're back as your sock puppet @r118. I only said I was ignoring a poster once. Seriously you have some major reading comprehension issues. Are you learning disabled?

Sorry to disappoint you, r120, but I'm nobody's sock puppet. And you did, in fact, pretend to ignore that poster more than once.

Lying really does seem to come easily to you, doesn't it? Like pretending that R42 and R47 are the same poster?

Oh, wait !!! Maybe they're both sock puppets, too!!!

[quote]Sorry to disappoint you, [R120], but I'm nobody's sock puppet. And you did, in fact, pretend to ignore that poster more than once.

Suuuureeeeeee, and point to three posts where I say I'm ignoring a poster. "Bye" is me being dismissive toward you.

[quote]Lying really does seem to come easily to you, doesn't it? Like pretending that [R42] and [R47] are the same poster?

I didn't "pretend" any posters were the same, buttercup. Reread my post "See, r42" was me literally telling you to "see r42". R42 answered the question, fucktard.

Honestly, you seem like you have some mental issues going on here.

[quote]Sorry to disappoint you, [R120], but I'm nobody's sock puppet. And you did, in fact, pretend to ignore that poster more than once.

Suuuureeeeeee, and point to three posts where I say I'm ignoring a poster. "Bye" is me being dismissive toward you.

[quote]Lying really does seem to come easily to you, doesn't it? Like pretending that [R42] and [R47] are the same poster?

I didn't "pretend" any posters were the same, buttercup. Reread my post "See, r42" was me literally telling you to "see r42". R42 answered the question, fucktard.

Honestly, you seem like you have some mental issues going on here.

So you respond to being called out for what you are by ... confirming what you are.

Thank you so much. YHBT. HAND.

Dukakis was a different era, and Kerry let himself be Swiftboated. I don't think we'll be treated to Warren windsurfing on Nantucket either.

Warren is more Oklahoma than Massachusetts anyway.

The latest Fox News poll has good news for both Biden and Warren.

The good news for Biden is that he's at 32% in the Democratic primary, with Warren at 22%. For Biden, that's a 3-point increase and for Warren, it's 6 points, as the last Fox poll in mid-September, had Biden at 29% and Warren at 16%. Sanders is third at 17%, down one.

The good news for Warren is that she is at ten points over Trump, 50% to 40%, which is exactly the same number as Biden. Sanders is at 49% to 40%.

So, is Warren ready for Trump? It certainly seems so, as the last two polls, from Fox and Quinnipiac, have her at a 10 point and an 8 point advantage, respectively.

[quote]Warren is working hard to present herself as a scrappy fighter from Oklahoma, in other words, but to critics she can come off as the lecturing Harvard professor.