NO Dem. "coronation"...now 5 Dem. candidates

[Nyvin]

Sanders
O'Malley
Chafee
Webb
If you took the poll numbers of all four and combined them they might equal Hillarys there is no serious challenge there.

Y'all know this is 2015, right? Not an election year? You realize poll numbers are meaningless at this point?

Yes I do all polls are just a snapshot of the moment and at the moment they show Hillary has no serious challenger.

I guess my point is that no, they don't show that at all. It's way too early to show anything. If the election were in two months we could read something into it. We're not even in the election year yet. There could well be others, there could well be dropouts, by the time any of this matters.

I dunno, it seems a little like a baseball fan watching the draft of teenage future players -- what's the point?

It's borderline mathematically impossible for Hillary Clinton to lose the Democratic Primary.

*Raises eyebrow*. I find that phrase particularly interesting. Mathematically impossible doesn't have a borderline. Something either is mathematically impossible or it isn't, and it never applies to anything involving physical reality.

But if you are that confident, I'm curious. Suppose someone offered to make you a bet where you get $5 if Hillary is the nominee and you pay $100 if she isn't, would you take it?

Yes it does have a borderline, something that is 99.99% likely to happen is borderline guaranteed, it's extremely, overwhelming likely to happen. The same is true in reverse. It might be a slight play on words, but no one can predict the exact future, she might fall down some stairs and die or something, who knows.

Currently her only real competition is Sanders which isn't much competition. The name recognition, the endorsements, the popularity among democrats, the fact that she's embracing social liberalism when the country is heading that way on a variety of areas....it's leading me to conclude that it would take a bizarre turn of events to prevent Hillary from becoming the nominee.

$5 is nothing to me, so I wouldn't bother to keep track of it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Still waiting for Liz Warren

Unfortunately (and strictly my opinion) Warren's gaffe about her Native heritage will always haunt her.

Notwithstanding she is a far left loon/socialist.
Wealthy libs will allow democrat candidates to go only so far with the class envy angle. Warren's ideas regarding redistribution are predatory

 

[nat4900]

And no, she did not "state that she had Native blood" when she applied at Harvard, or anywhere else.

From a WashPost article:

Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995, the year she accepted a tenured position at Harvard Law School

 

[nat4900]

Notwithstanding she is a far left loon/socialist.
Wealthy libs will allow democrat candidates to go only so far with the class envy angle. Warren's ideas regarding redistribution are predatory

Actually, "notwithstanding" the fact that you pulled that "socialist" crap out of your behind, Warren's attempt to reinstate the Glass-Steagal Act into the casino known as Wall Street is something that even right wing dingbats should cheer.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Y'all know this is 2015, right? Not an election year? You realize poll numbers are meaningless at this point?

Yes I do all polls are just a snapshot of the moment and at the moment they show Hillary has no serious challenger.

I guess my point is that no, they don't show that at all. It's way too early to show anything. If the election were in two months we could read something into it. We're not even in the election year yet. There could well be others, there could well be dropouts, by the time any of this matters.

I dunno, it seems a little like a baseball fan watching the draft of teenage future players -- what's the point?

It's borderline mathematically impossible for Hillary Clinton to lose the Democratic Primary.

*Raises eyebrow*. I find that phrase particularly interesting. Mathematically impossible doesn't have a borderline. Something either is mathematically impossible or it isn't, and it never applies to anything involving physical reality.

But if you are that confident, I'm curious. Suppose someone offered to make you a bet where you get $5 if Hillary is the nominee and you pay $100 if she isn't, would you take it?

Yes it does have a borderline, something that is 99.99% likely to happen is borderline guaranteed, it's extremely, overwhelming likely to happen. The same is true in reverse. It might be a slight play on words, but no one can predict the exact future, she might fall down some stairs and die or something, who knows.

Currently her only real competition is Sanders which isn't much competition. The name recognition, the endorsements, the popularity among democrats, the fact that she's embracing social liberalism when the country is heading that way on a variety of areas....it's leading me to conclude that it would take a bizarre turn of events to prevent Hillary from becoming the nominee.

$5 is nothing to me, so I wouldn't bother to keep track of it.

Ok. What's the smallest amount of money you'd bother to keep track of?

 

[Pogo]

And no, she did not "state that she had Native blood" when she applied at Harvard, or anywhere else.

From a WashPost article:

Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995, the year she accepted a tenured position at Harvard Law School

I can see why you'd list that as "from a WaPo article" and not want to link it, since it disproves the whole myth. I know that article; I've used it to debunk others here -- which is why I baited you with the question. It's a fact check article, and its link is here.

Relevant bits:

An article in Atlantic magazine pointed out that Warren “would not be eligible to become a member of any of the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes based on the evidence so far surfaced by independent genealogists about her ancestry.” That’s because her Cherokee ancestors, if she has any, would either be too distant or they never documented their ties in ways that meet the tribes’ requirements.

Obviously, this doesn’t preclude Warren from having traces of Native American heritage.

... The Globe obtained a portion of Warren’s application to Rutgers, which asks if prospective students want to apply for admission under the school’s Program for Minority Group Students. Warren answered “no.”

For her employment documents at the University of Texas, Warren indicated that she was “white.”

.... [candidate Scott] Brown said that Warren “checked the box claiming she was Native American” when she applied to Harvard and Penn, suggesting the Democratic candidate somehow gained an unfair advantage because of an iffy ethnic background. But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.

The senator’s debate comments also suggest Warren actively applied for positions with Harvard and Penn, but the evidence suggests the schools recruited her because of her groundbreaking research and writings on bankruptcy. Harvard, in fact, did not give up on her after she first turned down a tenured position with the university.

Some might assume that Warren listed herself as a minority in the law school directories to attract offers from top schools, which would be a pro-active measure. The explanation that she was reaching out to other Native Americans — when she was merely listed as a “minority” — certainly appears suspicious, but there is no conclusive evidence that she used her status in the listing to land a job.

The Herald has twice quoted Charles Fried, the head of the Harvard appointing committee that recommended Warren for her position in 1995, saying that the Democratic candidate’s heritage didn’t come up during the course of her hiring. “It simply played no role in the appointments process,” he said. “It was not mentioned and I didn’t mention it to the faculty.”

The Herald later quoted Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan, saying, “I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned.”
​

So the "gaffe" is yours. Perhaps you need to research better.

 

[nat4900]

And no, she did not "state that she had Native blood" when she applied at Harvard, or anywhere else.

From a WashPost article:

Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995, the year she accepted a tenured position at Harvard Law School

I can see why you'd list that as "from a WaPo article" and not want to link it, since it disproves the whole myth. I know that article; I've used it to debunk others here -- which is why I baited you with the question. It's a fact check article, and its link is here.

Relevant bits:

An article in Atlantic magazine pointed out that Warren “would not be eligible to become a member of any of the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes based on the evidence so far surfaced by independent genealogists about her ancestry.” That’s because her Cherokee ancestors, if she has any, would either be too distant or they never documented their ties in ways that meet the tribes’ requirements.

Obviously, this doesn’t preclude Warren from having traces of Native American heritage.

... The Globe obtained a portion of Warren’s application to Rutgers, which asks if prospective students want to apply for admission under the school’s Program for Minority Group Students. Warren answered “no.”

For her employment documents at the University of Texas, Warren indicated that she was “white.”

.... [candidate Scott] Brown said that Warren “checked the box claiming she was Native American” when she applied to Harvard and Penn, suggesting the Democratic candidate somehow gained an unfair advantage because of an iffy ethnic background. But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.

The senator’s debate comments also suggest Warren actively applied for positions with Harvard and Penn, but the evidence suggests the schools recruited her because of her groundbreaking research and writings on bankruptcy. Harvard, in fact, did not give up on her after she first turned down a tenured position with the university.

Some might assume that Warren listed herself as a minority in the law school directories to attract offers from top schools, which would be a pro-active measure. The explanation that she was reaching out to other Native Americans — when she was merely listed as a “minority” — certainly appears suspicious, but there is no conclusive evidence that she used her status in the listing to land a job.

The Herald has twice quoted Charles Fried, the head of the Harvard appointing committee that recommended Warren for her position in 1995, saying that the Democratic candidate’s heritage didn’t come up during the course of her hiring. “It simply played no role in the appointments process,” he said. “It was not mentioned and I didn’t mention it to the faculty.”

The Herald later quoted Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan, saying, “I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned.”
​

So the "gaffe" is yours. Perhaps you need to research better.

Did Elizabeth Warren check the Native American box when she applied to Harvard and Penn - The Washington Post

 

[Darkwind]

With the exception of Webb, each of those is just a radicalized liberal. Not a one of them are serious policy makers and all five are slightly left of nuts.

 

[nat4900]

The Herald has twice quoted Charles Fried, the head of the Harvard appointing committee that recommended Warren for her position in 1995, saying that the Democratic candidate’s heritage didn’t come up during the course of her hiring. “It simply played no role in the appointments process,” he said. “It was not mentioned and I didn’t mention it to the faculty.”

The Herald later quoted Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan, saying, “I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned.”
So the "gaffe" is yours. Perhaps you need to research better. Or more honestly, since these all come from the very article you just referenced.

Look, I don't want to argue about this with you.....Warren has a reason for so adamantly not wanting to run...and I think the Native claim may be it.

 

[Pogo]

The Herald has twice quoted Charles Fried, the head of the Harvard appointing committee that recommended Warren for her position in 1995, saying that the Democratic candidate’s heritage didn’t come up during the course of her hiring. “It simply played no role in the appointments process,” he said. “It was not mentioned and I didn’t mention it to the faculty.”

The Herald later quoted Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan, saying, “I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned.”
So the "gaffe" is yours. Perhaps you need to research better. Or more honestly, since these all come from the very article you just referenced.

Look, I don't want to argue about this with you.....Warren has a reason for so adamantly not wanting to run...and I think the Native claim may be it.

But you made the gaffe -- not her.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Notwithstanding she is a far left loon/socialist.
Wealthy libs will allow democrat candidates to go only so far with the class envy angle. Warren's ideas regarding redistribution are predatory

Actually, "notwithstanding" the fact that you pulled that "socialist" crap out of your behind, Warren's attempt to reinstate the Glass-Steagal Act into the casino known as Wall Street is something that even right wing dingbats should cheer.

Glass Steagal does not affect Wall Street.....That Act prevented commercial banks from engaging in investment banking.
That genie is out of the bottle.
The large banks are not going to become small banks.
If you don't like doing business with a large bank, don't.
And if you think Warren is not a far left wing socialist, you're in serious denial.
In any event, my guess is the DNC has told her to forget about the White House.

 

[Nyvin]

Notwithstanding she is a far left loon/socialist.
Wealthy libs will allow democrat candidates to go only so far with the class envy angle. Warren's ideas regarding redistribution are predatory

Actually, "notwithstanding" the fact that you pulled that "socialist" crap out of your behind, Warren's attempt to reinstate the Glass-Steagal Act into the casino known as Wall Street is something that even right wing dingbats should cheer.

Glass Steagal does not affect Wall Street.....That Act prevented commercial banks from engaging in investment banking.
That genie is out of the bottle.
The large banks are not going to become small banks.
If you don't like doing business with a large bank, don't.
And if you think Warren is not a far left wing socialist, you're in serious denial.
In any event, my guess is the DNC has told her to forget about the White House.

My guess she's a one topic Senator, that being economics. It is her profession afterall.

She doesn't really want to get involved in things like social issues or foreign policy, it's outside her realm.

You can more or less do that in Congress, running for president it isn't possible though.

 

[Nyvin]

The Herald has twice quoted Charles Fried, the head of the Harvard appointing committee that recommended Warren for her position in 1995, saying that the Democratic candidate’s heritage didn’t come up during the course of her hiring. “It simply played no role in the appointments process,” he said. “It was not mentioned and I didn’t mention it to the faculty.”

The Herald later quoted Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan, saying, “I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned.”
So the "gaffe" is yours. Perhaps you need to research better. Or more honestly, since these all come from the very article you just referenced.

Look, I don't want to argue about this with you.....Warren has a reason for so adamantly not wanting to run...and I think the Native claim may be it.

No, that's an extremely trivial matter actually.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of course, this is good, along with Hillary Clinton, we have
Sanders
O'Malley
Chafee
...and soon, Webb.

The only possible negative may be that all of the above names are from the northeast part of the US; perhaps the VP slot MUST then come from a red state.

Still a coronation. Because none of them stand a chance of winning. Left out that little part, didn't we?

 

[nat4900]

But you made the gaffe -- not her.

Fine......I made it all up.

 

[2aguy]

Of course, this is good, along with Hillary Clinton, we have
Sanders
O'Malley
Chafee
...and soon, Webb.

The only possible negative may be that all of the above names are from the northeast part of the US; perhaps the VP slot MUST then come from a red state.

And if you track where their donations come from........the Clinton global initiative.......how much you wanna bet...

 

[nat4900]

Still a coronation. Because none of them stand a chance of winning. Left out that little part, didn't we?

Darn....I'm so glad you told me and you know how we all trust your "superior" judgment ....Now, I won't even bother to vote in 2016.

 

[Pogo]

Still a coronation. Because none of them stand a chance of winning. Left out that little part, didn't we?

Darn....I'm so glad you told me and you know how we all trust your "superior" judgment ....Now, I won't even bother to vote in 2016.

Shades of Karl Rove

 

[nat4900]

My guess she's a one topic Senator, that being economics. It is her profession afterall.

Good point...Warren will make an excellent cabinet member.

 

[MACAULAY]

Still waiting for Liz Warren

Unfortunately (and strictly my opinion) Warren's gaffe about her Native heritage will always haunt her.

It got big play on Fox

Not many others cared

_________

Not many socialist/progrosso-loons care if their leaders are liars and fools, as long as they are socialist/progresso-loons.