Could Elizabeth Warren beat Hillary Clinton?

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary is not getting the nomination. She had no chance a month ago and now turning on Obama will mean she'll have absolutely no further say in the Dem party.

As far as Warren as I said before, she's a female Obama: a pathological liar with a shady past, a hatred of free enterprise and love of redistribution. She'll make a perfect Dem candidate in 2016

 

[Sallow]

.

I think Warren would be formidable. Listen to her talk, she's excellent, better than anyone, at reducing everything to incredibly simple/simplistic concepts.

Look at what she accomplished with the mind-numbingly simplistic "roads and bridges" straw man, she succeeded in placing it in our everyday vernacular, somehow positioning anyone to her right as being against roads and ******* bridges. Amazing.

She has a real gift for the simple, and given the state of our culture, that's an advantage.

.

Or maybe we are just tired of looking at this sort of thing when Republicans are in charge.

But the important thing is that rich people got tax cuts!

Is that the Hoan Bridge?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

.

I think Warren would be formidable. Listen to her talk, she's excellent, better than anyone, at reducing everything to incredibly simple/simplistic concepts.

Look at what she accomplished with the mind-numbingly simplistic "roads and bridges" straw man, she succeeded in placing it in our everyday vernacular, somehow positioning anyone to her right as being against roads and ******* bridges. Amazing.

She has a real gift for the simple, and given the state of our culture, that's an advantage.

.

Or maybe we are just tired of looking at this sort of thing when Republicans are in charge.

But the important thing is that rich people got tax cuts!

Only 6% of scientists are Republicans, we can't be everywhere overseeing the "But does the structural steel really Feel Good about supporting all that weight" work of Democrat scientists

 

[Stephanie]

poor Hillary, her base is going to throw her under the bus AGAIN, this time they are going back it up over her too for another inexperienced nobody

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Hope Warren can beat her. Do NOT want HRC in power. Stays with a cheating husband solely for a future run at the Presidency? That's pretty cynical or cravenly.

 

[Zander]

2008 = Hillary is inevitable!! She can't be beat!!

2016 = Hillary is inevitable!! She can't be beat!!

 

[Stephanie]

2008 = Hillary is inevitable!! She can't be beat!!

2016 = Hillary is inevitable!! She can't be beat!!

man how soon that changed, AGAIN

libs have no loyalty it seems or it changes day to day

 

[Zander]

Hillary is not getting the nomination. She had no chance a month ago and now turning on Obama will mean she'll have absolutely no further say in the Dem party.

As far as Warren as I said before, she's a female Obama: a pathological liar with a shady past, a hatred of free enterprise and love of redistribution. She'll make a perfect Dem candidate in 2016

John Podhoretz is already hammering away at her....

Last year, when it looked like Obama might maintain his popularity, Hillary was ready to run as his confidant, adviser and friend.

Now, as the world comes crashing down upon him, along with his poll numbers and the increasingly disastrous prospects for his party in the November midterms, Mrs. Clinton has laid a bet.

She is betting she has two years to set herself up not as Obama’s natural successor but as his sadder-but-wiser replacement — the one who saw it go wrong, the one who watched as the mistakes were being made, the one who sought to mitigate or reverse those blunders to no effect, the one best able to take inspiration from a more successful, more centrist Democratic presidency.

Mrs. Clinton’s political judgment is not to be trusted. She allowed Obama to eat her lunch in 2008 in part because she was overconfident and tacked too far to the center too early. She may well be doing it again.

Hammering Obama: Hillary has only begun | New York Post

 

[rightwinger]

Hillary is beatable

She has been on the political scene for over 20 years and she has gone stale. America has seen what she has to offer and is comfortable with her but not overly enthusiastic

A dynamic candidate from either party is capable of beating her. I just don't think they will

 

[GHook93]

Interesting question.

Could Elizabeth Warren beat Hillary Clinton? - The Washington Post

By Ezra Klein November 11, 2013
The question in the background of Noam Scheiber's exploration of whether Elizabeth Warren could challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016 is whether, come 2015, Democrats will care very much about cracking down harder on Wall Street.
<more>

She will and she will be the nomination, mark my words. She is s good speaker and she is better at the class warfare thing than Clinton. She will push the theme of hate the rich and that is what the liberal bases wants.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Interesting question.

Could Elizabeth Warren beat Hillary Clinton? - The Washington Post

By Ezra Klein November 11, 2013
The question in the background of Noam Scheiber's exploration of whether Elizabeth Warren could challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016 is whether, come 2015, Democrats will care very much about cracking down harder on Wall Street.
<more>

She will and she will be the nomination, mark my words. She is s good speaker and she is better at the class warfare thing than Clinton. She will push the theme of hate the rich and that is what the liberal bases wants.

^ this

The modern US Democrat Party loves redistribution more than either modern China or Russia, each of whom have abandoned it as a complete failure. It should be embarrassing, but then you'd need a political party capable of feeling shame

 

[mudwhistle]

.

I think Warren would be formidable. Listen to her talk, she's excellent, better than anyone, at reducing everything to incredibly simple/simplistic concepts.

Look at what she accomplished with the mind-numbingly simplistic "roads and bridges" straw man, she succeeded in placing it in our everyday vernacular, somehow positioning anyone to her right as being against roads and ******* bridges. Amazing.

She has a real gift for the simple, and given the state of our culture, that's an advantage.

.

She's poorly qualified.

She has no foreign policy experience, and now is not the time to be turning the military over to a Marxist.

Yup. We need to turn it over to a Plutocrat who will get us into wars that are none of our business for fun and profit.

If you were really concerned about America's security, you'd want to restore the middle class, and Warren is the only person really talking about that.

Talk is cheap.

Her policies are destructive to the middle-class. All she appears to me is a populist with no true leadership potential. She sounds like a grandma who grew up in an alternative universe.

I think we've tried Progress, or at least their brand of it and it is a disaster. Time to let somebody else do their thing. Somebody who wants to do what is right, not what sounds good.

 

[jasonnfree]

.

I think Warren would be formidable. Listen to her talk, she's excellent, better than anyone, at reducing everything to incredibly simple/simplistic concepts.

Look at what she accomplished with the mind-numbingly simplistic "roads and bridges" straw man, she succeeded in placing it in our everyday vernacular, somehow positioning anyone to her right as being against roads and ******* bridges. Amazing.

She has a real gift for the simple, and given the state of our culture, that's an advantage.

.

She's poorly qualified.

Not to be too cynical here, but looking at some of the people both parties are so fond of, I really don't think "being qualified for the office" is actually that high a priority at this point.

.

Agreed, and besides, there's no list of qualifications for president anyway, other than age and citiizenship. It's up to the voter and usually the one with persona or gravitas wins out with the voter. Also necessary is wall street, banking, and corporate backing. Obama, an extreme moderate in reality, never would have gotten to the debates if big money thought he was a threat to them.

 

[g5000]

Interesting question.

Could Elizabeth Warren beat Hillary Clinton? - The Washington Post

By Ezra Klein November 11, 2013
The question in the background of Noam Scheiber's exploration of whether Elizabeth Warren could challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016 is whether, come 2015, Democrats will care very much about cracking down harder on Wall Street.
<more>

I think Elizabeth Warren is Plan B.

Should the Hillary (Plan A) locomotive somehow derail in the next 12 months, the Democrats will put Plan B into action.

Warren is definitely making all the moves of someone who wants to be President, and she is doing it brilliantly. She is nailing down just a few issues good and hard, just like Reagan did. Reagan didn't get into minutae. He said he would do just a few big things and let the rest of the shit work itself out. Warren is using that same template. She is going to go after Wall Street crooks, she is going to do something about the student loan problem, and she is going to tax the rich more. That's her whole platform.

She is also throwing her political weight into key battlegrounds, making friends who will owe her later.


She is a force to be watched.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Interesting question.

Could Elizabeth Warren beat Hillary Clinton? - The Washington Post

By Ezra Klein November 11, 2013
The question in the background of Noam Scheiber's exploration of whether Elizabeth Warren could challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016 is whether, come 2015, Democrats will care very much about cracking down harder on Wall Street.
<more>

I think Elizabeth Warren is Plan B.

Should the Hillary (Plan A) locomotive somehow derail in the next 12 months, the Democrats will put Plan B into action.

Warren is definitely making all the moves of someone who wants to be President, and she is doing it brilliantly. She is nailing down just a few issues good and hard, just like Reagan did. Reagan didn't get into minutae. He said he would do just a few big things and let the rest of the shit work itself out. Warren is using that same template. She is going to go after Wall Street crooks, she is going to do something about the student loan problem, and she is going to tax the rich more. That's her whole platform.

She is also throwing her political weight into key battlegrounds, making friends who will owe her later.


She is a force to be watched.

...and how!!

 

[g5000]

.

I think Warren would be formidable. Listen to her talk, she's excellent, better than anyone, at reducing everything to incredibly simple/simplistic concepts.

Look at what she accomplished with the mind-numbingly simplistic "roads and bridges" straw man, she succeeded in placing it in our everyday vernacular, somehow positioning anyone to her right as being against roads and ******* bridges. Amazing.

She has a real gift for the simple, and given the state of our culture, that's an advantage.

.

She's poorly qualified.

She has no foreign policy experience, and now is not the time to be turning the military over to a Marxist.

About that foreign policy experience. The GOP has completely blown its authority on the subject with its incessant whining and bullshit manufacturing over Benghazi. It has become blazingly obvious the GOP will blow off or excoriate anyone who does have foreign policy experience (Hillary), and will howl at the lack of it in anyone who does not (Warren). So, basically, the GOP is trying to have its cake and eat it, too.

The GOP will also go suddenly blind and deaf and suffer profound amnesia when it is pointed out to them that whoever they toss into the ring is equally inept/inexperienced in foreign policy.


So here's an idea: Instead of spending 100 percent of your time whining, how about putting some solutions on the table and let the people decide who has the better plan?

The GOP offers nothing but complaints about the other guy, while the other guy is putting plans on the table. That's why the other guy won, twice.

 

[Zander]

Hillary is a lock!! Just like 2008!!

In reality, she's already slipping- and is under 50% ........

For example, Clinton leads Christie 47 percent to 41 percent with 12 percent of voters undecided. In April, she led 53-42 with 5 percent undecided, and in February she enjoyed a 58-37 lead against the governor with 6 percent undecided.

She&#8217;s seen her cushion against Bush, brother of former President George W. Bush, erode to 48 percent to 41 percent with 10 percent undecided. That&#8217;s down from 55-39 with 6 percent undecided in April.

And against Paul, her lead has shrunk to 48 percent to 42 percent with 10 percent undecided from 54-40 and 6 percent undecided in April.

Read more here: WASHINGTON: Hillary Clinton&#8217;s lead over GOP candidates shrinks | National Politics | News Democrat

 

[mudwhistle]

.

I think Warren would be formidable. Listen to her talk, she's excellent, better than anyone, at reducing everything to incredibly simple/simplistic concepts.

Look at what she accomplished with the mind-numbingly simplistic "roads and bridges" straw man, she succeeded in placing it in our everyday vernacular, somehow positioning anyone to her right as being against roads and ******* bridges. Amazing.

She has a real gift for the simple, and given the state of our culture, that's an advantage.

.

She's poorly qualified.

She has no foreign policy experience, and now is not the time to be turning the military over to a Marxist.

About that foreign policy experience. The GOP has completely blown its authority on the subject with its incessant whining and bullshit manufacturing over Benghazi. It has become blazingly obvious the GOP will blow off or excoriate anyone who does have foreign policy experience (Hillary), and will howl at the lack of it in anyone who does not (Warren). So, basically, the GOP is trying to have its cake and eat it, too.

The GOP will also go suddenly blind and deaf and suffer profound amnesia when it is pointed out to them that whoever they toss into the ring is equally inept/inexperienced in foreign policy.


So here's an idea: Instead of spending 100 percent of your time whining, how about putting some solutions on the table and let the people decide who has the better plan?

The GOP offers nothing but complaints about the other guy, while the other guy is putting plans on the table. That's why the other guy won, twice.

RLMAO!!!!!!

Okay Sparky.....whatever you say.

 

[Zander]

Nobody can beat this!! She's a lock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

.

I think Warren would be formidable. Listen to her talk, she's excellent, better than anyone, at reducing everything to incredibly simple/simplistic concepts.

Look at what she accomplished with the mind-numbingly simplistic "roads and bridges" straw man, she succeeded in placing it in our everyday vernacular, somehow positioning anyone to her right as being against roads and ******* bridges. Amazing.

She has a real gift for the simple, and given the state of our culture, that's an advantage.

.

She's poorly qualified.

She has no foreign policy experience, and now is not the time to be turning the military over to a Marxist.

About that foreign policy experience. The GOP has completely blown its authority on the subject with its incessant whining and bullshit manufacturing over Benghazi. It has become blazingly obvious the GOP will blow off or excoriate anyone who does have foreign policy experience (Hillary), and will howl at the lack of it in anyone who does not (Warren). So, basically, the GOP is trying to have its cake and eat it, too.

The GOP will also go suddenly blind and deaf and suffer profound amnesia when it is pointed out to them that whoever they toss into the ring is equally inept/inexperienced in foreign policy.


So here's an idea: Instead of spending 100 percent of your time whining, how about putting some solutions on the table and let the people decide who has the better plan?

The GOP offers nothing but complaints about the other guy, while the other guy is putting plans on the table. That's why the other guy won, twice.

Oh whatthefuckever.... Clinton may have foreign policy experience, unfortunately, it's all lousy. She was SoS for most of the period this mess in the ME was created. As for Warren? She's proven to be 100% full of shit and is just another clueless asshat.