EmeraldGhost wrote:Well, I know her name's come up before ... but I'm thinking is Elizabeth Warren now seriously contemplating going up against Trump in 2020?
Sure starting to look like it to me. I think she's out testing the waters from some stuff I've seeing about her in the news lof late.
Wow, wouldn't that be an interesting race? ... Warren v Trump.
What think you all?
That assumes Trump has the nomination in '20. Two years is a long time in politics--a few more things like his trade policies and this immigration mess and the party stalwarts might move against him.
EmeraldGhost wrote:Well, I know her name's come up before ... but I'm thinking is Elizabeth Warren now seriously contemplating going up against Trump in 2020?
Sure starting to look like it to me. I think she's out testing the waters from some stuff I've seeing about her in the news lof late.
Wow, wouldn't that be an interesting race? ... Warren v Trump.
What think you all?
That assumes Trump has the nomination in '20. Two years is a long time in politics--a few more things like his trade policies and this immigration mess and the party stalwarts might move against him.
I think whether Trump gets the R nomination in 2020 will depend entirely upon the economy .. if it tanks between now & primary season, he will be quite vulnerable to a challenger.
PkrBum wrote:One time... please. Lol... she would turn into Howard dean during a serious campaign.
You may as well just hand trump 2020.
Dean did not have as high of a profile with the American public when he first ran for the nomination as Warren has built for herself.
Otherwise as Democrats go he had as good a shot as any in the early stages of the 04 Dem nomination race ... he raised a bunch of money and was considered to be the front-runner among Dems for a time, and Bill Clinton was still quite fresh in their minds.
And look who he was up against in the '04 Iowa caucuses for example (had to go back & look that up) .. Kerry - boring; Gephart - milquetoast; Kucinich - whacky; Wesley Clark - too military .. and boring; Edwards - took himself out with a personal scandal. Dean was one of what was being called at the time as the "New Democrats" like Edwards (and Bill Clinton) ... Gephardt & Kerry, not so much.
And then there was the "Dean Scream" which the the MSM I think deliberately overplayed (probably because they really favored Kerry) to make him look a bit ridiculous (not too unlike what they did to Gary Johnson with his Aleppo gaffe). Dean, in fact, is a very serious and thoughtful man. I think he could have beaten Kerry for the nomination and done better against 'shrub" than Kerry did in the general election. But hey, public perception can be a fickle thing.
Although I might have had a lot of policy disagreements with Dean ... in my view he probably wouldn't have been such a bad President as Dem Presidents go. (Same goes for Kerry.) They'd have been no Bill Clinton ... but not bad either.
If she runs, Warren's gonna have to IMO make a deliberate effort not to made to appear/be portrayed as a "screechy/angry woman."
Anyway, that's just a little off the top of my head political analysis on my part ... I understand others may differ and I would be interested to hear their well-considered views. I could change my view .. you never know, stranger things have happened!
(now if you'll excuse me, I've wasted enough time on this this morning .. I have some voltage regulators to replace on my boat today)
I like Warren, but the right wing is so unhinged with hate for her it might drive up their voting, like Hillary did. They have a serious hate-on for women who are smarter than them.
But, really, what Democrat doesn't send them out to vote-against these days? They're a cult, they're going to be screaming for the blood of anybody we nominate. So, fuck 'em.
I also like Kamala Harris, but they'd really throw a fit if we nominated someone who was female and black. Trump would not have a chance against her in a debate, though. That woman's brilliant and she's a shark in a debate... about the last person I'd want to see across from me in an argument. I'd kind of like the Dems to run her just to see Trump try to deal with that.
zsomething wrote: .... the right wing is so unhinged with hate for her it might drive up their voting, like Hillary did. They have a serious hate-on for women who are smarter than them. ....
Nah .. that's kind of a false charge the Democrats like to promote (just like Republicans like to lay all kinds of BS allegations at Dems)
Nikki Haley, Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin, Elizabeth Dole, Kelly Ayotte, Elaine Chao, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski ... I could go on and on. All loved and respected to some degree or other by the those on the right end of the political spectrum. Heck, 'Shrub' himself set a Presidential record for the appointment of women and minorities to cabinet level positions. (look it up if you don't believe me) The left conveniently chooses to ignore those kind of facts because they so happen to not like the political bent of those particular women i] (and minorities.)[/i] ... so they tend to downplay it and when the facts are put directly in front of them try to characterize them as "tokens."
My advice ... don't buy into the hype/propaganda (from either side) till you look up the objective facts and decide for yourself what truths and untruths the respective parties are trying to manipulate you with. They both do it.
zsomething wrote: ... they'd really throw a fit if we nominated someone who was female and black. ...
Republicans would elect a black President I believe ... a "conservative" black President that is.
As to Kamala Harris ... why should Dems care about the votes of a few racist conservatives? It's not like they would get the vote of that particular demographic if they nominated a white male either. It's really not a factor and should be neither here nor there with them. Might re-energize the black vote for Dems though, like Obama did. In my view the black voting demographic is far more racialist in their voting patterns than the vast majority of whites, hispanics, or asians. And I think the Democrat party knows this and takes advantage of it.
EmeraldGhost wrote:I think whether Trump gets the R nomination in 2020 will depend entirely upon the economy .. if it tanks between now & primary season, he will be quite vulnerable to a challenger.
Unless he cooks up a good shootin' war--with Mexico, maybe. Then he's a lock.
EmeraldGhost wrote:I think whether Trump gets the R nomination in 2020 will depend entirely upon the economy .. if it tanks between now & primary season, he will be quite vulnerable to a challenger.
Unless he cooks up a good shootin' war--with Mexico, maybe. Then he's a lock.
And that's not beyond the realm of possibility.
Trump starting a full blown military war of aggression on any country is not too high in the realm of probability, IMO.
Warren would bring perfection to the Democratic party nominating folks who cannot get elected. How about a governor who actually is concerned with governing. I am tired to death with empty ivory tower bs.
2seaoat wrote:Warren would bring perfection to the Democratic party nominating folks who cannot get elected.
Uh... Obama?
Warren doesn't have Obama's charisma or "cool" appeal to the younger demographic .... plus she doesn't have the novelty of being the first "black" prospective President. First woman .. yeah, but I don't think a lot of Dems are quite as enamored with that particular novelty as they were with that of the first "black" President.
That's not saying she can't win the Dem nomination ... she's got as good a shot as any and probably better than most looking at it at this point in time. I don't think she'll so blatantly pander the "woman" thing as Hillary did. And I would give her some respect her on that count. The age thing could hurt her in the primary ... she's 69 years old at present. I rather suspect rank and file Dems will be looking for somebody younger than the likes of Bernie, Hillary, Kerry, etc
Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 6/25/2018, 11:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Home
