• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elizabeth Warren poses a challenge to Hillary in 2016

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,099
Reaction score
33,418
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Elizabeth Warren poses a challenge to Hillary in 2016 | New York Post

It’s enough to make you feel sorry for Hillary Clinton. Well, almost.

Her presidential campaign of celebrity and inevitability got off to a rocky start, mostly through her own mistakes, as when she claimed they were “dead broke” when she and Bubba left the White House. But her gaffes were mere speed bumps compared to the real threat forming now.

Massachusetts firebrand Sen. Elizabeth Warren emerges from Washington’s budget clash as the undisputed champion of the rising left, and will almost certainly challenge Clinton for the 2016 nomination. The polls say it’s Hillary’s turn, but I’m starting to believe 2016 could be 2008 all over again, with Warren taking the nomination from her the way Barack Obama did.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm looks like it's not a shoe-in for Hillary.
 
American said:
Elizabeth Warren poses a challenge to Hillary in 2016 | New York Post


Hmmmm looks like it's not a shoe-in for Hillary.
Click to expand...

The notoriety caused by the budget debates is fleeting to the vast majority of the electorate. I am sure that some of the hard core left of the Democratic Party will sit up and grab her while tossing Clinton aside. But I doubt if this will put much a dent in Hillary's 62.7% to 11.3% lead she has over Warren for the Democratic Nomination.

But being in the senate can be a big plus for Warren. If she keeps you profile high and seems to be the leader on issues very dear to the Democratic Parties left she can very well enhance her standing. But it will take time and pulling and playing the right strings. Warren for the time being has had her 15 minutes of fame, she is now in the background. Now it is up to her whether she stays there or arises to the fore front in the new congress. Time will tell.
 
Perotista said:
The notoriety caused by the budget debates is fleeting to the vast majority of the electorate. I am sure that some of the hard core left of the Democratic Party will sit up and grab her while tossing Clinton aside. But I doubt if this will put much a dent in Hillary's 62.7% to 11.3% lead she has over Warren for the Democratic Nomination.

But being in the senate can be a big plus for Warren. If she keeps you profile high and seems to be the leader on issues very dear to the Democratic Parties left she can very well enhance her standing. But it will take time and pulling and playing the right strings. Warren for the time being has had her 15 minutes of fame, she is now in the background. Now it is up to her whether she stays there or arises to the fore front in the new congress. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

You could be right, but I'm betting that most of the Democrats are tired of Hillary Clinton, and are hoping for someone to replace her.
 
American said:
You could be right, but I'm betting that most of the Democrats are tired of Hillary Clinton, and are hoping for someone to replace her.
Click to expand...

I am. not a Democrat anymore - not supportive of the MS partys, but if I had to pick,, I would not be supporting Clinton,even though I made that mistake in '08.
Not an Obama fan either. I like Warrens ideas on Dodd-Frank, ( derivatives), but I want someone with executive experience this time.

Clinton's role as Sec of State would normally count,but she was less then impressive in that role
 
American said:
You could be right, but I'm betting that most of the Democrats are tired of Hillary Clinton, and are hoping for someone to replace her.
Click to expand...
I for one have Hillary-fatigue, but so far her candidacy is the only game in town on the Dem side.
With Warren continuing to say, "I'm not running for president" an alternative seems unlikely.
Just my $0.02
 
American said:
Elizabeth Warren poses a challenge to Hillary in 2016 | New York Post


Hmmmm looks like it's not a shoe-in for Hillary.
Click to expand...

Sure it is (look at any poll) - unless Warren pulls the race card. ;)

Warren may play better to the (far?) left base, but the far left would never vote for a republicant and don't really object to Clinton (they even voted for Obama in 2012 after he proved to be not much of a leader much less than a "true" liberal in actual practice). It amazes me that the libtards see PPACA as a great deal (which is not even close to UHC) when it is based, almost entirely, on guaranteed profits for a "private" insurance middle man which has to increase total medical care costs (just like using a real estate agent increases home buying costs). One certainly does not need an insurance company to help them find them a hospital, clinic or a doctor.
 
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...genuine-excitement-hillary-clinton-candidacy/

But one shouldn’t be so jaded. There is genuine and intense excitement over the prospect of (another) Clinton presidency. Many significant American factions regard her elevation to the Oval Office as an opportunity for rejuvenation, as a stirring symbol of hope and change, as the vehicle for vital policy advances. Those increasingly inspired factions include:
Click to expand...

Wall Street

Politico Magazine, November 11, 2014 (“Why Wall Street Loves Hillary”):

Down on Wall Street they don’t believe (Clinton’s populist rhetoric) for a minute. While the finance industry does genuinely hate Warren, the big bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be president.
Click to expand...

The Israel Lobby

Both Bill and Hillary are so enamored with the idea of Israel and its unique history that they are prone to make certain allowances for the reality of Israel’s behavior, such as the continuing construction of settlements.
Click to expand...

Interventionists (i.e., war zealots)

New York Times, June 15, 2014 (“Events in Iraq Open Door for Interventionist Revival, Historian Says”):

But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.
Click to expand...

Old school neocons

New York Times, Jacob Heilbrunn, July 5, 2014 (“The Next Act for Neocons: … Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton”?):

After nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back. . . . Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy. . . .
Click to expand...
 
Ugh

Elizabeth Warren on Gun Control

If a magazine surpasses ten rounds she hates it. She wants to ban said magazines...

Hillary Clinton on Gun Control

She's still hung up on this whole idea of banning assault weapons, but at least she seems to believe gun control is a state issue and not federal issue, so she wouldn't push for anything on the federal level.

I hope Warren gets pummeled by Hillary but oh well if she doesn't, not like I'll be old enough when the time to vote comes anyway (although 2020 I'll have to keep an eye on the candidates becaus eby then I WILL be old enough to vote).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Sure it is (look at any poll) - unless Warren pulls the race card. ;)

Warren may play better to the (far?) left base, but the far left would never vote for a republicant and don't really object to Clinton (they even voted for Obama in 2012 after he proved to be not much of a leader much less than a "true" liberal in actual practice). It amazes me that the libtards see PPACA as a great deal (which is not even close to UHC) when it is based, almost entirely, on guaranteed profits for a "private" insurance middle man which has to increase total medical care costs (just like using a real estate agent increases home buying costs). One certainly does not need an insurance company to help them find them a hospital, clinic or a doctor.
Click to expand...

A bit off topic but the hospitals are in league with the insurance companies also just randomly jacking up prices making it nearly impossible for someone to just pay as they go with healthcare.
 
Crovax said:
A bit off topic but the hospitals are in league with the insurance companies also just randomly jacking up prices making it nearly impossible for someone to just pay as they go with healthcare.
Click to expand...

They are not random price increases at all - they are by design. With the government cutting back on what it pays (reimburses) via Medicaid/Medicare, and still mandating that EMTA care still be "free", those costs are simply being added (shifted?) to the care that is paid for (and mandated to be at no out-of-pocket cost). I still get a substantial (20%) discount for paying cash at the time of treatment.

How anyone could believe that adding a middle man for paying for routine health maintenance costs would lower the price (cost) of that care is beyond me. Imagine what your auto comprehensive premium rates would be if they included worn tire replacement, tune-ups and oil changes; then imagine what the repair/parts shops would charge since nobody (but the insurance companies) sees the actual bill. Insurance companies make their money based on a percentage of total volume and thus have ZERO incentive to keep costs down, in fact, the higher the cost of "routine maintenance" treatments go then the more they make per patient as their premiums rise.
 
bubbabgone said:
Never was.
And now that they saw what she brings to the Party they're thinking maybe the radical native American nun would be a better choice but we better start building her up now.
Click to expand...

Vote often in the Democratic Primaries.
 
Warren has the singular disadvantage of being from Massachusetts - a state which rightly or wrongly has a decidedly negative reputation among areas of the rest of the nation. That would be an obstacle to overcome.

She does have a stellar record and is exactly what the Dems need however.

Clinton has the disadvantage of being old news for a very long time now.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Ugh

Elizabeth Warren on Gun Control

If a magazine surpasses ten rounds she hates it. She wants to ban said magazines...

Hillary Clinton on Gun Control

She's still hung up on this whole idea of banning assault weapons, but at least she seems to believe gun control is a state issue and not federal issue, so she wouldn't push for anything on the federal level.

I hope Warren gets pummeled by Hillary but oh well if she doesn't, not like I'll be old enough when the time to vote comes anyway (although 2020 I'll have to keep an eye on the candidates becaus eby then I WILL be old enough to vote).
Click to expand...

Re: bolded part....I think Hillary would have no interest in gun legislation except for the fact that she thinks it would win her votes. Warren, on the other hand, is nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake, and would ban guns in a second.
 
haymarket said:
Warren has the singular disadvantage of being from Massachusetts - a state which rightly or wrongly has a decidedly negative reputation among areas of the rest of the nation. That would be an obstacle to overcome.

She does have a stellar record and is exactly what the Dems need however.

Clinton has the disadvantage of being old news for a very long time now.
Click to expand...

A "stellar" record of what specifically?
 
haymarket said:
Warren has the singular disadvantage of being from Massachusetts - a state which rightly or wrongly has a decidedly negative reputation among areas of the rest of the nation. That would be an obstacle to overcome.

She does have a stellar record and is exactly what the Dems need however.

Clinton has the disadvantage of being old news for a very long time now.
Click to expand...

What, exactly, is that stellar record?

She has been in office since 1/3/2013 and is described the "senior" Senator from MA.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
At a time when many democrats seem to be joining the Wall Street crowd - she stands tall defending the average person. That in itself is worthy of praise.
Click to expand...

Yep, by having helped to dole out TARP funds. ;)

Don't let those evil investment bankers pick and choose winners/losers let the much wiser gov't elites do that instead.
 
haymarket said:
At a time when many democrats seem to be joining the Wall Street crowd - she stands tall defending the average person. That in itself is worthy of praise.
Click to expand...
That in itself is what is alliteratively called posturing pandering populism.
 
American said:
Hmmmm looks like it's not a shoe-in for Hillary.
Click to expand...

It seldom is a shoe-in for anybody, but on a tangent, I did see my first 2016 bumper sticker this week. It was for Carson.
 
haymarket said:
Warren has the singular disadvantage of being from Massachusetts - a state which rightly or wrongly has a decidedly negative reputation among areas of the rest of the nation. That would be an obstacle to overcome.

She does have a stellar record and is exactly what the Dems need however.

Clinton has the disadvantage of being old news for a very long time now.
Click to expand...

Lizzie has a stellar record of what?

We're two years out from the election, a year before any potential candidate has to commit. Lots can happen. We'll see new speculation daily till then.
 
bubbabgone said:
That in itself is what is alliteratively called posturing pandering populism.
Click to expand...

So standing up for average people is somehow to be attacked and denigrated? Amazing!!!! :doh:roll::shock:
 
haymarket said:
So standing up for average people is somehow to be attacked and denigrated? Amazing!!!! :doh:roll::shock:
Click to expand...
If you can't see through it, yes, that is amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom