I was solidly on the "draft Warren' train early in the 2016 cycle, but the DNA thing was a major disappointment for me... I think the party can do better in 2020.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Elizabeth Warren to launch exploratory committee, a major step in a possible 2020 run
- Thread starter zzz
- Start date
Neither of these killed their campaigns, just kicked them while they were down.
It's an optics thing. I hate that word, but it matters in presidential elections.
Beto will start to wilt once the spotlight is shining on him, I predict. He is VP material at best imo.
Warren is awesome, and whether or not she wins her voice is needed in the debates to offset some of the shittier corporate dems.
Her polling has been real rough thus far - which is concerning for someone who has as much name recognition as her.
I just don't see her ever making a dent.
I just don't see her ever making a dent.
I would definitely take a Harris/Beto ticket. Harris as pres, Beto as vice. That's a winner, imo.
I agree, but I'm not opposed, since her values are sound.
But she took a DNA test and, "fell for it" like some overly worried people
Little more effort in next time, please.
I say the same to those jumping to conclusions on Warren.
Warren is great and I like her a lot, but I don't want her to be the candidate for 2020. The Republican oppo folder about her is probably a damn bible at this point.
She's got a D next to her name, so she gets the vote in the general election if she makes it there.
I don't think she has that good a shot at the nomination but who gives a shit whether Republicans like her or not? Republicans are not going to like any Democratic nominee.
The issue less comes down to getting Republicans to vote for her and more giving Republican strategists as little mud to sling around as possible.
Trump is seemingly immune to oppo. Democrats don't get that kind of luxury, and Warren has already proven she's not very good at dealing with it when it's thrown at her. The last thing we need is a Presidential candidate who's a walking ball of FUD, because negative press does suppress Democratic votes even though it doesn't seem to do the same thing for Trump.
I would much rather her be President then the popular jocks running. Corporate backed charisma will always defeat well-meaning people, boo.
That DNA test was silly. I keep telling these candidates they need to diversify their staff. Any Black folk in Warren's circle woulda told her it was a ridiculous idea. Politicians need a Remy or that raspy voiced dude who gave Carcetti advice on the Wire.
That DNA test was silly. I keep telling these candidates they need to diversify their staff. Any Black folk in Warren's circle woulda told her it was a ridiculous idea. Politicians need a Remy or that raspy voiced dude who gave Carcetti advice on the Wire.
Liked her around 2016, but too much ammo for the GOP to use at this point. She shouldn't even try.
Would love to see as POTUS due to her policies and being a policy wonk, but can't see her lasting in a primary.
Hope she proves me wrong though.
Hope she proves me wrong though.
Corporate backing provides sufficient funding, and organisation - with charisma, either you have it or you don't. All candidates need those attributes to be the nominee since it is a safe route to victory then hedging your bets entirely on small donors. Warren is one of the few progressives who has established a sensible alliance with leadership, so she has that going for her.
Last edited:
It's funny to see so many comments here about her DNA test debacle, which it was I agree. However Trump has more scandals on a daily basis than she has had in her career, and yet we probably all agree she can't beat Trump because he's Teflon to scandals for some reason.
It would be a welcome change to have a POTUS who actually cared about the people they represent though.
EDIT: I mentioned scandals on a daily basis, then I checked Twitter. Here is Trump today attacking the military again, and it's still only early morning.
It would be a welcome change to have a POTUS who actually cared about the people they represent though.
EDIT: I mentioned scandals on a daily basis, then I checked Twitter. Here is Trump today attacking the military again, and it's still only early morning.
She'd lose to Trump. Easily. Winning is you know kind of important.
Warren is smart and I am a huge fan of her but she is a TERRIBLE politician and would be destroyed by Trump. She did worse in MA in 2018 than Hillary did in MA in 2016 for example.
User Warned: Concern trolling
Misogyny Era strikes again! It's not you're damned place to tell a woman what she should or shouldn't do.
Beto, Biden, and Kamala can beat Trump. Warren and Bernie would lose.
There's a reason for this: it's because Republicans are brainless slugs who don't care who they vote for or what they've done as long as their team wins/as long as liberals are mad about it, whereas Democrats actually have consciences and sometimes don't vote for their own party.
I don't think anyone is telling her she can't. I think people are just scared of putting forth another potential Hilary Clinton when we desperately need to win the next election.
This is absurd to say. Those who don't want her to be the nominee almost entirely are good with Kamala, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, etc
It isn't because Warren is a woman. It is because she is awful at campangining and the non-policy side of politics.
Say what you will about Trump, but he has a knack for causing his opponents to play themselves. I was very supportive of Warren when she ran for Senate and was looking forward to her Presidential run... but not anymore. She could've handled Trump's childish taunts with adult civility. Instead, she did that DNA test which dredges up the racism of bloodline purity and just made her look tone-deaf and insensitive. I worry if Warren received the nomination if she would have the wherewithal to avoid getting baited further by Trump.
Much like Hillary, all she'd do is ensure another Trump victory...if Mueller doesn't get him first, in which case this would ensure a Pence victory.
That's not why is happening at all. Most of this forum supported Hillary remember? No one is saying she can't run, they just don't think she has what it takes to defeat Trump which is key. I think if it did come down to Trump vs Warren this forum would vote for Warren. Don't be so quick to spin things.
uh. You do realize her announcing has nothing to do with her chances of being the nominee right? No one thinks she will win the nomination.
The misogyny argument flew out the window the moment she got played like a clown by Donald Trump.
I DGAF if you're a woman or man, if you get outsmarted by Donald Trump you're disqualified immediately.
I DGAF if you're a woman or man, if you get outsmarted by Donald Trump you're disqualified immediately.
Right? If she was a guy, people would be praising his ability to "boldly identify, confront, and crack down on corruption" and really align with the ideal on social and political issues. She would be a great option...but she's female so she better know her place and stay in the proverbial "senate kitchen."
It's pretty gross...It's no surprise that the reasons people have against her are basically "she won't win" or "please no." Insubstantial trash. Oh well.
Last edited:
agreed, I don't think she stands a chance, but she probably the most leftwing non-Bernie candidate. It'll good for the overall primary.
You can't say that Warren's DNA thing would be an issues when Biden molests women/girls at every photo op he attends, Kamala has a seriously bad history for a progressive candidate (even next to Warren being a moron for listing herself as Native American), whilst Beto comes from immense wealth and refuses to call himself progressive. I don't think any of them ideal in any sense but Warren might do well running on her being a capitalist that's had enough of corporate exploitation and might be better at winning over the white women's vote than Hilary.
I don't necessarily mean mistakes against Trump. Bernie has said some absolutely stupid things regarding race relations. Apparently, there is something about Kamala's time as a DA that raises eyebrows. Booker appears to be more beholden to corporate interests
But this DNA thing is just completely damning in some eyes.
I find the whole talk about nominees pretty jarring to be honest, with everyone going this person can't beat Trump or that person can't do it. Then at the same time everyone says Trump is a lock to lose in 2020 because of his tanking approval rates, bigotry and awful record since taking office.
Why if he's nailed on to lose is there so much bickering over the potential nominee? It shouldn't matter who is chosen to run.
I don't mind her running, but I think she will end up at the kids table pretty fast and then be eliminated by math pretty early. Harris, O'Rouke, Tulsi, and Gillibrand are starting from places of strenght and not a self inflicted L
Nothing you said about Kamala or Beto would hurt then in a general election.
Warren is dead to the Dem primary base. 100% dead. She has no chance at even breaking single digits nationally.
Your number of inflammatory posts to to total post count ratio is suspiciously high