Elizabeth Warren in 2018? Possible challengers?

The rape apologists have arrived.

@glitterbag,

Some people just aren't honest enough to admit they'd never vote for a woman regardless. Rape apologist is too generous a term, he wants to redefine rape to the point it becomes meaningless.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

How popular is Warren in MA today? Extremely.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Quote:

The rape apologists have arrived.

Thank you Glitterbag!

This is exactly the point. And this exactly why I believe the Democrats are going to lose again in 2018 and 2020. They are so sure that they are right, and so ideologically pure that instead of making their case on issues, all they have to do is insult anyone who dares to question them.

Do you want to know the turning point of the election... the point where Trump turned the corner and started winning the race? It was the "deplorables" comment, where Hillary attacked middle America for supporting Trump.

I should have seen it coming. That next weekend, at my poker game in New Hampshire, people were joking, with some pride and some scorn, that they were "Deplorable".

That is the problem with American liberals. It is the self-righteousness. Everyone who disagrees with them is a "rape apologist" or a "fascist".

If the Democrats are going to win the election... they really should try something new. This childish name calling isn't doing it for them.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

That is not exactly true, according to polls.

http://www.politico.com/states/massachusetts/story/2017/01/polls-shows-warren-is-no-sure-bet-for-re-election-next-year-108924

Don't forget, MontereyJack, that there are people in Massachusetts who aren't in the liberal bubble. I think she will win... but she has had some problems with her approval rating.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote max:

Quote:

Hate Hillary Blitz? Give me a break. Hillary was a deeply flawed candidate running a deeply flawed campaign.

The Right has been on Hillary since her husband had the nerve to win the Presidency in 1992 with Hillary prominently featured in the campaign. Republicans hated the Clintons' guts because they viewed the Reagan presidency as a turning point in American politics for Republicans, so when Bill Clinton won the hatred poured out like lava from a volcano.

When women having careers was still a little bit of an issue back then, the conservatives hit hard on the fact that she used Rodham as her last name in business dealings to make her seem like she wasn't really committed to her marriage. When Vince Foster committed suicide because of depression and Washington pressure, they pounded away at the fantasy that Hillary had Foster murdered to cover up the affair he and Hillary were supposedly having. Then a few months later they started on the notion that of course Hillary is a lesbian, forgetting that this latest smear directly contradicts the smear they were pushing a few months previous about Hillary having an extramarital affair with Vince Foster. Lesbians generally don't have extramarital affairs with men. Republicans didn't care, they smeared anyway.

Overall, Hillary running as her husband's partner-the Republicans dubbed it the "co-presidency"-meant that Hillary might run someday, so they went into overdrive for decades to portray her as the epitome of Loudmouth Feminazi Lezzy Dike Bitch. Even then, in a normal campaign she would have won for her experience and knowledge, but just as Hitler effectively used the radio to impose his personality on Germany, Trump used Twitter to direct the press' attention to his latest outburst on social media. Press coverage of the campaign became the Trump Twitter Review. As PT Barnum said, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Even then she would have won, but we all know about Republicans and voter suppression. I have second hand knowledge of at least one case of a vote emerging from a voting machine the opposite of what the voter voted for, and nobody at the polling station was terribly upset when it was brought to their attention-the vote was somehow voided and the voter was given a paper ballot to fill out, but no investigation apparently ensued. When Jill Stein paid millions for a recount in three states-Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan-not one of those three states had a full recount of the paper ballots. There always seemed to be, ummm, problems. After Stein paid millions. And during the court cases where Stein tried to get the recount she was willing to pay for, Republican posters were posting all over the internet, "But we need an investigation to see where the extra money Stein collected that she didn't pay for the recount" during the time that it was not even clear if there would be a recount or how much it was going to cost.

So out of that mess, Trump emerged the victor. And you think Bernie would have done better?

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Thank you Blickers for making a cogent argument without a personal attack. That is to be commended.

1) Anyone who steps into the political ring finds that there are knives drawn. It is warfare. Gender has nothing to do with that. If the claim is that Hillary was attacked worse then other candidates... I think you will hard pressed to make this argument in any objective way. Think about what we did to McCain, or what they did the Kerry.

2) There were plenty of people on the left who disliked Bill Clinton. He was referred to as "Slick Willie" since his days in the governors office. The dislike of Bill Clinton obviously has nothing to do with gender. It has to to do with two main things.

The policies of the (Bill) Clinton administration sold out the left. Welfare reform was deeply resented by many of us. As was the "war on crime" which came out in this election. It resulted in a marked increase in incarceration which was called an "unintended consequences" but truth be told, many of the left knew it was coming and said so at the time.

3) Hillary came with the baggage of being a Clinton, and she acted the part. Her greatest undoing was the Email Scandal. This was her fault, and it was an opening that the Republicans exploited. If a Republican candidate had the same issue, we would have exploited it too.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

To answer your question about Sanders.

I think Sanders would have had a better chance than Hillary to win. Sanders would have been able to speak honestly to workers in the rust belt states that Hillary lost (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, ets).

But that isn't the big issue. The game was cooked before it was a two person race.

The Clinton supporters stacked the deck long before the primary started. She started out with the message that she was owed the nomination. The result was that no other candidate even considered stepping up except for Sanders.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

I would also point out... that it wasn't just Hillary that lost. The Republicans now control both chambers of Congress and and both chambers in 31 state legislatures. They have 32 governors. Our side is getting beat in all levels of government. There is a point that blaming it on "voter suppression" is silly.

I don't know if you have a chance to talk (and by that I mean listen) to people outside of the liberal bubble. Try it... listen to what they are saying.

It doesn't matter how "right" we are on our ideology. If we can reach out and discuss issues with middle America, we will keep losing elections.

Political Correctness is a big part of this. And when people told us that we "had" to vote for Hillary, many Americans were offended by this. Some of us held our nose, others voted for Trump.

Let me say this again..... 42% of women (including a majority of White women) chose Donald J. Trump (pussy-grabbing and all) over a White Woman Candidate.

There is a problem here. If you keep blaming it on "voter suppression" or "sexism" you will keep missing the point, and losing elections.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

To answer your question about Sanders.

I think Sanders would have had a better chance than Hillary to win. Sanders would have been able to speak honestly to workers in the rust belt states that Hillary lost (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, ets).

But that isn't the big issue. The game was cooked before it was a two person

Please don't derail this thread. There are other open politics that deal with Sanders and Hillary. This is about Massachusetts and Elizabeth Warren. All of your posts are pretty irrelevant.

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

Actually the derailment was started by Blickers, I was just responding but I hear you Tsar. I am not sure it is completely irrelevant. Warren is a Democratic politician, and a national figure.

I think Senator Warren mostly gets it. She says focused on specific issues. Her message is not ideologically driven, and you don't see her lapse into identity politics very often.

I think she will win. And I am personally happy for this... she is one of the politicians I respect the most .

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I was punching back a bit on that last post. Let me make my point more clearly.

The Democrats have to make a choice; issues or identity politics. This election they ran with identity politics. In my opinion that was a mistake.

I don't hear much serious discussion about issues from the angry White women with pink hats.

What's wrong with their issues?

If you're just talking marketing and change of message, then fine. But what specifically is wrong with the platform?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I never suggested there was anything wrong with their issues. Read what I said again.

The problem is that the Democrats went with identity politics, and lost. When you run with the slogan "I'm with Her" as a feminist woman running against Donald Trump and still have 42% of woman voters vote against you, there is a problem with your message. From the primary onward, the message coming from the Hillary campaign and her supporters was "You are a Sexist". This turned out to not be a winning message.

That is my point, it isn't the issues that are the problem. The Democrats ran on ideology.

In contrast (and on topic), Elizabeth Warren rarely accuses her opponents of sexism for disagreeing with her. Her message is very clearly about specific issues. She advocates for progressive issues from economic justice to healthcare better than anyone.

More Warren and less Clinton would be a good thing for the Democratic party.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

When you run with the slogan "I'm with Her" as a feminist woman running against Donald Trump and still have 42% of woman voters vote against you, there is a problem with your message.

There may well be a problem with your stats.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Right Camlok, you may be correct. I said that 42% of women voted "against Hillary Clinton".

According to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls) the percentage of women voters who voted for Donald Trump was actually 41% (of course the percentage of women who voted "against" Hillary would be a little higher because it would include any third party votes).

I deeply regret the error (or do you have other statistics to show me).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The problem is that the Democrats went with identity politics, and lost. When you run with the slogan "I'm with Her" as a feminist woman running against Donald Trump and still have 42% of woman voters vote against you, there is a problem with your message. From the primary onward, the message coming from the Hillary campaign and her supporters was "You are a Sexist". This turned out to not be a winning message.

The stats are confusing, as is your opinion on this specific issue.

The entire campaign, both sides was "identity politics". Trump' IPs were repugnant pretty much in their entirety. Clinton was repugnant in her entirety but her ideas, specifically as they related to this one issue you've glommed onto were right on, for any right thinking person.

That a large chunk of women [independent women] chose to cozy up to a repugnant man that they would flee from at an office soiree says much more about the US than it does about the specific politics.

As you said, "She lost a majority of the votes of White women. ... .This failed in middle America."

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I never suggested there was anything wrong with their issues. Read what I said again.

The problem is that the Democrats went with identity politics, and lost. When you run with the slogan "I'm with Her" as a feminist woman running against Donald Trump and still have 42% of woman voters vote against you, there is a problem with your message. From the primary onward, the message coming from the Hillary campaign and her supporters was "You are a Sexist". This turned out to not be a winning message.

That is my point, it isn't the issues that are the problem. The Democrats ran on ideology.

In contrast (and on topic), Elizabeth Warren rarely accuses her opponents of sexism for disagreeing with her. Her message is very clearly about specific issues. She advocates for progressive issues from economic justice to healthcare better than anyone.

More Warren and less Clinton would be a good thing for the Democratic party.

Idk maxdancona, I take every thing you say around women with a grain of salt. I think your perspective is skewed and because of that I don't trust your interpretation of events as being anything near mainstream. I'm sure people over at the Red Pill believe you, but I don't believe your view on this matter is accurate.

For example, I'm with Her wasn't her only slogan...there was Hillary for America, Forward Together, Fighting for Us, Stronger Together and probably others. In 2008 she had, Ready for Change, Ready to lead, In to Win, Working for Change, Working for you.

I think democrats get labeled as being more about identity then they actually are. It's a deflection tactic used to help explain to Republican voters (who are something like 90% white people) why they aren't more diverse. "It's not our policies, it's the democrats playing to minorities"

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

The entire campaign, both sides was "identity politics". Trump' IPs were repugnant pretty much in their entirety. Clinton was repugnant in her entirety but her ideas, specifically as they related to this one issue you've glommed onto were right on, for any right thinking person.

Yes, I both sides of this election were "identity politics". I thought I made this point earlier. Identity politics favors Republicans and especially favors Donald Trump.

The two sides aren't the same. Some battlegrounds favor the Democrats. Some battlegrounds favor the Republicans. The Democrats (choosing Hillary) chose to fight on a battleground that favored the Republicans.

And they lost.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

I think democrats get labeled as being more about identity then they actually are. It's a deflection tactic used to help explain to Republican voters (who are something like 90% white people) why they aren't more diverse. "It's not our policies, it's the democrats playing to minorities"

What's your point?

The goal of these tactics is to win elections. The Republicans now have the White House, both Houses of Congress, pretty strong control of state legislatures and governors mansions.

The Republicans are winning on every level. We can argue about why they are winning... but that they are winning is an undeniable fact.

If you support the Democratic party, a long hard honest self-assessment about why we are losing is a pretty good idea.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The Democrats (choosing Hillary) chose to fight on a battleground that favored the Republicans.

I think you are wrong there. But again,

As I noted, this speaks volumes about America, as if you have to be told. The nativist, radically "patriotic" people [in quotes because the word has been drug through the filth so often in its association with the US] managed to insert, with a screwy political system that makes a winner out of the person who actually lost, elects a president that easily describes all the worst aspects of human nature.

1 Reply

Elizabeth Warren in 2018? Possible challengers?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know