Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Senator Warren says that she'll let Hillary be president in 2016   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, Senator Warren, vows, senator  
•       •       •

2063 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Dec 2013 at 1:34 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-05 10:02:21 AM  
Elizabeth Warren would get stomped by just about any Republican she went up against.  I know some of you younger ones think that the country would be accepting of a liberal Democrat in the White House, but you should go back and look at the wilderness the Democrats were wondering around in during the years they picked Dukakis, Mondale, and McGovern as their champions.
 
2013-12-05 10:40:58 AM  
Better Warren than Clinton, IMO. I just don't trust Clinton, and I think the Baby Boomer Generation has had the wheel long enough.
 
2013-12-05 11:58:49 AM  

Lucky LaRue: Elizabeth Warren would get stomped by just about any Republican she went up against.  I know some of you younger ones think that the country would be accepting of a liberal Democrat in the White House, but you should go back and look at the wilderness the Democrats were wondering around in during the years they picked Dukakis, Mondale, and McGovern as their champions.


This assumes, of course, that all else is equal now to what it was then. That is not correct.
 
2013-12-05 12:01:51 PM  
She's better off where she is.  She can do a lot more good there.
 
2013-12-05 12:17:26 PM  
I wouldn't trust her.  She can be a bit of an Indian giver.
 
2013-12-05 12:21:27 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Elizabeth Warren would get stomped by just about any Republican she went up against.  I know some of you younger ones think that the country would be accepting of a liberal Democrat in the White House, but you should go back and look at the wilderness the Democrats were wondering around in during the years they picked Dukakis, Mondale, and McGovern as their champions.


This was before the GOP went full-on insane, so you have to take that into account.
 
2013-12-05 12:25:58 PM  

Nabb1: Better Warren than Clinton, IMO. I just don't trust Clinton, and I think the Baby Boomer Generation has had the wheel long enough.


Dynasties are cool for sports, but not for politics. No more Clintons, no more Bushes. Sorry, Hillary - I think you'd make a good President, but there's more than one brilliant woman out there in America.

Now if she wins the general then I'll be firmly supporting her, due to the fact that she would be running against a Republican, and that party doesn't deserve to win any positions above city councilman.
 
2013-12-05 12:40:38 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Now if she wins the general then I'll be firmly supporting her, due to the fact that she would be running against a Republican, and that party doesn't deserve to win any positions above city councilman.


Not many below, either. I don't think I'd want to vote for a Republican as dogcatcher.

a.imageshack.us

 
2013-12-05 12:46:14 PM  

BravadoGT: I wouldn't trust her.  She can be a bit of an Indian giver.


Here's the evidence she'd do pretty well - people are still clinging to this as if it means anything at all because there's little else to neg on her about.
 
2013-12-05 12:51:32 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Elizabeth Warren would get stomped by just about any Republican she went up against.  I know some of you younger ones think that the country would be accepting of a liberal Democrat in the White House, but you should go back and look at the wilderness the Democrats were wondering around in during the years they picked Dukakis, Mondale, and McGovern as their champions.


Given the Dems structural advantage in the EC, Warren would only need to snag 1-2 battleground states to win (assuming all core D states stay D).  Not saying it's easy, but very doable.

Now, factor in demographic changes going on at the moment, then fast-forward to the 2020 election year.  If Warren runs then, she'd have an even higher shot at winning, imo.
 
2013-12-05 01:00:41 PM  
Ask her again in two years.
 
2013-12-05 01:08:04 PM  

BravadoGT: I wouldn't trust her.  She can be a bit of an Indian giver.


www.woodworkingtalk.com
 
2013-12-05 01:11:19 PM  
Grand_Moff_Joseph: Words

For the record, here's the starter map I used to base my comment on:

img.fark.net

All she would need is 7 votes (8 to avoid a tie).  That can be accomplished with any one of CO, OH, NC, VA, or FL.

A GOP candidate would need to sweep all of the above, plus hold their usual states, in order to win.  Again, not saying it's impossible, but it's not a lock either.  :)
 
2013-12-05 01:21:15 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Elizabeth Warren would get stomped by just about any Republican she went up against.  I know some of you younger ones think that the country would be accepting of a liberal Democrat in the White House, but you should go back and look at the wilderness the Democrats were wondering around in during the years they picked Dukakis, Mondale, and McGovern as their champions.


McGovern was a liberal the other two were lacking any sort of coherent platform at all because they were afraid of being seen as aligning themselves with hippies. Their mushy rhetoric finally evolved into Clinton neoliberalism.
 
2013-12-05 01:28:14 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: A GOP candidate would need to sweep all of the above, plus hold their usual states, in order to win. Again, not saying it's impossible, but it's not a lock either. :)


Which is why the GOP is trying to gerrymander the electoral college distribution in those states.
 
2013-12-05 01:35:30 PM  

BravadoGT: I wouldn't trust her.  She can be a bit of an Indian giver.


Yay racism!
 
2013-12-05 01:35:32 PM  
FTFA: Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren pledged Wednesday that she will not seek the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, presumably squashing speculation about her challenging front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Is that the same Hillary Clinton that said she's not running for President in 2016?  Or has that changed in the last couple of years.
 
2013-12-05 01:36:19 PM  

timujin: FTFA: Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren pledged Wednesday that she will not seek the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, presumably squashing speculation about her challenging front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Is that the same Hillary Clinton that said she's not running for President in 2016?  Or has that changed in the last couple of years.


Months... not years.  Sorry, haven't been to bed since 7am yesterday.
 
2013-12-05 01:37:10 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Elizabeth Warren would get stomped by just about any Republican she went up against.  I know some of you younger ones think that the country would be accepting of a liberal Democrat in the White House, but you should go back and look at the wilderness the Democrats were wondering around in during the years they picked Dukakis, Mondale, and McGovern as their champions.


That was a long time ago. Liberal economic messages are becoming much much more popular now. However I do think waiting for her is better.
 
2013-12-05 01:37:12 PM  
She's not ready. Maybe in 2020.

OMG, I just realized the possibilities for campaign slogans in a year called 20/20.

Warren 2020 A vision for the future
Warren 2020 Hindsight is 2020. No more Clintons!
 
2013-12-05 01:40:03 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Words

For the record, here's the starter map I used to base my comment on:

[img.fark.net image 742x563]

All she would need is 7 votes (8 to avoid a tie).  That can be accomplished with any one of CO, OH, NC, VA, or FL.

A GOP candidate would need to sweep all of the above, plus hold their usual states, in order to win.  Again, not saying it's impossible, but it's not a lock either.  :)


Wisconsin should probably be in that list of tossup states and not colored blue.
 
2013-12-05 01:40:08 PM  

abb3w: Lando Lincoln: Now if she wins the general then I'll be firmly supporting her, due to the fact that she would be running against a Republican, and that party doesn't deserve to win any positions above city councilman.

Not many below, either. I don't think I'd want to vote for a Republican as dogcatcher.


If Romey's treatment of his own dog is any indication of Republican dog handling skills, yeah, I most certainly wouldn't vote for 'em as dogcatcher.  Even the meanest, most rabid mutt in existence deserves better treatment than that.
 
2013-12-05 01:41:45 PM  
My guess is that, before that statement, someone paid her a visit, and 'advised' her not to run... And if she did, if would be a pity that an accident might happen.
 
2013-12-05 01:42:48 PM  

CygnusDarius: My guess is that, before that statement, someone paid her a visit, and 'advised' her not to run... And if she did, if would be a pity that an accident might happen.


Just like with Vince Foster AMIRITE
 
2013-12-05 01:43:28 PM  
Didn't Hillary ALSO say she wasn't going to run?
 
2013-12-05 01:43:55 PM  
So everyone talking about Warren running in 2020, are you assuming the Democrats lose the general election in 2016, that the Democratic president doesn't run for a second term, or that Warren challenges the president in the primary?
 
2013-12-05 01:44:21 PM  

Mentat: She's better off where she is.  She can do a lot more good there.


I agree.

For the trouble of another term in office and going at the rate she is we'd be looking at a natural pick.  But right now, too soon.

The 2016 nomination is Hillary's for the taking.  The question will be if she does.  I think she'd do a great job and I would revel in the sheer horror of the GOP seeing Bill Clinton back in the White House in any official capacity.
 
2013-12-05 01:45:09 PM  
The fact that Hillary just accepted about half a million dollars from Goldman Sachs (NOT campaign funds. Money that went to her personally) tells me everything I need to know about why she would be fighting for the Plutocrats just as hard as any Republican.

I'm sad that Warren decided to take one for the team, but did anyone notice that Obama gave a speech on income inequality on the same day Warren announced she wouldn't run?

She was also behind the recent rejection of yet another one of Wall Street's guys to be put in charge of the Fed
 
2013-12-05 01:46:41 PM  
She would get the Native American vote for sure.
 
2013-12-05 01:47:42 PM  

jaylectricity: She's not ready. Maybe in 2020.

OMG, I just realized the possibilities for campaign slogans in a year called 20/20.

Warren 2020 A vision for the future
Warren 2020 Hindsight is 2020. No more Clintons!


I've already patented my slogan when I run: "In 2020, Car_Ramrod has the perfect vision".

Lando Lincoln: Dynasties are cool for sports, but not for politics.


*eyeroll*

Lando Lincoln: Now if she wins the general primary then I'll be firmly supporting her, due to the fact that she would be running against a Republican

.
 
2013-12-05 01:49:18 PM  
It really doesn't matter whom the Dems pick in 2016, because they'll be running against someone who can get through the GOP primaries. That person will be 100% unelectable.
 
2013-12-05 01:50:00 PM  
I've heard people say "no more dynasties" to mean "no more Bushes or Clintons," but it always sounds like concern trolling to me. We've had two Bush presidents, we've had one Clinton president. One of these things is not like the other.

I don't feel strongly about Hillary EXCEPT that I'd love to see the GOP's collective aneurysm/schism continue past 2016, and I don't think anyone's more capable of that than Hillary is.

In a race between Hillary and Yet Another Out Of Touch White Guy®, I suspect a lot of Republican and R-leaning women will quietly vote for Hillary because vagina. GOP, you goddamn fools, you should have run Condi in 2008.
 
2013-12-05 01:52:02 PM  
As much as I love Warren's anti-Wall St work, her Senate campaign showed that she isn't particularly politically savvy. During the debates she was very visibly irked over the Native American background thing, and she let Brown control the narrative on it. She's going to be most effective right where she is, and I don't think she'd do well in a Presidential campaign...
 
2013-12-05 01:52:55 PM  

omgbears: During the debates she was very visibly irked over the Native American background thing, and she let Brown control the narrative on it


I don't remember this during the debate.
 
2013-12-05 01:52:58 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Now, factor in demographic changes going on at the moment, then fast-forward to the 2020 election year.  If Warren runs then, she'd have an even higher shot at winning, imo.


You realize that she'd be 71 for that election.  Basically McCain in 2008 (older than Reagan in 1980, younger than Reagan in 1984).  Impossible, no, but the 'age thing' is worth a couple points in the polls by that point.

I think 2016 is the last realistic chance for a first-wave-Boomer candidate.
 
2013-12-05 01:53:53 PM  

BullBearMS: The fact that Hillary just accepted about half a million dollars from Goldman Sachs (NOT campaign funds. Money that went to her personally) tells me everything I need to know about why she would be fighting for the Plutocrats just as hard as any Republican.


Your concern is noted, crumbled up in a small ball and thrown in a toilet.
 
2013-12-05 01:54:07 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Elizabeth Warren would get stomped by just about any Republican she went up against.


You mean just like Harry Reid in Nevada? Oh wait...

I know some of you younger ones think that the country would be accepting of a liberal Democrat in the White House, but you should go back and look at the wilderness the Democrats were wondering around in during the years they picked Dukakis, Mondale, and McGovern as their champions.

You sound concerned.
 
2013-12-05 01:54:24 PM  
She can probably get more accomplished as a congresswoman anyway. Better position to actually influence law, much less P.R. nonsense getting in the way.

=Smidge=
 
2013-12-05 01:54:33 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Words

For the record, here's the starter map I used to base my comment on:

[img.fark.net image 742x563]

All she would need is 7 votes (8 to avoid a tie).  That can be accomplished with any one of CO, OH, NC, VA, or FL.

A GOP candidate would need to sweep all of the above, plus hold their usual states, in order to win.  Again, not saying it's impossible, but it's not a lock either.  :)


I'd like to agree with you, but remember that Wisconsin gave us Scott Walker.  There is a lot of Derp out there even in deep blue states.
 
2013-12-05 01:55:16 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Elizabeth Warren would get stomped by just about any Republican she went up against.


lol no
 
2013-12-05 01:56:08 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: She would get the Native American vote for sure.


HUUUUURRRRRRR
 
2013-12-05 01:56:45 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Words

For the record, here's the starter map I used to base my comment on:

[img.fark.net image 742x563]

All she would need is 7 votes (8 to avoid a tie).  That can be accomplished with any one of CO, OH, NC, VA, or FL.

A GOP candidate would need to sweep all of the above, plus hold their usual states, in order to win.  Again, not saying it's impossible, but it's not a lock either.  :)


Of all those states maybe Wisconsin could be picked off...but then a GOP Candidate would have to hold everywhere else.  Considering FL's turning purple (or just outright blue) and Texas is slowly turning purple, I don't consider their chances to be strong.
 
2013-12-05 01:57:21 PM  
Well, if Hilary is what we get served up... looks like I'll be voting for every other spot on the ticket except Pres.

No more neoliberalist corporate whores. This country needs some serious structural change and putting another goddamn corporate clone in office will do nothing but maintain the status quo.

/farking note my concern all you want.
 
2013-12-05 01:58:14 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Wisconsin should probably be in that list of tossup states and not colored blue.


Wisconsin hasn't voted for a republican for president since 1984, and the only people that really thought it could flip republican in 2012 were reporters trying to sell the horse race narrative.
 
2013-12-05 02:00:16 PM  

Psylence: Well, if Hilary is what we get served up... looks like I'll be voting for every other spot on the ticket except Pres.

No more neoliberalist corporate whores. This country needs some serious structural change and putting another goddamn corporate clone in office will do nothing but maintain the status quo.

/farking note my concern all you want.


I always wonder where this line comes from. Was Bill a "corporate clone" when he was in office? Was Hillary when she was in State? This seems like a lazy way to say "I don't like her."
 
2013-12-05 02:00:57 PM  
The republican party has run so far off the rails that they will have a damn hard time getting it back on the tracks by next presidential election. And to continue with the train metaphor, that is what they get for letting the tea party take control. And congressional republicans are digging in not digging out!
 
2013-12-05 02:02:46 PM  

Psylence: Well, if Hilary is what we get served up... looks like I'll be voting for every other spot on the ticket except Pres.

No more neoliberalist corporate whores. This country needs some serious structural change and putting another goddamn corporate clone in office will do nothing but maintain the status quo.

/farking note my concern all you want.


For me it's going to be if she has a decent environmental protection/green energy plan. Otherwise, I'm inclined to agree.

It's time for the US to go back to Hell like during the Bush years if the Dems can't run a decent candidate.
 
2013-12-05 02:03:15 PM  
Well now I has a sad.
 
2013-12-05 02:03:40 PM  

abb3w: Lando Lincoln: Now if she wins the general then I'll be firmly supporting her, due to the fact that she would be running against a Republican, and that party doesn't deserve to win any positions above city councilman.

Not many below, either. I don't think I'd want to vote for a Republican as dogcatcher.

[a.imageshack.us image 797x600]


Considering what they have been doing to that poor chicken, I wouldn't put them anywhere near a dog!
 
2013-12-05 02:03:43 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Words

For the record, here's the starter map I used to base my comment on:

[img.fark.net image 742x563]

All she would need is 7 votes (8 to avoid a tie).  That can be accomplished with any one of CO, OH, NC, VA, or FL.

A GOP candidate would need to sweep all of the above, plus hold their usual states, in order to win.  Again, not saying it's impossible, but it's not a lock either.  :)

Wisconsin should probably be in that list of tossup states and not colored blue.


Per 270towin.com's stats, Wisconsin has given its EC votes to the Dem candidate in 8 out of the last 10 elections, (going back to 1976).  State-wide offices are another animal entirely, but on the Federal level, I think you can make a good case for calling it at least a 'heavy lean' blue state.

/just my .02 though
//not arguing with you, per se
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report