I believe Clinton will be able to get a little more done and I still feel she is more electable. Can you imagine the Republican congressmen working with a socialist? Only if they do not value their career. If Sanders is a little more charismatic and have a softer message, I could vote for him, as of now I still see Hillary as the best chance to beat Trump.
Fair enough and I agree. As I've said, I don't think Sanders can win. The powers that be are too rich and powerful.
It isn't that simple. Sanders does not do well with minorities. Clinton has crushed him almost all demographics other than whites. In 8-12 years, the narrative may change, and the demographics may change as well and he would beat Clinton hypothetically. However he will be in his 80's by then.
Actually it will be very interesting to see who Hillary picks as the VP. Would it be Warren? How about Andrew Cuomo? Who else?
yea right it will be another bush, followed by another clinton, then another bush, then a clinton, until the end of the world as we know it. I hope Warren wouldn't accept. Warren cares and isn't a fraud. She needs to stay away from the she devil clinton.
So much truth spoken by Sanders. So much that he said turned out to be true. He won't be the candidate, but he did help set the agenda for the Clinton candidacy. It would be nice if there were more politicians like Sanders who put the interests of the nation above that of ego, lobbyists, party, money, and after office opportunity.
Indeed......... now can you explain to me why Warren hasn't endorsed Sanders? She has thus far failed to endorse Clinton or Sanders....... it is almost like she is playing politics and waiting to see who will win before she makes an announcement.
She is in a strong position for VP or a cabinet post no matter who wins, why should she risk anything?
Exactly..... she is a politician. There seems to be this idea that Sanders and Warren are above these evil corporate owned and operated politicians. Whenever the greater public doesn't agree with this thought process, it is because they have been bought or influenced by this large corporate structure. The reality is far more simple in this case, Elizabeth Warren is a politician and a democrat. She is going to withhold her support until she gets something out of it; what is best for her and her career.
My money is on Castro or Booker. Sherrod Brown is a logical choice also. Warren would be a tough sell because of her age and the idea of an all female ticket.
All fair enough statements. But Warren should also hold out until she gets more influence for her cause. Yes, that is synonymous with what would be best for her career. But it would be foolish to tie herself to a sinking ship and, in the process, lose her chance to gain influence to further her cause.
Warren may be wishing that she had had the guts to jump in as Hillary turned out to be quite beatable despite her 100% name recognition and having virtually every mainstream politico and media source doing whatever they can to squelch any opponent. Hey I give Bernie only about a 25% chance (not the near zero the traditional media has kept dutifully repeating from essentially day one)to catch Hillary before she limps to the finish line despite her huge early lead. Of course if she is indicted before the Convention all bets are off. Fortunately for Bernie, much of his support is not indoctrinated by the corporate media so they are still convinced he has a good chance of catching Hillary and are still working and donating.
Ms. Warren is exactly where she wants to be, where she can accomplish the most. VP sucks. Senators have a lot of power, especially if we ever get a Democratic majority. You can call witnesses, that's always interesting.
I doubt Warren wishes she had jumped in, especially with Sanders in the field. There are not enough blue liberals to go around. Warren also is unlikely to have beaten Clinton. I don't believe that Clinton will win the general election, but this idea that she has proven to be "quite beatable" isn't really true, as she has a 10-15% lead in national polls and has a 200 delegate lead after Super Tuesday and it is only going to grow shortly. She also has been the front runner ever since the primary season started. Further, she isn't "limping" towards the finish line, her lead has been increasing over the last 3 weeks. Knowing that it is a real long shot for Bernie to win the nomination as of 3/4/16 isn't a matter of being indoctrinated by the corporate media, it is a matter of REALITY and basic math.
CNN poll has Clinton losing to Cruz & Rubio. Sanders crushes all 3 w/ Trump. Saying she's more electable than Sanders is nauseating
Why do people continue to point to polls that are meaningless? General election polls during primary season have historically been proven completely irrelevant. The vast majority of the country is not remotely paying attention to the election right now. And the parties are fractured during primary season in a way that dissipates by November. That's not to say Clinton has a better shot than Sanders or vice-versa - it's that nothing out there about the general election has any value right now.
