So would I. I wonder how supporters of Senator Sanders would feel about a Clinton/Warren ticket? My first thought was, "Damn! They're both from the Northeast!" My second thought was, "Who cares?" Nothing about this election cycle fits any previous election cycle, so why get hung up on geography? If Ms. Clinton would be the first woman president, why not double down? It would get me excited, at any rate.
Ms. Warren is too valuable as a Senator to be relegated to the official funeral attender. A Vice President has to muffle their own message and parrot the President.... I don't think she could even. Personally, I think she needs to quit tweeting about Trump and stay above the fray. Her real fights will be after the election.
Warren might help to rehabilitate cautious old staus quo Hillary with some progressives which will be important some polls are starting to show is running neck and neck with Trump. ++++++++++ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0Y21TN according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday. The results could signal a close fight between the two likely White House rivals as Americans make up their minds ahead of the Nov. 8 election to succeed Democratic President Barack Obama. As recently as last week, Clinton led Trump by around 13 points in the poll. In the most recent survey, 41 percent of likely voters supported Clinton By nominating Hillary Clinton, Weaver insisted, the Democratic Party would be risking “disaster simply to protect the status quo” in the U.S. http://www.salon.com/2016/05/11/nom...protect_the_status_quo_sanders_campaign_says/ see http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-the-conservative-hope-1462833870
I hear you and respect your passion for this as I said before I don't think you're bad guy. I don't think Glynch is a bad guy either and give him a lot of credit for the passion and consistency on his positions. There are a lot of diverse opinions here and part of what makes this forum good is that we have diverse opinions and Glynch and others certainly fill a niche. I will admit though I'm competitive and how I debate is probably an extension of both my sports competitiveness and that I was on my high school debate team. I don't know how much you've been on this forum but if you look you will find I have been involved in several debates on climate change and fully recognize the danger and challenge we face. Far far more important than that though is through my work in architecture is that I work on making buildings and development more sustainable. In the debate of Clinton versus Sanders this comes down to a few things why I think Clinton is the better choice. First is she is the most qualified. Second though is that while I can agree with Sanders on many of the problems I don't see him as providing the solutions. I understand the desire to see revolutionary change but we have to remember that we live in a very diverse country with many diverse viewpoints. Further I believe in rebublican - democracy (emphasis on small 'r' and 'd') but what that means is that we have to deal with a diverse views including those who are diametrically opposed to us. What that means is that governance by nature will be an exercise in compromise involving many tradeoffs. Also having been a political junkie since I was in college, including working on campaigns and party building, I've seen how difficult it is to make change happen. Another part though why I don't feel the Bern is that travelling, studying and working in other countries I think I have a different view on Globalism including free trade and migration than many Americans. On those subjects I don't agree with Sanders and am right of Clinton. I think his views are protectionist and even though I don't agree with Clinton 100% I think she is better suited to deal with these issues than Sanders. Regarding sources. I agree with you that we should read many sources but as I've pointed out just because something isn't from the Mainstream Media doesn't make it any less biased. Usually it's more. I will point this out in a Daily Kos article that you cited earlier regarding money laundering that the piece declared it was anti-Clinton and asked readers to send in more info that was anti-Clinton and could help Sanders. We're having a debate and we bring source material to that. You're free to question mine as I'm free to question your's. If you noticed that my counter to Glynch regarding the Medicare buy-in came from his own source.
One is a Reuter's poll the results of which Reuter's itself says is very, very early in the election cycle and right after Trump's rivals dropped out. He was close to her in March, and then dropped back when his rivals were hitting him for the crap he was saying himself. When Clinton puts Sanders away, you will see Trump's numbers drop. Her campaign will be able to focus on Donald Trump and he will be hit hard. What you are seeing is also blow back from Mr. Sanders continuing his campaign, as he should. Ms. Clinton won 9 of the last 12 primaries in 2008. The way this is playing out has been seen before. The article from Salon? Did you think I wouldn't read it? The thing is a hit piece aimed at Clinton by Sanders and his campaign manager and exactly the sort of thing that helps Republicans and does nothing to get Sanders the nomination. Sanders going negative, which this column illustrates very well, was a mistake on his part, in my humble opinion. The more crap he throws at Ms. Clinton, the more it makes him look like any typical politician. That's not a compliment. The bits you underlined? Quotes from his freakin' campaign manager! No bias there, I'm sure. (Insert a "roll-eyes" here) I can't read it. I'm not a subscriber. From the tiny part I could see, it appears that many conservatives would rather have Hillary as President than Trump. That's on Trump, not Ms. Clinton. The only positive I can see from your post is that you apparently believe Ms. Warren would be a good VP candidate to run with Ms. Clinton. An unlikely choice, but one I would welcome.
This gets back to an issue that many have pointed out. The Sanders campaign talks a lot about disenfranchisement of voters but is trailing by millions in actual votes. That trend looks like it will continue even with him winning late primaries. If Sanders wants to win a contested convention that will mean that the about 3 million more that voted for Clinton over Sanders will be disenfranchised. It will be the exact opposite of what the Sanders campaign to be about empowering the voice of the voters over the Establishment since the only way he wins a contested convention is to have many of the establishment support him over the majority of voters.
Clinton may come close to the magic number of 2383 (which counts all delegates) even without the super delegates. She currently has 1,716 pledged delegates with 1,065 remaining and she is ahead big in polls in the 3 big states, Oregon, California, NJ.
There is no greater fray than letting her followers know that we could end up with a fascist president if they let their purity (or lethargy) get in the way of common sense.
I agree with the 1st part but I think the plan is to have Hilary stay above the fray and everybody else hits Trump hard.
That is exactly why we cannot risk the uninspriring status quo Hillary as our candidate against Trump-- even though it is "her turn" and the 400 plus super delegates and all the established Democratic pols cooked the books for her before we even knew who would be running against her. Hillary could easily be this years Romney as it was "his turn". The Dem Party of the little person is becoming a distant memory in many voters minds and as a money grubbing multi-millionaire giving $265, 000 per hr speeches on Wall Street Hillary doesn't seem that different than Trump the billionaire to many voters. She fits into the all too common "they are all corrupt" so why vote common opinion.I wonder if you Hillary supporters ever talk to folks who think this way. Hey, I may still even vote for Hillary here in TX, though as the game isplayed it won't make any difference.
In thinking about the Trump phenomenon, I've kind hit on the "no publicity is bad publicity" idea. I think the fact that he is so easily lampooned and such easy fodder for every comedian and critic, that he dominates the social narrative. It's constantly, every day all day, having his name and image in front of people that built his groundswell. A lot of people just hate politics as usual, a lot of people hate Ms. Clinton and Mr. Cruz, a lot of people hate the 2 losses from mainstream republicans and want to get radical, a lot of people want someone to just take over and do something, anything but obstruction, a lot of people are vicariously empowered by the appearance of power, and a lot of people just want the drama , to watch the world burn for the entertainment. Calling more attention to Mr. Trumps and his fascism is not really helping. A better tact would be calling attention to how Ms. Clinton would have positive effects on people's lives, something Mr. Sanders actually does.
What a coincidence! They must read D&D. ;-)- Unconventional #13: Could Trump’s rise convince Clinton to pick Elizabeth Warren as her running mate? 1. The Clinton Veepwatch, Vol. 1: Elizabeth Warren In which Unconventional examines the likely Democratic nominee’s possible — and not-so-possible — vice presidential picks. The first in an ongoing series. Name: Elizabeth Ann Warren Age: 66 Résumé: U.S. senator from Massachusetts; former special adviser for the Consumer Protection Bureau, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, and professor at Harvard Law School; author or co-author of nine books Source of speculation: Vice President Joe Biden. According to a report Thursday morning in Politico, Biden may have taken his sweet time deciding whether or not to run for president in 2016 — but he knew from the start that he would have wanted Warren as his running mate. Apparently, Biden first floated Warren as a possible sidekick — he seemed “particularly enthusiastic” about the idea — during his earliest strategy sessions with advisers. Biden even proposed the pairing to Warren herself during their much-hyped lunch at the Naval Observatory last September. She was “noncommittal” but “not displeased,” according to Politico. Of course, Biden decided — eventually — not to run for leader of the free world. But he still wants Warren to succeed him as VP. As Politico put it, Biden “recently told associates that Warren would be an equally smart pick for Hillary Clinton.” And now his associates are talking up the prospect of a Clinton-Warren ticket. In public. “She’s clearly someone anyone would consider,” said Ted Kaufman, a former Delaware senator and Biden’s longtime aide and confidant. “Elizabeth Warren is really a great leader, and someone who is dynamic and articulate. If you listen to what she says, it’s on point, it’s factual, it’s thoughtful. I think she would add a lot to Hillary’s ticket, to [any] ticket. The most important thing is governing. Warren is someone you’d like to have by your side when you’re making these tough decisions.” Spoiler Backstory: The notion of a Vice President Warren is nothing new. Before Bernie Sanders, “the self-described democratic socialist senator from Vermont,” became Bernie Sanders, “the rumpled dream president of progressives everywhere,” Warren was the left’s top White House pick for 2016. MoveOn.org and Democracy for America launched a draft campaign. The Ready for Warren super-PAC spent a year trying to entice the Massachusetts senator to run. The coverage — and speculation — was endless. When Warren finally and firmly ruled out a presidential bid in the early months of 2015, everyone started buzzing about whether she would wind up as the party’s vice presidential nominee instead. By pointedly refusing to endorse either Clinton or Sanders, Warren has done little to silence such buzz. Asked last September whether she would consider running for vice president, she told the Associated Press that it was “something I’m not talking about” — hardly a Shermanesque denial. “I have a job,” Warren added, “and my job is to go down to Washington and fight for the people of Massachusetts.” Warren has stuck to that line ever since. In an interview with Mic earlier this week, for instance, she repeated that she is “not thinking about another job.” “We’ve got to get all of our nominations settled on the Democratic side,” Warren said. Translation: she’s not not interested. Odds: They might be improving — even if Warren remains a long shot. (there's more - check the link.) https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-13-could-trump-s-rise-1428178444738614.html
