So you are essentially stating that a properly informed and intelligent voting demographic would embrace Warren? I would also like to suggest that one election cycle doesn't necessarily suggest a systemic patterns. Again, in two of the debates, Trump took a hit in the polls. He won inspite of the debates with Hillary. Also, I assume you vehemently disagree with the conservative/right wing media narrative that was propagated months after the election that stated that Hillary lost because she concentrated on attacking Trump rather than discussing the economic hardships of rural and blue collared Americans.
She comes off as weak for a presidential race yes. AG is completely different. I said she is probably strong, but only because I know what politicians are made of. You realllllllly can't let that go can you? Perception matters.
I edited my previous reply to address another point that I don't think you had a chance to read because I edited too late so I'll repeat it again . Also, I assume you vehemently disagree with the conservative/right wing media narrative that was propagated months after the election that stated that Hillary lost because she concentrated on attacking Trump rather than discussing the economic hardships of rural and blue collared Americans.
Oh Hilary never lost because SHE neglected blue states. That's a fact. But it is close. I even predicted as much. More so, Obama neglected Blue states, which is why he was desperately flying out there to campaign for her during the final days when their internal polling probably showed the truth of what was to come to the Dems. Those states have been pandered too but ignored for a long time.
Where are you getting that? No, not if they don't want to. Also I dislike Wells Fargo, so props to her. She isn't all that bad, really. I don't hate her.
Well, the right wing media machine had a more clearly defined narrative on why she lost. It wasn't merely ignoring blue states. She didn't discuss economic hardships of rural white working class voters according to them. It contradicts your narrative that Trump won because his insult game was on point and Hillary was merely a policy wonk who couldn't spit back. Your entire premise is that discussing policy in a nuanced manner doesn't work. Spitting hot memes and insults work instead.
There are candidates like Bernie who Wall Street is less afraid of not because of their rhetoric which Bernie has plenty of. It's because Warren gets **** done. Her competence merged with her rhetoric is why Wall Street and corporate lobbiests can't stand her.
Not at all a contradiction. Trump got to the top with insults in debates, and Hilary largely lost it because she had a ton of baggage and the Dems screwed Bernie. Trump also did well against Hilary in regard to his base. All of these things combined to energize enough people to vote for him and not the other. It isn't as simple as you put it. I know what you are doing, and I get it. You want to back me into a corner with things. Keep it up.
Which is why she would make a great AG probably. And credit to her where it is due. Anyway I have to work some so I won't respond for awhile. I respect that you clearly have strong convictions and I can tell mean well. I enjoyed talking.
Again, why would voters be interested in those things unless somebody makes a deal about it and uses it as talking points? You have yet to point out anything about her policy making that makes her a good/bad candidate. Is this how american voters select candidates?
Well seeing as that we have Donald Trump as President, at least for one election cycle @dachuda86 is somewhat correct.
article on the "likability" thing https://arcdigital.media/male-and-f...ikability-to-everyones-detriment-d9e0dfc14b11
Warren has some very, very good social policies. The best I've seen from the democrats... ever, in terms of being a champion of the 99% without being a socialist. A Beto Warren combination would be the democrats best bet, with Beto the spokesman and Warren the behind the scenes VP to pursuade fringe voters and those that swung over to Trump in 2016. Forget about the trash like Hilary, AOC and whoever else are the Palin's of the left, go to core and work at getting the trust of the American worker back who are getting hurt with Trump (3.2 million farmers today).
I didn't say policy was irrelevant. I said you need both basically. And to answer your last question.... YES!
lol, Warren is pretty good, but I think you have gotten a little bit too enamored with her. Wall Street would happily settle for her if that is what it would take to stop Bernie. After all you can google and find you tube or c-span videos of Sanders speaking out about abuse from Wall Street back before 1995 when Warren decided that she was no longer a Republican. Warren came pretty late in life to being very upset over Wall Street and poverty issues -- at least professionally and publicly. As far as the competence vs rhetoric angle. Warren would definitely offer Sanders various cabinet posts and vice versa. The main advantage of Sanders has to do with political courage and leadership. The perfect example is Warren being too afraid to run last time for fear of the Clintons or being too afraid to endorse Sanders or Clinton before the primary fight was over. An ideal ticket would be Sanders-Warren, which could unite the party. In terms of age Warren is about exactly 8 years younger than Sanders.
Can Elizabeth Warren win over black voters? "The tenor of Harris' candidacy to date suggests that her goal is to follow in Obama's footsteps, albeit in a manner updated for the Trump era. She will seek to unite moderate voters appalled by Trump's corruption and incompetence with progressives excited to support an African-American (and South Asian-American) woman. She will woo business leaders looking for stability, but also liberal activists looking for a champion to protect reproductive rights and the most economically-vulnerable citizens. "Can Warren, or another left-wing populist candidate, compete with that pitch? It depends, to a considerable extent, on the degree to which she can win over African-American voters on the basis of her economic populism. "That's something Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had difficulty doing in the 2016 presidential race — particularly with older African-Americans who are the most reliable voters. He was hobbled by weak institutional ties to the party, which is a serious liability. Warren doesn't have that problem, but she may still have difficulty convincing black voters that they should take the risk on advocating radical change, particularly if she has to run an underdog campaign against a candidate consolidating institutional support. Contra Trump's 2016 campaign taunt, many African-American voters may think they have too much to lose to take that kind of risk. "On the other hand, Warren may also have another problem. Jamelle Bouie, in his last piece for Slate before decamping for The New York Times, suggested that white candidates in the contemporary Democratic Party face a bit of a catch-22. If they don't engage in a dramatic way on issues of particular importance to black voters, they have trouble exciting those voters' enthusiasm. But if they do focus on those issues, they risk being defined by them in the minds of white voters who harbor racial resentments, and push those voters toward the Republicans. Ironically, a white Democrat could be more of a lightning rod for such resentments than a black candidate who can run a less racially-oriented campaign." https://theweek.com/articles/818943/elizabeth-warren-win-over-black-voters
