TomatoPie wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:I think many people on this board seriously underestimate Elizabeth Warren. She is a woman of enormous dignity but who also speaks cogently and persuasively and authentically - despite her Harvard pedigree - on working people's issues.

And, more to the point, her ideas are the best and most well-thought out.

With all due respect, Moz, I think you seriously underestimate the visceral negative reaction Warren engenders outside her core constituency. It’s not fair, it’s not right, but it’s there.

Agree 100%. She's won my respect even though she is well left of my views. I'd take her over Trump 100 times out of 100. But to many Americans, she is that self-righteous preachy schoolmarm; Hillary 2.0 except she probably hasn't killed most of her enemies.

TenuredVulture wrote:Market volatility seems to be getting worse. I think a significant chunk of Trump's support comes from people seeing their 401k balances inflate. That looks to be over for the time being, and it's not hard to make the case that unlike most economic slow downs, Trump's trade war is an unforced error, and we might find ourselves with a recession combined with rising prices. (Though this won't I don't think be like the 70s, since oil prices are fine.) Let's hope this isn't a 2008 type event, as no one needs to go through that again. But given deregulation and lack of enforcement, who knows what potential bombs are out there--even a correction in market prices might inflict pain on people who have

Given Warren's understanding of the finance world and her adversarial relationship with it, she may be well poised to take maximum advantage of all this.

heyeaglefn wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Market volatility seems to be getting worse. I think a significant chunk of Trump's support comes from people seeing their 401k balances inflate. That looks to be over for the time being, and it's not hard to make the case that unlike most economic slow downs, Trump's trade war is an unforced error, and we might find ourselves with a recession combined with rising prices. (Though this won't I don't think be like the 70s, since oil prices are fine.) Let's hope this isn't a 2008 type event, as no one needs to go through that again. But given deregulation and lack of enforcement, who knows what potential bombs are out there--even a correction in market prices might inflict pain on people who have

Given Warren's understanding of the finance world and her adversarial relationship with it, she may be well poised to take maximum advantage of all this.

I feel like you have posted about the stock market many times before, and although this time may be different, it also may just be like the other times where it really has zero impact on Trump.

We are due for a recession, and if it doesn't happen before 2020 it doesn't matter who the President is because it will happen sometime between 2020-2024. Warren may be a financial Wizard but there is only so much a President can/should do.

Steve King wrote:"What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled out anyone who was a product of rape or incest? Would there be any population of the world left if we did that? Considering all the wars and all the rapes and pillages that happened throughout all these different nations, I know that I can't say that I was not a part of a product of that."

thephan wrote:Steve King has not been in the news lately so he throws out there that rape and incest are the foundations of civilization.

TenuredVulture wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:I think many people on this board seriously underestimate Elizabeth Warren. She is a woman of enormous dignity but who also speaks cogently and persuasively and authentically - despite her Harvard pedigree - on working people's issues.

And, more to the point, her ideas are the best and most well-thought out.

With all due respect, Moz, I think you seriously underestimate the visceral negative reaction Warren engenders outside her core constituency. It’s not fair, it’s not right, but it’s there.

Agree 100%. She's won my respect even though she is well left of my views. I'd take her over Trump 100 times out of 100. But to many Americans, she is that self-righteous preachy schoolmarm; Hillary 2.0 except she probably hasn't killed most of her enemies.

I think this is lazy analysis. Sure, there are lots of insecure old guys who prefer Biden to Warren. However, are there really many people who would rank the candidates Biden-Trump-Warren? I have a hard time believing that.

The test of Warren's electability is whether she wins the nomination. Full stop. The collective Democratic electorate is smarter than pundits and message board posters (and political scientists) at determining which candidate is electable. The evidence for this claim is ironically the election of Donald Trump, and I'd include Obama's election as well. But you can go all the way back to 1960. In those days, primaries didn't count, but party elites still worried a great deal about electability. Many elites believed that Kennedy, as an Irish Catholic was unelectable. In order to counter this claim, Kennedy entered a handful of primaries in places thought to have a high level of suspicion of the Roman Church. Kennedy's victory in the WVa primary was seen as sufficient evidence that he was in fact electable.

Uncle Milty wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:I think many people on this board seriously underestimate Elizabeth Warren. She is a woman of enormous dignity but who also speaks cogently and persuasively and authentically - despite her Harvard pedigree - on working people's issues.

And, more to the point, her ideas are the best and most well-thought out.

With all due respect, Moz, I think you seriously underestimate the visceral negative reaction Warren engenders outside her core constituency. It’s not fair, it’s not right, but it’s there.

Agree 100%. She's won my respect even though she is well left of my views. I'd take her over Trump 100 times out of 100. But to many Americans, she is that self-righteous preachy schoolmarm; Hillary 2.0 except she probably hasn't killed most of her enemies.

I think this is lazy analysis. Sure, there are lots of insecure old guys who prefer Biden to Warren. However, are there really many people who would rank the candidates Biden-Trump-Warren? I have a hard time believing that.

The test of Warren's electability is whether she wins the nomination. Full stop. The collective Democratic electorate is smarter than pundits and message board posters (and political scientists) at determining which candidate is electable. The evidence for this claim is ironically the election of Donald Trump, and I'd include Obama's election as well. But you can go all the way back to 1960. In those days, primaries didn't count, but party elites still worried a great deal about electability. Many elites believed that Kennedy, as an Irish Catholic was unelectable. In order to counter this claim, Kennedy entered a handful of primaries in places thought to have a high level of suspicion of the Roman Church. Kennedy's victory in the WVa primary was seen as sufficient evidence that he was in fact electable.

Lazy analysis isn't fair. I think most of us share opinions based on the people we know.

I don't think it's Biden, Trump, Warren. It's Biden, stay home, other democrat.

There's no real comparison of Warren to Kennedy. They're on opposite ends of the scale on perception. Let's remember Kennedy won by an incredibly small margin in the popular vote and the gimme southern states from that time are long gone.

Uncle Milty wrote:Kennedy, Trump, Warren

TenuredVulture wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:Kennedy, Trump, Warren

It seems you're deliberately missing the point. IF Warren wins the primary, that will be proof she's electable. In no other way does she resemble our worst President ever, and our most over rated President ever.