Could Sen. Warren Overtake Hillary Clinton in 2016?
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is a more liberal candidate compared to Clinton, who falls toward the center of Democratic policy, the Washington Post reports. Recent proof that Warren could offer a marked change from the policies of President Barack Obama whose approval rating has been waning came in the form of budget debates.
Obama has been looking to decrease Social Security benefits in order to pass a budget agreement with Republicans. The effort to do so has largely been given up by liberals who dont want to make such concession, Warren included.
The absolute last thing we should do in 2013 at the very moment that Social Security has become the principal lifeline for millions of our seniors is allow the program to begin to be dismantled inch by inch, Warren said to the Senate, according to the Washington Post. Some consider the unyielding stance a risky move for Democrats, while others view Warrens position as a much-needed change from present leadership.
I personally have Clinton fatigue, noting that it was a Clinton team that has been running Obamas economics. A Clinton administration seems like a continuation of the same team, Lawrence Mishel, the president of the labor-backed Economic Policy, said to the Washington Post.
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/could-sen-warren-overtake-hillary-clinton-in-2016.html/?a=viewall
Left Coast2020
(2,397 posts)I'm praying for a miracle to happen.
And remember, back in Spring, Dr. Dean said he may run.
He's been very quite lately.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)And ditto...I am done with Clintons and I expect Repubs to be done with Bushes...forever.
DFW
(54,268 posts)He is REALLY not interested in doing this, and Judy is dead set against it.
He'll jump in if and only if NOBODY with any kind of chance or credentials says they want it. And Judy will go ballistic if he does.
I wouldn't say Howard has exactly been quite of late. Did you see him practically call Santorum an idiot when Candy Crowley was trying to let Santorum walk over him a couple of days ago?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Because they've sussed out that she'd get creamed in a general election, and President Christie would be more friendly to their POV.
After all....
Wall St. Cheat Sheet has been featured in these fine media outlets:
Yahoo Finance, Harvard Business Review, Market Watch, The Wall St. Journal, Financial Times, CNN Money, Fox Business
Lasher
(27,533 posts)I didn't much like the source but I thought the article was interesting. I didn't find anything negative about the author.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)Please.
2014 is MUCH more important right now.
One can speculate about anything for 2016 because anything is possible. But without a Dem-controlled Congress, we will have lost much of the battle before 2016.
Even with a Dem-controlled Congress, things are always dicey because too many Dems are "centrists."
Even then, they are still better than the alternative.
DFW
(54,268 posts)Beartracks
(12,793 posts)Hillary, Warren, Dean.... It won't matter much if the President is stymied by an intransigent, extremist "Party of NO" like Obama's been.
==================
Gothmog
(144,884 posts)Texas has a very important race for governor in 2014. Let's see if we can turn Texas blue
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)one of the reasons we're in trouble for 2014 is that we have so many right wingers running the party. If Obama and Reid and Pelosi had enacted Obama's campaign agenda instead of a DINO one, we'd be far better off electorally.
malthaussen
(17,175 posts)Congress and local elections are so much more important than who gets the White House. But it is the nature of our culture to concentrate on superstars and high-visibility positions.
The counter-revolutionaries have the right idea, which is why they're going after the courts and the school boards.
-- Mal
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)and yet there are just too many threads that keep trying to focus us on a 2016 "horse race" that may never ever take place, seemingly hoping that divisions will appear.
As you say, local elections are key. And state elections are at least as important as Congressional elections, in some ways, even more so.
I plan to support the Dem nominee in 2016, whoever that person may be. Period. The time to speculate about who will ultimately carry the Presidential standard is during the 2016 primary season when I am sure that many healthy debates among DU supporters will ensue. Let us not anticipate but concentrate on the here and now.
The best time to build networks that can support whoever is the nominee is to begin now and the best way to do that is by working in /helping with (or even running for office!) campaigns at the local and state levels for 2014 to build campaign networks so that those same networks can transition smoothly into high gear for 2016.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)THEN we can focus on the 2016 Presidential Primaries/Elections.
It won't do us any good to have a Democrat in the WH if we get distracted and lose sight of the game in 2014 and Republicans take the Senate and keep the House. We already see the damage they do now in this situation and they only have the House! What damage can they do should they win the Senate, too?
Focus first on 2014 midterms - get out the vote because our lives depend on it!
THEN we can focus on the presidential primaries for 2016.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
klook
(12,151 posts)Only if we all work our butts off and quit obsessing about the 2016 presidential campaign.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)that we could win back a gerrymandered house? I'm willing to work my butt off to change it.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)Why not start with the extreme Gerrymandering here in Ohio? We had democrats and republicans voting in approximately equal numbers in 2012 yet we have 12 republican Representatives and only 4 democrats in the House from Ohio. It would appear that if we got rid of Gerrymandering the democrats would pick up 4 seats and the republicans would lose 4. It seems to me, that while you may want to do it to take back the House, we all of every party should want to get rid of Gerrymandering because it returns a voice and accountability of politicians to our people. If serious, please email us at [email protected]. We are currently signing up workers to help us get the issue on the ballot again and educate the public as to the situation. Please let us know what you are willing to do, make phone calls, knock on doors,recruit others, or something else. We do not care where you are located and have signed up some from different states to help us. Ridding Ohio of the Gerrymandering by installing an independent citizens commission to draw the Congressional districts would go a long way to restore democracy to our state and to our country. Help us help all of us. If you have friends that want to walk the walk ask them to contact us too at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Unified for Strategic Action !st, Ohio (USA1st Ohio).
Lasher
(27,533 posts)I'm not going to cede control of the Senate by starting a thread about the 2016 presidential primary.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)watoos
(7,142 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)She already has my vote.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)We are more focused on populist issues and more willing to work for causes regarding peoples economic well being. To say we are more liberal basically just throws us in the mix with social liberals and other liberals who are not willing to take on the real economic issues of our day. I am proud to be a progressive. Elizabeth Warren is a progressive as shown by her actions in regards to Wall Street , banking and for the non-wealthy. Hillary does not appear to most of us progressives as a progressive because she appears to support rather than challenge the forces that create the unfair economic realities of our system today. Many of us progressives have little love for her husband or his policies and actually want to repeal many of them. A to Hillary, she got our sympathy when she was so slandered as furst lady, but to get our support, she has to be very very different than her husband in both words and deeds. We ain't seen it yet and until we buy her authenticity as a progressive we will look for others who are real progressives. To a progressive calling us more liberal is like saying we whine more.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Make it so
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)why doesn't Goldman-Sachs pay *her* $400,000 for two speeches?
Not buying the hype. Like Goldman-Sachs, I know that Hillary's the real deal.
Regards,
Third-Way Manny
Lasher
(27,533 posts)We are doomed to mediocrity.