Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:05 AM

Hillary or Elizabeth?

Following up on the results of: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4202593

65 votes, 0 passes \| Time left: Unlimited
	Hillary!
	6 (9%)
	Elizabeth!
	55 (85%)
	Same diff!
	0 (0%)
	Neither!
	4 (6%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

144 replies, 21161 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

144 replies	Author	Time	Post
Hillary or Elizabeth? (Original post)	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	OP
I voted Warren even though she would not be my first choice.	painesghost	Dec 2013	#1
How about Dean/Warren or Warren/Dean?	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#5
I'd be for that combo! n/t	painesghost	Dec 2013	#11
Simpler solution...go with the candidate both Warren and Dean like	brooklynite	Dec 2013	#75
Can you point to a link	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#83
Nobody's endorsed anybody at this point.	brooklynite	Dec 2013	#90
Can you point to a link where Warren's asked Hillary to run?	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#98
Why is that convoluted?...	socialist_n_TN	Dec 2013	#134
2014	JaneyVee	Dec 2013	#2
Warren, or someone who shares her views. n/t	winter is coming	Dec 2013	#3
LOL, Hillary? Really? nt	Logical	Dec 2013	#4
repost in 2 years	spanone	Dec 2013	#6
DU is consistently 2-3 years ahead of the Democratic Party in general	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#19
2014!	sheshe2	Dec 2013	#7
Have you sent a letter to the "Ready for Hillary" people?	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#10
2014...	sheshe2	Dec 2013	#14
So you're OK with the Ready for Hillary People hurling cash	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#17
Rest assure the RFH people are chipping in for 2014 as well...	brooklynite	Dec 2013	#77
I think we can all multitask	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#112
Right she she!	treestar	Dec 2013	#56
Elizabeth!	LittleBlue	Dec 2013	#8
2014!	sheshe2	Dec 2013	#9
No to Hillary. Had enough of that crap. nt	Demo_Chris	Dec 2013	#12
Warren / De Blasio! nt	politichew	Dec 2013	#13
Oh, no you don't!	markpkessinger	Feb 2014	#144
The Hilllary fan club hates seeing the truth	NoOneMan	Dec 2013	#15
This is an astonishing result	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#16
Warren appears genuine, honest and organic	NoOneMan	Dec 2013	#21
delete- you aren't worth it.	KittyWampus	Dec 2013	#22
I was put on Earth to	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#27
"yeah, my guess is a lot of people most likely have you on ignore to avoid OP's such as this."	Capt. Obvious	Dec 2013	#59
It's kind of late at night. Maybe the Hillary supporters aren't night owls. n/t	winter is coming	Dec 2013	#23
Yeah-- over 50 people voted for Warren but...	TreasonousBastard	Dec 2013	#38
I think this is good evidence that DU is not necessarily a proper cross section of the electorate.	Gravitycollapse	Dec 2013	#43
I think that DU=Democratic Party	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#53
Manny, I have always found you to be politically perceptive (and funny as Hell)! But ...	11 Bravo	Dec 2013	#106
Did you read my message text?	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#107
President Kucinich would disagree with you.	Throd	Dec 2013	#92
Hardly.	Orsino	Dec 2013	#69
Well...	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#121
I guess the takeaway is:	Orsino	Dec 2013	#140
Pot, meet the kettle.	Beacool	Dec 2013	#70
This shows just how deeply people can fool themselves	NoOneMan	Dec 2013	#72
This site represents a minority within the party.	Beacool	Dec 2013	#84
Yeah, that's why its being renamed Green Anarchy Underground!	NoOneMan	Dec 2013	#88
FYI, it's "toed" the line. As in stood by it. We're not pulling it to another location.	11 Bravo	Dec 2013	#109
I know that!	NoOneMan	Dec 2013	#111
I don't doubt it, and I wasn't trying to be snarky. When I screw up ...	11 Bravo	Dec 2013	#113
That would be the minority that is more likely to donate time and money and talk politics	winter is coming	Dec 2013	#117
Maybe so, but these creative posts don't reflect reality.	Beacool	Dec 2013	#119
Three years before the election? It's a name-recognition contest.	winter is coming	Dec 2013	#127
And the truth is...a group of liberal bloggers doesn't like her?	brooklynite	Dec 2013	#74
Oh, I thought that was her base, no?	NoOneMan	Dec 2013	#76
No, just pointing out the difference between the folks here...	brooklynite	Dec 2013	#79
Don't fool yourself into thinking DU is any exclusive and especially leftist group	NoOneMan	Dec 2013	#82
Of course the reason NOT to do so is...she doesn't want to run.	brooklynite	Dec 2013	#89
Hillary hasn't exactly declared to the world yet that she wants to run	NoOneMan	Dec 2013	#91
Ah, but here's the difference...	brooklynite	Dec 2013	#125
I honestly don't think that Liz Warren will run.	Beacool	Dec 2013	#136
The same as 2008.	Chan790	Dec 2013	#132
Pointless poll. They aren't running against each other, and...	LuvLoogie	Dec 2013	#18
this	scheming daemons	Dec 2013	#54
Says who?	99Forever	Dec 2013	#129
If I had to choose between the two at this point	Cali_Democrat	Dec 2013	#20
What a strange poll, given that they have both said they are not running.	Nye Bevan	Dec 2013	#24
You may say I'm a dreamer.... nt	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#25
And you are not the only one ... n/t	Aerows	Dec 2013	#32
I hope some day you'll join us....	daleanime	Dec 2013	#34
And the world will live as one :) n/t	Aerows	Dec 2013	#36
And with that beautiful hope...	daleanime	Dec 2013	#39
Pleasant dreams, daleanime :)	Aerows	Dec 2013	#41
It's so far away that those who will be running in the primaries	treestar	Dec 2013	#57
Of the two I'd go with Warren by a mile,	LeftyMom	Dec 2013	#26
What foreign policy of Hillary's? Cozying up to foreign dictators who institute abusive policies against women?	InAbLuEsTaTe	Dec 2013	#45
Hillary. LOL...nt.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Dec 2013	#28
Yo Manny	Jesus Malverde	Dec 2013	#29
Warren	Aerows	Dec 2013	#30
Same state of mind, perhaps	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#31
Oh God, you are right	Aerows	Dec 2013	#33
Are you forgetting California and Oregon, two very liberal states.	JDPriestly	Dec 2013	#44
Yeah, you could make an argument for them too.	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#63
Glad to see Hillary supporters aren't as numerous as many threads indicate.	fbc	Dec 2013	#35
Maybe not on DU, but in the real world we are in the millions.	Beacool	Dec 2013	#71
I think the polls run by the media are fixed...	fadedrose	Dec 2013	#37
I'm not voting for her	Aerows	Dec 2013	#40
Yes, like MOM too. Doing great things for Maryland. Future star!	InAbLuEsTaTe	Dec 2013	#46
Warren/Davis	Aerows	Dec 2013	#42
The official narrative is deeply wounded.	Enthusiast	Dec 2013	#47
She's the only one who so far can challenge her.	joshcryer	Dec 2013	#48
Right now neither	davidpdx	Dec 2013	#49
This isn't hard ...	Scuba	Dec 2013	#50
If Warren runs she will have my full support.	joshcryer	Dec 2013	#51
k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t	Laelth	Dec 2013	#52
2014	treestar	Dec 2013	#55
Have you contacted the Ready for Hillary! people?	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#58
It's still three years away and Hillary has not declared	treestar	Dec 2013	#61
2014.	Iggo	Dec 2013	#60
elizabeth. nt	xchrom	Dec 2013	#62
Elizabeth. No more Third Way bullshit.	NuclearDem	Dec 2013	#64
Hillary brings Bill	CFLDem	Dec 2013	#65
Well, that's OK...probably all the possible candidates have unsavory baggage besides Hillary.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Dec 2013	#67
K&R	fbc	Dec 2013	#66
Well, given that Warren has ruled out running...	Orsino	Dec 2013	#68
So has Hillary	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#81
You know perfectly well that this week she told Barbara Walters that she's thinking about it.	Beacool	Dec 2013	#86
Hmmm. So Hillary might change her mind, but Warren won't?	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#100
Warren has been a senator for barely 10 months and never been in elected office.	Beacool	Dec 2013	#120
I guess there's no precedent for a first-term Senator running	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#122
That's not a good analogy.	Beacool	Dec 2013	#123
One great thing in Warren's favor is that	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#137
Fuck, yeah.	Orsino	Dec 2013	#141
Tick, tick tick...	brooklynite	Dec 2013	#73
Hillary's said she's not running in 2016	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#80
Maybe because she said this the other day ...	JoePhilly	Dec 2013	#94
So Warren's "no" counts, but Hillary's doesn't?	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#97
Let me know when Warren says "maybe" ... lol.	JoePhilly	Dec 2013	#101
So Hillary running was laughable until 48 hours ago, then it wasn't.	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#103
Your desperation is what's laughable.	JoePhilly	Dec 2013	#104
Sorry, I'm a little confused here. Help me out.	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#105
I like this new "Politically Naive Manny" persona.	JoePhilly	Dec 2013	#108
It's a vehicle for pointing out hypocrisy nt	MannyGoldstein	Dec 2013	#115
Elizabeth	Liberalynn	Dec 2013	#78
Kucinich!...nt	SidDithers	Dec 2013	#85
Meanwhile, in the real world..........	Beacool	Dec 2013	#87
No more Clintons and no more Bushes. (n/t)	spin	Dec 2013	#93
Biden/ProSense	Scurrilous	Dec 2013	#95
That would also be a fine ticket, IMO.	closeupready	Dec 2013	#102
Not unless	ProSense	Dec 2013	#118
.	ProSense	Dec 2013	#116
Elizabeth Warren says what she means and means what she says. She doesn't play coy	Rowdyboy	Dec 2013	#96
hillary or elizabeth regarding what? nt	arely staircase	Dec 2013	#99
...	longship	Dec 2013	#110
It's going to be a looooong three years...........	Beacool	Dec 2013	#124
And Warren has already said multiple times that she will fulfill her commitment to MA in the Senate!	longship	Dec 2013	#131
2014 won't be funny.	Beacool	Dec 2013	#133
No way will Hillary ever be Queen in the UK.	dipsydoodle	Dec 2013	#114
2016 Obama - Biden	Reformed Bully	Dec 2013	#126
Not even close.	99Forever	Dec 2013	#128
Warren (nt)	bigwillq	Dec 2013	#130
i would like WArren but this poll means Hillary will probably easily win the nomination	JI7	Dec 2013	#135
What about a	blue14u	Dec 2013	#138
Some of you guys sound like drunken redneck gear heads arguing Chevy vs Mopar	LuvLoogie	Dec 2013	#139
I always liked	yuiyoshida	Dec 2013	#142
Do you have any idea how little any tiny self-selected poll means? n/t	pnwmom	Feb 2014	#143

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:09 AM

painesghost (91 posts)

1. I voted Warren even though she would not be my first choice.

I'm more partial to Dean or Schweitzer. She is someone I could easily rally behind though. I will vote for Hillary if she is nominated, but can't bring myself to campaign for her.

Reply to this post

Response to painesghost (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:11 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

5. How about Dean/Warren or Warren/Dean?

That's my favorite fantasy choice. Dean was a governor ad DNC chair, knows how to run big things, has a good heart although he's a bit to the right - but trainable. Warren is... Warren.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:17 AM

painesghost (91 posts)

11. I'd be for that combo! n/t

I'd probably lean more Dean/Warren though.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:37 PM

brooklynite (85,601 posts)

75. Simpler solution...go with the candidate both Warren and Dean like

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #75)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:57 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

83. Can you point to a link

Where Warren says she endorses Hillary?

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #83)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 05:18 PM

brooklynite (85,601 posts)

90. Nobody's endorsed anybody at this point.

But if Warren asks someone else to run, I going to assume she's supportive of the campaign before I try to come up with a convoluted argument like "she just wants a wide-open primary".

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #90)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:13 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

98. Can you point to a link where Warren's asked Hillary to run?

Thanks again.

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #90)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 08:09 PM

socialist_n_TN (11,481 posts)

134. Why is that convoluted?...

I'm not sure of the reasoning about that. Just because you think someone should run if they want it, doesn't necessarily mean you are a rabid supporter.

I mean I (and the group I'm in) actually DID endorse Sawant, but that doesn't mean I agree with her "Trotskyism".

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:09 AM

JaneyVee (19,877 posts)

2. 2014

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:10 AM

winter is coming (11,785 posts)

3. Warren, or someone who shares her views. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:11 AM

Logical (22,457 posts)

4. LOL, Hillary? Really? nt

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:12 AM

spanone (133,397 posts)

6. repost in 2 years

Reply to this post

Response to spanone (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:41 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

19. DU is consistently 2-3 years ahead of the Democratic Party in general

Which is why this poll is so interesting.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:12 AM

sheshe2 (78,249 posts)

7. 2014!

GOTV2014!

Reply to this post

Response to sheshe2 (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:16 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

10. Have you sent a letter to the "Ready for Hillary" people?

They have a huge amount of money; perhaps it's better spent on winning 2014?

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:24 AM

sheshe2 (78,249 posts)

14. 2014...

Is my concern at the moment.

I will see who is running in 2016 when it happens! I will then make my decision, as of yet I have not.

Sorry to disappoint you Manny, I have not yet made up my mind.

GOTV 2014!

Reply to this post

Response to sheshe2 (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:29 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

17. So you're OK with the Ready for Hillary People hurling cash

at Hillary's candidacy today?

But the rest of us need a ruler across the knuckles?

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:39 PM

brooklynite (85,601 posts)

77. Rest assure the RFH people are chipping in for 2014 as well...

...I know a lot of them. We're ponying up for House, Senate and Governor races. But we're also able to multi-task.

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #77)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:55 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

112. I think we can all multitask

I don't get the "2014 only!" stuff. It seemed to me that if we wanted a non-Hillarian candidate, we'd need to start now.

Given the results of this poll... not so concerned anymore. I suspect the whole Party will feel this way in a year or two.

But I'm sure that we'll both keep plugging away.

Reply to this post

Response to sheshe2 (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 09:03 AM

treestar (81,189 posts)

56. Right she she!

President Obama has more than three years left! Imagine what he could do with a really D Congress.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:12 AM

LittleBlue (10,362 posts)

8. Elizabeth!

ABH all the way

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:14 AM

sheshe2 (78,249 posts)

9. 2014!

Vote as if your life depends on it, and it does!

GOTV 2014!

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:20 AM

Demo_Chris (6,234 posts)

12. No to Hillary. Had enough of that crap. nt

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:23 AM

politichew (230 posts)

13. Warren / De Blasio! nt

Reply to this post

Response to politichew (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 12:51 AM

markpkessinger (8,167 posts)

144. Oh, no you don't!

We New Yorkers have waited for TWENTY-FOUR YEARS for a progressive mayor. Now that we have one, you're not going to take him from us that quickly!

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:25 AM

NoOneMan (4,795 posts)

15. The Hilllary fan club hates seeing the truth

They think she is the only viable candidate to prevent Republicans from winning, yet in reality, she isn't liked nor trusted. humans have a tendency to assume their personal views are more common in a population than they really are

Reply to this post

Response to NoOneMan (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:28 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

16. This is an astonishing result

I would never have guessed that it would be this lopsided. Something very, very interesting is going on.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:03 AM

NoOneMan (4,795 posts)

21. Warren appears genuine, honest and organic

Compared to wooden, rehearsed and well funded. The country will fall in love with her, and would be very lucky if she decided to run (no matter what may come of it).

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:06 AM

KittyWampus (55,894 posts)

22. delete- you aren't worth it.

Reply to this post

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:30 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

27. I was put on Earth to

test your impulse control.

Reply to this post

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 09:08 AM

Capt. Obvious (9,002 posts)

59. "yeah, my guess is a lot of people most likely have you on ignore to avoid OP's such as this."

That must be why Manny's threads consistantly hit the top of the Greatest Page.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:11 AM

winter is coming (11,785 posts)

23. It's kind of late at night. Maybe the Hillary supporters aren't night owls. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:06 AM

TreasonousBastard (42,119 posts)

38. Yeah-- over 50 people voted for Warren but...

thousands more just don't give a shit.

2014-- when we have to take back the House

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:16 AM

Gravitycollapse (8,155 posts)

43. I think this is good evidence that DU is not necessarily a proper cross section of the electorate.

I doubt many outside of politically active leftist groups even know that Elizabeth Warren exists. In a contest where name recognition is unfortunately very important, I just don't think Warren could pull through. Granted, Obama wasn't exactly a household name before the 08 election cycle.

Reply to this post

Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #43)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 08:49 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

53. I think that DU=Democratic Party

Only two years earlier.

The Third Way is finished.

The question to be answered is whether FDR Democrats can catch on with non-Democrats. I think we will.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #53)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:42 PM

11 Bravo (23,667 posts)

106. Manny, I have always found you to be politically perceptive (and funny as Hell)! But ...

if you believe that you, or I, or DU as a whole, is reflective of the Democratic Party at large, I may have to re-think at least one of those assessments.
Trust me, I wish you were right, but right now I'm just not seeing it.

Reply to this post

Response to 11 Bravo (Reply #106)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:47 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

107. Did you read my message text?

We're a couple of years ahead of the rest of the party.

I think.

We'll see!

Reply to this post

Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #43)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 05:41 PM

Throd (7,208 posts)

92. President Kucinich would disagree with you.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:28 PM

Orsino (37,428 posts)

69. Hardly.

Warren has been a DU favorite for quite a while, for saying things the big players and DLCers won't.

How could anyone not have foreseen this poll result?

Reply to this post

Response to Orsino (Reply #69)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:11 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

121. Well...

You're right!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251289203
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251294672
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251302259
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023378691
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023418580

But, when I posted my remark, it was running something like 75 to 1. The Clinton votes have come on strong since then.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #121)

Sun Dec 22, 2013, 09:05 AM

Orsino (37,428 posts)

140. I guess the takeaway is:

We love Warren, but I guess we're gonna back Clinton anyway.

Reply to this post

Response to NoOneMan (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:52 PM

Beacool (30,187 posts)

70. Pot, meet the kettle.

She isn't liked nor trusted by who? The denizens of LW blogs? Despite all evidence to the contrary, they insist that her popularity is somehow non existent. Yet, she's ahead of her nearest potential rival (Biden) by 58%.

The LW Fan Club is the one who hates the truth.

Keep dreaming........

Reply to this post

Response to Beacool (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:29 PM

NoOneMan (4,795 posts)

72. This shows just how deeply people can fool themselves

The LW Fan Club is the one who hates the truth.

The poll results speak for themselves

Reply to this post

Response to NoOneMan (Reply #72)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:58 PM

Beacool (30,187 posts)

84. This site represents a minority within the party.

This place does not represent the real world.

Reply to this post

Response to Beacool (Reply #84)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 05:06 PM

NoOneMan (4,795 posts)

88. Yeah, that's why its being renamed Green Anarchy Underground!

DU has towed the line for Obama hand in hand with ordinary Democrats.

Reply to this post

Response to NoOneMan (Reply #88)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:48 PM

11 Bravo (23,667 posts)

109. FYI, it's "toed" the line. As in stood by it. We're not pulling it to another location.

Reply to this post

Response to 11 Bravo (Reply #109)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:51 PM

NoOneMan (4,795 posts)

111. I know that!

I'm getting older and dumber. Thanks

Reply to this post

Response to NoOneMan (Reply #111)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:55 PM

11 Bravo (23,667 posts)

113. I don't doubt it, and I wasn't trying to be snarky. When I screw up ...

(and it seems to be happening more and more often) I hope someone points it out to me so I can stop doing it!

Reply to this post

Response to Beacool (Reply #84)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:00 PM

winter is coming (11,785 posts)

117. That would be the minority that is more likely to donate time and money and talk politics

with their friends than folks in the "real" world.

Reply to this post

Response to winter is coming (Reply #117)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:08 PM

Beacool (30,187 posts)

119. Maybe so, but these creative posts don't reflect reality.

Last edited Fri Dec 20, 2013, 08:05 PM - Edit history (1)

They only reflect what some of the denizens of DU feel, but not what the majority of Democrats are saying in poll after poll.

Reply to this post

Response to Beacool (Reply #119)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:32 PM

winter is coming (11,785 posts)

127. Three years before the election? It's a name-recognition contest.

Given how well her name is known, Hillary would be doomed if she weren't leading in those polls.

Reply to this post

Response to NoOneMan (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:36 PM

brooklynite (85,601 posts)

74. And the truth is...a group of liberal bloggers doesn't like her?

Bet she didn't see that coming.

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #74)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:38 PM

NoOneMan (4,795 posts)

76. Oh, I thought that was her base, no?

Should we include right-wing bloggers too?

Reply to this post

Response to NoOneMan (Reply #76)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:51 PM

brooklynite (85,601 posts)

79. No, just pointing out the difference between the folks here...

...and ordinary Democratic voters who according to all polls strongly support her.

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #79)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:57 PM

NoOneMan (4,795 posts)

82. Don't fool yourself into thinking DU is any exclusive and especially leftist group

It isn't special in any way from "ordinary Democratic voters" as far as ideology is concerned. If anything, DU posters may simply be more informed of news or informed at an earlier point in time.

More here may know of Elizabeth Warren. There is plenty of time for the ordinary Democratic voters to learn about her. It definitely seems there is significant reason to do so, based on this level of excitement.

Reply to this post

Response to NoOneMan (Reply #82)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 05:17 PM

brooklynite (85,601 posts)

89. Of course the reason NOT to do so is...she doesn't want to run.

Wouldn't you be better off finding a progressive who DOES want to run (I'm not sure Sanders falls into that category yet), rather than keep dreaming that Warren will change her mind?

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #89)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 05:20 PM

NoOneMan (4,795 posts)

91. Hillary hasn't exactly declared to the world yet that she wants to run

Yet she is still the number 1 pick of 10% here. Give it up already! Focus on someone actually running already!

Reply to this post

Response to NoOneMan (Reply #91)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:26 PM

brooklynite (85,601 posts)

125. Ah, but here's the difference...

Neither Clinton or Warren has announced they're running. But.....

Clinton says she's thinking about it. Warren says she DOES NOT WANT TO RUN.

Supporters of Clinton are raising serious money and organizing thousands of volunteers to step in if she DOES decide to run. Supporters of Warren are...posting messages here saying they hope she'll change her mind.

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #125)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 08:13 PM

Beacool (30,187 posts)

136. I honestly don't think that Liz Warren will run.

The kind of money needed to run a presidential campaign nowadays is tremendous (about a billion dollars). For me the most telling factor that she was serious about not running came when her biggest money man told prospective donors (who had contacted him after the article in New Republic appeared) that she had no intention to run. It makes perfect sense to me. She never has been in elected office and she may feel that she found a perfect niche where she can make a difference.

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #79)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:58 PM

Chan790 (20,176 posts)

132. The same as 2008.

Ordinary Democratic voters who according to all polls strongly supported her...until they were given a choice.

I think Manny's right...2 years from now, we'll be talking about the second Hillary collapse.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:30 AM

LuvLoogie (6,260 posts)

18. Pointless poll. They aren't running against each other, and...

...95% of those who would vote for one would vote for the other.

Reply to this post

Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 08:54 AM

scheming daemons (25,487 posts)

54. this

Reply to this post

Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:43 PM

99Forever (14,524 posts)

129. Says who?

Got ANY proof of that bullshit claim?

Post it.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:02 AM

Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)

20. If I had to choose between the two at this point

I'd go for Warren.

I doubt very many DUers would choose Hillary over her.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:16 AM

Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)

24. What a strange poll, given that they have both said they are not running.

I mean, it's just about in the realms of possibility that one of these two might change her mind and decide to run. But both? Inconceivable.

Reply to this post

Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:22 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

25. You may say I'm a dreamer.... nt

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:54 AM

Aerows (39,961 posts)

32. And you are not the only one ... n/t

Reply to this post

Response to Aerows (Reply #32)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:01 AM

daleanime (17,796 posts)

34. I hope some day you'll join us....

Reply to this post

Response to daleanime (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:04 AM

Aerows (39,961 posts)

36. And the world will live as one :) n/t

Reply to this post

Response to Aerows (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:08 AM

daleanime (17,796 posts)

39. And with that beautiful hope...

its off to bed I go.

Reply to this post

Response to daleanime (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:11 AM

Aerows (39,961 posts)

41. Pleasant dreams, daleanime :)

may they all be beautiful and full of hope, peace and joy.

Reply to this post

Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 09:04 AM

treestar (81,189 posts)

57. It's so far away that those who will be running in the primaries

are probably going to be people no one imagines now.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:25 AM

LeftyMom (49,212 posts)

26. Of the two I'd go with Warren by a mile,

although the little bit I've heard about her and foreign policy didn't seem promising. Still couldn't be worse than Hillary on that front.

Reply to this post

Response to LeftyMom (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:43 AM

InAbLuEsTaTe (23,846 posts)

45. What foreign policy of Hillary's? Cozying up to foreign dictators who institute abusive policies against women?

I'll take Warren any day, someone who will stand up for women and the downtrodden all over the world.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:41 AM

Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)

28. Hillary. LOL...nt.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:41 AM

Jesus Malverde (10,274 posts)

29. Yo Manny

Thanks for keeping your eye on the ball while we're off duck hunting..

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:50 AM

Aerows (39,961 posts)

30. Warren

No further questions, and not because she is a woman. Unless it was Warren or Sanders. Then it would be a Sanders/Warren ticket, but they can't because the are from the same state, so it's back to the drawing board.

Either Sanders or Warren.

Did you mention Hillary?

Oh.

Reply to this post

Response to Aerows (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:53 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

31. Same state of mind, perhaps

But not the same state.

We're in a death match with VT over who gets to be the most Liberal state.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:57 AM

Aerows (39,961 posts)

33. Oh God, you are right

that was a stupid thing of me to say/think.

Then Sanders VT/Warren MA it is, for me. (I'm an idiot and forgot who was from where in New England). I'm from so far South we think Pennsylvania is part of New England.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:34 AM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

44. Are you forgetting California and Oregon, two very liberal states.

Reply to this post

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #44)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 10:40 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

63. Yeah, you could make an argument for them too.

CA and MA are probably the butt of most jokes in this regard.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:01 AM

fbc (1,668 posts)

35. Glad to see Hillary supporters aren't as numerous as many threads indicate.

Reply to this post

Response to fbc (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:56 PM

Beacool (30,187 posts)

71. Maybe not on DU, but in the real world we are in the millions.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:06 AM

fadedrose (10,044 posts)

37. I think the polls run by the media are fixed...

HC can't be so far ahead that they say she is unbeatable...

She wouldn't win a vote in DU to be host of a group unless it's her own...

Reply to this post

Response to fadedrose (Reply #37)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:10 AM

Aerows (39,961 posts)

40. I'm not voting for her

We need someone else. Martin O'Malley is a great place to start. I like him. And if we are reaching, hell, Wendy Davis. I like her more.

Reply to this post

Response to Aerows (Reply #40)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:45 AM

InAbLuEsTaTe (23,846 posts)

46. Yes, like MOM too. Doing great things for Maryland. Future star!

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:15 AM

Aerows (39,961 posts)

42. Warren/Davis

has a nice ring to it.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:38 AM

Enthusiast (50,983 posts)

47. The official narrative is deeply wounded.

The establishment will not tolerate such insolence.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:11 AM

joshcryer (62,176 posts)

48. She's the only one who so far can challenge her.

Unfortunately.

And Clinton destroys her in polls.

Hope Warren runs. Not sure I could fight harder for a candidate.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:18 AM

davidpdx (22,000 posts)

49. Right now neither

Though I'd lean toward Warren. We've been having this same tired old debate on DU for months now.

As I've said before, I maybe willing to wait longer into the actual primary cycle to support someone then I did back in 2008 election when I supported Obama a full year and a half before the GE.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:15 AM

Scuba (53,475 posts)

50. This isn't hard ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4202095

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:23 AM

joshcryer (62,176 posts)

51. If Warren runs she will have my full support.

Clinton cannot go uncontested.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:31 AM

Laelth (32,014 posts)

52. k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 09:03 AM

treestar (81,189 posts)

55. 2014

Quit trying to divide Democrats over an election three years away. It is not primary season.

Reply to this post

Response to treestar (Reply #55)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 09:08 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

58. Have you contacted the Ready for Hillary! people?

I'm sure they'd like to hear that they shouldn't be spending millions on their efforts.

As to dividing Democrats... Based on the results of this thread, it looks like there's great unity.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #58)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 09:10 AM

treestar (81,189 posts)

61. It's still three years away and Hillary has not declared

Those people are wasting their time.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 09:09 AM

Iggo (46,454 posts)

60. 2014.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 09:14 AM

xchrom (108,903 posts)

62. elizabeth. nt

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 11:31 AM

NuclearDem (16,184 posts)

64. Elizabeth. No more Third Way bullshit.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 12:00 PM

CFLDem (2,083 posts)

65. Hillary brings Bill

No one can match that. Warren would be good for VP though.

Reply to this post

Response to CFLDem (Reply #65)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:44 PM

Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)

67. Well, that's OK...probably all the possible candidates have unsavory baggage besides Hillary.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 02:35 PM

fbc (1,668 posts)

66. K&R

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:23 PM

Orsino (37,428 posts)

68. Well, given that Warren has ruled out running...

...that leaves us with Secretary Inevitable Dynasty.

She might well be Obama's third term, but given an electorate crying for progressive relief, she might dare to do more.

Warren? We need her in government, the higher up the better.

Reply to this post

Response to Orsino (Reply #68)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:55 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

81. So has Hillary

Several times.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #81)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 05:00 PM

Beacool (30,187 posts)

86. You know perfectly well that this week she told Barbara Walters that she's thinking about it.

Stop playing coy.

Reply to this post

Response to Beacool (Reply #86)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:15 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

100. Hmmm. So Hillary might change her mind, but Warren won't?

Interesting.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #100)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:10 PM

Beacool (30,187 posts)

120. Warren has been a senator for barely 10 months and never been in elected office.

There will be several people running, but I bet that one of them is not going to be Liz Warren.

Reply to this post

Response to Beacool (Reply #120)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:12 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

122. I guess there's no precedent for a first-term Senator running

You win, then.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #122)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:20 PM

Beacool (30,187 posts)

123. That's not a good analogy.

Obama had been a state senator for some years before running. Besides, this is not 2008. Lightning doesn't strike twice. In 2008 any Democrat would have won the WH after the Bush years, the wars and the economic downturn. We will have the reverse situation in 2016, since it's the Democrats who are now in power. Whether we will keep the WH will depend on the economic situation at the time and how well the ACA is working by then.

Reply to this post

Response to Beacool (Reply #123)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 08:18 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

137. One great thing in Warren's favor is that

she doesn't have the Third-Way baggage. She can credibly speak about change. She's actually effected quite a bit of change.

The economy cannot improve in any real way until we end the bipartisan love of austerity. What's a Third-Way candidate going to say: "Vote for me, I'll continue the same policies but this time it will work"? Doesn't seem like a winning pitch.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #137)

Sun Dec 22, 2013, 09:07 AM

Orsino (37,428 posts)

141. Fuck, yeah.

One of the things I liked most about Obama was his lack of Washington experience. We know what that does to people.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:35 PM

brooklynite (85,601 posts)

73. Tick, tick tick...

Another week gone by...and you're no closer to having an actual effort to get Warren to change her mind, or to get a real progressive into the race than you were before.

But online polls are always fun.

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #73)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:55 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

80. Hillary's said she's not running in 2016

Several times.

Any particular reason why you failed to mention *that*?

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #80)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:03 PM

JoePhilly (27,787 posts)

94. Maybe because she said this the other day ...

In a Wednesday interview with ABC's Barbara Walters, who named the former first lady the "Most Fascinating Person of 2013," Clinton said she hadn't yet made up her mind on a presidential run. She assured Walters her announcement would come soon.

"Obviously, I will look carefully at what I think I can do and make that decision sometime next year," Clinton said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/hillary-clinton-2016-decision_n_4470539.html

That's definitely not a NO.

In fact, it sort of fits the pattern of some one who is not ready to announce just yet, but who does not want the donors who are currently giving money to her support groups to stop doing so.

Warren has actually said NO at a point in time at which it would impact early donors and support groups from setting up shop in caucus states.

Reply to this post

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #94)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:12 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

97. So Warren's "no" counts, but Hillary's doesn't?

Because Hillary then said "maybe"?

Interesting.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #97)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:18 PM

JoePhilly (27,787 posts)

101. Let me know when Warren says "maybe" ... lol.

Reply to this post

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #101)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:25 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

103. So Hillary running was laughable until 48 hours ago, then it wasn't.

Got it, Chief.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #103)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:27 PM

JoePhilly (27,787 posts)

104. Your desperation is what's laughable.

You've spent 2 days saying Hillary said she wasn't running even though she said she might.

I am enjoying your politically naive act.

Reply to this post

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #104)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:32 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

105. Sorry, I'm a little confused here. Help me out.

When does it count that a politician says they're not running, and when doesn't it count?

You're a very smart person and you "get" these things - I'm not so blessed and could appreciate a little help.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #105)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:48 PM

JoePhilly (27,787 posts)

108. I like this new "Politically Naive Manny" persona.

I'm guessing it gives you a way to still believe that Hillary won't run, and that Warren will.

And please, I'm sure you've watched plenty of politicians play the "guess if I'm running" game.

They start out with "No, not running". And many never leave that place.

But some, slowly shift. "It's unlikely", "Its not something I think about"

Then .. "I'll make that decision down the road."

So on. They hedge right up until they are ready to announce.

So far, Warren is still at "Not running", and Hillary has recently jumped to "I'll make that decision some time next year."

Hillary is thinking about it, and she's letting her donors know it. Warren, not so much.

So please, keep this new persona around ... he's hilarious.

Reply to this post

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #108)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:58 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

115. It's a vehicle for pointing out hypocrisy nt

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:39 PM

Liberalynn (7,549 posts)

78. Elizabeth

is my first choice.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:59 PM

SidDithers (44,228 posts)

85. Kucinich!...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 05:02 PM

Beacool (30,187 posts)

87. Meanwhile, in the real world..........

With eyes on Hillary Clinton, Democrats fight to maintain digital edge

President Barack Obama’s team of 20-something data gurus gave him a major edge in 2008 and 2012 — and now they’re among the leading players in a quiet struggle for control of the Democratic data market in 2016.

The biggest prize, both symbolically and financially, is a spot on the growing team surrounding Obama’s 2008 rival: Hillary Clinton.

The 2016 presidential campaign will be Big Data’s biggest proving ground yet. Expect the savviest campaigns and their techies to surpass Obama’s vaunted 2012 effort, where data and analytics influenced everything from which fundraising emails went where and which ads aired when on different cable stations, to which doors got knocked and what the volunteer said when they opened.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/2016-digital-campaign-101180.html

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:03 PM

spin (17,493 posts)

93. No more Clintons and no more Bushes. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:09 PM

Scurrilous (38,676 posts)

95. Biden/ProSense

A Joe, a Pro, 2016.

Reply to this post

Response to Scurrilous (Reply #95)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:19 PM

closeupready (29,503 posts)

102. That would also be a fine ticket, IMO.

Reply to this post

Response to closeupready (Reply #102)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:01 PM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

118. Not unless

it's for Pres/VP of anonymous posters on the Internets.

Still, thanks.

Reply to this post

Response to Scurrilous (Reply #95)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:00 PM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

116. .

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:10 PM

Rowdyboy (22,057 posts)

96. Elizabeth Warren says what she means and means what she says. She doesn't play coy

She isn't a typical politician. That's why I respect her so much. She isn't running for president no matter hard people try to delude themselves into believing otherwise. To imply that she's toying with us belittles her.

Hilary Clinton is going to run for president. Therefore, of the two, I vote for Hillary. Throw in Brian Schweitzer, Martin O'Malley and Sherrod Brown who actually might run and my answer might be different. But between a candidate who will run and a candidate who won't I'd prefer the one who will.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:14 PM

arely staircase (12,482 posts)

99. hillary or elizabeth regarding what? nt

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:49 PM

longship (40,416 posts)

110. ...

Reply to this post

Response to longship (Reply #110)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:22 PM

Beacool (30,187 posts)

124. It's going to be a looooong three years...........

Reply to this post

Response to Beacool (Reply #124)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:58 PM

longship (40,416 posts)

131. And Warren has already said multiple times that she will fulfill her commitment to MA in the Senate!

And Hillary has said multiple times that she has not decided.

But that will not stop the DUlusionists who post dozens of these threads each week.

Meanwhile, Nov 2014 looms.

I will predict that they will be a Warren/Hillary poll posted here about 11PM on election night 2014, before results are final. Funny thing is that many DUers will still bother to vote.

Oh boy!

Reply to this post

Response to longship (Reply #131)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 08:04 PM

Beacool (30,187 posts)

133. 2014 won't be funny.

There are some Democratic senators who are in trouble. It won't matter much if we get a Democrat in the WH in 2016 if the Republicans control Congress. In the meantime, there are many threads on this type. They are not helpful. They only serve the purpose to irritate and divide.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 06:56 PM

dipsydoodle (42,239 posts)