She's running. No way she's going to beat Trump or even get the Dem nomination, but the entertainment value of her and Trump going after each other will be wonderful.

Midnight Rider said:

---

She's running. No way she's going to beat Trump or even get the Dem nomination, but the entertainment value of her and Trump going after each other will be wonderful.

---

First things first. (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina) She has to win South Carolina. (She can win New Hampshire).

I wish she wouldn't run. I like Warren a lot, but I do not see how she can win the presidency. She is not a particularly dynamic campaigner. She's warmer than Hillary, but she won't gain the support of moderates. And the Democrats need to move toward the center to gain moderate Republicans who are revolted by Trump and support civil liberties such as gay marriage and reproductive self-determination.

I wonder if the position she is actually running for is vice president. I don't think that would be a good idea, either.

I wish more senators who are good senators with a solid constituency would stay in the Senate and use their influence there.

Run, Pocahontas, RUN!!!!!

"reproductive self-determination", did a focus group think that one is less likely to invoke images of torn apart babies?

Please make sure to inventory all the body parts. We don't want any infections.

I like how she laments we aren't a government controlled economy like China:

"We've got bridges and roads in need of repair and thousands of people in need of work. Why aren't we rebuilding America?" asks Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School who served in the Obama administration. "Our competitors are putting people to work, building a future. China invests 9% of its GDP in infrastructure. America? We're at just 2.4%. We can do better."

Reproductive self-determination???

FFS.

She's known all along but still chose to lie about it.

BaylorBJM said:

---

She's known all along but still chose to lie about it.

---

Isn't lying a prerequisite to be President of the United States? (This applies to both Dems and Republicans).

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

BaylorBJM said:

---

She's known all along but still chose to lie about it.

---

Isn't lying a prerequisite to be President of the United States? (This applies to both Dems and Republicans).

---

It certainly helps.

I'm hoping that Sherrod Brown decides to run.

Midnight Rider said:

---

She's running. No way she's going to beat Trump or even get the Dem nomination, but the entertainment value of her and Trump going after each other will be wonderful.

---

This.

Her vs. Trump would be comedy gold.

No way she wins the democratic nomination though.

Forest Bueller said:

---

No way she wins the democratic nomination though.

---

I'd like to believe that.

I would love to see the Democrats put up a serious candidate, but I just don't know who that person would be based on the current field of hopefuls. Most all of them are TOO polarizing for most of those in the middle. I think Joe Biden missed his window back in 2016. Just my opinion.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I would love to see the Democrats put up a serious candidate, but I just don't know who that person would be based on the current field of hopefuls. Most all of them are TOO polarizing for most of those in the middle. I think Joe Biden missed his window back in 2016. Just my opinion.

---

Dems could run Reagan, you'd note vote for him. He'd be too "radical" and leftist.

tommie said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I would love to see the Democrats put up a serious candidate, but I just don't know who that person would be based on the current field of hopefuls. Most all of them are TOO polarizing for most of those in the middle. I think Joe Biden missed his window back in 2016. Just my opinion.

---

Dems could run Reagan, you'd note vote for him. He'd be too "radical" and leftist.

---

Reagan was a good one. I think he won in 1980 not because of his policies, but because he wasn't Jimmy Carter.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

tommie said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I would love to see the Democrats put up a serious candidate, but I just don't know who that person would be based on the current field of hopefuls. Most all of them are TOO polarizing for most of those in the middle. I think Joe Biden missed his window back in 2016. Just my opinion.

---

Dems could run Reagan, you'd note vote for him. He'd be too "radical" and leftist.

---

Reagan was a good one. I think he won in 1980 not because of his policies, but because he wasn't Jimmy Carter.

---

But if he put a D behind his name instead of an R, he'd be hated as a leftist liberal.

tommie said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

tommie said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I would love to see the Democrats put up a serious candidate, but I just don't know who that person would be based on the current field of hopefuls. Most all of them are TOO polarizing for most of those in the middle. I think Joe Biden missed his window back in 2016. Just my opinion.

---

Dems could run Reagan, you'd note vote for him. He'd be too "radical" and leftist.

---

Reagan was a good one. I think he won in 1980 not because of his policies, but because he wasn't Jimmy Carter.

---

But if he put a D behind his name instead of an R, he'd be hated as a leftist liberal.

---

I respectfully disagree, Sir. John F. Kennedy was the other side of that coin. If you put an R by his name, he would not be hated as a conservative righty!

Jinx 2 said:

---

I wish she wouldn't run. I like Warren a lot, but I do not see how she can win the presidency. She is not a particularly dynamic campaigner. She's warmer than Hillary, but she won't gain the support of moderates. And the Democrats need to move toward the center to gain moderate Republicans who are revolted by Trump and support civil liberties such as gay marriage and reproductive self-determination.

I wonder if the position she is actually running for is vice president. I don't think that would be a good idea, either.

I wish more senators who are good senators with a solid constituency would stay in the Senate and use their influence there.

---

She, along with any other Dem hopeful will benefit from the empty suit presidency of Trump. Americans will be more than ready for gravitas over bluster and bluff come 2020.

Nikki Haley 2020

I can dream can't I?

Dems just need a straight-laced moderate Democrat to counteract Trump and they can beat him, but they'll probably end up going with someone too far on the left instead. Trump would have a field day with Warren. Who's next?

GoldenBear007 said:

---

Dems just need a straight-laced moderate Democrat to counteract Trump and they can beat him, but they'll probably end up going with someone too far on the left instead. Trump would have a field day with Warren. Who's next?

---

Democrats had a decent guy last go around, a moderate ex-military guy. Jim Webb I think.

There was no interest in him whatsoever.

The more extreme left of the dem party would rather vote third party or for a Bernie type rather than vote for an electable moderate.

Forest Bueller said:

---

GoldenBear007 said:

---

Dems just need a straight-laced moderate Democrat to counteract Trump and they can beat him, but they'll probably end up going with someone too far on the left instead. Trump would have a field day with Warren. Who's next?

---

Democrats had a decent guy last go around, a moderate ex-military guy. Jim Webb I think.

There was no interest in him whatsoever.

---

Wasn't the best year to be in the running considering it was all Hillary from the beginning and miillenials clinged to the free, free, free guy

tommie said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

tommie said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I would love to see the Democrats put up a serious candidate, but I just don't know who that person would be based on the current field of hopefuls. Most all of them are TOO polarizing for most of those in the middle. I think Joe Biden missed his window back in 2016. Just my opinion.

---

Dems could run Reagan, you'd note vote for him. He'd be too "radical" and leftist.

---

Reagan was a good one. I think he won in 1980 not because of his policies, but because he wasn't Jimmy Carter.

---

But if he put a D behind his name instead of an R, he'd be hated as a leftist liberal.

---

Similarly, had Obama had a R behind his name, he'd be hated as a Uncle Tom, sell out, white woman loving, no experience lightweight by Democrats. (Some of that may be accurate anyway.)

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Nikki Haley 2020

I can dream can't I?

---

I could get on board with this. Unfortunately I think she cleans up the mess in 2024.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I would love to see the Democrats put up a serious candidate, but I just don't know who that person would be based on the current field of hopefuls. Most all of them are TOO polarizing for most of those in the middle. I think Joe Biden missed his window back in 2016. Just my opinion.

---

What about Bloomberg running as a Democrat?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Nikki Haley 2020

I can dream can't I?

---

She's be on my list.

midgett said:

---

tommie said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

tommie said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I would love to see the Democrats put up a serious candidate, but I just don't know who that person would be based on the current field of hopefuls. Most all of them are TOO polarizing for most of those in the middle. I think Joe Biden missed his window back in 2016. Just my opinion.

---

Dems could run Reagan, you'd note vote for him. He'd be too "radical" and leftist.

---

Reagan was a good one. I think he won in 1980 not because of his policies, but because he wasn't Jimmy Carter.

---

But if he put a D behind his name instead of an R, he'd be hated as a leftist liberal.

---

Similarly, had Obama had a R behind his name, he'd be hated as a Uncle Tom, sell out, white woman loving, no experience lightweight by Democrats. (Some of that may be accurate anyway.)

---

Nope. First, I don't hate uncle Toms. Second, he's not "white woman loving". Third, he represents good and hard work. Many of us can get behind that.

Finally, in Texas, you can vote in either primary to ensure you have a first and second choice in November. (Theoretically).

tommie said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

tommie said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I would love to see the Democrats put up a serious candidate, but I just don't know who that person would be based on the current field of hopefuls. Most all of them are TOO polarizing for most of those in the middle. I think Joe Biden missed his window back in 2016. Just my opinion.

---

Dems could run Reagan, you'd note vote for him. He'd be too "radical" and leftist.

---

Reagan was a good one. I think he won in 1980 not because of his policies, but because he wasn't Jimmy Carter.

---

But if he put a D behind his name instead of an R, he'd be hated as a leftist liberal.

---

If Reagan put a D next to his name today, he'd never get nominated. Kennedy could run as a Republican and win.

tommie said:

---

midgett said:

---

tommie said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

tommie said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I would love to see the Democrats put up a serious candidate, but I just don't know who that person would be based on the current field of hopefuls. Most all of them are TOO polarizing for most of those in the middle. I think Joe Biden missed his window back in 2016. Just my opinion.

---

Dems could run Reagan, you'd note vote for him. He'd be too "radical" and leftist.

---

Reagan was a good one. I think he won in 1980 not because of his policies, but because he wasn't Jimmy Carter.

---

But if he put a D behind his name instead of an R, he'd be hated as a leftist liberal.

---

Similarly, had Obama had a R behind his name, he'd be hated as a Uncle Tom, sell out, white woman loving, no experience lightweight by Democrats. (Some of that may be accurate anyway.)

---

Nope. First, I don't hate uncle Toms. Second, he's not "white woman loving". Third, he represents good and hard work. Many of us can get behind that.

Finally, in Texas, you can vote in either primary to ensure you have a first and second choice in November. (Theoretically).

---

He proposed to Sheila Jager before Michelle. Political aspirations came before love.

Osodecentx said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I would love to see the Democrats put up a serious candidate, but I just don't know who that person would be based on the current field of hopefuls. Most all of them are TOO polarizing for most of those in the middle. I think Joe Biden missed his window back in 2016. Just my opinion.

---

What about Bloomberg running as a Democrat?

---

Martin Van Buren and James Madison are hopeful. Bloomberg would replace them as the shortest prez ever

midgett said:

---

tommie said:

---

midgett said:

---

tommie said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

tommie said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I would love to see the Democrats put up a serious candidate, but I just don't know who that person would be based on the current field of hopefuls. Most all of them are TOO polarizing for most of those in the middle. I think Joe Biden missed his window back in 2016. Just my opinion.

---

Dems could run Reagan, you'd note vote for him. He'd be too "radical" and leftist.

---

Reagan was a good one. I think he won in 1980 not because of his policies, but because he wasn't Jimmy Carter.

---

But if he put a D behind his name instead of an R, he'd be hated as a leftist liberal.

---

Similarly, had Obama had a R behind his name, he'd be hated as a Uncle Tom, sell out, white woman loving, no experience lightweight by Democrats. (Some of that may be accurate anyway.)

---

Nope. First, I don't hate uncle Toms. Second, he's not "white woman loving". Third, he represents good and hard work. Many of us can get behind that.

Finally, in Texas, you can vote in either primary to ensure you have a first and second choice in November. (Theoretically).

---

He proposed to Sheila Jager before Michelle. Political aspirations came before love.

---

Or he asked her to marry him and she said "no". My experience is you can't marry a woman who won't marry you.

GOP misogynist machine is cranked up and ready to go.

Waco1947 said:

---

GOP misogynist machine is cranked up and ready to go.

---

Statements like this are one of the many many reasons democrats have zero credibility. Opposing a woman isn't misogyny. Opposing a black isn't racism. On the contrary, making accusations to protect "protected classes" is bigotry. It shows you see them as weak and less skilled/able.

Congrats! You're a bigot.