Warren dodges questions on Bernie for 5 minutes straight

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeeAoIZ8XfA

Not only does she shamelessly dodge the questions, she's terrible at doing so. I like Warren idealogically, but I don't think she'd do well debating Trump.

[DavidB.]

That was embarrassing.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker are the two most overrated potential Democratic candidates right now. I think even Joe Biden has a better chance of being the nominee than they do and that's taking into account his own past presidential runs.

I've never seen a candidate who likes to bash the opposite party more than Warren. She'll have a hard time winning over these Orange County-type #NeverTrump Republicans, and she's incredibly overrated in general IMO.

Agreed.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I look forward to 2020 if only because it could help prove what a strong candidate Hillary actually was.

[Lord Admirale]

People actually want her to run for President? Sad! @realAdmiralPresident

[cvparty]

there's also a video of her awkwardly sidestepping a question from trey gowdy

[Bull Moose Base]

I've never seen a candidate who likes to bash the opposite party more than Warren.

I would say she is tied for most on this count with every other politician. The only thing less remarkable about a politician bashing the opposing party is a politician dodging a question they don't want to answer. Doesn't tell us anything about how someone would do in primaries or a general. Might even be an asset.

She'll have a hard time winning over these Orange County-type #NeverTrump Republicans, and she's incredibly overrated in general IMO.

She definitely doesn't need to win Orange County. She probably wouldn't need to win Orange County types either.

Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker are the two most overrated potential Democratic candidates right now. I think even Joe Biden has a better chance of being the nominee than they do and that's taking into account his own past presidential runs.

Biden's past presidential runs are meaningless. He wasn't VP of the popular previous president then. His odds at the nomination might be better than Warren's or Booker's if he runs but that's not much of an insult to them.

[Mr. Morden]

I've never seen a candidate who likes to bash the opposite party more than Warren.

I would say she is tied for most on this count with every other politician. The only thing less remarkable about a politician bashing the opposing party is a politician dodging a question they don't want to answer. Doesn't tell us anything about how someone would do in primaries or a general. Might even be an asset.

But there is something of a partisanship vs. ideology divide in terms of what politicians spend their time talking about.  E.g., Bernie Sanders agrees with Warren on most issues, but he is less enamored with the Democratic Party as an institution, and so is less "partisan".  So, for example, in addition to bashing the GOP over policy, Warren also talks a lot about the ethics problems with both Trump and his Cabinet, but Sanders doesn't talk that much about that.

But yeah, I think it's silly to suggest that being partisan and relentlessly attacking the other party is a negative in the primary.  Not *every* voter goes for that, but there are an awful lot who do.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I've never seen a candidate who likes to bash the opposite party more than Warren. She'll have a hard time winning over these Orange County-type #NeverTrump Republicans, and she's incredibly overrated in general IMO.

We neither want nor need those voters.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Warren is a coward, but she's better than 90% of Democratic Senators.

[Rookie Yinzer]

She's not presidential material. Hopefully there is someone in her camp letting her know that.

[Lord Admirale]

There's no way that Warren could energize the WWC. She's pretty much Hillary, except further left and more condescending. The only people who could energize the WWC are people who wouldn't make it through the primaries (Manchin, Warner, Casey, Justice, Bel Edwards, even Cuomo)

[Beet]

This thread is pretty much why BernieBros were never believed when they said that Hillary's mistake was not being more of a populist. If a woman is left, she's too far left. If she's center, she's a neoliberal shill. In reality the reactions have nothing to do with their positions, they're about sexism.

[Mr. Morden]

The biggest reason why people constantly bring up Warren is because they believe she can appeal to White Working Class voters and energize the Democratic base, right?

The attention she gets on the forum is because she's thought to be a very strong candidate in the primary, not the general election.  She's thought to be a strong candidate to win the nomination because, assuming that Sanders himself doesn't run, she'd likely do well with the "progressive insurgent" wing of the party that fuelled the Sanders candidacy.  This isn't a majority of the party, but since most of the others seemingly planning to run, like Booker, Cuomo, Klobuchar, etc. are more "establishment" and thus more likely to divide up Clinton votes, the ability to win Sanders votes is of primo importance.

That's it.  She's a strong contender for the nomination (and IMHO, the nominal frontrunner), but that doesn't mean she'd be any stronger in the general election than any other potential nominee.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

There's no way that Warren could energize the WWC. She's pretty much Hillary, except further left and more condescending. The only people who could energize the WWC are people who wouldn't make it through the primaries (Manchin, Warner, Casey, Justice, Bel Edwards, even Cuomo)

Oh yeah, Joe Manchin and Andrew Cuomo: true WWC heroes.

This post just gave me a brain tumor.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

There's no way that Warren could energize the WWC. She's pretty much Hillary, except further left and more condescending. The only people who could energize the WWC are people who wouldn't make it through the primaries (Manchin, Warner, Casey, Justice, Bel Edwards, even Cuomo)

What about Sherrod Brown?

[GlobeSoc]

There's no way that Warren could energize the WWC. She's pretty much Hillary, except further left and more condescending. The only people who could energize the WWC are people who wouldn't make it through the primaries (Manchin, Warner, Casey, Justice, Bel Edwards, even Cuomo)

What about Sherrod Brown?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This thread is pretty much why BernieBros were never believed when they said that Hillary's mistake was not being more of a populist. If a woman is left, she's too far left. If she's center, she's a neoliberal shill. In reality the reactions have nothing to do with their positions, they're about sexism.

Most Sanders people like Warren.  Don't take a few retards on Twitter as representative of the entire base.

(I for one do not deny that there is a stigma against being a woman in academia or politics, and especially both.  Hence shtposts like the one I quoted above.)

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Warren's literal best case scenario in the general is losing the NPV by 10%, and she could lose by as much as 20%. Enough Said.

[Beet]

This thread is pretty much why BernieBros were never believed when they said that Hillary's mistake was not being more of a populist. If a woman is left, she's too far left. If she's center, she's a neoliberal shill. In reality the reactions have nothing to do with their positions, they're about sexism.

Most Sanders people like Warren.  Don't take a few retards on Twitter as representative of the entire base.

(I for one do not deny that there is a stigma against being a woman in academia or politics, and especially both.  Hence shtposts like the one I quoted above.)

Fair enough. But while some people are consistent, many progressive-aligned "bros" tend to give establishment men, like Obama, Biden, Schumer, Menendez, Carper, a pass, while NOT giving the same to establishment women, like Hillary, DWS, or Dianne Feinstein. And since progressive men or women of any stripe rarely win, this leaves women in politics in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type situation.

[DrScholl]

If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. It's not exactly a secret that Sanders is difficult to work with and you don't get endorsements when you are a difficult person. Just because they both share some of the same views doesn't mean that they are political allies.

[Maxwell]

Why does it matter? This is cultist behavior.

But sadly it'll probably bring down Warren if she runs for President because, despite a lot of great qualities, I don't think Warren is a great politician. That said, I'll hate to see her tarred and feathered for "not being progressive enough".

[Ronnie]

Warren's literal best case scenario in the general is losing the NPV by 10%, and she could lose by as much as 20%. Enough Said.

Nobody's going to lose by twenty, ten, or probably even five points in this polarized environment, particularly in an election with President Walking Trainwreck on the ballot.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

This thread is pretty much why BernieBros were never believed when they said that Hillary's mistake was not being more of a populist. If a woman is left, she's too far left. If she's center, she's a neoliberal shill. In reality the reactions have nothing to do with their positions, they're about sexism.

Most Sanders people like Warren.  Don't take a few retards on Twitter as representative of the entire base.

(I for one do not deny that there is a stigma against being a woman in academia or politics, and especially both.  Hence shtposts like the one I quoted above.)

Fair enough. But while some people are consistent, many progressive-aligned "bros" tend to give establishment men, like Obama, Biden, Schumer, Menendez, Carper, a pass, while NOT giving the same to establishment women, like Hillary, DWS, or Dianne Feinstein. And since progressive men or women of any stripe rarely win, this leaves women in politics in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type situation.

While I'll withhold judgment on the other two due to not being a Democrat, I truly believe that had a man been chair of the DNC and behaved the way DWS did, that man would not have gotten a free pass, either.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

This thread is pretty much why BernieBros were never believed when they said that Hillary's mistake was not being more of a populist. If a woman is left, she's too far left. If she's center, she's a neoliberal shill. In reality the reactions have nothing to do with their positions, they're about sexism.

Most Sanders people like Warren.  Don't take a few retards on Twitter as representative of the entire base.

(I for one do not deny that there is a stigma against being a woman in academia or politics, and especially both.  Hence shtposts like the one I quoted above.)

Fair enough. But while some people are consistent, many progressive-aligned "bros" tend to give establishment men, like Obama, Biden, Schumer, Menendez, Carper, a pass, while NOT giving the same to establishment women, like Hillary, DWS, or Dianne Feinstein. And since progressive men or women of any stripe rarely win, this leaves women in politics in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type situation.

While I'll withhold judgment on the other two due to not being a Democrat, I truly believe that had a man been chair of the DNC and behaved the way DWS did, that man would not have gotten a free pass, either.

Perez is just as hated as DWS. There's no sexism.