Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I probably know Senator Warren better than anyone on this board (although we are not close friends), and she is sharp as a tack and is dead set on making life better for the average Joe and making life worse for the big banks if they play outside the rules.
Trust me, she didn't run for office to get rich or make a name for herself. She was plenty accomplished before she was elected to the Senate. She really is passionate about leveling the playing field and that has been shown in her track record in the Senate since she was elected.
Our country needs more public servants like Warren. I support her positions on the issues, whereas Clinton is a mixed bag. I like that Clinton supports gun and health care reform, but unfortunately she doesn't support single-payer. She appears to be pro-choice. Her position on labour is unclear but I cannot locate any evidence that she has worked to support labour and labour unions.
Both's problem is their association being part of the Washington stagnation now. That is where Christie gets his edge leading among independents in polls over Hillary. The number one problem listed in poll time after time is that nation is headed in wrong direction. I don't think anyone in with a record lately in Washington can win. They will be associated with one side or the other's failure to reach compromise.
As a Republican, I'd like to say Warren because she'd be easier to beat. But, just as a nutjob on the right like Ted Cruz could actually win given the right set of circumstances, so could Warren. So I say Hillary.
If not Warren, I sense that *someone* from the far left will challenge Hillary in 2016.
'If'? Warren clearly will not run.
Someone? Sure. There will be a Dennis Kucinich type out there. And there will probably be someone more viable to Clinton's left, such as Martin O'Malley. But he's not left enough to really fire up the base, most likely.
But there just isn't a liberal darling of the left, such as Warren, who seems likely to run - at least, not at this point.
Someone? Sure. There will be a Dennis Kucinich type out there. And there will probably be someone more viable to Clinton's left, such as Martin O'Malley. But he's not left enough to really fire up the base, most likely.
But there just isn't a liberal darling of the left, such as Warren, who seems likely to run - at least, not at this point.
Howard Dean was a little-known VT governor in 2003. Of course, he hadn't been very liberal until then, but he came out against the war and caught fire with the far left. If the economy is still messy in 2016 and Obama's presidency is seen as a disappointment, I could see someone seriously challenge Hillary from the left on economy.
Howard Dean was a little-known VT governor in 2003. Of course, he hadn't been very liberal until then, but he came out against the war and caught fire with the far left. If the economy is still messy in 2016 and Obama's presidency is seen as a disappointment, I could see someone seriously challenge Hillary from the left on economy.
Well, that's precisely what I mean.
Howard Dean? He won one state in 2004. He was buried by the lackluster campaign of the lackluster John Kerry. He was also lapped by John Edwards that year. And Hillary Clinton is, I daresay, politically rather more formidable than Kerry and Edwards ever were, combined.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.