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.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a statement on Monday that fellow presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told her in a private meeting in 2018 that a woman could not win the White House.
“Bernie and I met for more than two hours in December 2018 to discuss the 2020 election, our past work together and our shared goals: beating Donald Trump, taking back our government from the wealthy and well-connected, and building an economy that works for everyone,” Warren said in a statement. “Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.”
Of course the initial reporting by the media was a good bit more malicious, deceitful and nasty than her statement. That should not be forgotten.
Elizabeth Warren had been falling off in her fundraising and in the polls for a while now. It appears that when she and her campaign heard that Bernie Sanders was specifically trying to recruit her supporters in Iowa in their door-to-door efforts, she panicked.
This was her response. It was a nasty, weak, unprincipled move and it reeks of panic. It is a very ugly look for her. In fact, it seems reasonably likely that this may be looked back on as the moment of the official demise of her campaign, akin to "The Dean scream" back in the 2004 presidential race.
Not only is she smearing Sanders in nakedly malicious, deceitful and opportunistic fashion, but she is at the same time playing the "Woman's card" in what appears to be a rather blatant demonstration of sexism of her own.
This kind of conduct does more to discredit and set back the credibility of women candidates generally than it does to help someone like Elizabeth Warren to selfishly try to generate sympathy for herself as part of some sort of oppressed class. For that, she should be ashamed. In fact, this is much more likely to hurt her than it is to help her.
We are ready to elect a woman president, when the right one comes along. Elizabeth Warren is clearly not that person, nor was Hillary Clinton. However, sooner or later, we will see some sort of Margaret Thatcher caliber woman come along, and there will be no doubt that she is the one. Just as was the case with Margaret Thatcher in the UK.
But that is not going to happen this year. I could be wrong, but I suspect that when we do eventually elect a woman president, she will be from the right and not the left.
Questions and concerns are again being raised about biased and unfair treatement of Bernie Sanders by CNN and the DNC. Of course this was confirmed to have occurred in the 2016 race. Despite reforms at the DNC, it looks like they are going there again.
However the lowest moment of this or any debate this year occurred when CNN reporter Abby Phillips made Sanders repeat his outright denial of the allegation by Elizabeth Warren that he told her that no woman could be president and then immediately stated that Sanders did make the comment in her next question to Warren. In watching with a room filled with people who are not affiliated with Sanders, Phillips’ statement led to loud gasps and Sanders himself seemed dumbfounded on stage by the bias shown by the CNN reporter. Later, Warren appeared to refuse to shake the hand of Sanders.
....
While Warren refused to shake the hand of Sanders, she had every reason to shake the hand of CNN and Phillips. The debate left many of us with the feeling of another setup in the Democratic primary debates. The problem is that the bias was so open and frankly gross that it could have the opposite effect in pushing people toward (not away) from Sanders.
Tucker Carlson nails it. The race for the Democrats is almost certainly down to two, unless somehow Bloomberg pulls a rabbit out of his hat, or someone really spectacular jumps into the race at the last minute. The race, realistically speaking, appears to very likely be down to Biden and Sanders. Take your pick.
So say what you want about Bernie Sanders -- we do regularly -- but he probably didn't attack Elizabeth Warren for "being a woman." There a lot of reasons not to vote for Bernie Sanders, but you have to be a shallow, lifestyle liberal to think sexism is one of them.
If that's Warren's Hail Mary pass -- and it is -- she is done. It's over.
So where exactly does that leave us in the Democratic primary? Well, really with two options. The party is either going to nominate an elderly socialist or an elderly corporate shill who spent decades taking bribes from the credit card companies. Those are the choices.
Tucker Carlson nails it. The race for the Democrats is almost certainly down to two, unless somehow Bloomberg pulls a rabbit out of his hat, or someone really spectacular jumps into the race at the last minute. The race, realistically speaking, appears to very likely be down to Biden and Sanders. Take your pick.
If it's down to those two, I would choose Sanders, though I would still prefer Buttigieg or Bloomberg over either.
If it's down to those two, I would choose Sanders, though I would still prefer Buttigieg or Bloomberg over either.
Buttigieg is not happening and I think you know that.
Probably Bloomberg isn't either, unless Joe withdraws for some reason, and only then if he is able to deploy his billions in an especially crafty manner. That is not very likely, but watching old Joe, I am reluctant to consider this possibility as entirely eliminated. Other than Joe or Bernie, Bloomberg looks to be the most likely dark horse candidate at this point.
I saw Bloomberg on Steven Colbert’s show this week. Bloomberg has a sense of humor and is actually kind of warm. He is very well-spoken. He really wants Trump to be replaced. He will use his $billions to try to do so. I think if Bloomberg is out on the trail and on TV, internet, social media, etc., people will like him much better. I want a new President with decency and someone sharp, who really cares about our country. Bloomberg and Buttigieg both have these qualities.
Buttigieg is not happening and I think you know that.
Probably Bloomberg isn't either, unless Joe withdraws for some reason, and only then if he is able to deploy his billions in an especially crafty manner. That is not very likely, but watching old Joe, I am reluctant to consider this possibility as entirely eliminated. Other than Joe or Bernie, Bloomberg looks to be the most likely dark horse candidate at this point.
Bloomberg will use his money in a very “crafty” manner.. He has made billions of $$’s—self made. He will have a sharp ad agency and great advisors.
Trump is one of the worst people to walk the face of the earth, if he is a person and not an orangutan. But that insults that splendid primate. He is worse than Ted Bundy of blessed memory or Bernie Madoff. On the other hand, any of the possible Democratic candidates is perfection defined. These people are as clean as a hound's tooth, competent, thorough and honest.
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.
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.
