Draft Warren

I would love to see Elizabeth Warren run for president. I don't think she has a chance at all of getting elected, but she can pull the narrative to the left and force Hillary into positions more amenable to me.

I personally don't like Hillary Clinton, but I think she's the only Democrat who has a shot at getting elected, and I don't see any Republicans out there who can beat her. That aside, I do believe that she is the most-qualified to hold the office of anyone who will run in 2016.

I commented to somebody today that I would sooner see Bill Clinton back than any of the candidates around. I wasn't joking. And they agreed with me.

A vote for Hill is a vote for Bill, yup you got it.

If we're going to start electing First Ladies to get around term limits, let's bring back Laura Bush.  She was decent. Or Blackie O.

You really need to stop watching Fox News.

MoveOn.org wrote:

Run Warren Run
Dear fellow MoveOn member,

On Monday, I spoke with a room full of MoveOn members about the critical need to get big money out of our politics—and why I think Elizabeth Warren would be the best presidential candidate to take on this challenge today.

We all know that there's a laundry list of issues that need to be addressed by our next president—climate change, Social Security expansion, and more. But I believe wholeheartedly that the root of corruption in our government and economic inequality in our country today is the rampant, unaccountable money in our politics.

Elizabeth Warren has consistently shown that she has the independence, passion, and commitment to tackle this problem.

That's why I hope you'll watch me explain why we need her voice in the 2016 presidential debate and then share my video with a friend or two.

Thanks for all you do.

–Lessig

Lawrence Lessig is a professor at Harvard Law School and a co-founder of Mayday PAC, which fights to get big money out of politics.

Whether Warren could win without "big money" behind her is open to question.

She just needs to get more votes than anyone else.

But the Americsn voter has proven himself susceptible to manipulation. O

NoCoPilot wrote:

She just needs to get more votes than anyone else.

Well, not exactly. She needs to get more electoral votes. The popular vote doesn't count. Unfortunately.

A short time ago I read an article which pointed out that both parties can count on 45% of the electorate, no matter who's running or what's going on in the country. So the election is for the other ten percent of the voters. To make it worse, it's only for that ten percent of the voters in a few "battleground" states. Political scientists describe these undecided voters as "low information" voters, who know little about the candidates or the issues, preferring to vote on "gut feelings."

That should make us all feel better. Right?

Warren delivered a BLISTERING speech at the American Constitution Society tonight, no shit, it had me in tears.

Immediately following her was Joe Biden, boring as usual but delivering a point about Trump threatening the federal judge who is hearing his fraud case, when he said after his election he'd get back at the judge. Biden pointed out this would be an impeachable offense.

Talk in the air tonight, Warren for VP. All-female ticket. Interesting....

A Clinton-Warren ticket is very appealing.

Elizabeth Warren may be coming back in 2020. She’s the only candidate I could see healing the country.

Watch this space.

Cory Booker or Kamala Harris as Vice.

Part A just took the first step to completion.  I still like my vice choices for Part B.

And I think the issues she addresses in her opening salvo are exactly right, and will resonate with a lot of people.

_Howard, on April 22, 2015, wrote:

A short time ago I read an article which pointed out that both parties can count on 45% of the electorate, no matter who's running or what's going on in the country. So the election is for the other ten percent of the voters. To make it worse, it's only for that ten percent of the voters in a few "battleground" states. Political scientists describe these undecided voters as "low information" voters, who know little about the candidates or the issues, preferring to vote on "gut feelings."

Howard pretty much called the 2016 election, right here, in April 2015.  Unfuckingbelievable.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Cory Booker or Kamala Harris as Vice.

They (by "they" I don't know if I mean more the mass of Democrats being vocal or the DCCC- chicken/egg sit there.) are actively pushing a Kamala Harris possibly Harris/Beto ticket. Warren is being talked down, called problematic, etc.

I do not like Harris. Well, let me rephrase that. I have her on Twitter, she seems nice enough but she's another Bill Clinton- a centrist in Democrat clothing. She's a career prosecutor who didn't have the balls to do a bunch of stuff people are gonna want her to have the balls to deal with. There seems (from resister talk on Twitter, et al) to be two camps. The "new people are awesome" camp that's embracing everyone from Harris to Cortez (hell, even I like Rashida Tlaib) and will not discuss people like Sanders or Clinton or even Warren. And the left wing of the party that seems to be, like me, trying to explain why the Dems keep losing the working class vote and that we need someone who's not dragging us to the center. Too many of those people are still on the Bernie train. I get it, I like Bernie too, but we need other options. It seems the presidential candidate field is going to be like 20 people at least to start.

It feels like the DCCC learned NOTHING from the last round.

NoCoPilot wrote:

_Howard, on April 22, 2015, wrote:

A short time ago I read an article which pointed out that both parties can count on 45% of the electorate, no matter who's running or what's going on in the country. So the election is for the other ten percent of the voters. To make it worse, it's only for that ten percent of the voters in a few "battleground" states. Political scientists describe these undecided voters as "low information" voters, who know little about the candidates or the issues, preferring to vote on "gut feelings."

Howard pretty much called the 2016 election, right here, in April 2015.  Unfuckingbelievable.

This is exactly what I'm trying to explain to people and all they can do is insult those voters or ignore them. They think it ought to be self evident that the Reps aren't in their interest but it's not because of a lot of things including lack of education but those problems started long ago. We can't fix all that. We need to meet people where they are and explain to the low info people who they need to get out and vote.

Jenni wrote:

It feels like the DCCC learned NOTHING from the last round.

Indeed.  The DNC seems to be AFRAID of any populist non-corporate candidate, even though that is exactly what the voters want -- in 2016, 2018 and 2020.

They seem to feel that nobody can actually compete without deep money support.  In 2016 Hillary raised $1.4 billion, of which $204.4 million was from Super PACs, $598.2m was from the DNC and $623.1m was Clinton's own campaign.  The Donald raised $957.6m, of which $79.3m was Super PAC money, $543.4m was RNC and $334.8m was his campaign. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

By contrast Bernie Sanders raised $229.1m in the primary, of which $5,621.00 was Super PAC, $134.6m was individual contributions under $200, $97.1m was individual contributions over $200. https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000528

Is all that money really necessary, if you have the message people want to hear?  Hillary outspent Donald and still lost.

Warren will not attract ANY big money donors with her message, but that may not matter.  In fact it may tip the election in her favor.

But campaigns are big money affairs.  Fortunes are made in directing them.  Without fortunes being spent, it might be hard to get anybody to run her campaign competently.  That's what I feel sunk Sanders' campaign, which made several career-limiting amateur-hour blunders in the weeks before the primary.