The Lying Intellectual Slut Cherokee Liz Warren debates the Incumbent Senator and Soldier Scott Brown Tonight and you can listen here on 96.5 Boston Radio


Selene

Recommended Posts

The Republicans decided in January 2014 to convene from July 18 - 21 2016; the Democrats decided the same month to open their convention on the 25th. By tradition the party that doesn't hold the presidency goes first.

In any case the nominations are decided in the primaries months earlier. The delegates can't in practice do anything about this at convention time.

Warren won't have to worry about money. She can open her own casino.

Now that was really funny...poker-face-smiley-emoticon.gif

Thanks for the info, I was not aware of that protocol.

I am not so sure it is going to be as clear this time going into the conventions...I have a few scenarios that are between probable and possible that we could have a convention fight.

However, sadly, you are correct that the recent trend has been to lock it down early.

That would not be healthy in my opinion.

Additionally, it would make my involvement much more fun if it went to an open convention.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is an Official Warning and Alert - this woman [Elizabeth Warren] could beat Evita [Hillary Clinton] and have a good chance in the general...

[...]

This woman could definitely beat Evita and has a decent shot at beating whoever stumbles into the Republican nomination...

My opinion is that the Senator cannot win over Clinton in the Democratic primary election. I do hope Warren throws her hat into the ring, even though conventional (DC) wisdom suggests she will not do so, will not set aside her earlier decision to sit out the race.

If by some chance or change in motive she does run in the primary, aggregated polling suggests she is no "definite" victor over Clinton -- at her best showing, she is still 32% behind nationally. Two recent polls suggest she has a potent attraction for Democrats, however. In a small YouGov poll, she manages to best Clinton by several points in a match-up. But this poll only covers Iowa and New Hampshire. It also is a 'pump primer,' in that it precedes the polling questions will a number of explicit Warren positions. From the poll documentation:

Appeal of Warren’s Positions on the Issues

Respondents were asked whether they agree or disagree with a series of statements thatElizabeth Warren has made on key economic issues, including Social Security, student loans,big banks, trade deals, the Keystone XL pipeline and Wall Street corruption. We found that her agenda is extremely popular among likely Iowa caucus goers and New Hampshire primary voters, with all the statements supported by more than three in four respondents, and some statements having virtually unanimous support. The best performing question related to Sen. Warren's position on student loan debt.
We found Warren's call to lower student loan interest rates to be remarkably popular, with virtually unanimous agreement, and strong agreement by four-fifths of respondents.Warren's backing for expanding Social Security and for breaking up the largest banks like Citigroup is nearly as strong, with more than 90% of voters agreeing with her. And her call for Wall Street criminals to be held accountable is strikingly popular

See this give:

— After respondents hear about Warren’s positions and biography, without any negative information provided about other candidates, Elizabeth Warren leads all other candidates for the nomination in both states: 31 percent to 24 percent over Hillary Clinton in Iowa (with other potential candidates further behind) and 30 percent to 27 percent in New Hampshire.

-- and some interesting conclusions:

The key takeaways from this polling are that Elizabeth Warren’s story and vision are powerfully resonant with the voters she would need to win the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, and that she has a clear chance to obtain the support she needs to win. While turning the findings of this survey into actual support will require Warren to enter the race and effectively deliver her message, she can expect that by continuing to stand up to Wall Street on behalf of America’s working families and to stand in favor of a more level economic playing field, she herself could have more than a fighting chance of earning the Democratic nomination for president

Now, Adam, you may well be right and I may be entirely wrong in my opinion that Warren will not run and will not beat Clinton. What evidence have you considered that warrants confidence in a Warren victory over Clinton in the putative primary? Can you share your reasoning?

Warren reiterated today that she is not interested.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an Official Warning and Alert - this woman [Elizabeth Warren] could beat Evita [Hillary Clinton] and have a good chance in the general...

[...]

This woman could definitely beat Evita and has a decent shot at beating whoever stumbles into the Republican nomination...

My opinion is that the Senator cannot win over Clinton in the Democratic primary election. I do hope Warren throws her hat into the ring, even though conventional (DC) wisdom suggests she will not do so, will not set aside her earlier decision to sit out the race.

If by some chance or change in motive she does run in the primary, aggregated polling suggests she is no "definite" victor over Clinton -- at her best showing, she is still 32% behind nationally. Two recent polls suggest she has a potent attraction for Democrats, however. In a small YouGov poll, she manages to best Clinton by several points in a match-up. But this poll only covers Iowa and New Hampshire. It also is a 'pump primer,' in that it precedes the polling questions will a number of explicit Warren positions. From the poll documentation:

Appeal of Warren’s Positions on the Issues

Respondents were asked whether they agree or disagree with a series of statements thatElizabeth Warren has made on key economic issues, including Social Security, student loans,big banks, trade deals, the Keystone XL pipeline and Wall Street corruption. We found that her agenda is extremely popular among likely Iowa caucus goers and New Hampshire primary voters, with all the statements supported by more than three in four respondents, and some statements having virtually unanimous support. The best performing question related to Sen. Warren's position on student loan debt.
We found Warren's call to lower student loan interest rates to be remarkably popular, with virtually unanimous agreement, and strong agreement by four-fifths of respondents.Warren's backing for expanding Social Security and for breaking up the largest banks like Citigroup is nearly as strong, with more than 90% of voters agreeing with her. And her call for Wall Street criminals to be held accountable is strikingly popular

See this give:

— After respondents hear about Warren’s positions and biography, without any negative information provided about other candidates, Elizabeth Warren leads all other candidates for the nomination in both states: 31 percent to 24 percent over Hillary Clinton in Iowa (with other potential candidates further behind) and 30 percent to 27 percent in New Hampshire.

-- and some interesting conclusions:

The key takeaways from this polling are that Elizabeth Warren’s story and vision are powerfully resonant with the voters she would need to win the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, and that she has a clear chance to obtain the support she needs to win. While turning the findings of this survey into actual support will require Warren to enter the race and effectively deliver her message, she can expect that by continuing to stand up to Wall Street on behalf of America’s working families and to stand in favor of a more level economic playing field, she herself could have more than a fighting chance of earning the Democratic nomination for president

Now, Adam, you may well be right and I may be entirely wrong in my opinion that Warren will not run and will not beat Clinton. What evidence have you considered that warrants confidence in a Warren victory over Clinton in the putative primary? Can you share your reasoning?

Warren reiterated today that she is not interested.

She speaks to the heart and soul of the marxist left that controls the internal machinery in the party processes.

Evita was a shoe in in 2008.

It will depend on who is out front in the Republican primaries after South Caroling and N.H.

If Lizzie Borden gets in it will be after a real Evita blunder, or external events with the economy and abroad.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, Adam, you may well be right and I may be entirely wrong in my opinion that Warren will not run and will not beat Clinton. What evidence have you considered that warrants confidence in a Warren victory over Clinton in the putative primary? Can you share your reasoning?

She speaks to the heart and soul of the marxist left that controls the internal machinery in the party processes.

Evita was a shoe in in 2008.

It will depend on who is out front in the Republican primaries after South Caroling and N.H.

If Lizzie Borden gets in it will be after a real Evita blunder, or external events with the economy and abroad.

So, she said she does not want to run, the polls show here losing to Clinton across the board if she does run, but you still think she will win the Democratic nomination next year?

I think I understand you better now -- if Clinton blunders in the campaign or if unspecified economic/foreign issues impinge, and Warren does run, then there is a 'definite' chance the nomination could be snatched from its putative shoe-in.

And then Warren goes on to edge out the GOP leader, Christie, Paul, Cruz, Walker, etc.

Could happen, I suppose. I think it will be fairly straightforward; the GOP will imperceptibly tack to the centre, try to cover the all-important evangelical vote, be baptized in the clear water of the Tea Party, choose an acceptable 'Romney-esque' mainline Republican candidate, run hard ... and fail.

If I am wrong, I will write a post-mortem detailing my failures to anticipate the actual campaign.

In the meantime, you might be interested in Karl Rove's take on a Warren candidacy: "Karl Rove: Elizabeth Warren Could Give Hillary Clinton A 'Scare' In 2016."

-- and, also from from PuffHo, "The political win that could make Elizabeth Warren the next President of the United States."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the meantime, you might be interested in Karl Rove's take on a Warren candidacy: "Karl Rove: Elizabeth Warren Could Give Hillary Clinton A 'Scare' In 2016."

-- and, also from from PuffHo, "The political win that could make Elizabeth Warren the next President of the United States."

Thanks for the links William.

Her staff needs to have a heart to heart talk with Lizzie Borden and tell her to stop clapping in the fucking microphone.

She is like a ferret on crack...

The more I analyze the possibilities, she would be formidable IF she can put together the O'bama black vote and the union vote, for example, the service employees in NY City - porters, handymen, concierges etc. in these ground game primaries in NY City, etc.

One of the niche primary groups that Lizzie would have to split with Evita would be the women vote.

The government worker class is another important niche voter groups and they get election days off lol.

I have to look at the Democratic primary schedule.

This could get quite interesting.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carly Fiorina explains that:

“We have to fundamentally reform government. Because government has grown so powerful, so costly, so corrupt, so complicated that only the big, the powerful, the well-connected can deal with this powerful government,” adding, “In fact, we are crushing the potential of this nation under the weight of government.”

Fiorina added some perspective on America’s standing in the world. She talked about the need for the country to be seen in a position of leadership: “We have to restore American leadership in the world. The world’s a more dangerous place when we’re not leading. And we have allies begging us to lead — that’s why Bibi Netanyahu came here — he is begging us to lead.”

While discussing Hillary Clinton, the democrats’ presumed 2016 candidate, Fiorina had some sharp criticism for the former first lady.

Thematically similar to one of Lying Lizzie Borden's themes about lobbyists, corruption and "influence."

This is a strong narrative in 2016 and could dramatically increase minor party voting if the election is between Evita and The Prince.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a strong narrative in 2016 and could dramatically increase minor party voting if the election is between Evita and The Prince.

Obama is O'bama, Lurch is John Kerry, Evita is Hillary Clinton, Lizzie Borden is Elizabeth Warren. But I can't figure out who The Prince is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a strong narrative in 2016 and could dramatically increase minor party voting if the election is between Evita and The Prince.

Obama is O'bama, Lurch is John Kerry, Evita is Hillary Clinton, Lizzie Borden is Elizabeth Warren. But I can't figure out who The Prince is.

Not sure if it will be the final nickname for Jeb Bush, however, it was confusing the way I posted it.

It might make a good nickname for Mario's really dumb son who is the Governor of NY. Daddy was known as the Hamlet on the Hudson, I believe.

It was a stream of consciousness post...a little Siddhartha to go...

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a strong narrative in 2016 and could dramatically increase minor party voting if the election is between Evita and The Prince.

Obama is O'bama, Lurch is John Kerry, Evita is Hillary Clinton, Lizzie Borden is Elizabeth Warren. But I can't figure out who The Prince is.

To whom did the Cherokee Princess administer 40 whacks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a strong narrative in 2016 and could dramatically increase minor party voting if the election is between Evita and The Prince.

Obama is O'bama, Lurch is John Kerry, Evita is Hillary Clinton, Lizzie Borden is Elizabeth Warren. But I can't figure out who The Prince is.

To whom did the Cherokee Princess administer 40 whacks?

The individual citizens of the United States with her votes for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPAFC] and the Dodd-Frank Act.

She has 38 more in her quiver, a little redskin rhetoric, run a search for her statement of principles.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell 'em how you feel...

Robert Campbell

Exactly.

Dirty Harry Reid, who recently announced he wouldn't seek re-election, also qualifies, in addition to Warren, as a moral slut imo.

Add to the above... Obama, Biden, Schummer, Hillary & Billy. Rotting feces, all of them.

-J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell 'em how you feel...

Robert Campbell

Exactly.

Dirty Harry Reid, who recently announced he wouldn't seek re-election, also qualifies, in addition to Warren, as a moral slut imo.

Add to the above... Obama, Biden, Schummer, Hillary & Billy. Rotting feces, all of them.

-J

If only they could at least perform a positive function by making the soil richer for planting new trees and flowers as they decay, however that would be Sublime...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republicans decided in January 2014 to convene from July 18 - 21 2016; the Democrats decided the same month to open their convention on the 25th. By tradition the party that doesn't hold the presidency goes first.

In any case the nominations are decided in the primaries months earlier. The delegates can't in practice do anything about this at convention time.

Warren won't have to worry about money. She can open her own casino.

Now that was really funny...poker-face-smiley-emoticon.gif

Thanks for the info, I was not aware of that protocol.

I am not so sure it is going to be as clear this time going into the conventions...I have a few scenarios that are between probable and possible that we could have a convention fight.

However, sadly, you are correct that the recent trend has been to lock it down early.

That would not be healthy in my opinion.

Additionally, it would make my involvement much more fun if it went to an open convention.

A...

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/

January

Monday, January 18 Iowa caucuses

Tuesday, January 26 New Hampshire

February

Tuesday, February 2 Colorado caucuses

Minnesota caucuses

New York

Utah

Saturday, February 13 South Carolina

Tuesday, February 16 North Carolina

Tuesday, February 23 Nevada

March

Tuesday, March 1 Colorado caucuses

Massachusetts

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas

Vermont

Virginia

Saturday, March 5 Louisiana

Tuesday, March 8 Alabama

Hawaii Republican caucuses

Mississippi

Ohio

Michigan

Sunday, March 13 Puerto Rico

Tuesday, March 15 Florida

Illinois

Missouri

Tuesday, March 22 Arizona

April

Tuesday, April 5 Maryland

Washington, DC

Wisconsin

Tuesday, April 26 Connecticut

Delaware

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

May

Tuesday, May 3 Indiana

Tuesday, May 10 Nebraska

West Virginia

Tuesday, May 17 Kentucky

Oregon

Tuesday, May 24 Arkansas

June

Tuesday, June 7 California

Montana

New Jersey

New Mexico

South Dakota

Tuesday, June 28 Utah

States with no firm dates:

(Some states may be listed with tentative dates) Georgia

Idaho

Kansas

Maine

Nevada

New Hampshire

North Carolina

South Carolina

Washington

Wyoming

Last update: 1/8/15

Read more at http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/#FmPthu2dmH6puWUf.99

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting "poll" regarding Evita's slippage since her convoluted attempts to untie the lies from her UN "press conference."

A new poll released Tuesday by Quinnipiac University found Clinton trailing former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in the Sunshine State and enjoying only a 2 percentage point lead over Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

In February, she led both — with a 10-point lead on Rubio.


The same poll found Clinton ahead of the GOP field in the must-win state of Pennsylvania but with only a 1-point lead over Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). And her favorability rating in both states has plummeted, by 4 points in Florida and 6 points in the Keystone State.

Quinnipiac pollster Peter A. Brown attributed the figures to news stories about Clinton’s decision not to use a government email address while she served as secretary of State, saying it was “taking a toll” on her public image.

In just one (1) month, that is a lot of slippage in states that she needs to be very competitive in.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/237572-hillary-approval-slips-after-email-scandal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is who of the presidential aspirants is most likely to involve the US in a major war? This has little or nothing to do with party affiliation. If Scott Walker gets some serious education and gets off the war-mongering neo-con bandwagon, I'd support him. The Ukraine is of major importance for the military-industrial and ancillary bureaucracies want to push Russia into a corner and keep on pushing. Ukraine is a country too far. Next is the crazy Middle East, then China's expanding sphere of influence. Ukraine is so vital, however, that's what needs addressing above all, out of the box, for the next administration. Mutual assured destruction (MAD) actually worked, whatever criticisms were valid at the time, then came Regan with his we win they lose and they lost. Again, no war. Maybe lucky for all that too. Now, instead of a doctrine to work off that made some sense nothing makes any sense respecting the US, NATO and the EU respecting Ukraine and Russia, so the threat of general thermonuclear war (GTW) is almost as high a realizable possibility as it ever was BECAUSE HARDLY ANYBODY IS WORRIED ABOUT IT. And hundreds of bombs are not needed, but I'm sure they will be used as a backup in case electro-magnetic pulses (EMPs) from a few high altitude detonations don't fry most computers and chips in the world's only remaining superpower, meaning in a few days most people in this country won't be able to get any water and there won't be any way to save the day. No water, fuel, food. Generally the three most important things with water exponentially more important than anything else.

The replacement time now for a major electrical transformer is two to three years, but they'll never be replaced by the likes of me and you, aka Americans. If the whole country is not blasted and it's only EMP then after the hundreds of millions of American corpses have rotted away, "migrants" could begin slowing moving in to what might as well be neutron-bombed real estate, although not as nice looking as in the movie On the Beach.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is who of the presidential aspirants is most likely to involve the US in a major war? This has little or nothing to do with party affiliation. If Scott Walker gets some serious education and gets off the war-mongering neo-con bandwagon, I'd support him. The Ukraine is of major importance for the military-industrial and ancillary bureaucracies want to push Russia into a corner and keep on pushing. Ukraine is a country too far. Next is the crazy Middle East, then China's expanding sphere of influence. Ukraine is so vital, however, that's what needs addressing above all, out of the box, for the next administration. Mutual assured destruction (MAD) actually worked, whatever criticisms were valid at the time, then came Regan with his we win they lose and they lost. Again, no war. Maybe lucky for all that too. Now, instead of a doctrine to work off that made some sense nothing makes any sense respecting the US, NATO and the EU respecting Ukraine and Russia, so the threat of general thermonuclear war (GTW) is almost as high a realizable possibility as it ever was BECAUSE HARDLY ANYBODY IS WORRIED ABOUT IT. And hundreds of bombs are not needed, but I'm sure they will be used as a backup in case electro-magnetic pulses (EMPs) from a few high altitude detonations don't fry most computers and chips in the world's only remaining superpower, meaning in a few days most people in this country won't be able to get any water and there won't be any way to save the day. No water, fuel, food. Generally the three most important things. The replacement time now for a major electrical transformer is two to three years, but they'll never be replaced by the likes of me and you, aka Americans. If the whole country is not blasted and it's only EMP then after the hundreds of millions of American corpses have rotted away, "migrants" could begin slowing moving in to what might as well be neutron-bombed real estate, although not as nice looking as in the movie On the Beach.

--Brant

Reasonable filter to put these candidates through.

Knowledge of how to prepare to survive that type of EMP insanity is not easy to determine.

I would assume everyone here has enough water set aside for a month.

Avoiding having to deal with roving bands of desperate and weakened persons is a major issue.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A month will help you survive for a month. Then the neighbors' swimming pools will be a deadly attraction, but danger won't stop the terribly thirsty. Your neighbors will be new neighbors, the old neighbors dead. The constant sound of gunfire will gradually peter out with the water. If you have a well you'll likely need a hand pump. Of course, there are rain and lakes, rivers and streams. East River water or the Hudson? You'll have to walk to get there. Here in Tucson, most of us will die.

--Brant

SW Oregon might be the primo place to be--water and not too much radiation from westerly winds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is who of the presidential aspirants is most likely to involve the US in a major war? This has little or nothing to do with party affiliation. If Scott Walker gets some serious education and gets off the war-mongering neo-con bandwagon, I'd support him. The Ukraine is of major importance for the military-industrial and ancillary bureaucracies want to push Russia into a corner and keep on pushing. Ukraine is a country too far. Next is the crazy Middle East, then China's expanding sphere of influence. Ukraine is so vital, however, that's what needs addressing above all, out of the box, for the next administration. [... ] Now, instead of a doctrine to work off that made some sense nothing makes any sense respecting the US, NATO and the EU respecting Ukraine and Russia, so the threat of general thermonuclear war (GTW) is almost as high a realizable possibility as it ever was BECAUSE HARDLY ANYBODY IS WORRIED ABOUT IT.

I haven't understood your repeated mentions of Ukraine in the context of a messy/nasty US/NATO/EU policy. The enlargement of the EU and of NATO was the express sovereign will of the nations involved. What would you have had them do?

Forget the 'special case' of Ukraine, and look to all the present NATO countries and the EU. Would you have it any other way, in your own political scheme of things? Would you grant Russia its imperial interests in Ukraine, would you like to see Russia bully smaller neighbours into doing its will?

You seem to have a neutral view of Putin's Russia. I wonder what Ayn Rand would have to say about the new Russian nationalism and the matter of Ukraine.

As for the Prepper ramblings at the end of your comment, what up, Brant? Are you in a state of ALL CAPS from something you read or heard about? If so, please share.

The current crop of GOP hopefuls except for Rand Paul are all tacking towards a robust American security policy. If Clinton is a hawk, the GOP must be seen as greater hawks to win, since the party is in a fearful security mood by my soundings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A robust American security policy." What's it doing in Ukraine?

The original role of NATO was X. Now it's become Y and Z. Since X no longer obtains, the natural default is the US folds its NATO tent. Not to do that doesn't mean that would be a mistake, but offhand I'd say it was.

As for the rest, I've been working all day and I've not the time for it.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Warren reiterated today that she is not interested.

 

 

One of the keys to this Presidential race is the vaunted Clinton attack machine.  

 

There is a theory to hold back announcing until much later in the cycle to avert the incoming savage sliming of Evita's machine.

 

Strategically, that makes good sense.  It also let's your money go further in a short time frame campaign.

 

Lizzie now has the advantage to watch O'Malley walk into the ground fire.

 

 

Recently, a representative from the Hillary Clinton camp delivered a message to Martin O'Malley, the former Maryland governor preparing to challenge Clinton for the 2016 Democratic nomination.

I have some good news and some bad news, the messenger said.

What's the good news? asked O'Malley.

The good news is we're taking you seriously, the messenger answered. And the bad news is … we're taking you seriously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The undertone of threat was unmistakable, but anyone who takes on Clintonworld has to expect that. And indeed, pro-O'Malley Democrats — there are some — are not at all surprised by the tone. "They are the most petty, vengeful people out there," says one Democrat of the Clinton organization. "They hold a grudge for decades. I don't think he [O'Malley] expected them to welcome him with a fruit basket."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in-emerging-dem-race-omalley-new-target-of-clinton-machine/article/2562480

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Ah yes...we have a thread just for her...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now