| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 20,070
|
Warren endorsing Clinton would make her look like a hypocrite
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Warren shouldn't endorse anyone. The who idea of endorsements is nuts anyway. It doesnt affect anyones vote who is already in the know.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 11/14/2008
Posts: 24,988
|
Elizabeth is in a peculiar situation. Her message and thought process are similar to Bernie's and would make sense to endorse him. However, I understand where the other female Senators are coming from. Elizabeth was a part of that same group that pushed and urged Hillary to give it another go and run for President. EVERY Democratic Party female senator signed a letter and spoke with her, begging her to run for President again. Now that she is, no endorsement? It seems....weird. I understand, but she is in the middle because of her own beliefs and past actions.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by foxaylove
Elizabeth is in a peculiar situation. Her message and thought process are similar to Bernie's and would make sense to endorse him. However, I understand where the other female Senators are coming from. Elizabeth was a part of that same group that pushed and urged Hillary to give it another go and run for President. EVERY female senator signed a letter and spoke with her, begging her to run for President again. Now that she is, no endorsement? It seems....weird. I understand, but she is in the middle because of her own beliefs and past actions.
|
I forgot she signed the letter urging her to run for president. That letter is the very reason she's running now, otherwise she may have stayed home this cycle
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 11/14/2008
Posts: 24,988
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
I forgot she signed the letter urging her to run for president. That letter is the very reason she's running now, otherwise she may have stayed home this cycle
|
I wouldn't go as far as to say it was the "sole" reason she is running again, but it played tremendous part in motivating/inspiring her to give it another go. She really wanted to be President and that along with the encouragement of several of her peers, that was what did it I believe.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Warren not signing that letter wouldn't have decreased Hillary's chances of running, not by 1%.
I personally don't think she's gonna endorse anybody before a clear Democratic nominee is picked, but let's wait and see.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
Warren not signing that letter wouldn't have decreased Hillary's chances of running, not by 1%.
I personally don't think she's gonna endorse anybody before a clear Democratic nominee is picked, but let's wait and see.
|
Warren alone not signing it wouldn't have decreased Hill's appetite I agree. But what I was trying to say was all of the female senators together not writing a letter to Clinton would have made her not run. She was so adamant in her chances being over and she had no motivation before then.
I think she will but not anytime soon. Maybe when a clear front runner comes forth
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 1,797
|
So excited for more republican candidates to drop out! Who do you think will be next? I think it's either Fiorina or Gilmore.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jgorny
So excited for more republican candidates to drop out! Who do you think will be next? I think it's either Fiorina or Gilmore.
|
Hopefully not Fiorina. If the RNC works with her she may be in the next debate
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Warren alone not signing it wouldn't have decreased Hill's appetite I agree. But what I was trying to say was all of the female senators together not writing a letter to Clinton would have made her not run. She was so adamant in her chances being over and she had no motivation before then.
I think she will but not anytime soon. Maybe when a clear front runner comes forth
|
I know but her signing the letter is really just a matter of avoiding political suicide, the backlash of her being the only Democratic female senator to not sign the letter for Hillary Clinton to run would have been damaging. But I agree, it must be really tough for her to be choosing between the two right now for two completely different reasons, I hope she sticks to principle.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Hopefully not Fiorina. If the RNC works with her she may be in the next debate
|
She's done, like completely.
Carly Fiorina
Jim Gilmore (is he still running anyway? What does he look like?)
John Kasich
Ben Carson
Andy Martin (literally not eligible to be on the kids' debate)
All of these should just drop if they don't get double digits in NH (and they won't)
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Who is Jim Gilmore?  .
Andy Martin? . Those flops must have even missed the undercard debates because I never saw them LOL
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Who is Jim Gilmore? .
Andy Martin? . Those flops must have even missed the undercard debates because I never saw them LOL |
When you know your party has too many people running
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
Warren not signing that letter wouldn't have decreased Hillary's chances of running, not by 1%.
I personally don't think she's gonna endorse anybody before a clear Democratic nominee is picked, but let's wait and see.
|
I agree, Hillary still would have ran; however, it would seem pretty rude (and arguably hypocritical) to push someone to run for office, but then change your mind and endorse her main opponent. What kind of House of Cards tea? 
She probably won't endorse until the other candidate drops out.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 4,477
|
im a little late but if elizabeth wants to reflect the opinions of people in her home state
she would endorse bernie
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
I agree, Hillary still would have ran; however, it would seem pretty rude (and arguably hypocritical) to push someone to run for office, but then change your mind and endorse her main opponent. What kind of House of Cards tea?
She probably won't endorse until the other candidate drops out. |
It's not hypocritical nor rude at all, the average American would not have understood Elizabeth Warren, the most progressive and popular female Democratic senator not signing that letter to encourage Hillary Clinton to run for president, it would have looked entirely odd, out of place and definitely a road to political suicide for her. She had to sign that letter on the principle of encouraging a female Democratic colleague to be running and obviously peer pressure, nothing more or less, she is not committed to endorsing her, especially since Bernie wasn't running at the time she signed that letter. (the letter was singed in 2013 for ****'s sake)
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
The Democrats are starting to be being pulled too far to the idealist left for me, the entire Republican field in and out of Washington is toxic and ignorant anymore, independents are flocking to the extremes on both ends (most liberal Dem in the Senate, Sanders, and Trump/Cruz on the other end), there's not a single viable third party anywhere in sight, and by the way everyone I think John Maynard Keynes was really cool and interesting
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
I just want a moderate, slightly left party (socially liberal and fiscally either very centrist or slightly conservative) to happen if the more left Democrats and independents are going to allow themselves to be sucked into the world of Bernie Sanders. The Republicans can join in by getting over their fear of social liberalism and ejecting the Tea Partiers, or they can continue their slow and sad decline.
I don't have anything against him personally but really, if it had to be a "progressive" champion that was doing all of this, I'd want it to be Warren, because she'd do it better and more realistically in my opinion.
We'd be better off with more than two significant parties anyway.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jgorny
Do you guys think that at some point, the republican party will split up into two parties (i.e. the tea party wing and the moderate wing)? For instance, I can see the moderate wing calling themselves the New Republican Party.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Auris
No. What's going to eventually happen is that the religious right will remain Republican while the moderates move to the Libertarian party. I see it happening in 1-2 elections from now.
|
You all realize that the two-party dominant system is going away? I hate it too, but the only way to get rid of it is to change the voting system.We currently have a winner-take-all system ( First Past the Post that favors two parties. Anytime a third party gets significant traction in recent history it becomes a spoiler.
If we change our voting system to some form of proportional voting (when you are electing multiple members) and Instant-Runoff Voting. IRV requires a majority and allows you to rank candidates. Until one of these systems are in place, then voting 3rd party or hoping for a 3rd party is pointless.
The Libertarian Party will only be able change the Republican Party, like Ron/Rand Paul tried to do. With primaries/caucuses you don't need to get rid of a part, you can just hijack it and change the party. Like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is doing. In the current system, you get more success doing that than being like Ralph Nader or Gary Johnson (Libertarian).
I can write a book on the two-party dominant systems if anyone wants to talk more about it. 
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
If we lived in an ideal world where everything could totally happen and be free and whatever:
But we don't so in practice I'm more like
 |
I think even that is a little too simple.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/1/2014
Posts: 2,096
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Reza
Every time I browse this thread that chucko guy is always talking about Hillary's gmail account. 
By the way how did Hillary do today?  |
I have never mentioned any gmail account...
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
It's not hypocritical nor rude at all, the average American would not have understood Elizabeth Warren, the most progressive and popular female Democratic senator not signing that letter to encourage Hillary Clinton to run for president, it would have looked entirely odd, out of place and definitely a road to political suicide for her. She had to sign that letter on the principle of encouraging a female Democratic colleague to be running and obviously peer pressure, nothing more or less, she is not committed to endorsing her, especially since Bernie wasn't running at the time she signed that letter. (the letter was singed in 2013 for ****'s sake)
|
One of biggest reasons for supporting Bernie and hating Hillary is that he doesn't "play politics" and is "authentic" while Hillary is the opposite. Now you would defend Warren for doing what Hillary has been doing (playing politics and being programmatic).
Your defense sounds just like many peoples' post on here defending Hillary. Of course Warren is not committed, and she is free to change her mind with changing circumstance (just like how Hillary is free to change her mind?  )
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jonna Lee
im a little late but if elizabeth wants to reflect the opinions of people in her home state
she would endorse bernie
|
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mary-3891.html
Hillary has a +29.5 lead in Massachusetts.  To be fair the most recent poll is from November, so a lot could change. Is there a more recent poll that RCP hasn't posted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
