Trump: Elizabeth Warren as my opponent “would be a dream come true”

[DrScholl]

It won't take a white man to defeat Trump, so let's just stop pushing the notion that gender or race should factor in who is the nominee. Warren could easily defeat Trump, because she is progressive, but still pragmatic enough to win over swing voters. Besides that, Trump won by about 70k votes across three states to secure 270 and lost the popular vote by millions, so he's far from being in a position of being that secure against credible candidates.

Aren't you contradicting yourself in that sentence?

My point wasn't that a white man can't defeat Trump, it's just that race or gender shouldn't be the predominant factor in selecting a nominee. There are other people besides white male candidates that could be viable, you know.

[Ronnie]

I don't dispute the notion that a person other than a white man can defeat Trump, but the way you worded that sentence made it appear as if you believe that a white man shouldn't be the person to defeat Trump, and also that race and gender shouldn't be a factor.  You can hold one view or the other, but not both.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Months in, and his term is already such a deplorable failure. All he can do is trash talk members of the powerless opposition party. What a pathetic joke of a human being. A lottery would have given us a better president.

[Ridge]

Hate repels voters for sure. Especially when she calls his supporters mean things--- that could hurt her with swing voters!

[History505]

He has been President for only 3 months months as of today, and needs to keep focusing on the job he was given in November right now. Not be talking about opponents for the next Presidential Election a little more than 3 years away.

[Inmate Trump]

How would it look if the Democrats nominate an African American candidate twice, and two female candidates all in the span of 2008-2020...while the Republicans continue to nominate old white men?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

How would it look if the Democrats nominate an African American candidate twice, and two female candidates all in the span of 2008-2020...while the Republicans continue to nominate old white men?

Virtually irrelevant to almost all Americans. The GOP base would have loved to nominate Herman Cain if the lying establishment didn't destroy his campaign. The probability of what you are saying really is not all that egregious, and people do not care about such a trend. If you widen it to VP, we get people like Palin. Are you saying you want more of that, Bushie?

[Shadows]

@SenWarren
Today is a great day for the people of Massachusetts & people across the country who depend on the Affordable Care Act.

@SenWarren
But I'm not doing a touchdown dance today. Not when the GOP is still hell-bent on rigging the system for the rich & powerful.

@DonaldJTrumpJr
Ha, you mean like someone who was paid almost $500,000.00 to "teach" one class a semester at Harvard? #DoAsISayNotAsIDo

They want to fight vs Warren it seems, responding to even non-controversial posts & picking posts !

[Intell]

How would it look if the Democrats nominate an African American candidate twice, and two female candidates all in the span of 2008-2020...while the Republicans continue to nominate old white men?

It would be of irrelevance.

[RINO Tom]

Well, that's because she's a woman and a lot of voters (particularly working class voters) don't look at female politicians the same way they look at male ones.

But we're not allowed to say this.

A majority of working class voters just voted for a woman last November.

[SWE]

Well, that's because she's a woman and a lot of voters (particularly working class voters) don't look at female politicians the same way they look at male ones.

But we're not allowed to say this.

A majority of working class voters just voted for a woman last November.

Also, the implication here seems to be that "working class" = man, which is... not right.

[Lord Admirale]

It won't take a white man to defeat Trump, so let's just stop pushing the notion that gender or race should factor in who is the nominee. Warren could easily defeat Trump, because she is progressive, but still pragmatic enough to win over swing voters. Besides that, Trump won by about 70k votes across three states to secure 270 and lost the popular vote by millions, so he's far from being in a position of being that secure against credible candidates.

>let's stop pushing the notion that gender or race should factor in who is the nominee
>the nominee shouldn't be a white male

Did you guys (the Democrats) learn ANYTHING about identity politics from last year's election? This is the one reason I won't join the Democratic Party (and why I endorsed Trump despite being center-left), the f'ing identity politics!

[publicunofficial]

It won't take a white man to defeat Trump, so let's just stop pushing the notion that gender or race should factor in who is the nominee. Warren could easily defeat Trump, because she is progressive, but still pragmatic enough to win over swing voters. Besides that, Trump won by about 70k votes across three states to secure 270 and lost the popular vote by millions, so he's far from being in a position of being that secure against credible candidates.

>let's stop pushing the notion that gender or race should factor in who is the nominee
>the nominee shouldn't be a white male

Did you guys (the Democrats) learn ANYTHING about identity politics from last year's election? This is the one reason I won't join the Democratic Party (and why I endorsed Trump despite being center-left), the f'ing identity politics!

>Center left
>Reads signature

mmkay.

[Lord Admirale]

It won't take a white man to defeat Trump, so let's just stop pushing the notion that gender or race should factor in who is the nominee. Warren could easily defeat Trump, because she is progressive, but still pragmatic enough to win over swing voters. Besides that, Trump won by about 70k votes across three states to secure 270 and lost the popular vote by millions, so he's far from being in a position of being that secure against credible candidates.

>let's stop pushing the notion that gender or race should factor in who is the nominee
>the nominee shouldn't be a white male

Did you guys (the Democrats) learn ANYTHING about identity politics from last year's election? This is the one reason I won't join the Democratic Party (and why I endorsed Trump despite being center-left), the f'ing identity politics!

>Center left
>Reads signature

mmkay.

I love it when people try determining my political beliefs. My conservative friends argue I'm liberal, while my liberal ones argue I'm conservative.

Mmkay.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Under any sort of normal election, I cannot see Warren carrying Ohio and Iowa.  I can see her taking Wisconsin and Michigan, but I'm not sure about Pennsylvania.  Indeed, I wonder if Warren would carry Virginia against an incumbent President Trump. 

The "Pocahontas" image of Warren is real; she's viewed by many of the voters she needs as something of a fake and a poser.  This is a personal observation, but Warren comes off (to me) as someone who's always been an Ivory Tower Academic who's never really done any kind of hard, laborious work, even if it was only in her college cafeteria or a summer job.  Pretty Boys like George W. Bush get by that with military service, even "Champagne Unit" service, and it's unfair.  Warren worked as a waitress in a restaurant owned by an aunt as a 13 year old when the family fell on hard times.  But people don't see that in her instinctively, and that hurts her.

The fake Native American stuff really does compromise her image.  Warren's task is to get by the "Pocahontas" stuff and recover some authenticity.  I don't know, honestly, what she'd do to get by it.  For Warren to win, Trump would have to be pretty bad for a long time.

[henster]

RW Media has been spreading story on Warren's Senate pay they ran the same story against Hillary in 2016. Other popular stories from the RW is her being payed 500K from Harvard for 1 class. They are already building a narrative which seems to be hypocrisy/elitism a lot like what Hillary faced. I think Warren will be destroyed like Hillary by the RW Media and she is a lot less talented politician.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/04/report-sen-elizabeth-warrens-female-staffers-made-20000-less-than-male-staffers/

[Fuzzy Bear]

It won't take a white man to defeat Trump, so let's just stop pushing the notion that gender or race should factor in who is the nominee. Warren could easily defeat Trump, because she is progressive, but still pragmatic enough to win over swing voters. Besides that, Trump won by about 70k votes across three states to secure 270 and lost the popular vote by millions, so he's far from being in a position of being that secure against credible candidates.

>let's stop pushing the notion that gender or race should factor in who is the nominee
>the nominee shouldn't be a white male

Did you guys (the Democrats) learn ANYTHING about identity politics from last year's election? This is the one reason I won't join the Democratic Party (and why I endorsed Trump despite being center-left), the f'ing identity politics!

The highlighted sentence describes me well.  I'm a registered Republican, but an actual RINO; however the Democrats have gone off the deep end with identity politics.

The Democrats need to concentrate on nominating a candidate who appears to be the most experienced, most competent, and most ready to lead.  For the Democrats, what was a hopeless negative in 2016 will need to be the biggest positive if they are to dump a sitting President.  Nominating a rock star, flavor-of-the-month newcomer will cause them to lose Virginia and Minnesota, in addition to what they lost in 2016. 

[Beet]

It won't take a white man to defeat Trump, so let's just stop pushing the notion that gender or race should factor in who is the nominee. Warren could easily defeat Trump, because she is progressive, but still pragmatic enough to win over swing voters. Besides that, Trump won by about 70k votes across three states to secure 270 and lost the popular vote by millions, so he's far from being in a position of being that secure against credible candidates.

>let's stop pushing the notion that gender or race should factor in who is the nominee
>the nominee shouldn't be a white male

Did you guys (the Democrats) learn ANYTHING about identity politics from last year's election? This is the one reason I won't join the Democratic Party (and why I endorsed Trump despite being center-left), the f'ing identity politics!

The highlighted sentence describes me well.  I'm a registered Republican, but an actual RINO; however the Democrats have gone off the deep end with identity politics.

The Democrats need to concentrate on nominating a candidate who appears to be the most experienced, most competent, and most ready to lead.  For the Democrats, what was a hopeless negative in 2016 will need to be the biggest positive if they are to dump a sitting President.  Nominating a rock star, flavor-of-the-month newcomer will cause them to lose Virginia and Minnesota, in addition to what they lost in 2016. 

I'd love to have you back with us, and I wish the party would ignore identity politics, but don't you realize Hillary ran both her campaigns on "most experienced, most competent, and most ready to lead"? I mean, her slogan at one point was literally "ready one Day 1". For one thing, that sort of campaign doesn't inspire strong support. Two, by that standard you should have supported Hillary yourself. The last four presidents (Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump) all ran as outsiders, literally none ran on experience and actually all of them defeated candidates with more experience than them. As I said in the other thread, I think people are more motivated by substantive differences or how the candidate is perceived character wise, than things like experience.

[Bull Moose Base]

It won't take a white man to defeat Trump, so let's just stop pushing the notion that gender or race should factor in who is the nominee. Warren could easily defeat Trump, because she is progressive, but still pragmatic enough to win over swing voters. Besides that, Trump won by about 70k votes across three states to secure 270 and lost the popular vote by millions, so he's far from being in a position of being that secure against credible candidates.

>let's stop pushing the notion that gender or race should factor in who is the nominee
>the nominee shouldn't be a white male

Did you guys (the Democrats) learn ANYTHING about identity politics from last year's election? This is the one reason I won't join the Democratic Party (and why I endorsed Trump despite being center-left), the f'ing identity politics!

The highlighted sentence describes me well.  I'm a registered Republican, but an actual RINO; however the Democrats have gone off the deep end with identity politics.

Driven out of retirement by how crazy this has made me...

Read Invisible O's first sentence again. It is simply saying the Democrats do not have to nominate a white male in order to beat Trump. For anyone who didn't understand, the next part clarifies that race and gender shouldn't be a factor in the choice. It's not even a separate sentence! (It was in response to someone implying Democrats would have a harder time winning with a woman.) Invisible can correct me if I'm wrong.

The fact that it's being misunderstood as an identity-politics attack on white men actually exemplifies perfectly the problem with the backlash to identity politics. It recalls people distorting Black Lives Matter into an attack on white people (it's not) or feminism as an attack on men (it's not). I'm not saying never to push back on political correctness in moments when, like with any other thing, someone has gotten carried away with it. But you can actually do that and still be a Democrat because you have enough perspective to see it's not the biggest crisis facing the world.

And actually even if someone had meant what is being misunderstood here... if women, seeing that society has been treating them unfairly forever, that they're half the population but a small minority of congress and have been none of the 40+ presidents for over 200 years, want to finally have a woman president, that doesn't even strike me as all that outrageous or hostile to men.

[Mr. Morden]

Welcome back to the forum, BMB. 

Good to see you back here, even if just for one post.

[Bull Moose Base]

Thanks Mr.M! Hope all is well. I needed to step away in order to be productive in real life. How else would I make the money to turn around and flush down the toilet on PredictIt?

Even though I gave the above posts a hard time, intuition says they're representative of the attitudes of many voters who swung to Trump. Not sure what the prospects are for winning them back and what effect that reality will have on the primaries. On the one hand, Democrats seem to be having some of electability jitters losing Republicans had 4 years ago. Remember when Rubio and Christie looked like they'd be well armed with electability cases in the primaries but maybe not enough to overcome Scott Walker's appeal to the base? Come to think of it, Warren reminds me of Walker as a veteran of emotional partisan fights, palatable to both base and establishment. So if history repeats itself we're headed for a Trump vs Howard Stern election. Just as the Founding Fathers envisioned.

[Mr. Morden]

Even though I gave the above posts a hard time, intuition says they're representative of the attitudes of many voters who swung to Trump. Not sure what the prospects are for winning them back and what effect that reality will have on the primaries. On the one hand, Democrats seem to be having some of electability jitters losing Republicans had 4 years ago. Remember when Rubio and Christie looked like they'd be well armed with electability cases in the primaries but maybe not enough to overcome Scott Walker's appeal to the base?

I’m not sure electability matters as much in an election with an incumbent.  2020 will probably be a referendum on Trump, so probably just about anyone capable of winning the nomination would be able to win the general election if Trump is unpopular.  (And won't be able to win if he's popular.)

You’d think this logic would hold as well even in elections without an incumbent, but it often doesn’t work that way.  E.g., Bill Clinton’s popularity not rubbing off on Gore, and ditto for Obama and Hillary Clinton.

[Bull Moose Base]

Even though I gave the above posts a hard time, intuition says they're representative of the attitudes of many voters who swung to Trump. Not sure what the prospects are for winning them back and what effect that reality will have on the primaries. On the one hand, Democrats seem to be having some of electability jitters losing Republicans had 4 years ago. Remember when Rubio and Christie looked like they'd be well armed with electability cases in the primaries but maybe not enough to overcome Scott Walker's appeal to the base?

I’m not sure electability matters as much in an election with an incumbent.  2020 will probably be a referendum on Trump, so probably just about anyone capable of winning the nomination would be able to win the general election if Trump is unpopular.  (And won't be able to win if he's popular.)

You’d think this logic would hold as well even in elections without an incumbent, but it often doesn’t work that way.  E.g., Bill Clinton’s popularity not rubbing off on Gore, and ditto for Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, that's true. Which means Trump looking vulnerable might well attract a field the size of GOP 2016.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Even though I gave the above posts a hard time, intuition says they're representative of the attitudes of many voters who swung to Trump. Not sure what the prospects are for winning them back and what effect that reality will have on the primaries. On the one hand, Democrats seem to be having some of electability jitters losing Republicans had 4 years ago. Remember when Rubio and Christie looked like they'd be well armed with electability cases in the primaries but maybe not enough to overcome Scott Walker's appeal to the base?

I’m not sure electability matters as much in an election with an incumbent.  2020 will probably be a referendum on Trump, so probably just about anyone capable of winning the nomination would be able to win the general election if Trump is unpopular.  (And won't be able to win if he's popular.)

You’d think this logic would hold as well even in elections without an incumbent, but it often doesn’t work that way.  E.g., Bill Clinton’s popularity not rubbing off on Gore, and ditto for Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, that's true. Which means Trump looking vulnerable might well attract a field the size of GOP 2016.

Can you think of 17 Democrats trying to defeat Trump?

[Mr. Morden]

Even though I gave the above posts a hard time, intuition says they're representative of the attitudes of many voters who swung to Trump. Not sure what the prospects are for winning them back and what effect that reality will have on the primaries. On the one hand, Democrats seem to be having some of electability jitters losing Republicans had 4 years ago. Remember when Rubio and Christie looked like they'd be well armed with electability cases in the primaries but maybe not enough to overcome Scott Walker's appeal to the base?

I’m not sure electability matters as much in an election with an incumbent.  2020 will probably be a referendum on Trump, so probably just about anyone capable of winning the nomination would be able to win the general election if Trump is unpopular.  (And won't be able to win if he's popular.)

You’d think this logic would hold as well even in elections without an incumbent, but it often doesn’t work that way.  E.g., Bill Clinton’s popularity not rubbing off on Gore, and ditto for Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, that's true. Which means Trump looking vulnerable might well attract a field the size of GOP 2016.

Can you think of 17 Democrats trying to defeat Trump?

Well, here is my recently compiled list of 25 people most likely to run for the Democratic nomination:

*bump*

OK, here is my updated list of the top 25 most likely to run for the Democratic nomination:

1 O’Malley
2 Booker
3 Warren
4 Cuomo
5 Gillibrand
6 Castro
7 Klobuchar
8 Harris
9 Murphy
10 Bullock
11 Sanders
12 Gabbard
13 McAuliffe
14 Biden
15 Hickenlooper
16 Merkley
17 Brown
18 Franken
19 Kander
20 de Blasio
21 Garcetti
22 Inslee
23 Schultz
24 Kaine
25 Clinton

But that's not even a complete list of those who might do it.  You could also include Bob Iger, Sheryl Sandberg, John Kerry, Deval Patrick, and then Russ Feingold just did an event in Iowa, so maybe him too.

And you've also got to assume that if it were to actually be as big a field as GOP 2016, then there'd be candidates like Jim Gilmore, who have no hope of going above 0% in the polls, and won't even be invited to debates.  There are plenty of people who could end up in that category.  E.g., Geoffrey Fieger is already running ads.  There are plenty of backbenchers in the House who could run as well.