Should Warren lead the Democrats? The answer may surprise you...

[Green Arrow]

Hillary would have been better, but the bar for being better than Trump is pretty damned low. But to paraphrase Jonathan Pie, how crappy of a candidate do you have to be to lose to Trump? Apparently, as crappy as Hillary.

I don't disagree, she was a terrible candidate and I did everything I could to try and get Bernie nominated instead. But then we're talking about Elizabeth Warren. I think she could have beaten Trump.

[Bo-4]

I used to be a big Warren fan. Some of her rhetorical takedowns of Wall St. bankers are legendary. But I lost a lot of respect for her during the primaries, and in the general when she reduced herself to being Hillary's attack dog (the lowest form of campaign surrogate). In the end, I feel she tried so hard to be 'like' the Clinton establishment (and liked by them) that she effectively became one of them. I'm not sure if I could bring myself to support her if she ever ran, and I feel that many liberal-minded people are the same way. And since she is looked on apathetically by the establishment, I'm not sure where that leaves her.

There is a surprisingly lack of leadership among the left, post-election. Trump destroyed the Clinton dynasty, and the Dems sadly put all their eggs in that basket. In a way, Trump did the country a favor, but there is no one to take advantage of it.

I actually think that if Dems choose a good leader for the DNC - we do have the youthful star power for 2020 to oust the $#@! (assuming he lasts that long).

Think Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Kirstin Gillibrand or former CA Attorney General and now US Senator Kamala Harris.

But i'm with you at this point on Liz Warren.

[Amadeus]

I've said she's moved hard left. Your question indicates you either do not understand what I said, or contradicts your claim that the Dems are centrist. Which is it?

The Dems are largely centrist, but a large number of voters are progressive or liberal-leaning. That's why Sanders gave her such a contest, but ultimately couldn't gain enough support to win. When she stopped fighting Sanders, she gave up on courting liberals and started courting the Republican neocons. She left the lipservice to her surrogates. Sanders had to tow the line in order to influence the platform. But understand that Sanders is an outlier in the party, and isn't even a real Democrat. Even Warren was a Republican for much of her life.

Not just social issues - but why should that disqualify the statement regardless? She hasn't moved to the right on any issue I can think of - can you? Hillary has consistently shifted to the left, and over a considerable period of time. Where's your evidence to the contrary?

Hillary has moved towards progressive social issues over time because the country in general has moved in that direction. During the 1990s, the Clintons courted conservatives. She has no ideological core on many issues, but on issues that concern the economy and foreign policy (generally the most important issues), she has been a moderate, if not to the right of many Republicans. She strongly resembles Marco Rubio on foreign policy, for example. She is very right-wing on Israel, and takes a very one sided (and admittedly biased) stance on all things Israel.

I would actually say that she's to the right of Donald Trump on many issues.

You would characterize her as center/center-right only because you're plastered against the left field wall.

No, I would argue that you view her as left-wing wing because you either listen to the hysteria of right-wing talking heads, or you are far to the right yourself.

What does Bernie look like to you? :lol:

Bernie would is closer to being liberal or hard-left than Hillary, for sure.

[Green Arrow]

I actually think that if Dems choose a good leader for the DNC - we do have the youthful star power for 2020 to oust the $#@! (assuming he lasts that long).

Think Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Kirstin Gillibrand or former CA Attorney General and now US Senator Kamala Harris.

But i'm with you at this point on Liz Warren.

Yes on Gabbard and Booker. No on Harris, Castro, Klobuchar. Undecided on Gillibrand.

[Bo-4]

Yes on Gabbard and Booker. No on Harris, Castro, Klobuchar. Undecided on Gillibrand.

Tulsi is my favorite - but what do you have against Harris, Castro and Klobuchar?

[Amadeus]

This election has basically pushed me off the political spectrum into No Man's Land. For a second, I thought about Jill Stein... but then the second passed. Then I thought Tulsi had some potential. But I can't get a handle on her foreign policy views, other than that she wants to give Putin/Assad carte blanche in Syria.

I guess I'm just a loner.

[Bo-4]

This election has basically pushed me off the political spectrum into No Man's Land. For a second, I thought about Jill Stein... but then the second passed. Then I thought Tulsi had some potential. But I can't get a handle on her foreign policy views, other than that she wants to give Putin/Assad carte blanche in Syria.

I guess I'm just a loner.

Major Gabbard has a lot of street cred in the military community as a decorated vet who did a 12 month tour in Iraq.

Are you a loner AND a rebel? ;-)

[Green Arrow]

Tulsi is my favorite - but what do you have against Harris, Castro and Klobuchar?

Harris is an unknown. Castro and Klobuchar are too establishment.

[exploited]

Clinton has never, in her entire career, been hard left.

Had the Republican Party not gone completely insane over the past thirty years, she would have fit in better there, as a RINO.

[patrickt]

I think it's an open race. It could be Sen. Warren, Sen. Reid, Rep. Pelosi, Rep. Waters, or even Al Sharpton. If he doesn't go into cardiac arrest, Sen. Sanders is willing to try again. His biggest drawback is a slight trace of honesty that none of the others share.