2020 Presidential Election

[homoe]

Originally Posted by Martina

Elizabeth Warren is gonna run in case anyone was in doubt.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/31/pol...www.cnn.com%2F

Oh sure NOW she runs!!!!

Where in the hell was she 2 years ago when we could of used her?!

[cathexis]

Originally Posted by homoe

Oh sure NOW she runs!!!!

Where in the hell was she 2 years ago when we could of used her?!

Remember, she was out there simply to prove herself worthy to walk the same pathway as the other Senators. She was trying to right herself after all the ethnic baiting about having Native American blood. She was also trying to fend off others claiming her to be uppity. She had her plate full.

[dark_crystal]

Elizabeth Warren drinks beer, gives 2020 thoughts in Instagram livestream: By Gregg Re, Fox News

In a seemingly spontaneous livestream posted on Instagram that channeled similar social-media efforts by former Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke and incoming New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren cracked open a beer on-camera and took some questions from her followers on New Year's Eve.

Warren announced at a news conference outside her home hours earlier Monday that she was filing paperwork to launch an exploratory committee for president, becoming the first candidate to take the major step toward a 2020 run -- and she reminded her audience that the day had been a break from her normal routine.

"I'm here in my kitchen, uh, and um, I thought maybe we'd just take some questions and I'd see what I can do," Warren, 69, began as she looked into a camera apparently set up on a countertop.

She continued: "It's been kind of an amazing day. So, today, I, um, got up early this morning, and, uh, talked to a bunch of folks on the phone, and then went outside and talked to the press -- and this is our house, and has been for a long time, and there are all these reporters, and trucks, and everybody outside the house."

The liberal firebrand pointed to her dog, Bailey, who was also in the kitchen and who accompanied her earlier in the day.

"And I went out and talked to the press, and Bailey went out -- it was his first press conference -- and my husband Bruce [Mann] was with me," Warren said.

Seconds later, Warren's apparent craving struck: "Hold on a second -- I'm gonna get me a beer," she said, as she walked out of view of the camera.

"Um, want a beer?" she then asked as her husband briefly entered the room.

"No, I'll pass on a beer for now," he responded. Then, matter-of-factly from across the camera as he left the kitchen, he offered a quick farewell: "Enjoy your beer."

The senator then elaborated on her plans for the evening.

"Here it is -- getting ready for New Year's Eve. It's easy for Bruce and I to make plans, because we pretty much do the same things every year," Warren said. "Um, for New Year's Eve we watch Casablanca, we get some good food ... and, um, we sit there upstairs and we watch Casablanca." She added that the movie "fills me with hope."

Ocasio-Cortez, 29, popularized the use of Instagram stories and livestreams earlier this year to connect with her supporters. O'Rourke, too, often broadcast himself while in his home cooking and performing other tasks.

Charles Hurt on Warren's Lack of 'Authenticity': 'Only to Trump's Advantage'

Fox News contributor and Washington Times opinion editor Charles Hurt said Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren's lack of "authenticity" will only help President Trump heading into the 2020 election.

The Massachusetts senator on Monday announced she was forming an exploratory committee in preparation of what will likely be a presidential run.

Hours later, in a seemingly spontaneous Instagram livestream, Warren cracked open a beer and took some questions from her followers.

On "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, Hurt said it was an unsuccessful and inauthentic attempt to channel similar social-media efforts by Democrats like former Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke and incoming New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

"Imagine a Donald Trump announcement video or any kind of announcement, and you imagine the electricity that's involved, the authenticity that's involved, and you compare that to this," Hurt said, calling Warren's livestream "low-energy" and "devoid of anything that seems real whatsoever."

In an interview with Fox News Monday, Trump said he hopes Warren gets the nomination, saying that would be a "wonderful thing for me."

Hurt agreed, saying that Trump's natural, off-the-cuff style would provide a strong contrast.

"The juxtaposition is only to Trump's advantage."

LOL Fox News is extra salty today.

Do we think Warren has an authenticity problem?

When i saw the livestream my thought was that i hope she does a lot more, and i realized this was bc i am looking forward to getting to know her, and that i don't really have a sense of her personality except a vague impression of a less wooden Hillary.

She always seems very sincere and concerned when i see or hear her on TV, etc., though

[Martina]

She seems kinda awkward to me. Hillary could be genuine, but she schooled herself not to improvise or veer from the party line. You could see her thinking sometimes during pauses. Then she'd take a deep breath and resume the same ole script.

I don't care that Warren is kinda Minnie Mouse in her demeanor. The people who vote for movie star smarminess or parental figures are probably going to vote Biden. I don't know. There's so much misogyny out there that I am not looking forward to another woman candidate. Hillary Clinton was an asshole and deserved much of the animosity directed towards her. But not all of it. Not looking forward to the screaming and bile that will come from the right. I'd far prefer Warren to Biden, but she's still not a true progressive. It doesn't matter. Only Bernie is, of the candidates I know, and while I think he could beat Trump, I have little hope of him getting through the primaries even without super delegates.

[Martina]

I could totally live with Sherrod Brown.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by Martina

She seems kinda awkward to me. Hillary could be genuine, but she schooled herself not to improvise or veer from the party line. You could see her thinking sometimes during pauses. Then she'd take a deep breath and resume the same ole script.

I don't care that Warren is kinda Minnie Mouse in her demeanor. The people who vote for movie star smarminess or parental figures are probably going to vote Biden. I don't know. There's so much misogyny out there that I am not looking forward to another woman candidate. Hillary Clinton was an asshole and deserved much of the animosity directed towards her. But not all of it.

This was a good twitter thread:

THREAD: After seeing this tweet from Politico, I decided to search for tweets by several mainstream news orgs and see how they use the terms “likeable,” “unlikable,” and “likability” when applied to men vs. women. The results are...stark.

First of all, those words are used far more often to refer to women. Politico did note in 2014 that Hillary Clinton—who at the time had a favorable rating in the 60s—was now “likable enough” vs 2008.

If you’re Politico and reporting that a male politician—former Illinois Mayor Rod Blahojevich—has been found guilty of trying to sell a US Senate seat like, though, it’s important to note that the jurors found him likable, criminality aside.

During the 2008 Democratic primary, the New York Times sarcastically referred to Hillary Clinton’s campaigning as a “likability tour.”

Last year, the @nytimes tweeted out a quote about British Prime Minister Theresa May that described her as “not human enough to be likable.”

In 2016, the Washington Post pondered whether Hillary Clinton was likable enough to win the election.

When it came to Republican former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, though, the Washington Post argued that “‘electability’ is not ‘likability.’”

The Washington Post also wondered if Mitt Romney would even “need to be” “likable” to win in 2012. Like, is that really necessary for a candidate?

Over at the Atlantic, we find that Gary Johnson — who had no idea what Aleppo was — was very likable in 2016 despite his “troubling economic policy.”

Of course, “Hillary Clinton’s whole likability thing” was “still an issue,” The Atlantic noted that year.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton should have asked NJ Gov Chris Christie how—a year after the Bridgegate scandal that saw his approval rating plummet to the lowest in the nation at 15%—he managed to get The Atlantic to consider that he might be the guy to “make Republicans likable again.”

Fox News has good news for at least one Democrat in 2016, though: Voters considered Sen. Bernie Sanders—known for lots of shouting and doom-and-gloom finger wagging—“likable enough to serve effectively we president.”

Also on Fox News, Newt Gingrich praised Sen. Marco Rubio for being “very likable.”

Republicans at Fox News even had high praise for Vice President Joe Biden’s likability in 2015. “One of the most likable people in Washington,” Dana Perino said.

Hillary Clinton, though? “When she’s not being criminal, she’s just being wooden and unlikable.”

If you’re Politico and reporting that a male politician—former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich—has been found guilty of trying to sell a US Senate seat like, though, it’s important to note that the jurors found him likable, criminality aside.

This follow-up thread includes A. Receipts of folks who argued in 2015/2016 that Elizabeth Warren would be a “likable” alternative to Hillary Clinton and B. Social science research that explains the “likability” conundrum for women in leadership.

Any woman who runs, it's going to be "of course a woman can be president, just not that particular woman."

Along with a heaping helping of "you shouldn't vote for a demographic but for the best candidate."

For 232 years all candidates were from a single demographic, which means exactly zero of them can now be remembered as "the best candidate."

"Its not fair to dismiss people's achievements in the past just because they were white males."

Actually it is because the means by which they were out into position to have the opportunity to achieve anything were unfair.

Is any election from before 1920 even still legitimate?

[Martina]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...illary-clinton

[Kätzchen]

I think dark_crystal's post raises some important things that are persistent in current day American society: 1) sexism, 2) privilege and access to power, and 3) the voting and electoral system by which presidential candidates are measured as having 'won' any executorial seat of power.


And the article by The Guardian, found by Martina (her latest post): One of the persistent ideas I found in this particular article seems to pair nicely with the prevailing sexist tide of how sexism prevails within American Society. Per the article, Clinton won the popular vote by a large margin, yet wasn't chosen as President, due to what? Can it be said that her loss was due to unlikability? I don't think it can solely be said that unlikability was the determining factor. I think the reason Clinton couldn't secure the Presidency was related to the implementation of the super vote, the Electoral vote. I could be entirely wrong about that, but it just seems like what needs to be addressed is the voting system and use of the super delegate seat of determinant power utilized in the Electoral vote system.


Now that the House of Representatives (USHOR) is seated with an majority of Democrats, I wonder if the USHOR will make it a priority to address and rectify voting issues, which seem to persist in too many states of the Union.



On a personal note: Things I think about in choosing who I want to vote for in any election process seem to share a set of criteria I look for in any person who seeks an executorial seat of power. What I look for is things the person has done. For example, their track record pertaining to:

1) current and future US social policy, 2) labor, 3) economy, 4) who they partnered with to get things accomplished (past, present or future), 5) will they uphold past case law ruled in favor of Women's rights, LGTBQ rights, and Race (ie, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc) because in my mind, it's about social equity. Social equity issues and how do we collaborate to provide the best possible way to co-exist. These types of things are of importance to me when deciding who gets my proverbial vote of approval.

[homoe]

Originally Posted by homoe

Oh sure NOW she runs!!!!

Where in the hell was she 2 years ago when we could of used her?!

Two years ago if Warren would of ran, I would of volunteered or gave her campaign $$, BUT now, if Harris runs, I'd back Harris!