Elizabeth Warren: how Conservatives could make her the next US President

[MannyGoldstein]

The bipartisan power-@#$%ing of the 99% by the wealthy and their paid help in the White House and Congress will be the defining political issue in coming years.

One Surprising Statistic Shows How Conservatives Could Make Elizabeth Warren the Next U.S. President

The statistic: 88%. That's how many young conservatives agree with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on one of her main talking points. Though Warren may be seen as a darling of the left, it could actually be America's conservative voters that propel her political career.

A new Pew survey groups together Americans based on political opinions and reveals that many conservatives come down on on the more populist side of things. Two groups, "young outsiders" and "steadfast conservatives," tended to agree that our economic system is unfair and that large companies have too much power. This has been an idea Warren has consistentyl been championing for several years now.



Eighty-eight percent of young outsiders, a more libertarian-leaning group mainly in their 20s and 30s, agreed that too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few companies, while an equally surprising 69% agreed that the economic system unfairly favors the powerful. Steadfast conservatives were more reserved on the former measure, with 48% believing it's unfair (compared to 47% who find it fair), but in line on the second — 71% think too few companies have too much power.

[JaneyVee]

1. Please make it so. Although, I would like to

Hear more about her positions on social issues. Her economic positions are fantastic, don't know much about her on social issues and foreign policy.

[Scuba]

2. Her credentials on economic justice are what separates EW from the pack. She has broad appeal.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Even Alex Jones likes her

She's honest, has been fighting the good fight for many years, and has actually won some battles.

[Scuba]

5. Well, in that case many DUers will argue that we must reject her.

Yes, she's won some important battles and she's earned street cred with the populace like no candidate I can remember, but then I'm only 65 years old.

As a Presidential candidate she will draw votes from across the spectrum, including from voters who have been taught to hate Hillary Clinton since 1988. I believe that she not only gives us our best chance to hold the Oval Office in 2016, but that her policies will have a positive impact on our nation like no other candidate I've seen.

Yes, she used to be a Republican. So was I at one time. And yes, there's still a few holes in her resume, but those don't bother me nearly as much as the filled-in parts of some other resumes.

Bottom line: The values she's espoused, and the genuine and earnest concern she's shown for the People, trump any other potential candidate that I've heard of.

[L0oniX]

72. The devil loves her too.

[Karma13612]

4. thanks for this information

I really believe that the more people hear what Elizabeth Warren has to say, the more they will see that she truly is talking to/for the 99%.

Hope her message continues to get louder and more circulated.

Her book tour and her stumping across the country for good Democratic candidates is certainly helping.

Run, Elizabeth, Run!!

[nashville_brook]

6. the taxonomy of conservatives is very interesting and useful

they've ID'd three main strains, steadfast, business and outsiders -- and the steadfast and outsiders can be peeled away from the business group.

this really resonates with my own experience of conservatives -- the business group is driven by $$, so they can't be moved (can only be bought).

[nashville_brook]

7. here's the demographic breakdown chart:

[cantbeserious]

8. Thank You For Sharing - Warren 2016 - Go Warren

eom

[lewebley3]

108. Hillary For President not Warren

Hillary can win, she is sure thing if were get, Warren is
not going to run we need to stand with democrats.

[cantbeserious]

109. Warren For President - Not Hillary

eom

[Rhiannon12866]

110. Welcome to DU!

You might be interested in the Hillary Clinton Group here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1107

[Bluenorthwest]

9. She voted with and for the Republicans for years so it is not surprising that they'd vote for her.

She is very wealthy and seems to be conservative about most things. For many years her votes were anti choice, anti gay candidates running campaigns powered by racist dog whistles.

She might be ok, in spite of the Republican affiliations but she's going to have to talk about people and not just money. Offer her as Treasury Sec, I say 'she's perfect, love her'. For President? Not so sure at all.

She is very wealthy, yet her promoters claim she's part of the 99%. I have a real problem with that furtive crapola. She's rich. She's the 1%. Just deal with it.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. IIRC, haven't you pushed pro-Iraq-war candidates?

Also, are you claiming that, say, FDR would have been a disastrous President?

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Keep beating that dead horse Manny.

Clearly you are unable to answer any challenge to your candidate. I am a voter, not her agent. She was a Republican, voting against my rights. She has not answered for that as yet.

Maybe she'll explain herself and win the trust of the people her Party abused openly for years. Or maybe not.

Did you also vote for Reagan and Bush and all?

[reddread]

17. Hillary fought so long and hard for gay marriage

statues will be erected.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. That's right. 17 fucking years of running her mouth about sanctity and faith.

Were you under the impression that my questioning of one candidate is motivated by support for another? Sounds that way.
I think any person who steps up to be President should be questioned extensively about their past politics. This includes Senator Warren, whose Republican past makes me very queasy. I have never voted for a Republican, nor for a former Republican.
Were you a Reagan voter?

[Bluenorthwest]

36. That was rude and uncalled for. Your supposition is that I'm 'pulling for' a candidate.

Of course you could have asked without the insult. I don't vote in a Primary without questioning all the candidates. Sorry if that offends you sensibilities.
At this point, what I am 'pulling for' is a strong Primary season, with great candidates who are able to answer questions voters have. I want candidates that attract voters, make new Democrats and I do not want a swiftly ended coronation style process for anyone.

So when you look at candidates, you just pick one and start cheering? That's not me. It's ok if that's you, it's like some here are with Obama.
You can pull for a person, it's too early for me to do that. I'm pulling for the process.
There is an election in just a few months that is an actual election with actual candidates. In that one, I'm 'pulling' for Jeff Merkley. Jeff likes Warren.
I sort of like Warren. But she has to answer for some of her past. Same as the rest of them.

[reddread]

38. call me a "Reagan voter"

and run for your life.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. And yet you called me an idiot because you read with presumptions flying.

Call Warren a Reagan voter and she says 'yes, twice'. Your views on Reagan voting seem at odds with your support for Reagan voters.
I think it is fair to ask a person who dismisses a candidate's Republican past if they also have such a past.

[reddread]

45. keep it up, must mean something to someone

you have established your credentials with me long ago.
The only fact here is you have no idea about me.
but that wont stop you shoveling manure.
fo.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. You are callling me names while I am being perfectly polite to you and simply questioning a

candidate for having been a Republican. Speaks volumes, and thanks for your contribution here today.

[reddread]

16. those Kennedy oligarchs

skirt chasers as well.

[reddread]

12. the final endorsement I need

thanks.

[Omaha Steve]

15. She is not in the 1%

But if you have a link that says so, I'll read it.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

19. A net worth of 14.5 million sounds 1% to me...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/elizabeth-warren-obtained-federal-fee-waivers-despite-high-6-figure-income-and-8-figure-net-worth/

Edit to add:

I have nothing against wealthy people. This 99% vs 1% nonsense is stupid. There are asshole rich people, just as there are asshole poor people. Elizabeth Warren would be a good candidate should she chose to run. So would Hillary. So would Bernie. Any of them would have my vote in the general come 2016.

[Omaha Steve]

26. But on average, the top 1% earned $1.12 million, up from $980,000 the year before

Are you saying she is in his league?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwindurgy/2012/05/16/what-mitt-romney-is-really-worth/

Mitt Rmon$y: Supplemented by a dozen interviews – from local real estate experts to private equity partners – we get a detailed look at the current state of Mitt’s money, pinpointing his net worth at $230 million, split between 9 different asset classes. Highlights include the sale of nearly all of his individual equities – he sold 71 stocks since his last disclosure – and a big move into cash.

Or this league: The World's Billionaires: http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#tab verall


http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/20/news/economy/top-1-percent/


The New American Dream

What it takes to be a one percenter

By Tami Luhby @Luhby November 20, 2012: 2:13 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
It doesn't take a million bucks to get into the top 1%.
In fact, it took a little less than $370,000 in adjusted gross income in 2010 to make it into this elite group, according to newly released data from the Internal Revenue Service. That's up slightly from the $352,000 the year before.

But on average, the top 1% earned $1.12 million, up from $980,000 the year before.

The top 1% have been in the spotlight since Occupy Wall Street protesters first began camping out in cities across the U.S. last fall. The presidential campaign also centered on the haves and have nots, with President Obama calling for tax increases on the rich and challenger Mitt Romney arguing that taxing the wealthy would hurt the economy.

[reddread]

29. thanks

I think the real question is who would shoot an Occupy military vet in the face?
Something tells me EW wouldnt go there.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

37. Well, if the average of the top 1% is 1.12 million,

and EW's net worth is 14.5 million, then yes... She's in a pretty exclusive league...

But no, she's not a billionaire. She's a multimillionaire. You can't deny she's quite wealthy.

But there is NOTHING wrong with being wealthy. It's when you're wealthy AND a douchebag that we have a problem.

[Omaha Steve]

43. Common ground

That is 1.12 per year, not total wealth, but...

[Dr Hobbitstein]

49. Oh. My bad.

I must've misread that.

right back at ya!

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. So that puts her definitely in the 1%

More than $352k in 2009; more than $370k in 2010.

Her and her husband's income:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/91532577/Elizabeth-Warren-Tax-Returns
2008: $831k
2009: $981k
2010: $955k
2011: $616k

The average (ie mean) of what the 1% gets doesn't determine if you're in the 1%; it's the lower limit.

As people say, there's not a problem with being in the 1%; it just seems silly trying to distract with figures like the mean.

[Omaha Steve]

50. Check your math

Actually my math says she is below the 1%. 1.2 mill > 770.75 4 year average. She isn't even bottom 15 by that standard.

Compared to somebody that had nothing when they left the white house.... That quote from Hillary bothers me much more that this topic.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/presidents/bill-clinton-net-worth/

Bill Clinton net worth: Bill Clinton is an American politician who has a net worth of $80 million.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. Do you really want a discussion of what 'average', 'mean' and 'above' mean?

My maths is fine. She and her husband earned well above the low limit of the 1% in those 2 years, and will have done so in all 4 of those years, because it doesn't change that much. They are in the 1%.

For your interest, the median of the 1% - ie the point above which a household is in the top 0.5% of earners - is $611,000. So they were in the top 0.5% for those 4 years, though it's possible that, now she's a senator and not a top professor, and she may not have time for other earning activity, that they're just in the top 1% (and I'd like to make clear that, as a top professor, I'm fine with her/her husband being top earners too).

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Net worth 15 million, a house worth 5 million.

And that's fine with me, some of my favorite people are far richer. I do have a problem with people pretending they are not rich. I really dislike that. I don't care for false claims about any candidate, and claiming she is fighting the 1% as the 99% is bogus, she's very wealthy.

I treat primary candidates like candidates. Other people can play booster, I'll be asking them hard questions. Someone has to. If you have millions, you need to be able to say so. You should not criticize others for having millions also, nor allow yourself to be used by others for that purpose. Warren is rich. In a way that should be a selling point. She is an economist. Perhaps she could also maximize the wealth of our nation....

[Omaha Steve]

35. My 2008 first choice was John Edwards, right message for a $ guy, wrong messenger unfortunately

That is me in the yellow shirt and black hat.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x64832

[Bluenorthwest]

46. I also like Edwards for a time....

But then he started in on his views on marriage and I could tell he was a fake. Which is why I tend to ask questions of candidates.

[JI7]

83. he had also attacked Clinton on the Lewinsky Crap

and he turned out to do a lot worse.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

53. In 2008, I really liked Kucinich, but knew he had no chance...

I put my support behind Richardson.

[Omaha Steve]

61. I agree

If I had thought Kucinich could have got the nomination, I could have supported him too.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

67. He was a great thinker, and really quirky...

I like quirky. Sadly, the American public does not...

[djean111]

18. No need to keep repeating that warren is "very wealthy". Wealth is not the reason some

Dems do not care for Hillary. And I have not seen any claims that Warren is in the 99%.
She merely CARES about the 99%. Her promoters are saying her policies are for the 99%. Separate policy from the person.
Don't slide into the GOP meme that no Dem will vote for a wealthy person. That would include Hillary, too.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Ah, another person who thinks it is about Hilary. It's not. If she vanished, I'd still want to know

why Warren was a Republican when Republicans were actively harming my community. And I bring up her wealth only because she is presented as being not wealthy. Wealth is not bad. But it is also not bad for this one, but fine for the other.
You just don't get it. I know people richer than both of these women combined, I'd vote for them. But they've never been Republicans.

Do you think it is wrong to ask her why she was in such a bigoted Party at a historic crossroads that many see as defining the character of all who lived through it? If so, then why do you think that?

[djean111]

51. No, I do not think it wrong to ask her. I like her policies and actions NOW, though.

To cast doubt on her decision to switch to the Democratic Party is, to me, just as silly as saying Obama only espoused gay marriage when it became politically expedient to do so. Or Hillary only said voting for war in Iraq was a mistake when it looks like that vote will bite her in the rump.

Or do you think she is just a GOP plant? Are you being that purist that the lefties are accused of being?

And I mention Hillary because Hillary is being shoved down our throats by the DNC/Third Way. Maybe in an attempt to circumvent any primaries, who knows? I welcome talk of any other candidates besides Hillary and Warren.

Bottom line - EVERYONE has their own version of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" - we all may be disagreeing on who the "good" is....

[Bluenorthwest]

60. For me to support a Reagan era Republican will take some doing. Yes.

I dig that some really don't understand what that time was all about for some others. But folks who were on that side then I do not easily accept as my own.

[Beartracks]

74. What period of time was EW a Republican?

And was she actively voting/supporting the damaging Republican policies, or was she merely still registered as a Republican while having a slow progressive epiphany that resulted in her leaving the party?

This is an actual honest question, cuz I simply don't know about this.

======================

[UCmeNdc]

99. We'll, what do you think about her message now?

Do you agree with her stated positions now?

[JDPriestly]

21. FDR is wealthy yet part of the 99%.

If you read Elizabeth Warren's book, you understand that while Obama was studying foreign policy and the Constitution, Elizabeth Warren was studying why people go bankrupt.

That gave Elizabeth Warren a deep, not just intellectual understanding about why the middle class and poor are in economic decline in America. She is unique in her understanding. She has written books about it.

Prior to her study of bankruptcy, and even after the earlier years of it, she was not that interested in politics. She is, you know, from Oklahoma.

It is because she did not become a polician early on, that she sees the world like those of us in the 99% and not like those in the D.C. circuit.

It is because she studied the economic challenges facing the 99% of Americans -- like trying to find someone ot take care of your baby while both husband and wife work outside the home -- like the cost of good education -- all these dreadful economic choices that the 99% face and that people for whom it is no problem to pay a small fortune for a private school for their first-graders never have to face.

To explain to you why she is viewed as one of the 99% would take a post that would be so long you would never read it.

But it is because she doesn't just talk about the middle class or poverty, she gives us the sense she is fighting for us. Her speeches are fiery and filled with conviction, not just statistics or sort of dry, perfunctory promises. She knows the numbers. She knows what she wants.

If you read her book, you will realize that this is a woman who really fights. She gets so caught up in her fight, often in the struggle for economic fairness, that she forgets herself and finds herself in a position in which someone asks her to do what is needed.

That Elizabeth Warren wais a Republican is not a problem because she can speak a language both Republicans and Democrats understand and maybe can agree on.

Besides, Elizabeth Warren has a lovable personality. She is not haughty or arrogant or overly sure of herself. She is not a political hack. Very few of our democratic candidates match her in those respects. Obama does. And that is what won him the White House. I believe that Elizabeth Warren could win the White House even though Hillary is now ahead in the polls. Hillary's advantage is name recognition and her ties to Bill Clinton. The tie to Bill Clinton could easily become her greatest negative.

[Karma13612]

81. wish i could rec this ^^^^ eom

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. Yep, this ...

she's going to have to talk about people and not just money. Offer her as Treasury Sec, I say 'she's perfect, love her'. For President? Not so sure at all.

I've been saying that for a while now.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. People can't abide questions. I have plenty for any candidate who claims to be Presidential quality

I just need to hear her thinking on issues that are not economic. I might love her answers. But I will ask the questions.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. I, so, agree ...

But I think much of this Warren love has little to do with Warren.

[djean111]

55. What do you think it is about? Hatred of Hillary and/or Obama?

Nope. That would really be short-sighted.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. Yes ...

I think it's about a hatred of HRC, President Obama and, more, the Democratic Party.

And, I don't think it's short-sighted because I do not believe that many have the interests of the Democratic Party at heart ... rather, it's more about promoting intra-party strife. Warren just happens to be a handy tool ... more handy than Sanders because Sanders isn't a Democrat.

[JI7]

85. i agree , i don't think many of them actually support WArren

right now the support for WArren, especially on DU is mostly done in a way to bash other democrats.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. Yep ...

especially when one considers that Warren is supportive of President Obama's economic initiatives.

A really telling point was the DU OP entailed {something to the effect of} "Warren's Agency wins huge settlement from a big bank" ... the loudest voices in the room were actually arguing that President Obama had nothing to do with the Consumer Protection Agency; but that OP followed an DU OP criticizing Holder (and President Obama) for settling a complaint for a factor of 10, more. Both, threads were populated with the same voices saying Warren great/the Administration bad.

[Jasana]

98. Well I'm from Mass and not only did I support Warren...

I donated to her and voted for her. I do not use her to bash other democrats and I don't think people here are using her to bash democrats either. Warren's / President Obama's fight to get her as head of the CFPB made her stand out.

She ran against Scott Brown (a repub who took over Ted Kennedy's old seat) in "liberal" Massachusetts in what was basically a grudge match between Rs and Ds that got coverage all over the country. This made her stand out even more.

She got small donations from people all over the country. In fact, I think she set some sort of record in small donations. She's vociferous and well spoken and when it comes to matters of finance she actually knows what the heck she's talking about.

My point is... she stands out all over the place and she ran on a populist message. I have no doubt that she would give HRC one hell of a fight in a primary if she wanted too.

But here's the tough part for any woman... if they're not hawks, they will be attacked as weak. If HRC runs, she's going to have to consider that dilemma at a very difficult time in American history. In this case, Warren might benefit from being more "unknown." There's a lot of interesting angles to think about here. Considering all the above, I highly doubt there are many people using Warren to bash democrats. I think that's a bit paranoid. (But hey... considering how rotten the repubs have become, I understand the paranoia.)

[MannyGoldstein]

94. What percentage of these Warren "supporters" do you figure

are really disruptors, as you describe?

All of 'em?

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. Funny you should ask ... eom.

[MannyGoldstein]

104. But you know that I already knew that, right?

LOL.

[MannyGoldstein]

86. Intentional disruptors

Possibly paid.

People like me: because no actual human being could hold views like Democrats shouldn't try to cut Social Security, or "free" trade agreements are a terrible idea, or maybe the Executive branch of government should have a few people in it who aren't tied to the big banks. Views like that can only be held by people hoping to disrupt the Democratic party to further some awful agenda.

[Enthusiast]

89. You deserve a plus one.

[msanthrope]

58. I really do respect your posts on HRC and EW and agree they both must answer questions

about their stances on many civil rights.

[Bluenorthwest]

68. Thanks, because while I don't currently support either, I like both more than their actual

opponents. Our candidate needs to be able to answer questions. Hillary was anti equality for far too long, but I also have some fond memories of better times and I like her as a person. Warren I agree with on economic issues more than Hillary, but she was a Republican and was voting for the other side while I was working really hard for Democrats. Trading sides can lead to some explaining being needed.

I'd gladly ask these questions of Warren and of Clinton.

Personally, I'd rather have a candidate who has never sided with the right against my rights. Both Clinton and Warren have done that. I'd rather have someone who never did that. I'm sure most can see why that would be a preference.

[msanthrope]

71. Hilary was not anti-equality. But she was politically expedient in support for gay rights.

I worked for her. So I freely admit my biased viewpoint.

She, like President Clinton, hired and promoted openly gay people at a time in DC when that simply Was Not Done. But neither she nor the President openly called for equality. So that is her moral failing, and I will never excuse it. Nor will I excuse myself...15 years ago I thought equal marriage was unrealistic and frankly, silly.

I look back on that, and recognize how wrong I was. Seriously, disgustingly wrong. An inexcusable moral failing on my part.

The Clintons knew and understood that DADT was a mere stopgap....yes, it saved people from military prison, but it could not ever be the answer to equality.

Sometimes...we crawl before we walk. I think your posts on this remind us of the moral choices we make every single day, and I respect that.

[Maedhros]

76. Warren is the only Democrat of national prominence whose rhetoric even suggests

that she supports populist economic positions. She's even backed up some of that rhetoric with action, which also makes her unique among inside-the-beltway types. This makes her very attractive as a Presidential candidate, especially in opposition to Hillary who has repeatedly proven her DLC/Third Way credentials.

But, like Obama in 2008, Warren is also something of a blank slate otherwise, having what others up-thread called "holes in her resume." Foreign policy, in particular, would seem to be a weakness. I also wonder about her ability to stand up to the MIC.

Warren must address these shortcomings in a primary campaign, if she runs.

[woo me with science]

100. +1 I want to hear her on the surveillance state, too.

I am drawn to her for the powerful, desperately needed, concrete economic message and because I think she has the potential to appeal across party lines on those issues. It is tempting to think she could be the candidate to finally smash this malignant con game of hyperpartisanship that has been deliberately used to keep us divided and unable to oppose what is being done to us.

I don't know what to think about her silence on the wars and the surveillance state. I want to hear more.

[Maedhros]

107. Silence often means assent.

I like Warren as well, but I need to hear her stake out her positions on a number of issues before I could support her presidency.

[druidity33]

91. She is a Democrat!

You can feel free to hold someone's past against them, and i do too occasionally. But when she was a Republican it was a different time and she wasn't in a position of power. As for her being "conservative about most things"... i just don't think i agree with that. I also have some objection to the "very wealthy" statement you make. What makes very wealthy? I hear folk on DU saying that a million doesn't mean what it used to. And when you make a Mill you get taxed more than when you make a Bill. Has she paid a fair amount in taxes? Or is she a Romney? I think you're holding her to a much higher standard than you might otherwise...

[iamthebandfanman]

10. my fav chart is

the following :





So, if conservatives think being poor is the easy life.. why haven't they all quit their jobs?

[ebbie15644]

13. My question is this

if Warren becomes president, or Clinton or any other democratic president, how are they possibly going to get anything done with this congress?

[supercats]

20. YES!!!

Exactly what our country needs right now, an Elizabeth Warren Presidency.

[JDPriestly]

23. I will vote for Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic Primary for the 2016 election.

If she doesn't run, I will write her name on my ballot.

[fbc]

103. Same here, if she's not there I am writing her in.

[bigtree]

24. is this the fouth way Manny?

[MannyGoldstein]

30. Sorry, that's protected under HIPAA

Last edited Sun Jun 29, 2014, 03:27 PM - Edit history (1)

I can't say anything more about it.

[bigtree]

41. this thread is like a former republican reunion

. . . former republican voters too.

Poor Liz, with friends like these . . .

[hootinholler]

39. No It's First way Manny

I'm not surprised that you might be confused about that, though.

[bigtree]

48. I'm not well versed in the many manifestations of 'Manny'

. . . who's on first?

[hootinholler]

56. Hmmm, Mannyfestations?

Nice pun!

:cheers:

[bigtree]

64. good work!

[wildbilln864]

27. Warren/Sanders 2016! n/t

[joshcryer]

28. Yeah, right wing populism will rear it's ugly head in 2016.

Ie, fascism.

[former9thward]

34. Warren's analysis of our economic disease is shared by many libertarian/Tea Party Republicans.

Despite the caricature of the TP on a board like this of being "corporate funded" and "instruments of the Koch brothers." Being involved in local politics I have never found that to be true in real life.

How to cure the disease is where the two sides go apart. So I don't think Warren would get a lot of help from conservatives on that.

[hootinholler]

54. About that caricature

It is well documented that AFP and other RW Koch-fueled operative organizations have used tremendous resources to steer those who are drawn because they are rightly outraged, but don't quite know enough background to break through the propaganda and understand who they should be pissed off at. Throw in some bible toting patriotism and many willingly follow without direct support. The AFP's on the scene fuel divisiveness by plugging the bass drum meme that someone is taking from you and you won't benefit, rather than taxes are your contribution to a better and safer society. They exist ultimately to foment this someone is eating your lunch better protect it mentality that is at the root of the divisiveness we live in today.

At the local level, this results in people who have bought into the big = bad in government message, from the Raygun years, that is hopefully finally growing stale.

The pendulum is starting towards the left and I want to push that fucker as hard as I can.

[Populist_Prole]

63. Bingo. You nailed it perfectly

This is the exact dynamic I see in teabagger types I know, as well as the screeching loudmouths we see in the media.

[hootinholler]

78. I won't claim to be correct in my assessment...

But it's what I see and it includes most, if not all, of the elemental observations.

[Populist_Prole]

88. Same for me

[Populist_Prole]

62. Some, but not many; I have noticed

People I'm around in real life who either self identify directly as tea partiers, or speak well of them are all republican reactionaries; every last one of them. Even on the occasion I can get them to admit corporate influence/Wall st is a corrosive effect on the working class, they do so grudgingly and seem much more interested in blaming the poor and of course, social issues.

I know these types weren't the original genesis of the non-partisan libertarian-ish "taxed enough already" tea party, but they moved quickly to redefine it to the point it became what we all know: A rebranding of the hard-right wing of the republican party.

[RoverSuswade]

57. Warren/Castro ?

Liberals + Hispanics = victory?

[spanone]

59. one has to run for president to get elected. she emphatically says no to running.

[Karma13612]

84. her 'no' response is becoming

Less emphatic.

Watch the nuance.

[yallerdawg]

65. Isn't this what it's all about?

The 'true believers' generally don't determine the elections outcome.

It's which way the middle flops that picks the winners.

So if we exclude Elizabeth Warren because she at one time self-identified as a Republican or Hillary Clinton because she authorized Bush to go to war if he thought it was necessary, are we not turning over the elections to the great unwashed mass in the middle?
We allow them to determine the winner based on one issue or one commercial?

Guess what -- the Republicans retain power betting on the Democrats to let this happen!

[Helen Borg]

66. YES!!!

It would be awesome if she became Prez. Then she could make pompous asses like Larry Summers pay for treating her like a pompom girl.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

69. +++

[ReRe]

70. Definitely.

Elizabeth over Hillary!

[lewebley3]

80. Hillary just getting Started

She should run the 2014 election for the Democrats, She is sure bet
to win. We need to win,

[NYC_SKP]

90. Just getting started being a three time has-been. nt

[ReRe]

92. Well...

... if you want more of the same, Hillary's your gal.

[truebluegreen]

75. Warren/Castro 2016

with Grayson at Justice and Sanders at Treasury.

A girl can dream.

[Android3.14]

77. So many of us could vote for her

But nooooooo, the DLC says we'll have to hold our collective noses and vote for HC.

[lewebley3]

79. Bluemoon

I don't want Mrs. Warren for President, I want Hillary, Warren should be come the
majority leader, when Hillary becomes President. Also, the Clintons should become
the face of 2014. If she delivers Senate or House. Then we should make her be nominee,
we need all the money we can get for our races.

[DeSwiss]

96. No, I totally disagree,

- We need to get the money OUT of our races. And the Clintons a swell.

[mother earth]

106. Absolutely! nt

[MannyGoldstein]

97. What do you figure were Hillary's top 3 achievements?

Specifically?

[Maineman]

93. Wow! I have a lot of company regarding large companies having too much power.

Warren is the one.

[DeSwiss]

95. Hmmm, the conservatives should be worried.

- Especially Hillary.

K&R

[woo me with science]

101. +1

[mother earth]

105. Smiling...and imagining her cabinet choices...

K & R