Elizabeth Warren Launches Exploratory Bid For President In 2020

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has announced she is forming an exploratory committee as she considers whether to seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2020.

In a video emailed to supporters, Warren recounted her own working class background and her work strengthening consumer financial protections.

"Most of us want the same thing, to be able to work hard, play by the same set of rules and take care of the people we love," said Warren.

The 69-year-old Warren was a liberal icon even before she was first elected to the Senate. A law professor turned consumer advocate, she was instrumental in the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is reviled by conservatives.

Speculation that Warren might run for president began almost as soon as she won her seat in 2012. She passed on a bid in 2016 despite urging from many progressive groups. But four years later she is now ready — although she will face a much larger field, including other liberal favorites like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, in addition to several other fellow senators also likely to join the fray.

Warren's entrance into the contest to try and challenge President Trump in 2020 is a development he's likely to relish. Trump has frequently delighted in derisively calling Warren "Pocahontas," a reference to her 2012 campaign against Republican Scott Brown when he claimed she had misrepresented her family's Cherokee heritage for professional gain. In October 2018 — one of the clearest signs yet she was readying for a national campaign — Warren released results of a DNA test showing that she did have Native American ancestry going back several generations. The Cherokee Nation, however, called the DNA testing "useless."


https://www.npr.org/2018/12/31/6778...aunches-exploratory-bid-for-president-in-2020


Well, I guess you can say it's official. Elizabeth Warren is running for President. Not that I have any high hopes for her. But it would be interesting to see who else will run and challenge Warren for the nomination.
 
I think we're seriously underestimating Kamala Harris. She has virtually no star power in either the DNC or United States at large, but that may quickly change when the primaries roll around. She could then prove vicious contender against a president with 41 percent approval -- on a good day -- not even 3 years into his term. Harris not only has the minority and female card, but a vicious track record from her time in California, despite her being a freshman senator.

Warren may have star power in the DNC, but her reputation, much like Jeb's, has been destroyed by Trump's nick-naming. Nominating her would be 2016 all over again.

Hillary will be put on an ice floe by the Democrats, regardless of her running. She's a two-time loser who will have done nothing between 2016 and 2020 worth electing her for.

Bernie's campaign has been me-too'd, and he is still blamed not only for siding with Hillary, but for creating the current fracture in the Democratic Party.

In short, Trump may very well defeat anyone the Democrats throw at him, but of the current pool, Harris is not one to be underestimated. It would be a shame if Trump repeated the same mistakes as Hillary did in 2016.
 
What is bigger if she wins, being the first woman president or the first transracial one?
What definition of "transracial" are you using that doesn't apply to Obama? I'm confused.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Slap47
Harris not only has the minority and female card, but a vicious track record from her time in California, despite her being a freshman senator.

She has a bad record as an attorney and prosecutor. She's going to be attacked for that high crime of not being woke enough to release criminals.

During her time as San Francisco's district attorney, Harris oversaw the city's mismanaged crime lab. A San Francisco superior court judge ruled that the D.A.'s office ignored demands that it take responsibility for the lab's failings, and that it violated defendants' rights by hiding information about a corrupt technician who had been stealing cocaine.

As attorney general of California, Harris challenged the release of a man who had been exonerated by the Innocence Project and had his conviction overturned. Harris argued that Daniel Larsen, who spent 13 years in prison for the crime of possessing a concealed knife, had not produced evidence of his innocence fast enough.

She also has a track record of openly stating that they need harsher penalties and longer sentences in California so they can exploit cheap prison labor.

In a new chapter in California’s years-long battle over how and when to reduce the population of its unconstitutionally crowded prisons, lawyers in Harris’ division pushed back against a federal order to expand an early parole program, arguing that it would deplete their stock of prison labor, especially inmates who fight wildfires.

This is the tip of th iceberg, really. Any amount of digging will net you a lot of moves in her tenure that are....not very flattering. You can agree or disagree with her sometimes contradictory decisions and statements, but it is harder to say she will be immune to criticism. While Trump tearing into her front line she's going to have radical members of her base calling her an Uncle Tom for betraying the kangz.
 
47aeb16726210bfa587504fcb867b5b8.png

This astro-turfing is genuinely embarrassing.
 
She has a bad record as an attorney and prosecutor. She's going to be attacked for that high crime of not being woke enough to release criminals.
This is what I am particularly curious about. You're a nazi if you get too heavy handed treating crime because it hurts the poor and minorities unfairly, but that attitude will change overnight and you'll be a misogynist and racist for not supporting Harris in her career if doing exactly that.
 
Rate late if this was posted elsewhere, but oh shit nigger what the fuck you doing

lolwhat.png


American government workers are going without pay, so the answer is to hand money to foreigners, instead of, I don't know, the workers.

Is she actually retarded? How could she be this out of touch?
 
The scene of people gesticulating about running for the nomination is so varied I've broken down my ticket predictions based on the absolute state the DNC would have to be in to run them:

"We learned nothing from 2016"-tier: Clinton again, in any capacity, even as VP
"We'll just fuse Clinton and Obama, that's a good trick"-tier: Kamala Harris
"Hillary 2: Pander Harder"-tier: Pocahontas
"Hey what if Obama was white?"-tier: Beto
"Hey what if Obama was more like Trump?"-tier: Corey Booker
"Billionaires are in right now"-tier: Michael Bloomberg
"Good news, we've finally moved beyond the constant identity politics"-tier: Biden, Webb, any white man who isn't transparently thirsted over by middle-aged housewives in lieu of liking his actual platform
"The other lunatics have taken their turn running this asylum"-tier: Bernie
"Shit that'll never happen, but should"-tier: Tulsi Gabbard
 
Back