Could Elizabeth Warren get the Democratic nomination?

[applecorped]

Lying is now considered a gaffe?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I think it's unlikely Warren could get the nomination at this point. She doesn't have any infrastructure in place and would be competing with Bernie Sanders for the progressive vote. However, Joe Biden could get the nomination, and Warren might be able to help him.

I almost included Joe Biden in my hypothetical, and don't recall why I left him out at the last minute. I personally think that some sort of Biden/Warren ticket could do well, especially with Hillary's campaign taking on water lately.

 

[The_Animus]

He's certainly had more then his share of "bloopers" when speaking, but I've always found his policies and legislation sound. FWIW, GWB"s similar speaking issues rolled off my back. I try really hard to not let superficial problems cloud my view.

That doesn't really bother me. Governor of Minnesota is a terrible speaker but his policies have been great.

I more mean the aviator glasses/ice cream thing and awkward shoulder massage. Plus I see him as more of a status quo, politics as usual kind of guy and I'm pretty tired of that.

Maybe I just need to learn more about him.

 

[Trebuchet]

I almost included Joe Biden in my hypothetical, and don't recall why I left him out at the last minute. I personally think that some sort of Biden/Warren ticket could do well, especially with Hillary's campaign taking on water lately.

I'd prefer Warren/Biden. He wouldn't even have to move out of his house if they won.

 

[The Big Dog]

I agree with this.

On a side note, I wonder why we see another thread by a conservative about a Democrat, but not about anyone they are supporting?

wonder no more, my friend, they support everyone but Hillary!

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

I also think a Biden -Warren ticket would be strong for the dems.

The notion that it's a "fact" that Biden is a clown is lol worthy. It's as clear as the day is long in the dead of summer in Barrow that this is opinion, not fact. Words have meaning you know, right wing echo chamber notwithstanding.

As for Warren being damaged due to misrepresenting herself as a youth... this too is lol worthy. Turn off the am radio dude!

I don't know what you mean. I don't listen to AM radio and I'm not a conservative. The things I'm talking about were in her adult life. I'm not judging her for it, I'm just saying it's too much weird baggage and questionable behavior for her to win the Democratic nomination, if she were to try, IMO.

 

[NoahFence]

Lying is now considered a gaffe?

In politics it sure is. It's like the most basic gaffe you can make!

 

[sunmaster14]

In politics it sure is. It's like the most basic gaffe you can make!

Lying is not a gaffe. Telling the truth is. See Kinsley gaffe.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think the native American ancestry claims and the weird and deceptive way she dealt with questions about them kind of rules out the Democratic nomination for her.

I had forgotten about that. Yeah, that was weird.

I mostly like her, but things like that make me have real doubts about people.


Something similar turned me off Biden. I mostly like Biden, but he borrowed a speech from someone else. That alone didn't bother me, but the speech he borrowed was biographical, and it wasn't his biography.....that's just weird.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

I had forgotten about that. Yeah, that was weird.

I mostly like her, but things like that make me have real doubts about people.


Something similar turned me off Biden. I mostly like Biden, but he borrowed a speech from someone else. That alone didn't bother me, but the speech he borrowed was biographical, and it wasn't his biography.....that's just weird.

Yes! And it was worse than just borrowing a speech, it was a speech that he gave over and over again!

Here's a thorough article from Slate about it. I think it's pretty weird that he did that, and makes me seriously question his motives and judgement.

What is certain is that Biden didn't simply borrow the sort of boilerplate that counts as common currency in political discourse—phrases like "fighting for working families." What he borrowed was Kinnock's life.

Biden lifted Kinnock's precise turns of phrase and his sequences of ideas—a degree of plagiarism that would qualify any student for failure, if not expulsion from school. But the even greater sin was to borrow biographical facts from Kinnock that, although true about Kinnock, didn't apply to Biden. Unlike Kinnock, Biden wasn't the first person in his family history to attend college, as he asserted; nor were his ancestors coal miners, as he claimed when he used Kinnock's words. Once exposed, Biden's campaign team managed to come up with a great-grandfather who had been a mining engineer, but he hardly fit the candidate's description of one who "would come up [from the mines] after 12 hours and play football." At any rate, Biden had delivered his offending remarks with an introduction that clearly implied he had come up with them himself and that they pertained to his own life.

And then there's this:

And Biden conceded that he had exaggerated in another matter by stating in a speech some years earlier that he had joined sit-ins to desegregate restaurants and movie theaters, and was thus actively involved in the civil rights movement. He protested, his press secretary clarified, "to desegregate one restaurant and one movie theater." The latter two of these fibs were small potatoes by any reckoning, but in the context of other acts of dishonesty, they helped to form a bigger picture.

And finally, this:

"I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect," Biden sniped at the voter. "I went to law school on a full academic scholarship." That claim was false, as was another claim, made in the same rant, that he graduated in the top half of his law-school class. Biden wrongly stated, too, that he had earned three undergraduate degrees, when in fact he had earned one—a double major in history and political science. Another round of press inquiries followed, and Biden finally withdrew from the race on Sept. 23.

I mean, what's wrong with the guy? That's a lot of stupid lies.

The article concludes with the observation that such lies are often the sign of a troubled individual:

Twenty-one years on, how much should Biden's past behavior matter? In and of itself, the plagiarism episode shouldn't automatically disqualify Biden from regaining favor and credibility, especially if in the intervening two decades he's not done more of the same, as seems to be the case. But no one has looked into it. The press should give his record since 1988 a thorough vetting. It's worth knowing whether the odds-on favorite to be our next vice president has truly reformed himself of behavior that can often be the mark of a deeply troubled soul.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2008/08/the_write_stuff.html

 

[varwoche]

I don't know what you mean. I don't listen to AM radio and I'm not a conservative. The things I'm talking about were in her adult life. I'm not judging her for it, I'm just saying it's too much weird baggage and questionable behavior for her to win the Democratic nomination, if she were to try, IMO.

(1) I didn't say she could win the nomination for POTUS; I said she'd make a strong VP candidate and (2) I didn't address my comments to you.

 

[Bob001]

Yes! And it was worse than just borrowing a speech, it was a speech that he gave over and over again!
...

You omitted a relevant part of the Slate story about the Kinnock speech. Most of the time Biden attributed it to the original speaker:

Biden's downfall began when his aides alerted him to a videotape of the British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock, who had run unsuccessfully against Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The tape showed Kinnock delivering a powerful speech about his rise from humble roots. Taken by the performance, Biden adapted it for his own stump speech. Biden, after all, was the son of a car salesman, a working-class kid made good. Kinnock's material fit with the story he was trying to sell.

At first Biden would credit Kinnock when he quoted him. But at some point he failed to offer the attribution. Biden maintained that he lapsed only once—at a debate at the Iowa State Fair, on Aug. 23, when cameras recorded it—but Maureen Dowd of the New York Times reported two incidents of nonattribution, and no one kept track exactly of every time Biden used the Kinnock bit.....

Here's a more detailed view:

Biden aides said yesterday that Biden began using the Kinnock rhetoric in August and had credited Kinnock on virtually every other occasion when he used it. John Quinlan, a reporter for the Sioux City Journal, said his notes showed Biden said he was quoting Kinnock when he used the same passage in a speech Aug. 14.

Stories in The Times, The Boston Globe and other newspapers also said Biden had used the rhetoric and credited Kinnock for it.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/08/23/media-outlets-reported-allegations-biden-plagia/144547

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

You omitted a relevant part of the Slate story about the Kinnock speech. Most of the time Biden attributed it to the original speaker:


Here's a more detailed view:


http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/08/23/media-outlets-reported-allegations-biden-plagia/144547

But that's not really the relevant part...even when he credited him for the quotes, he was STILL pretending that the details of Kinnock's life were details from HIS life.

 

[varwoche]

My use of the word "fact" is clearly rhetorical. Words do, in fact, have meanings that depend on context, and the word "fact" can be used in several ways. In any case, I said that Biden is something of a clown. That doesn't mean he wears a little red ball on his nose and shuffles around in really long shoes.

I fully realize you weren't calling Biden a literal clown.

A skeptics forum is a corner of the world where the word fact shouldn't be misused as synonymous with opinion.

 

[sunmaster14]

I fully realize you weren't calling Biden a literal clown.

A skeptics forum is a corner of the world where the word fact shouldn't be misused as synonymous with opinion.

<snip>

It's a good idea except for that fact my opinion that Joe Biden is something of a clown, ...

Strikes me as a little awkward, but do you like that better? My high school English teacher taught me that it was redundant to state explicitly in your prose that something is your opinion. The fact (oops) that you're writing it implies that what you write is your opinion.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm pretty surprised by the lack of enthusiasm for Hillary among Democratic voters and think that Elizabeth Warren could likely beat her in the primaries. Does anyone else agree?

FWIW, I would vote for Warren over Hillary in a primary.

 

[DavidJames]

FWIW, I would vote for Warren over Hillary in a primary.

I would as well.

I'll say here what we were talking about over the dinner table last night. I'm very disappointed in the way the Democrats are handling the presidental election. Clinton, Biden, Sanders? Is that all they have, senior citizen candidates? These people are older then me, that's can't be good.

Very disappointing.

 

[tyr_13]

FWIW, I would vote for Warren over Hillary in a primary.

I would as well.

I'll say here what we were talking about over the dinner table last night. I'm very disappointed in the way the Democrats are handling the presidental election. Clinton, Biden, Sanders? Is that all they have, senior citizen candidates? These people are older then me, that's can't be good.

Very disappointing.

Thirded.

 

[The_Animus]

I would as well.

I'll say here what we were talking about over the dinner table last night. I'm very disappointed in the way the Democrats are handling the presidental election. Clinton, Biden, Sanders? Is that all they have, senior citizen candidates? These people are older then me, that's can't be good.

Very disappointing.

I usually agree with your positions but ageism is silly. It should be about positions on the issues, not whether the candidate is black or white, young or old, has funny hair or not, etc.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I usually agree with your positions but ageism is silly. It should be about positions on the issues, not whether the candidate is black or white, young or old, has funny hair or not, etc.

Exactly. The observation that the GOP is the party for Old White People is not because of the number of OWP's in the GOP, it's because the GOP policies are specifically geared to serve OWP's at the expense of everyone else.