I was driving back from Ms. Lilly's this morning when I heard a political discussion concerning speculation whether Hillary Clinton might consider Elizabeth Warren as her V.P., and whether Senator Warren would consider such an offer.
It was like one of those Jet.com commercials with the exploding heads.
But forget the anti-Hillary rants for a minute and consider...
Dare the Democrats offer a female/female ticket? Could it be the bold combination that would unite the party and seal their constituent's vote?
Could the addition of Ms. Warren help with the female and Independent voter?
Are Middle and Independent America ready for all-female leadership, (you know what I mean)?
Won't happen. We might be ready for it, but it is just not necessary for victory.
It has to be a white male that can appeal to the union blue collar voter. That is only one man, Sherrod Brown. He is a large recipient of Union $$. HRC already has the non-white and female vote. What would be the point?
The wildcard with Senator Brown is his Jewish faith. Now I hope that would not be a factor. But you never know in Presidential elections.
But... you think the unions would abandon the Democrat party without a man on the ticket?
I too think some blue collar-type, (and others), voters may not be quite ready for an all-female ticket, but, could the draw from Warren to the Independents, and, the lure of an epic all woman ticket for female voters be enough for victory?
You're right. When I used the term union, I probably should have substituted "traditional" or Reagan Democrats. I don't like listening to either one of them (HRC or Warren), so I'm probably not a good measuring stick. There are not many blue collar, moderate Dems anymore that could run on a national ticket. So not a lot of choices. Brown is the least worst. Really long shot: Jon Tester of Montana. Wouldn't win the State but might get you the moderate vote.
Problem is that that group "Reagan Democrats', are more GOP than Democrat. As far as the Democrats are concerned, they have gone the way of the passenger pigeon, just like the idea of a 'moderate Republican'
To your point about a dearth of moderate Democrats, I agree, but I think there are still more of them than moderate Republicans. It seems to me that most former moderate Republicans were quicker to jump off the party wagon when it started veering off-course, than moderate Dems were willing to do the same.
I think that may be due to the success of the Radical Right within the party. I see the Leftist, (and Socialists), Democrats as being more of a fringe of the party than a gripping hand.
Back to the original question though... take a look at my response to Credence2 and consider the question of American voter acceptance of an all-female ticket. Here is the set-up to that perspective:
Yes, GA, the potential combination of Clinton/Warren would go a long way in mending fences with disaffected Sanders supporters who question Secy Clinton's credentials as 'true believer'.
Warren can bring many if not all of the Sanders supporters on board to support the Clinton ticket.
If we are ready for a female president, then the fact that her running mate would also be female should not be earth shattering. That is how many of us on the left see things.
I am not very familiar with Senator Warren, but the perception I do have does not lead me to believe she would pull in many Sanders' supporters.
I also think Americans are ready for a woman president, but I am still pondering our acceptance of an all-female ticket. I do think a viable all-female ticket would be earth shattering.
Everything has been leading up to a female president, considering the traditional role of the Vice-President, I don't think people are really going to do a double take with the possibility of an all female ticket.
There are lots of Sanders guys like me, that are focusing on inequity and imposing more controls on the Wall Street money changers. Free college and such is not the allure of myself for Bernie. The same 'shake up' of the political establishment that many Trump people are looking for is what we are looking for with Sanders. That desire crosses over many age and demographic profiles.
If we can't have Bernie, in progressive circles, Liz Warren has a lot of the fire Bernie has and uncompromising focus on much of the things Bernie is talking about, where HC has little or no credibility. Even HC can't just bottle Liz up and place her on the shelf after the election. Liz won't just go to a corner and be quiet.
HC has a lot better chance of defeating Trump having Liz on board than making the mistake of ignoring Sanders supporters, taking the chance of just tepid support for her candidacy. I would be more enthusiatic about her candidacy as I know that she has made an attempt to bring her left flank along with her.
Hey bud, I agree that as a nation, and putting aside the variables of credentials, we are ready to accept a female president, but... is that a degree of acceptance? Is that the furthest degree of our consideration? Would an all-female ticket be a stretch beyond that?
Think on your perception of the folks in your little sphere of the world, (we all have our own spheres, whether a community or neighborhood, or coast-to-coast), beyond any close group of similar souls, (like our forum community), and consider... Are enough American men, (and probably a number of women too), ready for a ticket that does not include a man, *just in case*?
GA, to be honest the thought has never really crossed my mind. Since Golda Meir, Corazon Aquino, Angela Merkel, or even Maggie Thatcher, I have grown up with female heads of state and I am not the least intimidated with the idea.
So many other diverse nations in the world have no problem with the concept, why do we?
Somehow, it is not something that I ever think about. I'll turn away from anyone because of what they represent, not their race or gender. That is part of being 'True Blue'. The idea that there has to be a man on the ticket to lend credibility and a comfort level relative to the idea of a woman running things is a thing of the past. I forget that there are so many people that still hang on to this.
Perhaps, that sort of thinking was in the cards when Obama was in contention for the Presidency.
So, GA, if it is out there, I cannot relate nor understand about the source of concern about that in this day and age.
PS, Florida is somewhat of a conservative state, but is becoming more liberal with the influx of so many from the Northeast. I never had the pleasure and opportunity to speak with people in the area and gauge their thoughts and ideas as you and I do.
"Are Middle and Independent America ready for all-female leadership, (you know what I mean)?" Maybe I'm dense, but I don't really know what you mean.
My thoughts on Elizabeth Warren as VP: I agree with credence that she would be seen as a good choice by Bernie supporters, as she espouses similar principles. I also think an all-female ticket would provide a stark contrast to Donald, a guy who clearly can't handle being challenged by women. I also think that if a person can't stomach an all-female ticket, then they're probably in the same classification as those who couldn't stomach Barack Obama, and Obama won the general election against a much more palatable candidate than Donald, and he won it handily. So, I would not be concerned at all if Hillary chose Elizabeth Warren. In fact, I can imagine all kinds of biased, sexist commentary spewing from Donald's very large and uncontrolled mouth, which will not help the GOP in their quest to survive the changing demographics of this country.
After all, as someone pointed out, we've endured many an all-male ticket with mixed results. If one questions the power and effectiveness of an all-female ticket, then one obviously possesses some "dated" views about women, to put it politely.
With a bit of worry I offer that you are not quite as "dense" as you note, and understand what I mean more than you admit. This view comes from your last sentence;
"If one questions the power and effectiveness of an all-female ticket, then one obviously possesses some "dated" views about women, to put it politely."
So what about those "dated" views... after all it was just those that were the point of the question?
I could see some truth in a view that all men, (over 5), have a kernel of those "dated" views that is covered by layers of civilized human development. I would think that the more recent the generation the more layers. To the point that in a reasonable modern-times male, (like our buddy Credence2), that kernel is buried by so many layers that it never surfaces.
Of course the flip-side is that there are also males with fewer layers. Ones whose psyche has enough layers for a woman president, but not quite enough for total female leadership.
The discussion isn't about the rightness or wrongness of such a view, it is about the degree of its existence. And whether an all-female draw could pull in a counter-balancing number of non-Democrat female and Independent voters?
Maybe I did a better job here? http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1366 … ost2818786
I think what threw me was your use of the terms "Middle" and "Independent" America. I don't view moderates and independents as any more or less likely to be averse to all female leadership than liberals, although I haven't looked to see what actual evidence exists to corroborate or debunk that idea.
I had read your linked post. My reference to "Middle America" wasn't about moderates. I think of Middle America as being a conservative domain, (but not the hard Right type of Conservative), and the one that would be most likely, (in my view), to have a problem with an all-female ticket.
But I also think they are now outnumbered by liberal and moderate Americans. I think an all-female ticket would be viable with a majority of "Middle" Americans. I think it could be a grand-slam ticket for the Democrats. Thankfully I feel that Trump's base is a Republican minority. If I am wrong than I would wager that after this election the GOP will be even more of a minority party than it is now.
Interestingly, I asked my husband, who is a 69-year-old registered Republican (yes, he robbed the cradle! lol), if he would vote for an all-female ticket, and he hesitated. I am not sure, though, if the hesitation is because pf Hillary.
Anyway, I was a little surprised by his less than enthusiastic reaction. Ingrained cultural taboos are hard to kill, I guess.
Your husband story was my point. Thanks for the response.
When I spoke of a primarily male, (note I did not say exclusively male), stutter in consideration of an all-female ticket, it was men like your husband I was thinking of. Not the obvious ones that probably come to mind, but the better ones that conduct themselves to their credit, yet still find some hurdles a bit too high to sail right over.
I think you are right that cultural biases, (not really a taboo), are hard to overcome. And in many cases, (like your husband), it is not a character defect to have that resistance. It is just a tall order for us older folks to fill. You know, kinda like accepting that marriage isn't really just between a man and a woman. All these thousands of years we were wrong about that, and now we have to also change the cultural underpinnings built up by thousands of years of living in male dominated societies.
Yes, male dominance has been the rule over much of mankind's existence. As a Western Democracy, when it comes to adapting to these new concepts, why is America always last? Why do not males of other societies think that there is some threat to their masculinity when a female is the head of state? I am not that much younger than the Panther's mate and I don't have the cultural bias. But, on the other hand, I am all in favor of women having to register for the draft under the same conditions as men. After all, turn about is fairplay. I do not let anyone have their cake and eat it, too...
I do have a problem that I cannot seem to get over, this transgender/unisex bathroom stuff. That is my problem, my squeamishness about which gender uses what bathrooom is a line that I have yet to cross. Outside of that, I guess anything goes.
Hold on there buddy, I didn't say you did not have any problems. I have pulled you back from the abyss of your ideological chasm too many times to think that you don't have problems. Ha!
Considering that we seem to be the ying and yang of many ideological discussions I suppose it is not odd that I feel just the opposite about the bathroom issue. I don't care who uses what bathroom. A skirt-wearing urinal user isn't going to bother me anymore than a pants-wearing commode user would. Don't sweat the small stuff.
O Crimson one, that is a strange position for a conservative to take considering all the controversy over this matter.
Yes, I am a rampant lefty and I don't apologize for it. But, I will listen to the other side, but it had better be good....
I don't think she'd easily take the second chair -I don't really like her, but she's a player and not a bench warmer.
If you reject the simple fact of gender as having any relevance in deciding one or more leaders' qualifications, why not two women? We have even had two men before!
Obama endorsed Hillary because he wants another term of NoObamaCare, failed foreign policies, terrible trade deals, ... well, it just gets worse... Obama hasn't even managed to see a 3% GDP, not once, and that is where the rubber hits the road, or not in his case.
But, but, but... what about the Op question? Would you have a thought on that?
ps. Speaking of roads, following the topic of a thread is usually a safe way to stay out of the ditches.
I do not believe Warren is doing herself a service if she endorses Crooked Hillary Clinton, and I don't believe she will help the cause by aligning herself as VP. Warren has kept herself fairly clean so far, but her documented dishonesty in politics and cold bloodedness drug companies goes before her while acting like she has compassion. Hillary is bought by Wall Street. Does Pocahontas Warren really want to go that direction openly? - You asked.
Sorry, Colorfulone, she will help our cause, not yours....
We disagree again, Cred, but I respect your opinions and you. No reason to be sorry. We are in this together even if we disagree. You should hear me and my brother...really we should stay away from talking politics, but we love each other.
Actually, I think the question was whether middle America would vote for an all-female ticket. I know it's hard to separate the candidates from the question. I didn't do a great job of that in my response. So, I'll just keep it simple here and say that, based on polling data, the vast majority (almost 90% in some polls) of Americans would be comfortable with a female president. It's hard to know for sure whether just as many would be comfortable with an all-female ticket, but even supposing a drop to, say, 80% that is statistically not enough to indicate a loss for that ticket. And, I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that those who couldn't stomach an all-female ticket are more likely to be on the right end of the political spectrum and probably wouldn't vote Democratic anyway.
"Pocahantas Warren..." Is that really the depth of your reasoning? Resorting to parroting others' name-calling? Her name is Elizabeth. Do you think name-calling enhances your position? Or was that just your announcement of your club membership?
... and is your temptation to rant stronger than the courtesy of addressing a thread's topic?
Oh, stepped on your toe, huh...be healed! You didn't know about Elizabeth Warrens false claims of evidence that she is of Native American Cherokee Ancestry? Her claims have been debunked as false. I've been researching and vetting her for several months to make up my own mind about her honesty. I don't feel that I trust her.
"Pocahontas Warren" isn't mentioned in this article, but all the research has been done. Yeah, she has picked up a nickname worldwide, ... and I love the name! That's not racist at all, so...
* http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … -new-book/
Senator Warren has “for twenty-five years since 1986, and without a shred of credible evidence . . . claimed to have Native American ancestry. She’s made this claim, apparently, to three separate employers–the University of Texas Law School, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and Harvard Law School. None apparently asked her for proof, nor did she offer any.”
I am never tempted to rant in the forums, I find balance with the yin and yang. So, that would be you projecting your temptation to rant onto me and rant you did. She must have seducing (deceiving) spirits that people will follow instead of the faith as it is written in 1 Timothy 4:1.
- Keep the faith!
I suppose it is my own prejudice that guided me to the conclusion that name-calling, and bias-twisted proclamations amounted to ranting. Disrespect should be hard earned, not freely applied.
But still... have you nothing to offer on the topic?
ps. yes, I was aware of the heritage controversy, and Trump's application of the nickname. I think name-calling folks demean themselves more than they do the object of their efforts. So I try to avoid it. I already have enough to do working on my other faults.
"Pocahontas Warren" to me is a term of endearment. I love the ancient Native American cultures to the present. I lived in a Sioux lodge for the better part of year to experience the ancient ways. I could go on and on about my passion for the Native Americans. -- But, when someone claims to have evidence they are Cherokee and the claims were proven false, there is some deception going on with Liz (another nickname of hers)... "gasp" -- 2 nicknames (maybe more)!
Pocahontas was a great woman! I have loved studying about her life.
I cannot say that about Warren to be honest.
I'm replying to your comments to me as deserved. If you want me to reply to the topic, then comment to me on topic. When a person is calling mean and insulting names it really is a reflection of that person them self. I try to avoid that myself, cheers!
Added: I do not believe that Warren will help with the moral and ethical female and Independent voters if they know that she has been deceptive. But, there's more...
Your response is asking a lot of me. The best I can do is not post my opinion that I think it is bull hockey from start to finish..
Fauxcahontas memes are popular I see!
Fauxcahontas for VP, O don't think so, but it would be funny!
SHOCK VIDEO : 2004 Elizabeth Warren Describes Hillary as a Corporate Donor Puppet
http://truthfeed.com/shock-video-2004-e … ppet/6677/
I saw this some time ago, but this is a great thread to share it on so other can see it too.
But, also remember when George HW Bush refered to Reagan's economic plans as 'voodoo economics'. (1980)
And yes, Hillary Clinton does have THAT image problem, that is why I need Warren riding second seat to help keep her on course.
"...that is why I need Warren riding second seat to help keep her on course..."
awwww,,, come on Cred, Warren fixes Hillary's problems in your mind? It doesn't take any more than that to get your vote?
Hmm, I'm not cred, but I didn't read that into his response at all. Isn't it generally accepted that a VP choice is often made to represent a large faction of a party that doesn't feel fully represented by the Presidential candidate? I'll be voting for Hillary regardless of who she chooses for VP, because I will not vote for Donald, who is unfit to work in the mail room at the White House, much less sit in the oval office.
Now that is a tactful way of putting it.
I was a little harsh on Credence2, but he can take it. You will see.
No, it is not intended to 'fix' all of HC problems, but it just might increase her support among those who believe that a strong truly 'progressive' persona like Warren can bring more votes in.
Trump-corrupt and intolerant, that is a double whammy
So what is my best choice
BTW. where are you now about this thing you were saying that Trump would be an anomaly, that would never be the nominee of the party? He proved to be everthing that I warned you about, as calmer minds in the GOP establishment could not stop him. Did the great cudmugeon get caught with his britches down?
I think Warren would be the very best choice Clinton could make. I think that ticket would be a Democrat party grandslam. I think enough American voters are ready.
You know I am not a Trump supporter, and I can't vote for Clinton either.
But, now your memory needs a prod, because you have this Trump thing exactly backwards. (oh no! does that validate ahorseback's thread about such a study?
Anyway, I was not the one that thought Trump was an anomaly, I think that would be a better description of your view. I recall our participation in a thread relative to who Trump's supporters were that might be helpful.
As I recall your view was that they were under-educated redneck whites, (or something like that). And my perspective was that there was more to it. Something about pissed-off voters - more than just the ones you described.
Ring a bell?
The thread progressed through the early primaries and I expressed surprise that Trump's supporters showed up at the polls. I did not think they would. But that does not mean I thought he was an anomaly, or bump in the road. I just did not believe he was credible.
You retained belief in your original description until it was too clear for either of us to deny who Trump's supporters really were. That was your view of Trump. An unbelievable fanatic, an anomaly.
I hold off on the expletives. I know you have voiced your disapproval of them as well.
Are you trying to say you do not approve of adjectives, and would prefer nouns?
Don't call a faux or a crook what they are? c'mon, GA.
If I used Truthful Warren and Honest Hillary, I would be lying, but you would be okey with that?
False statements are okey about W&C!
Honest statements are not ok about W&C!
That is backwards to me and deceptive.
Being uninformed is not a shield or armor to hide behind in wonderland.
Yes, Hillary is not a warmonger, everything is fine?
The name calling is the least of colorfulone's problems on these forums. Venom and lies delivered with a veneer of decorum are still venom and lies. The name calling is a minor part of what goes on here.
I've engaged in it with Trump supporters because, hey, they like Trump's name calling, so I give it right back to them by referring to The Orange One with many different monikers. Sir Flipsalot, aka the whiny little b____, inspires us to be our best, eh?
I do not lie, I love honesty, truth and justice! I guess you are trying to project yourself on me again.
Scientific studies show that ... personalities and ideologies go hand in hand.
People higher in Neuroticism tend to be more economically liberal.
Those higher in psychoticism are more liberal.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 … decade.php
#reported #liberal #neuroticism #psychoticism
Trump is the best bet for personal freedom and less government. I support him even though I am not a conservative. I believe Trump to be a Centrist.
Sanders didn't have a chance because of the corrupt Democratic election rigging. Noted: the RNC establishment tried the same with Trump. I strongly disapprove of the dishonesty and corruption at every level. Thankfully, Trump and Sanders have been exposing what intelligent people already knew to be true from past elections.
Honesty and integrity are virtues worth having. Try it, its lovely!
I suppose I should feel sorry for you, but I prayed for you instead.
I forgave you, and so did God.
You need to stop these undeserved bullish personal attacks on me. Stop! Or, I will ask HP to ban you for life. Enough is enough, PP.
You have posted that Barack Obama is gay and Michelle Obama is a man. Lies. That is just one example.
Can you find even one similarly outrageous lie from me? No, but go ahead and try.
One who so easily and readily wallows in the gutter cannot expect to do so without getting dirty.
It is well known that Barack Obama is gay and Michelle Obama is Micheal. Obama even slipped up one time and called him Micheal. What's wrong with that? Nothing, unless you cannot stand gays and transsexuals. I couldn't care less. Why else do you think they are pushing the transsexual, LGBT, sex identification challenged bathroom laws agenda so hard? Time to wake up to why its called the Rainbow House!
Obama has has other gay lovers. But, you can deny the truth if it make you feel more comfortable, that's just fine.
Stay ignorant of the truth, don't take the time to research it for yourself, PP. You would rather insult me and keep your head in the sand?
ADDED: PP - "You don't even know how ridiculous you sound."
There you go projecting yourself onto me again.
You don't even know how ridiculous you sound.
What!! "It is well known that Barack Obama is gay and Michelle Obama is Micheal"
That kind of stuff is found only within the foul excrement of rightwing lunacy. I regard this as a racial slur against the President and First Lady. When you post things like this, how are we to take anything that you say seriously?
What is foul about being gay or transsexual? What people do with their own body is not a concern of mine, unless it does harm to them self or others. That "foul excrement of rightwing" flows from your mouth freely, which is typical of leftwingers. I'm neither!
What racial slur? LGBT is racial, it isn't all inclusive?
What's foul is your love semantic games, when you know what is meant here. Is this the true nature of the typical Trump supporter? Wow! Continuing to play in that sandpile will lead to ridicule and defeat of your vaunted Trump of Orange.
What would you do if HC actually won this fall?
Just like her assertion that "Pocahontas" is a term of endearment for Elizabeth Warren. Riiigghhht.
I have no love for "semantic games". But, it appears that you do. I love straight forward honest dialog
As far as I know Trump is not against LGBT, its just not an issue.
Pumpkinhead Trump will win! Crooked Hillary will go to prison!
(unless he is assassinated)
Is this your comment to the question? Do I have to guess which way you think your meme implies they are traveling?
"ridiculous" Projecting again!
Find the VIDEO: Obama Refers to His Wife as "Michael"
by Credence22 years ago
Democrats/Progressives: Are you supporting Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders for President? And Why?
by Lolita Monroe21 months ago
What is the difference between Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders?What is good about each candidate? What is bad? If you had to choose between them, who would you pick? Who would make a better...
by Daniel And Amanda18 months ago
Does Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Hilary Clinton matter?They are in the same party, doesn't this make them "Teammates" in a way? Although they have many different viewpoints, how does this affect your...
by Grace Marguerite Williams22 months ago
Do you believe that Bernie Sanders is about to lose the Democratic presidential campaign toHillary Clinton big time? It seems that according to recent polls, Hillary Clinton is far head of Bernie Sanders.
by Credence216 months ago
I would have liked to have more of a reason to support the Democratic ticket beyond the fact that I strongly dislike and distrust Trump and Pense. Clinton with her recent VP pick hasn't given me one.While Caine is more...
by John Wilson12 months ago
Why are democrats mad at Russia and not at Hillary Clinton nor the DNC? They lied and cheated!The DNC smeared Bernie Sanders and colluded with the mass media to rig the primary elections.The DNC stole debate questions...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.