Republicans to Elizabeth Warren: Please Run for President

‘I think she’s probably unelectable…’

Elizabeth Warren Wars Against Dem 'Centrists' at Nutty Netroots Conference

Elizabeth Warren/IMAGE: YouTube

(McClatchy Washington Bureau) Progressive activists adore her, her campaign cash is piling up, and she is celebrated by liberals as a key leader of the “resistance” to Donald Trump.

But no one relishes the prospect of an Elizabeth Warren presidential bid quite like Republicans do.

“I’ll be glad to donate,” joked Ron Kaufman, the Republican National Committeeman from Massachusetts who has watched Warren’s career closely. “I think she’s probably unelectable as president.”

Added Brian Ballard, a longtime Florida lobbyist and top fundraiser for Trump, “As a fan of the president’s, I hope that Elizabeth Warren is the Democratic nominee. That would be a dream come true for us.”

To make that matchup a reality, the Massachusetts senator and liberal icon would have to survive what will undoubtedly be a competitive Democratic primary, should she run.

But she already has laid some groundwork for a possible presidential campaign against Trump, as Politico reported this week.

That thrills Trump’s supporters, who say a Warren challenge would unite Republicans behind the polarizing president in a way that the more moderate Hillary Clinton — even with her years of baked-in baggage with Republicans — could not in 2016.

“You’d have thought Hillary Clinton would have done that, but certainly, Elizabeth Warren or (Vermont independent Sen.) Bernie Sanders, you’ve got to believe, would solidify our party like nothing ever before,” Ballard said. “I’m rooting for her. I wish her the best. Good luck in the primary.”

Warren, who led the charge in establishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has carved out an image as a fiery liberal populist and a sharp and frequent Trump critic.

She delights progressives who want to see Trump rebuked at every turn, and she energizes an already activated and angry Democratic base.

**MORE COVERAGE OF LEFTIST SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN at LibertyHeadlines.com**

But her hard-left posture, which makes her so popular among liberals — and could make her formidable in a Democratic primary — gives Republicans reason to think she would scare disillusioned Republicans who might be looking for an alternative to the historically unpopular president.

Elizabeth Warren doesn't condemn Franken

Elizabeth Warren & Stephen Colbert/IMAGE: CBS via YouTube

“She is quite possibly the only candidate who could convince some of the Republicans who have been hesitant to support Trump to vote for him,” said Ryan Williams, who served as a longtime aide to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee. “There’s no question she would rally the Democratic base, but she’d alienate swing voters and moderate Republicans who have not exactly warmed to Trump. She has the ability to convince some middle-of-the-road Republicans who are wary of Trump to pull the lever for him because she’s so divisive and radical.”

In her 2012 Senate race, Warren was also painted as extreme, even for deep blue Massachusetts.

Republicans seized on past comments, such as, “I have thrown rocks at people I think are in the wrong.”

Republicans still bring such remarks up today to cast Warren as a truculent class warrior.

“Who does Elizabeth Warren find ‘in the wrong?'” asked one ad at the time, from the Massachusetts GOP. “Employers. Businesspeople. Risk takers. Job creators.”

That didn’t work in Boston.

But a broad presidential battlefield is another story, said Colin Reed, who served as communications director for former Sen. Scott Brown, Warren’s 2012 opponent.

“People wanted to run against her in the (last) Senate race in Massachusetts because they viewed her, correctly, as a polarizing, divisive figure, but obviously underestimated her ability to raise money, inspire her base, inflame passions on the left in a way that can mobilize money and support,” Reed said. “A presidential race is different. I don’t think she can run the race she ran last time, or run the campaign-in-waiting she’s running now, and be able to appeal to people who might otherwise be unhappy with the current occupant of the White House and in the direction the country is going.”

Warren’s team declined to comment.

To Warren’s supporters, it’s not that she’s needlessly combative.

The senator, who is running for reelection this year, is simply a passionate champion of issues such as reducing income inequality — and now, is an effective voice against Trump’s message, with a willingness to “resist” that fits the infuriated mood of Trump’s many detractors.

“Many, many voters see her as authentic and real and someone who absolutely cares about the things she’s fighting for,” said Doug Rubin, a senior strategist on Warren’s 2012 campaign, who stressed that he was speaking broadly — not about 2020. “She’s a fierce advocate for the issues she cares about, she’s incredibly smart and very credible on these issues. A lot of people are fired up to go fight with her.”

Republicans are wary of making predictions in this unusual political environment so far ahead of 2020, and realize that they should be careful what they wish for: In 2016, there were plenty of Democrats who were eager to run against Trump, expecting a cakewalk.

But he successfully tapped into populist fervor, with a message that played much better in Rust Belt states than the more traditional free trade-focused positions typically served up by Republican candidates.

Warren, her supporters say, would cut into Trump’s ability to make that case.

She is well-positioned, they argue, to win back voters who typically vote Democrat but drifted Republican last cycle in states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania.

“Elizabeth Warren’s core message of fighting for the little guy against powerful entrenched interests is exactly where the center of the country is,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal grass-roots organization that is encouraging Warren to run. “Part of our problem was, we didn’t have the ideal messenger for delivering that very popular, pro-little guy message. Who could be better than Elizabeth Warren, who’s made that her entire life’s work, and made economic populism issues central to her time in the Senate?”

For Republicans who dislike Trump, the idea of choosing between him and Warren spurs talk of third-party bids, wishful speculation about whether Trump will even run again, and shuddering at what they see as the most unpalatable choice they can imagine.

For Republicans who do like Trump, that idea is met with glee.

Yet as much as Warren is loudly reviled on the right, some of her Senate Republican colleagues have used gentler language in discussing her recently, as she has worked in a bipartisan fashion on issues from combating opioid addiction to fighting human trafficking to supporting the military.

Well-Wishes to Senator Who Collapsed at Bike Race Overshadowed by Trolls

Thom Tillis Photo by USDAgov (CC)

“Elizabeth Warren and I are on the same page when it comes to protecting our men and women in uniform and our veterans,” said North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican, in a video he tweeted out recently in which he relayed a “good discussion” the two had at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

“Now we just had that bipartisan discussion, then I go sit in the chair and she goes on the (Senate) floor and spends 15 minutes just absolutely ravaging Republicans and conservatives,” he said. “So the public eye would say that we don’t get along. But just a few minutes before, we’re talking about good things we’re doing for military families, for men and women in uniform, and for veterans. Bipartisanship does happen here.”

But for many Republicans, “bipartisanship” is not a word they associate with Warren today.

“I just don’t think this country is going to vote for an ultra-liberal candidate for president,” Kaufman said. “This country is far too right-centrist for that to happen. I hope she runs.”

Republished with permission from McClatchy Washington Bureau via iCopyright license.

  • Yosemite Sam

    Hey look everybody it’s; “Liar Watha”.

  • steven jacobs

    Not even the “true blooded” American Indians will vote for her.

    • T Anne

      That is the point……………….who would vote for HER????

      • SeniorSkeptik

        Better her than the current Liar in Residence.

        • Naval Lint

          In your unicorn-infested “reality”, perhaps….

        • NukeWaste

          Maybe you need to get back on your meds.

      • omni

        Antifa
        BLM
        LGBTQ
        Millennials
        CAIR
        DEAD PEOPLE-somehow they overwhelmingly vote DEMOCRAT

        • Allen Evans

          LMAO!!

  • richjack4

    They also left out the fact that she is an habitual liar! If this is the best the liberal left can hope to put forth, chalk up another four years for Donald!

  • Pat Warnock

    Pick Nancy or Maxine as a running mate

    • nocbsfan

      Oh please make it NANCY, then we would finally be rid of her

    • Murphmeister

      No, Sheila Jackson Lee, no, Cow Girl Wilson, no. no, Keith Ellison, yeah, a racist Muslim.

      • Somanywhiners

        I would like to see Wilson in her get-up .on the national stage.

    • kimbi

      Lol
      So many fun running mates for her to choose from.
      Picking her apart piece by piece would be fun.

    • Fire and Brimstone

      Pocahontas wouldn’t even get re-elected to her current Senate seat, let alone the presidency. Her lies about being Native American have destroyed her.

    • Rhiannon122

      OF COURSE, there were many who were guilty along with her!!! That’s the whole point!!! Her aides and all the people she exposed to her unprotected server!!! and her blackberry!! She was not prosecuted because she was covered for by Loretta Lynch who TOLD James Comey ( he TESTIFIED to this!!! Call it a “matter”, not an investigation, because she was campaigning for President when she was under investigation for her e-mail scandal!!! You can hide and cover for her like Comey and Lynch did because they acted in a partisan manner. Like Strozk and Page did and there are emails to prove it. Even the Washington Post acknowledged it!!! We ARE calling for their HEADS!!! For Strozk, for Page, for McCabe, Blumenthal, Abedin, Weiner (we got him; he’s basically a sick pervert)…..and the Russians, who thanks to Abedin’s using her Yahoo account to e-mail stuff to Weiner’s laptop, and Yahoo was later hacked, the Russians most likely have THAT information as well. It’s NOT just Hillary. But it’s that she has a LONG history of getting away with a LOT of s$$t. SHE is embarrassing America before the world. She should go away and never return. I would be content if she would go to some socialist country like Cuba and NOT to Jail where my Taxpayer money would support her. Like in days gone by when the “nobility” were banished to deserted islands. She and her “beloved” husband could go to a deserted island and leave the rest of us alone. No blackberries, No internet, no smartphone. THAT would be their punishment. Just each other.

      • Rhiannon122

        Sorry, Pat Warnock, my post was supposed to be in response to AKLady. My bad.

  • mioahu

    Go pocahontas

    • Alibaba

      At least with her, excepting the tribe she pretend it belongs, nobody will question her birth certificate.

      • Naval Lint

        Prove that she was actually born and not created in a lab, please.

        • Ronald Show

          That’s a good one just about busted my gut!!! Lmao!!

        • Alibaba

          Well, actually if that Lab was on US soil, I think her citizenship will stick. Sorry…

          • Naval Lint

            Something about “laboratory-created” is in conflict with “natural-born”, don’t you think? And where did the genetic materials come from?

          • Alibaba

            Yeah, that slipped out of my mind, but considering that the foreign mutant who previously occupied the White House was accepted as human, makes me believe she has a chance at that too.

          • Naval Lint

            Some may have accepted to Manchurian president…I wasn’t one of them.

      • Allan Recticuli

        You’ll get people like me that will most definitely be wanting her to produced her BC and not in thirteen (13) layers either.

  • Gregg Parker

    Dear Lord……how can she run in 2020 when she’ll still be serving her life sentence for criminal theft corruption and fraud…

    • Rhiannon122

      One can only hope and pray.

  • kenhowes

    The thing is that these days, there are very few elections decided by where the swing voters go, because there aren’t enough swing voters. Elections are won by having your party base fired up. The Democrats’ party base is larger than the Republicans’ party base, but it doesn’t usually turn out as heavily as the Republican base. If it does, the basic election result is 2012, a fairly narrow but clear win for the Democrat. 2016 was a crazy election–Clinton carrying affluent suburbs that had always voted Republican while Trump carried mining towns and industrial areas that had always been Democratic. Warren might get some of those industrial places back for the Democrats; on the other hand, when she starts talking about taxing the daylights out of the rich for new social programs, some of those wealthy suburban women who have just been voting Democrat for about the last ten years might reconsider what they’ve been doing. Are they willing to pay $50,000 or more in additional taxes or see their husbands’ businesses driven out of business by new regulations in order to keep abortion legal? Those Boston, New York and Philadelphia suburbs might not be willing to vote for Warren.

    • Francisco Machado

      Liz, like Bernie, enkindles the flagrantly displayed passions of the fanatics who would turn out for a rally during a major earthquake and consequently put on a very impressive show of support. Like Bernie, it will remain to be seen how broad that support will be among the more rational factions who will just be voting against Trump. If his policies hold up economically and employment wise and his foreign policy doesn’t manifest itself in a disaster (Obama comes to mind…) it will attenuate that enthusiasm – particularly among the gainfully employed. One significant stumbling block, already manifesting itself, is the failure of Congress to fulfill the campaign promises that put them in office. As Trump says, “Send me the bill. I will sign it.” – But he will still be blamed for the bills they don’t send him. On the Warren side, have you listened to her speeches? She is not, and does not sound, rational. I’m not in the custom of tuning in to those speeches, but there was one – I wish I could recall the program she passionately supported at the beginning but, by the end, made a proposal very damaging to that program. I’d favor Mad Maxine – she’s a lot more entertaining than Liz. I am wondering how either of them would stand up to a debate.

      • Naval Lint

        Probably like a leaf in a tornado.

    • ADRoberts

      No, elections are now won by voter fraud. And Trump just caved and shut down the committee studying the fraud because he could not get information from 18 states. 32 states was not enough.
      He is beginning to turn HARD LEFT.

      • kimbi

        No he did not.
        You better go read up on what he did because you’re wrong and I’m not doing your homework for you.
        Unless you know you’re wrong and just spouting bs on purpose.

    • Naval Lint

      Take a closer look at the county-level election results for 2016. President Trump took almost every county except the coastal counties. The coastal counties just happen to be where the wealthy tend to live. I doubt that THEY’D support a wealth-redistribution candidate.

  • NukeWaste

    Why hasn’t Harvard University sued her for accepting her position under false pretenses

    • kimbi

      Turns out the highly esteemed highly expensive Harvard is run by whack jobs.
      She actually fits right in.

    • Somanywhiners

      Harvard University has become an institution to be embarrassed about, it is no longer a proud establishment unless you are on the far left.

  • Ron S.

    Lizzy minnie me Clinton… can’t wait til the cowboys start exposing Pokeherinthehiney and all her corruptness… watch her eyes light up then!!! Maybe she will ask jerker Joe Biden to run with her and that’s when we will see the sexual abusers come forward on him…. but wait til they get the nomination!!!

  • Roy Veteto

    as an independent voter ,who didn’t vote for trump or hillary i’ m waiting for a democratic candidate who seeks voters who are white heterosexual men instead of blaming society’s evils on those groups.

    • ADRoberts

      I have news for you You will never NEVER vote again.

    • Naval Lint

      That would NOT be this particular fraud. She hates anyone who’s NOT on the gov dole.

  • Jerry Hughes

    I have no interest in doing anything Bi- Partisan with the liberal dem bloodsuckers
    Quite simply, I have come to hate them over the last 50 years with a depth and intensity that has no bottom.
    I would cheerfully watch them starve to death in the streets

  • Sean Rickmin

    YUP.warren running for president,piglosi for V.P.and nobamba for national superintendent of garbage and sewers which he must inspect personally two times a month.Moochie can hold the flashlight.

  • Henry Gregg Nash

    I will not vote for her… Too strange!

  • Robert Thaler

    I knew in time that most men would be chicks. Women were never designed to lead.

  • Murphmeister

    Pow Wow Chow

  • AKLady

    Trump will be in Leavenworth before that election takes place.

    “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
    U.S. Constitution, Article Two. Section 4.

    • kimbi

      Lolololol
      You’re still a hoot lady.
      So we meet again.
      Don’t hold your breath. We’ll see you on 11/8/20.

      • Rhiannon122

        Right. “High crimes and misdemeanors” .They still have yet to find any evidence of collusion after a full year of bumping into each other and clowning around like the Keystone cops. It’s a dog and pony show. First they have to have to find a crime and then they have to find the evidence to fit the crime they think they want to prosecute. What a bunch of maroons!

        • AKLady

          Really …
          Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos have proven, even admitted contact with the Russians during the election. Trump’s campaign interacted with Russians at least 31 times throughout the campaign. Papadopoulos accepted a plea agreement in lieu of indictment. Manafort was indicted.
          ..
          Several crimes have been “found”. Several indictments have taken place. Each round comes closer to Trump himself. Given his tendency to brag, he will probably “indict” himself. We already know he worship Putin.

          • Rhiannon122

            So far NOTHING points to Trump! If you have anything “substantial” to prove, post it here. Otherwise, you’re just trolling. And just dreaming.

          • AKLady

            You have a lot to learn about your hero …

          • Rhiannon122

            So do you.

          • AKLady

            He is a pathological liar.
            He is a narcissist.
            There was significant contact between his campaign and Russia ..
            He continually violates the Constitution…

          • Rhiannon122

            Being a pathological liar and narcissist (which by the way is true of Hillary Clinton if anyone) as is the “significant contact” whatever that means, between his campaign and Russia, which has come out since as true between Clinton’s campaign and Russia and the Steele Dossier, and how does he “continually “violate the Constitution’? By executive orders? Then Obama was equally guilty. Being a “pathological liar and a narcissist” (which I do not concede) but even is he were, it does not meet the criteria for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Try again.

          • AKLady

            You are incorrect on all counts.
            Having a former British “spy” dig up dirt it legal.
            Taking Russian investors’ money is also legal.
            Which do you think is more a risk to US security?
            I suggest you take a course in Constitutional Law.
            Banning “Muslims” is unconstitutional …

          • Rhiannon122

            He did NOT ban Muslims. He banned people from countries that produced terrorists. NOT included were countries with HIGHER populations of Muslims like Indonesia, India, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Iraq, etc. If he was banning Muslims, he would have included these. You still have not listed his “high crimes and misdemeanors”. They have yet to prove anything of the kind. What “contacts” with the Russians did Trump’s campaign have that were any more illegal than Clinton’s were or more of a security risk? As for my knowledge of Constitutional Law, it is no worse than yours. YOU are “incorrect on all counts”. Investigation into Clinton’s taking of Russian investors’ money for the Clinton Foundation, much of which was questionably used for its “intended purpose, is underway. We hopefully will finally see.

          • AKLady

            You need to go back and review what took place. The sheer volume of lawsuits is unprecedented for a president. And despite his boasts on the campaign trail that he “never” settles lawsuits, he and his businesses have settled with plaintiffs in at least 100 cases.
            ..
            Start you research with United States v. Trump. NY, 1973.

          • Rhiannon122

            These “crimes” were committed when he was not president so are not impeachable. Hillary covered for her husband who was accused of rape in several cases and assault in numerous others. She covered for him and intimidated the women who came forward and then loudly proclaimed how “pro-woman” she was. Talk about a lying hypocrite. Have you read anything about Whitewater? Travelgate? That was the Trump campaign. That was not the travel ban he ended up enacting. The current ban calls for 8 countries to be banned. As I told you before, they are not the most Muslim-densely populated countries. You can’t make a case that he went through, in the end, with a total and complete shutdown of Muslims.

          • AKLady

            The man is liar, a cheat and a lawbreaker.
            The topic at hand is Trump, not Clinton.
            He did it, so I should be able to get away with it an excuse for children.
            ..
            I provided you with a quote and a source.
            Trump made his intent clear,.

          • Rhiannon122

            Hillary ALSO-RAN for office. Would you vote for her with HER record??? Her cheating, lying, stealing, misogynistic history?? It’s very convenient to now put that all aside. Trump said that as a candidate. As a President, he has NOT passed a ban on Muslims: he has made a travel ban protecting Americans from those traveling from terrorist-producing countries. It’s what he is doing now that counts. The article/press release you cited was from December 2015. He has NOT banned Muslims as a religious people from entering the U.S. He HAS called for better, more serious VETTING of refugees of which I am supportive.

            It is foolhardy to just let everyone waltz in from terrorist countries without serious vetting. It is suicidal. Look at Europe! I worked with legally admitted refugees from Muslim-dominated countries like Iran and Iraq and many who were sponsored by churches or even Muslim associations did well. Others not so much as they did not assimilate as well. I loved the work (non-profit) I did with refugees and immigrants and for the most part, loved them. They came from all parts of the world. But terrorism then was not the issue it is now. We can’t be naive about it. The refugees who are Muslim understand this for the most part. Only leftists don’t.

            The Trump travel ban, however way it was originally proposed, is not now a complete ban against Muslims. If you continue to fixate on that, you have Trump Derangement Syndrome and can’t see the forest for the trees. And if you are going to throw in about the campaign (the press release was from 12/2015), you can’t cry “foul” (which is childish as well, like holding one’s breath till one turns blue) when I mention Hillary because if memory serves me well, she was running a campaign as well.

          • AKLady

            Let me know when Hilary is charged, tried and found guilty in a court of law …

          • Rhiannon122

            Well, I just may. Congress is looking into the case now. She has slipped by so many times in the past. She and Huma Abedin are being investigated further regarding their misuse of government emails on their private servers. We’ll see.

          • AKLady

            Just more waste of your ta dollar.
            The investigation has been repeated before.
            Why do you insult the FBI this way?
            Why do you insult the Secret Service this way?
            Why do you insult the CIA this way?
            Why do you insult our allies investigative services this way
            ..
            “Misuse of government emails”?
            How were the emails misused?

          • Rhiannon122

            She sent government e-mails to her private server. She took them off government servers on non-government devices. Huma Abedin stored classified information on Weiner’s laptop. It is CLINTON and ABEDIN who abused the system. Where have you been???? What have you been smoking? You are totally clueless!!! This is beginning to come out now and will be proven. It was never investigated before. Comey said he was investigating it until Lynch told him after her meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix not to call the investigation an investigation but a “matter” because they didn’t want to hurt her campaign. It was later revealed that Strozk was the one who edited the talking points for Comey in his July 5. 2016 press conference in which he exonerated Clinton and it wasn’t gross negligence but he downgraded it so it sounded less serious. I forget the exact wording but I can look it up. Then at the end of October, Comey reopened the investigation, which Clinton blamed her loss of the campaign on.

            Clinton definitely misused classified e-mails. The reason you may not be aware of it is because AG Lynch and her DOJ covered it up as a “matter” so as not to hurt Hillary’s candidacy.

          • AKLady

            Are you going to sit there and tell me you don’t know where your emails are going? Really? The server identification is part of the e-mail address..

            You are so biased, you cannot see both sides of the issue. If Hilary is “guilty”. everyone who wrote her at that server address is also guilty.
            ..
            Full facts, not just the I hate Hilary.
            That is why She was not prosecuted,
            There was no intent, and there were hundreds, if not thousands who would have had to be prosecuted along with her.
            ..
            They walked the same thin line
            They committed the same actions.
            WHY ARE YOU NOT SCREAMING FOR THEIR HEADS.?

            STOP THE LET’S GET HILLARY GAME.
            YOU ARE EMBARRASSING AMERICA BEFORE THE WORLD

          • Rhiannon122

            Well, I just may. Congress is looking into the case now. She has slipped by so many times in the past. She and Huma Abedin are being investigated further regarding their misuse of government emails on their private servers. We’ll see.

          • AKLady

            The country with thw highest Muslim density is Indonesia.
            The Arab-British issue is not religion based.
            It is a matter of decades of subjugation.
            I presume you have never heard the phrase: “the sun never seta on the British Empire” ?

          • AKLady

            Hillary has never been charged, tried or found guilty.
            Trump, on thw other hand is a legally-documented racist.
            You can allege to you are blue in the face.
            It is simply accusation until a court of law says otherwise.

          • Rhiannon122

            When did a court of law say Trump was a “legally-documented racist”? Hillary IS a misogynist. She bragged about getting a man free from a rape charge of a 12 year old girl. She laughed about it. Nothing to allege there. It’s on the record.

          • AKLady

            United States v. Trump, NY, 1973. There are over 200 just like it.
            .
            Why do you repeat lies?

            The rape case was closed with a plea bargain.
            Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant’s lawyer, she was appointed by the Court.
            She did not/ has nor laughes about the case’s outcome.
            She did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty.
            ..
            You are correct, it is all “on the record” and your allegations are false.

          • Rhiannon122

            When did a court of law say Trump was a “legally-documented racist”? Hillary IS a misogynist. She bragged about getting a man free from a rape charge of a 12 year old girl. She laughed about it. Nothing to allege there. It’s on the record.

      • AKLady

        Get an education.
        Your ignorance is not the least bit funny.

    • kimbi

      Oh and by the way. By 2020 we will definitely have Voter ID law in place.
      That means no illegals voting. It also means no double and triple votes.
      Also means no Soros owned machines.
      So do yourself a favor and get used to President Trump.

      • AKLady

        We already have voter ID laws in place.
        .
        1. You must prove who you are to register to vote.
        2. You must register to vote.
        3. When you register, you are issued a state vote ID.
        4. When you register you are issued a state voter ID number.
        5. When you register you are assigned to a polling place.
        6. There are 18 corporate machine manufacturers.
        7. Soros does not “own” machines.

        I suggest you attempt to vote at a polling place you have not been assigned to.
        ..
        Your post strongly suggest that you have never registered to vote,
        let alone actually voted.
        I will never get used to a President that violates the Constitution at will, through pure ignorance of law and narcissism.

  • BIG STAN

    WARREN COULD NOT BE ELECTED DOG CATCHER IF SHE EVER RAN FOR THE POSITION. BUT THEN AGAIN ITS THE MORONIC VOTERS OF HER STATE THAT PUT HER INTO OFFICE,HOW DUMB CAN A STATE BE? I AM SURE THAT MOST OF THE REPUBLICANS THAT LIVE IN HER STATE ALONG WITH SOME INTELECTUAL DEM VOTERS ,JUST SHUDDER AT THE THOUGHT OF HER BEING ONE OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. GOD HELP THEM ALL!

    • Rhiannon122

      I think she WOULD win. There are enough crazy leftists out there. Enough crazy leftist feminists that we saw at the march on the day after the inauguration. I really do think they would come out in droves for Pocahontas because they hate President Trump so much. The more centrist or moderate Dems, maybe not. But BLM or antifa? I’m thinking maybe yes.

      • Naval Lint

        And how did that work for Killary?

      • kimbi

        They probably would vote for her. But there are still enough people that aren’t insane that won’t vote for her.
        I’ve seen lifelong Dems/liberals run as fast as they can away from that party.
        The things that are being learned are mind bending. Regular normal people won’t touch that side.
        I’m not worried.

        • Rhiannon122

          I hope not. She’s bats**t crazy. About as crazy as Pelosi but younger which is worse since she will be around longer. If Kamala Harris runs, Pocahantas won’t have a chance. Harris has much more charisma and more popularity than Warren. I think Harris would win the Democratic nomination. And I think she is giving serious consideration to running in 2020.

    • kimbi

      How dumb can a state be? Let’s ask those that voted for Maxine Shelia or ole Elijah. Lolololol

  • ADRoberts

    First requirement. A DNA test to prove she lies. That is the first requirement to be a Democrat. If she does not lie and get outed as a liar, she is not a REAL Democrat.

  • MIKE6080

    like to see her run against Nickey Halle

  • JR

    This would put me on the “War Path.”

    • Allan Recticuli

      That would be a good thing I think; One more to post the dislikes of the people;They are so far from reality; need to do a body check about every five minutes; just see if they are still with us.

  • jcrawdad

    Republicans to Elizabeth Warren: Please Run for President

    HE** YES!!! THE LIBERALS SHOULD LINE UP BEHIND HER 100 %
    WOULD BE A VERY GOOD CANDIDATE

  • ARJAY

    Run lizzy, RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • J. C. Smith

    I think she will be stronger than Hillary was, and that will require President Trump to be on his game. He was successful this time, in many respects. because he was a stronger candidate that Hillary, who was a terrible candidate who cheated her way to a nomination. The MSM will ignore her fraud and boost her, and she will not make many of the mistakes Hillary made.

  • Altitude

    Al Franken and Jill Stein would be a better choice. The Franken-Stein ticket would accurately represent the loony left.

  • Gregg Parker

    She sets up the biggest money laundering unaccountable agency America has ever seen and says she fights for the little guy… classic…bring on 2020!!

  • Louie Rey

    I agree wholeheartedly. Now I hope that she can find her way off the reservation.

  • rocky63

    She’s a screaming fool. She can’t even speak without yelling, closing her fist and waving her fist in the air. She’s always on the attack and is incapable of an intelligent, sensible conversation without screaming.

  • Richard Alex

    The last person I would even consider voting for, she’s a liar, traitor to her party and everything BAD. NEVER A VOTE FROM ME.

  • JB

    I really hope she gets the Democratic nomination because she will never stand a chance against Pres. Donald Trump! This woman is a menace to the government his embarrassment to the Massachusetts State Senate that’s why I feel she is perfect for the presidential nomination for the Democrats. No one likes her she was so left I think she has mental health issues she’s lied on applications to Harvard about her heritage!

    I would love this woman to run against Donald Trump it would be a no-win situation! If they were crying for Hillary they’ll be bawling her eyes out and shipped near pants for this one! And lastly if you can’t tell I can stand this woman I can’t I’m from Massachusetts and I feel disgraced by her evening saying she is from the state!

    The only two other hated Democratic women are Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters plus you add in Elizabeth Warren and the three have a mental health concoction that no one can figure out! They are all nuts and they are detrimental to this country they are only going for their own prosperity and they don’t care about anybody else including the government and the United States. We need to get them out of office put them in mental health institutions for the rest of their lives and never hear from them again!

  • Alphonso Tate

    More donkey slop.