The Republican takeover of the Senate hurts Elizabeth Warren's Presidential chances

[Cali_Democrat]

Now Dems in the Senate have virtually no voice until January 2017 at the earliest. All Senate committees will be lead by Republicans. Warren and her fellow Dems in the Senate are all powerless lame ducks until 2017.

Warren has nothing to work with.

None of her initiatives will even make it out of committee. It's a shame because her student loan proposal would have helped millions of Americans drowning in student debt.

She has so many good ideas and none will even see the light of day.

[blkmusclmachine]

1. Oh, f/ck.

[djean111]

2. She can publicize what she proposes. Most campaign blather never sees the light of day, either.

Rhetoric is not the same as actually trying to get a bill into/out of committee.
So she's good. IMO.

[randys1]

3. Yes the cons will try and drown not just students by all non rich Americans in endless debt

But I think the takeover of the Senate by certifiable insane batshit moron assholes like Garnder and Ernst is actually a good thing, short term, for Sanders and Warren.

Will give them an opportunity to REACT to the insane garbage these pukes are about to serve up.

They may get on Sunday morning shows now, finally, etc.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. She can keep going on TV.

And saying, 'I sponsored/wrote X, that would do Y for Z, but Republicans keep preventing it from getting to a vote.'

So I think she's still good too. We're the ones who won't reap the benefits of her ideas, at least until we flip both the House and Senate.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. News shows rarely allow Democrats on TV

They prefer Senators like McCain and Lindsey Graham.

You know this.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. If you're talking about shows like Meet the Chuck, I'd hardly call those 'news'.

Warren is photogenic, intelligent, and ratings gold. She'll find places to get the message out.

[Thinkingabout]

5. Perhaps the two-thirds of eligible voters will realize the need of their votes.

Those who refuse to vote for whatever reason creates problems like this, it also erodes our opportunity to take control of state houses by 2020 census in order to reverse the gerrymandering the GOP dumps on us. Elections has consequences, ones which we do like. We have one third of the population making choices for others.

[arcane1]

11. But, but, but they "sent a message" by not voting!1

[Thinkingabout]

14. But, but, but the GOP heard the messahe and declared they must be right

And continuing in their losing platform.

[arcane1]

18. Exactly. Sending messages to the losing candidate isn't exactly helpful

[mmonk]

6. LOL. If anything , after the next two years

her positions will have more power.

[Thinkingabout]

16. Oh, yea, with voting turnout like we had in 2014 the election will be won by Ted Cruz

[obliviously]

7. Well crap!

[global1]

8. If I Were Her I Would Declare Myself A 2016 Dem Presidential Candidate ASAP.....

and you know that she will get all sorts of media coverage - so she could put herself in a spot light over the next two years. In the Senate she could keep proposing and pushing for progressive legislation like the student loan bill and dare the Rethugs to shoot them down. Everytime they do she has the platform to show the American Public which Party has the American People's back and which one is just watching out for the top 1%, the banksters and the corporations.

For the next two years the Dems need to go on the offensive and continually put the Rethugs in a position to defend their undefendible stances.

[Cha]

12. Well that would be another reason besides the Environment and Supreme Court that those

"young people" we're hearing about who "didn't vote because they wasn't any reason to..".. Should have Thought it Fucking Through. Not thinking about Elizabeth Warren whom so many want for President as opposed to say.. Hillary.

But, we'll see what happens.. I ain't giving up yet.. or EVER!

Welcome back Cali!

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. I don't think Sen Warren has ever planned to run for President in 2016. Perhaps you disagree?

Maybe it's a bit naïve on my part but I took her at her word that she absolutely will not run for President in 2016 and she is urging Hillary Clinton to run. But, maybe you have inside knowledge to the contrary?

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Who knows, maybe her many long years as a Republican gives her some connections and methods

not instantly associated with her current public image. She was a Republican into her 40's, voting for Reagan and Bush and all of that stuff. So if nothing else she should know how to speak their language and perhaps even trip their wires. But hell, I know many of the same people I knew in 94 and expect to work with many of them again. Why should she be different?

[Lurks Often]

19. Reality check, she doesn't have any chance of becoming President anyway

She has repeatedly stated that she is not running. And while I am sure you disagree, in a general election she would be defeated, probably by a very wide margin.

Besides, historical trends suggest that the next several Presidents will probably be a governor and their vice-presidential choice.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Poe's law is in effect on this post. nt