Picture 2016: Elizabeth Warren vs.

[WonderGrunion]

Elizabeth Warren vs Jon Huntsman. Why can't either party nominate the reasonable candidate instead of legacies like Clinton and Bush that so many people are tired of?

[brooklynite]

1. You do know that it's PEOPLE who make these choices, right?

Would you prefer to return to the good old days where Party bosses made the choice?

BTW - what makes an economic libertarian "reasonable"?

[MannyGoldstein]

2. And the people have spoken:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6421336

[wyldwolf]

14. So Republican opinions matter to you?

They're voices were also included in that poll. The 26% number you're crowing about is made possible by GOP opinions.

The Democratic number are much higher.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Are you thinking that Republicans don't vote

in Presidential elections!

Sorry, I dididn't get the message.

[wyldwolf]

18. So you're suggesting Republicans will vote for the Democratic candidate in 2016?

More so than any usual crossever? LOL. Sorry, NO ONE ELSE got THAT message.

[Android3.14]

3. I'm impressed by your naivete

Different propaganda machines manipulate mass perception to force people to accept the pool of compromised politicians every election cycle.

The dynamic of Us vs. Them blinds the participants to the fact that the real problem is not Them or Us, but the persistent distraction of a wasteful conflict.

We are the fiddle that Nero is playing.

[Scuba]

4. Bwahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! That's really funny!

[Autumn]

6. The PEOPLE??

to answer your question "what makes an economic libertarian "reasonable"? How about the fact that's he's not totally fucking stupid and bat shit fucking crazy like the rest of the republican party. Stand him next to mitty and cruz and he comes off like a Churchill consorting with chihuahuas.

[Doctor_J]

10. Surely you must be joking

You do know that it's PEOPLE who make these choices, right?

Unless you mean people like Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon.

[brooklynite]

29. So, remind me, who did "they" pick for President in 2008?

Was Obama the establishment choice and Clinton was the outside rebel?

Who knew?

[cali]

13. baloney. If you don't have the big bucks you can't play

people PARTIALLY make these choices.

Ack.

[Chathamization]

19. Only because a lot of people choose to vote based on TV ads or the like. But it's still their choice

I don't buy into the narrative that people are completely helpless and have no choice but to do whatever the ad on TV tells them. And if that's true, we have a _much_ bigger problem than money in politics.

[cali]

20. Decades of studies refute your claim about "choice"

It's patently true.

[Chathamization]

22. Eh, people not voting for their interests doesn't mean they don't have a choice. It means they

choose apathy most of the time. Really, explain to me how we don't have a choice. I research the candidates, find someone who's positions I agree with and who seems to have solid credentials, go into the voting booth to choose and...? My hand is magically forced to move towards the candidate who raised the most money, no matter what I do?

People have plenty of choice. Most people choose "I don't care enough, whoever," but that's still their choice. Feel free to share these "decades of studies" if you wish. I've seen some that show how politicians often don't do what their constituents want, but since they keep being voted in that doesn't say a whole lot. It's like not firing an employee who embezzles from you for years, and then saying you don't have any choice in the matter because they're doing something you don't want them to do. Well, yes. Most things in life don't happen just by wishing really hard, you have to actually do something.

"I've decided not to do anything to change things, yet this keeps happening" doesn't really mean you have no choice; it just means you've chosen to do nothing.

[tkmorris]

28. Sure but here's the thing

IT WILL ALWAYS BE THUS As long as virtually everyone is permitted to vote controlling the media will ALWAYS skew the vote badly enough to make it impossible for those without access to compete.

You can talk all you want about how people have it in their power to NOT be influenced in this way, but being human beings with all of the faults inherent to that species it's never going to happen. The answer is to reduce those influences as much as possible so that people can make their choices from a more level playing field.

[Chathamization]

30. True, but I think there's a pretty big difference between "it's not our choice" and "we usually make

bad choices." The latter is the beginning of a conversation that has the goal of fixing the situation; the former just perpetuates the learned helplessness that's the root of the problem. There are plenty of other areas where people usually make bad decisions - exercise, diet, anger control, use of free time, etc. But telling people that these things are largely out of their control isn't the solution, it only encourages inaction.

[morningfog]

27. Hilarious dahling! If only we could bypass the people, the party bosses would be running Hillary

commercials for the general election right now. Difference without a distinction.

[sabrina 1]

36. Really? I guess that's why voters' input to who should run for the WH, unless they have bags

of money, are dismissed?

And if it even looks like the People's choices are gaining traction, we see the same old smear campaigns, see Dean, Kucinich, and now the beginnings of the same against Warren eg, begin.

So WHO decided that we have 'only viable candidate' for 2016?

Certainly not the voters.

'Viable' = 'a candidate Wall St is willing to fund'.

Would Wall St fund Elizabeth Warren or someone as outspoken about the corruption on Wall St?

Please, we are not naive. I know those in power believe deeply, (I'm met some of them) that the people really don't know what is good for them and need Patriarchal figures who 'understand' these things, such as economics, to make decisions for them.

[RiverLover]

5. R&K!

[WonderGrunion]

37. Thank you for both.

No message

[RedCappedBandit]

7. $>people

[Doctor_J]

11. More like

$>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people

or maybe

$$$$$>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people

[99Forever]

8. Excellent question.

I'm thinking the words "bought and paid for" might hold some relevance.

[JaneyVee]

9. Hillary has double digit leads over GOP and...

Has a 43%-16% lead over Warren in Massachusetts.

[wyldwolf]

15. the people applauding the CBS polls suddenly have an appreciation for Republican opinions.

[L0oniX]

24. Whoever sucks on Wall Street bankster teat the most will win.

[wyldwolf]

12. Two people who aren't running.

Perhaps you could organize one of those "draft" movements on convention floors that have always worked so well in the past.

[WonderGrunion]

31. I just find myself in the same place as 2008 wanting someone other than Hillary

Back then I went with Richardson before moving to Obama

[wyldwolf]

34. I find myself in the same place I'm always at.

Wanting the person better equipped to take on and defeat the GOP.

[uponit7771]

16. Because life is rarely the best of two great choices!?!? NO really, where in the world did anyone ..

... get the notion that choices ever should be this clear as adults?

[olddots]

21. people need celebrities

kings and queens but always bad guys to make us feel better with ourselves .

[L0oniX]

25. ...and idols.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I don't get the Huntsman love.../NT

[WonderGrunion]

32. In 2012

He was the least bat-shit insane candidate on the other side. seemed like the best option for a Repuke 'sensible' candidate.

[Thinkingabout]

26. I am waiting for the people to speak, why should we nominate Warren without a primary,

why should she be the anointed one?

[WonderGrunion]

33. We shouldn't

I just don't want to buy into the 'Hillary is inevitable' meme.

[Thinkingabout]

35. Likewise I do not buy into the Warren as the inevitable one either.