Hillary Clinton’s Top Corporate Donors Are Among The Most Hated Companies in America

[JDPriestly]

213. If you live in a red state, you are partly responsible for changing that red state blue.

It is not I who will claim that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats on economic issues so voters should decide how to vote based on their social prejudices and ignorance.

I know about this from experience. In 2008, I campaigned conservative John Boehner's district. I walked door to door. The area I was in was very Catholic and conservative on social issues, but working class and slightly more liberal on economic issues. I will never forget the elderly woman who explained that she was "undecided" because she was trying to choose between her Social Security and "the babies."

That is the basis on which many voters make their decisions. They are liberal on economic issues but conservative on social issues. They are the voters we can win to the Democratic Party if we elect a candidate who can be trusted to protect Social Security and very strongly defend the middle class on economic issues -- strongly enough that the economic issues outweigh the interest in issues like the "babies." Babies are important to all of us. But if we make the babies part of the economic issues on which we are strong and have a track record, we can win those who vote for the "babies." As we should because even abortion is to a greater extent than most realize, when a matter of choice, an economic choice. Not always. Sometimes it is a health choice or a choice based on some other factor. But for the mother of 5 who needs to get out and work but finds herself pregnant once again upon which her husband walks out, it is at least in part an economic choice.

You ASSUME that Hillary would win if she ran. I think that is incorrect. She polls well and has lots of money. But Republicans absolutely hate her. (I do not hate her. I just think we would be making a huge mistake if we nominate her.) If you live in a red state, you know that very well.

This is the year for a Democratic woman. I want Elizabeth Warren to run. She does not have the name recognition or money that Hillary has. But she has very strong positives in areas in which Hillary has damaging negatives. Elizabeth Warren owes next to nothing to Wall Street.
Elizabeth Warren just naturally explains very difficult economic concepts to ordinary people without a team of experts telling her what to say. (Either that's why she was picked to teach at Harvard Law School or she learned to explain the complex to the confused as a teacher there.) Elizabeth Warren has a warmer personality than Hillary Clinton and a better voice. She is therefore a much better speaker and crowd pleaser than Hillary. Elizabeth Warren does not have the baggage of NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, cuts to welfare, and numerous other Bill Clinton junk pulling her appeal down.

I know how loathed Hillary is by the right wing Christians because I have a sister who is one. My sister is generally kind, generous and helpful to a fault, has worked for non-profits and is far better than most Republicans, but one of the first things she sent me when we exchanged e-mails before an election a few years ago was a horrible attack e-mail against Hillary Clinton.

Hillary may be popular among Third-Way, conservative Democrats, but she is not liked by progressive Democrats and is despised by rank-and-file Republicans.

Right now, the polls suggest that Hillary would win, but I don't think that will hold. We need a candidate who will boldly and credibly demonstrate and promise to represent the middle class. I think we will lose if we elect Hillary Clinton. So, your argument that we need to win is very true, but I think that we need Elizabeth Warren to run to win. I think that in the end, Hillary cannot win.