Senate Races 2014
Quote: rxwineDon't know who said it, but politicians should have to wear NASCAR style jackets with their sponsorships on it. Ought to be a constitutional amendment for it.
Sign on Ron Pauls' desk
Some of these numbers are amazing. Mary Landrieu captured just 18 percent of the white vote?! That was the biggest break for sure, but that is approaching the numbers blacks block vote for Democrats in elections.
Just think on this. The Democrat Party wrote off heterosexual white males years ago, they get a few mostly from unions, but otherwise they do not want this group supporting them, based on their words and actions. Democrats do draw single white women. 18% could mean they got little outside of SW and union members (yes, I know few unions in LA) among whites.
One must ask, was this a one-time thing or a sign of the future? Will whites start block-voting? What will this mean? Historically, Democrats have always had to build a "coalition" among several groups which then must be balanced. Union members and environmentalists are really not allies, but they go to the same tent. Kind of a "I'll fight for you if you fight for me" plan. The GOP, OTOH, has always been about fewer issues and more natural allies. However, this means the GOP base is harder to fire up when needed though it does not stay home much.
So it typically ends up that if the Democrats fire up and keep everyone on the reservation they win, if not the GOP wins.
But if whites vote more "like minorities" then this changes. Democrats have clearly been counting on whites declining as a part of the population, but if their vote is more locked against said Democrats, they start to have problems. Real problems.
Quote:about 37 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot in the midterm elections. If that projection holds, it would be the lowest turnout since 1942.
If that is true, that doesn't mean voters embraced Republicans, they just didn't love Democrats enough to come out and vote.
Whole different story, and no worries.
See, that means Republicans aren't winning on policy.
That might be too good to be true, but it's fun to consider. So, wait and see what the final tallies come to.
an anti incumbent election. How many
sitting R congressmen lost their seat
in the house. TWO! That all, a lousy
two seats. This was an anti Obama
election, plain and clear..
work were also too lazy to vote!
Quote: rxwineAlso, if the voter turnout was really that low, and the percentage of whites increased, maybe that means all the Republican party has left is their hard core of old white people.
That might be too good to be true, but it's fun to consider. So, wait and see what the final tallies come to.
While I realize for some reason you seem to hate white people, what you are missing is that Democrats lost this demo up and down he line. The Democrat strategy since the 1960s has been to have whites just split on issues then race-bait to take a lions share of the minority vote. Then to increase the share of minorities voting while keeping the same white split.
This week shows that them may be starting to turn off the white vote in a big enough way that unless they take 90%+ of all other votes they are in trouble. They will keep getting that from blacks and any GOP candidate that tries to court the black vote is wasting their time. But I do not see hispanics or asians block-voting that strong.
Scott is also the first black senator to be elected in both the House and the Senate.
There was no NAACP statement on Scott’s historic victory.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/06/scott-on-f-grade-from-naacp-its-because-i-believe-that-progress-has-to-be-made/
Maybe they need to add an extra "C" for Certain...I realize they don't agree with his positions so his NAACP grade will below but his election is historic and he is black.
Quote: RonC
There was no NAACP statement on Scott’s historic victory.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/06/scott-on-f-grade-from-naacp-its-because-i-believe-that-progress-has-to-be-made/
Maybe they need to add an extra "C" for Certain...I realize they don't agree with his positions so his NAACP grade will below but his election is historic and he is black.
This is why I always say any GOP or other non-liberal candidate or pol is better to decline any invitation to speak at an NAACP convention. Only bad can come from it, ask Ross Perot. Bush should have never went after ignoring them for six or whatever years. Just say, "well, do you see many Democrats addressing the NRA of pro-life groups?" Add that the NAACP is just another special-interest group.
Fireworks would ensue, but to cop their status down to reality would be a win long-term.
Quote: Dalex64As the white majority shifts into a plurality, coalition building will need to become more important to the Republicans.
+1
----
Republicans are falling into the same trap Democrats did in 2008. They think they are invincible for some reason right now. They're not.
It's the 6th year of a Presidency. Always a terrible year for the President's party.
Voter turnout was abysmal. Of course that means Republicans are going to do well!
2016 will be better - more people will be interested & turnout will be higher, the Republicans will be running around like chickens with their heads cut off without a viable Presidential candidate, and the senate map GREATLY favors Democrats in 2016.
Quote: ams288+1
----
Republicans are falling into the same trap Democrats did in 2008. They think they are invincible for some reason right now. They're not.
It's the 6th year of a Presidency. Always a terrible year for the President's party.
Voter turnout was abysmal. Of course that means Republicans are going to do well!
2016 will be better - more people will be interested & turnout will be higher, the Republicans will be running around like chickens with their heads cut off without a viable Presidential candidate, and the senate map GREATLY favors Democrats in 2016.
Too soon to say what they think, just some celebration right now about ending the tyranny of the left-wing senate. We will see how they govern.
2016 will as always matter on the POTUS race. Obama will by then probably have zero charisma to lend to the Democrat candidate and recent history shows POTUS party control shifts every 8 years and any dem win will be razor-thin. Obama was the only Dem to really win strong since the 1950s. Let Dems keep thinking this is in the bag, it isn't. Let them keep thinking the white vote doesn't matter, it does.
The GOP won deep at every level this week.
Quote: AZDuffman2016 will as always matter on the POTUS race. Obama will by then probably have zero charisma to lend to the Democrat candidate and recent history shows POTUS party control shifts every 8 years and any dem win will be razor-thin. Obama was the only Dem to really win strong since the 1950s. Let Dems keep thinking this is in the bag, it isn't. Let them keep thinking the white vote doesn't matter, it does.
I suspect Obama will treat the 2016 campaign much like Bush did the 2008 one. He'll stay out of it and just run out the clock on his Presidency. But I doubt Obama will go get drunk at the Olympics.
I can see a Dem winning big again in 2016. I don't think it'll be razor thin. It's way too early to debate this though.
Quote: RonCThe first African-American senator to be elected from the South since reconstruction made dual history Tuesday as Tim Scott (R-S.C.) won the seat to which he was appointed after Jim DeMint’s retirement.
Scott is also the first black senator to be elected in both the House and the Senate.
There was no NAACP statement on Scott’s historic victory.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/06/scott-on-f-grade-from-naacp-its-because-i-believe-that-progress-has-to-be-made/
Maybe they need to add an extra "C" for Certain...I realize they don't agree with his positions so his NAACP grade will below but his election is historic and he is black.
I have to agree with you. I think its a real shame that the NAACP ignores this.
But then I dont hold the NAACP in high regard.
I mean cmon, giving an award to Donald Sterling simply because its about the money.
This just shows NAACP is not living up to its name, ADVANCEMENT. Tim Scott is an excellent example of advancement.
I totally agree with the right in this instance, the NAACP deserves plenty of criticism.
Quote: ams288
I can see a Dem winning big again in 2016. I don't think it'll be razor thin. It's way too early to debate this though.
Think what you prefer. Before you lay a bet, though, count everything Obama had to have going for him to get a big win in 2008. It started with a Dem takeover of Congress in 2006. It only got worse for the GOP. Right now we have a deteriorating international situation and a an economy due for recession.
The Dem hope is Hillary Clinton. They have little else going. But yes, time will tell.
Quote: ams288But I doubt Obama will go get drunk at the Olympics.
Where do you think he'll go to get drunk to? ;)
Quote:I can see a Dem winning big again in 2016. I don't think it'll be razor thin. It's way too early to debate this though.
In political time we're about five geological ages away from 2016...
Then there are the relativistic effects of political time, too. for example, for the GOP 2010 has finally come to pass. That's why they seem to be so happy. Alas, 2012 will catch up to them before 2016.
I'm sorry, it's the law :P
Quote: AZDuffmanToo soon to say what they think, just some celebration right now about ending the tyranny of the left-wing senate. We will see how they govern.
2016 will as always matter on the POTUS race. Obama will by then probably have zero charisma to lend to the Democrat candidate and recent history shows POTUS party control shifts every 8 years and any dem win will be razor-thin. Obama was the only Dem to really win strong since the 1950s. Let Dems keep thinking this is in the bag, it isn't. Let them keep thinking the white vote doesn't matter, it does.
The GOP won deep at every level this week.
What recent history says it switches every 8 years. Bush Sr won after Reagan that is hardly an ancient era. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/the-white-house-is-not-a-metronome/?_r=0
Quote: AZDuffmanThink what you prefer. Before you lay a bet, though, count everything Obama had to have going for him to get a big win in 2008. It started with a Dem takeover of Congress in 2006. It only got worse for the GOP. Right now we have a deteriorating international situation and a an economy due for recession.
I thought we were just getting out of one...
Quote:The Dem hope is Hillary Clinton. They have little else going. But yes, time will tell.
I am just waiting to see who the REP hope is. I -hope- they run a small government candidate.
Quote: TwirdmanWhat recent history says it switches every 8 years. Bush Sr won after Reagan that is hardly an ancient era. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/the-white-house-is-not-a-metronome/?_r=0
That was an exception.
1960: JFK elected after 8 years of GOP rule
1968: Nixon wins after 8 years of Dem rule
1976: Carter wins after 8 years of GOP rule
1980: exception, Reagan wins after 4 years of Carter
1988: exception: Bush41 keep the GOP in after 8 years
2000: Bush43 wins after 8 years of dem rule
2008: Obama wins after 8 years of GOP rule
So to answer your question, this is the recent history I am talking about.
Quote: AZDuffman
The Dem hope is Hillary Clinton. They have little else going. But yes, time will tell.
personally, I wish Hillary would decide NOT to run. That's unlikely barring some kind of health issue. I voted for her in the 2008 primary vs Obama, but I think THAT was her time. Her time has past. I would like to see someone new and some new ideas. And I feel EXACTLY the same about the likes of a Mitt Romney or Rick Perry.
No matter who the candidates, I just don't see how you can say the Dems have little else going. Next Up is a presidential election and the dems have two advantages in presidential elections which really have little to do with policy. 1.) A larger electorate, usually in the 60% range votes in Presidential elections. This means all the Latino's and young people, particular college people that sat out this election will vote. That is a big advantage democrats. 2.) Electoral college. The way we do Presidential elections with the electoral college currently favors democrats. If you look at the last 6 presidential elections there are 18 states (+DC) that voted democratic in all 6 elections, including 2 republican wins. Those 18 states & DC account for 242 electoral votes. That is basically the democrats starting point 242 electoral votes. They need only 29 electoral votes from the dozen or so called toss up states that are in play each cycle. The republican starting point is much less. Less that 200. They need to take the majority of so called tossup states to score narrow electoral college victories, as George W Bush did twice. At this point in time, they have almost zero chance of scoring an electoral college victory in the 330 Plus range as Reagan did (and Obama twice) Those days are gone for the repubs with the current make up of states and electoral college.
This isn't wishful thinking on my part, it is just the way it currently is. The democrats have a big advantage in presidential years. Just the same as the republicans currently have a big advantage in non presidential years as well as the house districts. With so many democrats living in the big cities the districts that represent those big city areas are overwhelmingly democrat, but many more districts outside the cities are republican by a smaller margin. The result is the dems are likely to win a smaller number of seats by wider margins, while the repubs are likely to win more seats by smaller margins. This is a built in advantage before re-districting. The fact that repubs were in control at the time and their reward was drawing districts to their liking only magnified the advantage.
So each side has there advantages. The dems in presidential elections with the electorate itself and electoral college. The repubs in off presidential years and with the house of representative districting. The repubs just benefited from there favorable period and election. The dems are up next in a presidential year. I am not claiming it is impossible for one party to win during the cycle or election that favors the other side. Obviously G W Bush won two presidential elections (controversy aside). And just as well, the dems won an off presidential year 2006. So it ca be done, but we should recognize that CURRENTLY there are advantageous elections and circumstances for each party.
Quote: KeyserMaybe the left lost because the people too lazy to
work were also too lazy to vote!
No, no, Obama says he's going to serve the
2/3 of the voters that DID NOT vote. He
says those are his supporters. He said it
twice, can he really be that narcissistic and
naive?
Quote: EvenBobNo, no, Obama says he's going to serve the
2/3 of the voters that DID NOT vote. He
says those are his supporters. He said it
twice, can he really be that narcissistic and
naive?
Some people are so far behind they think they are ahead. I believe he honestly thinks he an keep going as he has the past 6 years. Reality should smack him sooner or later, though he is a slow learner. Anyone else notice Putin acts up as soon as the Senate flips?
Quote: AZDuffman
2000: Bush43 wins after 8 years of dem rule
That was because of the huge popularity
of Reagan. In the last 60 years people
are generally so sick of the party that's
in office they will elect the other party
every time. And if you think people are
sick of Obama now, just wait. All the
things he delayed on Obamacare till
after the election will come home now,
with a vengeance.
Quote: AZDuffmanSome people are so far behind they think they are ahead.
It's coming clear now that the country,
even most of the Dem's, believe the
election was all about Omama. Yet
the WH fervently believes it was not
not about Obama, it was the fault of
poor Dem candidates. So Obama feels
no need to work with the new congress,
it will be business as usual. He has a
rude awakening coming. No Harry Reid
to hide all the legislation in his desk.
The senator in AK who was elected in
08 says every bill he was part of introducing
in the last 6 never even got voted on,
let alone passed.
Quote: AZDuffmanThat was an exception.
1960: JFK elected after 8 years of GOP rule
1968: Nixon wins after 8 years of Dem rule
1976: Carter wins after 8 years of GOP rule
1980: exception, Reagan wins after 4 years of Carter
1988: exception: Bush41 keep the GOP in after 8 years
2000: Bush43 wins after 8 years of dem rule
2008: Obama wins after 8 years of GOP rule
So to answer your question, this is the recent history I am talking about.
So 2 exceptions out of 7 hardly the rousing thing you are making it out to be. Especially given how close some of those elections were like the Bush 43 v Gore election. Again statistics points outs that 8 year incumbency has no significant effect on which party will win. Even if you don't look at margin 4/11 of the cases ended up having the incumbent party winning.
If such a divided government means only a few things where there is some common ground get done....so be it. That's the way our government is set up. And there are many people who believe it works best when we do have divided government.
Quote: kewljI am confused by the thinking in some of these posts. I am sure you guys would like Obama to roll over and let the Republicans run the show and enact their agenda. But that isn't the way it works friends. Despite the outcome of this last election the President still has 2 years to serve. 2 years that he was elected by an overwhelming majority, to fight for and try to accomplish things that he was elected to do and that he ran on. He not only has every right to still fight for his agenda he has a responsibility too.
If such a divided government means only a few things where there is some common ground get done....so be it. That's the way our government is set up. And there are many people who believe it works best when we do have divided government.
I don't expect him to roll over and let someone else run the show; I would expect a reasonable man to think about what happened, understand it, and figure out how to pursue his agenda under these new circumstances.
Right now, he does not seem like a reasonable man.
Quote: kewljI am sure you guys would like Obama to roll over and let the Republicans run the show .
Hell no. The more he acts like an asshat, the
sicker the voters will be of the whole Dem
party in 2016. An he will be giant PITA, he
really can't help it.
Quote: TwirdmanAgain statistics points outs that 8 year incumbency has no significant effect on which party will win. .
You can really say that after looking at the
stats for the last 60 years? Amazing, some
people can see anything they want, I guess.
Quote: EvenBobYou can really say that after looking at the
stats for the last 60 years? Amazing, some
people can see anything they want, I guess.
The stats for the last 60 years are meaningless if the electorate doesn't change.
Its changed big time and still changing.
Hispanic vote is growing every year and its changing things in Presidential election years.
40 years ago the small Hispanic vote was heavily republican due to Cuba.
Now the big Hispanic block is heavily democratic due to immigration.
That's change.
Quote: EvenBobYou can really say that after looking at the
stats for the last 60 years? Amazing, some
people can see anything they want, I guess.
60 years?!?! Good grief, Bob. There are lessons to be learned from past history, but come on, it's a different time and circumstances now. I mean 60 years ago, Texas was a reliable blue state and California a reliable Red state!
And in that vein of thought, I prefer to examine recent history, which is what I have been doing by looking at the last 6 presidential elections, which are more reflective of todays circumstances as far as which way states have been trending, along with population shifts, including breakdown by minority status. Going back only as far as 1990's sort of represents this current era as far as 24/7 cable news cycle and internet, ect. Going back any further than that is not really relevant to today's current climate.
Quote: kewlj60 years?!?.
It's a fact that after 8 years the party
in power was replaced, except
Reagan was so popular he got Bush
elected. Obama is the polar opposite
of Reagan, he won't get anybody
elected.
You can't go back farther than 60 years
because term limits didn't take effect
until the 48 election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
Quote: BuzzardAm I the only one who thinks the Republicans will find a way to screw this up, and run another empty suit for President in 2016 ?
Nope.
It's there's too lose. It was in 2012 as well. Weak economy and a president weak on the fiscal side, and the Republicans didn't shift the dial.
Quote: KeyserRomney wasn't empty. Like Reagan, he would have been a great president.
Not empty at all, came oh so close. In the end he was just that salesman who could not quite close the deal. Instead of allowing himself to keep drawing himself into attacks he might have done better if he was asking some basic closing questions. And it he had a theme. What happened was he became the guy at the job interview who had all the qualifications, the best ones, but the manager doing the hiring just kind of didn't feel they would click.
Now we are paying the price for taking the guy who showed up and got hired because he wore a nicer suit.
Quote: BuzzardAm I the only one who thinks the Republicans will find a way to screw this up, and run another empty suit for President in 2016 ?
It worked for the Democrats in 2008 and 2012!
Quote: BuzzardA black Republican senator and the NAACP is not happy. Well, some people will complain when lynched with a new rope !
I didn't expect them to leap for joy at his historic election but I would have expected acknowledgement of an event this significant. Conservatives of color don't matter because they aren't liberals but the conservatives are racists... They need to look at themselves before tossing "race" around all the time; of course, they won't...
Quote: AZDuffmanNot empty at all, came oh so close.
How did he come oh so close. He massively lost the electoral college and lost by almost 4 points in the total votes.
Outstanding! hey heyQuote: soxfanLeftist are incable of intelligent discourse, they only babble incoherently about tolerance, diveristy, so-called equality and other nonsense and stupidity. They have the mentality of pentulant two year olds; they are infantile, and beyond that they are batshit insane and unteachably evil, hey hey!
1. If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally, you live in a country run by idiots.
2. If you have to get your parents' permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion, you live in a country run by idiots.
3. If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote on who runs the government, you live in a country run by idiots.
4. If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy leaders in Egypt, you live in a country run by idiots.
5. If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat, you live in a country run by idiots.
6. If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched, you live in a country run by idiots.
7. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more, you live in a country run by idiots.
8. If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of grade school for saying his teacher's "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable, you live in a country run by idiots.
9. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones, you live in a country run by idiots.
10. If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working, with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can't find work, you live in a country run by idiots.
11. If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government, you live in a country run by idiots.
If you are offended by this article, you probably voted for the idiots who are running our country into the ground.
Quote: BuzzardAm I the only one who thinks the Republicans will find a way to screw this up, and run another empty suit for President in 2016 ?
Who do the Republicans have to run that (a) won't run afoul of the Tea Party in the primaries, and (b) has enough name recognition in the purple states - especially against Hillary?
With the almost inevitable snapback in the Senate in 2016, I think the only chance the Republicans have for the White House is if (a) they can get somebody "mainstream" nominated, and (b) the Democrats find a way to screw it up by nominating, say, Elizabeth Warren (although I wouldn't be surprised to see a Clinton-Warren ticket, to get the progressives on board - they can claim they are grooming her for 2024; the only problem with that is, would a two-woman ticket turn people off?). Apparently, every Democrat even close to "moderate" got voted out, which will probably be interpreted as a sign that Hillary is somehow unelectable.
And still, in the back of my mind, I can't help but think that somebody is at least considering a Hillary-Bill ticket, if they think they have five votes on the Supreme Court to determine that, while the 22th Amendment prohibits someone from being elected President, it does not (a) prevent someone from becoming President through other means, and (b) prevent someone who has served two full terms from later becoming President and serving two years or more. Then again, even if this was already established as the law, it wouldn't happen, mainly because too many people would consider Bill to be the "real" President, and Hillary has already thrown at least one fit when someone asked her (in a mistranslation - the translator changed "President Obama" to "President Clinton") how he felt about something.
I think that Hillary-Bill idea has been sufficiently looked into. In order to be qualified to be vice president, you must be eligible to serve as president. Under current law, Bill Clinton is not.
Quote: kewljJust so you know....Elizabeth Warren is no youngster. .
Isn't she the one that tried to pass herself
off as an American Indian? That will be
harped on again and again if she ever ran.
What a twit.
Quote: EvenBobIsn't she the one that tried to pass herself
off as an American Indian? That will be
harped on again and again if she ever ran.
What a twit.]
I think she claimed to have an Indian ancestor somewhere 6 or seven generations back. If it were 6 generations back then she would be 1/64th Indian. If it is true then even though she is only 1/64th she still has Indian heritage. With a lot of people their ancestors are important to them whether they are politically on the left or right. I don't think bashing her over her sliver of Indian heritage will do the Republicans any good.
I would not want to be on his radar.
Quote: mickeycrimmI think she claimed to have an Indian ancestor somewhere 6 or seven generations back. If it were 6 generations back then she would be 1/64th Indian.
All BS. If she runs they will have a field day
with all crap she pulled.
"Detailed genealogical investigation by a group of Cherokee genealogists[31] showed that Warren had no Cherokee or other Native American ancestry. The findings are set forth at the blog Thoughts From Polly’s Grandaughter[32] which based the research on over one hundred primary sources,[33] and detailed the findings:
The team and I have done an exhaustive search on the genealogy of Elizabeth Warren. We have researched ALL of her ancestral lines, but have only posted those she claimed were Indian here in the blog. None of her direct line ancestors are ever shown to be anything other than white, dating back to long before the Trail of Tears."
http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/
Quote: EvenBobAll BS. If she runs they will have a field day
with all crap she pulled.
"Detailed genealogical investigation by a group of Cherokee genealogists[31] showed that Warren had no Cherokee or other Native American ancestry. The findings are set forth at the blog Thoughts From Polly’s Grandaughter[32] which based the research on over one hundred primary sources,[33] and detailed the findings:
The team and I have done an exhaustive search on the genealogy of Elizabeth Warren. We have researched ALL of her ancestral lines, but have only posted those she claimed were Indian here in the blog. None of her direct line ancestors are ever shown to be anything other than white, dating back to long before the Trail of Tears."
http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/
I hadn't seen any of this before. She claimed that is was oral history in her family that she had native American ancestors. The problem with oral history is it can get convoluted from generation to generation. I have an Aunt who has always claimed that we have Indian blood. I delved into genealogy about five years ago and have found no Indian blood. My DNA tests show no Indian blood. But my Aunt still claims we have Indian blood and don't try to tell her otherwise. A lot of white people claim to have Indian blood and they are just like my Aunt. Don't try to tell them otherwise.
Quote: mickeycrimmQuote: EvenBobAll BS. If she runs they will have a field day
with all crap she pulled.
"Detailed genealogical investigation by a group of Cherokee genealogists[31] showed that Warren had no Cherokee or other Native American ancestry. The findings are set forth at the blog Thoughts From Polly’s Grandaughter[32] which based the research on over one hundred primary sources,[33] and detailed the findings:
The team and I have done an exhaustive search on the genealogy of Elizabeth Warren. We have researched ALL of her ancestral lines, but have only posted those she claimed were Indian here in the blog. None of her direct line ancestors are ever shown to be anything other than white, dating back to long before the Trail of Tears."
http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/
I hadn't seen any of this before. She claimed that is was oral history in her family that she had native American ancestors. The problem with oral history is it can get convoluted from generation to generation. I have an Aunt who has always claimed that we have Indian blood. I delved into genealogy about five years ago and have found no Indian blood. My DNA tests show no Indian blood. But my Aunt still claims we have Indian blood and don't try to tell her otherwise. A lot of white people claim to have Indian blood and they are just like my Aunt. Don't try to tell them otherwise.
If Elizabeth Warren still claims to have Indian blood then I would suggest an Autosomal DNA test through Familytreedna and/or Ancestry.com. She should probably take both tests.
