Elizabeth Warren a lock for president confirmed.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Elizabeth Warren a lock for president confirmed.
speculawyer
Member
No. She's struggling to win as a Dem Senator in Massachusetts.
I know it is not totally fair but she does suffer in the "would like to have a beer with" factor. She comes off as an elitist scold.
unskewedPD.com
This I don't get. I'd totally have a beer with her.
Of course I prefer to have my beers over conversations of substance, but still!
talisayNon
Member
Elizabeth Warren is kind of hot. I would.
Had a statistics teacher just like her.
Had a statistics teacher just like her.
Now I think she might really have a good shot.
But…but…CNN told me…
Even TPM had a blaring headline for much of today about how polls are tightening. (Even though their own polling averages showed it not.)
Le sigh.
Every election cycle we go through this, but it's still infuriating each time.
The Librarian
Banned
Guys, this is progress. Notice that he's no longer saying "she can't even win an election in Massachusetts."
The Warren/Brown debate? It's on C-SPAN somewhere. But trust me, you don't want to watch it. It was awful. The only interesting thing that happened was Brown saying Scalia is his model SC Justice.
I have not seen cartoon solider or diablos chime in yet, guess the oh god Obama is going to lose narrative will come later tonight
I have not seen cartoon solider or diablos chime in yet, guess the oh god Obama is going to lose narrative will come later tonight
Well, Romney's chances in the 'now-cast' did improve from 2.0% to 2.2% today. If that trend continues every day until election day he'd have about a 10% chance of winning.
Doom.
I really hope Warren wins in MA, but she would never win the presidency. I know a liberal can dream, but as others have said, she's a New England democrat who is having to campaign extremely hard against a guy running a racist campaign. New England liberal types don't play well in general elections.
Probably not because...um, freedom of speech. And uh...districts are people, my friend.
Don't some states just use a computer model to evenly split the districts up? That should probably be required everywhere.
BuggyDClown
Member
PhoenixDark
Banned
You guys are being very diffusional. Warren is barely ahead in one of the most liberal states in the country. She is arguably the most hated political figure on Wall Street; they may not like Obama but at least they know he's on their side policy wise. She comes off as an elitist professor from the northeast. She struggles on the stump and doing the nitty gritty of campaigning, much like Romney and every other northeastern politician outside of the Kennedys. She's not a good politician, as tonight's debate showed.
Colorado is not a solid blue state, neither is Virginia. A solid republican candidate would certainly compete there, especially VA.
Your basic argument is that demographics mean democrats can win regardless of who they run. That is not true. Warren is seen as elitist even in MA
BuggyDClown
Member
How the fuck is a country supposed to be rgeat when so much of the elctorate gives a fuck about this.
Also since when is elitist bad. The person you are electing SHOULD be better than everyone else. That's why they are in charge. Fuck.
titiklabingapat
Member
Yeah, I want Warren to win the Senate seat, but thats it. She's gonna be a great Senator and she fits right in the Senate but the Presidency? No, just no.
speculawyer
Member
AKA MASSholes.
I don't want the party to go back to nominating pieces of wood who no one cares about. Its part of the reason why Democrats rarely have won presidential elections over the last half century; their candidates are almost always wet blankets. I love a good leftie, but I want democrats to actually start winning regularly for once.
Then you better pray that Hilldebeest is still hungry.
I do. She has broad appeal, would expand the electoral map, and no other candidate would touch her experience. Its frustrating reading recent history and seeing democrats get crushed. I'll take a centrist democrat winning over a far left nominee losing every cycle.
Vastly decrease the number of citizens per Representative (thereby vastly increasing the size of the House). I'm talking about increasing the size of the body by two or three orders of magnitude. Then, severely restrict what criteria the states can use for defining the multitude of new districts. This would necessarily reduce the number of voters who dwell under the overhang of small but durable majorities who vote consistently in opposition to their interests. (Reduce, but obviously not eliminate).
If we truly want a federal parliamentary body that represents local interests, then go for it. The original excuse for limiting the size of the House of keeping the body manageable makes no sense in the context of modern communications. We could have 100,000 people in the House, cut their individual schedules down to a fifth of the current Representative schedule, pay them a fraction, and get as much actual work done.
Another approach would be to reject the model of "local interest" all together as wholly corruptible, and organize selection to the House by some other demographic profile: Age and region, perhaps. Add gender and ethnic identity, if we want to be brave. Those are the most pronounced biases in individual voting preferences anyway.
I still favor computer-aided redistricting, personally. Another similar solution to the ones you're proposing would be to convert all House districts into at-large districts, making them all statewide.
Yep... Besides, after Hil-Dawg's done her eight years in office, I'm sure there'll be noise on getting a Latino to the top of the ticket in 2024, just in time for the likes of Texas to turn blue. (kind of serious).
RustyNails
Member
Did anyone see this super weird Gary Johnson ad about two mad scientists in black and white film, trying to do frankenstein stuff with a dead elephant man or some shit? One of the worst ads I've ever seen in my life, and I've seen this.
Gary Johnson sucks so much.
Gary Johnson sucks so much.
It wasn't Obama's ads that caused them to lose the debate. It was AARP.
Ooh, interesting idea. Its just a matter of getting it done then. Which is probably not gonna happen sadly.
Do tell. I'm not following that race.
Scott Brown can tell your ethnicity just by looking at you, and his staffers apparently love casual racism against Native Americans (and don't get fired by Brown for it).
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Notwithstanding Brown's boneheaded initial pick--not on the grounds that I have any objection to any pick, but that it was politically boneheaded for someone to hold up Scalia as a rolemodel to Massachusetts voters--I think the line of questioning is bogus, or at least Gregory's assertion that he can't pick two ideologically opposed justices.
America is built on checks and balances. Judicial review is one of them. The House of Representatives is designed to be populist, that's why they're elected every two years. The Senate is designed to be more conservative (in the classical sense, not in the left-right sense). The Supreme Court is designed, if not to be conservative, than certainly to be ideologically pluralist--it is supposed to be essentially impossible for a President to control the overall composition of the court, just chip away at it. I don't buy the argument that there needs to be a partisan favourite justice. It's more useful to look at the court as a composite of 9 men and women whose individual perspectives come together on ad hoc and permanent coalitions representing the intellectual pluralism of the country. It's the same reason why dissents are written at all--an 8-1 ruling holds weight, but so does the 1 dissenter, intellectually. The court, more than any other part of the federal government, allows for pluralism.
I'd personally certainly prefer progressive, left candidates to the bench and obviously I think the Roberts court and the Rehnquist court made some pretty bad calls on policy issues, but I'm not sure why Gregory thought that picking two or more justices was a copout answer.
Were I Brown, I'd maybe go with "I think the court is an institution made up of individuals who do their best work together, clashing and debating with and against one another. I like the direction of the Roberts court, and I think they've mostly been correct on issues of policy, but I believe every justice contributes strongly to the shape of the court."--likewise, were I Warren, I'd basically say the exact opposite but keep the premise the same.
The Brown campaign floated a trial balloon that Warren, who answered some sort of college self-identification survey as being part-native, was somehow abusing the system or lying about her ethnic identity or that she wasn't brown enough to do so. There's been some blow-back that it's really not cool to tell people what their identity is.
Some mid-level staffers made some native jokes subsequent to this issue.
It's not a major thing and I certainly don't think it's apt to characterize Brown's campaign as, in any substantial way, "racist". It was a pretty big asshole move to incorporate identity to begin with, especially absent Warren in any way incorporating her own background in that way. But I think the reaction was enough to contain it, and it doesn't really deserve further consideration on either side IMHO.
The Deputy Chief of Staff is not mid-level in my opinion and reaction doesn't really contain anything, and certainly doesn't bring about real change, ie, stopping racist asssholes from being deputy chiefs of staff. You don't have to characterize Brown's campaign as racist to condemn the fuck out of it. On a side note I wish PoliGaf cared as much about the other close Senate races and not just this one. Furthermore it's perfectly ok to have personal objection to Scalia as an answer to Gregory's [albeit] dumb question. It's like picking Judas as your favorite apostle.
Byakuya769
Member
Gregory was punching Warren in the ovaries pretty hard.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I think you are responding to a post that you expected someone else in PoliGAF to make rather than the post that I did make.
Same thing happened to Giuliani. Expect the same articles to be dropped about Chris Christie when he crashes and burns in the 2016 primaries.
Not at all I think you're trying too hard to be objective, to what is inexcusable.
Actually, that's exactly how someone who tried to exploit being "Native American" despite specious roots deserves to be ridiculed.
Didn't Scott Brown start out a debate basically saying "Hey look at her. She doesn't look native American to me..." And I'm pretty sure I saw a campaign commercial hitting her on that point, too.
Maybe it's a bit much to call it a racist campaign, but at this point I don't think it's that far from the truth. That seems to be one of his biggest points thus far...
Maybe it's a bit much to call it a racist campaign, but at this point I don't think it's that far from the truth. That seems to be one of his biggest points thus far...
PhoenixDark
Banned
I do wonder how someone as brash as Christie will work in places like Iowa and South Carolina. Also, I wonder how his weight will effect his run - not just in terms of voter perception, but his own energy levels. Going from district to district in NJ is one thing, running a campaign in multiple states non-stop is quite another
Wow. I am now over everything.
Has Kosmo finally made The Post That Gets Him Banned?
Dunno but he's definitely down a touchdown in the fourth quarter.
Odd, because those specious roots put her at the same amount (1/32) of Cherokee heritage as principle chief of the Cherokee nation, Bill John Baker.
The accusation that she used this to get ahead seem to be far more specious.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll