Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "Progressive Change Campaign Committee" reports that Elizabeth Warren has been given a leadership position in the Senate Democrat caucus. This new position was created specifically for her. Her new role will be in "crafting the Party's messaging and policy."
This is laughable. Apparently the Democrats don't understand that the American people have received the Democrats "messaging," don't like it, don't like their policies, and have rejected both. They have rejected "Progressivism."
So, the Democrats think the solution is to do a better job of ... "messaging!"
It's ironic that one of her stated goals is to "make college affordable," when it is precisely because of Democrat policies that college has become unaffordable!.
She also advocates for expanding Social Security benefits, exactly what some leftist on this forum seem to constantly rail against.
Free college? — This seems to be the direction people like Elizabeth Warren are moving toward. It's one of their "Big Ideas." (But who's going to pay? The American Taxpayer, of course! Is this ObamaCollege?)
Full Employment? — This is "pie in the sky," but it's ironic since it is their policies that have resulted in the lowest labor participation rate that has been sustained for the longest period perhaps in U.S. history. Be that as it may, there is really no such thing as "full employment." There will always be some unemployment. So, what is their definition of "full employment?" It can't be the phony number they are reporting today as the current "unemployment" rate. It would have to be something even lower.
Democrats just don't seem to grasp that their policies are not popular with the majority of Americans who have resoundingly rejected them.
The "Progressive Change Campaign Committee" reports that Elizabeth Warren has been given a leadership position in the Senate Democrat caucus. This new position was created specifically for her. Her new role will be in "crafting the Party's messaging and policy."
This is laughable. Apparently the Democrats don't understand that the American people have received the Democrats "messaging," don't like it, don't like their policies, and have rejected both. They have rejected "Progressivism."
So, the Democrats think the solution is to do a better job of ... "messaging!"
It's ironic that one of her stated goals is to "make college affordable," when it is precisely because of Democrat policies that college has become unaffordable!.
She also advocates for expanding Social Security benefits, exactly what some leftist on this forum seem to constantly rail against.
Free college? — This seems to be the direction people like Elizabeth Warren are moving toward. It's one of their "Big Ideas." (But who's going to pay? The American Taxpayer, of course! Is this ObamaCollege?)
Full Employment? — This is "pie in the sky," but it's ironic since it is their policies that have resulted in the lowest labor participation rate that has been sustained for the longest period perhaps in U.S. history. Be that as it may, there is really no such thing as "full employment." There will always be some unemployment. So, what is their definition of "full employment?" It can't be the phony number they are reporting today as the current "unemployment" rate. It would have to be something even lower.
Democrats just don't seem to grasp that their policies are not popular with the majority of Americans who have resoundingly rejected them.
The person who once earned 300K per year teaching one college course wants to make college more affordable.....
Every now and then I just want to pull a liberal aside, pat them on the head, and let them know that it's OK because we understand their aversion to reality, delusion, and insanity.
I could be wrong. As I always say, a prediction does not constitute an argument. But I honestly believe that Warren would be a redux of George McGovern in 1972, who lost all states except Massachusetts. The country is still center right. In fact it is probably shifted more right than it was in 1972, since Reagan redefined the political spectrum.
Barack Obama won in 2008 based on being a 'blank screen' and in 2012 based on identity politics. The one chance that Warren would have would be identity politics based on her gender. But history suggests that identity politics based on gender is not nearly as effective as identity politics based on race. It did not work for Mondale-Ferraro in 1984. Mondale Ferraro lost 49 states. Nor did it work for McCain Palin in 2008.
While I'm not on the Warren bandwagon and don't believe she will run, the comparisons to the Mondale is hilarious. To those who think Warren is too liberal to win, what specific positions that she has do you have a problem with?
While I'm not on the Warren bandwagon and don't believe she will run, the comparisons to the Mondale is hilarious. To those who think Warren is too liberal to win, what specific positions that she has do you have a problem with?
You missed the point. The point is that identity politics re gender has not worked in previous presidential races. It did not work with Ferraro, nor with Palin
You missed the point. The point is that identity politics re gender has not worked in previous presidential races. It did not work with Ferraro, nor with Palin
Ahh my bad, my point was about your comparision to McGovern (I wrote Mondale by mistake), but the point still remains. I see a bunch of people on the right trying to suggest Warren is unelectable similar to how McGovern was (or Mondale as well), but can't come up with specific policy positions that make her unelectable.
So Fauxcahontas (aka Warren) wants "full employment"? Then why do she and the dems push hard for amnesty for illegals, refuse to reduce the yearly number of legal immigrants, refuse to end chain migration and refuse to make E-verify the law of the land?
What hypocrites they all are. Either that, or they are totally clueless.
I could be wrong. As I always say, a prediction does not constitute an argument. But I honestly believe that Warren would be a redux of George McGovern in 1972, who lost all states except Massachusetts. The country is still center right. In fact it is probably shifted more right than it was in 1972, since Reagan redefined the political spectrum.
Barack Obama won in 2008 based on being a 'blank screen' and in 2012 based on identity politics. The one chance that Warren would have would be identity politics based on her gender. But history suggests that identity politics based on gender is not nearly as effective as identity politics based on race. It did not work for Mondale-Ferraro in 1984. Mondale Ferraro lost 49 states. Nor did it work for McCain Palin in 2008.
All good points.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
