2017: Whither Democrats?


What ideas and positions does she hold that make her an ultra liberal? What makes anyone ultra liberal? I see that a lot on this board and elsewhere, but I have yet to read or hear what exactly she is advocating that makes her ultra liberal. (I mean, I can tell you what ideas makes a person ultra-liberal, as I myself have them, but I can assure there isn’t a national Democratic politician in this country that would agree with any of those ideas.)

Note: I am not saying accusing someone is too liberal in this country isn’t sufficient to polarize a politician, people on this board do the same thing; but neither Timex before you, and now you, can say what it is that make her or those from “her wing” so scarily liberal. From my point of view, “too liberal” is some vague, ill-defined slur* that has no actual basis in objective reality. (But, because this is America, vague, ill-defined accusations are all that’s all that it takes to sully a politician, especially if that politician is a woman.)

'*To be clear, I’m not accusing you of this, rather just making a general observation.



I hear people talking about how EWarren is so unappealing or unelectable and it is just baffling to me, utterly baffling. She’s extremely intelligent, hard working, knowledgeable, and passionate. Her proposed policies are objectively correct, and she has a solid history of accomplishment at the national level which genuinely improves the lives of everyday people. Her Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is absolutely hated by Republicans, which is a reliable indication of how much good it is doing to help Americans. She is actually draining the swamp and working against corruption, white collar crime, and extreme inequality. And the best attack on her that the Republicans have is “Pocahontas”, e.g. that she might have lied on an application form 40 years ago. Your average Republican pol commits more malfeasance than that before breakfast.


She has a (D) after her name, which automatically makes her anathema to probably 27% of the voting public just due to the crazification factor. The above, since it includes the wrong kind of people - you know Cadillac-owning welfare queens and strapping young bucks wink (thanks Reagan!) - no doubt adds several points as well.


Elizabeth Warren does good work. I applaud her CFPB work. She is always a reasoned voice for good government for all citizens.

I want her to be on my team but I don’t want her to be my presidential candidate. I believe we need someone who isn’t a geriatric to be our candidate. That’s all.


I don’t disagree that because of her age I’d rather she not run or be the nominee. My main issue - and it’s been a peeve I’ve mine for a long time now - is that whenever Warren’s name is brought up, it’s usually in conjunction with “too liberal”, “too far left” but no one has ever bothered to state what exactly makes her too far left/too liberal. Like ever. (The closest anyone has ever come is ShivaX because of Warren’s position on guns, but she is not outside the Democratic mainstream.)


Look, the GOP built their entire message on bringing in a non “Washington Insider” I love Warren and think her accomplishments are amazing. But she will be 70, and has been in Washington for over 5 years.

Also, as seriously stupid and fucked up the DNA test thing was, it is still the first thing you find when you google search her. And it is dumb that it is still a thing in the press, but it makes her look bad.

This feels like the emails all over again.

Never again with that shit. Warren runs in 2020, Trump starts an investigation of the DNA ancestry company Warren used in Oct. 2020, turns out that ancestry DNA is kind of BS, and they call her a liar. It is bad. Even if it is some bullshit (like but her emails) it still sticks, because the undecided voter is an idiot.

And while I love that U.S. Grant quote from the Civil War it doesn’t really apply, and while it is a good sound bite, it is a completely different situation than what the 2020 election strategy will be.

That U.S. Grant quote is interesting, because it speaks more about the issue that the troops had with his relatively new command over Union army in the Virginia campaign. The men were spooked by Lee’s ability to seemingly thwart their every move. This was due to the many setbacks that lead to retreat under former generals, and forced retreat after retreat. The quote is less about “don’t worry about the enemy’s strategy, worry about our own” and more “shut up and let me lead this army, I will make the decisions, you will follow my orders”. Rather than retreat, U.S. Grant forced the Army forward, took heavy casualties and continue to march to Richmond.

He knew he was forcing his good men into the buzzsaw that was Lee’s army on their home turf, and it was important to keep the army moving forward, not second guessing all of their decision making like MacClellan did previously.

So yes, I think that it is important to worry about your own strategy, but there is a reason the CIA exists, why we have recon units, and intelligence is integral how you effectively fight a modern war.


This is where I am as well. I can see every debate, every rally replacing “Crooked Hillary” with “Pocohonatas” complete with fake Indian cheers. She will be another Clinton with good policies but can’t sell them.

The 2020 election is going to be schoolyard brawl. It will be ugly, and the Dems need someone who can respond to every Trump attack with: I know what you are, but what am i? Which is why I think Biden or Beto might be a good chance. I’m not a fan of Biden’s age, but can look past it.


The fact is the GOP will be 100% in on ratfucking whoever the candidate is; it doesn’t matter what factual basis there might be. They’ll make shit up out of whole cloth and their tribe will believe it. Worrying about the fact that the GOP will ratfuck is pointless.

The other most-likely fact is that no matter who the candidates are, mainstream media will be 100% in on bothsiderism and false balance to avoid appearing biased. Worrying about which pointless non-scandal they’ll obsess about is also pointless.

Focus on picking qualified candidates that the non-crazy people will vote for.


This is the key, IMHO. I think that a good chunk of the moderate/independent voters in the midwest states that swung the election to Trump ended up sitting at home or voting for a third party because they hated both candidates. Give them someone to get behind on the Democratic side, and things could be different.


I agree and think 2016 was more a vote against Hillary Clinton than a vote for Trump.

Give America someone they’d want to vote for. Find the most qualified person Americans will like (minus Trump folks who we need to ignore completely)


Warren ratfucked herself with the DNA test. At the best, it showed what, 5 generations ago she had Native American ancestors, and at worse it showed her foolishly thinking that actually releasing any proof of anything matters.

As I mentioned earlier, she did not have a convincing win in her own state. Sure, she won by double digits, but in this climate going against a traditional Rep opponent, she should have gotten more votes. Our Republican governor – who, to be fair is a true RINO – did better than her. That does not bode well for her chances.


Who is the candidate they won’t do this to?

Um, no. I’m not saying these would not be good candidates, but they are surely not immune to the rather obvious GOP attacks.


It’s not baffling at all: have we learned nothing from 2016? There is an entire machine out there devoted to tearing her down because she’s one of the most formidable anti-oligarch forces. Somewhere there’s a troll farm with a bunch of people adding the following comments to any mention of Warren that pops up on the net.

  • I don’t like Warren. There’s just something about her that puts me off. Why can’t she be more like Bernie or Biden?
  • Warren is a radical extremist who will destroy the economy.
  • Warren just can’t do anything right. Why doesn’t she address the Pocahontas issue? (Which then changed to: Warren just can’t do anything right. Why did she address the Pocahontas issue? It just drew attention to it.)

… and then of course the capper:

  • I support Warren on the issues. But she’s unelectable. Everybody says so.

And then of course all this becomes conventional wisdom and gets repeated everywhere by everyone.
Clearly it’s true because everybody says so! (And no matter who eventually gets the Dem nod the machine will turn on them, too: Warren is just in the crosshairs because it’s early.)

You really don’t get it. There will always be an “e-mails” somewhere. Always. No matter who the candidate is, no matter how clean their background, the machine will find something and manufacture it into an issue. They’ll take a speck of dust and claim it’s a blemish, spend some time promoting the blemish into a mole, and then launch an all out blitz and assert the mole is a raging cancer.

And if there isn’t even a speck of dust, they’ll make something up. Like (a lack of) a birth certificate.


Why feed them ammo though?


And this works on left leaning voters as evinced by many of the responses in this thread.

FWIW (i.e. nothing) I’m strongly leaning toward the Amy Klobuchar camp. Not because of her policies or that she’s ‘scandal’ free (as Human Ton so aptly articulated, that doesn’t matter for Republicans or even the NYT), but rather because her personality is the perfect counterpoint to trump and I think she would appeal to suburban married women.

(I’m undecided though because a candidate like Beto who can energize and motivate millennials is also appealing, but at the same time it’s a scary proposition hoping that they turn out in sufficient numbers to carry the day.)


Literally anyone but those two and Pelosi.

But those things wont take.

I’m pretty sure we get it. You all just seem to think that elections are won with magic and dreams or something.


It’s not so much they are immune, but I think Biden or Beto will fight back better. I’m afraid Warren will come across as Hillary 2.0, and I’d rather see one of the younger Dems get the nod. Especially ones that have a contentious election and can do the dirty work.


And former conservatives think that only conservative Democrats with a military background can win. The proverbial pot meet kettle syndrome.


Sigh. I like Biden because he has his heart in the right place and he’d be good on policy, but Biden likes to handle women, and he’s been doing it for 40 years. The instant he becomes an actual candidate for President, the allegations are going to start flying. He has effectively no defense against it. There’s no fighting back.


Biden has many more issues than that, not the least of which he was a Senator from Delaware.