It’s also, for someone sho’s been in national politics for 30+ years, inexplicably poor judgement. I mean insanely bad. I’d go as far as to say that comment, given her history from her healthcare plan/debacle under her husbands presidency through to the emails proved she’s not fit for any high office.
Utterly extraordinary bad judgement. Really - why say that, what could she possibly gain that was worth 1% of the downside.
Trump kicked off his campaign by implying Mexican immigrant were drug dealers and rapists.
Trump isn’t a career politician. That’s been kind of important these past three years.
I am very much opposed to Liz Warren as President and I don’t think anyone is surprised by that. That being said, polls show her leading Trump handily, so she certainly CAN win. I just think there are stronger candidates and that Democrats should be averse to screwing up a sure thing.
Note to DNC: adaher is afraid of Warren.
Don’t be silly. I want Trump to lose in 2020. What I’m afraid of is that Warren won’t get the job done, and further that she’ll cause even more polarization in this country than we have now, making things even worse for the 2024 election, which will probably feature Kanye West vs. Chuck Woolery.
What we need right now is a return to normalcy, not an ideological Presidency that can’t get anything done but stokes anger and division in the process.
But we tried an olive branch president who tried to reduce tensions (Obama). It didn’t work.
I don’t see America coming back together anytime soon. One quarter of voters hate and fear another quarter.
Obama was not an olive branch President so much as a partisan who correctly figured out what message would be most likely to help him win. I mean a real one. Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar actually have a record of being fairly non-partisan and decent. Cory Booker has it in him, I’m just not sure about the guy.
So she lost the election because she was the better qualified candidate?
Career politicians all over the world are having their experience held against them, and rightfully so. Being better qualified only matters if your qualifications actually show empirical evidence of doing a better job. Since political elites all over the world have failed, it’s become clear that the qualities that make for successful politicians are not the qualities we should actually be electing.
Of course, Trump’s qualities aren’t good either, so we’re still working on it. IDeally, the best candidates would be smart, moral people with varied experience(not 75% attorneys as is the current case) outside of politics.
What does “political elites all over the world have failed” mean? At what have they failed? Have they failed always? Consistently? Occasionally? Is there reason to believe non-political elites would have done better? For that matter, what is a “political elites”? And what has all the to do with one candidate, in one election, losing the electoral college?
politics is the only career where it seems to hurt to have experience. It’s like looking for someone to do a heart transplant and hiring a plumber to do the job.
Does that genuinely seem like a rational argument to you? “The professionals aren’t doing the job as well as I would like, therefore the solution is to put people who don’t know what they’re doing in charge”? This isn’t even “letting perfect be the enemy of good”'; this is “letting good be the enemy of functional”. It’s simplistic, wrong, and potentially dangerous. You might as well say “my interior designer team did a bad job, so I’ve decided to lock a tribe of rabid howler monkeys in my living room for a week. Clearly since the experienced experts have failed, a different approach can only be better”.
And the result you get will be decidedly unique and different from what the experts would have done, insofar as “mayhem, destruction and large quantities of excrement” are a unique and different style, but there’s no way that the result will be “better”. “Better” takes careful thought and effort to determine the underlying causes of the problems and address them in a constructive manner. It is not easy or simple or cheap, and it often requires time and effort from a large number of committed people including the voting populace. Nuking the problem from orbit may be more fun and make you feel more manly but it doesn’t actually result in any sort of functional system or society. And when the system and society break down, people die.
She makes a good finance person but not a good candidate. It’s too bad the Republicans didn’t let her become the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, so instead she ran for the Senate. She had trouble beating a Republican in Massachusetts. Admittedly a charismatic Republican, but I get the impression she only won because there was only one controversy for Republicans to endlessly attack… and then they got caught doing the Tomahawk Chop, making it difficult to attack.
I also feel that she is too left wing.
And… I read a quote from her about today’s economy, speaking against the notion that a family have two working parents. WTF?
Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Two-Income-Trap-Elizabeth-Warren/dp/0465090907
I am hoping this is just someone else with the same name, but I don’t think so.
Wouldn’t the more reasonable hope be that you don’t understand the argument she was making? I don’t mean that as an insult but you yourself describe her as a good finance person and she has great expertise in bankruptcy.
It may not be the most rational argument but in terms of political effectiveness it has been and this cycle will likely be a very cogent one. Being perceived as an outsider, a “change agent”, with or without other possibly relevant experience, is what large elements of both sides want.
On the D side the actual policy differences between the more progressive elements and the more “traditional” elements are not so huge. The ideal candidate would be one who can inspire a with a positive “change” vision for the future of this country and at least know how to surround themselves with experts to delegate the implementation of that vision to and who knows how to parse through conflicting expert advice.
It is a bit harder for the seasoned professional, a “political elite”, to sell themself as that change agent that so many seem to want.
Oh sure, but “Who is more electable” and “Who is more likely to do a better job” are not remotely the same question, which is a huge part of the problem with modern politics.
I suppose if we follow adaher’s argument, the way to solve that problem is to say “The American people are terrible at selecting the best candidates, so the answer is to let people from other countries do it”, an approach the Republicans have apparently been pioneering of late.
I just want to be assured that she did not use the phrase “sending mothers to work”.
That’s a quote from Amazon’s product description and frankly need not be taken in the worst possible sense anyway.
Meh.
The person not in office has a hard time doing a better job.
The person in office perceived as supporting business as usual will have a hard time rallying the current public to support their policies … “What do we want!” “Same old same old!” “When do want it?!” “Now!”
A political leader’s skill and efficacy is not based only or even primarily on knowing where the knobs and buttons of the machines are. They can hire those folk.