Supporting infrastructure I"ll give you. The rest is stuff that directly costs the middle working class money with the hopes that it will trickle back up to them. And most of the benefits are taken away anyway by supporting the importation of millions of unskilled workers to compete wages down.
Her “champion of the working class” persona is based entirely around her hostility to the depredations of the banking industry. Otherwise, she’s a classic limousine, elitist liberal. The Democrats need a working class champion like Jim Webb if they want to actually convince the working class that they are looking out for them. What makes Warren extreme isn’t just her positions, it’s the fact that she’s looking out for some small segments of society that just happen to be Democratic special interest groups rather than the larger working class.
The problem for Warren is that if she runs this cycle she’ll actually have to debate with someone like Jim Webb. There’s no way she can come off as the working class champion standing next to him. He’ll rip her apart on substance in the debates.
Oh, get real. Cruz is a worse presidential candidate than Barry Goldwater. Sure, Cruz has Tea Party appeal, but that’s it. Establishment Republicans hate him. Centrists hate him. Even some people who generally are very conservative hate him. He’s a toxic candidate regardless of his position on issues.
If elections were about nothing more than analyzing where each candidate stands on a variety of issues and objectively comparing those stances to where the American people stand, the 1984 election would have been a lot closer, Ronald Reagan would have never been elected in 1980, George Bush probably would have walked away with a win in 1992, Mitt Romney could have won in 2012, and the Affordable Care Act would be the most popular law in the land.
Cruz is insufferable to everyone who comes in contact with him, and his campaign would be a total disaster. He makes Rick Santorum look like Ike.
No. She’s unelectable on gun control issues, abortion(Seriously, churches funding abortions?), and there’s nothing in her agenda for the middle class other than rhetoric and trying to get them to hate the banks.
Cruz at least has the traditional strengths all Republicans go in with: guns, national security, tax cuts. These are issues that resonate with middle class voters in the absence of a concrete Democratic agenda for the middle class.
I have a hard time taking any of this seriously given your record of being so horribly wrong in analyzing most political issues. Seriously, you think Bill Clinon and Barack Obama were even moderately pro-gun candidates? How the hell did they win four national elections, several of them in a very convincing fashion? And what, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Bob Dole didn’t support guns, national security, and tax cuts? Geebus criminey, it’s almost not worth taking any of your posts seriously.
You really didn’t pay attention to what I wrote, either. Saying someone has a position on two issues that isn’t right in the mainstream doesn’t make someone unelectable. Ted Cruz is undetectable because nobody respects him.
Just for curiosity, I looked up the bills introduced by Warren and Cruz over the last two years to see how many of them were bipartisan. Senator Cruz introduced 25 bills, and he got a grand total of two Democrats to sign up as cosponsors for any of those bills. Senator Warren introduced 11 bills. Of those bills, there are 11 Republicans who signed up as cosponsors to them.
So one more time: who is it that has more crossover appeal in their policy positions?
Clinton and Obama went out of their way to seem gun friendly. Warren is actually on record a supporting gun control that goes much further than is acceptable. And with guns it’s intensity. The gun nuts do vote Democrat. That’s how Democrats get A ratings from the NRA. It actually matters. Nothing spreads fear through Congress like the NRA promising to score a vote.
By not explicitly supporting any gun legislation and saying repeatedly, “We will not take your guns.” While not pro-gun, they did effectively neutralize the issue.
When Obama was caught saying he supported a handgun ban on a questionnaire, he said a staffer had filled it out(yeah right).
Warren, though, has too much on her record to get away with it.
There’s a lot more to helping the middle class than going after the banking industry. On the list of things troubling middle class families, the banking industry is pretty low on that list. Jobs is #1. Keeping their families safe is #2. Keeping their taxes from being too much of a burden is #3.
Looking at the top issues important to all Americans, it’s hard to see how Warren would beat Cruz. Especially since right now Republicans enjoy a generic advantage on the most important of these issues:
There’s also this little problem for Warren’s pet issue. Almost as many Americans think the federal government itself has too much power as the banking industry. It’s going to be a hard sell to convince Americans that the banks are a threat, therefore the federal government needs more power:
Further down, you see that while the banks have a 9% trust rating, the Presidency is at 16% and Congress is at 4%. The federal government can’t do much of anything useful without first reestablishing its credibility. Does Warren have the chops to do that? I doubt it. She has no history whatsoever at doing it.
Could you maybe get both of the anti-gun-control voters who might consider voting Democratic to post here directly rather than presuming to speak for them?
Meanwhile, back in the land where we don’t rely on adaher’s questionable memory, let’s all reflect on the shitstorm that landed on Planet America in April 2013 when Obama talked about poor people “clinging to their guns” during a fundraiser in San Francisco.
Sure. Obama neutralized the gun issue in 2008. Yep.