What would be the point of a Warren presidency anyway? If Obama can’t get anything done, what would make Warren do any better? At least Obama tries to portray himself as a moderate to keep the Democratic Party voting his way. Warren would have allies on the left and nowhere else. Moderate Democrats would be uncooperative from day 1. She’s be toxic in the majority of districts and states and Congresscritters would have to react accordingly. Obama already caused about 60 to commit career suicide for him. No one’s going to do that in a hypothetical future where Democrats get control of the House or Senate again. They can’t control either without Blue Dogs and Blue Dogs have learned the price of bucking their constituents.
Considering running.
With the amount of denial coming out of the Romney camp in the run up to the last election, are we sure he doesn’t think he’s running for RE-election?
Well, it wouldn’t be a Romney presidency. Or a Walker presidency. Or a Cruz presidency. Or a Bush presidency. Or a Rand presidency. Or a Christie presidency. Or a Palin presidency. Or a Kasich presidency. Or a Jindal presidency. Or a Rubio presidency.
I’m uncertain as to whether I’d support Warren for president. Haven’t thought much about who I might support–it’s too early. Should she run, and should she win, I have no doubt that she would be a better President than any Republican that springs to mind.
It’s hard to see any Democratic President accomplishing that much between now and post-2020 redistricting. That’s just life.
The point of Warren is to give somebody the bully pulpit who’s actually going to once again make the case for the things I grew up taking for granted that Dems would be for, like a decent life for working people, regulating Wall Street and corporations with monopolistic power, stuff like that. In the Congress of 1975, she’d hardly be radical at all.
And while she’s on the bully pulpit, who is minding the vast federal government? The only advantage of a Warren presidency over say, an O’Malley Presidency, is to get more progressive legislation passed. if, on the other hand, you want to improve the Democratic Party’s brand in the minds of the electorate, as well as increase support for activist government, you need someone who can actually do the job, rather than just have the right beliefs. Liz Warren brings no experience or accomplishments to the table in that regard. A successful Democratic governor does.
If the government is enjoying constant failures while the President is calling for it to do more, the voters will rightly see that as out of touch, stupid, and inviting even more failures.
You mean like a recovering economy (despite Republican efforts to kill it), healthcare for millions who need it, saving the auto industry (along with a million jobs), and enhancing civil rights, just to name a few “failures”? Any basic search on the internet for the accomplishments of the past six years puts the lie to such casual dismissal.
As for Romney: does he really think anybody is going to let him forget his “48%” remarks or his (and his wife’s) clear contempt for ordinary people? Regardless of how he tries to spin any of that, the evidence is available for anyone who wants to see it. Whoever runs on the Dem ticket will make political hay (again) with it.
So you’re saying that because Reagan was the Great Communicator, his Presidency must’ve sucked?
Hey, that’s your argument, not mine. 
When one has no argument, one goes for simplistic nonsense.
Reagan’s Presidency was good, overall, but no one would call his administration a model of functionality. Thanks to him and GWB, liberals came up with a pretty good line: “Conservatives say government doesn’t work, then they take power and prove it.”
For obvious reasons, government that is inefficient, corrupt, cronyist, and incompetent is a bigger problem for Democrats than Republicans. Obama has real accomplishments, but the government’s performance in day to day operations is pathetic and he’s made it crystal clear that he doesn’t consider this to be his responsibility.
If you don’t think that this has damaged the public’s faith in government, then you’re whistling past the graveyard. Public faith in government is at a Watergate level low. No one but ardent progressives believe that government can actually do anything right these days. And the President has not only made it clear that it’s not his responsibility, but that he doesn’t even really have to know what’s going on. News flash: voters are not going to hand over more power to an unelected bureaucracy that is not being overseen by elected officials.
I think that’s one point for Chefguy, there.
Mitt didn’t exactly wow 'em at the Heritage Foundation’s recent shindig: Mitt 3.0 Fails To Impress Conservatives At Major Conference In Washington | HuffPost Latest News
He’s got me scared. If Romney were president, ISIS wouldn’t exist. Once that word gets out, Romney is a shoo-in.
Oh, I don’t know. The “government” sure helped save the domestic auto industry. It sends SS checks out on time every month to millions of retired and disabled people. It operates the National Parks, NASA, and the CDC. Even running the military, despite a bit of waste and pork, actually is quite an undertaking that is generally successful. It’s easy to rail against the government, but what is it you expect that you’re not getting? I’ve got food on the shelves in the Safeway, the roads are passable, gas prices are down, their is no major civil unrest, and more and more Americans are employed every month.
Some people are just looking for reasons to bitch I guess. Me, I’m counting my blessings.
Would be nice if the VA wouldn’t kill veterans and cover it up. It would also be nice if government agencies didn’t act in a partisan manner.
The government is vast and most of it muddles along well enough, but when no one is providing oversight, or those who are providing it are ignored for political reasons, things can degrade. If you think that the failures at HHS, VA, IRS, EPA, and ATF are the only things going on, you’re wrong. THe media just hasn’t found the latest screwups. And we know the President doesn’t know anything about them.
So you agree that the way the government is working is nice? Or do you have some examples to the contrary?
The government is working nice? I just cited five agencies that epically screwed up. And I only left out the CDC because no harm was done in the end.
What did IRS do? Take too long to give the Teabag groups their tax-exempt status that they don’t deserve? All while similarly checking into liberal groups?
That’s not exactly how it went, but even if it was, they weren’t authorized to do it. EVen if you disagree that it was a scandal, there is no one seriously arguing outside the Ignorance Fighting Board that the IRS didn’t screw up. They’d just like you to think it was some Cincinnati employees.
The IRS admitted wrongdoing, everyone was suitably outraged. That part of the argument was long settled, except for some dead enders here.
It’s a scandal only in the minds of the right. Somewhat like Benghazi with a dash less hysteria.