Ok, previewing her political stances:
Overall, a bit too leftist for me. But livable.
Gun control “Warren supports reinstating an extended magazine long rifle weapons ban” I dont like that, but the rest is reasonable, at first glance.
Overall, I think she is a bit too left and Massachusetts is pretty damn blue. I’d prefer a rust belt or southerner.
Still, I’d vote for her.
Just off the top of my head:
I’m sure there’s a bunch of other examples of members of the minority working to get things done, as opposed to just making speeches, but those are some pretty significant achievements that were done during Republican control of the Senate.
I don’t have time at this moment, but I will read this carefully.
Close to 4 years old now, actually. Anyhow, it only lists a couple of accomplishments of hers:
And a critic of hers says:
Seems like she’s done at least as much as Tester, though not anything as singular as Menendez or Warner, during the past six years.
Yes, she’s good at this. It’s a message that resonates—and that inspires those it targets to fund anti-Warren social media initiatives.
There was a great satire piece published by McSweeney’s, yesterday, entitled “I Don’t Hate Women Candidates – I Just Hated Hillary and Coincidentally I’m Starting to Hate Elizabeth Warren.” I recommend giving the whole thing a read, but here’s a taste:
Actually Tester’s reform of the VA is a pretty big deal.
But I agree that the article is somewhat vague, like the part about how she blocked some nominees. It isn’t clear to me whether she blocked a crazy right-wing circuit court judge or the deputy dogcatcher of the State Department… but I suspect I’ll have about a year and a half to see what accomplishments she does have to her credit.
I…what?
What were R. Reagan’s accomplishments in the 1970’s?
What did Bill Clinton do as Arkansas governor,* ever?* I have no idea.
Warren is an ideological leader. She cares a lot about economic policy, and makes a case for it. That’s important. I was happy to let her do that in the Senate when she thought that fit her level of competence. But if she now wants to be President, I think I can get on board with that.
From what I know of Elizabeth Warren, she’s smart enough to know when to pick her political battles. It’s far better to oppose a crazy right wing circuit judge that’s being appointed to an evenly divide court than to pick a hill to die on opposite some junior State Department flunky who’ll write a few useless reports but spends most of his time try to outdrink Brett Kavanaugh on the DC cocktail circuit.
Look, if you don’t care about experience and credentials, that’s fine. You do you but could you not feign surprise that some people do value those things? You can’t actually be shocked by it so it’s kind of annoying.
What were Trump’s successes prior to his elected office? Oh, wait, he’s an ideological leader.
Well, I want someone who features a record of successfully enacting policies over someone who mostly sticks it to the other side in an appealing way. I am reserving judgment on whether Warren is in either camp, because based on what I’ve seen in this thread, I’m still not clear on her accomplishments recently. Maybe it’s great and just being described poorly.
And as far as Clinton’s record, he accomplished education reform and economic development that established him as the leader of the DLC. You may say he’s too centrist, but I’ve never heard the criticism that he won what, like four elections for governor for doing nothing.
I also would not describe Warren as “schoolmarmish” and certainly not as “shrill.” Academic, yes. Overly so, perhaps. Lecturing, maybe. We’ve had male presidential candidates, though, who are just as academic as Warren, and others who are much more into haranguing their listeners than Warren is (and with less of a knowledge base), and I’m not aware that anyone called them “schoolmarmish” or “shrill” or anything else especially negative for that matter. Hmm…I wonder why not?
Just imagine what the voice of a female Dr. Jordan Peterson would sound like. That’s along the lines of what some of us hear, even if it doesn’t rattle our personal values or interfere with our perspective.
The wider the field the better so that everyone’s viewpoint will have someone advocating for it. That being said, I hope Warren doesn’t win the nomination. The right candidate can beat Trump, but I don’t think Warren is it. She would likely end up the same way that the last liberal bookish, professor like candidate from Massachusetts did, when HW defeated Dukakis easily.
Warren is the choice for those who prefer a valiant failure to a victory.
Sexism. It’s alive and well, and we should fight to reduce it. The election for POTUS, however, where the fate of the world could hang in the balance is not the place to die on the hill of fighting against sexism.
I don’t think you can support this statement.
Warren is the obvious choice to unify the Bernie wing with the party mainstream. If either of those factions choose someone else, I’m afraid that would mean a split, with each faction going it alone, or a capitulation in one direction or another. Who else has broad enough support from those who vote Democrat? Who else has that support based on a record rather than tricks and a pretty face? Who else still will in four years?
Sherrod Brown might be able. I don’t know if Booker or Harris can keep the lefties on board.
But Warren is already a heroine of the progressives. It’s hard for me to say no to her candidacy.
I’m not sure Warren can do that. At least not better than most others. There are those who are Bernie or die and no one will win them. And she does not have as much appeal to the centrists and the mainstream as you think. Maybe with a Clinton endorsement early but maybe not even then.
Brown has a good shot at being a uniter. Harris could too. Both I think more so than Warren.
But the biggest force for uniting the Democrats is Trump. Sure there will be some who will pout that their preferred one did not prevail but few will not realize that even the one they liked the least is a better alternative than what the alternative is.
Harris has no chance of winning. Zero, zip, nada. She is in favor of banning all handguns. while that flew in SF just fine, and could be OK in CA, it will doom her in the rest of America. Besides, she has accomplished very little so far.
Yes, most Americans do want *some form of gun control- 50-60% depending on how the poll is wired and when. But only a small% would go that far. Even the "Fudds" would line up to pull the lever for Trump if Harris was the Dem nominee.
As others already pointed out to you in other threads - she was in favor of banning handguns in San Francisco. She never suggested a nationwide handgun ban.
She was never running for nationwide office before. However, she was still in favor of it, and Oked it, *so she thought it was Constitutional. *
She also has pushed for other gun laws in CA, and slid into place a backhand gun ban that prevents any new (and possibly safer) gun models to be sold in CA. The leopard doesnt change her spots, and people will remember- and it will come up.
wiki:
Microstamping
On May 17, 2013, the state attorney general began enforcing a new law requiring that semi-automatic pistols incorporate microstamping.[41] With this technology, very small markings are engraved, using a laser, on the tip of the firing pin and on the breechface of the firearm. When the gun is fired, these etchings may be transferred to the primer by the firing pin, and to the cartridge case head by the breechface, using the pressure created when a round is fired. If successful, this imprints two identifying numbers, unique to that gun, on each spent cartridge casing.[42] This requirement applies to new guns being added to the California Department of Justice’s roster of handguns certified for sale; semi-automatic handgun models already listed on the roster are not required to incorporate microstamping. Note of interest - this law was passed in 2007 and the wording in the law stated that it shall become effective when there are at least two companies, unencumbered by a patent, employing this technology. To date, no manufacturer offers this technology in firearms available to the public.[43]
She also, as AG, approved a law that would make it illegal to possess a magazine over 10 rounds, which has been held to be unconstitutional.
and of course as many here on these boards have pointed out- a gun ban in one city is worthless- and Kamala is smart, she knew she’d have to expand the ban.
OK, so you’re saying it’s unconstitutional now, and she’s going to advocate for a nationwide handgun ban anyway in her campaign for President.
That’s one hell of an assumption - and you’re basing your claim of her unelectability on that assumption. So let’s just say I find that to be a rather weak claim.