General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsElizabeth Warren is a mediocre politician but a great Senator
and she beat a good politician. I don't intend this as an insult. To be even mediocre on a first run is amazing. And this was her first run. She got better during her run and presumedly will get better and better. But the fact is in a state with nine Democratic Congressmen, a Democratic governor, a former Democratic governor, a host of Democratic state legislature members, and a bunch of statewide Democratic elected officials must have dozens of politicians that are better than Warren is now. The notion we should avoid picking Kerry because we might lose his seat is insane. If we were speaking of Kerrey of Nebraska, I would agree. If he had, by some miracle, won picking him would have been certifiable. If we can't hold a seat in Massachusetts then we have bigger problems than picking a SOS.
It would suck for Massachusetts to lose Kerry's seniority in the Senate. In a few short years they would have gone from having the second most senior Democrat in the Senate (third overall), and the 10th most senior Senator period (6th Dem). To having the least senior Senator and one tied for the second least senior Senator. Add in the loss of Barney Frank, 17th overall 10th Dem and it gets worse. But Kerry isn't an indentured servant. He gets to do what he wants.
I have no idea which one Obama wants but he should pick Kerry if he wants Kerry and count on MA to keep the seat.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Now wasn't that simple?
And I didn't even have to drag Warren, who is incredible, into it.
//
dsc
(52,166 posts)and from what I can tell she will be a great campaigner, but she isn't now and she beat Brown like a drum. I can't believe we don't have a slew of politicians in MA who are better at campaigning than she is.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If you are so confident about this, please name, say three.
Scott Brown has been elected and served and gave Elizabeth Warren quite a bit of competition.
Please name names.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)then why did she (a rookie in electoral politics) do so well against a pretty polished campaigner (who was also popular)? It doesn't add up that she was bad at politics. It looks to me like she was awfully good.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I don't have a clue as to what dsc is talking about.
dsc
(52,166 posts)The fact is MA is a Democratic state where we can field a mediocre candidate against a good (though he isn't great as he showed when he started losing and panicked). It is the flip side of Nebraska where a very good campaigner Kerrey lost to a pretty poor one, Fischer.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Is that who you want representing you? In a state of emergency? I think you are jealous of the winner. Just my opinion.
dsc
(52,166 posts)and hence a mediocre campaigner can beat a very good campaigner (though it should be noted that Brown showed a major weakness in that he seems to panic). To take the flip side, we lost Nebraska, by any reasonable measure Kerrey was a better campaigner that Fischer was but he lost, and lost rather badly. Electorates matter. And incidentally you point out her rookie status, which it should be noted I did as well, just why did you do that? Could it be because as a first timer she wasn't as good as a veteran, the very point I made? If not, then why is her rookie status relevant? Or are only you allowed to mention it?
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)"is" a mediocre campaigner and then you say is maybe "was" but isn't any more cuz she ran a good campaign and then you said but she won because she's a liberal in a liberal state and then you start in on the other candidates who in your estimation must be pretty bad (or something). Then on to Kerry and how he's not an indentured servant (and water is wet) and why should we care if he runs because MA is liberal and will always elect liberals. Whew! My head is spinning...
dsc
(52,166 posts)I think that we should easily be able to hold the MA Senate seat since it is a Democratic state and even a mediocre campaigner, which is what Warren was during her campaign can beat a pretty good campaigner which is what Brown was (though he showed a pretty big weakness in that he panics when things start to go wrong). So if Obama wants Kerry, then he should name him. The fact is that we should be able to hold that seat. And if we can't, it is the omen of a huge problem. We have 9 elected Congressman, a host of state legislators, and several statewide elected officials. Out of that we must have a few who are at least as good as Warren and thus able to beat Brown.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)is on losing not just "a seat" but also seniority, no small thing, and expertise from years of experience. So that is one point that figures into this.
The fact is that Warren had terrific luster from dedicated liberals and feminists coming into her challenge to Brown. She was already a national hero to many and attracted financial support from across the nation. Scott Brown is a "known" now, even with his loser status, and yet no one of Warren's dimension has been talked about as the best candidate to run against him if Kerry gets SoS. So there is natural concern there.
dsc
(52,166 posts)The seniority is the one thing that really hurts Massachusetts. But he isn't a slave. If Kerry doesn't want to be Senator anymore because he wants to be Secretary of State instead, then MA will have to deal. I think Deval Patrick would be a good choice. If not him, then find an ambitious Congressman.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)and we should have a new SOS choice who does not have a history of serious conflicts of interests with the oil industry and a track record of approving warmongering.
Cracklin Charlie
(12,904 posts)throughout her first run at the Senate. I thought that was a very encouraging sign that she will only get better and better throughout her career.
She certainly has an abundance of brain cells to throw at the effort.
dsc
(52,166 posts)but even at the end I don't think she was as good a campaigner as Brown. But she won by a large margin. That what happens in blue states.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)That phony barn coat and pick up truck just insulted the voters. And his staff going around war-whooping, and his attacks on her native american heritage, and his wall st. ties, just didn't sit well with MA voters. She was/is a straight shooter and proved to be so.
dsc
(52,166 posts)that was honestly a shock. He would have lost anyhow but not firing the workers who war whooped was a major error on his part. He was weakened because of his voting record in the Senate (not voting for Kagan was another error on his part) but his big problem was the Democratic nature of MA coupled with the perception that MA could determine control of the Senate.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)the Senate and Brown tries again.
dsc
(52,166 posts)His only two positives for this race over that he just lost is that it would be a low turn out election and that it wouldn't determine the outcome of the Senate. He could help himself immensely if he were to resign in time for Warren to be appointed ahead of those elected in 2012 giving her an edge in seniority. I don't think that would be enough to overcome the natural Democratic advantage of the state and the damage he did to himself in the last campaign.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)I don't think we should underestimate the importance of Kerry's tenure and his experience. It really isn't tout va bien if he goes to be SoS and we get a recalculation in the Senate.
dsc
(52,166 posts)To go from a major powerhouse delegation in terms of Seniority (Kennedy, Kerry) to a close to 98 pound weakling delegation in term of seniority (Warren, junior to Warren) is a major loss. Honestly, just from Kerry's perspective he might well get more done from his perch in the Senate than as SOS. I am sure that is one reason Frank didn't run for the Senate when Kennedy died. I still think Obama should pick who he wants, which appears to be Rice by a nose. Kerry could realistically have another good two terms in the Senate after he finishes this one. I don't know that I would trade that for a four year SOS stint.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)frustration that often does not pay off. That is brutal on the psyche. And there you are in the winter of your life, filled with regret and certain sadness. It is one thing to be Dean Acheson at the end of WWII, designing with George Marshall the Marshall Plan and helping create the Truman Doctrine and NATO, but now? Not so easy, if at all...
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)(some) liked Scott Brown. And, of course, he threw all that Harvard professor stuff at her.
But I really think she won over hearts and minds. That, and a very concerted efforts by feminists in the state, did the trick...
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)When Warren announced, only one other person was willing to stand for the nomination and it was widely understood here that she didn't have a chance against Warren. Democrats have to hold a nominating convention prior to the primary to select democratic candidates for the primary ballot, Warren's opponent couldn't get the 15% needed to get listed on the ballot as the alternative to Warren, so Warren's name was the only on on the democratic ballot.
I want to take up your mediocre politician claim. It is absolute, fresh dumped bullshit. Warren ran one of the most brilliant grass root campaigns that I have ever seen a democrat run in Massachusetts, outside of Deval Patrick. Warren was tenacious and hit every part of the state. Warren destroyed Scott Brown in every one of their three debates. Get your facts straight, or stop posting about what you don't know anything about.
dsc
(52,166 posts)is one example of her being pretty mediocre. Again, as a first timer, it would have been amazing had she been say Sherrod Brown (4th state wide run, plus a ton of house campaigns). I have no idea why no one else wanted the seat at the time except that the national party did likely clear the deck for her. You have nine Democratic Congressmen, 8 of whom should be able to beat Brown, the one who narrowly won his race despite his wife's tax trouble would likely not be a good choice. Again, if you all can't win a Senate race in MA then what the Hell do you think we in NC should do?
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)close to 3 million dollars of drug money. There was not "tax" problem. Fortunately for him, he didn't know about what his wife was doing.
I repeat, for more reasons that the one above example, you don't know what is going on in Massachusetts politics.
dsc
(52,166 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)reminded me yesterday of the famous Cosell line
patrice
(47,992 posts)important positions right now.
dsc
(52,166 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)committees he's on and there's a boat-load of serious freaking issues headed their way.
I think he'd make a wonderful SOS myself, but I think it'd be a VERY bad move right now. I could be wrong, but probably not, at least from where I sit.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Just wait until she's actually a Senator and she'll be even better.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)one not even be an actual Senator to qualify?
randomtagger
(125 posts)She seemed to do well and gather lots of support.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)She kicked his ass stage right to stage left, then stage front to stage back, then she proceeded to kick his ass again and again and again. She kicked his ass in the debates, she kicked his ass in the ad campaign, she kicked his ass on campaign messaging.
She was helped by the fact that it turns out that Brown won in 2010 not because he was good/bad/mediocre, but because Angry White Men Gone Mad Fever had swept the nation, plus Martha Coakley thought she could stay home and let Ted's seat come to her.
I do not fear another Brown campaign. I'd miss having Kerry in the senate, but we will survive.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)She kicked his ass!
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)got a college scholarship on the strength of her debating ability. I sure as hell wouldn't want to go up against her in a debate!
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)Dumb Op.
dsc
(52,166 posts)she basically beat the Browns or maybe the Bengals. In this cycle I would think the closest to winning the Superbowl would be Obama or maybe Sherrod Brown.
You're really making no sense.
dsc
(52,166 posts)that isn't winning the Super Bowl. I am not saying it is nothing but it isn't the equivalent of being the national champions. Now Obama, was the first President reelected despite being outspent, the first President since Ike to have back to back over 51% of the vote, the first President since FDR reelected despite a nearly 8% unemployment rate. That is winning the Super Bowl.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)someone who was an appointee to design a commission, a different skill set. So it isn't like becoming a Super Bowl champion from a team that wasn't. Politics is really different from sports, even tho we like to compare them. She developed her own "brand" if you will and I think it is hers alone right now. She saw the opportunity to seize a moment in time (which she obviously had the talent to do) and turn it into a victory at the polls. That in itself is pretty impressive.
mythology
(9,527 posts)You don't have to be the best campaigner, you just have to be better than the second place finisher.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)she hasn't even begun her term, she's only just been elected, referring to her as "a great senator" is a bit previous.