General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThought experiment: Would President Warren actually have any different results than Obama
Last edited Fri Feb 7, 2014, 01:54 AM - Edit history (1)
I don't doubt Warren's sincerity for a minute. And Obama can't be trusted to stand up for anything. I stipulate that.
But the question is could Warren actually achieve any different results if she had to deal with the same Congress, the NRA, the same Wall Streeters, the same NSA system, the same SCOTUS, the same teabaggers, the same defense contractors, the same ALEC, the same Koch brothers, etc.?
And if you believe she would have different results, please explain what they might be and how she might have done things differently.
===
(Edited to remove a choice of words that some found offensive and was not central to the question.)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Yes, the same people would fight her, however, Ms. Warren would keep the issues in the public mind by fighting for them in a public arena. Take the public option. Warren would not shut up, which would force discussion on the matter.
The results would not necessarily be dramatic, but it would force the GOP and the Fake center to expend a lot more money and resources. Would there be any knockouts, not likely, but sooner or later, even the toughest boxers run out fo breath. Obama, by contrast, gives the fighter a chance to breathe.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)At the very least she would set a more truly progressive populist direction, and move us more clearly in the direction we need to go -- more so than the zig-zagging sort-of-liberal centrism of President Obama.
And I also think that such a direction woild also give mushy independents and even some grass-roots conservatives more of a reason to take a second look at what the Democratic party can do for them.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)That statement was tame compared to some of the things on here (and the way i sometimes feel about the current direction)
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Black men. It would be worse....
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)That somehow President Warren would call a press conference and they just wouldn't show up?
clarice
(5,504 posts)My husband and I both work, and WE don't have any.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You have no idea what she is going to face if she is elected. Its not nearly as simple and cut and dried as you think.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)but enough to where ,at the very least, people would have to talk about it. She would be, at the very least the grain of sand that causes irritation that causes some action.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)SHE cannot make them move!
NO Democratic President WILL to get your wish list taken care of UNLESS WE elect them to all three branches! It is that simple...
You want MORE change...then concentrate on the Midterms and stop this throwing good Democrats overboard business that many are in the process of around here. One things Democrats are exceptionally good at is the circular firing squad.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Why so many fail to see what you said is beyond me. Letting republicans keep control of just the House would mean the same kind of BS, no matter who we put in the WH. Those who think otherwise are in serious need of a reality check!
We need to get the voters out this year so we can keep the Senate, and hold our ground, or better yet win a few more seats, in the House. If we can do this, then there is a better chance of getting control of all three branches. Not getting out the vote this year is really not an option for anyone who "really wants change"!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Or march around with protesters and suddenly the Republicans will acquiesce and give her every thing she asks...
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)if we had a President that was more like Warren and less like Obama?
That is to say, a President who draws clear lines and is not afraid to engage the other side directly.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)... other than her passion for financial related issues.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's really about the economy -- which affects everyone -- and the framework in which business operates.
That's pretty damn important.
And all indications are that she would also continue the better side of the positions of Obama and the Democrats on social issues.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I *think* she's been pretty candid, and consistent.
MADem
(135,425 posts)All of her brothers served.
One completed hundreds of combat missions over Vietnam.
She recently prevented the Pentagon from cancelling what they called an unneeded battlefield communications program and reallocating the money, in order to preserve some jobs up here in MA.
She's as pragmatic as the next person. Anyone who thinks otherwise is turning her into a cartoon. She's most assuredly NOT that.
If she is pro military then I will not vote for her in the primary. No way.
MADem
(135,425 posts)She won't be IN any primary (as she has pledged to her constituents), and welcome to DU I guess...!
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)One thing she is, is responsive to her constituents.
It's a trait I like in her--she's willing to (gasp!) compromise and (shock!) consider opposing views...
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)If we had score voting or range voting then it would be possible for a populist to actually reflect the will of the people.
However, the electoral map looks like this in reality:
If we could choose any candidates we wanted in a range or score based system it would look more like this:
cprise
(8,445 posts)But perhaps the lowest-hanging fruit is Gerrymandering. That's a very big factor keeping Congress under far-right influence.
Find a way to abolish Gerrymandering, including garnering enough support in the coming midterm elections.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Because you can vote for more than one candidate the 'nuance' reflected in the demographics gets to shine. So maybe you could run a hardcore populist who supports gun rights rather than having to elect a blue dog who supports gun rights but also a lot of other conservative stuff. That 'single issue' no longer becomes the pivot for the politics.
I also would advocate apportionment reforms so that rather than having 435 congress people we have 3-10x that many (the lower bound of 3 would allow us to argue for more congress people without it costing more, lowering their salary to $50k).
Fixing Gerrymandering could be done how CA did it, make it a non-partisan, independent, transparent process.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)though your question suggests that the wave election would come after the new president is already in office.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)I think 2016 could be a "wave" in the same sense that the first black President generated an abnormal amount of energy. The Senate numbers for 2016 are already favorable, and if there is a legitimate chance of electing the first female President (Warren or Clinton -- but Warren says she's not running) that definitely could generate energy equal to 2008, and result in taking at least a slim majority in the House despite Gerrymandering.
But the wave I'm thinking of is a much bigger one. The country is not "right" or "Center right". The country is DEMORALIZED because we know we're getting screwed and don't see any way out. We have that much in common with the Tea Party. When you look at polling on all the great issues -- whether it is the climate, economic fairness, wealth distribution, freeloading corporations, the need for investment in infrastructure. commitment to public education, health care, etc.-- Americans STRONGLY support the progressive positions. Americans support positions FAR more progressive than anything President Obama has fought for.
On top of that, we have radically changing demographics, that include Asians and Hispanic immigrants, and they have very little love for the GOP. So if the universe were working correctly, we should be right in the middle of an extremely progressive period in our politics. A slight majority in the House, a slight majority in the Senate and even a convincing win for the WH does not match where we should be.
I am suggesting that people like Harry Truman and FDR fought openly and vigorously for the causes of liberalism. Without leaders that fight for that, how can we expect the public to be very enthusiastic? So I am suggesting that if there were a real progressive fighter in the White House, whether it is Teddy Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or fill-in-the-blank, that could lead to THE REAL WAVE -- the one that gets away from the 51-49 crap and aligns our representation with the true progressive preference of the broad public.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)IMPO the mushier the Democratic position on issues has been, the more the other side has been able to capitalize on non-issues and incorrect stereotypes.
This is what the dem party is missing, at it's heart. Engagin the other side in honest debate. Yes, we still have a few dems that do this, engage the other side directly, but the party itself does not do this.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)I believe there is a lot of truth to that, but the guy frustrates the hell out of me. If the President won't fight, it really kills the spirit of those who want to take the battle forward.
A case in point is the Keystone pipeline. It seems that he is putting this off as long as possible, but will eventually give in on that and not ask for anything in return. A real fighter would say:
"Sure you can have the pipeline. I'd rather see that stuff flowing in a pipeline than on trains. However, the only way I approve that is if you pass cap-and-trade so we can actually deal with the root problem. You have my number. Let me know when you are willing to talk about dealing with the root problem. Otherwise, you won't be seeing that pipeline as long as I am President."
And if he said this out loud an in public, that completely transforms the debate to put it on our terms.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and think women have "power over them". They actually fear the vagina...they will attack even more ferociously.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is just fantasy that the whole country supports an agenda they never seem to vote for.
The media would go after her a shrill female. Obama manages to avoid angry black man. From what people say in praise of her, Warren would not avoid shrill female the way he has dodged angry black man.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)but I think a lot of people will question her not having an immediate family.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I thought she was married? True. Though I think a childless male candidate would suffer also (or unmarried one).
mercymechap
(579 posts)Republicans would start looking for things to impeach Warren the very day she took office. Her only advantage would be that she's not black and wouldn't have the hate for hate's sake.....Republican/conservatives will only be happy and work bi-partisan when they control the WH and the Senate along with the House....and only for those issues they are interested in and support.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I've lived among them in the rural south...they really really despise women with power.
randome
(34,845 posts)I don't doubt you at all.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they got another think coming....
It was a total paradigm shift for them to have to put up with a Black leader......but a woman???
You see...Rightwinger men are totally afraid of women. They secretly believe that women have some power over them. I have actually had several of them tell me that Women ALREADY control everything. I have had them tell me that they think women should "shut up now because they got equality". Many secretly believe they are already oppressed by women. And they also, like to find women that support their "natural male superiority"....like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. These women are the Herman Cain's and Alan Wests only with breasts.
mercymechap
(579 posts)they hated blacks even more. They have elected some women to power and they idolize Palin, so I'm not so sure about that.
I think when you get down to it, it wouldn't matter if Jesus was President, if he was a Democrat, they would hate him too, and the majority of conservatives call themselves Christian.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)kinda like Alan West, Micheal Steele and Herman Cain!
And mostly it will be women they would like to sleep with!
mercymechap
(579 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)So when we did have this advantage, we must have gotten a ton of stuff done, right?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)sorry...not true.
Well, let's at least get our history straight. Until Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, the Democratic caucus in the Senate stood at 59. After that it was technically up to 60, but Ted Kennedy hadn't cast a vote in months and was housebound due to illness. He died a few weeks later and was replaced by Paul Kirk on September 24, finally bringing the Democratic majority up to 60 in practice as well as theory. After that the Senate was in session for 11 weeks before taking its winter recess, followed by three weeks until Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in the Massachusetts special election.
So that means Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks.[/
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/about-filibuster-proof-majority
blockquote]
hughee99
(16,113 posts)The fact that the senate didn't remain in session longer was something within their ability to control. So, they got a lot done during those 14 weeks, right?
You're trying to make the argument that "they only had to months" and then go on to say thy had 11 weeks and then 3 more before scott brown was seated. I'm not a math expert, but 14 weeks is MORE than 2 months. I'm not suggesting they had a whole two years, but do you think they took advantage of the window of opportunity they did have? I don't.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)Talk about knit picking.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)If they really wanted to get the funding to close Guantanamo, for example, it could have been accomplished during that time. They would have had even more time than that if they spent more time in session. The point is, when they HAD and opportunity to do some of these things, they didn't. Why would I believe that the ONLY reason they're not doing them now is just because of the repukes?
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)But wasn't Obama spending his capital at the time on getting Health Care passed?
Actually I wasn't paying attention or forgot.
mercymechap
(579 posts)we had Blue Dog Democrats....so no, we couldn't do squat. Fortunately some of them went in 2010.....Democrats voted them out or they were replaced with Tea Party candidates.
In 2010, 75% of the Blue Dogs were replaced by teabaggers because the old adage is true: People who sees Republican lite and Republicans will always vote for the Republicans.
I expect the remaining Blue Dogs being removed in favor for progressive Democrats who truly represents the constituents.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021495654
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Even having the house and a supermajority isn't all it's cracked up to be. If it was, they could have pushed through a ton of legislation in those 3+ months. While there's certainly no arguing the repukes are obstructionists, it's a fantasy to believe simply replacing them with Democrats will fix all these issues. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't try to do that anyway (blue dogs are still easier to deal with than teabaggers), but the idea that the President and Congress are ever going to be on the same page for all our big issues, even if they're all Dems, doesn't jibe with past experience.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Its the way it works...
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And she can stand on Obama's shoulders.
And, frankly and sadly, she didn't have the skin color working against her with respect to congressional and regional opposition.
Women have a better shot than men of color.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)No women do NOT have a better shot than men of color....these teabaggers HaTE women...seriously.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)and the teabaggers worship her
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I'm sure there are more well known tea bag women.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You don't understand the teabaggers at ALL!
You think just because they have women they don't hate women?
The women hate women!!@!!
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I also understand that women hate other women - this isn't news.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)The tea party is a decent sized group of assholes, I don't need you to point that out to me.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)They resent Black Males because they are threatened by them (and they blame them for taking their jobs etc)
They resent women.....because they think women want to eliminate them! They secretly resent all the rejection they got from women they tried to date you know the old "she wouldn't go out with me because she is a Lesbian or a Bitch" paradigm.....It made them feel inferior that women so often got to turn them down...some men (of the tea bag persuasion) never get over this. They will straight up say that women have all the power in the world...and seriously believe it! This is why so many get involved in the Forced Birth issues....they want women PUNISHED for (not) having sex (with them).
I dated a number of them in the South....and I couldn't wait to get the hell away from them. It is one of the main reasons I wanted to leave....I was so sick of them!
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they KNOW its going away.....and they are in the proverbial "last throws". The lamenting and garment rending and gnashing of teeth has begun.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Those Rightwing "Christian" women....who are ANTI women issues!~!!!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You made the general assertion that an Elizabeth Warren could not succeed in reducing GOP Teabag opposition because of her gender.
Although Palin's overall views are certainly the opposite of advancement of women (as well as the advancement of males in many ways) she is a woman who has the support (often enthusiastic) of wingnuts.
Warren would certainly rile up the baggers, but a male with her positions and who is a Democrat would have the same opposition from Neanderthals. One tyhing you can say for the right wing -- they are equal opportunity in their efforts to beat down any Democratic, politician in top positions.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)She cannot overcome that. Period. THEY hate women....and they have women who hate them TOO! Many more than Black people in their party...THAT is how deep the hatred runs.
Barefoot and pregnant ring any bells for you?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It seems to me that by automatically assuming failure for Warren because of your gender, you are promoting the same sexist limitations.
She can't succeed and shouldn't be given the chance to try because she is a woman?
No woman can rise to the top in politics or lead effectively because they are women?
How about "Elizabeth Warren couldn't become president, or make any changes if she did because her policies are not palatable to average Americans."
That would be a debatable position to take, but at least would be based on some logical reality.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am saying that the opposition to them will be even MORE fierce to them thn they have already been to Obama. And getting Congress to just roll over and allow either woman to do whatever they want is a pipedream.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I am also not liking your "my owie is worse than your's" in regards to women and black people. It's not a damn contest, so just stop it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)with the Grand Obstruction party....
Unless WE elect Democrats to the house....and that requires NOT throwing every democrat that that doesn't quite measure up to the Holier Than Thou standards under the bus.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I vote for people that I think are the best for the job and match up the most with my ideas, regardless of gender or race.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Yes I do too...I am just realistic about what they can do in the environment and circumstances we have...not the one we wished we had.
I am saying Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton or Pres. Obama are not miracle workers...they cannot make the Recalcitrant Republicans "play ball"!
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)anybody for 2016.
Maybe it's high time we go out and get what we want rather than settling for what is given to us. The republicans aren't ever going to want to play ball with us. We will have to get a strong move forward type candidates to run. If we start in the damn middle, we have already lost ground.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)as well, since Obama people were involved in that. However, she was not elected in 2008, nor could she have been, at least not at that point.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)with the post office being lenders and maybe a place for banking, plus the the call out on Obama surrounding himself with right leaning corporate lawyers.
I sure would be willing to give it a try.
As I've said, the Dem party is stuck in a third way rut, not a real choice at all IMHO. Moderate R's or Full On R's, take your pick.
-p
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Thu Feb 6, 2014, 11:52 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Thought experiment: Would President Warren actually have any different results than Obama
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024458035
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This post refers to the "Jewish lobby". This is anti-Semitic and extremely offensive.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Feb 6, 2014, 11:57 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm sorry but I don't see how this is anti semitic. If you think it is then say so in the thread, talk it out, it'd be educational for all involved, me included.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think he meant Israeli lobby.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I dont agree with the sentiment, but theres no rules violation here.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Enough with the anti-Semitic crap from this poster!
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Hardly anti-Semitic, afaict.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)"Muslim" when the intent was to talk about "terrorists." We'd condemn that heartily.
Not all Jews subscribe to the issues that AIPAC lobbies for. The terms are not synonymous. Jews are not universally AIPAC supporters any more than Muslims are universally terrorists. So yeah, you should condemn the usage in the OP. There is no such thing as the "Jewish" lobby.
William769
(55,147 posts)reusrename
(1,716 posts)There is no terrorist Muslim state.
There is an Israeli Jewish state.
The two are not synonymous at all.
What YOU said is offensive. It's disgusting.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)there is no substantial "Jewish lobby", which is to say people seeking special favors for the Jewish faith from our government. So even though I misspoke, I don't see how there could be any confusion about the meaning. If a person doesn't believe that pressures from Israel are an important constraint on what President Warren could do, they are certainly welcome to that opinion. I just listed that as one among several examples of real world constraints President Warren would have to deal with. I could nave mentioned the NRA as another example. That is the premise of the question after all. Do these constraints mean that Obama has done all that is possible, or could President Warren have achieved more progressive results?
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Sometimes it's difficult to accommodate all the different sensitivities that exist. Making an extra effort when it comes to Jews makes a lot of sense. When I first read your post I honestly did heard a "clunk" when I came to that part. It's not the correct terminology at all.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)This is the DUngeon Master's MO. Alerting on this post is so completely transparent.
They fail most of the time, but they are successful often enough that far too many voices have withdrawn to lurking or moved on to more accommodating pastures.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)My guesses:
First off, she would have saved the banking system, but not the bankers. The banks would be put into a position where they had to serve Main Street, and fast, instead of being handed unlimited piles of crystal meth and Amex platinum cards.
This, in turn, would have turned the economy around. Which would have demonstrated to independent voters that Democrats can actually do more than complain about ill-mannered Republicans, that we could fix stuff. Which would have gotten them to turn out to vote in 2010, handing us both house of Congress in the 2010 elections.
Etc.
And those great patriots, Messrs. Simpson and Bowles, would have been allowed to retire in peace.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"My guesses:
First off, she would have saved the banking system, but not the bankers."
...guess. In her own words.
http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf
Senator Warren on how Massachusetts selects judicial nominees.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024458843
AFJ: Tell your Senators: Please vote for all 29 pending judicial nominees NOW
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024459117
The pending nominees include two others put forth by Senators Warren and Markey
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)will we get Sparkle ponies too?
WillyT
(72,631 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Most people don't realize it, but we run a pretty liberal state, er, commonwealth here. The one instance that i recall of #%^*ing with unions turned into a disaster for the #%^*er (a large hotel chain).
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)minimum wage earners getting hosed.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)It's on tape, ya know.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and THAT is the promise that concerns you? That's your worst?
WillyT
(72,631 posts)HOPE AND CHANGE !!!
I realize he's a politician.
They ALL suck at some level.
But... and you can bookmark this...
If we lose the Senate, fail to gain or come close to taking the House...
IT WILL BE BECAUSE MANY, TWO TIME, ARDENT SUPPORTS, GAVE UP.
not mad at you... just fucking frustrated.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)What the hell is wrong....
Its just like I said....some people will hate govt no matter who is in charge...
And YEAH I agree IF we lose the Senate.....but it couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the hyperbolic disappointed crowd spouting off false criticism after false criticism at damn near EVERY single Democrat!
Marr
(20,317 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)That is now what you think his "major malfunction is" that suddenly ALL the Teabaggers and Rightwingers would just get onboard if only we had an emotional President....
I must ask...."do you complain about everything?"
Because you all act like This Administration has accomplished NOTHING! And THAT is bullshit...
uponit7771
(90,363 posts)reusrename
(1,716 posts)Not to take anything away from Obama's accomplishments, but I do believe that her fearlessness in her quest for justice would lead to a completely different set of challenges.
Can't say if that's a good thing or a bad thing though, at this point, just that it would be different.
In any event, I don't think anyone else on the planet except Obama could have done what he has done. The world was watching when he won office. They're still watching.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)you find out you got, about 90 seconds after the Inaguration is over...
Crunchy Frog
(26,630 posts)BTW, you might want to change "Jewish lobby" to "Israel lobby".
elleng
(131,102 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)I removed that phrase altogether. It wasn't central to the point. It was just an example of one of the many pressure points that a President has to deal with in the real world.
elleng
(131,102 posts)Your stipulation is offensive.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)If this is true, Warren's skin color would result in significantly more bipartisanship and cooperation.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Republicans created a 24/7/365 scandal machine in hopes of driving him out of office. They perfected those techniques with Obama and used racism against him. If Clinton had won they would have used sexism and misogamy against her. If Warren wins, sexism and misogamy will be the primary tools used to attack her.
A big proportion of the Republican electorate, especially those in the south, are racist. Racist attacks were used a dog whistle to get them to salivate and vote. The real money machine behind the modern Republican Party will use whatever they think will work to get people to the polls, be it religion, misogamy, sexism, patriarchalism. Being smart people with money they will spread that same money around to support centrist and center right Democrats, thereby creating a fifth column.
The modern Republican Party no longer believes in governing unless they are doing the governing.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I think the media would undermine her in the same ways they do Obama, but add comments about her appearance.
The platforms people vote for send a strong message to the establishment.
Besides, it seems to me the biggest obstacle we are struggling against right now is a combination of voter apathy and Gerrymandering. We should abolish the latter (and abolishing the former is not unheard-of in democratic countries).
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)The Republican would have happily raked her over the coals and refused to pass anything that people might consider a Democratic victory. Especially since the 2010 midterm, we have been involved in Political Warfare, with Republicans pursing a scorched earth policy. Same thing would have happened with Clinton, Warren, or with any Democrat in that White House.
Kablooie
(18,641 posts)We only get one shot.
We don't want to waste her on a Republican controlled government.
donheld
(21,311 posts)a Mainsteam Media intent on destroying her.
villager
(26,001 posts)Though Obama can still give a good speech.
Unlike most of the actual policies the White House pursues.
Hekate
(90,793 posts)But mostly the GOP congress.
So for gods' sake will you all commit to GOTV 2014?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Can anyone claim to have any flipping clue what the differences would be? Of course not. That's a long shot guess even if we pared it down to a speculative "first hundred days in office" comparison... never fucking mind five years
Changing the one variable - the seated president - creates a cascade of unknowable variables, which compound onto each other, every day, 365 days a year, for five years - and counting.
For all we know president Warren, if seated in 2009, would have overseen the dawn of a new utopia... or perhaps the space nazis hiding in the hollow earth under hte Antarctic icecap would have seized their chance. we don't fucking know and it's literally impossible to come up with any speculation that isn't simply wishful / poo-pooing nonsense.
Might as well be asking what would happen if Donald duck were vice.. presi... Wow. Not many differences on that one, I don't think... That's a little unnerving.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's damn sure working on me, the more you people post that it will make no difference who is elected the more discouraged I get.
Keep it up.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)My intent is to get a lot more reality-based. I believe there are difference that can be made even with the constraints we face. But they are very limited. I wanted to get an idea what others thought would actually be achievable with a different kind of President under these constraints.
What I hope becomes clear to everybody is that we have to change the SCOTUS and the Congress, And given the Gerrymandering in the House districts, a passive, offend-nobody, no-drama President will not put us in a position to capture the House.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)What you think you said vs what you actually wrote vs what the reader gets from your words can often be very different things. I know it happens to me all the time.
I'm just relating what I got from your words, I didn't mean to imply that's what you meant when you wrote them.
Perspectives differ, often they differ a lot and perspective is just about everything when it comes to interpreting what people say.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)probably not
I'd like to see her run for the oval office but I doubt she will. I'd damn sure vote for her.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... would not have filled his cabinet with Bush rejects and malignant insiders like Geithner. That's a simple start.
Warren is not so afraid of her own shadow that she will not call out the other side, there's a difference.
Warren almost certainly would have actually FOUGHT for some kind of public option, Obama folded like a paper napkin.
Y'all can all rewrite history all you want, it was easy to see what kind of president Obama was going to be after just a few months and it was bad news for working Americans.
And finally, WHAT IS SO FUCKING WRONG WITH AN ANGRY BLACK MAN? If you have something to be angry about that is.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Fox News paints him that way anyway. He might as well be one, from time to time. The qu4estion is whether Angry Black Man could turn that anger into some hardball moves that would pay off. That kind of conflict doesn't seem to be in his DNA.
Would Warren have been able to get her picks confirmed? I don't think she could with today's Senate, but she probably could have with the Senate we had in 2009.
sendero
(28,552 posts).. fuckwits are apoplectic 90% of the time. Doesn't seem to have hurt them much.
Personally, I think human being respond to passion and that can include anger and this is one of the secrets of the Republican's success in getting people to vote against their own interests.. If everything you say is delivered like a flat liner, nobody is going to listen and believe you are serious.
Obama has recently racheted up the emotion but it's about 4 years too late IMHO.
And while I'm no fan of Obama's presidency, I think he is a decent man and I think he has every right to be angry at the other side who is villifying him, slandering him and treating him like crap since the day he took office, FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THAT HE IS BLACK.
God I hate a fucking racist.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)THIS is his problem? That's why he cannot get things past Congress? REALLY Now? ludicrous.
RC
(25,592 posts)Between NOT keeping and naming Republicans to critical positions, Warren knows how to use the bully pulpit to good advantage, while Obama still has to look up the definition.
We'd all be better off if Obama were one. I for one, am tired of the transparent excuses used for why Obama is so infective. In most cases, that is what they are, only excuses. Even when in the minority, the Republicans still get their agenda through. Why? Too many 3rd Way, DINO's and others beholden to the big money on Wall Street and big banks.
Contrary to what some here think, have a (D) by your name does NOT mean they are necessarily Liberal, or even on the Left side of Center. Far from it. I even read this morning that one thinks Hillary Clinton is a hard core Liberal. What is that person even doing here on DU?
...."I even read this morning that one thinks Hillary Clinton is a hard core Liberal. What is that person even doing here on DU?"
I don't mind such a person being here, but I do wish they would educate themselves. HRC is barely in the center, much less left.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)She'd have talked the GOP into a larger stimulus ... gotten Lieberman and the blue dogs to support Nationalized health care ...
Then ... she'd have had the DOJ throwing bankers off of roof tops ... she'd have talked Boehner and the tea Party into a $20 minimum wage and forgiven all mortgage debt. The Tea Party then disbands.
And just the first 100 days.
At her first state of the Union, a GOP house member would have yelled "YOU ROCK!" and justice Sam Alito would have been the first Supreme court member ever to do cartwheels up and down one of the aisles, in her honor. Scalia attends, and gives Warren a high five on her way out.
She proposes and passes legislation making college free, and also requiring marajuana dispensing machines on every other floor in college dorms.
To make up for prior damages, being gay now gets you a large tax break.
In her second year, all oil drilling in the US would have stopped because by that time, all homes and businesses in the US would be powered by what would be forever after known as the Warren Solar Highway ... its based on an energy distribution system she invented in the White House basement.
Energy is now free, and cars actually run on rainbows.
Putin and other world leaders would be so thrilled with her, that they'd get the troubling makers in the Middle East to lay down their arms, and plant flowers. Israel and the Palestinians, would suddenly declare peace on President Warren's birthday, as a gift to her.
By year three, Dennis Rodman has moved to North Korea for good, and he's taken the Kardasheans with him. Reality TV and football end.
Her election to a second term being a mere formality ... she declares and end to capitalism. No one is upset because everything is pretty much free now anyway. The white picket fence industry would be booming if there were still industries.
Midway through her second term, at what is usually the start of a President's lame duck period, in a not too surprising move, the GOP lead House and Senate pass a law making Warren US President for life. As one would expect, Warren objects to this, and takes the issue all the way to the supreme court.
They rule unanimously against her ... she humbly accepts the honor.
In response, as her gift to the American people, she declares that Social Security benefits will now begin at conception.
And there is much rejoicing.
On Edit: None of that would have happened. What would have happened is she'd have made some compromise early on or picked some one that the high priests of liberalism didn't like to be in her administration, and she'd have been thrown under the bus before Al Franken was seated.
The same who call us fangirls/boys for our support of the POTUS go overboard in their language regarding this non candidate for the office, and if she really were in the office and had to deal with it? Their disappointment would be registered by the end of January of the year sworn in.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,749 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)I know it's clever to paint anyone who is even remotely critical of the performance of Obama and Democrats in the last six years.
It's a lot of fun to assume that we demanded that Obama become Karl Marx -- or even Bernie Sanders -- with a magic wand.
But that attitude of condescension is one reason the Democrats as a whole are not in a better position to beat back the GOP hounds.
Many of us know full well the meaning of compromise, pragmatism and all of that...In fact many of us are a lot more like what Obama claims to be at his best.
But there is a difference between all of that and moving in the wrong direction and/or giving into the status quo from the git go.
And we are certainly aware there is a huge middle ground between getting everything we want and seeing the Democrats disregard and occasionally insult a large swath of the liberal base as "far left" and "naive" and all of those wonderful terms you love to throw around.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Every accomplishment is too little.
FDR or LBJ would have gotten more. Warren would have too (read up thread).
The stuff we're seeing around Warren lately on DU is the same kind of thing that caused the right wing to claim that progressives saw Obama as some kind of Messiah.
I'm enjoying watching Warren's deification on DU by the same folks who use terms (since you are concerned about "terms people throw around" , like DLCer, DINO, 3rdway, sycophant, authoritarian, fascist, warmonger (I could continue) for Obama supporters now. Its hilarious.
The effort to pit Warren against Obama, the guy who gave her the role that allowed her to become known at all, is pretty comical.
And after all, Putin probably forced Obama to give her that role because certainly Obama did not want to do it.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)respect for her plans to deal with corporate greed. I think she can get much more done in that area than if she tries to diversify at this point. I hope she becomes the face of anti-corporate greed legislation. If there is a Presidential run in the future, I will likely support it, but I think she has work to do in the Senate, and is kicking butt doing it.
I hope she becomes the face of financial reform for the Democratic party. Her accomplishments will serve the country, the Democratic party and her future in politics well. When her work there is done, let's see if she feels differently about being potus. I have a feeling she will.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And at least so far, she seems to be having a lot of fun in the Senate. So she might find that to be "her place".
Or maybe not. Maybe at some point she'll aim for the top job.
I get a kick out of all the attempts around here to create some fight between Warren and Obama, or Warren and Hillary.
I think it makes sense to praise Warren for being Warren. The other stuff is kind of silly.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)But she woudn't have chosen a compromise as her starting position.
And yeah, President Warren would have thrown some banksters in jail.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And then when the starting position won't pass?
I get the sense some folks think that the "starting position", as reported in the media, is a position that was reached with zero prior thought and no knowledge of where the players stand.
In reality, each administration knows pretty much where all of their party's members fall on major issues all the time.
There are staff level folks in every administration, and in congress, who are talking about where the members stand ... CONSTANTLY.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And would anybody. Few have Obama's ability of diplomacy and getting other people onside. This is spite of Presidenting while black. I think Presidenting while being a woman will have similar challenges, and Elizabeth does not seem to have those abilities or anything near it. Nothing would happen at all. Those her fangirls and boys claim they would be happy with no progress at all on health care and we'd still have pre-existing conditions to worry about.
TBF
(32,090 posts)before she takes the oath of office I'd be much more optimistic about her chances.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I don't think anybody with a D beside their name would do much better with the obstructionist asshats.
riqster
(13,986 posts)We need congress, and the judiciary, and the White House.
randome
(34,845 posts)It wouldn't hurt to have all three but we need to work now for Congress.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
riqster
(13,986 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,879 posts)She would still be saddled with assholes like Boehner, Cant-do and the Ayn Rand devotee Ryan.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)The President has tremendous power independently of Congress on issues such as border enforcement, policies personnel in the NSA, CIA and DOJ, etc. On economic issues the President has less unilateral power, but at least should wield a mean veto.
cali
(114,904 posts)nope. don't buy it.
different appointments for one thing. I don't see her making the same executive decisions either. both are a big deal. simple to answer
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)And I appreciate all the thoughtful answers.
cali
(114,904 posts)and I responded honestly by telling you where I think Warren would differ from President Obama-
Appointments- within the admin, the federal bench and executive departments. For instance, I can't see her appointing such corporate pigs to the USTR as President Obama has, or appointing someone who is a tool of big oil as Secretary of the Interior as Obama did when he appointed Salazar.
Marr
(20,317 posts)No GOP to blame there.
vi5
(13,305 posts)Would she appoint Arne Duncan?
Would she appoint Tim Geithner?
Would she appoint Judd Gregg?
Would she appoint Eric Holder?
Would she appoint Gary Gensler
Would she appoint Larry Summers?
Would she tout the policies of Michelle Rhea?
Would she wait to "evolve" on issues like gay rights until the winds were so clearly blowing in a direction of public support?
Would she use Goldman Sachs/JP Morgan et al as her hiring pool?
Would she appoint fox after fox to guard the henhouse?
We'll never know, but all of that stuff to me tells me where Obamas true heart is at because none of it has anything to do with the things you mentioned. They were his choices and his choices alone.
At the very least Warren seems more willing to actually stand up and shout for progressive values than Obama ever has, and likely has far too many enemies among the crew that Obama has been ever so cozy with to keep them so closely at her right hand and lean on them for anything.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]
vi5
(13,305 posts)You get my point. Of all the available people in their respective fields, those were the ones he chose to surround himself with. And not all the folks I listed were actually appointees that required congressional approval.
randome
(34,845 posts)But Obama is a smart man, IMO. I think he would be appointing the best and most Progressive candidates if he thought he could 'get away' with it. I think he is aware of his place in the here-and-now and makes his calculations accordingly.
I wish it was different and I don't know if we'll ever find out, especially if Clinton wins the White House. I would much prefer to have a firebrand in place and see if it makes any difference with an obstructionist Congress.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
vi5
(13,305 posts)Even if it is true and he didn't think he could 'get away' with it, I'd rather someone who at least wouldn't throw in the towel before trying.
And not all of the ones I listed required any Congressional approval anyway.
You're right, Clinton will not be much different. If anything will probably be worse.
cali
(114,904 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)which pays virtually no taxes in the US, to head her "Competitiveness council"?
I'm thinking probably not.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)I'm thinking hell no, she would not say that.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)and not capitulate at every turn and give them cover. It would be a fight at every turn, but at least she's willing to fight.
randome
(34,845 posts)But I have to wonder if we are fighting enough -for Congress this year.
Do we deserve a firebrand if we don't do our part to ensure said firebrand's success?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Autumn
(45,120 posts)to work and elect Democrats.
randome
(34,845 posts)With all this agonizing over an election that doesn't occur for nearly 3 more years, I have to wonder about the priorities that get bandied about on this site.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
Autumn
(45,120 posts)I have always found Democrats are smart enough to be able to discuss future elections as well as an election that would say, occur next week quite easily without "agonizing" over it.
If you don't like the ideas and discussions, or as you call them "priorities that get bandied about on this site" you can ignore them. This is not the only political discussion site on the web. It's just the best one on the web. Most DUers can talk and walk at the same time.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)She would not have bent over backwards to appease right wingers in the name of "bipartisanship". She almost certainly would not have refused to prosecute the banksters and other thieves. She would have fought hard for labor, shamed and embarrassed DINOs that stood up for corporate interests and definitely wouldn't be appointing Republicans or sleazeballs like Emmanuel to cabinet positions or chief of staff.
Things would definitely be different in that first term. And because of that, I doubt we would have gotten shellacked in 2010.
reddread
(6,896 posts)between executive orders and invigorating a voting and non-voting public deprived of just representation?
NO QUESTION.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)with the current legislative make-up. President Obama has done pretty well, overall, I think.
We need a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, and we can do it:
GOTV 2014 and Beyond!
reddread
(6,896 posts)seems a little less easy.
How many districts do the Republicans abandon?
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Anyone. If there's no Democrat running in your district, file for the office. The DNC is not required.
There's still time for 2014. Give me your state and congressional district and I'll send you a link to the application.
reddread
(6,896 posts)besides, the crooks in place in my district wont be scooting over for the likes of me.
We are talking about a majority that has been historically held, and is not that hard to achieve.
Its hardly my responsibility to make up the difference.
Given an opportunity to vote in their own interests,
Americans will respond.
Which is why they arent given that opportunity.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)it's because no Democrat has filed for the office. It's that simple. Although a win might be impossible in a given district, I believe there should always be a Democratic candidate for every seat.
If I lived in such a district, my name would be on the ballot, even if it was just a token run. The DNC spends its funds where it thinks they will be well-used. I don't agree with that policy, but I'm not part of the decision making process.
However, the DNC is not required to file and become a candidate.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Im pretty sure you can sort out the intent. And Im not going to enumerate the examples of their failures (and this includes the big dogs who give tacit support to Republican policies and candidates, the DLC influence and chicanery) to support candidates that the voting base wishes to see in place.
Its simply the fact of the problem.
My only point here, and it is as good as gold if votes were all that counted-
a candidate like Warren (and she is, she is) will bring forth such a groundswell of voters,
that some very heavy handed responses are more likely than not.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)he stood up to AIPAC:
AIPAC reverses course and supports President Obama's position on Iran sanctions -- Bill Clinton too
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024457694
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)argue publicly against single payer-- a very popular idea-- for at least a year. All the same people who opposed Obama's plan would've opposed Warren, of course, but I expect it would have cost them tremendously at the first mid-term election, and then... who knows?
Obama began with a Heritage Foundation concept that wasn't particularly popular, and walked it rightward until a sizable portion of his own party was uncomfortable with it, and quite dissatisfied. He never tried to inspire the public to push for something more, and frankly, I think it's because he didn't want to give them more (judging from the maneuvering that took place). And all of this cost us at the polls.
That's just one example, but I think the same dynamic would apply to a whole range of subjects on which Obama has begun "negotiating" from the very right edge of the party.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)Real-life answer: He can't. So fuck them anyway.
That's the attitude one should take with bullies, and that's what the current Republicans are, bullies.
When did a bully ever improve by being kowtowed to?
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)It is a matter of negotiating styles and where the starting point is.
She seems like she would start her negotiating point beyond the middle, which may have to force others to move a bit more to the center, rather than figuring out where the center could be, which in turn moves further to the right, while complaining about how insane their demands are.
Their demands will always be insane, and they will ask for a lot more than what you are initially going to bargain with.
It is possible that she would be able to push more or less. I'd like to say more, particularly if it was during the first two years of the Presidency when the public support was there.
Even the ACA which passed without Republican votes, where it was wholly argued by the Democrats with their Blue Dog section, may have gone further if the start was even better.
Obama has accomplished quite a bit, considering the opposition. However, I feel like he emboldened them by looking at the middle first and taking their positions first. It legitimized their positions and allowed them to move further to the right while painting him as the most liberal president ever, when he is further right of center than many of his own party.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)Even if they don't always agree with what the leader says, they like forthrightness.
I think that one of the problems the Democrats have had is their wishy-washy image. The Republicans come across as forceful, and the mainstream Democrats come across with an "excuse me for existing, I'm not being too liberal for you, am I?" attitude.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)He is an ogre of a personality -- the last person anybody would want to be around. But until this scandal erupted, the public was willing to support him because "He is a plain talker" and "He says what he believes in" and "He isn't afraid of offending people".
And while Reagan was a lot more likeable, his policies were not. The public was willing to let him have power-- power that was completely against their self-interest -- because he spoke with conviction and he talked in terms of principles he was willing to fight for.
The most successful football coaches, business leaders, community organizers, leaders in general are quite often those who exude confidence most strongly. That isn't always a good thing, as in the case of Jim Jones and Charles Manson. But it is human nature. We are pack animals genetically wired to follow the alpha dog. Of course, intellect can overcome those reptilian tendencies, but it is always there in the background. We naturally follow the most confident one. And while President Obama has a quiet confidence about him, he just doesn't project that very strongly.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)his race, for example...
And his African or Muslim sounding name.
There is so much hate for him, it's just a good thing that a lot of us like him so much that he's been able to continue his job, probably not the way he would really like. We'll never know that. But don't assume he likes not being able to stand up for his positions. He needs some strong support in the MSM and from a greater number of popular politicians.
I bet he sings and dances better than Warren...
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)they naturally tend to favor the person or party that is seen as the more confident, more aggressive. It is human nature. We tend to talk about the MSM as if it has to be this way. A certain percent of the MSM has an agenda and we can't do much about that. But really, most of them just aren't very good at their jobs. All they know how to do is to report on perceptions and atmospherics. We have consistently let Frank Luntz guide the debate in the media and have rarely taken the offensive.
My point is that the MSM is not a constant. A different President might be able to get our story line to stick with more of the media.
thesquanderer
(11,991 posts)Maybe she would start negotiating from a point further left, instead of starting from a point that she thought reasonable Republicans might accept, which seems to be Obama's MO. And wherever you start, you usually get less. (Especially when "reasonable Republicans" are in short supply.)
Could Obamacare have had a public option or a buy-in to Medicare? We don't know, because he didn't even attempt to try to secure them. He basically proposed a moderate Republican plan out of the gate.