Senator Warren Shut Down for Reading Coretta Scott King Letter

[Flagg]

I'm losing all my fucking teeth, my mother has cancer, and I don't want another shit sandwich. But you're right. Sorry mods. I'll let Dalton deal with this and likely come away with another shit sandwich, but whatever. I'm not going to get banned over losing it to someone whose name I can't say.

[Thanas]

I'm losing all my fucking teeth, my mother has cancer, and I don't want another shit sandwich. But you're right. Sorry mods. I'll let Dalton deal with this and likely come away with another shit sandwich, but whatever. I'm not going to get banned over losing it to someone whose name I can't say.

You have my sympathies.

[FireNexus]

I'm losing all my fucking teeth, my mother has cancer, and I don't want another shit sandwich. But you're right. Sorry mods. I'll let Dalton deal with this and likely come away with another shit sandwich, but whatever. I'm not going to get banned over losing it to someone whose name I can't say.

Sorry man. That all really sucks. When my lottery ticket comes up a winner, and/or I have an extra $10,000 to spare, you have my solemn vow that I'll buy you new teeth. But they're going to be T-800 colored because you're clearly very hip hop.

Glad you came to your senses, buddy.

[LadyTevar]

I'm losing all my fucking teeth, my mother has cancer, and I don't want another shit sandwich. But you're right. Sorry mods. I'll let Dalton deal with this and likely come away with another shit sandwich, but whatever. I'm not going to get banned over losing it to someone whose name I can't say.

You have my sympathies on your health issues.
However, you are hitting the Vendetta Rule just as hard as the other person... who, by the way, has apologized, and has not replied to you because he is abiding by my ruling to take a week off and let the matter drop. You, however, are continuing to feed the fire, while waiting for Dalton to make the call. This is the only reason why you have yet to be temp-banned as I warned you I would.

[Flagg]

I'm losing all my fucking teeth, my mother has cancer, and I don't want another shit sandwich. But you're right. Sorry mods. I'll let Dalton deal with this and likely come away with another shit sandwich, but whatever. I'm not going to get banned over losing it to someone whose name I can't say.

You have my sympathies on your health issues.
However, you are hitting the Vendetta Rule just as hard as the other person... who, by the way, has apologized, and has not replied to you because he is abiding by my ruling to take a week off and let the matter drop. You, however, are continuing to feed the fire, while waiting for Dalton to make the call. This is the only reason why you have yet to be temp-banned as I warned you I would.

No, I'm not "hitting the vendetta rule", I'm demanding he provide evidence that I'm a liar like he claimed he would.

[TheFeniX]

This. Basically where I was going is that while there may have been some "Hillary or Bust" voters who simply could not stomach any other Democratic candidate, there weren't nearly enough to offset the fact that Obama was a strong candidate. Had Obama been a weak candidate, the "Hillary or Bust" voters might hypothetically have become a decisive factor... but in that case, the blame wouldn't lie with Hillary Clinton. It'd lie with Obama for failing to rally enough "yay Obama" voters to cancel out the "Hillary or Bust" voters.

Thankfully, Obama's popularity that let him crush Hillary also let him crush McAlin. And I mean crush. And really, IMHO, Clinton was about as much competition to Obama as McAlin, with just a lot less crazy on the Palin end. So, him besting a muddled old man and a moron was pretty much a given once he bested someone like Clinton.

You would not believe the amount of shit I got in this shithole state for saying "Obama's going to win this. Republicans aren't riled up for McCain. The media is focusing too much on Palin's bullshit. This is NOT a good thing. It makes McCain look weak. Democrats and moderates are rallying hard around Obama's message. Welcome the first black U.S. president."

I got laughed at. Obama got laughed at. It's sad because I see multiple parallels between the elections of 2008 and 2016. One constant between them: HRC losing her ass. How is this woman the best the DNC can come up with? I still don't get why Democrats (not politicians, the voters) give two shits about her. I mean, voting for her over Trump: sure. But in general?

I mean seriously, politicians in a democracy have ONE JOB, or more accurately one job skill that is relevant to their ability to keep their job. Namely, convince people to vote for them. A politician who can't do that is by definition not a good politician, and not someone your party should nominate. Not even if they might hypothetically be someone who you might want to put in office if you were Q.

People continually forget this and it amazes me. I don't care how solid your message is. How unimpeachable. If you can't get people to "click" with you, you're a failure in the Homecoming/Prom King/Queen of politics.

[The Romulan Republic]

Quite.

Their are things you can say in Clinton's defence, certainly- that their was extraordinary, illegal interference by Russia and the FBI; that their was voter suppression; that she won the popular vote by a fairly wide margin...

But at the end of the day, none of that changes the fact that she lost the Presidency to an Orange Rapist.

Now, to be fair, many politicians have suffered defeat and gone on to successful futures in politics. But Clinton had two runs at the Presidency, with a kind of financial support, insider support, experience, and established reputation few could rival- and she lost.

[Simon_Jester]

Also, most politicians who bounce back from defeats are, say, forty, or fifty, or even sixty.

Seventy? Not so much.

I really, really think she's done. I kind of hope she is. Like Sanders, or even more so, she could do a lot more good for the country by trying to use her assets and connections to help someone else, rather than trying to keep charging back into the spotlight.

[The Romulan Republic]

Now that's an interesting thing: Clinton, to my knowledge, has been virtually silent since her concession, aside from some minor support for the recounts and attending Trumpolini's inauguration like a good little enabler. I get that she probably wants to appear magnanimous, that any political involvement from her runs the risk of appearing to be just her being a sore loser. But if she really cares about the issues, about people, beyond her personal ambition, then at some point, she needs to step up. Not for future campaigns, but to use her influence, such as it is, to help others make a difference.

Bernie didn't disappear. The Obamas, even, have been publicly critical of Trump since they left office. All the major Democratic leaders are out their, getting to work.

Clinton is silent.

Now, she could help people in less overtly political ways of course (take the Clinton Foundation's charitable work). That has merit. And its even arguable that her involvement could do more harm than good, that the Democratic Party needs new blood and she is too polarizing.

But she's been damn quiet since the election.

Edit: I guess what I'm saying is that right now is a time when we need all hands on deck, and one of the biggest pairs of hands, so to speak, are conspicuously absent. I get why that might be so. But its still noticeable.

[Simon_Jester]

It may be 20/20 hindsight, and people have been saying this for a long time...

But I really do think Hillary Clinton developed something of an entitlement complex about power. She's spent a lifetime building up to it, her presidential ambitions have been obvious for at least sixteen years... And she's just pretty conspicuously failed. In what I strongly suspect she knows was her last shot at the presidency. She's not going to have another chance. She's done.

So on the one hand, I can very much sympathize with her de facto retiring from politics.

On the other hand, I can also imagine that the sheer cognitive dissonance about it not being "her time" after all is getting to her.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes.

As much as I dislike her, I feel a considerable amount of sympathy for Clinton, and not just because by all rights she, not Trump, ought to have won. She has spent literally decades of her life working towards this race, fought through scandal after scandal (some genuine and some manufactured), come so close twice, and lost. To Donald fucking Trump.

I can't imagine what a devastating blow that must be on a personal level.

[Starglider]

Democrats and moderates are rallying hard around Obama's message. Welcome the first black U.S. president." I still don't get why Democrats (not politicians, the voters) give two shits about her. I mean, voting for her over Trump: sure. But in general?

She was supposed to be the first female U.S. president. The other five democratic candidates were all male. A large fraction of liberals including essentially all feminist activists assumed that she would capture women's votes to an extent at least comparable to the overwhelming black support for Obama in 2008 (95%). There was all that 'special place in hell for women who don't vote for women' messaging (plus if you are a male trying to get any scrap of approval from feminists, you must vote Clinton). Didn't work; she actually got 54% of women voters, less than Obama's 56%; but the left expected it to.

[ray245]

It may be 20/20 hindsight, and people have been saying this for a long time...

But I really do think Hillary Clinton developed something of an entitlement complex about power. She's spent a lifetime building up to it, her presidential ambitions have been obvious for at least sixteen years... And she's just pretty conspicuously failed. In what I strongly suspect she knows was her last shot at the presidency. She's not going to have another chance. She's done.

So on the one hand, I can very much sympathize with her de facto retiring from politics.

On the other hand, I can also imagine that the sheer cognitive dissonance about it not being "her time" after all is getting to her.

It's pretty clear from the 2008 election that she's not really that skilled at getting the key votes to win, or is particularly good at election strategy. It's a big part why Obama secured the nominations.

Her sense of entitlement of being the first female President does turn a lot of people off. And to add to that, she's not charismatic in any real sense. If you can't inspire voters, you will always end up losing the US Presidency elections.

[TheFeniX]

She was supposed to be the first female U.S. president. The other five democratic candidates were all male. A large fraction of liberals including essentially all feminist activists assumed that she would capture women's votes to an extent at least comparable to the overwhelming black support for Obama in 2008 (95%). There was all that 'special place in hell for women who don't vote for women' messaging (plus if you are a male trying to get any scrap of approval from feminists, you must vote Clinton). Didn't work; she actually got 54% of women voters, less than Obama's 56%; but the left expected it to.

I don't think Clinton even won women over in the 2008 DNC. How bad is that? More liberal women sided with a man than HRC. If liberal women won't landslide for a female candidate, why the Hell would anyone think the general female population would?

I'm really fucking tired of the Hillary Clinton express. The train was derailed years ago and people keep talking like it's still going to arrive on time. I'm sure she's a great person and all, but she's not what Democrats need. She's not what they've needed for a long time. I would have thought Obama would have proved that to the DNC and I was wrong. Good God, If they need a woman that bad: run Michelle Obama. I'd vote for her and not feel like a shit-heel voting for someone completely out of touch with reality.

[Gandalf]

I'm really fucking tired of the Hillary Clinton express. The train was derailed years ago and people keep talking like it's still going to arrive on time. I'm sure she's a great person and all, but she's not what Democrats need. She's not what they've needed for a long time. I would have thought Obama would have proved that to the DNC and I was wrong. Good God, If they need a woman that bad: run Michelle Obama. I'd vote for her and not feel like a shit-heel voting for someone completely out of touch with reality.

I think this touches on a much bigger issue; the Democrats have not got a strong roster of potential presidential candidates. Who was the alternative to Clinton last year aside from maybe Sanders?

Hopefully sometime in the next three years the party can rustle up some actual talent for 2020.

[Starglider]

Many Republicans are keen to run against Warren for roughly the same reason many Democrats hoped Trump would win the Republican primary; the candidate is unelectable by conventional political wisdom. Of course the assumption may bite them in the ass in exactly the same way. That said; why the Tea Party had an easier time swinging House/Senate elections than the current hyper-liberal movement will. It seems credible to me; although most of what I know about US election dynamics comes from fivethirtyeight.

[Simon_Jester]

Many Republicans are keen to run against Warren for roughly the same reason many Democrats hoped Trump would win the Republican primary; the candidate is unelectable by conventional political wisdom. Of course the assumption may bite them in the ass in exactly the same way.

Be advised that the author of the article you link to thinks that suppressing discussion of Jeff Sessions' nomination in the Senate is 'rules of decorum' because he is a sitting senator. Consider that there is at least one large minority group in the US, which turned out in rather larger numbers for Obama. And whose staying home probably did a lot to secure Trump's victory, though they despise Trump when polled on their opinions of him...

...And who may end up getting rather significantly harmed by Jeff Sessions over the next two to four years.

The person who tried to read Coretta Scott King's letter at his confirmation hearing may come out looking better than you think there.

That being said, maybe Warren isn't the optimal choice. That wouldn't surprise me, although it also wouldn't surprise me if she can manage to bring at least one revved-up Democrat to the table for every revved-up Republican who comes to the table just to oppose her, something Hillary Clinton was in no position to accomplish. The Republicans didn't take the precaution of spending the '90s and '00s running propaganda against her, you see.

...

What I do think the Democrats need is, quite simply, a candidate who is very, very open that they're willing to compromise on issues that are dear to specific sectors of the American center-right, but are NOT willing to compromise on:

-Refusing to turn bigotry into legislation.
-Respecting constitutional rights and equal protection under the law.
-Treating the legal system as a watchdog, instead of an enemy.
-Providing competent, literate governance.
-Recognizing that the government is or can be a positive force in people's lives. Abolishing chunks of it serves only to benefit powerful private citizens, not the masses.

Compared to these basic issues, things like gun control (a popular conservative rallying cry when they want to stir up loathing of "LIBERAL ELITES!") are unimportant. They should be jettisoned. International trade is an issue that can be compromised on- it may have effects on our economy, but a literate, competent president can handle things tolerably well, I suspect.

That said; why the Tea Party had an easier time swinging House/Senate elections than the current hyper-liberal movement will. It seems credible to me; although most of what I know about US election dynamics comes from fivethirtyeight.

The analysis is at least credible though I'm not sure I'd accept it with complete confidence. The author would appear to be taking "America is fundamentally conservative" as a premise to a larger degree than is warranted. If you look at the demographics that are likely to vote in greater numbers in 2018-20 than in 2010-16, most of them are anti-Trump and don't panic when accusations of socialism are thrown around because they don't have such bitter memories of the Cold War.

[ray245]

I'm really fucking tired of the Hillary Clinton express. The train was derailed years ago and people keep talking like it's still going to arrive on time. I'm sure she's a great person and all, but she's not what Democrats need. She's not what they've needed for a long time. I would have thought Obama would have proved that to the DNC and I was wrong. Good God, If they need a woman that bad: run Michelle Obama. I'd vote for her and not feel like a shit-heel voting for someone completely out of touch with reality.

I think this touches on a much bigger issue; the Democrats have not got a strong roster of potential presidential candidates. Who was the alternative to Clinton last year aside from maybe Sanders?

Hopefully sometime in the next three years the party can rustle up some actual talent for 2020.

Joe Biden? He's a pretty decent candidate as a former VP. If his son hadn't died, he would have ran.

[Starglider]

The person who tried to read Coretta Scott King's letter at his confirmation hearing may come out looking better than you think there.

I doubt there will be any significant effect from this one incident, though it was satisfying to see a liberal get 'no-platformed' for 'problematic remarks' for once. Warren was a front runner anyway, due to shallowness of the Democratic candidate pool aside from anything else, and social media engines on both sides have a glut of news content to trigger off their hystronics on. I am sure she'll build up a big pile of symbolic challenges to the majority over the next four years regardless.

As I said Republicans explicitly framing Warren as the opposition villainess-in-chief is risky for them in several ways; if the swing state electorate moves far enough to the left to support her as-is, if she moves to the center over the next few years without losing the current base, making her look more effective to moderates if they lose too many fights, or if it blinds them to a dark horse candidate.

The author would appear to be taking "America is fundamentally conservative" as a premise to a larger degree than is warranted. If you look at the demographics that are likely to vote in greater numbers in 2018-20 than in 2010-16, most of them are anti-Trump and don't panic when accusations of socialism are thrown around because they don't have such bitter memories of the Cold War.

'America' doesn't matter, directly, in elections. What matters is the portion of America that lives in swing states, and swing districts. It does you no good to make California and New York even more democratic than they already are, and not much good to make Tennessee 5% less Republican. You've already got a landslide in SDN the bubble. Demographics were supposed to have already made Republican victory impossible, according to the Democratic elite as of last summer, yet they own the presidency, senate, house and 70% of the state governor positions. Are these demographics you expect to bail you out strategically positioned in the races you actually need to win?

[TheFeniX]

Why do Democrats need to shift right on certain issues? The Republicans sure aren't shifting left. Obama, at least during the election, was pretty far left. The Repulicans beat him on this constantly for his "Socialism!" He won out heavily among black voters, but also more than a few white liberals and moderates, and even managed to (if memory serves) pick up a number of Republican votes from people fed up with establishment politics and the trainwreck of a GW presidency.

I think Democrats need to worry less about their platform and more about the message.

My only caveat is they DO need to ditch gun control as a platform issue. At the least: win first. Guns later.

It shames me to say it but: style over substance can win it here. There's already 3 million more people willing to vote for Hillary over the Trumpster. Her message is fine, even the gun control part. Those people will be more motivated in 2020 (and hopefully the elections in between). Democrats don't even need to find another rock star like Obama. Just one who plays well in front of the camera, can take heavy criticism (read: slanderous lies and insults) and take it on the chin, turn around and hit back in a way that makes the attacker look like an asshole.

Obama was stellar at this against Clinton, McCain, and even Romney. Watching him destroy Clinton in the 2008 primaries was a great feeling. She came off as mean and vindictive.

If the party of the young progressives can't scrape together more than a few candidates like this: WTF? Or more specifically: not have them rolled over by the old dudes. Because Democrats bill themselves as the hip, young, go-getters (which fits the electorate), but is filled with stodgy old people way past their prime who play in front of the camera like either your angry and senile grandpa or a cardboard cut-out. Obama basically raided a nursing home in 2008.

But Democrats seem scared because it's either:
A. Find another rock star like Obama
B. Push the status quo establishment guy/gal.

But there are more than enough Democrats who might not sell out a concert, but that's not really what they need. Obama just kind of broke the party because he was that good at what he did.

[Gandalf]

Joe Biden? He's a pretty decent candidate as a former VP. If his son hadn't died, he would have ran.

Was he actually going to run, or was it a mixture of speculation and wishful thinking?

O'Malley 2020!

[LadyTevar]

Why don't we get back On Topic again?

[Rogue 9]

Many Republicans are keen to run against Warren for roughly the same reason many Democrats hoped Trump would win the Republican primary; the candidate is unelectable by conventional political wisdom. Of course the assumption may bite them in the ass in exactly the same way. That said; why the Tea Party had an easier time swinging House/Senate elections than the current hyper-liberal movement will. It seems credible to me; although most of what I know about US election dynamics comes from fivethirtyeight.

I'm not going to say more about future elections due to Tevar's warning, but be wary of The Federalist as a source; they're one of the recent pop-up propaganda outlets rather than an established journalism outfit. One of their top stories right now is claiming that Planned Parenthood has dead baby quotas and another describes the country's education system as "cult-like," both of which are prima facie ridiculous.

[ray245]

Joe Biden? He's a pretty decent candidate as a former VP. If his son hadn't died, he would have ran.

Was he actually going to run, or was it a mixture of speculation and wishful thinking?

O'Malley 2020!

He was. He mentioned it on Colbert's show.

[Starglider]

I'm not going to say more about future elections due to Tevar's warning, but be wary of The Federalist as a source; they're one of the recent pop-up propaganda outlets rather than an established journalism outfit.

Oh absolutely; they're not a source of news, they're a source of Republican rumours and activist viewpoints. I did a fairly deep archive dive recently when examining Republican attitudes to Trump.