Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Oh, and all this said (and yes, I've donated $25 to her campaign), I fully recognize that not all of Warren's ideas will be accepted if she wins, and know that none of them will be in the form that she's proposing short of a filibuster-proof Senate majority win - and perhaps not even then (see: Obama with the Public Option)! But, like Sanders in 2016, part of my hope is that she'll help push the Overton Window away from the right, and hopefully keep it there this time.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"![]()
As if doing better than Feinstein is supposed to be something praiseworthy.
538's take on her last election.
Yeah, she sweeped it. But they also pointed out that it was underwhelming given the state's blue hue.
The point is that Warren underperformed.
At this point I'm not sure if I'm being too cynical or if others are being too optimistic about Warren's chances. All I'm saying is that number wise, Warren's not doing too hot. Even Warren acknowledges that — which is probably why she's trying to downplay said polls by pointing at Obama and Trump.
Edited by M84 on Jun 9th 2019 at 12:41:55 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedAlso, she will most likely get at least SOMETHING done. I mean, her track record isn't exactly the worst, isn't it? That there even is an office for consumer protection is because she pushed for it.
Not really? Especially in save states participation is prone to go down, especially in the group of voters which expect their candidate to win anyway.
Edited by Swanpride on Jun 8th 2019 at 9:42:54 AM
![]()
That ultimately depends on her actually taking office. For anything to get done, she has to win first.
Check out the linked article about how Warren underperformed.
She really underperformed.
Edited by M84 on Jun 9th 2019 at 12:45:09 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
Eh...empirical data shows that she has been elected into office. Multiple times. So she is clearly electable.
Her being in office would naturally be ideal, but she gets a lot of stuff done even with the level of power she has now. This is more about the scale in which she can influence politics, not if she can influence it at all.
Because the "blue" lean of Massachusetts offset these problems. In a presidential election that factor doesn't apply. Bit of a base rate fallacy, there, to say that winning one office means that electability concerns don't apply to another election.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI would like to point out that despite the "Blue hue" of New England, that does not always translate to electoral results.
For instance, Vermont and Massachusetts both have Republican Governors, despite being considered "Blue States". Warren won her first election against a Senator who had already fought off a Democratic challenger, and the Republican Party dumped a lot of resources into her race to try to unseat her.
I feel like in our talk of her "under-preforming" we are painting a bluer picture of New England than what really exists.
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
It's based on actual statistics though.
That's the thing — all of this stuff about how Warren is underperforming? It's based on actual data.
As someone who actually hopes Warren somehow wins the candidacy instead of Biden or Sanders (because fuck them), I'd feel a lot more confident if the polls and favorability were more, well, in her favor.
Edited by M84 on Jun 9th 2019 at 1:03:32 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised
The "underpreforming" was comparing her to Hillary Clinton, not a local race. Need I remind you that the first challenger against Phil Scott failed?
New England may vote blue in Presidential Races, but in statewide races you'd be surprised at what races Republicans can win.
Moreover, the Republican Party did focus a sizeable amount of resources her way IIRC, so I'm not too much concerned with that.
I get that the polls look bad, but if it makes you feel better, she did have some hurdles to jump through and she did it.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Jun 8th 2019 at 1:06:36 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer![]()
You didn't read that article then.
And is Warren's campaign raising a ton of money? Because otherwise she's even less likely to win.
Edited by M84 on Jun 9th 2019 at 1:07:18 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised
I read that, went to the CNN article quoted, and sure enough they based it off of Hillary Clinton's performance.
I'm not saying that Warren doesn't have any issues right now, I'm saying that judging her results off the supposed intrinsic blueness of Massachusetts would be a mistake.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Jun 8th 2019 at 1:09:07 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerFrankly, I get the impression that all the talk about the so called lack of chances Warren has is mostly designed to get people settled on another candidate. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And I don't know how much money Warren has raised, but exposure is a huge factor when it comes to those campaigns, and she isn't shy about doing the hard work.
Edited by Swanpride on Jun 8th 2019 at 10:09:03 AM
![]()
I was quoting the 538 article. And the CNN article pointed out that doing worse than HRC in 2016 is still not a good sign. The article pointed out that 2018 was overall a good year for Democratic candidates, and Warren still didn't do as well as predicted.
Edited by M84 on Jun 9th 2019 at 1:09:21 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised
As I said, that was a Presidential race. Check the party of the Governor, the senator she unseated, etc etc.
Just as how Vermont can vote for Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton yet went to Phil Scott (I got the Mass. Senator's name confused) for the Governorship.
There are other factors at play, taking this one result as a prophesy is not a good idea. Trust me on this.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Jun 8th 2019 at 1:11:46 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
I'm aware - but using it as a sign that she can't win is skirting doomsaying.
This one result keeps getting trotted out over and over again, as if it is the proof that she cannot win. Yet, as I mentioned, some of the factors leading to that (such as how blue the state is) are overhyped, and that condemning her candidacy as doomed to failure over it is (as Swanpride put it) a self-fulfilling prophesy.
As to "did the formula consider money", I must confess I'm no statistician and cannot read the abbreviations used in it, but it does not appear so.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Jun 8th 2019 at 1:18:23 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer![]()
I'm not saying she can't win.
I'm simply pointing out that her polling so far hasn't been great. She's got a heck of an uphill battle if she wants that candidacy.
Personally I think she should be trying to cut into Sanders' base more. Play the (ugh) populist game like she does at times (though admittedly trying to out populist Sanders might be a challenge) and make herself more appealing to minorities (one of Sanders' weaknesses). Play up her policy wonkishness (unconstitutional wealth tax thing aside) compared to his pie in the sky bullshit.
A lot of Biden's base by contrast consist of people like the wealthy white suburbanites in her state who didn't vote for her in 2018. They are pretty much a lost cause for her. Granted, Biden also does fairly well among black voters, so trying to cut into that might work too.
But if one ultimately wants a Biden vs. Warren finale to the primaries...Sanders has to lose first.
Hopefully when it's debate time she'll remember that she has to compete with Sanders too and not spend all of her time going after Biden.
Edited by M84 on Jun 9th 2019 at 1:26:44 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised
Eh, I guess.
I'm not sure how well-planned the candidates are going to be able to be for the debates anyway, considering just how many people are going to be involved. My guess is that everyone is going to be too busy to be dodging attacks by other candidates to be too worried about just who they're targeting.
Remember, we'll likely have candidates like Gravel or Inslee there specifically to push certain issues into the forefront as well.
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerAnother thing that's been pointed out before is that the poll data has been a fairly reliable predictor of who would win the primary for quite some time now. Even Obama and Trump were not necessarily as surprising if you looked at the poll data.
That being said I believe Biden's numbers have tanked a bit, so obviously things can change.

Also, what Warren already has is a great tag line. And we all know that a great tag line is half of the win. Obama did it with "yes, we can", Trump did it with "Make America great again" (and "lock her up"), Warren had "I've a plan (for this)". Which pretty much hits the current mood. A lot of people don't want empty slogans, they want a change, so what is better than a slogan which points to some solid policies?
And the best thing about it is that this isn't something someone in marketing has thought up but just a line she keeps saying. That makes it very authentic.
The only thing she has to proof is that she can convince in a debate.