Can you point me to where I said Abrams was more qualified? And while we are on the topic, what about Warren's flaws? you seem to be more than happy to overlook those.
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
I don't see any flaws for Warren when contrasted to the other names being mentioned. She's clearly stronger on policy, has a progressive agenda compared to Harris and Rice, and seems to get on well with Biden.
Sounds like horseshit to me, we’ve known Scientology was a weird cult for a lot longer than 10 years.
I don't think this answers any of the questions I had earlier. If anything, it comes across as trying to shift the goalposts.
There are no legitimate questions on the table. Abrams is a minnow and Warren is quite clearly the best option among the 5 or so people in the mix for the job.
Hermione Granger for VP?!?
There are and I pointed them out to you. If you wanna double down and not answer any of them, that’s not on me. Like I said earlier, you’re idea of “quality candidate” is somewhat rooted in internalized anti-blackness whether you like to admit it or not. Warren is not leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else. She is someone who didn’t win a single state and pivoted on key issues that turned voters away from her.
Last edited:
Liz being the most effective VP candidate from a practical standpoint has been the story since day one, so I’m not sure what you’re on about.
Is she racist?
Looks like this VP debate is getting a bit heated. For what its worth I think you are all wasting time talking about Warren, there is no way she is going to be the VP (regardless of whether she is the best option or not).
Agreed. It looks to be moving towards Rice, Harris, and Bass.
Come on. Do you really think it is ok to say "she would've gotten the job if she was black"?
There’s something wrong with the selection process if the best person is not getting the chance.
Age is the main criteria going against her i think
Always thought biden would pick somebody young enough to realistically make a presidential run in 2024 and 2028 as he descibed himself as part of the transition of the party
I think sanders or Warren would have done the same
Equally a mayor pete or Beto would have picked somebody older / with more experience
I hope warren is used in a more practical role than vp anyway... put her in charge of the economic recovery policy and how taxes / welfare are going to work in a post covid economy that is moving more to online marketplaces with the rise of automisation and the inevitable reality that whilst the USA might have been the only economic superpower for a generation or even arguably since ww2 with a more unified Europe and Chinas growth there are now comparable markets outside the USA as well.
Needs big structural changes and I think she would be great witn that brief rather than vp
Bill Clinton PRAISES Jim Clyburn for Sinking Bernie Sanders Campaign
Pete and Beto would've also likely chosen someone who could step in and be President on day one, which this current group appears to be severely lacking in terms of gravitas, experience, policy strength etc.
Can’t see why Harris couldn’t do that, much as I dislike her.
She's definitely the best alternative to Warren in this regard. Although she only just became a US Senator, at least she is a US Senator which is in stark contrast to some of the others like Abrams, Demmings, Bass et al.
It’d be exactly the same amount of time Obama was a Senator before becoming president.
Except that Obama was quite clearly a transformational politician. She's not even in the same galaxy.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He didn’t actually transform that much though did he? His election was a landmark of course, but he just governed as a fairly standard centrist moderate. I’d expect Harris to be the same.
This. Is not soon already ten years since Leah Remini started to speak out?
He transformed the health care system which hadn't been done after a century of trying, ended the Iraq War, signed a nuclear non-proliferation deal with Iran, reestablished diplomatic ties with Cuba, pulled the country out of a great recession, entered the US into the Paris climate accords - there are many other examples, much of which took place during a Republican congress.
You’re making it sound a lot more radical than it actually was though. Sure he did some good things, but the healthcare system was basically a Republican plan enacted by Democrats, the recession he fixed by bringing in half the same people who caused it in the first place and ending the Iraq war was basically the absolute expectation not some great victory.
Don’t get me wrong, Obama had to deal with some hugely unfair shit, and he did some good things, but he didn’t transform politics in the way his 08 election suggested he’d try and do. Once he got into office it very quickly became apparent he was a pretty middle of the road Democrat.
Transformational doesn't mean radical. It simply means he was a great speaker who captured the imagination of wide audiences and used that gravitas to push his policy vision during his time in office - much as Reagan and Clinton before him.
Its very rare for politicians to have that level of connectivity with national audiences and certainly Harris doesn't have anything even remotely similar to what Obama had in terms of the overall package. I do have my criticisms of Obama - he was feckless on Russia/Ukraine and wasted his first two years delusionally pretending the GOP were interested in bipartisanship when they were simply plotting to subvert him at every turn as a pretext to reclaim the house during the midterms. But all things said, he did get a fair bit done during an economically catastrophic period and with the GOP seeking to undermine him. He could've done more but then again the US system and its separation of powers is not structured to enable rapid progress, so that will have to wait.
Medicare and Medicaid were passed about 40 years before, CHIP about 15 years before, and I'm pretty sure all 3 made more of an impact on access and affordability than the ACA.
I don't really disagree with the post where you detailed all that he did, but transformational sure seems like it means radical.
transformation
/ (ˌtrænsfəˈmeɪʃən) /
noun
a change or alteration, esp a radical one
It is not structured for radical change, but economic collapses are the best time for it. When else can you give the openly bail out the banks and not be totally politically destroyed by the fallout? Obama did, and while it partially cost him 2010 he still won re-election.
And of course there is precedent - someone who came in promising radical transformation and delivered, quickly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100_days_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt's_presidency#The_New_Deal
This was a reference to the 100 years between attempts to implement universal healthcare from the Teddy Roosevelt era to Obama.
Fair enough - although in a US political context, it has a different meaning imo.
ACA is not universal though. It's a reform like the others, and doesn't go as far as Medicaid and Medicare.
It was more possible during eras when the US was a culturally homogenous country where Presidential actions could be more easily framed through the prism of national identity. The power structure of the US is more culturally heterogeneous in the present, especially during the information age and social media era, which means its more difficult to pass structurally transformative polices because the other side will simply galvanize and vilify them and use the ensuing interest formation to reclaim control, which means the side seeking to pass the law will be incentivized to moderate its position for fear of losing power. Therefore the political equilibrium during this period, will always gravitate towards the center.
Last edited:
I'm not sure a country with Jim Crow laws while still having a sizeable minority of black voters was culturally homogenous. Same with an active communist movement alongside an active KKK. South-North and city-rural divides were also clear in the infighting for the New Deal, and the conservative, rural, racist Democrats sabtoaged the full potential of Social Security and the NLRA.
Obama came in with an unprecedented-for-the-modern-era mandate, same for his comfortable majority in both houses, same with his approval. He had political capital to burn. He chose the healthcare plan that favoured insurers the most, the bailout that favoured banks the most, an economic team with many centrists and right-wingers (who prevailed in his administration), an AG from Wall Street proudly unwilling to prosecute anyone for their financial or war crime misdeeds. So he foreclosed the alternative way of changing the political equilibrium - passing popular policies.
The power structure of the nation has always been ruled by the ultimate in cultural homogeneity - white, heterosexual, protestant males of European descent, so when you are that culturally narrow, its obviously easy to establish a fairly solid national identity and pass routine legislation based off it.
On Obama - he made a mistake in dithering for the first two years. That said, in retrospect, Dems have seen that the last two serious attempts to tackle Universal healthcare (93 and 09) immediately led to massive losses in Congress during the very next mid term cycle, so its not surprising they have opted to moderate behind incrementalism this time.
Nice! I just came back to Yolo County from DC yesterday
More like 30 plus years. The South park episode Tom Cruise is in the closet was 15 years ago.
I would argue that Obama only appeared transformational as a candidate because of the Bush years. That background made his outspoken progressiveness look much bigger than it really was, making it feel like he would be a transformational president (hence also that Nobel Prize). It's also because of that, I think, that people are more disappointed with Obama than he really deserves, cause the contrast between all that promise people felt and the more traditional presidency (e.g., Obama isn't a pacifist and not very activistic) and incremental change that followed is really big.
True. He was basically a pragmatic progressive who as all Presidents usually are, was forced into moderating in order to govern once in office.
- Status