Author Topic: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?  (Read 2361 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?
« Reply #30 on: February 02, 2017, 11:05:52 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8542
  • Tommy Points: 1859
No one has struck me as the ideal moderate democrat who can speak the language of concern for disadvantaged with credible fiscal bona fides and charisma.  Warren is too liberal and divisive IMO, Perez seems like a good guy but I haven't been overly impressed with his ability to articulately and charismatically spin a position.  I think Massachusetts' Seth Moulton is a bright young guy -- with a strong military record, but I don't see him as all that charismatic -- and he's very young.  I like Cory Booker, Chris Van Hollen, Tammy Duckworth, Joe Manchin, and Mark Warner.   Manchin and Warner present credibly as moderates who would see eye to eye with some republicans on some issues.  I like that as a move away from far left vs. far right.  It's why I thought John Kasich was a good candidate for the republicans.     

I am amazed and disappointed that the democrats opted for Nancy Pelosi as their leader again.  Jeez, she is remarkably uninspiring.  Thank goodness Harry Reid is gone -- Schumer isn't the greatest communicator but far better than Reid.   The guy who challenged Pelosi for the leadership role seems like he may be a solid young up-and-comer -- can't recall his name.

I am with you Warren - like you have to be kidding me. She is so much more liberal than Hillary. I would love a woman president and I imagine anybody who runs against Trump will win in 2020, but I really hope the dems don't take the opportunity to put somebody so extreme up for the nomination.

I prefer the NY folks - Schumer and Cuomo - even Bloomberg. Maybe O'Malley will make another run at it(?)

Definitely Cuomo. Definitely not Schumer. I'd be interested in O'Malley.

Mike

Definitely not Bloomberg.  The populist winds are blowing right now, and there's no way Bloomberg can catch hold of that one.  It's just not who he is.

As for Cuomo -- my father-in-law has been pretty high up in NY State government for decades, dating back to Mario Cuomo.  He's a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, but has nothing good to say about Andrew Cuomo as a governor.  It's not just about policy -- he just moves the goalposts at a whim, and it causes a lot of problems negotiating with the legislature and enacting state rules + regulations.  My FIL thinks he'd be a terrible candidate and President.  In terms of professionalism, he says he's the worst governor he's worked with..

As a Marylander, I'm a bit down on O'Malley.  He's fine, but he's neither a natural campaigner nor fundraiser.  Cant see him heading the DNC effectively.  If the Dems win back the Presidency (which my God they'd better), I could see him potentially finding a cabinet position.

Thomas Perez is obviously a leading DNC chair candidate.  I was at the Bureau of Labor Statistics while he was Secretary of Labor -- I really like him on a personal level and policy level.  I don't want him to run the DNC, because I want him to run for governor of Maryland.  His name was floated as a VP candidate as well.  I preferred him to Kaine.  That said, I don't see him as a candidate in 2020.  He's too wonky.  But if he ran, I'd likely volunteer for his campaign.

Of the frontrunners for the DNC chair, I like Ellison the most.  But I think they need someone to run it full time, and not someone who has other responsibilities like being in Congress.  Howard Dean seemed to do a good job the last time he ran it, but he's still not a fresh voice.  There's a pretty big rift in the party leadership because of how the DNC was run the last few years.  They need someone not associated with the current party establishment to make the DNC not seem like Club Clinton.

I'm disappointed that Deval Patrick has disappeared from the scene.  I like him.

I also think Tammy Duckworth of Illinois is a name to watch.  Not necessarily for the Presidency (she was born in Thailand I think, so her eligibility is questionable), but just as someone who becomes a leader.  She moved from the House to the Senate quickly.

Re: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?
« Reply #31 on: February 02, 2017, 11:10:48 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4583
  • Tommy Points: 464
Do any of the people mentioned matter since Hillary is going to run again in 2020?  I mean, why wouldn't she as long as she's healthy?  After all, she won the popular vote and the Democratic Party is 100% committed to the "truth" that she only lost because Comey and the Russians stole the election for Trump.  How exactly would anyone in the party stop her if she ran again?

Mike

Re: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?
« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2017, 01:12:03 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17257
  • Tommy Points: 8683
Do any of the people mentioned matter since Hillary is going to run again in 2020?  I mean, why wouldn't she as long as she's healthy?  After all, she won the popular vote and the Democratic Party is 100% committed to the "truth" that she only lost because Comey and the Russians stole the election for Trump.  How exactly would anyone in the party stop her if she ran again?

Mike
Hillary's done.  She played all her trump cards (no pun intended ;)  ) this election cycle and still couldn't get the Presidency.  all her favors and behind-closed-door maneuvers have been played out.  she's got nothing left to use as a move to get elected.  nevermind the fact that I just cannot see her not getting the message that even running against the most vile person the Republican could nominate, she still couldn't get elected president.

as for Democratic prospects in 4 years,  I just don't know who's out there they can turn to and rally behind.  Duckworth has sounded promising but I don't think she could get the nomination in the next cycle.  I don't see anyone in the NY/NE region gaining ground.  (I love Warren as my senator but I realize that the rest of the country probably doesn't.) Although I thought when Raimondo was elected as RI Governor, she might gain some national attraction but RI won't get anyone on the ballot for Prez. 

At this point, I'm not sure that the Dems could get the whitehouse no matter how bad Trump is.  He played this past election perfectly -- didn't need to win the popular vote, just needed to get enough votes in the swing states to win them regardless of how lopsided his losses in the Northeast and West Coast.   The same people who bought into his load of BS will quite possibly go back for seconds and put him back into office.  Along those same lines, I see the Dems making very little inroads to gaining seats in Congress at the midterms because the Reps are pretty solid in their districts and are not going to see an influx of Dem voters in those areas that would jeopardize their holds on those congressional seats.   

Re: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?
« Reply #33 on: February 10, 2017, 09:52:46 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9099
  • Tommy Points: 1000
Moved this from the Trump thread, since it's more relevant here.


People feel like the system no longer works for them which is understandable, but burning the systems to the ground probably isn't the solution.
See, the trick wasn't to convince people it's the solution -- it was to convince a small, specific stratum of people that they couldn't possibly be any worse.

No, the trick is how the same people who turned a political nobody like Elizabeth Warren into a bleepin' ROCK STAR because she railed against income inequality and other economic problems have now magically concluded that there's no reason for anyone to be bothered by anything.

Mike

Actually, Republicans helped turn her into a rock star by blocking her nomination to head the CFPB.  Before then she was a law professor/technocrat.  After that, she became someone whom Republicans feared, and therefore someone for liberals to lionize.


Since I've seen her name bandied about here (Elizabeth Warren), I have to wonder, how do Democrats legitimately justify supporting a person who lied about their ancestry, claiming to be be a minority, when in fact they weren't. I mean, I guess for the state that looked the other way on Ted Kennedy, I shouldn't be surprised.

I mean, c'mon. This party cannot keep putting people like that up for nomination if they want to do us all the favor of ousting Trump.

Dead serious, if Obama had been up for re-election against Trump I could have stomached voting for him. [dang] the term limits, at least Obama was a good person who had (mostly) honest intentions. But I'm not voting for someone I disagree with, and also despise for ethical reasons. At least give me someone I can look at and think, "okay there's a honest, decent person".

Outside of the fact NH is pretty much a solid "Blue" state now, voters like me are who the Democrats should be after. I agree with probably 30% of their platform, although the rest I strongly disagree with, but if the party would move back towards the middle a bit and put forth a candidate with actual integrity a lot of voters like me could still be swayed.


Re: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?
« Reply #34 on: February 10, 2017, 10:09:26 PM »

Offline liam

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5591
  • Tommy Points: 382
"Is Warren part Native American?
Warren says, yes, she is, and points to "family stories" passed down to her through generations as evidence.
"I am very proud of my heritage," Warren told NPR in 2012. "These are my family stories. This is what my brothers and I were told by my mom and my dad, my mammaw and my pappaw. This is our lives. And I'm very proud of it."
In that account and others, a genealogist traced Warren's Native American heritage to the late 19th century, which, if true, would make her 1/32 Native American. (However, the legitimacy of those findings has been debated.)
 CNN Politics app
The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" page has actually decided against judging the issue at all, offering "no rating" and, in a piece Tuesday, suggesting "readers to look into it on their own and decide whether Trump's attacks over Warren's background have merit."
Did it play a role in her career?
Harvard Law School in the 1990s touted Warren, then a professor in Cambridge, as being "Native American." They singled her out, Warren later acknowledged, because she had listed herself as a minority in an Association of American Law Schools directory. Critics note that she had not done that in her student applications and during her time as a teacher at the University of Texas.
Warren maintains she never furthered her career by using her heritage to gain advantage.
Trump: Elizabeth Warren is "very racist"
How did this become a political issue?
It began during Warren's 2012 Senate run, when her opponent, Brown, accused her of lying to get a leg up in her academic career.
"Professor Warren claimed that she was a Native American, a person of color," he said during a debate. "And as you can see, she's not."
Warren shot back that she had not gained any "advantage" -- a claim that has proven impossible to fact check -- and in a subsequent ad again cited family lore.
Nightcap: The latest news and political buzz from CNN Politics | Sign up
"As a kid, I never asked my mom for documentation when she talked about our Native American heritage. What kid would? But I knew my father's family didn't like that she was part Cherokee and part Delaware, so my parents had to elope," she said.
Their quarrel took a nasty turn around this time, when Brown's staffers were filmed doing "war whoops" and "tomahawk chops" during an outdoor rally.
Brown told WCVB in Boston that he didn't condone their actions, but said "the real offense is that (Warren) said she was white and then checked the box saying she is Native American, and then she changed her profile in the law directory once she made her tenure."
Warren's earlier musings on the "high cheekbones" of certain close family members didn't exactly satisfy the skeptics (and made some allies wince).
Brown, a surrogate for Trump, suggested Monday that Warren "take a DNA test" to prove she's part Native American.
What's been Trump's line of attack?
Mostly namecalling and trying to use Warren's statements about her heritage to discredit her.
"Let's properly check goofy Elizabeth Warren's records to see if she is Native American. I say she's a fraud!" he had tweeted last month.
Trump sharpened the point Monday, telling NBC News: "She made up her heritage, which I think is racist. I think she's a racist, actually because what she did was very racist."
Trump: Elizabeth Warren is "as Native American as I am"
"I hope that she's selected as the vice presidential running mate. I will speak very openly about her if she is," he said. "She is one of the least productive senators in the United States Senate. We call her 'Pocahontas' for a reason."

Warren didn't back down.
"If you think recycling Scott Brown's hate-filled attacks on my family is going to shut me up, @realDonaldTrump, think again buddy. Weak," she replied.
And who was Pocahontas anyway?
Pocahontas, the daughter of a Native American chief, welcomed English settlers to the current-day U.S. in the early 17th century. Legend holds that she saved the life of Captain John Smith, stopping his execution by laying her head upon his.
Years later, though, she was kidnapped by another group of English and in 1614 converted to Christianity while in captivity before marrying a tobacco farmer and taking the name "Rebecca." "

Re: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?
« Reply #35 on: February 10, 2017, 10:15:36 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9099
  • Tommy Points: 1000
Sure, she been viciously attacked and mocked for it, which is uncalled for and not acceptable.

Doesn't change what happened.

Re: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?
« Reply #36 on: February 10, 2017, 10:23:57 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8542
  • Tommy Points: 1859
Moved this from the Trump thread, since it's more relevant here.


People feel like the system no longer works for them which is understandable, but burning the systems to the ground probably isn't the solution.
See, the trick wasn't to convince people it's the solution -- it was to convince a small, specific stratum of people that they couldn't possibly be any worse.

No, the trick is how the same people who turned a political nobody like Elizabeth Warren into a bleepin' ROCK STAR because she railed against income inequality and other economic problems have now magically concluded that there's no reason for anyone to be bothered by anything.

Mike

Actually, Republicans helped turn her into a rock star by blocking her nomination to head the CFPB.  Before then she was a law professor/technocrat.  After that, she became someone whom Republicans feared, and therefore someone for liberals to lionize.


Since I've seen her name bandied about here (Elizabeth Warren), I have to wonder, how do Democrats legitimately justify supporting a person who lied about their ancestry, claiming to be be a minority, when in fact they weren't. I mean, I guess for the state that looked the other way on Ted Kennedy, I shouldn't be surprised.

I mean, c'mon. This party cannot keep putting people like that up for nomination if they want to do us all the favor of ousting Trump.

Dead serious, if Obama had been up for re-election against Trump I could have stomached voting for him. [dang] the term limits, at least Obama was a good person who had (mostly) honest intentions. But I'm not voting for someone I disagree with, and also despise for ethical reasons. At least give me someone I can look at and think, "okay there's a honest, decent person".

Outside of the fact NH is pretty much a solid "Blue" state now, voters like me are who the Democrats should be after. I agree with probably 30% of their platform, although the rest I strongly disagree with, but if the party would move back towards the middle a bit and put forth a candidate with actual integrity a lot of voters like me could still be swayed.

Since you seem legitimately curious about Democrats lack of concern about Warren's ethnic background, I'll give you my reasoning.

I think she sincerely believes she has more Native American ancestry than a genealogist says she does, or at least sincerely believed it at the time.  Native Americans were, as a matter of national policy, forced to assimilate into White American culture in the second half of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, during the period in which her grandfather was born.  It's certainly possible that out of pride he told all his family he was pure Native American, as a way to fight against the assimilation he and his family experienced.  Maybe her parents knew and didn't question it in front of the grandchildren.  Maybe they believed it too.  Maybe it's actually true and records from over 100 years ago aren't perfect.  But believing a grandparent is far from something disqualifying in my book.

In my own family, we view my grandmother as pure Swedish.  My mom is very proud of the Swedish heritage, and in our family, it's the only culture we celebrated growing up of our various European backgrounds.  I grew up thinking that I was 1/4 Swedish.  However, in my late 20s, I learned that my grandmother's father was "unknown."  Her mother had gotten pregnant outside of marriage, which was not the thing to do over 90 years ago (and I personally don't recommend it today).  My grandmother never knew the name of her father.  But if he was not Swedish, it would mean that I'm only 1/8 Swedish instead of 1/4.  If there were some society that I could join if I were at least a quarter Swedish, or a scholarship I could have applied for, I could have done so in error, truly believing myself to be more Swedish than I actually was.  And again, this is the most important heritage we celebrate. 

So if Elizabeth Warren thought she was 1/4 Native American her whole life and grew up proud of that, I can very much see why she would have joined such a group.  If being Swedish enough was a thing that could have given me some sort of extra consideration earlier in my life, I very much could have found myself in the same situation, completely innocently.  I'm not going to judge her because her family, out of shame or pride, may have misled her about her ancestry, and that she may or may not be in denial about it as an adult.  There are too many important things in the world to get bogged down into that kind of stuff.

Re: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?
« Reply #37 on: February 10, 2017, 10:58:03 PM »

Offline liam

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5591
  • Tommy Points: 382
Moved this from the Trump thread, since it's more relevant here.


People feel like the system no longer works for them which is understandable, but burning the systems to the ground probably isn't the solution.
See, the trick wasn't to convince people it's the solution -- it was to convince a small, specific stratum of people that they couldn't possibly be any worse.

No, the trick is how the same people who turned a political nobody like Elizabeth Warren into a bleepin' ROCK STAR because she railed against income inequality and other economic problems have now magically concluded that there's no reason for anyone to be bothered by anything.

Mike

Actually, Republicans helped turn her into a rock star by blocking her nomination to head the CFPB.  Before then she was a law professor/technocrat.  After that, she became someone whom Republicans feared, and therefore someone for liberals to lionize.


Since I've seen her name bandied about here (Elizabeth Warren), I have to wonder, how do Democrats legitimately justify supporting a person who lied about their ancestry, claiming to be be a minority, when in fact they weren't. I mean, I guess for the state that looked the other way on Ted Kennedy, I shouldn't be surprised.

I mean, c'mon. This party cannot keep putting people like that up for nomination if they want to do us all the favor of ousting Trump.

Dead serious, if Obama had been up for re-election against Trump I could have stomached voting for him. [dang] the term limits, at least Obama was a good person who had (mostly) honest intentions. But I'm not voting for someone I disagree with, and also despise for ethical reasons. At least give me someone I can look at and think, "okay there's a honest, decent person".

Outside of the fact NH is pretty much a solid "Blue" state now, voters like me are who the Democrats should be after. I agree with probably 30% of their platform, although the rest I strongly disagree with, but if the party would move back towards the middle a bit and put forth a candidate with actual integrity a lot of voters like me could still be swayed.

Since you seem legitimately curious about Democrats lack of concern about Warren's ethnic background, I'll give you my reasoning.

I think she sincerely believes she has more Native American ancestry than a genealogist says she does, or at least sincerely believed it at the time.  Native Americans were, as a matter of national policy, forced to assimilate into White American culture in the second half of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, during the period in which her grandfather was born.  It's certainly possible that out of pride he told all his family he was pure Native American, as a way to fight against the assimilation he and his family experienced.  Maybe her parents knew and didn't question it in front of the grandchildren.  Maybe they believed it too.  Maybe it's actually true and records from over 100 years ago aren't perfect.  But believing a grandparent is far from something disqualifying in my book.

In my own family, we view my grandmother as pure Swedish.  My mom is very proud of the Swedish heritage, and in our family, it's the only culture we celebrated growing up of our various European backgrounds.  I grew up thinking that I was 1/4 Swedish.  However, in my late 20s, I learned that my grandmother's father was "unknown."  Her mother had gotten pregnant outside of marriage, which was not the thing to do over 90 years ago (and I personally don't recommend it today).  My grandmother never knew the name of her father.  But if he was not Swedish, it would mean that I'm only 1/8 Swedish instead of 1/4.  If there were some society that I could join if I were at least a quarter Swedish, or a scholarship I could have applied for, I could have done so in error, truly believing myself to be more Swedish than I actually was.  And again, this is the most important heritage we celebrate. 

So if Elizabeth Warren thought she was 1/4 Native American her whole life and grew up proud of that, I can very much see why she would have joined such a group.  If being Swedish enough was a thing that could have given me some sort of extra consideration earlier in my life, I very much could have found myself in the same situation, completely innocently.  I'm not going to judge her because her family, out of shame or pride, may have misled her about her ancestry, and that she may or may not be in denial about it as an adult.  There are too many important things in the world to get bogged down into that kind of stuff.

Thank you for a little rational thought!

Re: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?
« Reply #38 on: February 10, 2017, 11:15:15 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9099
  • Tommy Points: 1000
Moved this from the Trump thread, since it's more relevant here.


People feel like the system no longer works for them which is understandable, but burning the systems to the ground probably isn't the solution.
See, the trick wasn't to convince people it's the solution -- it was to convince a small, specific stratum of people that they couldn't possibly be any worse.

No, the trick is how the same people who turned a political nobody like Elizabeth Warren into a bleepin' ROCK STAR because she railed against income inequality and other economic problems have now magically concluded that there's no reason for anyone to be bothered by anything.

Mike

Actually, Republicans helped turn her into a rock star by blocking her nomination to head the CFPB.  Before then she was a law professor/technocrat.  After that, she became someone whom Republicans feared, and therefore someone for liberals to lionize.


Since I've seen her name bandied about here (Elizabeth Warren), I have to wonder, how do Democrats legitimately justify supporting a person who lied about their ancestry, claiming to be be a minority, when in fact they weren't. I mean, I guess for the state that looked the other way on Ted Kennedy, I shouldn't be surprised.

I mean, c'mon. This party cannot keep putting people like that up for nomination if they want to do us all the favor of ousting Trump.

Dead serious, if Obama had been up for re-election against Trump I could have stomached voting for him. [dang] the term limits, at least Obama was a good person who had (mostly) honest intentions. But I'm not voting for someone I disagree with, and also despise for ethical reasons. At least give me someone I can look at and think, "okay there's a honest, decent person".

Outside of the fact NH is pretty much a solid "Blue" state now, voters like me are who the Democrats should be after. I agree with probably 30% of their platform, although the rest I strongly disagree with, but if the party would move back towards the middle a bit and put forth a candidate with actual integrity a lot of voters like me could still be swayed.

Since you seem legitimately curious about Democrats lack of concern about Warren's ethnic background, I'll give you my reasoning.

I think she sincerely believes she has more Native American ancestry than a genealogist says she does, or at least sincerely believed it at the time.  Native Americans were, as a matter of national policy, forced to assimilate into White American culture in the second half of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, during the period in which her grandfather was born.  It's certainly possible that out of pride he told all his family he was pure Native American, as a way to fight against the assimilation he and his family experienced.  Maybe her parents knew and didn't question it in front of the grandchildren.  Maybe they believed it too.  Maybe it's actually true and records from over 100 years ago aren't perfect.  But believing a grandparent is far from something disqualifying in my book.

In my own family, we view my grandmother as pure Swedish.  My mom is very proud of the Swedish heritage, and in our family, it's the only culture we celebrated growing up of our various European backgrounds.  I grew up thinking that I was 1/4 Swedish.  However, in my late 20s, I learned that my grandmother's father was "unknown."  Her mother had gotten pregnant outside of marriage, which was not the thing to do over 90 years ago (and I personally don't recommend it today).  My grandmother never knew the name of her father.  But if he was not Swedish, it would mean that I'm only 1/8 Swedish instead of 1/4.  If there were some society that I could join if I were at least a quarter Swedish, or a scholarship I could have applied for, I could have done so in error, truly believing myself to be more Swedish than I actually was.  And again, this is the most important heritage we celebrate. 

So if Elizabeth Warren thought she was 1/4 Native American her whole life and grew up proud of that, I can very much see why she would have joined such a group.  If being Swedish enough was a thing that could have given me some sort of extra consideration earlier in my life, I very much could have found myself in the same situation, completely innocently.  I'm not going to judge her because her family, out of shame or pride, may have misled her about her ancestry, and that she may or may not be in denial about it as an adult.  There are too many important things in the world to get bogged down into that kind of stuff.

Thank you for a little rational thought!

I won't criticize Saltlover for believing that, especially since he was kind enough to to respond in a civil manner.  But I don't find it believable at all. And even if it was, claiming status like that, without any actual proof is certainly careless at best, and a lot worse if intentional (which I believe it was). Just ask Native Americans how they feel about it (she was widely condemned).


Re: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?
« Reply #39 on: February 10, 2017, 11:34:35 PM »

Offline Bobshot

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1164
  • Tommy Points: 74
I blame the Democratic fiasco mainly on Obama. He didn't do a thing about those inflated emails (Bush did it, too--it was fashionable in those days), letting them go from the State Dept to the FBI without the DOJ interceding. And then he let Comey destroy Clinton with those letters to the Republican committee in Congress, which had been out to get her all along. It was a partisan effort. The Republicans walked all over Obama.

As for Hillary, she's a policy wonk who refused to deal with her largely contrived negatives. She should have known better--her negatives were as big as Trump's. She ignored that, and paid the price. The Republicans spent 25 years building up crazy conspiracy theories against her, and she never attacked them for it. The media wasn't going to do it for her.

Another mistake she made was ignoring the white rural vote which Sanders carried in the primaries. She seemed to spend more time with the college kids in NH. She should have had Sanders on the ticket, and she still might have won. Instead, she put the bland Kane on the ticket, who contributed almost nothing. You could say she was a bit overconfident at winning.
I thought she was in trouble, because there were a lot of people I know who disliked her--they bought the Republican line about her, mainly because she never responded to the attacks in a forceful way. They pinned a "dishonest" label on her she never addressed. The label was an illusion.

I think she's through with politics. I expect some new faces along with Warren and Sanders.
If Trump gets a lot of jobs for the rust belt, and he doesn't screw up medicare and social security, the Democrats are dead.

Re: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?
« Reply #40 on: February 10, 2017, 11:45:41 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8542
  • Tommy Points: 1859
Moved this from the Trump thread, since it's more relevant here.


People feel like the system no longer works for them which is understandable, but burning the systems to the ground probably isn't the solution.
See, the trick wasn't to convince people it's the solution -- it was to convince a small, specific stratum of people that they couldn't possibly be any worse.

No, the trick is how the same people who turned a political nobody like Elizabeth Warren into a bleepin' ROCK STAR because she railed against income inequality and other economic problems have now magically concluded that there's no reason for anyone to be bothered by anything.

Mike

Actually, Republicans helped turn her into a rock star by blocking her nomination to head the CFPB.  Before then she was a law professor/technocrat.  After that, she became someone whom Republicans feared, and therefore someone for liberals to lionize.


Since I've seen her name bandied about here (Elizabeth Warren), I have to wonder, how do Democrats legitimately justify supporting a person who lied about their ancestry, claiming to be be a minority, when in fact they weren't. I mean, I guess for the state that looked the other way on Ted Kennedy, I shouldn't be surprised.

I mean, c'mon. This party cannot keep putting people like that up for nomination if they want to do us all the favor of ousting Trump.

Dead serious, if Obama had been up for re-election against Trump I could have stomached voting for him. [dang] the term limits, at least Obama was a good person who had (mostly) honest intentions. But I'm not voting for someone I disagree with, and also despise for ethical reasons. At least give me someone I can look at and think, "okay there's a honest, decent person".

Outside of the fact NH is pretty much a solid "Blue" state now, voters like me are who the Democrats should be after. I agree with probably 30% of their platform, although the rest I strongly disagree with, but if the party would move back towards the middle a bit and put forth a candidate with actual integrity a lot of voters like me could still be swayed.

Since you seem legitimately curious about Democrats lack of concern about Warren's ethnic background, I'll give you my reasoning.

I think she sincerely believes she has more Native American ancestry than a genealogist says she does, or at least sincerely believed it at the time.  Native Americans were, as a matter of national policy, forced to assimilate into White American culture in the second half of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, during the period in which her grandfather was born.  It's certainly possible that out of pride he told all his family he was pure Native American, as a way to fight against the assimilation he and his family experienced.  Maybe her parents knew and didn't question it in front of the grandchildren.  Maybe they believed it too.  Maybe it's actually true and records from over 100 years ago aren't perfect.  But believing a grandparent is far from something disqualifying in my book.

In my own family, we view my grandmother as pure Swedish.  My mom is very proud of the Swedish heritage, and in our family, it's the only culture we celebrated growing up of our various European backgrounds.  I grew up thinking that I was 1/4 Swedish.  However, in my late 20s, I learned that my grandmother's father was "unknown."  Her mother had gotten pregnant outside of marriage, which was not the thing to do over 90 years ago (and I personally don't recommend it today).  My grandmother never knew the name of her father.  But if he was not Swedish, it would mean that I'm only 1/8 Swedish instead of 1/4.  If there were some society that I could join if I were at least a quarter Swedish, or a scholarship I could have applied for, I could have done so in error, truly believing myself to be more Swedish than I actually was.  And again, this is the most important heritage we celebrate. 

So if Elizabeth Warren thought she was 1/4 Native American her whole life and grew up proud of that, I can very much see why she would have joined such a group.  If being Swedish enough was a thing that could have given me some sort of extra consideration earlier in my life, I very much could have found myself in the same situation, completely innocently.  I'm not going to judge her because her family, out of shame or pride, may have misled her about her ancestry, and that she may or may not be in denial about it as an adult.  There are too many important things in the world to get bogged down into that kind of stuff.

Thank you for a little rational thought!

I won't criticize Saltlover for believing that, especially since he was kind enough to to respond in a civil manner.  But I don't find it believable at all. And even if it was, claiming status like that, without any actual proof is certainly careless at best, and a lot worse if intentional (which I believe it was). Just ask Native Americans how they feel about it (she was widely condemned).

I'm really going to disagree with you that it's careless at all.  A lot of Americans have something in their family history they don't know about.  It's why some people have a lot of interest in genealogy, and there are numerous stories of surprise about people finding out they have some sort of heritage they never knew of.  It's part of being in the melting pot.

Why should she have questioned her grandfather as a child?  She had no way of knowing it would ever matter in her life if she didn't, and again, believing your grandparents is perfectly rational.  If someone had asked her if she had some sort of written proof when she was filling out paperwork, and she said yes knowing she didn't, that'd be a different matter.  But like so many of us, her family history is known to her through oral tradition.  She said something she thought was true.  It's not hard to believe that in my mind.

I'm sure there are some in the Native American community who take offense.  There are also some who don't.  It's easy to find a quote or two from people and say they represent a group.  If you're lucky, you can find an official spokesperson, but even then, there are a LOT of Native American groups in this country, and they don't al agree with each other about many things, so even finding a spokesperson for some subgroup isn't all that impressive in my mind.  Native Americans, like everyone else in this country, including Celtics fans, have intra-group disagreements, and I just don't find it a compelling argument that some Native Americans in Oklahoma, who'd never heard of the woman running for Senate in the US, didn't like that she said she was Native American when they couldn't find any proof.  For people who live on reservations in Oklahoma, it defines their present, whereas for Warren, it defined her past, or so she thought.  It's an emotional issue.  Of course some would be offended.

Anyway, I really recommend that you get one of those DNA genealogy tests.  You might find some interesting things out about your own family history.  Every family has secrets, and many of them get lost to time.  Who knows, maybe you'll find out that you have Native American ancestry!  Maybe even more than Warren!

Re: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?
« Reply #41 on: February 11, 2017, 12:11:37 AM »

Offline EDWARDO

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 642
  • Tommy Points: 93
How about Miro Weinberger, the current mayor of Burlington Vermont? Levelheaded Democrat. Young and vibrant. Has done a great job with Burlington especially getting them out of a big fiscal hole and improving their credit rating. A bit young to be talking about him on a national stage I guess.

Re: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?
« Reply #42 on: February 11, 2017, 06:10:43 AM »

Offline FatKidsDad

  • Jae Crowder
  • Posts: 341
  • Tommy Points: 38
NH senator Maggie Hassan is one to watch. Strong background in corporate law, successful stint in the State legislature and a popular and effective governor. In NH she had a reputation of working across the aisle to get things done. So far in the US Senate she is acquitting herself well in confirmation hearings with tough tough questions for those she opposes like DeVos. She is also supporting nominees she thinks are qualified, like Mattis.

She seems competent, reasonable and effective.
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." - George S. Patton
   
"Live so that when your children think of fairness and integrity,they think of you." -   H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

Re: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?
« Reply #43 on: February 11, 2017, 06:51:30 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9099
  • Tommy Points: 1000
NH senator Maggie Hassan is one to watch. Strong background in corporate law, successful stint in the State legislature and a popular and effective governor. In NH she had a reputation of working across the aisle to get things done. So far in the US Senate she is acquitting herself well in confirmation hearings with tough tough questions for those she opposes like DeVos. She is also supporting nominees she thinks are qualified, like Mattis.

She seems competent, reasonable and effective.

You know, Hassan is the one and only Democrat I have ever voted for, for any office. I'd consider her for President. I couldn't support Ayotte, with her waffling support for Trump.   Normally I'd vote Libertarian, but she is a reasonable moderate. I disagree with her on some things, but agree enough to vote for her if the alternative if garbage.

Re: Who are the new Dem voices that will grow over the next 4 yrs?
« Reply #44 on: February 11, 2017, 11:38:54 AM »

Offline Bobshot

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1164
  • Tommy Points: 74
NH senator Maggie Hassan is one to watch. Strong background in corporate law, successful stint in the State legislature and a popular and effective governor. In NH she had a reputation of working across the aisle to get things done. So far in the US Senate she is acquitting herself well in confirmation hearings with tough tough questions for those she opposes like DeVos. She is also supporting nominees she thinks are qualified, like Mattis.

She seems competent, reasonable and effective.

You know, Hassan is the one and only Democrat I have ever voted for, for any office. I'd consider her for President. I couldn't support Ayotte, with her waffling support for Trump.   Normally I'd vote Libertarian, but she is a reasonable moderate. I disagree with her on some things, but agree enough to vote for her if the alternative if garbage.

I would like to see liberals and conservatives unite for freedom and liberty, and oppose Trump.
He either doesn't understand the law, or has a disdain for it.