HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Elizabeth Warren is a med...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:51 PM

Elizabeth Warren is a mediocre politician but a great Senator

and she beat a good politician. I don't intend this as an insult. To be even mediocre on a first run is amazing. And this was her first run. She got better during her run and presumedly will get better and better. But the fact is in a state with nine Democratic Congressmen, a Democratic governor, a former Democratic governor, a host of Democratic state legislature members, and a bunch of statewide Democratic elected officials must have dozens of politicians that are better than Warren is now. The notion we should avoid picking Kerry because we might lose his seat is insane. If we were speaking of Kerrey of Nebraska, I would agree. If he had, by some miracle, won picking him would have been certifiable. If we can't hold a seat in Massachusetts then we have bigger problems than picking a SOS.

It would suck for Massachusetts to lose Kerry's seniority in the Senate. In a few short years they would have gone from having the second most senior Democrat in the Senate (third overall), and the 10th most senior Senator period (6th Dem). To having the least senior Senator and one tied for the second least senior Senator. Add in the loss of Barney Frank, 17th overall 10th Dem and it gets worse. But Kerry isn't an indentured servant. He gets to do what he wants.

I have no idea which one Obama wants but he should pick Kerry if he wants Kerry and count on MA to keep the seat.

46 replies, 3149 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Elizabeth Warren is a mediocre politician but a great Senator (Original post)
dsc Dec 2012 OP
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #1
dsc Dec 2012 #2
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #13
CTyankee Dec 2012 #14
Rex Dec 2012 #16
dsc Dec 2012 #20
Rex Dec 2012 #41
dsc Dec 2012 #19
CTyankee Dec 2012 #21
dsc Dec 2012 #23
CTyankee Dec 2012 #24
dsc Dec 2012 #25
woo me with science Dec 2012 #3
Cracklin Charlie Dec 2012 #4
dsc Dec 2012 #5
CTyankee Dec 2012 #18
dsc Dec 2012 #28
CTyankee Dec 2012 #30
dsc Dec 2012 #35
CTyankee Dec 2012 #37
dsc Dec 2012 #39
CTyankee Dec 2012 #43
CTyankee Dec 2012 #17
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #6
dsc Dec 2012 #8
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #11
dsc Dec 2012 #12
Marrah_G Dec 2012 #29
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #15
patrice Dec 2012 #7
dsc Dec 2012 #9
patrice Dec 2012 #10
Capt. Obvious Dec 2012 #22
hughee99 Dec 2012 #26
randomtagger Dec 2012 #27
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #31
ProSense Dec 2012 #34
CTyankee Dec 2012 #38
1-Old-Man Dec 2012 #32
trumad Dec 2012 #33
dsc Dec 2012 #36
trumad Dec 2012 #40
dsc Dec 2012 #42
CTyankee Dec 2012 #44
mythology Dec 2012 #45
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #46

Response to dsc (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:55 PM

1. Kerry stays in the senate. Susan Rice becomes SOS.

Now wasn't that simple?

And I didn't even have to drag Warren, who is incredible, into it.

//

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:57 PM

2. She will be a great Senator

and from what I can tell she will be a great campaigner, but she isn't now and she beat Brown like a drum. I can't believe we don't have a slew of politicians in MA who are better at campaigning than she is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:22 AM

13. Name them. Please.

If you are so confident about this, please name, say three.

Scott Brown has been elected and served and gave Elizabeth Warren quite a bit of competition.

Please name names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:36 AM

14. honestly, dsc, the title of your OP didn't make sense to me. If she was such a bad campaigner,

then why did she (a rookie in electoral politics) do so well against a pretty polished campaigner (who was also popular)? It doesn't add up that she was bad at politics. It looks to me like she was awfully good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:15 AM

16. Some are really showing their colors after the election.

I don't have a clue as to what dsc is talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:25 PM

20. then I guess you didn't read my post

The fact is MA is a Democratic state where we can field a mediocre candidate against a good (though he isn't great as he showed when he started losing and panicked). It is the flip side of Nebraska where a very good campaigner Kerrey lost to a pretty poor one, Fischer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 05:48 PM

41. How is he a great candidate when he panicked?

Is that who you want representing you? In a state of emergency? I think you are jealous of the winner. Just my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:23 PM

19. because it was a heavily Democratic state

and hence a mediocre campaigner can beat a very good campaigner (though it should be noted that Brown showed a major weakness in that he seems to panic). To take the flip side, we lost Nebraska, by any reasonable measure Kerrey was a better campaigner that Fischer was but he lost, and lost rather badly. Electorates matter. And incidentally you point out her rookie status, which it should be noted I did as well, just why did you do that? Could it be because as a first timer she wasn't as good as a veteran, the very point I made? If not, then why is her rookie status relevant? Or are only you allowed to mention it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:11 PM

21. I'm really trying hard to figure out what your purpose is here. You start out with saying Warren

"is" a mediocre campaigner and then you say is maybe "was" but isn't any more cuz she ran a good campaign and then you said but she won because she's a liberal in a liberal state and then you start in on the other candidates who in your estimation must be pretty bad (or something). Then on to Kerry and how he's not an indentured servant (and water is wet) and why should we care if he runs because MA is liberal and will always elect liberals. Whew! My head is spinning...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:26 PM

23. I am so sorry you can't follow I will try again

I think that we should easily be able to hold the MA Senate seat since it is a Democratic state and even a mediocre campaigner, which is what Warren was during her campaign can beat a pretty good campaigner which is what Brown was (though he showed a pretty big weakness in that he panics when things start to go wrong). So if Obama wants Kerry, then he should name him. The fact is that we should be able to hold that seat. And if we can't, it is the omen of a huge problem. We have 9 elected Congressman, a host of state legislators, and several statewide elected officials. Out of that we must have a few who are at least as good as Warren and thus able to beat Brown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:43 PM

24. I think we all know that there is a problem if we can't hold the seat. I think what the concern is

is on losing not just "a seat" but also seniority, no small thing, and expertise from years of experience. So that is one point that figures into this.

The fact is that Warren had terrific luster from dedicated liberals and feminists coming into her challenge to Brown. She was already a national hero to many and attracted financial support from across the nation. Scott Brown is a "known" now, even with his loser status, and yet no one of Warren's dimension has been talked about as the best candidate to run against him if Kerry gets SoS. So there is natural concern there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:52 PM

25. Any candidate will get funding in a special election

The seniority is the one thing that really hurts Massachusetts. But he isn't a slave. If Kerry doesn't want to be Senator anymore because he wants to be Secretary of State instead, then MA will have to deal. I think Deval Patrick would be a good choice. If not him, then find an ambitious Congressman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:02 AM

3. Kerry should stay in his seat,

and we should have a new SOS choice who does not have a history of serious conflicts of interests with the oil industry and a track record of approving warmongering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:07 AM

4. I thought she showed steady improvement in campaign style

throughout her first run at the Senate. I thought that was a very encouraging sign that she will only get better and better throughout her career.

She certainly has an abundance of brain cells to throw at the effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cracklin Charlie (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:11 AM

5. of course she got better

but even at the end I don't think she was as good a campaigner as Brown. But she won by a large margin. That what happens in blue states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:16 PM

18. It is also what happens when your true colors come shining through, as was the case with Brown.

That phony barn coat and pick up truck just insulted the voters. And his staff going around war-whooping, and his attacks on her native american heritage, and his wall st. ties, just didn't sit well with MA voters. She was/is a straight shooter and proved to be so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:14 PM

28. He clearly fell apart when things started to go badly for him

that was honestly a shock. He would have lost anyhow but not firing the workers who war whooped was a major error on his part. He was weakened because of his voting record in the Senate (not voting for Kagan was another error on his part) but his big problem was the Democratic nature of MA coupled with the perception that MA could determine control of the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:54 PM

30. I truly hope that this will be the short, brutish (political) life of Scott Brown if Kerry goes to

the Senate and Brown tries again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:39 PM

35. It probably would be

His only two positives for this race over that he just lost is that it would be a low turn out election and that it wouldn't determine the outcome of the Senate. He could help himself immensely if he were to resign in time for Warren to be appointed ahead of those elected in 2012 giving her an edge in seniority. I don't think that would be enough to overcome the natural Democratic advantage of the state and the damage he did to himself in the last campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 05:15 PM

37. But we still have two newbies from MA where we have one biggie and one rising star.

I don't think we should underestimate the importance of Kerry's tenure and his experience. It really isn't tout va bien if he goes to be SoS and we get a recalculation in the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 05:24 PM

39. It would suck

To go from a major powerhouse delegation in terms of Seniority (Kennedy, Kerry) to a close to 98 pound weakling delegation in term of seniority (Warren, junior to Warren) is a major loss. Honestly, just from Kerry's perspective he might well get more done from his perch in the Senate than as SOS. I am sure that is one reason Frank didn't run for the Senate when Kennedy died. I still think Obama should pick who he wants, which appears to be Rice by a nose. Kerry could realistically have another good two terms in the Senate after he finishes this one. I don't know that I would trade that for a four year SOS stint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 05:52 PM

43. I think he can get more done in the Senate. The SoS job to me sounds like an exercise in

frustration that often does not pay off. That is brutal on the psyche. And there you are in the winter of your life, filled with regret and certain sadness. It is one thing to be Dean Acheson at the end of WWII, designing with George Marshall the Marshall Plan and helping create the Truman Doctrine and NATO, but now? Not so easy, if at all...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cracklin Charlie (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:11 PM

17. Plus, she started from behind since a lot of the state didn'tknow who she was and knew and

(some) liked Scott Brown. And, of course, he threw all that Harvard professor stuff at her.

But I really think she won over hearts and minds. That, and a very concerted efforts by feminists in the state, did the trick...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:16 AM

6. I live in Massachusetts. You don't know what you are talking about.

When Warren announced, only one other person was willing to stand for the nomination and it was widely understood here that she didn't have a chance against Warren. Democrats have to hold a nominating convention prior to the primary to select democratic candidates for the primary ballot, Warren's opponent couldn't get the 15% needed to get listed on the ballot as the alternative to Warren, so Warren's name was the only on on the democratic ballot.

I want to take up your mediocre politician claim. It is absolute, fresh dumped bullshit. Warren ran one of the most brilliant grass root campaigns that I have ever seen a democrat run in Massachusetts, outside of Deval Patrick. Warren was tenacious and hit every part of the state. Warren destroyed Scott Brown in every one of their three debates. Get your facts straight, or stop posting about what you don't know anything about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:25 AM

8. the whole native american thing

is one example of her being pretty mediocre. Again, as a first timer, it would have been amazing had she been say Sherrod Brown (4th state wide run, plus a ton of house campaigns). I have no idea why no one else wanted the seat at the time except that the national party did likely clear the deck for her. You have nine Democratic Congressmen, 8 of whom should be able to beat Brown, the one who narrowly won his race despite his wife's tax trouble would likely not be a good choice. Again, if you all can't win a Senate race in MA then what the Hell do you think we in NC should do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:58 AM

11. The Congressman who narrowly won re-election had a wife that laundered

close to 3 million dollars of drug money. There was not "tax" problem. Fortunately for him, he didn't know about what his wife was doing.

I repeat, for more reasons that the one above example, you don't know what is going on in Massachusetts politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:14 AM

12. from my understanding it was the wife's sibling not the wife

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to bluestate10 (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:46 AM

15. Down goes Frazier! (Tip of my hat to my friend Orrex who

 

reminded me yesterday of the famous Cosell line

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:17 AM

7. Sen. Kerry's on Foreign Relations, Small Business, Finance, & Commerce committees all extremely

important positions right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:25 AM

9. I can see why MA wouldn't want to lose his seniority

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:58 AM

10. Sorry, about some of the edgey feelings around here! But those ARE real important

committees he's on and there's a boat-load of serious freaking issues headed their way.

I think he'd make a wonderful SOS myself, but I think it'd be a VERY bad move right now. I could be wrong, but probably not, at least from where I sit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:14 PM

22. She's a great Senator

Just wait until she's actually a Senator and she'll be even better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:54 PM

26. +1. Have we lowered the bar so much on being considered a "great Senator" that

one not even be an actual Senator to qualify?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:12 PM

27. She is a great politician.

 

She seemed to do well and gather lots of support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 03:55 PM

31. Um, she kicked Brown's ass.

She kicked his ass stage right to stage left, then stage front to stage back, then she proceeded to kick his ass again and again and again. She kicked his ass in the debates, she kicked his ass in the ad campaign, she kicked his ass on campaign messaging.

She was helped by the fact that it turns out that Brown won in 2010 not because he was good/bad/mediocre, but because Angry White Men Gone Mad Fever had swept the nation, plus Martha Coakley thought she could stay home and let Ted's seat come to her.

I do not fear another Brown campaign. I'd miss having Kerry in the senate, but we will survive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:33 PM

34. You forgot: Up, down, sideways and with one hand tied behind her back.

She kicked his ass!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 05:17 PM

38. Warren wasn't your ordinary debater. She was a championship debator in school and actually

got a college scholarship on the strength of her debating ability. I sure as hell wouldn't want to go up against her in a debate!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:29 PM

32. She won an election, but she is neither a politician nor a Senator yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:33 PM

33. That's like saying the New York Giants are a mediocre football team after winning the Super Bowl

Dumb Op.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trumad (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 04:41 PM

36. She didn't win the Superbowl

she basically beat the Browns or maybe the Bengals. In this cycle I would think the closest to winning the Superbowl would be Obama or maybe Sherrod Brown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #36)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 05:46 PM

40. Huh

You're really making no sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trumad (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 05:52 PM

42. she won a Senate Seat in heavily Democratic Massachusetts

that isn't winning the Super Bowl. I am not saying it is nothing but it isn't the equivalent of being the national champions. Now Obama, was the first President reelected despite being outspent, the first President since Ike to have back to back over 51% of the vote, the first President since FDR reelected despite a nearly 8% unemployment rate. That is winning the Super Bowl.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:15 PM

44. In one sense what she did was to transform herself into a winning candidate for office from

someone who was an appointee to design a commission, a different skill set. So it isn't like becoming a Super Bowl champion from a team that wasn't. Politics is really different from sports, even tho we like to compare them. She developed her own "brand" if you will and I think it is hers alone right now. She saw the opportunity to seize a moment in time (which she obviously had the talent to do) and turn it into a victory at the polls. That in itself is pretty impressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:36 PM

45. She was good enough to win

You don't have to be the best campaigner, you just have to be better than the second place finisher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:02 PM

46. Elizabeth Warren hasn't yet shown what sort of Senator she'll be

she hasn't even begun her term, she's only just been elected, referring to her as "a great senator" is a bit previous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread