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

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:48 PM

Elizabeth Warren on Rachel! How in the hell can this race be even close?

Hell, Scott Brown is just plain stupid. Clueless. The classic Empty Suit! ***

Warren is one smart lady. Amazingly so! I love her.

How can this race even be close? Wow, are voters making decisions base on stuff other than the facts.


***
Noun
empty suit (plural empty suits)
A person ineffective or incompetent in his/her position of authority. Derived from unfavorable observations that ineffective professionals are memorable only for what they wear and not what they accomplish at the workplace.

7 replies, 937 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 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Elizabeth Warren on Rachel! How in the hell can this race be even close? (Original post)
Logical Jun 2012 OP
Warren Stupidity Jun 2012 #1
spanone Jun 2012 #2
BeyondGeography Jun 2012 #3
freethought Jun 2012 #4
Logical Jun 2012 #6
Bryan Jun 2012 #5
Logical Jun 2012 #7

Response to Logical (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:53 PM

1. Despite its liberal reputation, lots of stupid white suburban males.

They elected Romney, that other empty suit before him, weld, and Scott (dufus, ma) brown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:00 PM

2. it's close because the media says it's close...they will make billions on this 'close race'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:09 PM

3. Scott's a local boy

Likeable and blahblahblah.

I think she wins a close one, down to the wire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:10 AM

4. Let me explain a few things

Massachusetts maybe the "bluest" of the blue states but some things should be understood. The Mass state legislature is often described as "all democrat all the time" a situation that can encourage some corrupt behavior. Massachusetts has, in the past, elected republican governors to add some checks and balances to the state congress. Most of them have been pretty moderate repubs. Bill Weld would be good example. I thought he was, for all intensive purposes, a pretty good guy. Too bad he became bored with his job and sort of just handed things over to Lt. Governor Paul Celucci. I doubt you would see a Rick Perry or other ultra-right candidate run in Massachusetts. Mitt Romney did not run for governor with the same rhetoric he's using now for the presidency.
When Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's senate seat I spoke with some old friends about it. All said the same thing. The candidate that the Dems ran against Scott Brown, Martha Coakley, was seen as incredibly weak and certain observations gave the impression that she was somehow entitled to Kennedy's seat. They may have thought her as a competent attorney general but thought otherwise as a senator. Brown took the election by a 5% margin.

My guess is that Elizabeth Warren is a much stronger and more formidable candidate than Martha Coakley could have hoped to be. This is my guess as to why Scott Brown is being evasive when it comes to debating her. I am willing to bet his handlers think Brown will get crushed in a debate format with her and is thus unwilling to venture outside friendly territory that is the Boston area conservative radio personalities.

As a previous poster said there are too many dumb white males in Mass. I would tend to agree.
I also think some of the tea party fever spilled into Mass from New Hampshire which may explain why the surveys put Brown and Warren neck and neck.

How I see it anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freethought (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:39 AM

6. Good info!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:27 AM

5. Because she's never run for anything before?

I know us internet liberals have built her into a folk hero, and I'm confident she'd be a competent Senator, but she's a career academic who's made a sudden detour into politics. With the best will in the world, she hasn't exactly spent years building a hardcore constituency among Massachusetts voters...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bryan (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:39 AM

7. Very valid point, thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread