Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

portlander23

(2,078 posts)
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 09:53 AM Dec 2016

Warren: Americans didnt give Democrats majority support so we could play dead

Democrats Have Questions. Elizabeth Warren Has Answers.
Francis Wilkinson
Bloomberg

Trump's victory didn't expose the weakness of identity politics; it showed its frightening dominion. He ran on it with a vengeance, and won. Still, Democrats will need better equilibrium between a message of racial inclusion and a message of economic inclusion. For pointers, they need only listen to their party's most skillful and class-conscious communicator, Senator Elizabeth Warren. She is a champion of those left out of the economic boom that has powered the upper-middle-class and super-rich to new heights. At the same time, she is a stalwart for social justice. She makes the balancing act look easy. Maybe it is.

Warren is also a good guide on the second, emerging, Democratic question: Cooperate with Trump or resist?

Warren makes some moderate Democrats uneasy. But she's the right woman to lead the resistance. She has the luxury of a safe seat, and she has the will to contest a historically unpopular president-elect who won with 46 percent of the vote, and a Republican congressional majority that is about to propose a radical agenda for which it has no buy-in from the American public. In a typically aggressive floor speech last week she said:

The American people didn’t give Democrats majority support so we could come back to Washington and play dead. They didn’t send us here to whimper, whine, or grovel.

16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Warren: Americans didnt give Democrats majority support so we could play dead (Original Post) portlander23 Dec 2016 OP
Go Elizabeth. GO! progressoid Dec 2016 #1
One of the better posts yet posted in 2016 Post Mortem appal_jack Dec 2016 #2
The thing with Warren is ... ZoomBubba Dec 2016 #3
To paraphrase Lincoln- n2doc Dec 2016 #4
I don't see the leadership out there ... ZoomBubba Dec 2016 #7
see this post n2doc Dec 2016 #8
Why attack them? ZoomBubba Dec 2016 #10
Why attack them? ZoomBubba Dec 2016 #11
Y'all must think she's pretty SKEEEERY!! Enjoy your stay. n/t TygrBright Dec 2016 #5
Not sure what you mean ... ZoomBubba Dec 2016 #6
there is story after story about her motivating a lot of people ProfessorPlum Dec 2016 #9
She didn't do a very good job ... ZoomBubba Dec 2016 #12
They weren't voting for Warren, were they ProfessorPlum Dec 2016 #15
The challenge with that is that Americans gave Clinton majority support FBaggins Dec 2016 #13
KnR Hekate Dec 2016 #14
Exactly Liz right on! pressbox69 Dec 2016 #16
 

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)
2. One of the better posts yet posted in 2016 Post Mortem
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 10:51 AM
Dec 2016

This article is spot-on. Particularly:

Democrats have two set arenas in which to highlight, and constrain, the GOP agenda. The first is Senate hearings to confirm Trump cabinet appointees, from whom they must secure commitments to democratic norms and the rule of law. Nominees should also be required to state whether the world is round or flat. For example, Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions should state, for the record, whether the FBI's statistics or Trump's distortions about the crime rate are accurate. The hearings are an opportunity to bolster facts and undermine propaganda.

The second arena is the multi-stage transformation of the social contract through congressional legislation. The Democrats should treat this as the legislative Armageddon it promises to be (while hoping Trump's incompetence doesn't lead to the nuclear kind). The legislative dynamics are not yet certain but the agenda is: a vast increase in insecurity for struggling workers and vast tax benefits for the wealthy. All of this will take place while the Trump family pursues its goal of self-enrichment. Democrats will not have to look hard for an explanatory theme to tie these elements together.


My only reservation with Elizabeth Warren is her tendency to knee-jerk about Second Amendment issues. Hopefully, she is fully aware that talk of gun bans only loses more elections for Democrats, and that there are much bigger fish to fry for at least the next four years. I as a southern-state voter can do the same, and happily embrace and support her as the right opposition voice for this moment.

k&r,

-app

ZoomBubba

(289 posts)
3. The thing with Warren is ...
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 11:47 AM
Dec 2016

... I think many people on the Internet overestimate her charisma and ability to reach out to people who don't live and breathe party politics. I just don't see her being able to catch the attention of Joe Six-Pack the same way Bill Clinton and Obama did. She might have the best ideas, but what good are they if nobody wants to watch her? Can she get someone who doesn't keep up with who's who of politics that's channel surfing to linger on her for more than 15 seconds before turning the channel?

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
4. To paraphrase Lincoln-
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 12:27 PM
Dec 2016

"I can't spare this woman, she fights."

Until I see the rest of the leadership out there fighting hard, and not appeasing the R's, she is needed.

ZoomBubba

(289 posts)
7. I don't see the leadership out there ...
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 01:44 PM
Dec 2016

... appeasing the Rs. I really don't see much leadership or direction at all at the moment.

ZoomBubba

(289 posts)
10. Why attack them?
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 04:50 PM
Dec 2016

They're doing what they believe they need to in order to keep their seats. What are they supposed to do? Scream "Fuck Trump! I ain't working with him!?"

That's just politics. Those people are holding seats for Democrats. Nothing wrong with that as long as they win.

ZoomBubba

(289 posts)
11. Why attack them?
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 04:50 PM
Dec 2016

They're doing what they believe they need to in order to keep their seats. What are they supposed to do? Scream "Fuck Trump! I ain't working with him!?"

That's just politics. Those people are holding seats for Democrats. Nothing wrong with that as long as they win.

ZoomBubba

(289 posts)
6. Not sure what you mean ...
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 01:17 PM
Dec 2016

... but I think it's irrelevant. We haven't seen if she can motivate people that aren't already motivated to vote Democratic to vote Democratic. That's pretty much what matters. I'm just not convinced that left-populists like Sanders and Warren can really win over the public outside of the very inconsistent young voter crowd and well-monied coastal liberals. Can she reconnect the Democrats with the voters they lost in the midwest? Can she motivate black voters who turned out in droves for Obama? What about market Democrats? All those are necessary for a coalition.

Remember, a very similar candidate, Bernie Sanders, lost to Clinton who blew him out of the water in the primary. If Democrats aren't buying what he's selling, what's to say that they'll do it for Warren?

ProfessorPlum

(11,284 posts)
9. there is story after story about her motivating a lot of people
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 04:47 PM
Dec 2016

look up her address to a firefighter's union. She knows how to make people understand that she is actually on their side, because she actually is.

ZoomBubba

(289 posts)
12. She didn't do a very good job ...
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 04:56 PM
Dec 2016

It was union voters in the Midwest and Atlantic who switched alliances that helped put Trump in.

ProfessorPlum

(11,284 posts)
15. They weren't voting for Warren, were they
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 06:55 AM
Dec 2016

What's your point? I contend that if Clinton would have used Warren more, she would have had an even bigger impact.

FBaggins

(26,791 posts)
13. The challenge with that is that Americans gave Clinton majority support
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 05:03 PM
Dec 2016

Not Democrats in congress.

It's probably better to oppose on a simple "representing my constituents" basis.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Warren: Americans didnt g...