How bad will the DU freak-out be if/when Warren has to support a party vote?

[Recursion]

Are we talking "blood on the walls" or "blood on the ceiling"?

Or is the point of this newly-devised position that she can avoid those uncomfortable votes?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Hopefully, we'll hold her feet to the fire and call her on it.

[Recursion]

3. Sigh

OK, well, here we go...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. It is the responsibility of the people in a democracy to hold public servants accountable.

Even Democrats. Even senators. Even presidents.

[Recursion]

8. Of course it is

And it's my right to do this:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Because...?

Which is also my reaction to Democrats who support or don't oppose Republican policies.

[Recursion]

12. I don't need to explain to anyone my pounding of my head against my desk

That is my absolute right

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Paying attention to politicans has that effect.

[Rex]

44. Isn't it sad to watch people play concern troll?

You paint them into a corner and all they can do is give you a non-answer. Notice it is the same handful of people that always concern troll DU? It is like their little egos won't be satisfied until they feel superior to all those that 'freak-out'. It is flat out pathetic to watch.

[Android3.14]

52. You have that right

"little egos" <android chuckles>

[LawDeeDah]

29. Yes it is, unfortunately too many think being rude and obnoxious

with juvenile name calling, is somehow holding public servants accountable. That is what 'accountable' has come to mean at Democratic Underground and we should all prepare for the same to be said about Warren, because, dammit, no one is good enough for some of us. The game is to moan and whinge and take pleasure in the attention.

[bigwillq]

90. This

[LawDeeDah]

4. o gawd not the feet to the fire.

poor Elizabeth, it's already started.

I believe Warren is an honest broker and a brave soul. If she can't get her way all the time and has to 'capitulate' (fuck I hate that word) I am not going to roast her freakin feet.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. "Has to capitulate". What happens if she doesn't? Torture? Embarrassment?

Stern looks of disapproval?

[bigwillq]

89. ...

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Warren has voted for things like our massive defense budget

She's also supported pro-Israel bills. Those votes were met with a collective yawn by DU.

Of course if Obama supports those, he's a third way sellout DLC Dem.

I think Obama just isn't the right skin color, if you know what I mean.

[Recursion]

5. Granted, but, if she takes this leadership position, there will be a whip vote, probably even in

the lame duck session, where she will do what the party needs.

It could even be TPP. Actually if I had to bet money, I'd say it would be that...

[LWolf]

88. The party needs her to

support the TPP? The party needs its members to betray the party?

THAT makes sense.

[LondonReign2]

6. Yes, any criticism of Obama's policies

is because we are racists.

You got us.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. Warren votes for our $700 billion defense budget, there's nary a peep on DU

Meanwhile Obama signs that same budget and he's lambasted for selling out to the defense industry.

[LawDeeDah]

31. Exactly. The silence is deafening, isn't it

and should be bloody embarassing for some, but it won't.

[LondonReign2]

35. That's because we're racists

It must be so great to be able to deflect all criticism by claiming racism rather having to defend support of the TPP, floating chained CPI, making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, being fine with Clapper's outright lies to Congress, the NSA hovering up massive amounts of data...

ANYONE THAT DISAGREES IS JUST A RACIST!

[jeff47]

45. It would be far more effective if you provided an alternate explanation.

For example, you could claim Warren had little ability to affect defense spending since she's not on the Armed Services Committee. Meanwhile it was Obama proposing the defense spending in his budget proposal.

Just screaming "NUH-UH!!!!!!!!" is not terribly effective.

[LondonReign2]

53. I provided multiple policy points as evidence

If I disagree with Obama on TPP, I'm called a racist
If I disagree with Obama on NSA spying, I'm called a racist
If I disagree with Obama on chained CPI, I'm called a racist
If I disagree with Obama on tax cuts for the wealthy, I'm called a racist
If I disagree with Obama on Syria, I'm called a racist
If I disagree with Obama stuffing his cabinets with Republicans, I'm called a racist
On now, apparently if I disagree with Obama on the size of the defense budget AND also don't specifically say I disagree with every person who also voted for the same budget, whether they could affect it or not, I'm called a racist.

It is a shorthand, and incredibly offensive, way to deflect any and all criticism without actually having to debate the very thing being criticized, namely the policies.

[jeff47]

57. You provided multiple, irrelevant points. Because the issue is the difference

between treatment of Warren and treatment of Obama.

It is a shorthand, and incredibly offensive, way to deflect any and all criticism without actually having to debate the very thing being criticized, namely the policies.

And the quick way back to having such a debate is to dismantle the argument they are making - Warren couldn't affect defense spending, Obama could.

Lashing out at being called a racist doesn't do that. It just advances the screaming match.

[LondonReign2]

59. Disagree, completely

The relevant point is, ANY disagreement with Obama's policies is met with cries of racism by some on this board. This time, the ante was upped by claiming one must ALSO specifically call out anyone with those same policies, or you are a racist. Happens .Every. Fucking. Time.

Good luck attempting to dismantle they argument. You know what? You'll still get called a racist.

[jeff47]

62. And raging against getting called a racist is exactly what the troll wants you to do. (nt)

[AgingAmerican]

17. Well that was lame

nt

[Zorra]

27. I alerted on your disgusting post. Implying that liberal Democrats are racist

is bullshit and lower than a dead snakes' belly in the bottom of a cesspool.

Off to ignore with you.

Again.

[jeff47]

43. And here's your results.

On Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:57 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Warren has voted for things like our massive defense budget
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5811583

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Poster is clearly implying that liberal Democrats are racists.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:05 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Liberals don't like the third way because Obama is black? That is flat out racist against Liberals.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There are Liberal Democrat Racists. I meet them all the time because I'm black. They usually avoid letting others know what they are. But it slips out in the way they treat minorities and speak about them. Pretending that it is impossible for liberal dems to be racist is absurd. There are racists across the political spectrum.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No, poster is clearly stating that there's a contradiction in support for different politicians, and ascribing that contradiction to race. Feel free to reply and explain why it isn't race.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[treestar]

76. Nothing wrong with implying that is they have not thrown Warren under the bus

for the same things they threw Obama under the bus for. If it is wrong when Obama does it, it is wrong when other Democrats support it, too.

[Capt. Obvious]

79. Alerting on that post

was it because the font wasn't the right color?

[Iggo]

10. The more yer agin' her, the more I'm for her.

[Recursion]

21. I like her.

I just don't see what putting a firebrand who riles up the base into a leadership position does, other than compromising her.

[Deny and Shred]

46. Compromising her just might be the point

Allow her to participate in the rudderless leadership. Render her toothless now before she actually becomes a galvanizing threat.

Truthfully, she is no firebrand - at all.

[Recursion]

47. And so here's where I say "And so it begins", again

It sounds like her nature and record are being re-written as we speak on DU... But it could also just be who's choosing to speak in this thread.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Which Party? She was a Republican for much longer than she's been a Democrat, she's voted for

people and things that chill my blood, candidates and policies that I consider to be absolutely horrific. This is a woman who loyally voted for Reagan a second time, years into his inaction about AIDS then she voted for Bush over Clinton to keep the Conservative train running.
After that shit, any vote she makes with Democrats is refreshing and glorious. Compared to 'Let's let them keep dying' almost any vote is a good vote.

[Recursion]

14. And so it begins (nt)

[AgingAmerican]

20. What begins?

Honest debate? This isn't the Republican party where those who are not lockstep loyal in every aspect are kicked to the curb.

[Recursion]

23. No, it's not: we don't primary our right wing; they do primary their left wing

It's why we held on to the Senate as long as we did.

What I meant by "it begins" was that that was probably the tack DU will take when they turn against Warren in a few months after she has to deal with the realities of US politics.

[Recursion]

25. For that matter, it's not a bad argument; Bluenorthwest is right about that

She's come a long way in 20 years.

[AgingAmerican]

26. Of course we primary our right wing

We don't lockstep with people who push damaging right wing bullshit.

[Recursion]

28. Well, we don't do so effectively... who was the last Democrat to lose to a primary challenge from

the left?

[AgingAmerican]

36. Yet...

The past has been a failure. We are not obligated to repeat it.

[Recursion]

48. No... that's certainly... true...

But... keeping conservative Democrats in was kind of clearly how we kept the Senate for as long as we did. And you want to change that?

[Deny and Shred]

51. Ok, I'll play.

Who was the last true liberal the party backed to the hilt in a primary instead of the more 'palatable' centrist?

[Recursion]

54. That doesn't happen in either party; they support incumbents.

I'm asking for the equivalent of the GOP base nominating unelectably conservative Senate candidates.

For the most part, our party hasn't descended on its right flank like the GOP descended on its left flank; that's why we kept the Senate as long as we did.

[AgingAmerican]

55. "Unelectibly liberal"

Is what you are implying and it has no bearing on reality. Liberal/Progressive ideas consistently poll 70%+ across the board. Why people like you insist on running away from them, then get our asses handed to us every midterm because of it, is not rational.

[Recursion]

56. And yet liberal/progressive candidates lose outside of liberal/progressive districts

Repeat after me: voters do not vote on policy. Read "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

[AgingAmerican]

58. Give examples

nt

[Recursion]

60. You did: voters support liberal policies but elect a conservative majority

In both houses.

Voters vote based on tribe.

[AgingAmerican]

64. Specific examples please

nt

[Recursion]

68. Easy: Arkansas, this past election

http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/arkansas/

Minimum wage increase passes 66-34
Cotton (R) beats Pryor (D) 57-40
Hutchison (R) beats Moss (D) 55-42

Liberal policies win, conservative candidates win. Voters do not vote based on policy. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[AgingAmerican]

70. Pryor didn't run on progressive ideas

http://www.pryor.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/pryor-signs-bill-build-keystone-pipeline

People do vote on issues. Democrats ran away from hugely popular progressive ideas and ran as right wing. Given the choice between a Democrat pretending to be a Republican, and a real Republican, voters will choose the real Republican every time.

[Oilwellian]

73. I hear crickets n/t

[Recursion]

75. Ah, so the mythical AR progressive candidate would have won in a landslide? (nt)

[AgingAmerican]

77. I note you feel a need to use the term, "Landslide"

No 'landslide' necessary. He ran on right wing ideas and his incumbent ass got handed to him.

[Recursion]

78. Nope, even just by a little bit

You think a more liberal candidate would have done better?

We live in different universes.

Swarney was on the ballot for the Green party in Arkansas. How did he do?

[mythology]

81. But the minimum wage won in a landslide

Prior lost in one. For your contention that a progressive would have won isn't born out by the results. Unless you are assuming utter irrationality on behalf of voters. Because if we use the minimum wage vote as a rough approximation of the preferred progressive voter's position, Pryor was a lot closer than his opponent was. Thus if voters wanted the progressive position, they voted for the wrong candidate.

If the voters wanted the more liberal candidate, on a scale of two options, they chose poorly. You are not doing counter factual so correctly to say that because Pryor lost a progressive would have won. A lot of the same people who supported the minimum wage increase voted against Pryor. Were they all confused?

If the race had a significantly more left candidate who received a statistically important number of voters, you could make a case that the voters were saying they wanted a more progressive candidate. Otherwise it's just wishful thinking.

[Recursion]

84. Swarney (G) was on the ballot. He got less than 2% of the vote. (nt)

[Art_from_Ark]

94. The ones who are confused are the ones who think that raising the minimum wage

is strictly a liberal issue. It isn't once the issue becomes a ballot initiative, because it takes the matter out of politicians' hands. So when given a chance, anyone who is working at or just above minimum wage will almost certainly vote to give themselves a raise, regardless of their political ideology.

[AgingAmerican]

95. My contention is that

...a progressive will never win in a red district by abandoning their base. In doing so they abandon everyone. Republicans will never vote for them, period. Independents won't vote for a politician that abandons their core principles, and the Democratic base will not turn out in numbers for a 'centrist' Democratic candidate that kowtows to the right.

[onenote]

85. The Pryor example isn't really the best

Pryor and his opponent both endorsed the increase in the state minimum wage to $8 and change, but both opposed the federal increase to $10.10

[Art_from_Ark]

92. As a ballot initiative, increasing the minimum wage can transcend ideologies

as I explain here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1116&pid=60725

And by the way, Hutchinson beat Mike Ross, not Moss. At any rate, Mr. Ross is a conservative Democrat who was hand-picked by the state's party apparatchiks after the more liberal Democratic candidate, Bill Halter, was forced out of the race before the primary.

[brooklynite]

97. Ooh, ooh! can I play?

Colorado voters voted down a personhood amendment, and then voted for a Republican who supportedit.

Now, was that because Udall didn't run a progressive enough campaign?

[Art_from_Ark]

98. I have no idea what your post has to do with mine

When given the opportunity, voting to give oneself a raise has no ideological boundary. How hard is it to understand that?

[onenote]

82. 2012: Cartwright defeating Blue Dog Tim Holden

The reality is that primary challenges rarely succeed against incumbents of either party, whether from the right or the left. The exception is the Cantor defeat. But the only other successful challenges to House members in 2014 were largely explained by factors other than ideology. Repub Ralph Hall lost to John Ratcliffe, but that had more to do with the fact Hall was 91 years old than their respective positions. Indeed, Bachmann, Huckabee and the NRA all endorsed Hall. The famous kissing repub, Vince McAllister, came in third in the "jungle" primary in Louisiana and won't be in the runoff. But again, not so much an ideologically based defeat as one based on his behavior. On our side of the aisle, Tierney lost to Moulton in a primary in Massachusetts, but given that Elizabeth Warren endorsed the former in the primar and the latter in the general, it doesn't appear that there is a major ideological divide between them.

2012 wasn't much different: A lot of incumbents lost their seats in primaries that resulted from redistricting, but the primary challenger typically was another incumbent and the outcome of the race reflected the make up of the new district. For example, well known but largely ineffective Democrat Dennis Kucinich lost to Marcy Kaptur in a district that was mostly Marcy's old district. Repub Ted Yoho is a crazy teapartier who knocked off Cliff Stearns, but Stearns had the endorsement of Bachmann and Allen West, so to the extent it was a Tea Party challenge, it was a divided one. Another repub knocked off was Jean Schmidt -- I don't care who defeated her, it had less to do with trying to get to the right of her and more to do with the fact she is batshit crazy.

There is even less success in primary challenges to sitting Senators. None in 2014 and only one, sort of, in 2012 -- Murkowski lost the repub nomination to a challenger to her right, but she ended up winning the election as a write-in candidate.

In short, there seems to be some mythology about the repubs being successfully challenged from the right while Democrats don't get challenged from the left. The reality, is the vast majority of primary efforts fail no matter what direction they come from.

[Recursion]

83. You know, I was including Barr, which isn't right

You have a point: I was including Barr as a defeated incumbent, which he actually wasn't.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. What 'begins'? I've never been a fan of her or any other Reaganite.

I've been calling on her to address her history since she started her ambitions in our party. She is evasive about it.
I don't get your comment in the least.

[Recursion]

42. I wasn't saying you had (I'm serious about that)

I just think your perspective will get a lot more coverage on DU in a couple of months or so than it has so far.

[noiretextatique]

93. the same can be said of many people here

who were DEMOCRATS and voted for Reagan.

[Rex]

18. Getting all excited already are we?

What is it with the few people around here that like crapping on DU and DUers 24/7? Oh right, it is about politics. Right.

[jwirr]

19. I for one will respect her intelligence and know that she did what she felt needed to be done.

[Nye Bevan]

22. I'm struggling to understand the phrase "has to support".

Why would she ever "have to support" something?

Is it possible that you mean "chooses to support something that many DUers don't like?"

[Recursion]

24. I don't "have to" pay my student loans.

As an example. A statue doesn't come to life and coerce my hand to signing the check if I choose not to.

[Nye Bevan]

33. OK, let me ask another way.

Say there is something that Warren (and most of DU) opposes but that the Democratic leadership really want her to vote in favor of. What are the adverse consequences if she ignores them and votes her conscience?

[Recursion]

34. She loses the leadership position she just got (nt)

[AgingAmerican]

39. So if she doesn't vote in some hypothetical vile right wing nonsense

...the Democrats will kick her to the curb? lol

[LondonReign2]

40. Right, and I agree with your statement above that it only compromises her

Which is exactly what I think the current leadership desires.

[Nye Bevan]

41. OK, so she doesn't "have to" vote the way they want her to.

She would be choosing to prioritize her own personal advancement in the Senate leadership over and above her conscience in voting on the issue.

And I am probably not alone in saying I would have more respect for someone who votes for stuff they believe in than someone who casts votes to curry favor with the leadership, hoping for personal advancement.

[jeff47]

65. Which hurts her, how?

Her power comes from her popularity, which comes from her economic populism.

Throw her from the leadership, and she becomes more popular. And the left end of the party gets really pissed at the leadership.

"Vote this way or else" is not much of a threat to her.

Far more likely will be attempts to exploit her for behind-the-scenes arm-twisting while she still votes no.

[Recursion]

66. Well, we'll see, won't we? (nt)

[frazzled]

30. Well, if they've been paying attention they shouldn't be surprised

Her voting record and sponsorship/cosporship has been pretty much straight down the middle of the Democratic Party road since she became senator, maybe a bit to left of center. She's not, for example, a Whitehouse or Sanders, nor a Ron Wyden or Jeff Merkeley.

See the chart, for example, at: https://www.govtrack.us/about/analysis#ideology

[Recursion]

32. You know that and I know that

Like I said, walls, or ceiling?

[hrmjustin]

37. It may break a few hearts.

[msanthrope]

72. Set a few scalps on fire.... nt

[hrmjustin]

74. Thwt too. n/t

[Marr]

49. Depending on the subject, I don't think there'll be one. Which would kind of disprove the whole

"pony" nonsense, wouldn't it?

Liberals on DU will, I think, consider the overall package. We'll tolerate some ugly politics if the boat is generally being steered our direction.

[Recursion]

50. We'll see

I'm willing to hope so. If she's moving forward in the Senate leadership I don't want the knives to come out two weeks from now.

(BTW I have made a point of avoiding the word "pony" in any of my posts, though I do occasionally describe myself as a woodchuck...)

[Rowdyboy]

61. Not 1/2 as bad as the meltdown if Warren endorses Clinton over Sanders in the Democratic primaries

[Recursion]

63. Yeah, I'm not even going there

But that will be epic, too.

[djean111]

67. Nothing Warren says or does will make Hillary any more palatable to me.

I do not see what is so hard to understand about that.
Warren is not the only possibility who has some more liberal leanings than Hillary - this is not a personality cult.
There will not be exploding heads, except, of course, from the Hillary fans who will be sorely disappointed if there are no exploding heads.
I would say Hillary fans are kind of hoping for and looking forward to that, which does not bode well for any sort of unity.

[Recursion]

69. I'm a Schweitzer fan, so obviously making Clinton more palatable is not on my agenda

Just pointing that out.

[djean111]

71. Why the obvious hope for exploding heads or whatever? It is tacky and jeering.

We all know there is no perfect candidate.

[MADem]

80. They'll ignore it or get mad if you point out the cognitive dissonance.

I think it's funny as hell when they get all into this Team This One and Team That One, like politicians are werewolves and vampires from a sparkly Twilight Film. What they don't realize is that Warren ADORES Harry Reid, gets along GREAT with Hillary Clinton, and will happily work closely with Barack Obama.

This disappoints those who would like to see our own party members snarling and each other and doing the bold Captain Morgan stance in defense of some principle or other. It doesn't work that way. We have a party platform and some politicians are more invested in this plank or that, but the idea is to keep the trajectory moving forward. They're most effective at that if they work with--not against--one another.

They get that. Some people here with a Twilight mindset don't. Or maybe they don't want it to be that way, because they prefer the whole "team sports" aspect.

[Bobbie Jo]

96. So true. nt

[yurbud]

86. it's not about the person, it's the policies

[LWolf]

87. A "party" vote?

Does that mean a vote that benefits politicians, but not the votes electing them?

Does a "party vote" mean voting against common sense and voters' best interests?

If so, why would the "party" want to cast that vote?

When would someone HAVE to "support" a "party vote?" Is that an unwritten rule?

[TheNutcracker]

91. Warren should not be doing this.

[Le Taz Hot]

99. Flame Bait.

Again. Why don't you concentrate on your own candidate? Convince people why they should vote for Hillary instead of these anti-Warren and anti-Warren supporter posts 3 times a day.