That doesn't say a lot of good things about the progressive voices,
Just because her words bust your worldview bubble doesn't mean she's not a strong, positive progressive voice. It just means you're extremely perturbed by anything that goes against your worldview.
then. Surely, you're familar with the deep, significant flaws in her medical bankruptcy study, as an example. Start here for some good details.
I don't have time to read every attack piece. If you judged every politician simply by those who don't like them, you wouldn't be able to vote for anyone.
Obama's under 50% approval in Massachusetts, only 4% better than disapproval. Obama will almost certainly win Massachusetts, so it's all a little moot, but let's not pretend Obama's popularity is significant - it's just better than it is nationally.
And what exactly is the popularity of the Republican Party in Massachusetts? If the President's approval is 49% but the Republicans' approval is 39% that doesn't exactly bode well for the Republicans. Besides, much of Obama's unpopularity stems from his seeming unwillingness to stand up for anything he believes in (quite contrary to the Republican narrative that everyone wishes he'd give in to the tea party's wishes and ruin this country). Warren is a vocal progressive, and doesn't seem ashamed to admit it, so she shouldn't have to worry about that.
Irrelevant to this. "The Republicans" aren't running against Obama, real people are. Even when "the Republicans" are, however, Generic Republican is beating Obama.
"Generic Republican" isn't running for office. A lot of people would probably like a viable alternative (even some liberals who are sick of wishy washy Obama) but a viable alternative isn't being offered. The most reasonable Republican running is Huntsman and even he's having to bend over backwards to sound crazy enough to win the tea party primary (and he will not win that primary so he's irrelevant). The Republicans are trying to out crazy each other, I don't think that bodes well for them when they'll have to run to the center for the general election (it's hard to appear moderate when you spent the past year talking about how you wanted senior citizens eating cat food and unemployed people fighting amongst themselves for the contents of the Burger King dumpster).
And I don't know what I'm talking about? Riiiiight.
You don't. I've seen no evidence that you possess even the most basic knowledge of economics. I only have 1 1/2 economics classes under my belt and I may even have more knowledge of economics as a discipline than you do. You read a bunch of articles by Ben Stein, and maybe a couple books by Adam Smith, and now you think you're some sort of economic genius.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 05:59 pm (UTC)Just because her words bust your worldview bubble doesn't mean she's not a strong, positive progressive voice. It just means you're extremely perturbed by anything that goes against your worldview.
then. Surely, you're familar with the deep, significant flaws in her medical bankruptcy study, as an example. Start here for some good details.
I don't have time to read every attack piece. If you judged every politician simply by those who don't like them, you wouldn't be able to vote for anyone.
Obama's under 50% approval in Massachusetts, only 4% better than disapproval. Obama will almost certainly win Massachusetts, so it's all a little moot, but let's not pretend Obama's popularity is significant - it's just better than it is nationally.
And what exactly is the popularity of the Republican Party in Massachusetts? If the President's approval is 49% but the Republicans' approval is 39% that doesn't exactly bode well for the Republicans. Besides, much of Obama's unpopularity stems from his seeming unwillingness to stand up for anything he believes in (quite contrary to the Republican narrative that everyone wishes he'd give in to the tea party's wishes and ruin this country). Warren is a vocal progressive, and doesn't seem ashamed to admit it, so she shouldn't have to worry about that.
Irrelevant to this. "The Republicans" aren't running against Obama, real people are. Even when "the Republicans" are, however, Generic Republican is beating Obama.
"Generic Republican" isn't running for office. A lot of people would probably like a viable alternative (even some liberals who are sick of wishy washy Obama) but a viable alternative isn't being offered. The most reasonable Republican running is Huntsman and even he's having to bend over backwards to sound crazy enough to win the tea party primary (and he will not win that primary so he's irrelevant). The Republicans are trying to out crazy each other, I don't think that bodes well for them when they'll have to run to the center for the general election (it's hard to appear moderate when you spent the past year talking about how you wanted senior citizens eating cat food and unemployed people fighting amongst themselves for the contents of the Burger King dumpster).
And I don't know what I'm talking about? Riiiiight.
You don't. I've seen no evidence that you possess even the most basic knowledge of economics. I only have 1 1/2 economics classes under my belt and I may even have more knowledge of economics as a discipline than you do. You read a bunch of articles by Ben Stein, and maybe a couple books by Adam Smith, and now you think you're some sort of economic genius.