Right!

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Comments

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Oh gee, Jeff jumps into a discussion without knowing anything about what's being discussed. It must be a day ending in y.

I strongly disagree. Someone this sloppy,

Sloppy? She's the smartest, and most vocal, progressive voice out there at this moment.

this linked to the President?

You forget that the President isn't unpopular everywhere in this country. She doesn't have to satisfy the idiots in flyover country, she's running in Massachusetts. You also "forget" that the Republicans are even less popular than Obama.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Sloppy? She's the smartest, and most vocal, progressive voice out there at this moment.

That doesn't say a lot of good things about the progressive voices, then. Surely, you're familar with the deep, significant flaws in her medical bankruptcy study, as an example. Start here (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/considering-elizabeth-warren-the-scholar/60211/) for some good details.

You forget that the President isn't unpopular everywhere in this country. She doesn't have to satisfy the idiots in flyover country, she's running in Massachusetts.

Obama's under 50% approval in Massachusetts, only 4% better than disapproval (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/09/obama-slips-in-ma-still-leads-republicans-by-double-digits.html). 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.

You also "forget" that the Republicans are even less popular than Obama.

Irrelevant to this. "The Republicans" aren't running against Obama, real people are. Even when "the Republicans" are, however, Generic Republican (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot) is beating Obama (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148487/Republican-Candidate-Extends-Lead-Obama.aspx).

And I don't know what I'm talking about? Riiiiight.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Just because her words bust your worldview bubble doesn't mean she's not a strong, positive progressive voice.

First, there's no worldview bubble popping here. She comes across as your standard, deluded liberal. That's fine, and if that makes her a "strong, progressive voice," it means that the "progressive" movement is worse off than I thought.

I don't have time to read every attack piece.

Translation: Being informed takes too much work!

And what exactly is the popularity of the Republican Party in Massachusetts?

Irrelevant to this. Obama is not running against the Republican Party. Scott Brown has been among the most popular politicians in the state.

Warren is a vocal progressive, and doesn't seem ashamed to admit it, so she shouldn't have to worry about that.

She has to worry that what she says is so detached from reality. That's not going to help her in a race.

"Generic Republican" isn't running for office.

Then perhaps you should stop worrying about the popularity of Republicans.

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.

Ooh, wow, you got me there. Sick burn, etc. Do you really want to compare academic penis length? I don't think so.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Translation: Being informed takes too much work!

Oh, I'm plenty informed. Reading the biased nonsense you link to is hardly going to make me more informed.

Irrelevant to this. Obama is not running against the Republican Party. Scott Brown has been among the most popular politicians in the state.

No, he'd probably be in worse shape if he was since "generic Republican" is beating him in the polls. Luckily for him, he's running against a line-up of the most idiotic, dangerous psychos this side of an asylum for the criminally insane.

Brown's popularity can easily change in the heat of the campaign battle. Surely, he has been less disastrous than first thought (since he hasn't walked in lock step with the tea party) but that's just going to sour many Republican supporters to him and make them stay home (or run a tea party nut against him in the primary/independent run). I also can't imagine too many Democrats (Mass is still a largely Democratic state) voting for a less crazy Republican over a passionate, strong Democrat. Remember, you're not the average voter in Mass.

She has to worry that what she says is so detached from reality. That's not going to help her in a race.

If she was saying anything that was "detached from reality" she'd maybe have to worry. Luckily for her, everything she's said is true and is obvious to the majority of people in this country who are in dire economic straits caused largely by the Republican Party.

Then perhaps you should stop worrying about the popularity of Republicans.

I'm not worrying about the popularity of generic Republicans, I'm talking about the popularity of actual flesh and blood Republicans and they're not all that popular. People may wish that an idealized Republican will run, so they can punish Obama for his inability to wave his magic wand and fix 8 years of Bush damage, but that idealized Republican isn't running. Many of those people are going to wake up after the primary and find that their idealized Republican has morphed into Rick Perry and they're going to be scared to death. All of a sudden Obama will not look that bad.

Do you really want to compare academic penis length?

Actually, my point was the exact opposite. I don't claim to have any knowledge of academic economics. All I have is real world experience of living in the economy. My point was that you think you know all this stuff but really you're no more knowledgeable than I am (and probably far less since you are incapable of assimilating information that doesn't agree with you).

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm plenty informed. Reading the biased nonsense you link to is hardly going to make me more informed.

Not that you'd ever know.

No, he'd probably be in worse shape if he was since "generic Republican" is beating him in the polls.

So we agree that he's not running against the Republican Party, but specific people. Glad you finally agree with me.

I also can't imagine too many Democrats (Mass is still a largely Democratic state) voting for a less crazy Republican over a passionate, strong Democrat. Remember, you're not the average voter in Mass.

Trust me, I know I'm no average voter in this state. But party Id isn't lockstep support, either.

If she was saying anything that was "detached from reality" she'd maybe have to worry.

You may need to watch the video again.

Luckily for her, everything she's said is true and is obvious to the majority of people in this country who are in dire economic straits caused largely by the Republican Party.

Good, that 10% or so of truly deluded people can bask in the glow of Elizabeth Warren's crazy rants. Leave the rest to us.

My point was that you think you know all this stuff but really you're no more knowledgeable than I am (and probably far less since you are incapable of assimilating information that doesn't agree with you).

lol. Irony abound.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Not that you'd ever know.

I don't need to eat a shit sandwich to know it won't taste good or be good for my health.

Trust me, I know I'm no average voter in this state. But party Id isn't lockstep support, either.

Not lockstep but certainly a good measure of what people will do. Most Democrats will vote Democratic, most Republicans will vote Republican. Even the campaigns realize this since they spend much money courting so called independents. If Dems voted for Brown in 2010, it was because the person he was running against was not a good candidate (she made many big mistakes and didn't seem to want to win). That will not be the case with Warren.

You may need to watch the video again.

I know what she said, everything she said was completely true and should be uncontroversial (and would be in any climate other than the current tea party infested one). It's absurd to suggest, as the rich/GOP have, that the rich owe nothing to America. They use the same roads that we all pay for, they hire from the same schools that we all pay for, without those things they'd hardly be able to run their businesses and it would be very expensive indeed for them to pay for those things themselves with no help from the rest of us.

Irony abound.

I don't think that word means what you think it does.