Warren hits +6% in latest YouGov poll

[vcczar 1,224]

4 minutes ago, jnewt said:

I don't agree with this at all. Warren has a very questionable past and certainly cannot be trusted to actually govern like a progressive (she'll most likely be an Obama 2.0 if she's elected). I honestly don't personally know a single progressive who doesn't realize Warren isn't as progressive as she campaigns as or about her questionable past. That's a lot of people who see right through her (and they're mostly not in love with Sanders so they're not "Bernie or Bust" voters, but view him as the only viable progressive running). Clinton losing in 2016 is proof that Democrats need the progressive vote to win, and I don't know if they get it if they nominate someone like Warren with a Veep candidate who isn't a proven progressive. Someone like Bullock or Manchin would be suicide if that's the case. I think she'd either need to go with Sanders or someone lesser-known, like Raul Grijalva. Andrew Gillum is another name that would come to mind for Warren, but I have questions as to his progressiveness as well.

This all sounds like an *extremely* minority opinion on Warren's Progressivism. It's like you're avoiding everything about her in the last 10 years.  

[jnewt 37]

24 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This all sounds like an *extremely* minority opinion on Warren's Progressivism. It's like you're avoiding everything about her in the last 10 years.  

I'm strictly talking about the last ten years. Voting for the Hyde Amendment, saying she'll accept "dark money", advocating for Green bombs, citing Madeleine Albright as her key foreign policy influence, waffling on Medicare for All, remaining silent on the Dakota Access Pipeline until it was convenient etc, etc. These are all concerns shared with me by most actual progressives.

[Hestia11 572]

7 minutes ago, jnewt said:

I'm strictly talking about the last ten years. Voting for the Hyde Amendment, saying she'll accept "dark money", advocating for Green bombs, citing Madeleine Albright as her key foreign policy influence, waffling on Medicare for All, remaining silent on the Dakota Access Pipeline until it was convenient etc, etc. These are all concerns shared with me by most actual progressives.

I'm assuming this is a very minority opinion inside the Democratic Party. Maybe not among uber-progressives, but anyone to the right of Bernie would see that it would be wise for Warren to aim to her right to pick up more votes.

[vcczar 1,224]

6 minutes ago, jnewt said:

I'm strictly talking about the last ten years. Voting for the Hyde Amendment, saying she'll accept "dark money", advocating for Green bombs, citing Madeleine Albright as her key foreign policy influence, waffling on Medicare for All, remaining silent on the Dakota Access Pipeline until it was convenient etc, etc. These are all concerns shared with me by most actual progressives.

Didn't know about the Green Bombs, but overall, this seems like a rather small number of complaints when compared to her other actions. She isn't going to be Bernie Sanders, but she's further left than Obama, H Clinton, Biden, and would be the furthest left Democratic nominee in US history if nominated. (Although the case can be made that McGovern was the furthest left in context with his times). 

Overall, I think most progressives that will vote Democrat aren't expecting purity in presidential candidate. Those that do, tend to vote 3rd party or not vote at all. 

[pilight 237]

2 hours ago, jnewt said:

 I think she'd either need to go with Sanders or someone lesser-known, like Raul Grijalva. Andrew Gillum is another name that would come to mind for Warren, but I have questions as to his progressiveness as well.

Warren picking a senior citizen running mate like Sanders or Grijalva would be a big mistake.  Two seventy-somethings on the ticket will give people pause.

[Patine 469]

20 minutes ago, pilight said:

Warren picking a senior citizen running mate like Sanders or Grijalva would be a big mistake.  Two seventy-somethings on the ticket will give people pause.

The Gold Democrats of 1896...

[Sean F. Kennedy 14]

12 hours ago, vcczar said:

Didn't know about the Green Bombs, but overall, this seems like a rather small number of complaints when compared to her other actions. She isn't going to be Bernie Sanders, but she's further left than Obama, H Clinton, Biden, and would be the furthest left Democratic nominee in US history if nominated. (Although the case can be made that McGovern was the furthest left in context with his times). 

Overall, I think most progressives that will vote Democrat aren't expecting purity in presidential candidate. Those that do, tend to vote 3rd party or not vote at all. 

What's also talked about how she has promised to take corporate money in the general election and that she used a shady accounting trick to take corporate money from her Senate campaign last year to use in the primary. She has flip-flopped on Medicare for all, she didn't stand up for the people of Standing Rock until it was politically convenient. She voted for all of Trumps military budgets, she's surrounding herself with the people who are on Clinton's campaign that lost to Donald Trump... I can go on. Pointing this out isn't purity, it's snowing bad in the general election Trump is going to pick that out and beat it to death. And don't even get me started on the Native American issue