Politico: Republicans “trying to make Warren the face of the Democratic Party”

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Make a far-left academian from Massachusetts who lied about being Native American the face of the Democratic Party? Good short-term strategy.

Make Dems be defined by her extreme leftist viewpoints? Could backfire for those of us who dislike redistribution, if you're assuming voters care about policy, that is.

Why are we not making tumblr/Hollywood SJWs and radical criminal protesters the face of the Dems instead? Conservatives and moderates hate them while Dems can't really like them either but are awkwardly forced to keep their criticism minimal in order to avoid alienating their own base.

Dems for years have repeatedly pushed the culture war in an attempt to define conservatives as racist, sexist, xenophobic, and homophobic because that was what the worst of their fringe believed. This is the same strategy, just flip-flopped. Define the whole by its most repulsive members.

But maybe they plan to tie her academic roots to campus SJWs, safe spaces, etc. which would be smart.

[uti2]

Make a far-left academian from Massachusetts who lied about being Native American the face of the Democratic Party? Good short-term strategy.

Make Dems be defined by her extreme leftist viewpoints? Could backfire for those of us who dislike redistribution, if you're assuming voters care about policy, that is.

Why are we not making tumblr/Hollywood SJWs and radical criminal protesters the face of the Dems instead? Conservatives and moderates hate them while Dems can't really like them either but are awkwardly forced to keep their criticism minimal in order to avoid alienating their own base.

Dems for years have repeatedly pushed the culture war in an attempt to define conservatives as racist, sexist, xenophobic, and homophobic because that was what the worst of their fringe believed. This is the same strategy, just flip-flopped. Define the whole by its most repulsive members.

But maybe they plan to tie her academic roots to campus SJWs, safe spaces, etc. which would be smart.

I don't get how a rubio supporter can claim to whine about sjws when rubio himself justified black lives matter. Of course he would've been framed for not sufficiently supporting it, since he didn't have any real policy solutions on those grounds, but he supported the normalization of those sjws, which means justifying the existence of that very campus culture you're bashing in your post.

[RINO Tom]

She kinda is right now, besides Bernie, and they both agree on their main themes.

[Xing]

This could be a bad idea, after all look at how happy many Democrats were to see Trump win the primaries.

Exactly, but people never seem to learn, and always want the person they think of as the "least electable" person to be the candidate for the other party.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Make a far-left academian from Massachusetts Oklahoma who lied about being Native American and reinvigorated left wing populism in America the face of the Democratic Party? Good short-term strategy.

Make Dems be defined by her extreme leftist populist viewpoints? Could backfire for those of us who dislike redistribution, consumer protection and a more free, equal America, if you're assuming voters care about policy, that is.  

FTFY

[izixs]

One of the advantages the Republicans had last election was that they had already well ingrained in their base the idea that Hillary Clinton was the ultimate evil in the universe, a problem Obama didn't have to face in 2008. Which made getting out to vote easy even with donny as their candidate, and letting them expand their umbrella of doubt upon her beyond their base to eek out a rather silly win. They very much want to use this strategy again and see Warren as the most likely Democratic nominee in 2020. However...

Warren isn't even going to run.

Warren is a very reluctant politician overall. She has her hard core issues yes and she fights for them. But given the teeth pulling necessary to get her to run in the first place, its pretty clear that if she had a choice of working behind the scenes to get things done, she'd of preferred that route. Becoming president doesn't further her goals on those issues and puts what should be a solid seat in the senate in support of her goals in jeopardy. It wasn't long ago that she defeated a Republican for her seat. A Republican who won in freak'en Massachusetts. What more, though running for president might raise the profile of her issues in the short term, it might also backfire as the usual hyper partisanship flares up making any common ground impossible. So yeah, I'm doubtful of her even tossing her hat in for a run, let alone getting nominated.

Which means all this bluster and hate and noise about her right now will be pointless. But that's alright, I don't mind them wasting their time and energy. If someone's going to project vile things uncontrollably, I'd prefer they do it in such a fashion that doesn't amount to much.

Meanwhile... all their noise does get the Democrats curious about Warren and the why of the hate. They might learn what she stands for, and look for someone who reflects those ideals next primary season as they kind of make sense. So there might be a Democratic nominee who shares the philosophy of Warren but who isn't the target of the right wing slime.

[Mr. Morden]

Btw, here's an example of the NRSC's messaging on this:

http://www.nrsc.org/press/nrsc-digital-ads-elizabeth-warren-and-red-state-dems-nearly-identical-2017-02-22/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seems rather silly, IMHO.  But whatevs, it's their money.

[Figueira]

What is this "petition"?

[Blackacre]

LOL, Brown is not a Red State Democrat. Ohio went strongly Trump last time, but it is nothing but a swing state until somebody wins without it.

[uti2]

One of the advantages the Republicans had last election was that they had already well ingrained in their base the idea that Hillary Clinton was the ultimate evil in the universe, a problem Obama didn't have to face in 2008. Which made getting out to vote easy even with donny as their candidate, and letting them expand their umbrella of doubt upon her beyond their base to eek out a rather silly win. They very much want to use this strategy again and see Warren as the most likely Democratic nominee in 2020. However...

Warren isn't even going to run.

Warren is a very reluctant politician overall. She has her hard core issues yes and she fights for them. But given the teeth pulling necessary to get her to run in the first place, its pretty clear that if she had a choice of working behind the scenes to get things done, she'd of preferred that route. Becoming president doesn't further her goals on those issues and puts what should be a solid seat in the senate in support of her goals in jeopardy. It wasn't long ago that she defeated a Republican for her seat. A Republican who won in freak'en Massachusetts. What more, though running for president might raise the profile of her issues in the short term, it might also backfire as the usual hyper partisanship flares up making any common ground impossible. So yeah, I'm doubtful of her even tossing her hat in for a run, let alone getting nominated.

Which means all this bluster and hate and noise about her right now will be pointless. But that's alright, I don't mind them wasting their time and energy. If someone's going to project vile things uncontrollably, I'd prefer they do it in such a fashion that doesn't amount to much.

Meanwhile... all their noise does get the Democrats curious about Warren and the why of the hate. They might learn what she stands for, and look for someone who reflects those ideals next primary season as they kind of make sense. So there might be a Democratic nominee who shares the philosophy of Warren but who isn't the target of the right wing slime.

Not really, Hillary was still beating all the republicans until around Nov. 2015.

Even Republicans thought she was originally unbeatable:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kevin-mccarthys-truthful-gaffe/2015/09/30/f12a9fac-67a8-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Make a far-left academian from Massachusetts who lied about being Native American the face of the Democratic Party? Good short-term strategy.

Make Dems be defined by her extreme leftist viewpoints? Could backfire for those of us who dislike redistribution, if you're assuming voters care about policy, that is.

Why are we not making tumblr/Hollywood SJWs and radical criminal protesters the face of the Dems instead? Conservatives and moderates hate them while Dems can't really like them either but are awkwardly forced to keep their criticism minimal in order to avoid alienating their own base.

Dems for years have repeatedly pushed the culture war in an attempt to define conservatives as racist, sexist, xenophobic, and homophobic because that was what the worst of their fringe believed. This is the same strategy, just flip-flopped. Define the whole by its most repulsive members.

But maybe they plan to tie her academic roots to campus SJWs, safe spaces, etc. which would be smart.

I don't get how a rubio supporter can claim to whine about sjws when rubio himself justified black lives matter. Of course he would've been framed for not sufficiently supporting it, since he didn't have any real policy solutions on those grounds, but he supported the normalization of those sjws, which means justifying the existence of that very campus culture you're bashing in your post.

Ugh, I keep forgetting to remove him from my signature (he really made me mad when he voted for Rex Tillerson), but there's still a difference between agreeing with some of the aims of BLM (as I do, like demilitarization of the police, body cameras, ending minimum sentencing for drug crimes, and holding officers accountable for brutality) and condoning the violence that nearly inevitably happens when these people "protest".

[uti2]

Make a far-left academian from Massachusetts who lied about being Native American the face of the Democratic Party? Good short-term strategy.

Make Dems be defined by her extreme leftist viewpoints? Could backfire for those of us who dislike redistribution, if you're assuming voters care about policy, that is.

Why are we not making tumblr/Hollywood SJWs and radical criminal protesters the face of the Dems instead? Conservatives and moderates hate them while Dems can't really like them either but are awkwardly forced to keep their criticism minimal in order to avoid alienating their own base.

Dems for years have repeatedly pushed the culture war in an attempt to define conservatives as racist, sexist, xenophobic, and homophobic because that was what the worst of their fringe believed. This is the same strategy, just flip-flopped. Define the whole by its most repulsive members.

But maybe they plan to tie her academic roots to campus SJWs, safe spaces, etc. which would be smart.

I don't get how a rubio supporter can claim to whine about sjws when rubio himself justified black lives matter. Of course he would've been framed for not sufficiently supporting it, since he didn't have any real policy solutions on those grounds, but he supported the normalization of those sjws, which means justifying the existence of that very campus culture you're bashing in your post.

Ugh, I keep forgetting to remove him from my signature (he really made me mad when he voted for Rex Tillerson), but there's still a difference between agreeing with some of the aims of BLM (as I do, like demilitarization of the police, body cameras, ending minimum sentencing for drug crimes, and holding officers accountable for brutality) and condoning the violence that nearly inevitably happens when these people "protest".

Which is again somewhat ironic considering that rubio was extremely harsh when it came to criminal justice, especially concerning drug crimes when compared to rand and cruz. He was even more harsh than Jeb.

[Mr. Morden]

Warren has started fundraising off of this:

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/02/elizabeth_warren_fundraises_of.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Figueira]

Warren has started fundraising off of this:

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/02/elizabeth_warren_fundraises_of.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha, that's awesome.

[Mr. Morden]

Looks like Warren isn't the only target.  From a new Trump fundraising email:

https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/839558431006724101



They got Gillibrand's first name wrong.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Looks like Warren isn't the only target.  From a new Trump fundraising email:

https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/839558431006724101



They got Gillibrand's first name wrong.

No Al Franken? Sherrod Brown? I'm disappointed.

[Mr. Morden]

Looks like Warren isn't the only target.  From a new Trump fundraising email:

https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/839558431006724101



They got Gillibrand's first name wrong.

No Al Franken? Sherrod Brown? I'm disappointed.

It's in reference to Murphy's new bill that would rescind Trump's travel ban.  There are 16 co-sponsors in total, and they're listed here:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/322791-senate-dems-introduce-bill-to-block-trumps-revised-order

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/16/elizabeth-warren-republicans-weapon-against-democr/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I don't see Republicans gaining from this. But why are they not targeting Bernie?

If only Bernie was 10 years younger, he has a genuine image of being a person who is pro-poor & middle class, who cares about people & can connect with the working class.

I think they will try to pain Liz Warren as a coastal Mass elite which is more difficult with Bernie !

Because the Brooklyn Accent, messy hair, and ill-fitting suits are markers of authenticity. He really means what he says, and he connects to voters precisely because he's so rough around the edges. Going after him would backfire. Warren is a much more tempting target because she's a liberal professor from Massachusetts, and because she's a woman, they can Hillary her as being shrill.

Haha. The man who changes positions at the drop of a hot? Authentic? Hardly.

[Beet]

Warren is doing far more damage to herself with her hyperpartisanship than the GOP could hope to do.

[Shadows]

*bump*

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/16/elizabeth-warren-republicans-weapon-against-democr/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So GOP confirms that Bernie's message resonates in Trump friendly states? His favorables are through the roof, the "socialist" tag doesn't hurt him & all the attacks & so-called political scandals seem to not affect him 1 bit (loyal base even after NYT & WaPo have made sly digs at him in the last few months !)

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

I've seen Josh Mandel making a lot of idiotic tweets against Sen. Brown by saying he votes with Warren 97% of time time.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Warren is doing far more damage to herself with her hyperpartisanship than the GOP could hope to do.

"Boy, I really liked that Elizabeth Warren til she started saying she cared about poor people."

[RINO Tom]

Warren joined the Democratic Party because she felt that the Republicans weren't sufficiently pro-market, so maybe that's the reason (bearing in mind Trump's economic populism and all).

If this was meant as a funny post, I applaud you.

If not, I'm pretty sure Warren said she joined the GOP because, at the time, the fact that they were more pro-market attracted her and she VERY clearly had a change in ideology over the years.

[Medal506]

Considering we have Donald Trump to run against, this isn't going to bode well for Republicans.

Elizabeth Warren is basically like a female Donald Trump. She has a 33 percent approval rating and Trump has around a 35 percent approval rating and she's also a "true progressive" that has a chance of losing both the PV and EV. If she is the nominee in 2020 then this so called populist leftist movement is going to die after she loses