If Elizabeth Warren could count on the Left vote, she’d have no problem, but she sold the country out supporting the latest bailout, and here in Massachusetts, she announced in the Debate that she would defy the will of the voters, who explicitly instructed our elected officials to work for Legalizing Marijuana. She has said she will instead work against Legalizing, thus supporting President Obama far-Right-wing repression of Medical Marijuana Patients.

I for one am working against Elizabeth Warren’s election. If you are in Massachusetts, please write-in Barney Frank for US Senate, not Warren or Brown.

It is possible that control of the Senate will come down to just one or two seats.

So will Republicans control the Senate 51-49 or 49-51? Oh the suspense.

The 1% control the Senate now,
The 1% will control the Senate a year from now.

I can’t stand the suspense.

Fuck the Democrats

Exactly. The Republicons have controlled the Senate since Blowdog Dim Harriet Reid was appointed Follower of the Senate

Yeah.

And our media (Jon and the rest of FDL excluded) treat it like a season of American Idol.

Pretty gross.

isnt “senate control” irrelevant? the republicans run it regardless. Even if it was 99/1 that 1 repblican could table any bill.

I’m sure Debbie has some brilliant plan anyway. SO dont worry.

You are correct if you replace Republicans with 1%. The uber wealthy made a legal system to control legislation and D or R label is not relevant. This election is kabuki plain and simple. Change for the good of the people will not come from Politicians unless incumbants from BOTH parties start losing in the primaries.

And the Republican horse they rode in on!

I think Warren has a slight edge which will grow going forward.

Mass is a highly partisan blue state. Most people here still vote for an entire party slate in a heartbeat. The reflex is stronger than elsewhere, I think. They’ll pause longer over the ballot questions, not fret over a name if the party label is right. Obama will certainly prevail here, and probably pull Warren along too. Brown beat Coakley mostly because it was a special election, and Coakley took a snooze along with too much of her base. Brown’s next test is a general election though, and that’s an entirely different situation.

The state’s electorate is provincial, lemming like, and very tolerant of baggage among it’s pols, it’s own, as long as the party involved is the correct one (usually Dem since most voters are Dem, but sometimes Rep for that minority). That is, people will ignore or excuse really bad stuff perpetrated by one of their own. Ted Kennedy lasted a long, long time that way — I doubt it would have been so anywhere else.

Warren is somewhat beleaguered now with gaffes which might affect her more than a long time, known candidate like Ted K. The gaffes came up early, though. Brown isn’t likely to be able to take advantage there for long. I’d give Warren 5 – 4 odds, and the gaffes will get shunted aside long before Nov.

And the Republican TrOjan horse they rode in on!

Fixed it fer ya.

Whocouldanode that the most crooked, Right-Wing Dems are the ones in real trouble?

Warren’s only selling point is finance reform. Beyond that, all her positions are pretty typical Neo-Liberal gobshite. So she’s clearly getting advice from all the wrong people. Good luck to her with GOTV, as other races have shown a real lack of interest among Democratic voters. Oh, she also favors a war with Iran, which is only a selling point in DC and nowhere else.

Brown is the only one who is doing okay and that’s largely because of a Democratic renaissance in response to the OHGOP. Turns out he’s also one of the better Dems in DC. Of course, the DSCC doesn’t see any connection there at all!

The others are just crooked wankers few seem to care about. Indeed, why should they?

I’m paying attention. As well as the message you’re replying to. I’m not used to throwing a vote for the sake of political tactics. I like voting my conscience and the best candidate for the job.

My conscience says Barney Frank, no question. But I hate that fucking Brown far more than I’m able to hate Warren.

Talk to me.

I agree Warren can (and must) tap finance reform and consumer advocacy. It would be her strongest point.

I hadn’t heard she wanted a juggernaut against Iran. I don’t follow this race especially closely, but listen to the Boston news and am surprised her Iran thing didn’t leap out at me.

A new senator (including Brown still) starts off with a key to the restroom, then gets a bone tossed their way now and again from the leadership and old heads. Beyond that, not a lot more. It’s a set up for unmet expectations I’m afraid.

It would be fun to watch a rules revolt in the Senate. Can’t imagine how it would happen though.

Good on ya!

Conscience is the ultimate solution if there are enough of them out there. I’m 65 now and think they are still a bit scarce.

The major issue of our time is economic inequality – given corporate power the middle class is going down the tubes. Warren is the greatest opponent of income inequality the past decade that has a good chance of winning a senate seat. She is fearless in taking on Wall Street and that’s why Wall Street has sent $10s of millions of dollars to Brown. Any other issues are peripheral, particularly ones like legalized marijuana, which may have strong concern among a couple percent of the population. Anyone can overlook the 90% of issues where someone is progressive to turn against a candidate because of a couple of issues. However, that means no progressives should ever be voted in. This is an absurd position.

As a Virginian let me share that I could care less about Allen or Kaine.

I’m happy that we’ve moved beyond tweedledumb and tweedledumber for President but it doesn’t say much that Nelson or Kaine is the best the left has to offer.

LOL So true. You gotta laugh or you’ll cry.

Elizabeth Warren is also supporting Obama on Slavery and Pogroms in Bahrain. Slavery is a deal-breaker for me. So are Pogroms.

I think yours is an absurd position:

If you really cared about income inequality, you would not be publicly speaking up for candidates who support it. Slavery is the worst kind of income inequality.

If Elizabeth Warren speaks out against Slavery in Bahrain, she has my vote. But as long as she opposes the Civil Rights of the people of Bahrain and Massachusetts, I will work against her.

If she’s elected, she could be in for 6 years: Long enough to rid Bahrain of Shia, for sure; long enough for thousands of people throughout this country to die from AIDS drugs, MS, and skin cancer, deaths preventable by a stroke of Obama’s pen. This is discrimination against the poor.

Progressives are for progress, not Pogroms.

Polls are a tool of the corporate media, serving to promote the illusion that Democracy is working…all part of the charade. I stopped paying attention to polls long before I stopped watching TV.

Good work, Norman.

since she was a republican until she was 46, if anyone can get her to answer the question of whether she voted for Reagan, please let us know. :o)

“She is fearless in taking on Wall Street…”

What she needed to be was fearless in taking on Obama, when, for a year, he used her as a liberal dog-yummy to try to keep progressives on the reservation…and then shitcanned her.

If, at some point in that grotesque little charade, she’d held a presser and said something like:

“Mr. President, enough is enough. Give me an up-or-down vote, or you can get yourself another sock puppet.”, then I would have some respect for her. So far, not much.

Instead, she held still for it, which utterly gives the lie to the nonsense about her eagerness to take on the power elite…which Barack Obama is, unspinnably, one of.

I’m delighted that some people are asking about her foreign-policy views. Post-election, should she and Obama somehow both win, we don’t need another supposedly liberal Hillary Clinton pimping for the president to start another and worse, clusterfuck.

There is the Mass ballot question coming up on Med MJ, so suppose Warren opposes it . . . Then she’d vote No in Nov on the state ballot. Whether or not it passes in Mass will have little direct effect on the Feds.

The Med MJ issue seems like legal window dressing to me. All a state can do that way is deflate it’s own state prohibitions a bit, decriminalize, whatever, leaving it up to the Feds to expend more resources to fill in the gap and enforce the unchanged Fed rules. Yet it serves as a political statement by the state, another chip on the table going forward.

Med MJ is an alluring cause if there are actually med benefits involved. But there would also be pitfalls until the Feds change their own minds about it. In the meantime a state may encounter conflict with DC by issuing state licenses for, or collecting revenue from, a Federally banned activity. Even state employees could be charged by a really hard assed administration for doing their own jobs. Feds could seize state documentation of who’s doing what, and . . . maybe my imagination is running away with me.

Would it be better for a state to simply decriminalize, and leave it at that for the time being? . . . no licenses, no regulation, no revenue schemes. . . Without a medical prop, though, that course would be a lot harder to justify on the ballot. It wouldn’t pass even here in Mass.

The end game would ultimately be Fed rescheduling of MJ rather than what a ballot question in Mass or anywhere else says beforehand. I am not arguing for a No vote in Nov, however.

(Reply to maa8722 @ 24: Sorry: my previous one addressed to you should have been addressed to Carter.)

“But there would also be pitfalls until the Feds change their own minds about it. ”

To stop those deaths of people being denied their medicines, the only “Fed” who’d have to change his mind is Obama: It is purely at his discretion that medical patients are denied Marijuana: He could reschedule it today, and that would spare the lives of many people today: People who would live till tomorrow if only we had an honest President.

Please see the above comment.