lolllll

The long awaited return of bob Neptune??!?

ikes I know you're having a rough go in this thread and all, but is this what you consider working on your tone? Just curious if this is the new and improved poster we should be expecting or not.

Let's! You post something where I don't say Warren is a radical leftist. I post exactly what I said before:

But you haven't proven that either. You've found one position that has between 37-40% support.

Well if you don't consider the systematic evaluation of her time in the senate, fundraising analysis and position statements done by a 3rd party with a solid track record of analysis to have shown that, then it's really hard to take you seriously.

The funniest part of all this to me is that we were complaining about how dirty republicans made liberal a dirty word, and now you guys here are melting down over how a senator from Mass could possibly be liberal.

That compares her to the Senate, not the population at large, and you didn't haven't told me their methodology for determining whether any particular vote is "liberal" or not.

Only the senate record compares her to the senate. The other parts of the analysis fall the same way as her senate record. Furthermore, claiming that the senate can't be used as a reasonable proxy for the American electorate is just dumb. I'm willing to grant not perfect, but your attempt to simply handwave it all away is completely dishonest.

It's not dishonest, I honestly believe the US senate is a horrible representation of the views of the population of the US. Things that are overwhelmingly popular have zero chance of passing in the senate. The converse is also true.

If they align so well it shouldn't be hard to find some polls where Warren is far outside the mainstream.

Don't mistake my unwillingness to play a long drawn out no true scotsman game when we have such a superior analysis to work with as an inability to do so.

There's simply no need to replicate 538's work here, especially when your goal isn't to find the truth but defend Warren from the characterization as liberal.

ommmmmmmmmmg

The problem seems to be not that Warren is too liberal but that she isn't liberal enough to not be cannibalized by Clinton in donations and votes.

His tone on the Benghazi not a scandal had been significantly better over the last couple of days.

The numbers show that she's slightly to the left of historic and potential presidential nominee via metrics that are better at capturing being consistently liberal on a range of issues rather than being extremely liberal on any.

We're complaining not that Warren is liberal, but that you're casting her as being outside even the normal realm of liberalism, and that's just not true.

Fundraising is also skewed by her Senate race having national importance and her position speeches seem very liberal because apparently a 75% popular position is very liberal. Somehow.

As I said way back the 538 article is pretty flawed in its methodology and doesn't say what Ikes thinks it does. A really good editor wouldn't have published it as is.

Maybe that's what you're complaining about, but what set off this whole kerfluffle is this:
That post is 100% super uncontroversial and true.

WELL TO THE LEFT

also again ikes doesn't get what those metrics actually say

Wow. At first I was getting annoyed that Ikes was doing his thing on a thread I was curious to read different people's ideas on Warren as a candidate. So I started skipping whole sections of the thread until I noticed that people kept asking Ikes to name her policies that are so radical. That made me curious. And now I'm glad I paid attention because its such a perfect example of Ikes doing his thing. Its like 24 hours later and he's posted countless times yet still can't answer the question. Its such a perfect Ikesian performance. Knee-jerk contrarian posts and then posting more then anyone else in the thread yet saying absolutely nothing. (and to note - none of the other cartoonish posters have answered either. never a response from rowcoach about what's so radical and dangerous about her. I hope he's looking up from some other RW sources what he's supposed to say here because I'm curious.

ikes never said that.

What radical ideas does she have?

He may have typed it, but he certainly never said it.

But guys, 538. That's the only response necessary to any question.

.

Ikes, what is the difference between "slightly to the left" and "WELL to the left"?

Dude, nobody ITT is disputing E.Warren being characterized as a liberal. WTF BBQ ??

What is disputed is this kinda derp. Along with other's characterizations of Marxist, dangerous, radical, extreme, significantly outside of US centrism, etc., etc.