Elizabeth Warren says Barack Obama does not understand the “lived experience of most Americans”

[soulcougher73]

Has she lived the experience? Maybe not today, but yes she has in the past.
And her desire to call out today's problem is important as it means her heart is in the right place and she wants to do the right thing.

I take back what i said then. I just assume most politicians come from wealth families. Good for her then :beer:

Wait. I meant to say "Whatever..Fake News. She is still a twatwaffle and i hate her just because"..did i do it right?

 

[dank69]

Compare that to this:
http://www.cnbc.com/heres-a-map-of-the-us-counties-that-flipped-to-trump-from-democrats/

See the red blob in the midwest/rust belt states? Major swing to Trump. And there were enough electoral college voters in those states that swung to give him the win.

Yes, folk wisdom. Living in the midwest and waiting years for a token visit does not make us feel like he cared.

We don't. We don't fucking care. Let's see, poor uneducated people can't support rabbit sized families by pushing buttons anymore, upset that Democrats in government aren't doing enough to help them so they vote for the party whose entire platform boils down to "Don't look to government to solve your problems. In fact, we're going to take away the services you do use so rich people pay even less tax. Stop being poor."

 

[ivwshane]

Warren was correct. I would have a hard time naming a single person appointed by Obama who wasn't ivy-league educated or at least coastal-based (with the rare exception of an agriculture secretary). Obama was isolated in an ivory tower. He virtually ignored the midwest and great plains states entirely. Guess where Trump had big gains.

Trump gains over Romney were biggest in these states: North Dakota, Iowa, West Virginia, South Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Montana, Indiana, Wyoming, Missouri, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Virtually all of those are in the center of the US where Obama rarely visited, rarely talked about (other than the auto industry which was actually bailed out by Bush even though republicans hated it and democrats loved it), rarely listened to, and rarely appointed anyone for anything.

If you only focus on ivy-league advisors, you aren't listening to the bulk of the US.

Yep! You gotta have unsuccessful idiots running things if you want to represent real America!!

/s

Holy fuck! No wonder trump is our president!

 

[boomerang]

There's quite a few folks here who certainly are lusting after her brand of "stick it to the rich guys" and hoping for some of that sweet, sweet economic redistribution moolah.

She's pretty well heeled herself but I don't see her redistributing any of her money which tells me that she's one of the 'rich guys'. Just like Bernie.

When you've dumbed down the populace over numerous decades, the message politician's like Warren tout sounds good to people. No true knowledge of history, little grasp of basic math and raised to think the country is evil and they are not getting their fair share, etc., etc., eventually gets people like Warren and Sanders elected.

Then, in the blink of an eye toilet paper becomes hard to come by. It's just a matter of time. Simple minds think taking what the rich have is the answer to all our problems.

 

[ivwshane]

She's pretty well heeled herself but I don't see her redistributing any of her money which tells me that she's one of the 'rich guys'. Just like Bernie.

When you've dumbed down the populace over numerous decades, the message politician's like Warren tout sounds good to people. No true knowledge of history, little grasp of basic math and raised to think the country is evil and they are not getting their fair share, etc., etc., eventually gets people like Warren and Sanders elected.

Then, in the blink of an eye toilet paper becomes hard to come by. It's just a matter of time. Simple minds think taking what the rich have is the answer to all our problems.

You have to be a parody poster! There is just no way you could project your feelings this well onto others if you weren't.

 

[repoman0]

She's pretty well heeled herself but I don't see her redistributing any of her money which tells me that she's one of the 'rich guys'. Just like Bernie.

When you've dumbed down the populace over numerous decades, the message politician's like Warren tout sounds good to people. No true knowledge of history, little grasp of basic math and raised to think the country is evil and they are not getting their fair share, etc., etc., eventually gets people like Warren and Sanders elected.

Then, in the blink of an eye toilet paper becomes hard to come by. It's just a matter of time. Simple minds think taking what the rich have is the answer to all our problems.

lol, speaking of simple minds ...

 

[dullard]

From my count that's only true if you count Illinois, which he lost.

Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Nebraska district 2. A little more attention to the middle of the country could have swung the election.

Yes but what is that based on other than some gut feeling? Are you saying he visited those states disproportionately infrequently? That could be true, but I'm not aware of any actual data that backs that up. I find that people are perfectly willing to invent reasons to justify their choices. I'm willing to accept the argument that Obama neglected those states in travel (although in policy he did not), but I'd like to see some reason to think that's the case.

Bush visited Nebraska 9 times. Obama twice (once was just landing in the airport and leaving almost immediately for Iowa). South Dakota wasn't visited until he was a lame duck. North Dakota too. Heck the whole swath of great plains states weren't until his last term: https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-a...the-fix/files/2015/04/StatesByDate.png&w=1484

People here in the great plain states spoke of the lack of visits. The news covered it regularly. Maybe it was sufficient for his needs. But it didn't gather any goodwill. His grand visits to the rust belt felt like they were mostly focused on Bush's auto bailout and/or fundraising. Supporting the other political party's accomplishments also doesn't get goodwill.

Maybe statistically he did enough. But he wasn't hearing the voice of the people in the center of the US that was swelling for years.

 

[dullard]

Are you objecting to to the selection of officials in the executive branch based on the quality\quantity of their education and their place of residence?

Are you proposing an affirmative action type requirement for the Executive branch where
1. Community college or state schools only
2. Must come from sparsely populated areas

I'm objecting that Obama didn't select highly qualified, educated people from the center of the US. And he really didn't select many people from universities scattered across the states. Just because someone is Ivy League educated doesn't mean that they are any better than someone with a degree from another college. Just because you got a PhD from Iowa State doesn't mean that you can't run the country as well as someone from Harvard.

Of course there should not be an affirmative action type of requirement. But, if you basically ignore the bulk of the population (who aren't Ivy League educated), you get to pay the consequences in elections.

Obama treated the center of the US like an afterthought. Trump won the election by narrow victories in center states that Obama carried. You can't (a) talk about inclusivity while (b) giving off an ivory tower impression with the people you appoint and expect (c) for people not to notice.

 

[fskimospy]

Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Nebraska district 2. A little more attention to the middle of the country could have swung the election.

Bush visited Nebraska 9 times. Obama twice (once was just landing in the airport and leaving almost immediately for Iowa). South Dakota wasn't visited until he was a lame duck. North Dakota too. Heck the whole swath of great plains states weren't until his last term: https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-a...the-fix/files/2015/04/StatesByDate.png&w=1484

1) As someone who lived in Pennsylvania for almost 20 years Pennsylvania is not the 'middle of the country' and regardless Obama visited there constantly as all presidents and presidential candidates do. When I was growing up it took me awhile to realize that having the president (or a challenger) hold a rally in or near your hometown was something only a few areas get to experience. As per Wiki he visited Pennsylvania six times in 2010 alone. I mean if once every other month isn't good enough when you have 50 states, what is?

2) The Dakotas and Nebraska had no effect on this election whatsoever and you didn't mention any of the states other than Nebraska and that's a single electoral vote.

Like I said, I'm not seeing any evidence.

 

[dullard]

Like I said, I'm not seeing any evidence.

The evidence is the name of the person in the white house.

I put Pennsylvania in the list as a state that Trump won that Clinton could easily have won. No, it isn't what I would consider center of the US. But as a lot of it is rust belt, it votes similarly.

My main contention is that regular people in the center of the US (which would include Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska district 2) did not feel like Obama was like them. Nor was his team from there. Nor were they educated there. These voters switched sides for Trump (and/or stayed home in 2016) and swung the election.

But even if they didn't swing the election, like in the Dakotas, it didn't help Clinton to have a bunch of fervent people on the other side from those states bashing Clinton, supporting Fox News (and similar), posting repeatedly on Facebook, and maybe persuading a voter in Florida, or Ohio, or Pennsylvania to stay home.

 

[fskimospy]

The evidence is the name of the person in the white house.

I put Pennsylvania in the list as a state that Trump won that Clinton could easily have won. No, it isn't what I would consider center of the US. But as a lot of it is rust belt, it votes similarly.

My main contention is that regular people in the center of the US (which would include Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska district 2) did not feel like Obama was like them. Nor was his team from there. Nor were they educated there. These voters switched sides for Trump and swung the election. But even if they didn't swing the election, like in the Dakotas, it didn't help Clinton to have a bunch of fervent people on the other side from those states bashing Clinton, supporting Fox News (and similar), posting repeatedly on Facebook, and maybe persuading a voter in Florida, or Ohio, or Pennsylvania to stay home.

Considering Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney the ultra-elite finance guy it's hard to say that the Midwest had any particular affinity for him. It's also hard to say that those states voted for Trump because of their dislike of Obama considering that Obama won all of those states twice and had he been against Trump the margins would have been overwhelming. Obama would have carried Wisconsin by about 7-10 points, for example, and that's with a smaller electorate in 2012 than in 2016.

How do you square the idea that these regions disliked Obama with the fact that Obama got more votes than Trump there in both percentage and in raw votes despite Trump having an advantage of a larger electorate? To me it seems if anything they didn't like Clinton and to a lesser degree Trump.

 

[senseamp]

About a third of the population lives in the midwest + great plains and only a small fraction of the population attends the Ivy League (or similar pristigious schools). How well is that mirrored in that team? Hint: it isn't close to a third of the team nor is it a small percent of Ivy League. His team just didn't reflect the voters. It doesn't have to reflect the voters, but as a voter from the great plains, it does feel like I was being snubbed over and over again.

Midwest:
Vilsack: Midwest (but like I said, he was agriculture so that is almost a given)
Salazar: Midwest (Colorado)
LaHood: Midwest (Illinois)
Sebelius: Midwest (Ohio)
Emanuel: Midwest (Chicago)

Coastal and/or Ivy League and similar Pristgious Schools
Holder: Coastal and Ivy League
Locke: Coastal and Ivy League
Gates: Midwest, and while not technically Ivy League, a PhD from Georgetown is right up there
Duncan: Midwest and Ivy League
Chu: Coastal, and while not technically Ivy League, a PhD from Berkeley is right up there
Napolitano: Partly coastal, partly south
Donovan: Coastal and Ivy League
Solis: Coastal
Clinton: Lived everywhere, Ivy League
Geithner: Coastal/international, Ivy League
Shinseki: Coastal
Schiliro: Coastal
Panetta: Coastal
Summers: Coastal and Ivy League
Blair: Coastal, and while not technically Ivy League, a masers from Oxford is right up there
Jackson: Coastal and Ivy League
Jones: Midwest, and while not technically Ivy League, a degree from Georgetown is right up there
Orszag: Coastal and Ivy League
Rice: Coastal and Ivy League
Browner: Coastal

South:
Kirk: South, not Ivy League
Gibbs: South/Coastal, not Ivy League

So you want affirmative action for flyover country?

 

[glenn1]

How do you square the idea that these regions disliked Obama with the fact that Obama got more votes than Trump there in both percentage and in raw votes despite Trump having an advantage of a larger electorate? To me it seems if anything they didn't like Clinton and to a lesser degree Trump.

Hey, better late then never to start some honest root cause analysis. The 5 Whys technique might be helpful here - take your statement "they didn't like Clinton" and answer "why" that is, then ask "why" to that answer, and so on 3 more times. Let's see if you can get beyond one level if even that.

 

[dullard]

So you want affirmative action for flyover country?

Of course not, as I already answered in post 33 here: https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-most-americans”.2505299/page-2#post-38875335

 

[senseamp]

Of course not, as I already answered in post 33 here: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/elizabeth-warren-says-barack-obama-does-not-understand-the-“lived-experience-of-most-americans”.2505299/page-2#post-38875335

What if people from the Ivy League were more qualified than flyover state university grads? That has been my experience. Just admit you want affirmative action for flyover states, that even if Ivy Leaguers were more qualified on the objective merits, diversity of background in government is a merit in of itself. There is nothing wrong with this position.

 

[fskimospy]

Hey, better late then never to start some honest root cause analysis. The 5 Whys technique might be helpful here - take your statement "they didn't like Clinton" and answer "why" that is, then ask "why" to that answer, and so on 3 more times. Let's see if you can get beyond one level if even that.

Sorry, could only get to one level, at least as it relates to this thread.

Q:'Why didn't they like Clinton?'
A: "For reasons other than dislike of Obama, who was quite popular at the time of the election".

That was a big waste of time glenn, why did you ask for something so silly?

 

[dullard]

How do you square the idea that these regions disliked Obama with the fact that Obama got more votes than Trump there in both percentage and in raw votes despite Trump having an advantage of a larger electorate? To me it seems if anything they didn't like Clinton and to a lesser degree Trump.

You are correct that it isn't an Obama-only thing. Clinton also gets blame in her loss. Almost everything that I said about Obama is true about Clinton too. "Clinton never set foot in Wisconsin — then she lost it":
http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-losing-wisconsin-results-2016-11

Having spent Obama's entire terms in office in the midwest, all I can give you is the local feel here. I can't give you data (it may or may not have been polled). Living in the center of the US, we know that we are never the top priority. We give presidents a pass if they don't visit in year one or two.

But the overall mood was an integrating function. It kept building. Year after year with no visit. News article after news article with Obama not discussing or considering us. Time after time of selecting yet another Ivy League elitist. It just kept building. Even though the economy here was strong and the economy nationwide was improving, the mood was souring. Liberals and conservatives alike were getting more negative here.

Yes, Obama did great things, big things. But his ambitions just didn't jive well here. A pivot to the Pacific was the right thing to do for the country. But, those of us in the center would have rather had a pivot to the center. Or at least a bone thrown our way. But nothing.

Yes, many of us liked Obama and thought that he did good things. But this thread is about how Warren thought that Obama didn't understand the experience of most Americans. Most Americans are not from the east/west coasts. Most Americans are not Ivy League educated. The overwhelming feeling in the 2016 election was that the Democratic party did not represent them. We have this dichotomy of many voters liking Obama's results but being driven from the party due to Obama's methods. To this, I think Obama could have done better.

 

[dullard]

What if people from the Ivy League were more qualified than flyover state university grads? That has been my experience. Just admit you want affirmative action for flyover states, that even if Ivy Leaguers were more qualified on the objective merits, diversity of background in government is a merit in of itself. There is nothing wrong with this position.

If they are more qualified, then hire them. But the assumption that they are more qualified based simply on the school has virtually no basis in fact.

I don't want affirmative action (forced regulations). I want an inclusive government because our leaders want to be inclusive. The end result may be similar, but the means matter to the voters.

 

[glenn1]

What if people from the Ivy League were more qualified than flyover state university grads? That has been my experience. Just admit you want affirmative action for flyover states, that even if Ivy Leaguers were more qualified on the objective merits, diversity of background in government is a merit in of itself. There is nothing wrong with this position.

He didn't ask for affirmative action, he said "this might have been the consequence of not doing this" which is very different than saying "he should have been forced to do this." He laid out a possible cause-effect relationship for why it might be useful had Obama actually walked the walk on diversity however; if your administration doesn't demonstrate representation from a geographic area or some other demographic then that same demographic may feel you don't "get" or respect them and be less inclined to vote for you or your party.

 

[First]

Did you?
Elizabeth Warren calls out Obama and Democrats for losing way on economy

“I think President Obama, like many others in both parties, talk about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots,” she told the Guardian. “That GDP, unemployment, no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans.​

You posted a quote yet apparently didn't read it. Nowhere does she say Obama himself does not understand the lived experience of most Americans. She said the statistics themselves don't.

 

[First]

He didn't ask for affirmative action, he said "this might have been the consequence of not doing this" which is very different than saying "he should have been forced to do this." He laid out a possible cause-effect relationship for why it might be useful had Obama actually walked the walk on diversity however; if your administration doesn't demonstrate representation from a geographic area or some other demographic then that same demographic may feel you don't "get" or respect them and be less inclined to vote for you or your party.

Derp college kid rationalization fail.

 

[glenn1]

You posted a quote yet apparently didn't read it. Nowhere does she say Obama himself does not understand the lived experience of most Americans. The statistics themselves don't.

It's a direct quote from the article I posted so it seems your beef is more with the writer from salon.com than us.

 

[glenn1]

Derp college kid rationalization fail.

Have fun rationalizing President Trump since your side seems immune to accepting feedback from those whose votes it ostensibly seeks.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm objecting that Obama didn't select highly qualified, educated people from the center of the US. And he really didn't select many people from universities scattered across the states. Just because someone is Ivy League educated doesn't mean that they are any better than someone with a degree from another college. Just because you got a PhD from Iowa State doesn't mean that you can't run the country as well as someone from Harvard.

Of course there should not be an affirmative action type of requirement. But, if you basically ignore the bulk of the population (who aren't Ivy League educated), you get to pay the consequences in elections.

So it's OK for private sector employees to consider how highly rated a school is in their hiring decisions, but not OK for the POTUS in nominating his cabinet? You're basically advocating some kind of quota system, but based on geography rather than race/gender. Shouldn't it be based on merit alone? Sure, a given person from Iowa State might be as or more qualified than someone from Harvard, but I see no reason the superior reputation of Harvard can't be a factor. By your logic, you could replace Iowa State with a community college or even a high school degree if it just makes the cabinet more geographically diverse.

So far as looking at it from the standpoint of politics as opposed to merit, you might be correct to some extent. However, I doubt terribly many voters know which schools Obama's cabinet came from.

I agree with Eski that it was Clinton who failed to inspire mid west voters more than Obama. Her flip flopping on the TPP certainly didn't help.

 

[fskimospy]

You are correct that it isn't an Obama-only thing. Clinton also gets blame in her loss. Almost everything that I said about Obama is true about Clinton too. "Clinton never set foot in Wisconsin — then she lost it":
http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-losing-wisconsin-results-2016-11

It certainly seems like Clinton took those states to be far safer than they were and I can totally see how that would contribute to that feeling. That being said, those states were not decisive without Pennsylvania and she basically lived in that state. If anything, Pennsylvanians want to be left alone a bit more. During campaign season as a kid I remember commercial breaks being insufferable because it was the same ads for the same assholes over and over.

Having spent Obama's entire terms in office in the midwest, all I can give you is the local feel here. I can't give you data (it may or may not have been polled). Living in the center of the US, we know that we are never the top priority. We give presidents a pass if they don't visit in year one or two.

But the overall mood was an integrating function. It kept building. Year after year with no visit. News article after news article with Obama not discussing or considering us. Time after time of selecting yet another Ivy League elitist. It just kept building. Even though the economy here was strong and the economy nationwide was improving, the mood was souring. Liberals and conservatives alike were getting more negative here.

Yes, Obama did great things, big things. But his ambitions just didn't jive well here. A pivot to the Pacific was the right thing to do for the country. But, those of us in the center would have rather had a pivot to the center. Or at least a bone thrown our way. But nothing.

I guess I can understand that feeling but it does seem a bit misguided. If things are going well then do you really want federal meddling?

Yes, many of us liked Obama and thought that he did good things. But this thread is about how Warren thought that Obama didn't understand the experience of most Americans. Most Americans are not from the east/west coasts. Most Americans are not Ivy League educated. The overwhelming feeling in the 2016 election was that the Democratic party did not represent them. We have this dichotomy of many voters liking Obama's results but being driven from the party due to Obama's methods. To this, I think Obama could have done better.

I'm sure you know better than I do what people there felt although that's kind of depressing. Regardless of what the working class in that area thought of Obama by and large his policies helped them. Just a cursory look at Trump's policies shows he is desperately trying to screw them even further.

I guess it just goes to show that people vote emotionally, not rationally.