Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[Beet]

I for one like her and think that she's underrated electorally, as long as she can stay focused on her message. FWIW I've heard she's pretty engaged in policy.

[Beet]

Great rollout -- Ed Markey there to endorse her, Joe Kennedy III thinks she'll win, comes out to Dolly Parton, hit all the right notes. No matter what you think of Warren, it's undeniable the speech was very, very good. She killed it. I'm thinking she's the one.

[Beet]

"Because the man in the White House is not the cause of what’s broken, he’s just the latest — and most extreme — symptom of what’s gone wrong in America.

A product of a rigged system that props up the rich and the powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else.

And so, once he’s gone, we can’t pretend that all of this never happened.

It won’t be enough to just undo the terrible acts of this administration.

We can’t afford to just tinker around the edges — a tax credit here, a regulation there.

Our fight is for big, structural change."

[Beet]

COLUMBIA, SC
A Columbia native who led Hillary Clinton’s S.C. campaign during the 2016 election now is working on another national Democrat’s 2020 campaign in the Palmetto State.

Alycia Albergottie has been hired as the state director for U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s run in the first-in-the-South primary, the Warren campaign announced on Monday.

Warren, a progressive from Massachusetts, has also hired two former staffers for Alabama Democrat Doug Jones, who surprisingly won a 2017 special election to the U.S. Senate in a deep-red state. Ebenezer Abolarin, regional field director for Jones’s campaign, will be Warren’s state organizing director. Same Coleman, Jones’s former press secretary, will be Warren’s communications director in South Carolina.

https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article227400084.html

[Beet]

'Trump Troubadour' Endorses Elizabeth Warren for President

Former Donald Trump supporter and country singer Kraig Moss once counted himself among the president’s biggest supporters - until he felt "betrayed" by Trump's stance on drug policy.

Throughout the 2016 election campaign, Moss could often be seen singing candidate Trump’s praises – literally. He would host impromptu concerts on the streets of Owego, New York, and produced a number of independently released CDs of songs supporting the future president. Moss was also a regular at Trump rallies, attending and performing at 45 of them over the course of the campaign.

In a new video from NowThis News, Moss talks about switching his allegiance from Trump to Democrat frontrunner Elizabeth Warren.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=LfS19YcO0Os

[Beet]

'Trump Troubadour' Endorses Elizabeth Warren for President

Former Donald Trump supporter and country singer Kraig Moss once counted himself among the president’s biggest supporters - until he felt "betrayed" by Trump's stance on drug policy.

Throughout the 2016 election campaign, Moss could often be seen singing candidate Trump’s praises – literally. He would host impromptu concerts on the streets of Owego, New York, and produced a number of independently released CDs of songs supporting the future president. Moss was also a regular at Trump rallies, attending and performing at 45 of them over the course of the campaign.

In a new video from NowThis News, Moss talks about switching his allegiance from Trump to Democrat frontrunner Elizabeth Warren.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=LfS19YcO0Os

I appreciate the ‘frontrunner’ designation, but is it really justified?

She's not 'the' frontrunner, but is 'a' frontrunner if you're talking about the top 5.

[Beet]

Of all the potential nominees, she'd probably be the best president.  Unfortunately, I don't think she's the best candidate.  It's a shame that the ability to govern and the ability to politic so often diverge. 

This. I feel like Warren has the best economic policy for someone like me, but with her brings a load of anti-Native and racist rhetoric that will serve as a distraction from Trump's gross incompetence and corruption. It sucks.

Trump's going to run a racist, xenophobic, and extremely ignorant campaign regardless of the nominee. So, I wouldn't let that factor into the equation. I highly doubt Warren will actually lose voters over this issue; anyone who's willing to vote for Trump over Warren's Native American ancestry controversy would almost certainly vote for him regardless of the Democratic candidate.

This is true, but besides the racism, he will use this to foster an image that Warren is corrupt, untrustworthy, and has no credibility. These type of things thrive among low information voters and I don't mean Trump acolytes, I mean passive voters who will vote Dem if they bother but can be easily swayed into cynicism towards a candidate.

You are seriously underestimating Warren. I have been watching her campaign events and she has a number of advantages that will offset any disadvantages.

She genuinely enjoys campaigning and talking to voters and actually likes voters. This is crucial.

She is genuinely passionate in what she talks about and makes her passion visible. This is also crucial.

[Beet]

Warren crushed it on Colbert.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBVFZXYFTQ

[Beet]

Warren released another major policy proposal today. This one aims to reign in corporate agriculture.

[Beet]

Warren reintroduces bill requiring presidential divestment.

"Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) re-introduced legislation requiring the president, vice president and their family members to divest any financial interests that could create conflicts of interest.

The Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act, which Warren is set to introduce Wednesday, would also prohibit anyone appointed by the president from handling matters affecting the president’s financial interests and would require all major-party presidential nominees to release three years of tax returns.

Last August, Warren also introduced the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act, which would impose a lifetime ban on lobbying for presidents, vice presidents, members of Congress, federal judges and Cabinet secretaries, as well as requiring presidents and vice presidents to place all assets that could create conflicts of interest in a blind trust and requiring the IRS to release eight years of tax returns for all presidential and vice presidential candidates."

[Beet]

Warren's Finance Director strenuously argued for her to hold big-money fund-raisers, and resigned when she refused.

"At a Valentine’s Day meeting at Ms. Warren’s Washington condominium that began with a heart-shaped cake but soon grew heated, Mr. Pratt noted that campaigns often collapse when they run out of money and pleaded with her not to cut off a significant cash stream, according to Democrats briefed on the conversation. He pointed out that winning over wealthy fund-raisers across the country helped build networks that could translate into political support, not just checks."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/31/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-fundraising.html

[Beet]

Warren unveils new legislation that would make it easier to jail top executives for white collar crime
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/437128-warren-introduces-legislation-making-it-easier-to-jail-top-business

[Beet]

The Warren thread is basically where Beet only posts.

1 of the previous 14 posts on this board are by me.

2 of the last 23 posts on my profile page are on this board.

Try again.

[Beet]

Warren unveils new legislation that would make it easier to jail top executives for white collar crime
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/437128-warren-introduces-legislation-making-it-easier-to-jail-top-business

Has anyone else proposed this yet? Not that sure.

Well done, Warren.

Warren is far and away the leader on policy in this race.

You're right.

That policy is a minor consideration on getting the nomination is a damning indictment of our nation.

It's even worse in the general election.

Trump won in 2016 because he was more policy focused.

[Beet]

Up until recently I was ready to consider Warren my ideal candidate in a perfect world. I knew she wasn't the strongest GE contender but her ideology fit mine so well that I would've definitely had her as a second or third choice. Lately she's been making some moves that are making her more difficult to root for. A lot of her moves have demonstrated a sense of desperateness from her campaign and it just doesn't look good. On top of that her support for removing the filibuster has put any support I had for her in serious jeopardy. If she continues to push this issue I might even regret voting for her for Senate last year.

The filibuster is something that worked in a more congenial time but the clock is ticking on it. It'll be gone one way or another.

[Beet]

Can a mod please break the derail off to the 2016 board? Kthnx.

[Beet]

Being 100… I’m already asking myself whether Warren’s campaign is over? 

First, Warren is not like Clinton for the simple fact that her finance director left the campaign as a result of Warren’s decision to swear off soliciting money from wealthy donors during the primaries.  Clinton would never have sworn off money for any reason.  Despite her principles, Warren raised $6 million in the first quarter of 2019, which is lower than Bernie’s $18 million and Kamala Harris’ $12 million.  Reports indicate that party insiders aren’t willing to help her anymore, which means she can’t rely on the Democrat establishment for any support.  She doesn’t seem to want it.  However, she isn’t the only outsider candidate, as Bernie certainly owns that title.  So how does she create separation by defining her campaign and distinguishing herself from the field?

I’ve thought long and hard about possible scenarios for a Warren nomination.  I simply don’t have an answer.  There’s no way.  I’m giving her a non-zero chance.  She appeals to policy wonks, but there are plenty of policy wonks running.  It feels like her campaign can be summed up in a few short sentences: “Please like me. I have policies.  I hate Trump.  I hate him more than anyone in the world.  I’ll give you anything you want if you’ll just be my friend.  Do you want money?  Listen.  I’m desperate.  Don’t make me beg.  Okay.  I’ll beg.”

She simply has no appeal, and she doesn’t have a voter base. She’s not going to win old people.  That demographic belongs to Biden and Sanders.  She doesn’t poll well with people that no her or in her own state. The young, old, women, men, black, white, Hispanic, etc., etc., etc., don’t like her, and at best, consider her Ralph Nader.  You know.  The presidential candidate that most closely resembled air.  You knew he was there but you couldn’t see or hear him.  Her negatives are too high, and they are rising in the Democratic primary.  She’s not even the second choice of any of the candidates.  I’m told by people that she will do well in the debates, but I’ve never been impressed with her persuasive skills.  The number one issue for Democrats is “winning” and she doesn’t have the personality to assure anyone of a win.

Moreover, she’s not even comfortable in her own skin, and she’s desperate for the approval of every political-identity group.  I think we can skip over the whole Native American thing, and lying about submitting forms in which she indicated that she was a Native American.  Let’s get to the part where she promised African Americans reparations.  Do I have to say any more?  She is trying to go so far left for Democrat votes that she has essentially become unappealing to one of her strongest potential voters – old Democrats. 

Therefore, it’s over.  She might go all the way with it, but it’s done.  I’m honestly trying to find one thing that could salvage her campaign, but there isn’t anything concrete.  Whether its policy or platitudes, she doesn’t have the qualities to create that atmosphere.  That memorable moment.  She just doesn’t have “it”. 

This is just a bunch of random attacks on Warren that make no sense whatsoever.

[Beet]

Warren's main problem is that her message just doesn't resonate in a good economy.  People generally don't want to hear gloomy reflections on rising corporate power when they are getting better jobs or raises and better benefits at their current job.  Her other problem is that Donald Trump is probably the worst style of Republican for her to be running against.  She already played into his hands on the fake Indian scandal, and he has retained enough populist cred to partially counter her appeal.  She's got the policy chops and the smarts, but her profound economic pessimism just isn't what the electorate is looking for right now. 

She really needed to be running against a President Cruz or Rubio in a recession.     

The economy was good in 2016 as well but that didn't stop the "economic anxiety" narrative from taking hold. Saying we can do better on the economy and that a broader group of Americans can share in prosperity isn't pessimistic.

[Beet]

Being 100… I’m already asking myself whether Warren’s campaign is over? 

First, Warren is not like Clinton for the simple fact that her finance director left the campaign as a result of Warren’s decision to swear off soliciting money from wealthy donors during the primaries.  Clinton would never have sworn off money for any reason.  Despite her principles, Warren raised $6 million in the first quarter of 2019, which is lower than Bernie’s $18 million and Kamala Harris’ $12 million.  Reports indicate that party insiders aren’t willing to help her anymore, which means she can’t rely on the Democrat establishment for any support.  She doesn’t seem to want it.  However, she isn’t the only outsider candidate, as Bernie certainly owns that title.  So how does she create separation by defining her campaign and distinguishing herself from the field?

I’ve thought long and hard about possible scenarios for a Warren nomination.  I simply don’t have an answer.  There’s no way.  I’m giving her a non-zero chance.  She appeals to policy wonks, but there are plenty of policy wonks running.  It feels like her campaign can be summed up in a few short sentences: “Please like me. I have policies.  I hate Trump.  I hate him more than anyone in the world.  I’ll give you anything you want if you’ll just be my friend.  Do you want money?  Listen.  I’m desperate.  Don’t make me beg.  Okay.  I’ll beg.”

She simply has no appeal, and she doesn’t have a voter base. She’s not going to win old people.  That demographic belongs to Biden and Sanders.  She doesn’t poll well with people that no her or in her own state. The young, old, women, men, black, white, Hispanic, etc., etc., etc., don’t like her, and at best, consider her Ralph Nader.  You know.  The presidential candidate that most closely resembled air.  You knew he was there but you couldn’t see or hear him.  Her negatives are too high, and they are rising in the Democratic primary.  She’s not even the second choice of any of the candidates.  I’m told by people that she will do well in the debates, but I’ve never been impressed with her persuasive skills.  The number one issue for Democrats is “winning” and she doesn’t have the personality to assure anyone of a win.

Moreover, she’s not even comfortable in her own skin, and she’s desperate for the approval of every political-identity group.  I think we can skip over the whole Native American thing, and lying about submitting forms in which she indicated that she was a Native American.  Let’s get to the part where she promised African Americans reparations.  Do I have to say any more?  She is trying to go so far left for Democrat votes that she has essentially become unappealing to one of her strongest potential voters – old Democrats. 

Therefore, it’s over.  She might go all the way with it, but it’s done.  I’m honestly trying to find one thing that could salvage her campaign, but there isn’t anything concrete.  Whether its policy or platitudes, she doesn’t have the qualities to create that atmosphere.  That memorable moment.  She just doesn’t have “it”. 

Huh,a nearly spot on post...no kidding.

Thank you.  Some people have personalities that can carry a campaign, and Elizabeth Warren is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Her personality flaws for political campaigning permeates through her demeanor, body language, cadence, etc., and it's enough to sink her campaign.  Winning MA is a totally different animal than winning over the hearts and votes of swing state voters.  Some of them want to have a beer with their candidate (a ridiculous test for President), but I can't imagine three quarters of the country wanting to have a beer with her. 

This is ridiculous. Did you see her town hall? She gets positive reactions from crowds everywhere she goes.

[Beet]

Being 100… I’m already asking myself whether Warren’s campaign is over?  

First, Warren is not like Clinton for the simple fact that her finance director left the campaign as a result of Warren’s decision to swear off soliciting money from wealthy donors during the primaries.  Clinton would never have sworn off money for any reason.  Despite her principles, Warren raised $6 million in the first quarter of 2019, which is lower than Bernie’s $18 million and Kamala Harris’ $12 million.  Reports indicate that party insiders aren’t willing to help her anymore, which means she can’t rely on the Democrat establishment for any support.  She doesn’t seem to want it.  However, she isn’t the only outsider candidate, as Bernie certainly owns that title.  So how does she create separation by defining her campaign and distinguishing herself from the field?

I’ve thought long and hard about possible scenarios for a Warren nomination.  I simply don’t have an answer.  There’s no way.  I’m giving her a non-zero chance.  She appeals to policy wonks, but there are plenty of policy wonks running.  It feels like her campaign can be summed up in a few short sentences: “Please like me. I have policies.  I hate Trump.  I hate him more than anyone in the world.  I’ll give you anything you want if you’ll just be my friend.  Do you want money?  Listen.  I’m desperate.  Don’t make me beg.  Okay.  I’ll beg.”

She simply has no appeal, and she doesn’t have a voter base. She’s not going to win old people.  That demographic belongs to Biden and Sanders.  She doesn’t poll well with people that no her or in her own state. The young, old, women, men, black, white, Hispanic, etc., etc., etc., don’t like her, and at best, consider her Ralph Nader.  You know.  The presidential candidate that most closely resembled air.  You knew he was there but you couldn’t see or hear him.  Her negatives are too high, and they are rising in the Democratic primary.  She’s not even the second choice of any of the candidates.  I’m told by people that she will do well in the debates, but I’ve never been impressed with her persuasive skills.  The number one issue for Democrats is “winning” and she doesn’t have the personality to assure anyone of a win.

Moreover, she’s not even comfortable in her own skin, and she’s desperate for the approval of every political-identity group.  I think we can skip over the whole Native American thing, and lying about submitting forms in which she indicated that she was a Native American.  Let’s get to the part where she promised African Americans reparations.  Do I have to say any more?  She is trying to go so far left for Democrat votes that she has essentially become unappealing to one of her strongest potential voters – old Democrats.  

Therefore, it’s over.  She might go all the way with it, but it’s done.  I’m honestly trying to find one thing that could salvage her campaign, but there isn’t anything concrete.  Whether its policy or platitudes, she doesn’t have the qualities to create that atmosphere.  That memorable moment.  She just doesn’t have “it”.  

Huh,a nearly spot on post...no kidding.

Thank you.  Some people have personalities that can carry a campaign, and Elizabeth Warren is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Her personality flaws for political campaigning permeates through her demeanor, body language, cadence, etc., and it's enough to sink her campaign.  Winning MA is a totally different animal than winning over the hearts and votes of swing state voters.  Some of them want to have a beer with their candidate (a ridiculous test for President), but I can't imagine three quarters of the country wanting to have a beer with her.  

This is ridiculous. Did you see her town hall? She gets positive reactions from crowds everywhere she goes.

I'm not using a crowd of Elizabeth Warren fans at a town hall as a barometer of her impact on average voters.  That would be ridiculous.  I'm only giving you my impressions of her.  If you're a fan, then keep supporting her.  

Lying Ted, crooked Hillary, little Marco, low energy, etc.  Trump is going to express what I've just written in one word, and then it's going to stick.  I can already foresee the way voters are going to react and perceive Warren. 

Trump's name calling had only worked so far because no one has used real substance against him. Even Hillary mostly campaigned on how he violated social norms. I can see some Dems repeat the same errors, but the Warren is not going make that mistake.

[Beet]

No, the Democrats are not saying it's automation. Blaming these problems on automation is just another way of saying "it's inevitable and you can't do anything about it." Blaming it on immigrants is just another way of saying "it's those brown people." Blaming it on globalization has some truth but who signed those trade deals in the first place? It doesn't get to the root of the problem.

Democrats (or at least Warren, Sanders, and some others) are saying it's politics. It's because the labor movement, which once gave workers power, is now decimated. It's because at some point in American history we illegalized corruption for the poor but kept it legal for the rich. We're saying that these are conscious political decisions being made in Washington and we can choose a different path with the will to do so.

[Beet]

What Yang is saying has nothing to do with the argument for automation during Trump's campaign (because he is actually proposing to do something about it, which is the only reason why he gets traction talking about it), which was not coming from the left-- it was coming from centrist Democrats like Clinton. And their point was not to propose UBI, but to say essentially "throw your hands up, and there is nothing we can do except retraining." And that is why they lost. You are making the same argument, basically saying that with immigration, globalization, automation there is nothing we can do.

The actual progressive argument from people like Warren is different. People like Warren is saying that these things are not inevitable. It is not inevitable to have an immigrant underclass living in the shadows. It is not inevitable to have unbalanced trade deals where we buy lots of things from other countries but they don't buy the same from us. It is not inevitable that technology means people will be out of good paying jobs. She is saying that government policy can make a difference.

But more fundamentally than that, she is saying that labor deserves a voice in deciding whether to try policy at all. Perhaps you are right, in your argument, perhaps I am right in mine. But what does it matter if our government is not doing the bidding of the best interests of the country to begin with? Even if you win the debate, and are proven right, it will mean nothing, since the government won't follow the right course. It will follow the course of the people who paid for it.

Our position is not about policy but about power. Get corruption out of the system. Give labor an independent political voice at the table. Then see what happens. I am willing to bet that you get outcomes that are better for workers. And the only way for you to take that bet is to agree to try.

[Beet]

Also, you keep talking about workers from other countries. The postwar world was not some time of destruction and devastation for workers from other countries. It was boom times. Workers from all over the free world prospered together.

[Beet]

I'm voting warren now. Bernie lost me when he said he wouldn't abolish the filibuster. How else does he expect to get single payer/free college etc.?

I can't comprehend why anyone would treat opinions on the finer details of Senate procedure as a litmus test for a presidential candidate. That's not how our government works.

This isn't just a "finer detail of Senate procedure."  If you're on this site, you know the role of the filibuster in our legislative/administrative process.  It's counter-majoritarian.  It's antidemocratic.  It's one of the main reasons our system is so dysfunctional.  Sanders knows all this too, and for him to still oppose its abolition means that he doesn't care about actually passing legislation or about democratic accountability. 

It is about the finer details: Sander's views on the filibuster are idiosyncratic. He's taking heat only because he refuses to endorse the exact procedural bullet points that other candidates have lifted from the same activist circles that inspire blithe denunciations such as the one that you regurgitate half-digested in your post.

All of which, by the way, has more relevance if he loses this election and remains in the Senate. How does anyone agitating for filibuster reform to become an executive priority expect the president to dictate procedure to the Senate?

Surely you can't believe that this is an issue with widespread electoral appeal. Then again, we also have candidates who would like to center these primaries on reparations or gun control...

No one is "centering" this in their campaign. Trump already opposes the filibuster for when the GOP is in the majority. A Democratic candidate still supporting it if their party gets into the majority is unilateral disarmament.

However, if you are one of the subset of voters who cares about substantive legislation, it is very important to you. And it's not about the president dictating to anyone, but bringing this issue out in the open and campaigning on it discussing it, so that a groundwork has been laid when and if the Dems retake the Senate. Warren's CAMPAIGN is already having an effect. She was the first candidate to come out against the filibuster on April 5. Less than a week later, Schumer is already showing signs of changing his stance.

[Beet]

No one is "centering" this in their campaign. Trump already opposes the filibuster for when the GOP is in the majority. A Democratic candidate still supporting it if their party gets into the majority is unilateral disarmament.

However, if you are one of the subset of voters who cares about substantive legislation, it is very important to you. And it's not about the president dictating to anyone, but bringing this issue out in the open and campaigning on it discussing it, so that a groundwork has been laid when and if the Dems retake the Senate. Warren's CAMPAIGN is already having an effect. She was the first candidate to come out against the filibuster on April 5. Less than a week later, Schumer is already showing signs of changing his stance.

There's some bias in approaching this issue as a blue state voter: We have more to fear from enhanced federal power than we do to gain. Prospects for everything from paid family leave to all-payer rate setting are better in the states than they are at the federal level.

I would prefer not to fear for the future of abortion rights, health insurance regulations, or prison reform in New York or Vermont. The filibuster does more to protect those goals than it does to hinder them. Why on God's green earth should we entrust greater power to a bare majority in a chamber dominated by out-of-touch geriatrics and red-state jackals?

Warren's push for a majoritarian Senate is as facile and short-sighted as the rest of her agenda. The dysfunction at the CFPB says more about what her ideas than an avalanche of white papers. It's a shame that other candidates feel pressured to keep up, as they would be better off ignoring her.

Progressives, all else equal, advocate change whereas conservatives want to paralyze the government. Thus the filibuster which paralyzed the federal government helps conservatives more. Also, a lot of minorities and other poor folk live in red states. Federal action is their only hope.

The CFPB got back $12 billion for consumers. I'm fine with that.