Elizabeth Warren 2020 Megathread v2 (pg 35 - Emily List support)

[Beet]

Warren is the most consistent and authentic candidate running. She's been crusading on economic populism since the 1980's, when studying bankruptcy records.

[Beet]

Her plan is fine.

Warren continues to have the best message of the field. Corruption is the one problem that touches almost every issue. And in many issues, lobbying is the one reason why government is not responsive to public opinion. Democrats, Republicans, and independents are sick of it enough that if she gets elected, some anti-corruption bill may actually pass. Further, by far the biggest issue is the increasing dysfunction of democracy itself. Any system - whether authoritarian or democratic - will lose confidence and fall if perceived as corrupt. At a time when dictators like Xi Jinping and VI Putin are increasingly confident that they have an alternative model, those who believe in democracy must reform the corruption out of the system.

Her second and related issue - a rigged economy, is an equally big major problem. There should be no illusions that one election will fix these things by itself. It's an ongoing battle. But if America is smart for once, it will elect this woman president.

[Beet]

Warren as released her Blue New Deal, becoming the only candidate to release an oceans-based environmental plan:

Climate change will also make living on the coast more risky due to sea level rise and the risk of monster storms. To ensure people living there don’t suffer, the plan prioritizes “vulnerable populations” to receive recovery aid after a disaster. Right now, the wealthy tend to receive more financial assistance even though they can typically handle weather shocks more easily. The Blue New Deal would help level the playing field.

In addition, it would move people out of harm’s way. Warren promises in the plan that no further public housing will be built within five feet of sea level “because it is the responsibility of the federal government to protect our most vulnerable families, not intentionally put them in harm’s way.” Previous research has shown that low-income people are more likely to live in floodplains because property is usually cheaper here, and these areas have been developed for multi-family housing, such as mobile homes or rental units. This point is the plan’s most groundbreaking commitment, Johnson said.

“We actually need to completely rethink how and where we’re living on this planet,” Johnson said. “It doesn’t make any sense to keep investing in building things that we know are going to be inundated, and so this plan is the first truly realistic proposal in that regard.”

https://earther.gizmodo.com/elizabeth-warren-proposes-a-green-new-deal-for-the-ocea-1840336206

[Beet]

Big-money fundraisers are a necessity if you're going to run for president.  They are a necessity for the party.  Period point blank.

If Warren wins the nomination, she will have to do big money fundraisers.  The only reason she doesn't have to now is because she frontloaded all of them, by doing them in her Senate campaign and rolling the money over to her presidential run.

She's taken advantage of the fact that she doesn't need them (for now) by decrying them as a big terrible thing, where politicians go to get bribed, and demanding that nobody else should do them either.  And conveniently having a "change of heart" after finishing all her fundraising.

She's being a huge hypocrite, she's crippling the party for personal gain, and she's flat-out lying about what happens at these events.  The class-warfare "wine cave" attack (far from being exclusive, ritzy places, these are super common in California) is just icing on the cake.

This is such a bad faith criticism.

$10m is nothing in a presidential campaign, and even most of that was raised on small dollar donors. People forget that even in Warren's Senate campaign she raised a record amount from grassroots donors against Brown. Warren's only in this race because of her grassroots support (same with Bernie, who also transferred the same amount and has done big money events in the past, but doesn't get attacked by Pete). But both of them are competitive financially due to grassroots support. Pete can't say the same.

Also, people who cry 'hypocrisy' aren't even trying to defend these big money fundraisers. He's not even saying there's no corruption going on. They are just trying to muddy the waters and poison the well so that no one can talk about it.

Big money fundraisers are not necessary for presidential candidates. First of all in a GE, there will be  hundreds of groups mobilizing the vote and there is nothing stopping billionaires and other wealthy people from contributing to these groups or issue specific campaigns if they care about the future of the country. Raising the most money is not a sign of having the best campaign in the GE. Clinton was tremendously damaged by all the time she spent in August at big fundraisers instead of going out and campaigning or meeting with voters. It gave Trump a way to paint her as the establishment and part of the swamp that he loves to campaign against. He would do the same for Biden or Pete.

If the Democrats want Citizens United repealed and real campaign finance reform, it is more convincing if they walk the walk now instead of waiting for a day that is years away. You have to show and demonstrate the politics you want or people will think it's just talking points.

[Beet]

https://twitter.com/AnnieLinskey/status/1208559153171578880

Seems bad

Important context-

“She’s made these claims. We don’t know her. Personally, we wish her all the best — nobody’s bashing her,” said Michael, who is a professor of indigenous studies. “What we’re saying is, ‘We don’t want to be involved with it.’”

It's not a protest. They just don't want to be involved in it -- perfectly understandable.

[Beet]

It's difficult to take seriously any candidate who flirts with Medicare for All before backing away from it. It's a huge, momentous policy agenda and one to which many primary voters have a strong, emotional commitment.

Now no one, neither supporters nor opponents of M4A, has much reason to trust her on it.

How has she “backed away from it”? Has she changed her policy to support a public option? Has she repudiated M4A? What has she done on the issue now that is untrustworthy?

She revised her plan so dramatically that "step two" might as well not exist and she isn't talking about health care on the stump anymore. Almost every major media outlet has published some version of this account.

Moreover, it's just the latest demonstration of poor instincts. Somehow Warren took an issue that has never been anything but an advantage for Sanders and made it toxic. Bernie would have made mincemeat of Buttigieg if the same carefully rehearsed attack had been aimed at him.

Add that to the distorted stories that she has told about her ethnicity, her professional life, her children's public school attendance, and, most recently, her father's career... it sums to an unflattering portrait.

Bernie is in the race too-- he could have made mincemeat and he didn't-- why? Because he has no plan. He has a $16 trillion gap in how he's going to pay for Medicare for All that he can't defend, and if he gets into the GE the GOP isn't going to give him the free pass the mainstream media has been giving him in the primary.

Warren has at least been honest in admitting that it's not something that can pass in 2 years and that Democrats should settle for a public option if it's between that or nothing-- which is the choice in 2021, even if Democrats win the Presidency, the Senate, and the House, and get rid of the filibuster or use reconciliation. Abolishing private insurance simply isn't happening. We're not even talking Joe Manchin. Heck, even Nancy Pelosi doesn't friggin support it. And you can bet the Nancy Pelosis of the world will be key to any majority Democratic coalition.

The problem with Sanders people is that they go so far off the left cliff that treating it like you treat any other proposal-- which typically candidates are expected to have plans to pay for, especially if it's your signature issue-- becomes "backtracking" because you haven't met an impossible standard, even if you fully support it as an end result, as Warren does support for Medicare for All.

[Beet]

It's difficult to take seriously any candidate who flirts with Medicare for All before backing away from it. It's a huge, momentous policy agenda and one to which many primary voters have a strong, emotional commitment.

Now no one, neither supporters nor opponents of M4A, has much reason to trust her on it.

How has she “backed away from it”? Has she changed her policy to support a public option? Has she repudiated M4A? What has she done on the issue now that is untrustworthy?

She revised her plan so dramatically that "step two" might as well not exist and she isn't talking about health care on the stump anymore. Almost every major media outlet has published some version of this account.

Moreover, it's just the latest demonstration of poor instincts. Somehow Warren took an issue that has never been anything but an advantage for Sanders and made it toxic. Bernie would have made mincemeat of Buttigieg if the same carefully rehearsed attack had been aimed at him.

Add that to the distorted stories that she has told about her ethnicity, her professional life, her children's public school attendance, and, most recently, her father's career... it sums to an unflattering portrait.

Bernie is in the race too-- he could have made mincemeat and he didn't-- why? Because he has no plan. He has a $16 trillion gap in how he's going to pay for Medicare for All that he can't defend, and if he gets into the GE the GOP isn't going to give him the free pass the mainstream media has been giving him in the primary.

Warren has at least been honest in admitting that it's not something that can pass in 2 years and that Democrats should settle for a public option if it's between that or nothing-- which is the choice in 2021, even if Democrats win the Presidency, the Senate, and the House, and get rid of the filibuster or use reconciliation. Abolishing private insurance simply isn't happening. We're not even talking Joe Manchin. Heck, even Nancy Pelosi doesn't friggin support it. And you can bet the Nancy Pelosis of the world will be key to any majority Democratic coalition.

The problem with Sanders people is that they go so far off the left cliff that treating it like you treat any other proposal-- which typically candidates are expected to have plans to pay for, especially if it's your signature issue-- becomes "backtracking" because you haven't met an impossible standard, even if you fully support it as an end result, as Warren does support for Medicare for All.

The difference is in what the campaign paints the candidate as. Bernie is a revolutionary movement builder and Overton Window shifter. Having detailed plans for execution is not supposed to be part of his appeal. And that's not meant as an attack. Warren on the other hand has built her brand around being a wonk and policy expert. You can't run a campaign with the slogan "she has a plan for that" and put out something sub-standard for the defining issue of the primaries. Of course someone like that is going to face more scrutiny for her M4A plan.

I think Averroes is off by treating this like a strategic blunder by Warren's campaign. As soon as Sanders made M4A the defining issue of the primaries in 2017, there was no way for Warren to address this issue in a way that didn't inflict damage (except for perhaps not cosponsoring his bill in 2017, although that probably would have made more problems than it was worth). There is no plan she could have put out which would have won over Sanders voters.

That's what I meant when I said this was a stroke of genius from Sanders and his campaign. He used his signature issue to paint Warren (and Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, and Merkley) into a corner a year and a half before any of their campaigns off the ground. It may win him the primary.

Well by your own standard, there's nothing she could do. I just can't agree with that. It's circular logic that implies that no one else has a chance, which is patently not true even now.

If Bernie is a supposed revolutionary movement builder and Overton Window shifter, he has failed because (1) the Democrats took Congress in 2018 running on a moderate platform, and most of the freshmen Dems who control actual votes, remain moderates. (2) None of the candidates other than him and Warren support Medicare for All as he defines it. (3) His 'movement' is stuck in the position of simultaneously arguing that his biggest healthcare ally in the Senate, Warren, does not really even support his own proposal, and that he has somehow meaningfully shifted support for said proposal. It's incoherent. Unless one is to argue his movement is entirely Symbolic and has no real Substance, which is something I doubt his followers want to admit.

As far as healthcare, she does have a plan for it, and that's her slogan, "she has a plan for that". She does have one. You may not like it, but unless your candidate can put out a better one then there's no room to talk. (*If anyone has a better plan on healthcare, it's more likely to be Buttigieg or Biden than Sanders, since their plans are funded.)

Also, I keep hearing that "healthcare is the most defining issue", but sorry that is just not true. 90% of paying-attention voters choose a different issue than healthcare when asked. Even if you take out electability it is not the defining issue by far. Warren's top issue of corruption is actually a better one as it touches on the discontent that voters have with many issues (including healthcare). Where Sanders is doing well is that his campaign is being treated with kid gloves by the media and other candidates.

[Beet]

If Bernie is a supposed revolutionary movement builder and Overton Window shifter, he has failed because (1) the Democrats took Congress in 2018 running on a moderate platform, and most of the freshmen Dems who control actual votes, remain moderates.

I think the logic of the movement is that if you build a large enough coalition of M4A proponents (and more generally a strong working class/labor coalition) then Democrats in Congress will catch on and adjust their positions accordingly. I don't expect either of those will happen but that's what the goal of the campaign is.

There's a sizeable base of voters in the Democratic party who think that health care is a human right and several other candidates in this race (in addition to other party figures) either endorse or have highlighted merits of abolishing private insurance. He hasn't failed (yet) in this issue - he's been wildly successful.

The Sanders strategy is to engage in glittering generalities, while hoping no one challenges him on the details or costs of his bill. The only reason he's been able to get away with it so far is that no one has really questioned him on it. Warren has taken almost all the heat. The problem is that the details will have to come out eventually, and by avoiding it now he's just setting voters/his supporters up for a colossal shock down the road.

He had his chance in 2018 to show his brand of politics could appeal to places to the right of AOC/Tlaib-style districts and failed. According to his fans, Elizabeth Warren is not a part of his coalition. She's one of the strongest supporters of M4All in the Senate... she's not part of his coalition yet Senators like Cory Booker are going to be?

Not only was health care the centerpiece of coordinated Democratic campaigns in 2018.
, but it's pretty obviously been at the center of the 2020 race. It's the most clear dividing line between the "moderates" and the progressives and it's been the issue the moderates have weaponized most effectively. It's been the lead to every debate thus far.

Defending Obamacare was at the centerpiece, which has nothing to do with what's being debated in the primary today. Sanders and Warren were already progressives before the race started, and all the others were already considered moderate. It's been the lead to every debate (except the last two) because the media was obsessed about rehashing the same exchange every debate, not because polls show a majority of primary voters have it as their top issue.

Even when Warren was surging in Fall of last year there was a pretty obvious pundit-take (echoed by potential voters) as to when she would release her plan - it was supposed to be a sort of crowning jewel of her campaign. It's undeniably the central issue in the way the candidates and campaign have been discussed.

There was a pundit whisper about it, but it wasn't that prominent. It rose to prominence slowly during the debates as the media obsessed about it more and more - and now that impeachment and Iran are in the news it is not as prominent. According to something I read, Warren took 20 questions at a town hall recently and not one was about health care.

You can find surveys where Trump supporters won't select "cultural grievance" (or some coded variation) as their most important issue but that doesn't mean Trumpism isn't entirely based around grievance politics.

Do you think people who select electability or gun reform or the economy as their top issue secretly care more about health care? The reason Trump supporters don't select "cultural grievance" is because there is a social taboo against it - no one wants to admit their politics are based on "cultural grievance". There is no social taboo against saying health care is your top issue.

I think Warren's focus on corruption is great and comparable in importance to the health care debate. It's part of why I have been an unwavering supporter. That's why I think it's such a shame that the focus of the primary has been co-opted to be about an issue that won't pass in 2021. It's a pretty obvious extension to Bernie's campaign vision (and was an explicit part of his 2016 campaign) to fight corruption - the fact that a much more attainable issue has taken the backseat and sunk Warren's prospects is heartbreaking.

Well we agree there.

[Beet]

The Elizabeth Warren position:

Bernie (who has also said stuff like, not voting for a black person doesn't make you racist) said a year ago that a woman can't win, which is moderately controversial but nothing worse than what Biden said a couple weeks ago.

The Bernie Sanders position:

After being friends and political allies with Bernie for years, she makes up a lie to make him look bad and sexist, solely because she's down in the polls, and anonymously leaks it, thinking it will help her campaign, even though she's been trying to make the argument that she'd be a unity candidate, and that the biggest winner would be Biden, who she has had public feuds with.

What Sanders is accusing Warren of is a lot worse than what Warren is accusing Sanders of, and you'd have to radically shift your opinion of Warren and her campaign strategy a lot more to believe Sanders' version.

[Beet]

Warren didn't endorse Sanders in 2016 because she masquerades as a progressive yet backs the establishment. She was a Republican for the vast majority of her life. She conveniently fabricated the idea of her being Native American, with no regard for Native Americans and without advocating for them at all in the positions she gained later in her life. She's no stranger to lying strategically.

I guess we'll see what they say tomorrow. But I'm with Bernie. Smearing someone she's claimed to be a dear friend just weeks before Iowa is clearly a political backstabbing. The question is: Is she doing this for just her own gain or to take down Sanders? I don't think most people would approve of such a cold political move. I hope this hurts her campaign.

I'm the furthest from being either a Bernie or Warren supporter and fail to see how Warren is smearing Bernie here

I've done enough arguing over the veracity of Warren's claims. We can go in circles about the record and what Bernie said, and no minds will change. But let's take a step back and assume her claims are true. if Bernie did indeed say something so vile, why sit on this story for 2 years?

There were other times where Warren was further down in Tier 2. There were times where her campaign needed a boost. Specifically, why not leak it when you're closing in on Biden, are the leading progressive voice in the race? You can draw more supporters away from Bernie, put a massive dent in his consistent image, push yourself over the top, and actually become the unity candidate you wanted.

Moreover, if someone actually said a woman couldn't win, it would be immoral not to leak it as soon as possible? And considering how sexist the actual statement would be, why wouldn't a staffer decide to blow the whistle?

Because first of all, it's a private conversation, and you don't leak private conversations to the press. You may talk about it with a small group of people you trust, but that's it. Unfortunately this one became an open secret in political circles and some people decided to go behind Warren's back to screw her, Sanders, and progressives. And second of all, her and Sanders are friends and allies. Expressing that a woman can't win is a moderate controversial opinion, but whether it is sexist is a matter of opinion (as it is, on the surface, an empirical judgement), it is by no means "vile", and it is nothing so awful that it would not be "immoral not to leak."

You are exaggerating the badness of what Sanders said in mental gymnastics to assail Warren for not leaking it. There is nothing leakable here, not even a major story. Whoever leaked this (and the MSM) have damaged both progressive candidates right before the debate.

[Beet]

Because first of all, it's a private conversation, and you don't leak private conversations to the press. You may talk about it with a small group of people you trust, but that's it. Unfortunately this one became an open secret in political circles and some people decided to go behind Warren's back to screw her, Sanders, and progressives. And second of all, her and Sanders are friends and allies. Expressing that a woman can't win is a moderate controversial opinion, but whether it is sexist is a matter of opinion (as it is, on the surface, an empirical judgement), it is by no means "vile", and it is nothing so awful that it would not be "immoral not to leak."

You are exaggerating the badness of what Sanders said in mental gymnastics to assail Warren for not leaking it. There is nothing leakable here, not even a major story. Whoever leaked this (and the MSM) have damaged both progressive candidates right before the debate.

Again, I find it very hard to believe that if it were to become the "open secret" it was, it would take this long for something this explosive to leak. If Warren had this much control over her inner circle to prevent this from leaking for a year, then why throw all that away over a minor FO's criticism script?

We're, of course, talking hypotheticals. I don't believe this is true, but if it was, it makes very little sense. By your own logic, you don't leak private conversations to the press. At best, it makes Warren look thin-skinned, and at worst it was done for political purposes.

Again, you are exaggerating how "explosive" it is. Biden literally said something very similar in public 2 weeks ago and no one cared. Warren never threw anything away because she never leaked it. She never needed any control because it was never newsworthy. She never leaked anything to the press.

It's the worst smear since John McCain's illegitimate black child from Bangladesh.

Get a grip. Warren is devastated that this came out today, I am sure.

[Beet]

https://twitter.com/k8thegr8est/status/1217295906409787394

[Beet]

LOL at all the butthurt that she didn't shake his hand. Look at it from her standpoint, assuming he said what was reported. He would rather lie and let her take the heat for being cast as the dishonest one than own up to the truth. I wouldn't shake the hand of a person who did that either. She wanted to clarify it before making up and he refused. But of course people will always side with the man- when the man shows anger, he's rewarded, when the woman shows anger, she's punished. We still live in a misogynistic society and the Democratic Party is not immune to it, unfortunately. And yeah, people saying they prefer Biden is no surprise, people vote based on personality not policy... up until now the Berners were the only exception to this but now they have shown themselves no exception either.

[Beet]

LOL at all the butthurt that she didn't shake his hand. Look at it from her standpoint, assuming he said what was reported. He would rather lie and let her take the heat for being cast as the dishonest one than own up to the truth. I wouldn't shake the hand of a person who did that either. She wanted to clarify it before making up and he refused. But of course people will always side with the man- when the man shows anger, he's rewarded, when the woman shows anger, she's punished. We still live in a misogynistic society and the Democratic Party is not immune to it, unfortunately. And yeah, people saying they prefer Biden is no surprise, people vote based on personality not policy... up until now the Berners were the only exception to this but now they have shown themselves no exception either.

Warren has bounced from one distortion to another since she entered the race. There is no reason to take her word over Sanders.

Even if all of this is predicated on a misunderstanding - at this point the most charitable interpretation that has any plausibility-  Warren's staff put out a coordinated leak of a private conversation between the two candidates that had occurred years before. This was done in an eleventh-hour moment of desperation, for the sole sake of damaging Sanders, and with Waren's direct complicity.

The response from Warren supporters like you has been to invoke Me Too, insult Democratic primary voters, and in at least one particularly grotesque case on this forum, make a direct comparison with rape.

There aren't words strong enough to express how disgusting this is. Yet you gloat about "butthurt" and insist that this can only be the product of "misogyny"? Grow up.

Give it a rest. The reason I brought up misogyny is that people are taking sides in a "he said, she said" where we have no evidence whatsoever what really happened. Even if you take the neutral position that we can't assume he said it, by the same account we can't assume she's lying about it. Your opinion of their past character or behavior has no bearing on whether this one event occurred or not. What a politician like Sanders said in public in 1988 with nothing at stake is not necessarily reflective of what he said in private. What he believed prior to 2016 when he did not want to run for president, may have no bearing on what he would have said after the victory of Donald Trump about whether a woman could beat him.

As far as her leaking the conversation, it came from someone close to her, but we don't know the exact circumstances. She has denied leaking it. For all we know it is rogue elements on her staff who leaked it, and instead of throwing them under the bus she is standing by them. And if she did approve the leak, I agree it would be skeevy, but it doesn't justify the massive overreaction we've seen.

[Beet]

Not long after meeting with Sanders at the end of 2018 to discuss her impending presidential run, Warren hosted an off-the-record dinner with a number of journalists, according to sources with knowledge of it. At the dinner, Warren was asked about her meeting with Sanders, and in the course of the discussion, she relayed that Sanders had warned that he didn’t believe a woman could beat Trump in 2020. Different reporters recalled the comments differently, a mirror image of the dispute between Warren and Sanders over exactly what Sanders said — with Warren saying that Sanders argued a woman couldn’t beat Trump, while Sanders said that he only said Trump would weaponize misogyny against a woman, not that it would work.

This latest twist in the saga suggests Warren could be telling the truth and that CNN could have sourced its story via journalists present at the dinner who broke their off-the-record agreement or others who were told about the meeting after the fact and thus not bound by the agreement. Notably, the original CNN story by M.J Lee did not refer to any Warren aides or campaign officials, but instead cited “two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting.” The latest information also calls into question the claims made by some of CNN’s own pundits, who have effectively accused Warren or her team of leaking the meeting to damage Sanders.

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/new-details-suggest-political-journalists-not-warren-campaign-couldve-leaked-woman-cant-win-claim-about-sanders-to-cnn/

[Beet]

Warren proposes federal task force to investigate Trump 'corruption'

The great plans just keep coming.

[Beet]

Warren proposes federal task force to investigate Trump 'corruption'

The great plans just keep coming.

Because of course, no other Democrat, if elected president, will investigate Trump's malarial miasma.

If they will, let them say it. Democrats assumed Obama would investigate the banks and he let them off more easily than after the Savings & Loan Crisis when H.W. Bush was President.

[Beet]

Poll: Warren fares better against Biden than Sanders

Biden still leads both, although Warren by only 2 points.

[Beet]

Warren's momentum is surging. Recently she's been endorsed by 45 Michigan electeds, the Oregon House Speaker, UNITE-HERE Local 11, 3,000 activists, and the Storm Lake Times. A poll recently came out with her favorables the highest in Iowa, and the least % of Democrats would be disappointed by her nomination. Meanwhile Sanders' net favorables plummeted by 20 points.

[Beet]

For those implying that Warren was somehow a conservative when she was a Republican (she was almost certainly more liberal than Joe Biden):

https://twitter.com/nathansnewman/status/1222897399074418688

Also:

https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1222971286181289984

[Beet]

Unprecedented levels of cringe from Warren here. Hopefully Klobuchar can put this disastrous identity politics campaign out of its misery.

If you look hard enough, you can find a young trans person who approves of even Betsy Devos. The Warren campaign has been pure cringe so far this year.

Nice try, guys.

https://twitter.com/markpaaa/status/1223118035910660101

These desperate attacks are getting more and more shameless. First it was that Warren was going to censor free speech (actually it was voter suppression via misinformation, which frankly is amazingly not already illegal), now this. I expect more of this nonsense this week.

[Beet]

This thread is going to be hilarious if she somehow does well on Tuesday. That being said if she does do poorly as most are expecting, her campaign is one of the best positioned to last through Super Tuesday no matter what. There's no real point in dropping out when anything can happen. Keep amassing delegates as long as you can, you never know when a sudden scandal might take down another candidate.

[Beet]

https://twitter.com/CharlesPPierce/status/1223725751729623043

[Beet]

Warren is cancelling ad time in NV and SC:

https://twitter.com/Ad_Analytics/status/1224827035706589185

Dang, makes sense though.

People are drawing leaps of spurious conclusions from this; it is common in media marketing to reallocate spend to target specific demographics.

She was polling 4th and came in a strong 3rd. She is staying in through Super Tuesday at least.

[Beet]

Warren is cancelling ad time in NV and SC:

https://twitter.com/Ad_Analytics/status/1224827035706589185

Dang, makes sense though.

People are drawing leaps of spurious conclusions from this; it is common in media marketing to reallocate spend to target specific demographics.

She was polling 4th and came in a strong 3rd. She is staying in through Super Tuesday at least.

Which I am very happy to see, as I intend to vote for her on March 3 -or earlier once I get my absentee ballot.  I have been looking at potential second-choices (Bernie Sanders included) in the event Elizabeth Warren didn't survive the first four contests as I don't want to see my vote wasted on a zombie candidate.  

You might want to wait til after NH then to see if she is a zombie candidate or not. She’s done if she doesn’t place top 2

She's very unlikely to place the top 2, as currently she's polling 4th. I wouldn't say she's 'done' if she doesn't, but she needs to place in the top 3, keep her core base supporters, keep raising money most of all.