Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Warren is going after the votes of healthcare workers by blaming their racism for the increasingly high rate of maternal mortality among blacks.   Her solution is to implement the healthcare industry equivalent of No Child Left Behind, in hopes that this will make them more caring and attentive to black people or something.   

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1121164657455136768?s=20

She mentions "Structural racism" in the tweet but there's no suggestion in her remarks that this problem has to do with any kind of broader structural inequity outside the setting of the hospital itself.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1151651371302694916?s=21
He’s using the Pocahontas thing again.
What do you guys think? How do you interpret the audience reaction?
Is the DNA thing still effective and resonating? Or is it old?

The audience is eating it up.

I disagree with attacking Warren for this, but he makes it entertaining.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Honestly, her use of "Latinx" in the first debate was much more ridiculous than this.

yikes I missed that.  Did she pronounce it "latinks" or "latinex"?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The fact that this thread keeps getting sidetracked is a reflection of what's wrong with Warren's campaign.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The Bernie Bros ^TM will say anything to ruin Warren

Yes, because every single Sanders supporter absolutely despises Warren.

The vast majority of his supporters would be pretty happy with Warren. But keep painting us with the same brush; it worked out well three years ago.

He didn’t say Sanders supporters. He said Bernie Bros and they are absolutely grilling Warren simply for not being their God.

They like to throw stones from glass houses. If Warren had voted for the 1994 crime bill, to deregulate the derivatives market, to give gun manufacturers legal immunity, or against immigration reform, they would absolutely excorciate her over it.

Given her being a Republican then, she would have probably voted for it. She did something worse. She stood by & cheered & supported the Republican party a it slashed taxes from 70% to 28% odd, gutted all regulations, engaged in racial hostility against African Americans, gutted trade unions, appointed people like Thomas & on & on & on.

And she supported the Republican party all this while because she was worried about government taking an activist role. She was a hard right winger then.

And she still voted for 700B $ for the military to wage war all around the war. And then she hopped on the Medicare-for-all bandwagon when she was running for President. And she lied about being Native American throughout her history.

🤔

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Ok, but will Atlas pick it up? Probably not, but stay tuned, folks!

https://twitter.com/Bakari_Sellers/status/1165388072793595908?s=20

It’s literally three posts above you.

And as I predicted, Atlas didn't care.

What exactly do you want from us? Drop Elizabeth, who has a long and storied history of standing up for workers rights over a circumstantial and likely factually exaggerated hit piece, and endorse your neoliberal candidate who puts people in jail for marijuanna offences and school truancy? Like, for real.

Oh please, Harris could accidentally sneeze on a baby and this forum would be rioting.

Trump would have a field day if that happened.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1170070887887986690
Bye-bye to any hopes of Dems flipping the Sunbelt if she's the nominee.  And doubly bye-bye to any hopes of Senators McBath, Tomlinson, and Hegar.

Why would this position be toxic in Georgia?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1170070887887986690
Bye-bye to any hopes of Dems flipping the Sunbelt if she's the nominee.  And doubly bye-bye to any hopes of Senators McBath, Tomlinson, and Hegar.

Why would this position be toxic in Georgia?

Because bougie suburbanites in Atlanta might be shifting left, but not this left.  And Southern suburbs are still more conservative than Northern suburbs.

I agree that Warren has positions that are too far left for southern suburbs, but I don't see how this is a good example.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Here are the "three industries" Warren was talking about as accounting for 70% of greenhouse gas emissions:

1. Transportation
2. Electricity Production
3. Industry

🤔

https://reason.com/2019/09/11/elizabeth-warren-issues-misleading-claim-that-three-industries-are-responsible-for-70-percent-of-carbon-pollution/

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

lol Tulsi is definitely priming to attack Warren she said Kamala wasn't qualified to be CIC before the debates.

https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/1177244572503724032

It makes sense, Harris is polling less than Buttigieg on average, and Warren has gained serious momentum. Buttigieg has also signaled that he's going to start going after Warren, and I have a feeling others will follow.

This clip doesn't show that she's going out of her way to target Warren. She was *asked* her opinion of Warren's qualifications.  People here read way too much into these kind of responses.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Wall Street abandoned Democrats 10 years ago because of the Dodd-Frank bill. All this talk about wanting to support a Democratic candidate, except Warren and Sanders, looks like a bunch of bull to me.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hedge-fund-money-has-vastly-favored-clinton-over-trump-1469784601

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has received around $47.6 million from seven financial firms alone, compared to $19,000 donated to rival Donald Trump

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

And now, we see that Elizabeth Warren has even more claims that she's a native: It was brought up at her mother's funeral! Her mom and dad had to elope because the love defied grandparent racism! This is ridiculous. She's been even more deceptive than previously known.

https://twitter.com/alytadeleon/status/1178019629102505986?s=21

What are you talking about? None of this information is new. She was brought up believing that story because that’s what her family taught her.

Did her family also teach her that their native family recipes were that of some French chef published in the NY Times in 1979?

maybe clipping recipes from the NYT is an old Cherokee tradition.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

These are like the best Warren endorsements you could imagine.

"You have someone like Elizabeth Warren who thinks that the right answer is to break up the companies ... if she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge. And does that still suck for us? Yeah. I mean, I don’t want to have a major lawsuit against our own government. ... But look, at the end of the day, if someone’s going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight."

 The fact there is audio is gold.

 But this is what I also fear. Zuck will go to his evil mentor Peter Thiel and they'll unleash a social media campaign that makes what the Russians/Facebook/Trump campaign did against Clinton 2016 look like child's play.

I hate the Zucc too, but he'd be well within his rights to do that.

Whatever one thinks of whether facebook should be broken up, how can anyone expect Zuccerberg to not do anything to try to stop it ?

He didn't "go to the mats" when conservatives were angry that their fever dream conspiracy theories were not allowed to rocket to the top of News Feed.

You really think that was the same level of threat to his business that having his company being broken up would be?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Boy i was reading through the earlier comments in this thread and it sure does continue the Atlas tradition of being horribly, laughably wrong

In fairness, her rollout/early campaign was pretty bad. I think Warren has surprised a lot of people and exceeded their initial expectations.

For a long time I was surprised at how badly she was doing.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The "strengthen the ACA" language gives me pause, but I agree with Hagrid: There is no reason to turn on a candidate who campaigns on M4A just because a senior political figure says that she would happily pass a public option. This is standard campaign in poetry, govern in prose stuff.

There are Democrats who I don't trust on health care: Harris has no interest in it, Biden is too attached to the ACA's framework, Buttigieg would look to the wrong policy people for guidance, and the list goes on. Warren is fine, and that alone is a reason to prefer her to any of the candidates who I just listed.

Why do you say Buttigieg would look to the wrong people?    Any idea who Warren would look to?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/1/20942587/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-explained

There’s wide variation in the quality of insurance employers purchase, and this plan has the consequence, at the outset, of punishing employers who purchased better insurance for their employees — now they’re paying more than stingier competitors, but without any recruiting benefit. Over time, Warren says she’ll adjust all employers to the same level, though the details of how that will work are sparse.

There’s an even worse inequity for employers with fewer than 50 employees. They’re not required under law to provide health insurance, but a bit over half do. Warren’s plan says that small businesses “would be exempt from the Employer Medicare Contribution unless they are already paying for employee health care today.” That’s a fairly direct penalty to small businesses that offer health insurance today: They have to keep paying a cost their competitors have dodged, but paying that cost no longer gives them an advantage in hiring.

what a ridiculous failure of a plan

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://economics21.org/warren-plan-paper-over-medicare-for-all-costs

To summarize, the Warren proposal understates M4A’s costs, as quantified by multiple credible studies, by about 34.2%. Another 11.2% of the cost would be met by cutting payments to health providers such as physicians and hospitals. Approximately 20% of the financing is sought by tapping sources that are unavailable for various reasons, for example because she has already committed that funding to other priorities, or because the savings from them was already assumed in the top-line cost estimate. The remaining 34.6% would be met by an array of new and previous tax proposals, most of it consisting of new taxes affecting everyone now carrying employer-provided health insurance, including the middle class.

Warren's plan bizarrely assumes that ending employer-provided insurance would increase worker take-home pay, even though the employers will be paying it as a tax instead.  It also double counts a large portion of the reduction in payments to providers.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I love the optics of Warren’s healthcare plan, but I’m still concerned with the thousands of corporate money she transferred from her Senate to Presidential campaign.

Yes, she used the "Elizabeth Warren Action Fund" to launder money (I think through the MA Democratic party) back to her campaign to get around the $2700 donation limit in her Senate race.  That fund has donations as high as $15.4k and totals almost $5m.

https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?committee_id=C00631861&two_year_transaction_period=2018&cycle=2018&line_number=F3X-11AI&data_type=processed

This was a joint fundraising committee, where part of the money goes to the Party and part to the candidate. Sanders has done the same thing:

Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign has signed a joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee, the DNC confirmed to POLITICO.

The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559

Re: Some of the pieces above.

I'm seeing a lot of criticism of Warren's plan that, while it may be fair, is essentially right-wing in nature, such as that (1) Imposing flat costs on corporations for their labor force will disincentivize hiring, or (2) raising taxes will go against the "race to the bottom" of different countries to become more corporate-friendly to multinationals, or (as in the NY Mag piece) that taxing billionaires' wealth at 6% will disincentivize people from creating billion-dollar businesses. Whether one agrees with these critiques or not, they're based in the same logic that the right-wing has been using for decades against progressive reforms, so people buying into them should be aware of that.

The Charles Blahous piece above is interesting- he accuses her of double counting on administrative expenses. It's true that there are two areas of her plan where reduced administrative expenses come into play. But one of them is insurers and the other is providers- not the same thing. He also hand-waves away a number of the components of her plan such as reducing tax evasion (even though her estimate is conservative in the amount that can be reduced). He argues that "if it could have been done it would have", ignoring that she has specific reforms in her plan to reduce tax evasion. He also lazily says she's committed her wealth tax to different priorities (linking to a webpage from June), but ignores her new proposed billionaires' tax. All together it doesn't seem like an objective analysis, which is what you'd expect from a Koch-funded think tank. Ironically, Matt Bruenig (no fan of Warren) found that Blahous' own estimate of M4All national health expenditures found an overall $2 trillion savings.

Like I said, sometimes she is assuming costs on corporations affect workers, and sometimes she isn't, all depending on whether it helps her math.

And there's a difference between $2 Trillion and $13 Trillion.

Also, this is a huge portion of her funding:
https://twitter.com/jadler1969/status/1190999313637351425?s=20

Besides the constitutional issues, this would seem to perpetuate the status quo whereby poor states (yes even Republican ones) spend more of their resources on healthcare than rich states.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1192526820559785986?s=20

Black people of various specific genders are the  "backbone of democracy,"  whatever that means.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The way people are whoring themselves out to the billionaire class over a proposed 2% tax increase that only begins after a huge amount of money has been accumulated is very odd. Do people not realize how much money these people have? Or how much their fortunes grow every year through investments or growth in their business. We're literally talking about a drop in the bucket to give the working class some programs that will make a huge tangible difference in their everyday lives.

 What is the dilemma here folks?

 A 2 cent wealth tax isn't radical, it's literally one of the most sober and rational policy proposals in decades.

How did it drop back down to 2% from 6% ?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The way people are whoring themselves out to the billionaire class over a proposed 2% tax increase that only begins after a huge amount of money has been accumulated is very odd. Do people not realize how much money these people have? Or how much their fortunes grow every year through investments or growth in their business. We're literally talking about a drop in the bucket to give the working class some programs that will make a huge tangible difference in their everyday lives.

 What is the dilemma here folks?

 A 2 cent wealth tax isn't radical, it's literally one of the most sober and rational policy proposals in decades.

How did it drop back down to 2% from 6% ?

It’s always been 2%... that’s where Warren’s “2 cents” chant comes from.

Are we just memory-holing her entire healthcare funding proposal?