Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[GeneralMacArthur]

Yep, Warren hasn't attacked anyone or gone negative on anyone.  She's been content to let Bernie wallow in the muck while she takes over the policy mantle of progressivism.

Naturally, this can't last.  To compete with Biden she has to take down either Bernie or Biden.  Given her personal animus with Biden, I would guess a big attack on him is coming.  The trouble for her is that both Biden and Bernie supporters have the other as their second choice, so if she takes down Biden she might just empower Bernie, and the same for taking down Bernie.

Her inability to convincingly defend her policy positions on a policy front at the most recent debate should be a big warning sign to anyone who thinks her campaign is invincible.  If she doesn't have a better answer to the very true claims that she wants to take away people's health care, eliminate private and union-negotiated insurance, raise middle-class taxes and create socialized medicine, she will soon be exposed by someone much more powerful than John Delaney.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Yep, Warren hasn't attacked anyone or gone negative on anyone.  She's been content to let Bernie wallow in the muck while she takes over the policy mantle of progressivism.

Naturally, this can't last.  To compete with Biden she has to take down either Bernie or Biden.  Given her personal animus with Biden, I would guess a big attack on him is coming.  The trouble for her is that both Biden and Bernie supporters have the other as their second choice, so if she takes down Biden she might just empower Bernie, and the same for taking down Bernie.

Her inability to convincingly defend her policy positions on a policy front at the most recent debate should be a big warning sign to anyone who thinks her campaign is invincible.  If she doesn't have a better answer to the very true claims that she wants to take away people's health care, eliminate private and union-negotiated insurance, raise middle-class taxes and create socialized medicine, she will soon be exposed by someone much more powerful than John Delaney.

I think Warren is a pragmatist on health care. She will push for Medicare for All but she is not going to die on the hill of something stupid. Most people don't care if the health care they get is private or government-run, as long as the service and costs are good. This includes unions. Unions would be happy to have a public run healthcare system for their members that is just as good, provided that costs go down, which would enable them to negotiate for higher (non-health care) wages and benefits for their members. And finally, I think most people would be happy if their overall payments went down, even if those payments were in the form of taxes rather than premiums. That being said, she has said there are many different ways to get to where she wants to be and she'd be open to different possible approaches.

The promise of it being "just as good" is a huge leap of faith though.  If you strip away all the other options, everyone is totally dependent on the government plan being as good as or better than what they had before, for every single one of the 300+ million people switched over to M4A, with no recourse if it's either not as good or (extremely likely) sabotaged in the future by Republicans or deficit hawks.

On top of that, "just as good" could mean different things to different people.  Everyone has a different health care experience.  I used to be on Tricare and we had two different versions of Tricare.  One required me to stay in-network but had lower co-pays and deductibles.  The other let me see anyone I wanted but I had to pay more.  Earlier on, I liked the in-network plan because it was cheaper and more convenient.  After I contracted a hearing disorder that required me to see a lot more specialists, staying in-network became a huge pain in the neck and I switched over.  How would M4A reconcile these two?  Would I have to pay the cost of a full plan in my taxes even if I never took advantage of most of the benefits?  How about a hypochondriac like my aunt who sees the doctor multiple times a month for every little issue, will she be able to continue with that experience or be forced into some sort of Canadian-style rationing?

Furthermore, the big promise for people happy with their health care seems to be that their health care experience wouldn't change, except that it would be "free" (paid for via taxes).  What's the motivation for them to switch?  If I'm happy with my health care plan now, wouldn't I rather vote for someone who will prioritize climate change or gun control or infrastructure over someone who's going to spend all their political capital on a moonshot plan that, in the best case scenario, would change nothing about my experience?  Why would I even want to take the risk, especially when Warren/Sanders don't seem to be able to reconcile with problematic details of their own plans (like the point Delaney made about hospitals going bankrupt if all plans paid Medicare rates)?

[GeneralMacArthur]

It's quite interesting how a majority of Warren's supporters don't actually come from the Sanders 2016 vote but rather the Hillary 2016 vote, which goes a bit against her image.

There were plenty of progressive Hillary 2016 voters. She built up many years of goodwill and Bernie was just unlikable and showed animus to the party he was running to be the leader of.

I've never understood this line of reasoning. The Republicans (as well as most modern political parties) figured out a while back that ideological coherence is a better to galvanize folks to win elections for you. A party's first job should be to determine the best candidates for the job, in spite of whatever the "party" feels.

The Democratic Party is home to groups that have been historically disenfranchised in America. They want consistency, security, and a track record of getting things done. The Republican Party is full of reactionary white grievance voters who want to burn the system down. Elizabeth Warren strikes the balance of being a revolutionary with being a party stalwart very well. It may not be enough to take down Biden but she will give him a run for his money down the stretch.

Moreover, party rule changes have simply made it easier for a liberal insurgent to win. The only thing preventing Warren from very clearly having a shot at Biden is the fragmented field. As people drop out, though, she will likely become that insurgent candidate and unless Biden can find a way to pick off a fraction of the liberal base it just seems particularly tough to stop her monentum.

This assumes more than half of the electorate wants a liberal insurgent.  Polling would seem to indicate the opposite.  I did the math and if all the other major candidates dropped out and you add up the second-choice votes for Biden and Warren, you end up with Biden 42% Warren 23%.  Of course this ignored e.g. Buttigieg supporters who have Harris as their second choice and Biden as their third choice.  But you get the picture, Warren has tons of ground to make up and the "non-Biden" vote is still just as fond of Biden as it is of Warren.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I'm SO HAPPY Elizabeth is attending the Native American Forum. I was nervous her team wasn't going to make it happen: https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/news/senators-warren-and-klobuchar-join-native-american-presidential-forum-0IX3zMW8Ik-hp3G-ciAscQ/

Trump is starting to focus on lumping Elizabeth with Bernie and the socialist label. I'm wondering if that's because he's noticing that the Pocahontas label is going nowhere with the media. How do you guys think this will play out?

The fact that she has Deb Halland's endorsement really gives Elizabeth a lot of credibility on Native issues, although it's still a controversial endorsement among some Native communities and activists. She also has a tight relationship with Jefferson Keel, the President of the National Congress of American Indians. I'll bet tribal leaders will start to endorse Warren in the coming months.

Do you think having those endorsements will help counteract GOP and Trump talking points on her DNA test and heritage claims?

The Republicans and Trump are not the problem.  It's the DNC.  They want her to win just as much as they want Bernie Sanders.  I wonder if Democrats have ever imagined the possibility that DNC officials and other Democrat candidates have intentionally and anonymously release stories for Fox News to champion against certain Democrats.  A lot of extremely convenient attacks have been leveled against Democrat candidates, and there's no doubt in my mind that they are strategically leveled against Democrats as if ordered by other Democrat candidates.  Just putting it out there.  Then you have the attacks against Biden for being touchy.  CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News seemed to have just as many guests defending or downplaying incident as they had criticizing Biden.  

All I'm saying is that you Warren and Sanders supporters need to watch those pr##ks just as scrupulously as you watch Trump.  To not do so is like sheep going to a barbershop owned and operated by wolves.

This is crazy talk. Democratic party officials like Warren 1000 times more than Bernie.  Warren is an actual Democrat and doesn't turn loyalty to the party into a wedge issue for the base or make up stupid conspiracy theories for personal political gain.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I'm SO HAPPY Elizabeth is attending the Native American Forum. I was nervous her team wasn't going to make it happen: https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/news/senators-warren-and-klobuchar-join-native-american-presidential-forum-0IX3zMW8Ik-hp3G-ciAscQ/

Trump is starting to focus on lumping Elizabeth with Bernie and the socialist label. I'm wondering if that's because he's noticing that the Pocahontas label is going nowhere with the media. How do you guys think this will play out?

The fact that she has Deb Halland's endorsement really gives Elizabeth a lot of credibility on Native issues, although it's still a controversial endorsement among some Native communities and activists. She also has a tight relationship with Jefferson Keel, the President of the National Congress of American Indians. I'll bet tribal leaders will start to endorse Warren in the coming months.

Do you think having those endorsements will help counteract GOP and Trump talking points on her DNA test and heritage claims?

The Republicans and Trump are not the problem.  It's the DNC.  They want her to win just as much as they want Bernie Sanders.  I wonder if Democrats have ever imagined the possibility that DNC officials and other Democrat candidates have intentionally and anonymously release stories for Fox News to champion against certain Democrats.  A lot of extremely convenient attacks have been leveled against Democrat candidates, and there's no doubt in my mind that they are strategically leveled against Democrats as if ordered by other Democrat candidates.  Just putting it out there.  Then you have the attacks against Biden for being touchy.  CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News seemed to have just as many guests defending or downplaying incident as they had criticizing Biden.  

All I'm saying is that you Warren and Sanders supporters need to watch those pr##ks just as scrupulously as you watch Trump.  To not do so is like sheep going to a barbershop owned and operated by wolves.

This is crazy talk. Democratic party officials like Warren 1000 times more than Bernie.  Warren is an actual Democrat and doesn't turn loyalty to the party into a wedge issue for the base or make up stupid conspiracy theories for personal political gain.

I'm not saying they don't prefer Bernie over Warren.  If that's what you thought I was implying than I should have been more clear.  The DNC supports Biden and Harris over Warren and Bernie.  It's not a matter of degree.  It's just noticeable from the way the establish journos and Dems discuss her as opposed to Warren.  Warren is calling for some drastic changes that I don't think the establishment wants to completely get behind.  Candidates like Biden and Harris seem to represent the status quo of the Democrat Party.  That's all I'm really saying.  I think the Democrat Party sees someone like Biden as the key to winning back dominate control of the House and Senate. 

Oh, yeah, well I agree that most of the party establishment sees Warren and Bernie as extreme, unelectable, and likely to hurt down-ballot races.

I don't think Warren needs to "look out for the DNC" like there's going to be some big conspiracy to rig the election and steal the nomination from her.  Despite the neverending internet gaslighting, that did not happen in 2016 and is not going to happen in 2020.

Of course, if the DNC does something shockingly nefarious like sending private e-mails to each other after the election complaining that she hasn't dropped out yet, I'll eat my words.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I'm SO HAPPY Elizabeth is attending the Native American Forum. I was nervous her team wasn't going to make it happen: https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/news/senators-warren-and-klobuchar-join-native-american-presidential-forum-0IX3zMW8Ik-hp3G-ciAscQ/

Trump is starting to focus on lumping Elizabeth with Bernie and the socialist label. I'm wondering if that's because he's noticing that the Pocahontas label is going nowhere with the media. How do you guys think this will play out?

The fact that she has Deb Halland's endorsement really gives Elizabeth a lot of credibility on Native issues, although it's still a controversial endorsement among some Native communities and activists. She also has a tight relationship with Jefferson Keel, the President of the National Congress of American Indians. I'll bet tribal leaders will start to endorse Warren in the coming months.

Do you think having those endorsements will help counteract GOP and Trump talking points on her DNA test and heritage claims?

The Republicans and Trump are not the problem.  It's the DNC.  They want her to win just as much as they want Bernie Sanders.  I wonder if Democrats have ever imagined the possibility that DNC officials and other Democrat candidates have intentionally and anonymously release stories for Fox News to champion against certain Democrats.  A lot of extremely convenient attacks have been leveled against Democrat candidates, and there's no doubt in my mind that they are strategically leveled against Democrats as if ordered by other Democrat candidates.  Just putting it out there.  Then you have the attacks against Biden for being touchy.  CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News seemed to have just as many guests defending or downplaying incident as they had criticizing Biden.  

All I'm saying is that you Warren and Sanders supporters need to watch those pr##ks just as scrupulously as you watch Trump.  To not do so is like sheep going to a barbershop owned and operated by wolves.

This is crazy talk. Democratic party officials like Warren 1000 times more than Bernie.  Warren is an actual Democrat and doesn't turn loyalty to the party into a wedge issue for the base or make up stupid conspiracy theories for personal political gain.

I'm not saying they don't prefer Bernie over Warren.  If that's what you thought I was implying than I should have been more clear.  The DNC supports Biden and Harris over Warren and Bernie.  It's not a matter of degree.  It's just noticeable from the way the establish journos and Dems discuss her as opposed to Warren.  Warren is calling for some drastic changes that I don't think the establishment wants to completely get behind.  Candidates like Biden and Harris seem to represent the status quo of the Democrat Party.  That's all I'm really saying.  I think the Democrat Party sees someone like Biden as the key to winning back dominate control of the House and Senate. 

Oh, yeah, well I agree that most of the party establishment sees Warren and Bernie as extreme, unelectable, and likely to hurt down-ballot races.

I don't think Warren needs to "look out for the DNC" like there's going to be some big conspiracy to rig the election and steal the nomination from her.  Despite the neverending internet gaslighting, that did not happen in 2016 and is not going to happen in 2020.

Of course, if the DNC does something shockingly nefarious like sending private e-mails to each other after the election complaining that she hasn't dropped out yet, I'll eat my words.

Then I'm almost in total agreement, maybe. 

There will kind of be a conspiracy between some I think.  Okay scratch that.  Collusion. The change for Warren from positive coverage to negative coverage will be immediately palpable on every mainstream news station from Fox to MSNBC once she's in striking distance of Biden.  It's kind of like when the left-wing media was in love with McCain and Romney during the Republican primary and then totally scorched them as soon as they won the nomination.  I think for establishment Democrats, they'll wait until either Sanders or Warren starts making headway.  Then they'll cut which ever one down like the axe Trump used on that huckleberry Bush.  I doubt there will be private e-mails to help you make sense of it all like in 2016.  Trump can only call Putin for so many favors.  The great thing about it is it confirmed my beliefs about the way the Republican and Democrat party operate in unfairly ignoring or destroying the candidates of non-noble decent.

Okay I just read this post. I sound even more conspiratorial and creepy than my last post.  I'm gonna open a shade cause sitting in total darkness is clearly not healthy.

Let's be fair though, there's been a tremendous amount of negative Biden coverage too.  After the first debate the media acted like his campaign was over.  Before he got in there were a hundred "he's a #MeToo scandal waiting to happen" articles.  We've had that outrageously dishonest headline about "Biden's 'middle-of-the-road' climate plan" (not an actual quote in any way, shape or form), the very misleading "nothing will fundamentally change" story that removed all context, etc.

The media just wants a horse race.  Whenever a candidate gets momentum or crosses a new threshold, they'll spend a week writing glowing stories, then delve into their record and tear them apart to stop the momentum.  It's happened with every single candidate so far going back several election cycles, and if Warren gets enough momentum to challenge Biden, it will happen, not because it's Biden but because that's just the cycle you have to get used to.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Considering Abrams said she's open to being anyone's VP/running mate, maybe Warren considers her at the very least if she became the nominee?

I don't understand why anyone would consider Stacey Abrams for VP.  Her only political experience is in the Georgia general assembly.  She has never won a federal election.  Prior to her political career she only worked at some small legal firms.

I'm sorry but she's completely unqualified to be anywhere near the White House.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Warren is the only candidate with no questions asked by any candidate. Sanders doesn't ask him that he had no sympathy for Medicareforall & only supported in last moment after most Presidential candidates had already done or about her hawkish stances & promoting endless wars or voting for massive military budgets.

The moderates don't attack her for her temperament or unelectability vs Trump in a GE. She has gotten a free pass. Sanders has to answer the tough questions of Medicare for all & she can just say sweet words about structural change..

Did you watch the debate at all? John Delaney called her plans fairy tale economics.

That was a policy attack.  We have yet to have a serious discussion about Warren's viability in a general election.  We also, to my great irritation, continue to abstain from having such a discussion about Sanders.

Given that Warren supports incredibly unpopular policies such as reparations, forgiving all student loans, abolition of private insurance, breaking up well-liked corporations, and raising taxes on the middle class (which she is also too afraid to be straight about, even on a friendly debate stage), I would seriously question her viability against Trump.

Meanwhile we've had nothing but discussions about Biden's electability these last few weeks, and he's been the primary, if not sole, focus of Trump+GOP attacks for the last six months.  Yet he's still dominating Trump in every poll.

[GeneralMacArthur]

The Sanders camp has Susan Sarandon out campaigning at rallies saying Bernie is “not someone who used to be a Republican”.

Why? I know Bernie doesn’t look at the other candidates the way his aides do. But why does he keep bringing toxic people like Sarandon and Sirota into his campaign? This was an obvious dig at Warren, who Bernie has defended at nearly every turn.

That makes six Jill Stein supporters who are officially either surrogates or part of the Sanders campaign, at least that I can think of off the top of my head.

Nina Turner
Brie Gray
RoseAnn DeMoro
Susan Sarandon
Shaun King
Cornel West

...has Killer Mike started doing rallies for him yet?  That would be another one.

So strange that all these people -- who were such principled progressives in 2016 that they couldn't in good conscience vote for Clinton -- all decided to support Sanders instead of Warren.  Gee I wonder what Sanders has that Warren doesn't have!

[GeneralMacArthur]

So I finally checked out her website because she has all this momentum and whatnot....and it is ummm...pretty terrible....maybe it is better if you give her your email, but if you do not, a 3rd grader could have done a better site for her bio

The crazy thing about Warren's online presence is that her much-touted plans ("I have a plan for that") aren't even on her website.  Her website just has blurbs.  Her actual plans are published on Medium.

On top of that, 95% of the content in her actual plans is her explaining what the problem is and why it's important to solve it and reiterating just how much we need to solve it.  For instance, a Warren plan for making my bed may go like

I Have A Plan For That:  Making Your Bed

A neatly-made bed is an important part of American life.  From the time when I was a little girl being tucked in by my mother, to tucking my grandkids in at night, made beds have been an important part of my life.

Statistics show that nearly 70% of Americans do not make their beds.  I understand the value of a neatly-made bed.  When I travel around this country I talk to everyday Americans and hear their concerns about not being able to make their own beds.

Why is this important?  Studies show that people get 20% better sleep when they make their beds.  Making your bed makes your room look tidier, which give you a better sense of order, mental ease, and self-esteem.  Your romantic partner may also think of you as childish if you can't even make your own bed in the morning.

It is especially important to call out that people of color (POC) are disproportionately affected by unmade beds as they get, on average, 11% less sleep at night than white people.  Women are also disproportionately affected by this because they are more likely than men to make the beds of their children.

This is a serious problem in America and we need a solution.  For this reason, I am proposing that we spend $250 million on a task force to teach Americans how to make their beds, with a particular focus on disadvantaged groups such as POC and women.  I will pay for this by asking the wealthiest 1% of millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.

We should have done this a long time ago, but big-moneyed interests and corporate lobbyists in Washington don't want you to make your own bed.  They pay your elected politicians off to keep them from solving this problem.  Enough is enough.

If you support Elizabeth Warren standing up against a rigged political and economic system, click here to chip in $50.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Making your bed traps in heat and sweat though which makes it a thriving habitat for dust mites. The better thing to do is to still make your bed, but to not fold it all the way up to or past your pillow. Leaving the blanket folded maybe halfway away from your pillow allows it to air out and make it a more sanitary place to sleep.

I am 100% serious about this by the way. Take it from an obsessive-compulsive germaphobe like myself. I couldn't resist.

Who covers up their pillow when they make their bed?  Weird.  I always fold it back on itself.

[GeneralMacArthur]

One of the key differences between Sanders and Warren is that Sanders is fundamentally a savior populist.  Bernie wants you to believe that:

• Everyone who's woke supports his policies, and those who oppose him have been hoodwinked by corporate lies
• All other politicians are 100% corrupt, bought and paid for by corporations.  That's why they won't support his policies.
• The Democratic Party and all its affiliates are 100% enslaved to corporations, that is why they won't rig the primary for him and make him king of the party.
• Any policies other than his own will doom the country... no, the planet! to death and destruction, misery and poverty.
• He is the only one who can rescue is, because he is the only pure, non-corrupted politician in America.
• Any tactics, no matter how dishonest or vicious, or how ostensibly friendly the targets, are therefore justified in the name of rescuing the planet.  The stakes are just too high.

Warren doesn't do most of this crap.

She does tend to demonize opposing policies rather than debating on their merits, but it doesn't rise to the level of Bernie "Joe Biden's health care plan is equivalent to 13 9/11s" Sanders.

She doesn't attack the Democratic Party or other Democrats.

She doesn't accuse every other politician of being bought-and-paid-for by big corporations.  There's no "Paid for by you (not the millionaires and billionaires)" on her ads.

She doesn't claim, like Trump, to be the only one who can rescue America.  There's no savior complex with Warren.

She doesn't use absurd hyperbole to exacerbate the problems and solutions she's discussing, which means real discussions can be had rather than every disagreement becoming "why do you want 50 million people to die."

She doesn't staff her campaign with extreme Twitter aggros and Jill Stein flunkies like Nina Turner, David Sirota, Briahna Gray, or Winnie Wong, or recruit as surrogates lunatics like Linda Sarsour, Susan Sarandon, RoseAnn DeMoro, Killer Mike, Cornel West, Shaun King, everyone in the TYT Network, and all these horseshoe-theory conspiracy wackos like Jimmy Dore.  That is to say, she isn't proudly building a movement of the absolute worst people calling themselves leftists.

She's just running for president, not trying to start a personality cult where supporting her becomes your entire identity and you envelop yourself in a world of disingenuous alternative media sources that are openly biased in her favor and sh*t all over everyone else.

She isn't going to start a Super PAC to recruit primary opponents for other Dem senators if she loses.

Is it any wonder Democratic Party insiders prefer her over Bernie?

And no, having a preference for a candidate is not "rigging."  You have to actually take an action to rig the primary for it to be "rigging."  Otherwise it's just an "endorsement."

[GeneralMacArthur]

There's no "Paid for by you (not the millionaires and billionaires)" on her ads.

Wonder why she can't use this tagline! Think there might be something more basic than principled opposition to the rhetoric...

Oh, she also doesn't brazenly encourage her supporters to always assume the worst of people who would otherwise be allies.  Because she understands that she needs all the help she can get to enact her agenda.  Where Bernie, on the other hand, doesn't want any help because he thinks he can force Mitch McConnell to support single-payer health care by sending an army of college students to protest in suburban Kentucky.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Remember: Lieberman, Specter, Collins and Snowe gave Obama 60 votes on Obamacare, contingent that there was no public option.

WTF are you talking about?  Collins and Snowe both voted against Obamacare.  Olympia Snowe was thinking about voting for the bill if it had no public option but decided not to.  Her vote wasn't needed once Ben Nelson was won over with the Cornhusker Kickback.  Lieberman single-handedly killed the public option.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I am being totally honest - one person calling me stupid won't end my beliefs.

If you play the 1995 game "Earthbound", there is a segment where a character has all their senses taken away as a test of their strength. My voting philosophy is something like that. Marianne Williamson is a candidate I also strongly support, since she also understands these tests of mental strength and how difficult they can be.

The sad thing is that people can't tell you're obviously trolling.  Because so many Bernie 2016 voters really did vote Republican, or 3rd party, or stay home, and give exactly the same kinds of asinine justifications that you're sarcastically giving.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I am being totally honest - one person calling me stupid won't end my beliefs.

If you play the 1995 game "Earthbound", there is a segment where a character has all their senses taken away as a test of their strength. My voting philosophy is something like that. Marianne Williamson is a candidate I also strongly support, since she also understands these tests of mental strength and how difficult they can be.

The sad thing is that people can't tell you're obviously trolling.  Because so many Bernie 2016 voters really did vote Republican, or 3rd party, or stay home, and give exactly the same kinds of asinine justifications that you're sarcastically giving.

Ah, so you're saying this isn't someone being a liar or a fool but someone who has caught on to the realities of Poe's Law when it comes to these sorts of statements? So... a fool and a liar, just of a different sort. Got it.

I'm saying this post would be a perfect example of Poe's Law if not for the fact that Olawakandi is a known troll who can never be taken seriously.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I am a Bernie 2016 voter who switched to vote for Trump for exactly the reasons you listed above. You see, as sjoyce said, the Democratic party is largely bankrolled by millionaires and billionaires. This is despite saying they are a "grassroots movement" and funded by small donors.

This is outright unacceptable for me - I joined the Republican party in protest to teach the Democrats a lesson. They deserve to lose for as long as they pull this kind of stuff. If the Democrats can't see the light and become a truly progressive party in all aspects, they aren't worthy of my vote.

This is why Trump won.

I’m strongly considering a Dick Cheney write in vote for 2020 if Dems don’t get it together.

Billionaire Jeffrey Katzenberg is a big-time gay rights supporter.  The Democrats have fought for gay rights for decades and ultimately succeeded in legalizing gay marriage nationwide.  Katzenberg gave millions of dollars to keep them in power, rather than letting Republicans roll back that progress.

This is fundamentally unacceptable to me and demonstrates the horrifying corruption of the Democratic Party, which doesn't give a hoot about the voter and only answers to fat cat billionaires and their deep pockets.

To teach them a lesson, I will be writing in serial killer BTK on all my ballots.  I only wish there was someone more horrible I could write in.  The worse of a person I actually vote for, the more of a lesson the Democrats will learn.

The lesson, of course, being that I am a f**ing moron and they shouldn't waste their time including me in the coalition.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Warren has endorsed both Newman and immigration lawyer Jessica Cisneros in their primary challenges against Lipinski and Cuellar, respectively.

Cuellar is big mad. LOL.

Primarying Cuellar and Lipinski is good though.  This isn't a wingnut trying to replace a normie dem like AOC vs Crowley.  These guys are two of the most conservative Democrats in the House, with very questionable and out-of-step views on a lot of issues, and their districts are safe blue so there's no reason to tolerate it.

[GeneralMacArthur]

She is running circles around everyone else, especially Biden. She deserves to win, not him.

Biden beat her in their exchange in the last debate though.  She embarrassed herself by refusing to answer his question on taxes (in the week since the debate she has been getting holes poked in her on this issue) and then stood back and let Bernie take over.

[GeneralMacArthur]

She is running circles around everyone else, especially Biden. She deserves to win, not him.

Biden beat her in their exchange in the last debate though.  She embarrassed herself by refusing to answer his question on taxes (in the week since the debate she has been getting holes poked in her on this issue) and then stood back and let Bernie take over.

GeneralMacArthur, Biden has a couple things going for him that Warren doesn't, I'll grant you that. But look at your response to what I said. You offered one of those rare things Biden did well, at least in your view. But I still say that looking at the overall picture, Warren is running circles around Biden, not to mention that she speaks far above his ability level. I think our President must come across as being very smart and articulate. She does and he doesn't.

That is the only head-to-head interaction between Biden and Warren, though.

I think it's not really true to say that Warren is "running circles around Biden" when the score in their confrontations is

Biden 1 - 0 Warren

are you trying to say that Warren is running a better campaign than him?  That's a more interestin conversation to have.  I think Warren is playing her cards now to beat out Bernie for the progressive lane, but she's also painting herself into a corner, as Biden illustrated.  She has nearly zero support from POC or party insiders, while Biden is locking it all up.  That's going to matter.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I think Warren is holding her fire on attacking Biden right now, she has plenty to attack him on closer to the primary. This is probably wise-she doesn't want to peak and fall like Kamala Harris.

The danger of holding your fire is that other, less competent pols will steal your attacks and get easily beaten down by Biden, thus making him invulnerable to future repetitions of the same attack.

Everybody's too afraid to attack Biden over his memory now after Castro's very poor attempt.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I think Warren is holding her fire on attacking Biden right now, she has plenty to attack him on closer to the primary. This is probably wise-she doesn't want to peak and fall like Kamala Harris.

The danger of holding your fire is that other, less competent pols will steal your attacks and get easily beaten down by Biden, thus making him invulnerable to future repetitions of the same attack.

Everybody's too afraid to attack Biden over his memory now after Castro's very poor attempt.

What's the precedent for that happening? It seems possible, but perhaps more likely the attacks wear down the frontrunner so they are more vulnerable to a competent assault?

2016, Jeb! wasted all the best Trump attacks and Rubio/Cruz were left with scraps.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I think Warren is holding her fire on attacking Biden right now, she has plenty to attack him on closer to the primary. This is probably wise-she doesn't want to peak and fall like Kamala Harris.

The danger of holding your fire is that other, less competent pols will steal your attacks and get easily beaten down by Biden, thus making him invulnerable to future repetitions of the same attack.

Everybody's too afraid to attack Biden over his memory now after Castro's very poor attempt.

What's the precedent for that happening? It seems possible, but perhaps more likely the attacks wear down the frontrunner so they are more vulnerable to a competent assault?

2016, Jeb! wasted all the best Trump attacks and Rubio/Cruz were left with scraps.

It seemed the problem was more that both Jeb and the other candidate's attacks didn't resonate with the party. And, while I'm less inclined to see 2016 this way, isn't your thinking also that Bernie's attacks made Hillary weaker in the general so more vulnerable to Trump's attacks? Why would the minor candidates not have the same effect for when Biden faces a more formidable opponent?

Bernie's attacks on Hillary were successful.  That is the difference.

[GeneralMacArthur]

She has nearly zero support from POC or party insiders, while Biden is locking it all up.  That's going to matter.

This is a lie. He doesn't have anything locked up. Biden doesn't even have a plurality with Latinos or Asians, nor with black voters under the age of 45. Just stop.

Biden has not inherited Clinton's 2016 coalition. His position is weak and tenuous.

I didn't say Biden has it locked up.  But he's on the right track.

In the latest poll (the Fox News one) Biden has 34% of non-white support, Warren has 11%.  Among non-whites in a head-to-head, it's 60% - 32%.

The only senator, current or former, supporting Elizabeth Warren is Ed Markey  Biden has 12 senators.  She has nine representatives endorsing her, Biden has 28.  She has one former governor (Dukakis), Biden has six.  I don't have an exhaustive list but I'm pretty sure 100% of endorsements from Obama administration alum have gone to Biden.

So I would present these two datapoints as evidence that Biden is locking up POC and party insiders, while Warren is lagging far behind.  This is something that will ultimately matter.  Those POC will be a rock-solid high-turnout base for Biden.  Those party insiders will do the ground work to secure their states for Biden when the time comes.  If Warren can't win the nomination outright, Biden will win a contested convention.

Is this the only thing that matters?  No.  Is the race over?  Hardly.  But Warren has a long way to go before I'll start believing she's "running circles around Biden."

[GeneralMacArthur]

You saw similar, smaller attempts to stereotype with Barack Obama in 2008. You see the same stereotypes here that you do for Bernie - young, white men with a whole bunch of internalized misogyny looking for a liberal Messiah. "Obama boy" and "Bernie Bro" had the same purpose: to portray Hillary Clinton as the only candidate fighting for women. I can't speak to your race or gender, but it's even worse if you're a white man, since it's extremely paternalistic.

As an Obama '08 hyperpartisan who was everywhere on the internet that year, I literally never heard of "Obama Boys".

The entire concept of this slur campaign seems to be gaslighting from Bernie Bros desperate to whatabout and deflect attention from their own atrocious behavior.

As a side note, could you not try to start that flame battle about "Bernie Bros" in this thread as well?  You already did it in the Sanders one and the mods told you to stop.  We get that this is your opinion.  Plenty of people disagree or (like me) think you're just being pedantic as a distraction.  Drop it.