Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[Cinemark]

Doesnt that just reaffirm her story though?

Her contract was renewed in April, she was 4 months pregnant at the time. 4 months is when most women start showing, although Warren is very skinny so its possible she wasnt showing all that much.

Her official "resignation" was in June, she'd be about 6 months pregnant. 6 months pregnant is definetly showing. Beyond that, the record would not show she was terminated because of "pregnancy". Its very possible, even likely, she was forced to resign or else face the possibility of having a termination on her record. Something that can absolutely ruin a new educators career.

And then Warren gave birth in September.

The right(and left) should not use this to attack her when its very clear the timeline matches up with her story.

[Cinemark]

If 2016 showed us anything, outspending your opponent is a sure fire way to win. /s

In 2016, Trump had laughable fund raising numbers and was outspent by Hillary at every turn. Yet here we are.

[Cinemark]

Right after that clip, Warren was asked if she ever was against Same-sex marriage while she was a republican and she gave a very heartfelt answer including singing a bible study song. Warren oozes a kind of geniune'ness that i dont think i've ever seen in a politican before. If nothing else, her sick read probably won over some people tonight.

[Cinemark]

Gillum would be an okay choice if he wasnt sunk by an FBI investigation in 2018. That alone makes him a horrible choice for an anti-corruption ticket.

[Cinemark]

Harry Reid just said Warren is a pragmatic who will abandon Medicare-for-all once elected.

Guess Neoliberals have found a power hungry fraud (who lied about Native American Heritage) who they can use to completely eliminate the progressive agenda, who never supported the progressive cause in 2016 to be Hillary's VP, who was nowhere near Standing Rock, who will raise PAC money in the GE through the DNC & who will vote for 700B$+ Military budgets & will support the Military Industrial Complex

Go Warren. She should pick Manchin or someone even more conservative !

While I'm not going to put much stock into anything Reid says, it definitely seems like he's aching to endorse Warren.

That could really make a huge difference in the Nevada caucus. If she takes Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, she could very well sew up the nomination by Super Tuesday.

[Cinemark]

Morgan Cox, the person who asked the Marriage Equality question to Elizabeth Warren also happens to be a huge supported of Warren & a longtime donor & has donated to her in the Presidential campaign as well.

Are you insinuating that Warren was fed an obvious question by a supporter beforehand? Because thats dumb.

Also Warren has categorically indicated that she will be raising Corporate PAC big money through the DNC for the GE !

Also good. She's not crippling the party by forcing her no big donor pitch on downballot candidates.

[Cinemark]

https://twitter.com/wideofthepost/status/1183168042920005632?s=21

I like Reid but hopefully he’s wrong here.

Yeah, you're right. Hopefully when Elizabeth Warren wins and has to work with a less-than-favourable Congress, she'd rather settle for nothing at all than a compromise that strengthens Obamacare. Cuz that would sure be great.

My point wasn’t clear.

You can’t give up on fighting for Medicare For All before you’ve even gotten into power. Chances are, you’re right and she’ll be forced to settle for less, but you cannot give up leverage now, and only risk yourself settling for even less.

One of Reids crowning achievements was Obamacare. This might just be wishful thinking on his part, or a carrot for his endoresment. I doubt he's speaking for Warren in any capacity like some of the left are suggesting.

[Cinemark]

The bill itself is fine, good even. But her staff did a horrible job selling it.

[Cinemark]

^Far leftists in the comments section saying that they'd sit the election out if it's Warren.

I gotta say...while I laugh at how extreme some of these people are, I do have to admire them for being so principled. If only more Democrats were like them!

From random leftist Twitter posts to random leftist YouTube comments.

Who cares?

I'm going to share random leftist (insert-more-controversial-website-here) posts in the future.

Good reason to put you on ignore then.

[Cinemark]

I gotta say, I'm more likely to support her if she actually had a concrete healthcare plan with actual numbers and figures. If the attacks from the center pushed her into doing this, I'd say its made her a better candidate.

[Cinemark]

I might be wrong, but i thought that 14 respondents was a subsample of a larger survey.

[Cinemark]

This is what a primary is for. Warren is a stronger candidate with a fleshed out Medicare for all plan and she wouldn't have had that if she hadn't been attacked from the center. .

[Cinemark]

This from Kevin Drum is correct:

For starters, to put her plan in place we’d need to win the presidency and the Senate, and that’s a tough task. Then we’d need to eliminate the filibuster, which is very, very unlikely since a few Democrats have already said they wouldn’t join in.

But suppose we miraculously do all that. Actual legislation depends mostly on the Senate, not on President Warren or Speaker Pelosi. This means that health care legislation can’t be more progressive than the 50th most liberal senator, which is likely to be someone like Joe Manchin or Doug Jones. So even in the best case we won’t get the M4A plan that Warren is campaigning on. Not even close.

What this means is that these M4A plans shouldn’t be treated like real legislation to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Rather, they should be treated like Republican tax cut proposals. Nobody bothers to analyze them (except for liberal think tanks, natch) because no one takes them seriously. They are meant merely as markers to show where your heart is. A weak plan shows that you’re a RINO. A big tax cut shows you’re a strong conservative. And a ridiculous plan shows that you’re a lunatic—which might or might not be a good thing depending on the mood of the electorate.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/11/when-is-medicare-4-all-not-really-medicare-4-all/

Candidate plans are rough drafts designed to show where their hearts are at. It's foolish to obsess on the minutiae.

With something as big and expensive as M4A, I'm not sure I agree.

[Cinemark]

It's funny seeing centrists like Bill Nelson rip Warren and Bernie like they didn't lose last year.

*pssst*

Andrew Gillum ran on a progressive platform and lost worse than Nelson did

The entire election, everyone was saying Gillum would carry Nelson across the finish line. In retrospect, it kind of looks like Gillum was holding Nelson back.

[Cinemark]

Warren's online game is on point.



https://twitter.com/adamcbest/status/1192584023664734208/photo/1

[Cinemark]

The deadline of year 3 suggests that Warren might not prioritize healthcare over other issues as recent Presidents have done (and it backfired for everyone who did so, even Obama who narrowly passed healthcare reform). This is a bit concerning for Medicare for All supporters, but is probably a good move politically and if she uses the first two years well on less toxic issues that nevertheless have a big positive impact it might be better for Democrats and progressives in the long-term.

Yeah, she's basically taking the early Mayor Pete approach, i.e., the public option eventually transitions into M4A. Not great politically in the primary, but a smart move nonetheless.