Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[izixs]

In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. Last year, CEO pay at an S&P 500 Index firm soared to an average of 361 times more than the average rank-and-file worker, or pay of $13,940,000 a year, according to an AFL-CIO’s Executive Paywatch news release today.

 Yes executive pay is one of the main problems.

 An example that also shows it's not automation, globalism, or immigration is Silicon Valley engineers. They make a great salary, are highly skilled, and work for the countries wealthiest companies. And it was discovered that those companies were colluding to depress their wages. They got a slap on the wrist for it too.


 

Great example. Those at the top will continue to seek out ways to increase their wealth at the expense of anybody that they have to pay in order to make that wealth. Suppressing wages is the most direct means for which to do this as it doesn't require capital investments (automation), shipping costs (globalization), the hurdles of legal immigration including the bureaucratic costs (immigration), or the dangers of hiring undocument workers (immigration). To claim that all of these other options that involve their own costs, direct or indirect, are the primary reasons for the problem is asking us to pretend those who can set wages wouldn't just opt to lower them, saving them money now that becomes pure profit, if given the chance. They are factors, and in some industries much more than others, but they are not the fundamental problem at the heart of all the depression of wages: greed.

[izixs]

It's counter-majoritarian.  It's antidemocratic. 

Yeah, but those are genuinely good things. It prevents the government from enacting stupid, destructive policy.

Ah yes, the tyranny of the minority is good actually position.

Yeah, no, it is terrible and such rule has been the prime reason for the long decline of government effectiveness. Which I suppose a Libertarian assumes is a good thing I suppose?

[izixs]

Allowing debtors to discharge their debt through bankruptcy, work it off through public service, or restructure it to reflect their actual earning power makes sense in a way that just saying "screw it all" does not.

This assumes that any of these would actually work on the mass scale necessary to content with both the size of the individually held debt and how wide spread it is. Bankruptcy has disruptive effects throughout ones life and so people try to avoid it at all costs, public service options are effectively an incentive for the government to put more debt onto people so they get free workers for reduced or no pay (huzzah slavery!), and restructuring amounts to spreading out the debt over a longer period of time for those most suffering, which will generally mean paying a higher cost in the long run in order to make the bills today due to interest. Each of these alternatives screws over the loan holders in some fashion. And given a college education is kind of an entry level requirement in a growing portion of our economy, thus making it not an option but essential for a large segment of the work force, to provide extra punishment for those without economic means to even get a job is a tad ridiculous. And is in effect a back door promotion of one class over another under a lie about 'fairness'.

The net result is under your proposed options is a quickly growing lower class without a college education because they can't afford it and are unwilling to be saddled with debt but facing the problem of competing for a shrinking job market of unskilled labor, a static upper class reliant on inherited wealth to maintain their educational standards to maintain their power, and a shrinking middle class where debt is pushing even the lucky ones down the ladder despite doing everything right to get ahead. So... kind of what we got going already right now. So in a system sense it is an egregiously unfair system built on the excuses of individual parts being 'fair', especially to those wishing to work their way up. Trying to, you know, do that capitalism thing of working hard to get ahead that's supposed to make capitalism the bee's knees and all that.

So yeah, I'll happily support a candidate who's willing to break this cycle with bold policy ideas. We can quibble about the specifics sure, but abandoning the idea of a change of how the core of the system works is basically an endorsement of a system that's horrifically broken.

[izixs]

Public sector loans amount to slavery? That’s a novel description. It’s also utterly ludicrous.

You said public service. Which implies that the government wants you to do this job, and because of your debt, you are now required to do that job. And given the size of the debts continuing to grow year to year under the current paradigm of college costs, how long that forced employment will be will expand for those in such a situation. Ergo, de facto slavery with no hope of escape because you are only doing this job with little recourse to escape it once you fall into that sort of system.

“Screw over” presumably meaning “expects them to tolerate literally any inconvenience or sacrifice" on account of having taken out student loans.

I have a relative who threw a $50,000 wedding a few months ago, followed by a honeymoon in Austrian ski country. She’s giddy about Warren’s proposal. The thought that she could have achieved the same effect on her finances quite easily hasn’t occurred to her.

Hey, here's what might come as a surprise but... most folks can't afford $50k weddings. Maybe get out of your upper class bubble once in a while perhaps? Then you might actually meet people who dream of big weddings but are no where near capable of getting it because, among other things, they got $100k+ of student loan debt that they can barely make payments on. Aka, most people are not your relative.

This is not at all true. The chief result of decades spent encouraging college attendance has been not to improve productivity, not to improve employment, nor even to raise the quality of civic life, but instead to increase the expense of the typical college education while at the same time lowering the quality of the median graduate.

For profit colleges are a thing (and also a scam), but most folks tend to avoid those for that reason. The rest of the university landscape is a varied collection of schools with different purposes and missions and nature of their core funding. And you are just kind of claiming that all of these institutions are for profit monsters bent on becoming degree mills? That doesn't make a lot of sense. And ignores things like state schools getting their funding habitually slashed by austerity fetishists, private schools becoming dens of internal corruption and promotion of initiatives to 'boost enrollment' that only end up looking good on paper but not doing anyone any good other than to add something to some administrator's resume, federal funding for research lagging behind the demand for such at universities that could massively offset even basic school costs, or any other of the systematic issues that are about in higher education that no one wants to address directly. Which we should address these things. But... to claim it is simply, and only, a profit motive to raise costs and to lessen quality to save money is a little short sighted to say the least.

How on earth does the insistence that debtors assume any responsibility at all amount to punishment? It’s far cheaper to target assistance to those cases where it is most necessary.

As I guess I didn't make my point clear: If there is going to be a minimum education to play in our society then these debtors should not actually be debtors in the first place. This isn't anything to do with their responsibilities, it is the failing of our society to take on the responsibility to insure that everyone has the ability to participate given the demands required. Don't like the idea of free college? Then push for a society where it isn't necessary (which, is probably not going to happen, fyi) or abandon any pretense that this has anything to do with fairness and responsibility. We as a society have failed millions of people by forcing them to go massively in debt, maybe its time we fixed that mistake.

[izixs]

Watched part of her town hall. I think she has moved up on my choices. I think she really does care average Joe. I still have concerns about her electability.

I'm in this boat too. I have always liked her, especially more than Sanders. She is the most policy focused candidate, and would probably make a great President. The problem though, is that the GOP have already been laser focused on dragging her reputation through the mud since she got elected which hampers her electability. And my criteria for supporting a candidate this time around is whether they can beat Trump or not. It sucks how that has become the most important aspect of electing a politician these days. But one cannot govern without winning, unfortunately, and I am skeptical as to whether Warren is in a position to do that.

I've thought about the concept of electability for years. Even did a youtube video about it recently where part of my conclusion boils down to this:

Declaring a candidate electable is not only deceptive (towards yourself or others which I explain in the bulk of the essay), but is in effect telling people you don't know that you already know who they will vote for, and thus they are expected to do so. Which... might piss people off to a degree. Which then bounces back when they turn their nose up at this insistence with us voting in the primary being angry at them for not just accepting the candidate we picked that is tailored to them. It is in the long run much less infuriating for those we wish to get on board with our nominee if we're supporting our candidate not because we see them as electable, but because they'd actually make a good president. That enthusiasm demonstrates an honesty about our selection for one, and folks will take that over phony insistences of electability any day. But it also might give them a reason, once we tell them why we support our candidate, to vote for them as well.

Yeah, so don't feel super obligated to worry about electability. Its a loose-loose game to make it your prime criteria.

So if you like Warren, or any other candidate, enthusiastically before any thought of electability factors in, then try to use that enthusiasm to make them more electable. And drop the worry aside.

[izixs]

As someone who's been highly skeptical of the use of such town halls by Democrats on Fox News, good on her for realizing the counter productive nature of such. It may win her some votes, and may even win her the primary. But the long term strategy of ending Fox News as a propaganda outfit, which is essential for the sake of our democracy, would not be served by such de facto endorsements of the network. When a TV channel is not a legitimate news source, don't provide the fig leaf that lets them claim otherwise.

Had some conversations with folks today who claimed that 'oh, but it would push people to other networks!' and I just had to laugh at their lack of understanding of the demographics Fox has been courting for decades now. Have the town hall and a few hours later Tucker comes on to tell the faithful why everything they just heard was just so awful. Repeat day after day, and the short term gains evaporate.

No, if one is serious about structural changes to our nation to better serve the cause of democracy and equality, then one must have a hard line with rage machines like Fox. And I'm glad someone's taking a hard stance on that. Its kind of about dang time.

[izixs]

I find Elizabeth Warren to be one of the more interesting candidates in the Democratic Primary, because she is the prototypical beta personality totally unable to overcome her lack of leadership quality.  This argument over whether or not going on Fox News is a prudent action is just another example in a long list evidence to support my argument. 

In the context of a front runner, it makes sense to avoid Fox News.  You might be exposed as less competent than the other candidate.  Democrat nominees and front runners tend to do so when they need to win independent voters, which comes off desperate.  In my opinion, a candidate doesn’t just look small and wimpy by avoiding Fox News.  That candidate is small and wimpy – a person with very little confidence, class or charisma.

At this point, there is nothing to lose for every other candidate in the race.  Independents are allowed to vote in the Democratic Primary, and the largest pool of independent voters watch Fox News.  There is no reason to vote in the Republican primary, and voters who tend to vote for a candidate in a primary will surely vote for that same party and candidate in the general election.  Of course, if you select a corrupt, election rigging, criminal POS like Hillary Clinton, you shouldn’t expect other people to vote for your candidate over a person that wears their ‘deplorable’ qualities.

Elizabeth Warren refusing to take the so-called ‘Fox News Challenge” just demonstrates the accuracy of initial viewpoint of her candidacy.  That she has zero self-confidence, and embodies nearly every bad quality people psychologically and socially associate with poor leadership.  She’s smart.  Has a plan.  Is totally adherent to the party establishment and the race-baiting Loony Tune.  Where is this getting her?   The whole Native American scandal is a secondary concern after her personality, because a guy like Joe Biden could skirt around it with his political personality.  Elizabeth Warren and her supports may not now it yet, but Warren is running for Secretary of Treasury for the same exact reason she fears talking to the people she most fervently disagrees with on Fox News. 

Your argument here is based on roughly the following three premises: That the majority of 'independents' who normally watch Fox News are swing voters who could be convinced to vote in the Democratic primaries via a singular appearance on the channel, that any good that is accomplished for any campaign by having a candidate go on the channel won't be actively countered by the rest of the Fox News programming, and that the only motivation for avoiding the channel is one of fear.

I'd argue all three of these premises are false, and therefore your conclusions are as well.

Independent voters come in roughly three sorts: occasional/uncommitted voters, swing voters, and partisan voters who refuse to self identify. Occasional/uncommitted voters are in most elections irrelevant as they are unreliable and typically don't care about primaries, so even if they were for some reason super invested in a highly partisan news channel, they'd not be a useful source of votes in a primary. Swing voters may tune in to Fox News to see a Warren (or any other candidate) town hall, but they'd tune into a town hall on any network if they were aware of it as they are not married to the ideological leanings of FN and thus are capable of getting their news elsewhere. Therefore there's no point in having a town hall specifically on Fox News to get their interest, so if there are other reasons to avoid the channel, this is not a compelling reason to show up here specifically to win their favor. But partisan independent voters, which studies have shown tend to be just as reliable partisans as the core of either major party would be perhaps a source of votes, but only if Warren was running as a Republican as partisan 'independents' who only watch Fox News are most likely to be a hostile audience. If the audience is generally unreachable, then its at best a waste of time. And there might be much more effective means to sway those very very few who are reachable from the audience through other means that have broader appeal beyond the conservative base. Aka, that also attracts actual Democrats to the banner. Therefore, this notion of independent who is reachable is a little absurd as far as trying to gain something from the standard Fox News audience.

The second premiss is similarly absurd and the activities of the various Fox personalities after other Democratic candidate town halls should be sufficient evidence to discount this premiss as well. Its a propaganda network, and so it is silly to not realize that if a Democrat does well in their town hall they won't go all in on tearing them down, thus blunting that candidate's possible inroads into their viewer base as actively as possible.

The final premiss is one of motivation. The 'you're chicken!' argument that projects assumed motivations onto a candidate while ignoring their statements on the subject and the prevailing view of many of the base of the party. Most of us on the left know that Fox News is a propaganda machine and thus we don't watch it. As the most likely primary voters we understand how pointless it is to go on that channel specifically to appeal to us because again we don't watch Fox News. What more, plenty of us see Fox News as an existential threat to democracy in America and wish to see its power wane, and promoting it via our viewership, even to check out a candidate we're considering, runs counter to that interest. And it would appear that Warren shares that same interest, and likely the other realizations regarding the utility of such an appearance. What more, by taking a firm stand at this point against such pointless gestures as accepting their offer for a town hall might, just maybe, be a welcome sign for those of us who are tired of the Serious People treating Fox News as legitimate. And if you want to talk about leadership, taking a stance that diverges from that of the other candidates who've happily trotted over to the Republican News Network to make phony gestures of reaching out might be seen as actual leadership on an issue. As opposed to just following the standard game plan of gotta pretend like you have bi-partisan appeal to appease the 'both sides!' moderates.

So... with a bunch of good reasons to maybe not give them her time, some of which she's talked about specifically, there's perhaps actual evidence for an alternative view of her motivations that is actually very much a showing of leadership.

And given these things, I have to question if you are working to justify your core argument after the fact or are just unaware of these plot holes in your narrative.

[izixs]

A lot to unpack here, so I'll break it up some and focus on the relevant parts.

First off, I’ve seen a lot of left-wing audience members during the town halls, and the disagreeing boos from an unfavorable audience members isn’t a reason to not attend a Fox News debate. 

Someone who is in attendance at the town hall is not representative of the general viewer. My comments were about the general viewership of Fox News, not the hand full of people who physically attend such events who would naturally be more interested in Democratic candidates compared to run of the mill conservatives who make up the Fox News viewer base. I may not have made that crystal clear, but it should have been also super obvious. And to choose to jump to this smaller, unrepresentative sample as evidence to undermine my argument is rather underhanded. So I'm hoping you just made an honest mistake here.

Trump had to go through four or five debates despite unfavorable audiences and monitors.  That takes strength.  People respect it.

There has been ample evidence of fundamental differences in the typical Republican vs the typical Democrat. What works to sway a Republican voter to support someone is different from what will sway a Democratic voter. What more, Republicans have long been pushing a narrative that the 'media' (for varying definitions of media) is out to get them, and thus any conservative who is attacked in a media context must by default be on their side, independent of the nature of such an attack. It isn't about strength, its about playing the martyr and then claiming its about strength. The most similar view from the left is not that the media is out to get Democrats/liberals/progressives/ect but that the general media is incompetent at best, and beholden to profit motives at worse. Including Fox which derives its profit by acting as a propaganda machine.

Second, these Fox News town halls don’t just reach the 10% and 35% of Independents that make up their viewer profile, they receive numerous views on Youtube, including positive coverage from democrat, liberal and socialist leaning channels.

Speaking of the left leaning feelings about the media being incompetent and profit driven... these second and third generation explicitly partisan content creators are in effect promoting Fox News (to their own detriment) in order to sell their product instead of acting as partisan filters to explicitly discredit Fox News outright at every opportunity. By giving any legitimacy to FN and any of its programming, even parts that might seem more favorable, they are providing cover for claims that Fox is a legitimate source of news, and thus out right failing to live up to their stated partisanship. I don't need another 'So and so totally destroys conservative!' montage or what ever nonsense that gets the clicks clogging up my time, even if watching such might feel cathartic.

The Bernie Sanders town hall received the most television viewers of the year at 2.6 million, 1.3 million views on the Fox News Youtube channel, received millions of views from people mostly positive analysis on other Youtube Channels, and gave him a two point that took away points from Biden.

View numbers on the Fox News Youtube channel are similar to views of the network coverage. And about as informative of the utility of such an adventure. Those who don't normally watch FN but are curious about Sanders will check out their youtube channel after the fact to see what happened, but would do that independent of which youtube or network held the town hall. So there's not much usefulness in terms of it being specifically fox news that's hosting it. It adds no value to the act of having a town hall. I could host a town hall with a candidate and people would watch my youtube channel to view it. The candidate draws the audience, not the network, in these cases.

Also I'm not a fool when it comes to understanding polling. So don't play the game of shifts within the margin of error in polls actually matter game. It isn't going to work.

Biden hopes all the candidates makes the same mistake as Warren, because he’s already getting all the center-left Democrats.  He doesn’t have to do anything. 

I could talk about Biden here specifically but his fragile appeal is a topic for elsewhere.

Every network is a propaganda network.

I'll leave out the rest of your meandering to tackle the point head on as you seem to be saying a lot of other pointless things along with your argument here that makes it pretty clear you're not here to have a conversation. But...

I already laid out the basics of the left leaning prevailing view on this. Being a propaganda network is not necessary for a media outlet to do ridiculously awful things or to act as a mouth piece for people with bad ideas and bad plans. News organizations love to fall in love with narratives as talking about them is how you keep people invested in viewing. People follow the storyline, say, of this new war on the horizon, and they are glued to the TV for as long as that exciting story line continues, independent of if they are for or against it. This doesn't make those media outlets explicitly pro or anti war. It motivates them to speak of it and to prolong the conversation as long as possible. This makes them, again, de facto propaganda in such instances, but if the narrative changes they can just as easily turn to the other end of things in terms of who gets the positive coverage. This is the general option for media.

However, explicitly partisan media, like Fox News, has a different tactic. Instead of cultivating an interest in a narrative, they cultivate an audience. They encourage building an identity around viewership and the related partisanship to keep people coming back to them, independent of the prevailing narrative in society. And this motivates them to be a full on intentional partisan propaganda outlet as opposed to other media outlets which are occasionally de facto propaganda outlets. Fox News has an intent for such because that's how they build their brand, while less or non-partisan media chase 'the story' instead as their motivation in order to get eyes on their production output. Fox does do narratives of course, but they are always build to construct the partisan view of the world, to give it that particular slant that would push viewers to be more supportive of what ever the conservative view of those things happens to be. Because if you're on board with being a conservative, watching the special network that talks just to you, unlike all those other spooky 'liberal' media outlets like CNN, then you're safe and get to hate on the libs together with your fellow Fox News friends. And while this happens, they get to lead you through what ever hoops of narrative they like that will insure friendly politicians to the cause are elected.

So, no, I was not just born. But to declare all things everywhere as propaganda without understanding what makes something a network that occasionally pushes propaganda for in pursuit of profit and what makes something else a network that constantly pushes propaganda to entrench a partisan world view is highly reductive at best. Aka, the lazy option.

I really can’t get paste this point.

Clearly. But I also get the feeling you haven't really tried to understand the people you're angry with. So maybe there's something you could do to, I don't know, remedy some of your frustration here?

She loses out on a chance to win against the conservative media – Fox News.

As I mentioned earlier, having yet another own your enemies in their own house moment feels good for the partisans, but is kind of pointless other than feeling good about yourself. Saw plenty of this back patting after the Sanders town hall. And again, because I know how to read polls, any 'shifts' from that were at beast super minor and outdone by other events in the campaign, thus making the appearance little more than a feel good moment for his supporters and those who don't understand that there needs to be more than moments were we feel good about ourselves.

Even Obama went on Fox News. 

Yes, and I thought that was a boneheaded move then too.

In a poll of 3,000 voters by Rasmussen

Going to stop right there... I don't give much credence to Rasmussen polling at all. Get me any legitimate and well tested non-partisan polling firm and maybe we'll talk. What more, this early in the primary process stuff like this doesn't supper matter as most voters have not had much exposure to the core messaging of the campaigns. What more, races can be quite fluid at times, so pulling the whole 'oh this person is super liked/not-liked at this specific point' game doesn't fly with me. I don't give such arguments serious credence because everyone remembers the 50 state sweep of John McCain or the massive overwhelming victory of Hillary in 2016 or Howard Dean's easy path to the nomination...

----

So to sum up... You've made an argument that implies that people present in a room are equivalent to the total viewership of a network. This is not true and absurd. Similarly untrue is the notion of tactics that work in a Republican primary will work in a Democratic primary. You imply that Fox News numbers being good for a town hall equates to reaching their core audience in any meaningful way while ignoring the realities of non-regular viewers going over to take it in. This claim lacks evidence that excludes a much more reasonable explanation that also implies that a town hall on any network/youtube channel would get good numbers as well. Or in short, you don't address people coming for the candidate vs people staying because of Fox.

And finally you grossly mischaracterize how the media works due to a framing of what they are doing as opposed to what is inspiring that action. In effect, equating different things that, in practice, occasionally result in the same action, while ignoring the specifics of those core elements to try to win an argument on the internet. A better use of your time might be to investigate the dynamics of organizations when it comes to profit motives and acquisition of influence, either in terms of political power, cultivation of an audience, or telling a good story. Especially that last one. Might learn something about avoiding plot holes.

[izixs]

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/o9fgzgielo/econTabReport.pdf


Warren: 44/41%
Buttigieg: 34/33%
Biden: 46/46%
Harris: 38/39%
Sanders: 45/47%
Beto: 35/38%
Booker: 34/37%
Gillibrand: 30/37%
Klobuchar: 26/33%
Gabbard: 16/30%
de Blasio: 17/45%

Trump 44/54%


Warren surprisingly has the highest net favorability in this poll. Seems like an outlier, but she is definitely improving her standing among the public.

Buh buh but Jimmy Dore told me Bernie was the most popular politician in america!

And from earlier in this very thread there was an argument put forth that someone who has tied approval and disapproval ratings at best would never win all the swing states and thus should be discounted outright. Which I guess leaves all of two candidates left standing... including the one that was being argued against before, so... you know... that argument totally makes sense and wasn't based off cherry picked poll numbers to defend a pre-determined conclusion or something.

Yeah, if anyone is wondering, I am well over being done with folks blowing smoke of that sort up my backside. And it weirds me out that everyone else isn't too.

[izixs]

Oh no. What ever shall we do?

Alternatively:

"But her e-mails!"

[izixs]

Having both white and American Indian ancestry while not being a tribal member is extremely common. Fully half of all multiracial Americans are this pairing:

Sure. But she is not multiracial. Please, stop it. She is white. White as .

This is something that a lot more people make noise about than really care about.

Sure. Most people (I'd guess 99%) doesn't care about Biden being "creepy", either. They don't even think it is "creepy". However, that is not the point. The point is that neither Warren or Biden can't just let it go. Biden can't help hugging. Warren can't help keeping babbling about "not being a tribal member/citizenship". It is what I find most "creepy" in Biden's and Warren's behaviour. And it is something Trump will use in his attacks, may be, successfully.



Also, if someone believes that Warren didn't know what she was doing when she claimed she was Native American in Harward etc and that she was totally innocent, that someone should also believe that Trump haven't released his tax returns because "being under the audit" ahahahha.

So let me get this straight:

Uncle Joe being creepy uncle Joe when ever he gets an opportunity is the same level of bad as stating an actual truth when targeted, again, by someone demanding yet another something (apology? explanation? something else?) about a mistake Warren made years ago. Is that what you're saying?

Because the equating of these two things seems rather insane to me. To equate unacceptable behavior in the now that has never been apologized for by a man to unacceptable behavior in the past that has been apologized for, and for which people keep demanding an apology (or something) for, from a woman is highly suggest that maybe it isn't the actions that you don't like here. Its something else. Or you have some super unbalanced ideas as to what standards of conduct people must have in order to be acceptable in your mind.

And save me the excuse of 'oh, it isn't me, its the votes I'm talking about!' cover.

[izixs]

If Warren replaces Sanders as the dominant candidate of the party left she could gain a lot of support as she is more acceptable to the rest of the party and to the establishment than Bernie. While I'm sceptical still about electability, if she can come from behind and win the primary that's a pretty strong case for her being a good candidate.

I'm still convinced that one of them will drop out soon after the primaries start to clear the way for the other.

This requires that both be team players. And right now I only suspect one of them is given past behavior of each.

[izixs]

I suppose that depends on what team you're on.

Exactly why I left my language there vague... Muahahaha

The notion of 'teams' can be very vague and open for interpretation, as has happened here. Folks projecting their particular thoughts and biases onto the term to try to justify their points. This is a natural thing that happens, but I kind of want to high light it more, especially when it comes to voters and supporters in my general ideological region of things.

Far too often we make the teams about specific candidates. Candidates however are only candidates and not the totality of what one's team can be. And I'd argue shouldn't be as candidates are people and people are fallible. Sometimes we think a little bigger picture and go all in on 'the cause'. As in all leftism all the time sorts of stuff. Which... often relies on pointing to someone and saying they define everything about what that means, which is just then the candidate problem again. A slight of hand to try to justify, before or after the fact, why this one person is the one true leftist.

Both of these options are limited. Both of these are singular and about just one (or sometimes a couple) person. They are not about the totality of the team for which we build our solidarity. It isn't about the us of everyone in the trenches fighting this fight. And it certainly isn't about the perpetuation of the movement beyond a single candidacy. Lip service may be applied to such a thing, but action must follow word for it to be believed and internalized. To keep the faithful going beyond the fall of the man/woman.

No, we need to be better about what we consider a team. And I'm not meaning the team as in the Democratic Party in total. The Party is, at the end of the day, a tool of whom ever can gain the most influence in it. And yes, doing so by default makes you the 'insider', even if you happen to seek an abolition of private property. So I always gotta roll my eyes at the use of such language. But a team can include the Democratic Party if one is willing to have an expansive, inclusive team. And if one is able to convince the party to come on board.

And so that's why I used that term there. I've been critical previously that Sanders' campaign is perhaps all talk and no action with regards to this. Especially given his sore loser attitude late in the 2016 campaign. I supported him then, and I voted for him then. But I had to roll my eyes just as hard as I did at Clinton in 08 for his refusal to face reality and to let angry supporters stir up trouble that threatened to put awful people in the white house. Among my plethora of reasons I didn't like Clinton in 2016 was, on top of the reasons I didn't like her in 08, that very same behavior. And Sanders engaged in it even more so.

He was doing this for some state reasons yes. And perhaps he even believed them himself. But that doesn't super matter when, at the end of the day, we have to face the realities that the biggest enemy of the left is not people like Hillary Clinton. Its people like Donald Trump. And the team I want to be on is the one that recognizes that fact. And doesn't waste time himming and hawing about I don't know maybe something could happen at the convention that just serves to rile people up.

And I don't trust him not to do it again honestly. I have 0 love for Biden and I hope he loses badly in the primaries, but if the voters decide they're his guy, then I got no time for folks that demand that their perfect candidate would have been so much better and now they'll abandon us because that perfect candidate didn't tell them not to. It will be such an annoying situation and I'm desperate to avoid it because I know this dynamic will be the situation. Where I gotta both put up with a terrible general election candidate and folks that want to take their ball and go home instead of fight the fascists at the ballot box. I want my team to be united in cause and motivation. To be working to save each other. Not at each other's throats while the orange man get by with another electoral college win.

[izixs]

Elizabeth Warren says she would ban private prisons and detention facilities as president

While she can end BOP contracts to private prisons, I don't know that she can truly ban private prisons as most are contracted to state and local governments. I'm unclear on the extent to which the federal government can intervene into or void state/local public contracts.

That assumes such a ban would target such contracts directly. If there were perhaps a federal law making it just flat out illegal for a non-government entity or organization to keep people detained in general, it would imply the voiding of such contracts being necessary. The constitutionality of such is a little tricky but possibly doable under the 9th amendment (certain right to not be held by a private entity for the benefit of that entity), 14th amendment (equal protection providing one to not be held against one's will by an entity that lacks the authority of government just as one who is kidnapped or abducted, a state government saying its okay to abduct people in effect is not ok in this particular case), and some outside help from the commerce clause and preamble (blessings of liberty and all that) if needed.

Another means if of course the old financial federalism trick, where a state will get nothing from the federal government as far as money if they don't conform to the new standard.

And finally, there's the method of just gum up the works to an absurd degree: disallow a company from operating across state lines (commerce clause), tax them to oblivion (all the stuff on taxation) in a uniform manner across all states (some sort of incarceration tax that's like 110% of the profits), and make it a federal crime for anyone who is not a government agent to keep someone captive, and provide very strict rules on what that means, including, not being able to have such a person be employed by a private entity or contracted for such a job.

Some of these are more of a mess for the states to clean up, but... we really should not have private prisons at all as it provides a profit motive for businesses to lobby governments to increase incarceration rates (either by driving up crime rates so they can arrest more people, by making more things illegal so they can arrest more people, or just arresting more people who didn't actually do anything and letting the state foot the bill for wrongful arrests while the politicians get their kickbacks).

[izixs]

Warren’s backing eliminating private insurance was incredibly stupid. Gives GOP an opening, a Medicare option pretty does the same thing without the baggage.

She had a good night, but that statement really highlights how poor her political instincts are.

“Poor political instincts” but has successfully positioned herself to be Biden’s main adversary down the stretch? K. She said what she meant and that goes farther than a rehearsed answer pulled from polling and focus groups. Trump won promising to round up illegals, building a fictional wall, and banning Muslims. Elizabeth Warren will be alright.

Her answer did show poor political instincts.

One reason she is doing well is because she has gotten moderates in the party to warm up to her. Her stance on healthcare is the kind of thing that would scare them away.

Let me provide one of my live tweets from last night's with only a minor edit for content:

"Warren - You cool with medicare for all, that your path?

A: Yeah, medicare for all. Studied why people go broke, medical bills. Including those with s***ty insurance, Amy. Medicare solves this problem. Also those who don't want to do it are lazy ****** who don't care enough."

Of course this is my ultra snarkified Warren voice, not her actual one from the debate. But for the evening I was trying to channel to underlying vibe, not just the top level.

Insurance, private insurance, is a blight on the economy and causes excessive suffering. Yes it works for some, but not enough. And the quicker we transition to a fully non-profit based system the better off we will be as a country.

[izixs]

Also, lol @ the notion that college is somehow an anti-indoctrination system.

It absolutely is if done properly, and for many top-tier colleges remains so. The problem is that standards of liberal education in America have slipped now that costs are so high and college is being sold as an 'experience' rather than an education - like any business, modern colleges which challenge students to think as they should tend to do poorly compared to those willing to cater to preexisting notions.

A shame that college is now just a way for liberals to indoctrinate students

It isn't and never has been. It's just seen that way since education about society is anathema to conservative dominion.

The overwhelming majority of college professors are leftists, and it'll be hard for you to keep a straight face while arguing that they don't let their beliefs bleed into their teaching.

I won't deny that. But it's not like those beliefs aren't informed by their education in turn. That's just what happens when one is better educated, they tend to become more left wing. The more you learn about the world, the more you want to address its problems.

Yes, the want to address them and have the tools necessary to understand those problems enough to offer up solutions. There's a long running humorous saying that goes like this: reality has a liberal bias. It is often brought up when, in order to support conservative talking points or policy, conservatives invent data and stories to show that sure all their nonsense would totally worked... if they didn't have to contend with reality mucking up their plans.

[izixs]

Yes, and thank God for the STEM majors of the world. But sadly, we're already beginning to see the breakdown of objective science in realms such as economics and biological gender.

Isn't "biological gender" just sex? As somebody who works with a lot of developmental/organismal biologists I don't really know what you mean.

He's trying to yuk about transgender issues with that one, conflating the on going social evolution on the subject of gender (the question of what is it being defined as presently in society and are people being served by this social definition well) with the biological mechanics of reproduction (aka, all that business about cells). The implied assumption he seems to be using is that only the mechanical end of things should matter and the larger discussion related to anything else is 'indoctrination' or some nonsense. Like seeking to understand how society works with regards to something that even that society gets wrong is a terrible thing, or something.

I hope I don't live to see the day when someone asserts that physics is a patriarchal construct.

My friend once found an essay that claimed i was chosen to represent the imaginary number because it was phallic. These theories exist but are treated as incredibly fringe and almost entirely unknown.

Never heard that one. Sounds like bs to me. Especially when there's always letters like J, P, and q to fall back on for such imagery. :-p

No group of people of significant number is totally immune to the occasional malicious assertion like that. Some fraction will buy into it and repeat it, much to the annoyance of the fraction who sees it for what it is. The trick is to encourage behaviors and critical thinking skills that make the group resistant to such things, or at the very least, encourage those who do fall for it to not spread it. And so I always encourage people to be skeptical of such assertions.

Meanwhile... the Republicans elected a birther.

Though all this does remind me of a friend of mine of a more libertarian bent who was complaining about something involving a New York law that supposedly, according to him, all about the policing of gender. Which to wrap back to the also mentioned rent control stuff, was actually kind of linked to that stuff as the rule was put in place to discourage harassment by hostile landlords who want to kick people out of rent controlled apartments but can't.

So I find it interesting how all of this seems to link together so easily. And tis also telling, during conversations like this, what gets left out. What assumptions are left unsaid, important details of the mechanics at play are ignored or not investigated. As was the case with the misgendering law discussion with my friend and the claims of the break down of objectivity in education. And yet... when ever I bring up this sort of thing folks don't really try to fill in the details to get everybody properly up to speed.

[izixs]

I have a feeling this thread has drifted off a bit... Again.

[izixs]

Warren is in 3rd spot in Iowa, NH & SC. In atleast Iowa & NH, she is causing Biden to win by being in the race.

Will progressives call for Warren to drop out to stop Biden? It is only fair since a lot of atlas folks were asking Sanders to step down when Warren was ahead in a couple of polls.

Sanders is in 2nd spot in Iowa, NH & SC. In atleast Iowa & NH, he is causing Biden to win by being in the race.

Will progressives call for Sanders to drop out to stop Biden? It is only fair since a lot of atlas folks were asking Warren to step down when Sanders was ahead in a couple of polls.

...

Oh wait, I posted this a few weeks too early/late. My bad.

These kinds of arguments are a little ridiculous for a number of reasons often talked about around here (like there actually being differences between the voters who support Sanders vs Warren, many Sanders supporters liking Biden as their #2 and not Warren, ect), but that all goes out the window and is ignored when there's another chance to snipe.

In other words, stop arguing in such simplistic, 'electability' terms and maybe people will take you seriously.

[izixs]

I get the sense that Warren is trying to play the long game - keeping a lower profile and maintaining a hyper-focus on policy while not going negative on her fellow competitors. She has also invested plenty of resources in the early states, and her standing in the polls has increased. Time will tell if this will be enough to win.

I'd say it gives her a better chance then happening into a perfect gottcha moment for Biden in a debate that gives her, at best, a few weeks of a poll boost, or something similar. There are many differences between Democratic and Republican voters, but the flavor of the month issue where someone gains and then loses a bunch of support due to a temporary boost in positive coverage is a gamble. And one someone like Warren is smart to not seek out, instead relying on more solid campaign fundamentals to get a solid base that will withstand negative news events and for which a positive news event can boost off of.

[izixs]

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 such a nonsensical and bizarre attitude. Your logic seems to be this:

Democrats -> To much associating with the rich
Therefore: Must be punished
Options for punishment:
-Don't vote: Pro-Democrats won't get your vote, no association will rich people Con-Not enough suffering
-Vote 3rd party: Pro-Democrats won't get your vote, some association with rich people but not as much then Democrats, Con-Not enough suffering
-Vote Republican: Pro-Democrats won't get your vote, sufficient suffering, Con-way more associating with the rich than Democrats

Choice: Republicans, reason -> To maximally punish Democrats for association with the rich, vote for the party MAXIMALLY associated with the rich!

Aka: This is just so... so... dumb.

Okay, okay, ignoring the massive evidence showing the Democratic party, and a number of candidates for many different offices, working hard to actually have a broad funding base so they're explicitly not beholden to the upper class...

All of this argument... its... This is like... shooting yourself in the foot isn't good enough, you gotta saw off both of legs and at least one arm. Two if you can manage it. This is the kind of behavior you engage in if you are a time traveler from an alternative time line and haven't bothered to do any research on how things diverged from your home time line since 1888. And this is the kind of argument you can only make if you are in fact lying through your teeth, because otherwise it makes no damn sense at all.

So yeah... I don't think anyone should believe you about anything, ever. Because it is quite clear you have no ability to argue in good faith or the willingness to give people a straight answer about what you actually believe.

And I gotta believe you are lying to us, because the alternative is way less flattering in its connotations. I'd rather believe you think we're stupid, than for you to actually be such.

[izixs]

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.

[izixs]

1. This ain't Obama saying this, it is two people who worked for him. So... it is kind of manipulative to cite Obama in the title of the article as it implies that he's approving of such statements.

2. These two being critical are actually kind of terrible and are basically butthurt that someone they don't like is being successful at something.

So yeah, no reason to take these twerps seriously.

[izixs]

Three reasons Warren is totally unelectable.
1 - her senate result she performed terribly in republican areas in Massachusetts. Democrats out performed her in same districts across massachusetts. She will be disaster with uneducated voters. In places she underperformed are the same places a democrat needs to win in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Colorado.
2 - her Massachusetts history is an anchor on any democratic nominee. Nobody that is democratic does well.
3 - Trump will crush her. She will do well with crazy college educated young people but to working people who are doing well won't vote for her.

I keep hearing these items. These assertions. For instance, the claim that someone being too democratic is auto-magically going to do poorly. And I'm just like, ohhhh yeeeaaaah, this is concern trolling.

[izixs]

Age can't explain why she is doing so poorly.

Why not?

Blacks have little variation in their percentage of the population by age,

Absolutely false. There are multiple pretty obvious examples of how this is not true, the 2016 D primaries being one of the best examples. You're lying through your teeth.



(source:  Huge Split Between Older and Younger Blacks in the Democratic Primary
Perry Bacon Jr., NBC News, May 28, 2016)

and Bernie is killing it with Hispanics by a margin that would override any age adjustment.

Erm... source? This claim is especially dubious as the Hispanic population is so young-skewed and adults are such lower-propensity voters that any age adjustment needs to be massive.

An early look at the 2020 electorate
Anthony Cillufo and Richard Fry, Pew Research Center, January 30, 2019

These post-Millennials are on track to be more racially and ethnically diverse than their predecessors: In 2020, Gen Z eligible voters are expected to be 55% white and 45% nonwhite, including 21% Hispanic, 14% black, and 4% Asian or Pacific Islander. By comparison, the Boomer and older electorate is projected to be about three-quarters white (74%).

Overall I give you a D. Show more of your work next time.

Thanks for accusing me of lying. Such a good look for you Warren supporters. Of course younger blacks vote more for Bernie than older blacks. No sh**t. But their percentage of the electorate should be roughly the same. I said blacks, not nonwhite.

Attempting to move the goal post is going to cost you points. But will it be to a D- or a straight up F I wonder?

Also... you do realize that if someone thinks your lying, they might accuse you of lying. And that isn't an unfair attack in that case. Right? Instead of being instantly defensive and crying oh you're just a meanie, maybe try to figure out why they think you're making up crap?