Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[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.

[Heebie Jeebie]

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

I think the broad outlines of her plan matter, but I also think it's dumb to continually harp on how her numbers don't add up.  She wants to aggressively pursue Medicare for All, but she also desperately wants to avoid the impression that middle class taxes will go up.  She wants "big, structural change," but she's conscious of how those ambitions have to be presented to the public.  She's also committed to her image as professional wonk, as a planner.  That's really all we need to know.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The IRS can indeed go after rich tax cheats.  Under the Trump administration, they have deliberately changed their priorities away from auditing wealthy people and toward auditing poor people.  This is something that can be changed with by executive order without any need of Congress.

The reason the IRS is targeting poors is that their tax returns take less effort to audit and thus on purely fiscal grounds, it's the most effective use of their limited budget. To go after more of the more complicated returns will require Congressional action to restore funding for audits.

Nah. The President can just pull funding from somewhere else to spend on IRS audits, now that Congress has relinquished the power of the purse to the Executive Branch.

/s

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The reason the IRS is targeting poors is that their tax returns take less effort to audit and thus on purely fiscal grounds, it's the most effective use of their limited budget. To go after more of the more complicated returns will require Congressional action to restore funding for audits.

 Republicans created this scenario, this is what they want by design. Let their wealthy donors skate and punish the poor.

 There is much more money to be recovered and bigger penalties if you go after rich tax cheats. The impotence to do so is a political will problem and not truly a fiscal one.

Agreed, but that's all the more reason not to use hypothetical numbers from improved tax compliance as a funding source for any spending (or tax cut) proposal.

Her other proposed ways to pay for M4A are also problematic and/or simply idiotic.

[Progressive Pessimist]

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.

I agree with that, and it's why I'm not obsessing over the details of this plan, or any other Democrats' plans (though I still wish Warren would abandon the abolition of private insurance aspect). Something this ambitious will not happen anyway, even if the Democrats do take the Senate back in 2020 by some miracle. But it does additionally show that Democrats are held, and also hold themselves, to a different standard from Republicans.

Anyone remember Trump's health care plan? "We're going to have the best health care, and everyone will be covered. It will be better than Obamacare!" Three years later, he hasn't done s*** with health care other than trying to take it away from millions of Americans back in 2017, yet people still don't care.

[Beet]

The reason the IRS is targeting poors is that their tax returns take less effort to audit and thus on purely fiscal grounds, it's the most effective use of their limited budget. To go after more of the more complicated returns will require Congressional action to restore funding for audits.

 Republicans created this scenario, this is what they want by design. Let their wealthy donors skate and punish the poor.

 There is much more money to be recovered and bigger penalties if you go after rich tax cheats. The impotence to do so is a political will problem and not truly a fiscal one.

Agreed, but that's all the more reason not to use hypothetical numbers from improved tax compliance as a funding source for any spending (or tax cut) proposal.

Her other proposed ways to pay for M4A are also problematic and/or simply idiotic.

Conversely, putting tax compliance in the plan genius because it highlights the massive revenue lost from rich tax cheats, as you and GP270 have been doing just now. This is all stuff that we should be doing anyway.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

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

[Heebie Jeebie]

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

I consider myself a centrist, but you're right. Bill Nelson can STFU.

[Heebie Jeebie]

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1192141611729408008

I wonder if this will help Warren with black voters.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Not surprising.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

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

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

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

And Andy Beshear ran on a fairly liberal platform (at least for most red state Dems) and won in Kentucky. Your point?

[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.

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1192141611729408008

I wonder if this will help Warren with black voters.

I still don't think that The Squad, and Pressley especially among them, are as mainstream as we or the GOP may think they are.

[Saint Milei]

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1192141611729408008

I wonder if this will help Warren with black voters.

Im not surprised by a post like this.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

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

And Andy Beshear ran on a fairly liberal platform (at least for most red state Dems) and won in Kentucky. Your point?

I saw lots of people trying to SHUT UP, CENTRIST Nelson on this one, but it's a pretty tough sell to say that Nelson lost because he was insufficiently progressive.

Maybe that wasn't the point of your post. If it wasn't, then I apologize, but it sure seemed like that was (and is) the angle you're driving at.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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

And Andy Beshear ran on a fairly liberal platform (at least for most red state Dems) and won in Kentucky. Your point?

I saw lots of people trying to SHUT UP, CENTRIST Nelson on this one, but it's a pretty tough sell to say that Nelson lost because he was insufficiently progressive.

Maybe that wasn't the point of your post. If it wasn't, then I apologize, but it sure seemed like that was (and is) the angle you're driving at.

Maybe not too centrist exactly, but he almost certainly lost because he was not sufficiently attentive to the concerns of ethnic minorities in his state.  Which is not really a charge that could be brought against the other Senate Dems that lost.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

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

And Andy Beshear ran on a fairly liberal platform (at least for most red state Dems) and won in Kentucky. Your point?

I saw lots of people trying to SHUT UP, CENTRIST Nelson on this one, but it's a pretty tough sell to say that Nelson lost because he was insufficiently progressive.

Maybe that wasn't the point of your post. If it wasn't, then I apologize, but it sure seemed like that was (and is) the angle you're driving at.

You're right, it wasn't the point of my post. My point is that Nelson shouldn't be talking about what wins elections at all because he's a loser.

If Sinema or Collin Peterson made the same comments, I'd still disagree (based on things I've already said), but they at least won last year. They have credibility on the issue.

[W]

The Pressley endorsement isn't insignificant, however I'm not sure if it will have any real impact. With Pressley being Massachusetts and declining to endorse until now, it's not too much of a shocker however Pressley has always been a bit more establishment than the rest of the Squad, her primary challenge wasn't so much ideological. Also notable that she is eligible to be Vice President, although I very much doubt that Warren would pick her that posturing certainly ups her chances.

[Tintrlvr]

The Pressley endorsement isn't insignificant, however I'm not sure if it will have any real impact. With Pressley being Massachusetts and declining to endorse until now, it's not too much of a shocker however Pressley has always been a bit more establishment than the rest of the Squad, her primary challenge wasn't so much ideological. Also notable that she is eligible to be Vice President, although I very much doubt that Warren would pick her that posturing certainly ups her chances.

Warren actually can’t pick Pressley; the MA electors would be forbidden from voting for both of them under the 12th amendment.

[Wiz in Wis]

The Pressley endorsement isn't insignificant, however I'm not sure if it will have any real impact. With Pressley being Massachusetts and declining to endorse until now, it's not too much of a shocker however Pressley has always been a bit more establishment than the rest of the Squad, her primary challenge wasn't so much ideological. Also notable that she is eligible to be Vice President, although I very much doubt that Warren would pick her that posturing certainly ups her chances.

Warren actually can’t pick Pressley; the MA electors would be forbidden from voting for both of them under the 12th amendment.

If the argument is that a progressive African American woman should be added to Warren's ticket (and I would not make that arguement), then there are other, better choices out there. (Gwen Moore, Joyce Beatty, Jahana Hayes, Lucy McBath, Stacey Abrams, and obvi Kamala)

[Heebie Jeebie]

https://twitter.com/NelStamp/status/1192461423936507905

[GP270watch]

 Bill Gates is scared of Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax.

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1192237965113790466

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Bill Gates is scared of Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax.

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1192237965113790466

Poor Bill Gates. If he got taxed $100 billion, he'd have to live off of just a measly $7 billion. How tragic.

[KaiserDave]

Bill Gates is scared of Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax.

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1192237965113790466

That Warren tweet will do a good job triggering rose twitter.