Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

I'm voting warren now. Bernie lost me when he said he wouldn't abolish the filibuster. How else does he expect to get single payer/free college etc.?

[PSOL]

I'm voting warren now. Bernie lost me when he said he wouldn't abolish the filibuster. How else does he expect to get single payer/free college etc.?

Sanders knows nothing on how actual policy is passed, lollygagging his entire senate career. What exactly were you expecting?

[Heebie Jeebie]

I'm voting warren now. Bernie lost me when he said he wouldn't abolish the filibuster. How else does he expect to get single payer/free college etc.?

A Political Revolution^tm?

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I'm voting warren now. Bernie lost me when he said he wouldn't abolish the filibuster. How else does he expect to get single payer/free college etc.?

I can't comprehend why anyone would treat opinions on the finer details of Senate procedure as a litmus test for a presidential candidate. That's not how our government works.

In general, we don't seem to be treating policy knowledge as a litmus test at all for a presidential candidate, which really shouldn't be how government works.

[OkThen]

This is not directly campaign related but does provide some possible insight now that we're in the election season. Warren wrote AOC's profile for this year's Time 100.

http://time.com/collection/100-most-influential-people-2019/5567752/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/

[Heebie Jeebie]

I'm voting warren now. Bernie lost me when he said he wouldn't abolish the filibuster. How else does he expect to get single payer/free college etc.?

I can't comprehend why anyone would treat opinions on the finer details of Senate procedure as a litmus test for a presidential candidate. That's not how our government works.

This isn't just a "finer detail of Senate procedure."  If you're on this site, you know the role of the filibuster in our legislative/administrative process.  It's counter-majoritarian.  It's antidemocratic.  It's one of the main reasons our system is so dysfunctional.  Sanders knows all this too, and for him to still oppose its abolition means that he doesn't care about actually passing legislation or about democratic accountability. 

[YE]

I'm voting warren now. Bernie lost me when he said he wouldn't abolish the filibuster. How else does he expect to get single payer/free college etc.?

Reconciliation.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I'm voting warren now. Bernie lost me when he said he wouldn't abolish the filibuster. How else does he expect to get single payer/free college etc.?

Reconciliation.

Reconciliation can only enact changes to taxes and spending.  As any expert in Senate procedure will tell you, it’s a terrible legislative process. It forces the majority to make laws without being able to change regulations.  Reconciliation would probably prevent Medicare-for-all or any real single-payer plan.  Any attempt to break up the financial industry, increase the minimum wage, or pass any other major reform would be completely ineligible under budget reconciliation procedures.  Using reconciliation to pursue big, party-defining goals without the threat of a filibuster but within the cage created by the Byrd Rule and other procedures can force Congress into some odd policy design choices.  You can believe that the outcomes produced by those policy design choices are worth their kludgy nature. Or, you can be serious about governing and believe that this is a reason to just eliminate the filibuster entirely. 

[John Dule]

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

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

[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?

[John Dule]

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?

Tyranny is an active undertaking. If you want to enact sweeping welfare expansion, and someone prevents you from doing so, that does not make them a "tyrant."

[Beet]

I'm voting warren now. Bernie lost me when he said he wouldn't abolish the filibuster. How else does he expect to get single payer/free college etc.?

I can't comprehend why anyone would treat opinions on the finer details of Senate procedure as a litmus test for a presidential candidate. That's not how our government works.

This isn't just a "finer detail of Senate procedure."  If you're on this site, you know the role of the filibuster in our legislative/administrative process.  It's counter-majoritarian.  It's antidemocratic.  It's one of the main reasons our system is so dysfunctional.  Sanders knows all this too, and for him to still oppose its abolition means that he doesn't care about actually passing legislation or about democratic accountability. 

It is about the finer details: Sander's views on the filibuster are idiosyncratic. He's taking heat only because he refuses to endorse the exact procedural bullet points that other candidates have lifted from the same activist circles that inspire blithe denunciations such as the one that you regurgitate half-digested in your post.

All of which, by the way, has more relevance if he loses this election and remains in the Senate. How does anyone agitating for filibuster reform to become an executive priority expect the president to dictate procedure to the Senate?

Surely you can't believe that this is an issue with widespread electoral appeal. Then again, we also have candidates who would like to center these primaries on reparations or gun control...

No one is "centering" this in their campaign. Trump already opposes the filibuster for when the GOP is in the majority. A Democratic candidate still supporting it if their party gets into the majority is unilateral disarmament.

However, if you are one of the subset of voters who cares about substantive legislation, it is very important to you. And it's not about the president dictating to anyone, but bringing this issue out in the open and campaigning on it discussing it, so that a groundwork has been laid when and if the Dems retake the Senate. Warren's CAMPAIGN is already having an effect. She was the first candidate to come out against the filibuster on April 5. Less than a week later, Schumer is already showing signs of changing his stance.

[Shadows]

I'm voting warren now. Bernie lost me when he said he wouldn't abolish the filibuster. How else does he expect to get single payer/free college etc.?

Neither Sanders not Warren can abolish the filibuster. Not even half the Democrats in the Senate are ready to do so.

Unlike Warren Sanders is a smart politician & knows this kind of reckless talk of abolishing the filibuster before even the 1st primary debate helps no-one. That talk comes when Democrats have atleast 53-55 odd votes & out of those 45-50 odd are super progressive Senators who are ready to abolish the filibuster to push through progressive legislation.

Warren has pushed like a dozen policy ideas none of which have much support or have got buzz like Medicare for all or 15$ Min Wage or Free Tuition has. None of her proposals will pass & she has no idea.

Anyways she is a good candidate & her voice is needed in the debate stage to make her ideas heard even though he has no grassroots support & has no chance of winning & has terrible political instincts.

[Beet]

No one is "centering" this in their campaign. Trump already opposes the filibuster for when the GOP is in the majority. A Democratic candidate still supporting it if their party gets into the majority is unilateral disarmament.

However, if you are one of the subset of voters who cares about substantive legislation, it is very important to you. And it's not about the president dictating to anyone, but bringing this issue out in the open and campaigning on it discussing it, so that a groundwork has been laid when and if the Dems retake the Senate. Warren's CAMPAIGN is already having an effect. She was the first candidate to come out against the filibuster on April 5. Less than a week later, Schumer is already showing signs of changing his stance.

There's some bias in approaching this issue as a blue state voter: We have more to fear from enhanced federal power than we do to gain. Prospects for everything from paid family leave to all-payer rate setting are better in the states than they are at the federal level.

I would prefer not to fear for the future of abortion rights, health insurance regulations, or prison reform in New York or Vermont. The filibuster does more to protect those goals than it does to hinder them. Why on God's green earth should we entrust greater power to a bare majority in a chamber dominated by out-of-touch geriatrics and red-state jackals?

Warren's push for a majoritarian Senate is as facile and short-sighted as the rest of her agenda. The dysfunction at the CFPB says more about what her ideas than an avalanche of white papers. It's a shame that other candidates feel pressured to keep up, as they would be better off ignoring her.

Progressives, all else equal, advocate change whereas conservatives want to paralyze the government. Thus the filibuster which paralyzed the federal government helps conservatives more. Also, a lot of minorities and other poor folk live in red states. Federal action is their only hope.

The CFPB got back $12 billion for consumers. I'm fine with that.

[PSOL]

No one is "centering" this in their campaign. Trump already opposes the filibuster for when the GOP is in the majority. A Democratic candidate still supporting it if their party gets into the majority is unilateral disarmament.

However, if you are one of the subset of voters who cares about substantive legislation, it is very important to you. And it's not about the president dictating to anyone, but bringing this issue out in the open and campaigning on it discussing it, so that a groundwork has been laid when and if the Dems retake the Senate. Warren's CAMPAIGN is already having an effect. She was the first candidate to come out against the filibuster on April 5. Less than a week later, Schumer is already showing signs of changing his stance.

There's some bias in approaching this issue as a blue state voter: We have more to fear from enhanced federal power than we do to gain. Prospects for everything from paid family leave to all-payer rate setting are better in the states than they are at the federal level.

I would prefer not to fear for the future of abortion rights, health insurance regulations, or prison reform in New York or Vermont. The filibuster does more to protect those goals than it does to hinder them. Why on God's green earth should we entrust greater power to a bare majority in a chamber dominated by out-of-touch geriatrics and red-state jackals?

Warren's push for a majoritarian Senate is as facile and short-sighted as the rest of her agenda. The dysfunction at the CFPB says more about what her ideas than an avalanche of white papers. It's a shame that other candidates feel pressured to keep up, as they would be better off ignoring her.

Progressives, all else equal, advocate change whereas conservatives want to paralyze the government. Thus the filibuster which paralyzed the federal government helps conservatives more. Also, a lot of minorities and other poor folk live in red states. Federal action is their only hope.

The CFPB got back $12 billion for consumers. I'm fine with that.

On point Beet, the CFPB was working just fine before the current administration gutted it. She actually has done things, instead of saying so, that she will rebuild the middle class.

[Beet]

No one is "centering" this in their campaign. Trump already opposes the filibuster for when the GOP is in the majority. A Democratic candidate still supporting it if their party gets into the majority is unilateral disarmament.

However, if you are one of the subset of voters who cares about substantive legislation, it is very important to you. And it's not about the president dictating to anyone, but bringing this issue out in the open and campaigning on it discussing it, so that a groundwork has been laid when and if the Dems retake the Senate. Warren's CAMPAIGN is already having an effect. She was the first candidate to come out against the filibuster on April 5. Less than a week later, Schumer is already showing signs of changing his stance.

There's some bias in approaching this issue as a blue state voter: We have more to fear from enhanced federal power than we do to gain. Prospects for everything from paid family leave to all-payer rate setting are better in the states than they are at the federal level.

I would prefer not to fear for the future of abortion rights, health insurance regulations, or prison reform in New York or Vermont. The filibuster does more to protect those goals than it does to hinder them. Why on God's green earth should we entrust greater power to a bare majority in a chamber dominated by out-of-touch geriatrics and red-state jackals?

Warren's push for a majoritarian Senate is as facile and short-sighted as the rest of her agenda. The dysfunction at the CFPB says more about what her ideas than an avalanche of white papers. It's a shame that other candidates feel pressured to keep up, as they would be better off ignoring her.

Progressives, all else equal, advocate change whereas conservatives want to paralyze the government.

Republicans have been the radical party for decades. They're the ones guided by a vision of transforming society from the top down, not Democrats. If an actual conservative has any place in US politics, it is not within the GOP.

I respectfully disagree. The Republicans only care about looting the government. They don't give a crap if any major legislation like Medicare for All, Green New Deal, Housing Reform, or Child Care passes. As long as their lobbyists can get what they want in routine bipartisan bills, tax cuts, and by influencing regulators they are fine. All they care about is satisfying their donors and solving no real problems while waving the red flag of racism in front of their base.

The progressives, on the other hand, would be very unhappy if the government took no action on things like health care, climate change, and the like.

That's not exactly true, as the CFPB's authority was curbed in part by the judiciary. Moreover, its failure to survive in the face of sabotage from the Trump administration stands in contrast with other sections of the federal bureaucracy.

A regulatory agency that cannot survive a hostile executive and that doesn't pass constitutional muster is policy failure, even if we ignore the mixed reviews that it received during the Obama adminstration.

I'd say the DoJ, EPA, DOE, DHS, and more etc. have been sabotaged quite effectively by the Trump administration.

[OkThen]

Warren is the first 2020 candidate to explicitly call for impeachment...

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1119331294486368264

[Sestak]

Warren is the first 2020 candidate to explicitly call for impeachment...

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1119331294486368264

I mean, technically, yeah. The proper process of indicting a sitting president and giving them a trial is impeachment.

The problem is of course that most people think impeachment = removal, meaning that Trump can fearmonger with it.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I realize that no one cares about this, but has anyone told Warren that she's running for an executive position rather than a legislative one?

It's really odd to watch a sitting Senator center her campaign on what she's better positioned to do in her current office than she would be as a president.

Technically speaking, if Presidents only focused on what they're supposed to be doing as President, all we'd have would be primarily foreign policy debates and how things like the DoJ or the park service are administrated.

[OneJ]

Warren is the first 2020 candidate to explicitly call for impeachment...

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1119331294486368264

I got an email from her campaign on this matter. Why is it worth bringing it up you might ask? There is no “Donate” button in that email.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I didn't want Sanders or Warren, but if any of the socialist candidates, would win, I wanted it to be her.

She really blew it and should of ran in 2016

[Progressive Pessimist]

I didn't want Sanders or Warren, but if any of the socialist candidates, would win, I wanted it to be her.

She really blew it and should of ran in 2016

Like most potential candidates, I don't think she wanted to run against Clinton. Though had Clinton not sought the nomination in 2016, Warren definitely would have been one of the candidates. It probably would have been a Booker vs. Warren primary.

[Pericles]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/19/elizabeth-warren-black-voters-1282642

The Massachusetts senator launched into a brief history lesson on African-American homebuyers being rejected outside designated areas, black families getting hit hardest by subprime mortgages and foreclosures during the 2008 crash, and black homeownership still lagging far behind whites. “That’s a problem, and it’s a race problem,” Warren thundered, emphasizing “race” as the crowd erupted into applause. “And we need to attack it head on.”


Warren is stuck in single digits in national polls and is being overshadowed by white male rivals like Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg. But her consistent attention to racial disparities — and her truckful of policy proposals to fix them across every economic issue — is drawing praise from a critical voting bloc that could eventually pay dividends: African-Americans, and especially African-American women.

[Heebie Jeebie]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/19/elizabeth-warren-black-voters-1282642

When Elizabeth Warren got a question on housing discrimination at a campaign event this week, she went into full wonk mode — and the diverse crowd packed into a middle-school auditorium ate it up.

The Massachusetts senator launched into a brief history lesson on African-American homebuyers being rejected outside designated areas, black families getting hit hardest by subprime mortgages and foreclosures during the 2008 crash, and black homeownership still lagging far behind whites. “That’s a problem, and it’s a race problem,” Warren thundered, emphasizing “race” as the crowd erupted into applause. “And we need to attack it head on.”


Warren is stuck in single digits in national polls and is being overshadowed by white male rivals like Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg. But her consistent attention to racial disparities — and her truckful of policy proposals to fix them across every economic issue — is drawing praise from a critical voting bloc that could eventually pay dividends: African-Americans, and especially African-American women.

Of all the candidates, Warren seems to be the one who is most consciously trying to appeal to all three wings of the party:  progressives, moderates, and minorities/pluralists--tha's a hard trick to pull off.  But her campaign is substantive and deliberate, and I think she's going to have real staying power.  I'm not saying she's likely to win, but people are underestimating her at the moment. 

[GP270watch]

I have a feeling Warren will over-perform her poll numbers. There are so many freaking people running and I have no idea who will win. But I do believe Warren is doing better than current polling is showing.