Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[Rookie Yinzer]

Wasn't Warren a registered Republican till mid 90s? Did she support Reagan the person who literally waged a war on poor people & encouraged racial polarization.

Her platform is good but unattainable. Public Option for Drugs is not just unimplementable but would violate multiple international norms of trade. Warren wasn't even supporting Universal Healthcare a year or so back but now is trying to suddenly come up with half a dozen policies to gather the Sanders' space. She will have to explain everything including her support for the military industrial complex & 700B $ in defence budget & so on.

Is this what you’ll be doing to anyone who can threaten Bernie’s coalition? I thought she was a Bernie ally now she’s a demon to y’all.

[OneJ]

Wasn't Warren a registered Republican till mid 90s? Did she support Reagan the person who literally waged a war on poor people & encouraged racial polarization.

Her platform is good but unattainable. Public Option for Drugs is not just unimplementable but would violate multiple international norms of trade. Warren wasn't even supporting Universal Healthcare a year or so back but now is trying to suddenly come up with half a dozen policies to gather the Sanders' space. She will have to explain everything including her support for the military industrial complex & 700B $ in defence budget & so on.

But instead, you had people being pressed on HRC being a Goldwater girl.

[Woody]

Warren sounded fake during the press conference after the announcement. Every question she got she made it about herself, using her same talking points (the people are sick of Washington, wealthy people control everything). Some guy asks her about her electabillity, then she suddenly starts babbling about how poor her family was (WTF?) Another example is when she gets asked if she would do mud slinging (essentially hitting back) against Trump in the general election, instead of answering the question she dodges it and starts ranting about rich people.
She is desperately trying to discourage Bernie from entering the race, solidifying the progressive vote early on. This explains why she joined this early.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Wasn't Warren a registered Republican till mid 90s? Did she support Reagan the person who literally waged a war on poor people & encouraged racial polarization.

Her platform is good but unattainable. Public Option for Drugs is not just unimplementable but would violate multiple international norms of trade. Warren wasn't even supporting Universal Healthcare a year or so back but now is trying to suddenly come up with half a dozen policies to gather the Sanders' space. She will have to explain everything including her support for the military industrial complex & 700B $ in defence budget & so on.

But instead, you had people being pressed on HRC being a Goldwater girl.

I was wondering why this post went unanswered:

So does Warren have to answer why she was a Republican well into her 40’s like Hillary had to explain being a low information Goldwater Girl following her father in high school?

Warren was their girl when they didn’t have a credible candidate to take on Hillary in 2016.

[brucejoel99]

What would become of her Senate seat?

Republicans would take it thanks to Gov. Baker !

I really, really don't think Massachusetts would elect Baker to a Senate seat, and he knows this.

How do you know what he thinks, can you read his mind? The truth is he can win, but ignorant hacks like you would probably get a heart attack by the tought of Massachusetts electing a republican for senate, so you guys make up dumb excuses while talking about flipping ultra-red states like Kansas, Montana, Texas etc,,.
I am 100% certain Baker would make this race competitive.

No, he can't, & I swear, you're either trolling or you're just a hack &, regardless of which it is, it's getting really old at this point, so please stop.

What you fail to comprehend is that Baker only got re-elected b/c he was running for Governor in a state that likes crossing over for competent Republican governors. That's why he's popular! But Massachusetts isn't crazy: they wouldn't elect him, or any Republican, to a federal office in a regular election; no Republican has won a regular Senate election in Massachusetts since 1972. Baker, like any of his competent Republican predecessors not named Bill Weld, isn't gonna try & commit career suicide for a lost cause.

Baker is popular at the state level, but were he to run federally, the Democrats would tarnish him, tie him to Trump (which, as I'll explain in a sec, will truly be his death knell), & nationalize the race, Baker would be lucky to lose to Markey (one of the most popular Democratic politicians in Massachusetts) by 53% to 47%, & that's the absolute best chance I'd be willing to give Baker.

Oh, & your pro-Baker hackery is completely destroyed by the fact that Trump is President. You fail to understand that Massachusetts is anti-Trump in a way that it just hasn't opposed other Republicans. So no GOP candidate, even King Charlie, is going to win if that win were to mean that Trump would have another vote in Washington. It's just not gonna happen, & it's *esp.* not gonna happen in an election where Trump himself will be at the top of the ballot.

Also...

Also, btw, we already flipped Kansas and Montana, we’re not ‘talkinng’ about it. ( ;

[Shadows]

Wasn't Warren a registered Republican till mid 90s? Did she support Reagan the person who literally waged a war on poor people & encouraged racial polarization.

Her platform is good but unattainable. Public Option for Drugs is not just unimplementable but would violate multiple international norms of trade. Warren wasn't even supporting Universal Healthcare a year or so back but now is trying to suddenly come up with half a dozen policies to gather the Sanders' space. She will have to explain everything including her support for the military industrial complex & 700B $ in defence budget & so on.

Is this what you’ll be doing to anyone who can threaten Bernie’s coalition? I thought she was a Bernie ally now she’s a demon to y’all.

Elizabeth Warren was a phenomenal Senator, possible 3rd most progressive after Sanders & Merkley. She is a much better candidate than Booker or Harris or Beto from the point of enacting progressive legislation. And to be honest Beto or Harris or Booker seem atleast a shade more progressive than Clinton in 2016.

This is not 2016 & the standards are high. This isn't about who is progressive because quite a few will be but overall from everything to authenticity to electability to charisma etc. Primaries are were everything will be scrutinised including Sanders who has also been  attacked relentlessly.

In the GE, Warren vs Trump is an easy choice. Real change is possible in primaries. This is not an open field of Warren vs Trump & no scrutiny. Everyone will get their deserved criticism.

[Shadows]

Wasn't Warren a registered Republican till mid 90s? Did she support Reagan the person who literally waged a war on poor people & encouraged racial polarization.

Her platform is good but unattainable. Public Option for Drugs is not just unimplementable but would violate multiple international norms of trade. Warren wasn't even supporting Universal Healthcare a year or so back but now is trying to suddenly come up with half a dozen policies to gather the Sanders' space. She will have to explain everything including her support for the military industrial complex & 700B $ in defence budget & so on.

But instead, you had people being pressed on HRC being a Goldwater girl.

I was wondering why this post went unanswered:

So does Warren have to answer why she was a Republican well into her 40’s like Hillary had to explain being a low information Goldwater Girl following her father in high school?

Warren was their girl when they didn’t have a credible candidate to take on Hillary in 2016.

Hillary Clinton running unopposed vs Hillary Clinton & Elizabeth Warren  is a no brainer. Warren would have been a great candidate in 2016 not just because no one was running. This is not 2016 anymore though.

It is overall very VERY good through that Warren is running with strong progressive policies some of which are brand new. There will be a competition of ideas & this will push the Dem party left.

Can you imagine Schumer or Pelosi etc watching these debates & atleast trying to grasp how left the presidential contenders are. At least till Iowa having more progressive candidates is very good. And everyone deserves to make their case !

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs

I'm sorry, I'm actually really starting to like Elizabeth Warren, she's very well spoken and dare I say, fairly charismatic? With some proper coaching of the Presidential level, I think she could easily go toe to toe with Trump in a debate.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Found in the youtube comments of a fox news video; which I obviously know is a dangerous place to purview, lol. But what the heck is this person even trying to say? Was there some great surge or female Presidential candidates in the 1920's?

[SN2903]

If Warren is the nominee I think this will happen: She is a super weak candidate.

[Da2017]

If Warren is the nominee I think this will happen: She is a super weak candidate.

No. Trump is also polarizing. Trump and Hillary were both weak candidates. I do think Warren would be one of the weaker candidates. Warren should easily take Minnesota and hold most possibly all the Clinton States and maybe add a Trump State. It take someone like Andrew Cuomo,but that's a stretch. I don't the Dems will be as complacent. 

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

If Warren is the nominee I think this will happen: She is a super weak candidate.

LOL. Warren is literally a perfect fit for Minnesota and ME/NH. Populist Progressive. And she'd also pretty easily take NV and CO. Take off your partisan goggles.

[Woody]

If Warren is the nominee I think this will happen: She is a super weak candidate.

A Warren vs Trump match would look more like this:

Trump: 357
Warren: 181
Trump holds the midwest and goes on the offensive in New England and the southwest. Warren does badly in the suburbs and black turnout is extremly low, which in turn makes her lose Virginia and Colorado.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If Warren is the nominee I think this will happen: She is a super weak candidate.

A Warren vs Trump match would look more like this:

Trump: 357
Warren: 181
Trump holds the midwest and goes on the offensive in New England and the southwest. Warren does badly in the suburbs and black turnout is extremly low, which in turn makes her lose Virginia and Colorado.

Can I have some of that powder you're sniffing? Because it seems like a helluva ride.

[BlueSwan]

Warren ticks off too many people. Without the cult-like following that Bernie had, I don't think she has a real shot at the nomination.

[JA]

[Ye We Can]

Lmao

[Mr. Morden]

More Warren hires:

https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/1081272535034015744
https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/1081273641621471232

[Mr. Morden]

The first question from the public asked at Warren's first stop in Iowa was about her DNA test:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/05/elizabeth-warren-supporters-question-why-mass-democrat-took-dna-test/2490438002/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Pandaguineapig]

The first question from the public asked at Warren's first stop in Iowa was about her DNA test:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/05/elizabeth-warren-supporters-question-why-mass-democrat-took-dna-test/2490438002/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lol, racism isn't the reason people go after her lies regarding being native American, it's the fact she lied about it to advance her career in academia

[Zaybay]

If Warren is the nominee I think this will happen: She is a super weak candidate.

A Warren vs Trump match would look more like this:

Trump: 357
Warren: 181
Trump holds the midwest and goes on the offensive in New England and the southwest. Warren does badly in the suburbs and black turnout is extremly low, which in turn makes her lose Virginia and Colorado.

Dear sir, I would really appreciate to try whatever you're puffing over there. It seems to be absolutely exquisite. I mean, wow, you either have to be extremely deluded or be snorting crack on steroids while downing 5 Liters of Scotch to get this map.

[IceSpear]

I find it amusing that a lot of the people who told anyone that would listen back in 2015/2016 "I'd support a woman for president! Just not Hillary! For instance, I would enthusiastically support Elizabeth Warren!" suddenly hate Warren now that she's actually running for president. How convenient.

[Joey1996]

I find it amusing that a lot of the people who told anyone that would listen back in 2015/2016 "I'd support a woman for president! Just not Hillary! For instance, I would enthusiastically support Elizabeth Warren!" suddenly hate Warren now that she's actually running for president. How convenient.

Who are these people?

[brucejoel99]

The first question from the public asked at Warren's first stop in Iowa was about her DNA test:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/05/elizabeth-warren-supporters-question-why-mass-democrat-took-dna-test/2490438002/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lol, racism isn't the reason people go after her lies regarding being native American, it's the fact she lied about it to advance her career in academia

No, actually, she didn't lie about being Native American or use it to further her career. You can keep repeating an already oft-repeated outright lie if you want, but it must be debunked.

Firstly, there's already a way of confirming Warren's ancestry: the DNA test she just took, which concluded that "while the vast majority of [Warren's] ancestry is European, the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in [her] pedigree, likely in the range of 6–10 generations ago." This confirms what genealogist Chris Child of the New England Historic Society found when he looked into Warren's background & found a document stating that she has a great-great-great-grandmother (i.e. 6 generations ago) who is Native American, which ancestry-wise would make her 1/32 Cherokee. Plus, she was told by her family that she's part-Cherokee while she was growing up in Oklahoma, & there's no way of proving she lied about her family history or what she was told as a child. To accuse Warren of lying about having Native American ancestry when there's nothing but evidence that proves she's telling the truth is nothing more than a political hit job.

Secondly, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Warren's perceived Native American ancestry played a role in advancing her career. Yes, in the 1990s, Harvard Law School touted then-professor Warren as being "Native American," but not only have several colleagues & employers (including Harvard) said her reported ethnic status played no role in her hiring, an investigation by The Boston Globe last year found "clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools." So she never furthered her career by using her heritage to gain advantage, either.

You can nonchalantly trot this vicious smear out while offering no evidence all you want, but know full well that it's just not true.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I find it amusing that a lot of the people who told anyone that would listen back in 2015/2016 "I'd support a woman for president! Just not Hillary! For instance, I would enthusiastically support Elizabeth Warren!" suddenly hate Warren now that she's actually running for president. How convenient.

Well, it's not because she's a woman, it's just she's loud and unlikeable, like all women once they start running.