Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[Koharu]

The debates clearly showed Clinton's focus as policy. The advertising was, I'll agree, not as policy focused. But Trump wasn't the policy focused one, that's for dang sure.

I actually love Warren and would love for her to win, but despite the policy differences, I'm afraid that Warren is Hillary 2.0, though amusingly AOC has helped some. Warren became the right's favorite punching bag when they couldn't go after Hillary, and even though there's no real substance to those attacks, it's still something that dirtied her in the general public's eyes. AOC has diverted that punching bag attention to some degree, which helps Warren in some small part, bit I'm afraid that sexism and her intelligence about policy will scare off voters the same way it did with Hillary. I love the future she envisions, but I feel like it's going to be an uphill battle for her.

[Rookie Yinzer]

The media focused on Clinton’s emails, false stories about the Clinton Foundation, and perpetuating the narrative that she was dying because she caught pneumonia.

Meanwhile, whether good or bad focusing on Trump’s comments on Mexicans and Muslims was literally elevating his policy positions and reinforcing them over and over again.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The media focused on Clinton’s emails, false stories about the Clinton Foundation, and perpetuating the narrative that she was dying because she caught pneumonia.

Meanwhile, whether good or bad focusing on Trump’s comments on Mexicans and Muslims was literally elevating his policy positions and reinforcing them over and over again.

Exactly. Maybe it's anecdotal but all I remember out of Clinton's campaign events when she wasn't forced to address Trump's latest controversy or her emails; was her discussing immigration reform, green energy, paid family leave, health care, and addressing student loan debt, among other things. Her campaign absolutely had policy ideas. I distinctly remember these, even in her ads. Was I watching a different election?

Trump talked about policy but not in any coherent way where it actually sounded like he knew what he was talking about. His policies were (and still are) basically just applause lines for his audience. Now, maybe one can assert that this was shrewd branding or marketing which maybe made them stick out better than Clinton *gasp* just talking about the specifics of her ideas. For example, I remember a tool on her website which displayed how one can refinance their student loan debt more easily. She discussed that during an event with Bernie Sanders. You think that would have attracted more attention. But really what I am trying to say here is that whenever anyone suggests that Trump is some kind of wonk, it's beyond laughable.

[GoTfan]

The media focused on Clinton’s emails, false stories about the Clinton Foundation, and perpetuating the narrative that she was dying because she caught pneumonia.

Meanwhile, whether good or bad focusing on Trump’s comments on Mexicans and Muslims was literally elevating his policy positions and reinforcing them over and over again.

So the media is responisble for everything that went wrong with Hillary's campaign?

[Rookie Yinzer]

The media focused on Clinton’s emails, false stories about the Clinton Foundation, and perpetuating the narrative that she was dying because she caught pneumonia.

Meanwhile, whether good or bad focusing on Trump’s comments on Mexicans and Muslims was literally elevating his policy positions and reinforcing them over and over again.

So the media is responisble for everything that went wrong with Hillary's campaign?

You have to be in opposition to everything I say? I just made a statement about how the media neglected Hillary’s policy positions and elevated Trump’s. Nothing more nothing less.

[GoTfan]

The media focused on Clinton’s emails, false stories about the Clinton Foundation, and perpetuating the narrative that she was dying because she caught pneumonia.

Meanwhile, whether good or bad focusing on Trump’s comments on Mexicans and Muslims was literally elevating his policy positions and reinforcing them over and over again.

So the media is responisble for everything that went wrong with Hillary's campaign?

You have to be in opposition to everything I say? I just made a statement about how the media neglected Hillary’s policy positions and elevated Trump’s. Nothing more nothing less.

You have to insist that Hillary's loss was not her fault at all? All I'm saying is that Hillary ran a campaign based on platitudes, as has been documented above. People aren't that stupid.

[Gustaf]

The media focused on Clinton’s emails, false stories about the Clinton Foundation, and perpetuating the narrative that she was dying because she caught pneumonia.

Meanwhile, whether good or bad focusing on Trump’s comments on Mexicans and Muslims was literally elevating his policy positions and reinforcing them over and over again.

So the media is responisble for everything that went wrong with Hillary's campaign?

You have to be in opposition to everything I say? I just made a statement about how the media neglected Hillary’s policy positions and elevated Trump’s. Nothing more nothing less.

You have to insist that Hillary's loss was not her fault at all? All I'm saying is that Hillary ran a campaign based on platitudes, as has been documented above. People aren't that stupid.

You Think people electing Donald Trump proves they aren't that stupid? How progressive.

[Heebie Jeebie]

The media focused on Clinton’s emails, false stories about the Clinton Foundation, and perpetuating the narrative that she was dying because she caught pneumonia.

Meanwhile, whether good or bad focusing on Trump’s comments on Mexicans and Muslims was literally elevating his policy positions and reinforcing them over and over again.

So the media is responisble for everything that went wrong with Hillary's campaign?

You have to be in opposition to everything I say? I just made a statement about how the media neglected Hillary’s policy positions and elevated Trump’s. Nothing more nothing less.

You have to insist that Hillary's loss was not her fault at all? All I'm saying is that Hillary ran a campaign based on platitudes, as has been documented above. People aren't that stupid.

Say what you want about the Clinton campaign, but it was effective and she was clearly winning right up until Comey intervened in the last few days prior to the election. Who knows?  Maybe a different strategy would have been more effective, but the strategy her campaign adapted was a winning one until outside forces scrambled the vote at the last minute.

[Sestak]

The media focused on Clinton’s emails, false stories about the Clinton Foundation, and perpetuating the narrative that she was dying because she caught pneumonia.

Meanwhile, whether good or bad focusing on Trump’s comments on Mexicans and Muslims was literally elevating his policy positions and reinforcing them over and over again.

So the media is responisble for everything that went wrong with Hillary's campaign?

You have to be in opposition to everything I say? I just made a statement about how the media neglected Hillary’s policy positions and elevated Trump’s. Nothing more nothing less.

You have to insist that Hillary's loss was not her fault at all? All I'm saying is that Hillary ran a campaign based on platitudes, as has been documented above. People aren't that stupid.

No one is saying that. It was a combination of factors. Some of those were the fault of her own campaign, but the way the media chose to paint the race undoubtedly had an effect.

[McGovernForPrez]

Up until recently I was ready to consider Warren my ideal candidate in a perfect world. I knew she wasn't the strongest GE contender but her ideology fit mine so well that I would've definitely had her as a second or third choice. Lately she's been making some moves that are making her more difficult to root for. A lot of her moves have demonstrated a sense of desperateness from her campaign and it just doesn't look good. On top of that her support for removing the filibuster has put any support I had for her in serious jeopardy. If she continues to push this issue I might even regret voting for her for Senate last year.

[Beet]

Up until recently I was ready to consider Warren my ideal candidate in a perfect world. I knew she wasn't the strongest GE contender but her ideology fit mine so well that I would've definitely had her as a second or third choice. Lately she's been making some moves that are making her more difficult to root for. A lot of her moves have demonstrated a sense of desperateness from her campaign and it just doesn't look good. On top of that her support for removing the filibuster has put any support I had for her in serious jeopardy. If she continues to push this issue I might even regret voting for her for Senate last year.

The filibuster is something that worked in a more congenial time but the clock is ticking on it. It'll be gone one way or another.

[Mr. Smith]

The media focused on Clinton’s emails, false stories about the Clinton Foundation, and perpetuating the narrative that she was dying because she caught pneumonia.

Meanwhile, whether good or bad focusing on Trump’s comments on Mexicans and Muslims was literally elevating his policy positions and reinforcing them over and over again.

So the media is responisble for everything that went wrong with Hillary's campaign?

You have to be in opposition to everything I say? I just made a statement about how the media neglected Hillary’s policy positions and elevated Trump’s. Nothing more nothing less.

You have to insist that Hillary's loss was not her fault at all? All I'm saying is that Hillary ran a campaign based on platitudes, as has been documented above. People aren't that stupid.

Say what you want about the Clinton campaign, but it was effective and she was clearly winning right up until Comey intervened in the last few days prior to the election. Who knows?  Maybe a different strategy would have been more effective, but the strategy her campaign adapted was a winning one until outside forces scrambled the vote at the last minute.

She wasn't winning. She was sparring to stay ahead, usually waiting for Trump to put foot-into-mouth and blow his leads granted to him by his spinning of the media.

It was a coin-flip, and Comey's timing simply landed the coin in Trump's favor. One more week would've flipped Arizona and The Southeast. A week before Comey likely would've meant the Midwest held. A week before P&*(syghazi would've likely landed the same result.

And in the end, the Senate and House were thrown under the bus with her strategy, which would've made Hillary a Bush Sr-esque lame-duck anyway.

[Heebie Jeebie]

The media focused on Clinton’s emails, false stories about the Clinton Foundation, and perpetuating the narrative that she was dying because she caught pneumonia.

Meanwhile, whether good or bad focusing on Trump’s comments on Mexicans and Muslims was literally elevating his policy positions and reinforcing them over and over again.

So the media is responisble for everything that went wrong with Hillary's campaign?

You have to be in opposition to everything I say? I just made a statement about how the media neglected Hillary’s policy positions and elevated Trump’s. Nothing more nothing less.

You have to insist that Hillary's loss was not her fault at all? All I'm saying is that Hillary ran a campaign based on platitudes, as has been documented above. People aren't that stupid.

Say what you want about the Clinton campaign, but it was effective and she was clearly winning right up until Comey intervened in the last few days prior to the election. Who knows?  Maybe a different strategy would have been more effective, but the strategy her campaign adapted was a winning one until outside forces scrambled the vote at the last minute.

She wasn't winning. She was sparring to stay ahead, usually waiting for Trump to put foot-into-mouth and blow his leads granted to him by his spinning of the media.

It was a coin-flip, and Comey's timing simply landed the coin in Trump's favor. One more week would've flipped Arizona and The Southeast. A week before Comey likely would've meant the Midwest held. A week before P&*(syghazi would've likely landed the same result.

And in the end, the Senate and House were thrown under the bus with her strategy, which would've made Hillary a Bush Sr-esque lame-duck anyway.

You're wrong.  I'm going to quote Mother Jones's Kevin Drum at length on this:

-----

All of the poll estimates look similar, but I’m going to use Sam Wang’s EV estimator because it gives a pretty sharp day-to-day look at the race. (Wang’s final estimate was wrong, of course, like pretty much everyone else’s, but don’t worry about that. What we’re interested in is the ups and downs.) First off, here are his daily estimates through the end of August:



With the brief exception of the July Comey presser, the race was amazingly stable. During the entire year, Clinton has a formidable lead that translates into 330-340 electoral votes. Now let’s pick up the story in September:



At the beginning of September, Clinton slumps following her “deplorables” comment and her stumble at the 9/11 memorial. After Trump’s shockingly bad performance at the first debate she starts to regain ground, and continues to gain ground when the Access Hollywood tape is released. By the end of October she’s back to where she started, with a big lead over Trump. THIS IS IMPORTANT: despite everything — weak fundamentals, the “deplorables” comment, her personal unpopularity, her mushy centrism, her allegedly terrible campaign — by the end of October she’s well ahead of Trump, just as she had been all year. It’s clear that 330-340 electoral votes is her baseline level of support.

On October 25, HHS announces that Obamacare premiums will go up substantially in the following year. This doesn’t appear to have any effect. Then, on October 28, Comey releases his letter. Clinton’s support plummets immediately, and there’s no time for it to recover. On November 8, Trump is elected president.

-----

There's more at this link, but the Clinton campaign was clearly runnning a winning strategy until Comey focked us all over.  https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/04/lets-talk-about-bubbles-and-james-comey/

[Beet]

Can a mod please break the derail off to the 2016 board? Kthnx.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Can a mod please break the derail off to the 2016 board? Kthnx.

No need.  I'm not going to continue this.

On topic:  Elizabeth Warren is great.

[Hollywood]

Being 100… I’m already asking myself whether Warren’s campaign is over? 

First, Warren is not like Clinton for the simple fact that her finance director left the campaign as a result of Warren’s decision to swear off soliciting money from wealthy donors during the primaries.  Clinton would never have sworn off money for any reason.  Despite her principles, Warren raised $6 million in the first quarter of 2019, which is lower than Bernie’s $18 million and Kamala Harris’ $12 million.  Reports indicate that party insiders aren’t willing to help her anymore, which means she can’t rely on the Democrat establishment for any support.  She doesn’t seem to want it.  However, she isn’t the only outsider candidate, as Bernie certainly owns that title.  So how does she create separation by defining her campaign and distinguishing herself from the field?

I’ve thought long and hard about possible scenarios for a Warren nomination.  I simply don’t have an answer.  There’s no way.  I’m giving her a non-zero chance.  She appeals to policy wonks, but there are plenty of policy wonks running.  It feels like her campaign can be summed up in a few short sentences: “Please like me. I have policies.  I hate Trump.  I hate him more than anyone in the world.  I’ll give you anything you want if you’ll just be my friend.  Do you want money?  Listen.  I’m desperate.  Don’t make me beg.  Okay.  I’ll beg.”

She simply has no appeal, and she doesn’t have a voter base. She’s not going to win old people.  That demographic belongs to Biden and Sanders.  She doesn’t poll well with people that no her or in her own state. The young, old, women, men, black, white, Hispanic, etc., etc., etc., don’t like her, and at best, consider her Ralph Nader.  You know.  The presidential candidate that most closely resembled air.  You knew he was there but you couldn’t see or hear him.  Her negatives are too high, and they are rising in the Democratic primary.  She’s not even the second choice of any of the candidates.  I’m told by people that she will do well in the debates, but I’ve never been impressed with her persuasive skills.  The number one issue for Democrats is “winning” and she doesn’t have the personality to assure anyone of a win.

Moreover, she’s not even comfortable in her own skin, and she’s desperate for the approval of every political-identity group.  I think we can skip over the whole Native American thing, and lying about submitting forms in which she indicated that she was a Native American.  Let’s get to the part where she promised African Americans reparations.  Do I have to say any more?  She is trying to go so far left for Democrat votes that she has essentially become unappealing to one of her strongest potential voters – old Democrats. 

Therefore, it’s over.  She might go all the way with it, but it’s done.  I’m honestly trying to find one thing that could salvage her campaign, but there isn’t anything concrete.  Whether its policy or platitudes, she doesn’t have the qualities to create that atmosphere.  That memorable moment.  She just doesn’t have “it”. 

[Mr. Smith]

Being 100… I’m already asking myself whether Warren’s campaign is over? 

First, Warren is not like Clinton for the simple fact that her finance director left the campaign as a result of Warren’s decision to swear off soliciting money from wealthy donors during the primaries.  Clinton would never have sworn off money for any reason.  Despite her principles, Warren raised $6 million in the first quarter of 2019, which is lower than Bernie’s $18 million and Kamala Harris’ $12 million.  Reports indicate that party insiders aren’t willing to help her anymore, which means she can’t rely on the Democrat establishment for any support.  She doesn’t seem to want it.  However, she isn’t the only outsider candidate, as Bernie certainly owns that title.  So how does she create separation by defining her campaign and distinguishing herself from the field?

I’ve thought long and hard about possible scenarios for a Warren nomination.  I simply don’t have an answer.  There’s no way.  I’m giving her a non-zero chance.  She appeals to policy wonks, but there are plenty of policy wonks running.  It feels like her campaign can be summed up in a few short sentences: “Please like me. I have policies.  I hate Trump.  I hate him more than anyone in the world.  I’ll give you anything you want if you’ll just be my friend.  Do you want money?  Listen.  I’m desperate.  Don’t make me beg.  Okay.  I’ll beg.”

She simply has no appeal, and she doesn’t have a voter base. She’s not going to win old people.  That demographic belongs to Biden and Sanders.  She doesn’t poll well with people that no her or in her own state. The young, old, women, men, black, white, Hispanic, etc., etc., etc., don’t like her, and at best, consider her Ralph Nader.  You know.  The presidential candidate that most closely resembled air.  You knew he was there but you couldn’t see or hear him.  Her negatives are too high, and they are rising in the Democratic primary.  She’s not even the second choice of any of the candidates.  I’m told by people that she will do well in the debates, but I’ve never been impressed with her persuasive skills.  The number one issue for Democrats is “winning” and she doesn’t have the personality to assure anyone of a win.

Moreover, she’s not even comfortable in her own skin, and she’s desperate for the approval of every political-identity group.  I think we can skip over the whole Native American thing, and lying about submitting forms in which she indicated that she was a Native American.  Let’s get to the part where she promised African Americans reparations.  Do I have to say any more?  She is trying to go so far left for Democrat votes that she has essentially become unappealing to one of her strongest potential voters – old Democrats. 

Therefore, it’s over.  She might go all the way with it, but it’s done.  I’m honestly trying to find one thing that could salvage her campaign, but there isn’t anything concrete.  Whether its policy or platitudes, she doesn’t have the qualities to create that atmosphere.  That memorable moment.  She just doesn’t have “it”. 

Huh,a nearly spot on post...no kidding.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Warren rolls out a new plan to impose a 7% tax on corporate profits above $100 million, “no loopholes or exemptions.” It would raise $1 trillion in revenue over a decade, per two UC Berkeley economists.  Warren’s tax proposals raise a ton of money while narrowly targeting extremely unsympathetic targets.  [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-11/warren-pushes-new-corporate-tax-on-profits-above-100-million

[GoTfan]

The media focused on Clinton’s emails, false stories about the Clinton Foundation, and perpetuating the narrative that she was dying because she caught pneumonia.

Meanwhile, whether good or bad focusing on Trump’s comments on Mexicans and Muslims was literally elevating his policy positions and reinforcing them over and over again.

So the media is responisble for everything that went wrong with Hillary's campaign?

You have to be in opposition to everything I say? I just made a statement about how the media neglected Hillary’s policy positions and elevated Trump’s. Nothing more nothing less.

You have to insist that Hillary's loss was not her fault at all? All I'm saying is that Hillary ran a campaign based on platitudes, as has been documented above. People aren't that stupid.

Say what you want about the Clinton campaign, but it was effective and she was clearly winning right up until Comey intervened in the last few days prior to the election. Who knows?  Maybe a different strategy would have been more effective, but the strategy her campaign adapted was a winning one until outside forces scrambled the vote at the last minute.

Of course! It's all Comey's  fault!

[Heebie Jeebie]

The media focused on Clinton’s emails, false stories about the Clinton Foundation, and perpetuating the narrative that she was dying because she caught pneumonia.

Meanwhile, whether good or bad focusing on Trump’s comments on Mexicans and Muslims was literally elevating his policy positions and reinforcing them over and over again.

So the media is responisble for everything that went wrong with Hillary's campaign?

You have to be in opposition to everything I say? I just made a statement about how the media neglected Hillary’s policy positions and elevated Trump’s. Nothing more nothing less.

You have to insist that Hillary's loss was not her fault at all? All I'm saying is that Hillary ran a campaign based on platitudes, as has been documented above. People aren't that stupid.

Say what you want about the Clinton campaign, but it was effective and she was clearly winning right up until Comey intervened in the last few days prior to the election. Who knows?  Maybe a different strategy would have been more effective, but the strategy her campaign adapted was a winning one until outside forces scrambled the vote at the last minute.

Of course! It's all Comey's  fault!

Not all his fault, no.  Russia, cable news, The New York Times, Bernie Sanders...they all share a lot of the blame too. And yeah, the Clinton campaign was hardly perfect, so Clinton and her people also share some of the blame. But it was mostly Corey's fault.

[Sestak]

Warren releases plan for an additional corporate tax.


Warren is proposing a “real corporate profits tax” that taxes reported profits above $100 million at 7% with no deductions allowed - companies are taxed on the same profit number they report to shareholders. Prevents them from deducting large profits down to no taxable profit. Would only have affected the ~1200 most profitable businesses in the country last year, and estimated to bring in $1T.

[Beet]

Being 100… I’m already asking myself whether Warren’s campaign is over? 

First, Warren is not like Clinton for the simple fact that her finance director left the campaign as a result of Warren’s decision to swear off soliciting money from wealthy donors during the primaries.  Clinton would never have sworn off money for any reason.  Despite her principles, Warren raised $6 million in the first quarter of 2019, which is lower than Bernie’s $18 million and Kamala Harris’ $12 million.  Reports indicate that party insiders aren’t willing to help her anymore, which means she can’t rely on the Democrat establishment for any support.  She doesn’t seem to want it.  However, she isn’t the only outsider candidate, as Bernie certainly owns that title.  So how does she create separation by defining her campaign and distinguishing herself from the field?

I’ve thought long and hard about possible scenarios for a Warren nomination.  I simply don’t have an answer.  There’s no way.  I’m giving her a non-zero chance.  She appeals to policy wonks, but there are plenty of policy wonks running.  It feels like her campaign can be summed up in a few short sentences: “Please like me. I have policies.  I hate Trump.  I hate him more than anyone in the world.  I’ll give you anything you want if you’ll just be my friend.  Do you want money?  Listen.  I’m desperate.  Don’t make me beg.  Okay.  I’ll beg.”

She simply has no appeal, and she doesn’t have a voter base. She’s not going to win old people.  That demographic belongs to Biden and Sanders.  She doesn’t poll well with people that no her or in her own state. The young, old, women, men, black, white, Hispanic, etc., etc., etc., don’t like her, and at best, consider her Ralph Nader.  You know.  The presidential candidate that most closely resembled air.  You knew he was there but you couldn’t see or hear him.  Her negatives are too high, and they are rising in the Democratic primary.  She’s not even the second choice of any of the candidates.  I’m told by people that she will do well in the debates, but I’ve never been impressed with her persuasive skills.  The number one issue for Democrats is “winning” and she doesn’t have the personality to assure anyone of a win.

Moreover, she’s not even comfortable in her own skin, and she’s desperate for the approval of every political-identity group.  I think we can skip over the whole Native American thing, and lying about submitting forms in which she indicated that she was a Native American.  Let’s get to the part where she promised African Americans reparations.  Do I have to say any more?  She is trying to go so far left for Democrat votes that she has essentially become unappealing to one of her strongest potential voters – old Democrats. 

Therefore, it’s over.  She might go all the way with it, but it’s done.  I’m honestly trying to find one thing that could salvage her campaign, but there isn’t anything concrete.  Whether its policy or platitudes, she doesn’t have the qualities to create that atmosphere.  That memorable moment.  She just doesn’t have “it”. 

This is just a bunch of random attacks on Warren that make no sense whatsoever.

[GP270watch]

 Warren has the best policy of any candidate and a track record of expertise and getting things done. It's a shame that elections can never be about substance.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Warren has the best policy of any candidate and a track record of expertise and getting things done. It's a shame that elections can never be about substance.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Warren has the best policy of any candidate and a track record of expertise and getting things done. It's a shame that elections can never be about substance.