Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[Xing]

I can't speak to this because I've never been a Bernie supporter. Are there any Bernie folks here who have switched to Warren?

My vote is basically a Toss-Up at this point, and if Warren does end up pulling ahead of Sanders, I'll certainly support her. Since I doubt both of them will still be in the race by the time Washington votes, I can just say that I'll support whichever one does make it that far.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Count me in the Bernie 2016 supporter and now leaning towards Warren camp. She’s running a great campaign, easily the best out of everyone declared so far I’d say.

[Hollywood]

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. 

[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.

[Hollywood]

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. 

All three premises for my conclusion?  Singular?  Geez.  I made so many arguments. Okay you’re next paragraph states that I’ve made many conclusions.   I’ll simplify by saying my ultimate conclusion is that Elizabeth Warren should attend a town hall on Fox News. 

Let’s start in order with Independent Voters.  I disagree with many of your premises supporting your conclusion that it is absurd to reach independents utilizing the Fox News platform.  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.  Side note, if someone is undecided or independent, they might actually decide and become partisan from a Fox News debate.  Trump had to go through four or five debates despite unfavorable audiences and monitors.  That takes strength.  People respect it.  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.  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.  Then Biden announced and knocked down everyone’s poll numbers.  Going on Fox News probably gave Bernie Sanders tens of millions of views across a variety of platforms, and made him seem more mainstream.  Thus, supporting my conclusion that Elizabeth Warren should attend a Fox news town hall. 

Well your first criticism of my premise about independents was absurdly inaccurate by every standard aside other than far-left dogma that going on Fox News is always a bad idea.  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. 

Back on topic.  Every network is a propaganda network.  Were you just born?  Everybody in the country knows that every network is a propaganda channel.  If there motivation is to tear down a candidate that does well in the polls, then Elizabeth Warren has nothing to lose cause she isn’t doing well speaking to the far-left.  Also, every channel (CNN, MSNBC, and Fox) when they started to turn up the heat on Donald Trump in 2016 stated that they were grilling him due to his poll numbers.  Every candidate should face this type of adversity, especially in the primary.  Especially when they are only polling at 1-10%.  This criticism was silly and you can do better.  Actually, you made me realize that Elizabeth Warren has very little street smarts.  Like she’s a moron for not going on Fox News.  I’m not even tackling your last argument, because your second point was so nonsensical.  It’s just the same condescending, high-and-mighty trite that Fox News is propaganda.  CNN is not propaganda?  Total BS.  The first second they start propagandizing a war all you Democrat BSers will piss and moan.  The very first second they support a position you don’t like you’ll berate them for propagandizing an issue.  I’ve seen it time and time again, and then when they propagandize an issue you support, then it’s not propaganda.  I really can’t get paste this point.  It doesn’t make sense. It’s not factual, but at least you were making points in regards to my first premise. 


Now to your conclusion.  She has no good reasons.  She has tens of millions of good reasons to go on Fox News.  If she does well she will receive positive benefits she currently cannot access, and Biden wins all those votes should have received.  She loses out on a chance to win against the conservative media – Fox News.  However, if she does bad, at least you know she has less Presidential qualities than Bernie Sanders, which is to stay cool under fire.  Supporting her idiotic rhetoric about Fox News (which is based on her fear of confronting the Native American story is really a testament to how many Democrats have completely forgotten or ignore the leadership qualities they were once blessed with during Obama’s reign.  Even Obama went on Fox News. 

Given what things?  Okay.  If Elizabeth Warren supporters want to keep riding the train into obscurity, don’t go on Fox News.  In a poll of 3,000 voters by Rasmussen, her negatives were at 45% and her positives were at 45%.  She can only must 46%.  Why?  The fact that so many people are undecided when it comes to her means they are thinking about a third candidate or voting for Trump, which means she loses Ohio and Florida and North Carolina, and once again, Democrats are left with that terrible feeling in the pit of their stomachs.  That realization broadcasted live on television that is like porn to so many conservatives, “hey are we going to lose F-ing Pennsylvania”.  What could she have done to win?  People that live in fear will always regret not jumping in the fray.  That's Elizabeth Warren.  That is her character. 

[Hollywood]

Who cares?

Warren is not going to be the nominee anyway.

She damaged herself when she failed to tell the truth about her identity.

She may have some good ideas, but she will never be president.

The sad part about Elizabeth Warren is that she could be President.  She could overcome the Native American issue.  We just saw another candidate overcome "grab'm by the P####", and another one that one despite being part of anti-American church with a middle name like Hussein.   Bush was a cheerleader.  Treasury Secretary Elizabeth Warren does not have the mental fortitude to win the Presidency.  She doesn't give herself the chance.

[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.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

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.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

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!

[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.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

While I think that Liz might very well have gained in popularity, I'd be cautious, because there are not so many pollsters besides trashy YouGov and HarrisX.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/elizabeth_warren_favorableunfavorable-6675.html


All Golden Standard pollsters from from oldest to most recent >>>

2018:
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   8/18 - 8/22   900 RV   30   28   +2
CNN                                  9/6 - 9/9   923 RV   37   35   +2
Quinnipiac                 12/12 - 12/17   1147 RV   30   37   -7
2019:
CNN                                       1/30 - 2/2   RV   33   37   -4
Quinnipiac                    5/16 - 5/20   1078 RV   32   41   -9


There is only one recent poll from Golden Standard pollsters. It might very well be an outlier, but it shows -9 and her numbers are worse than in December 2019 (by the same pollster).

[Da2017]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonherald.com/2019/05/31/liz-warren-now-dubbed-rachel-dolezal-cant-hide-from-fake-heritage-claim/amp/

I have to question her political instincts. I would not count on it costing her the nomination or from getting too far. She is already tainted unfortunately for the general election.

[Rookie Yinzer]

No one cares. Just like no one cares about Gillibrand forcing Al Franken out, Klobuchar abusing her staff, Harris sleeping with a married man, Sanders and whatever he does, and Biden's policy atrocities. This doesn't have a hook to sustain months of media coverage like Hillary's emails (which was an active investigation in real time). Nothing to see here.

[junior chįmp]

It’s a lesson to Warren that she’s never going to be able to escape from her fraudulent past.

Imagine writing this while a 5 decades long con man sits in the White House. At what point will these moron journos realize the voters dont care.

But it shows that for Warren, danger lurks around every corner, even ones that seem safe.

OoOoOo Spooky stuffs...now back in real world land, occupied by clueless voters who spend their entire lives sleepwalking from election to election...nobody cares

[Pheurton Skeurto]

No one cares. Just like no one cares about Gillibrand forcing Al Franken out, Klobuchar abusing her staff, Harris sleeping with a married man, Sanders and whatever he does, and Biden's policy atrocities. This doesn't have a hook to sustain months of media coverage like Hillary's emails (which was an active investigation in real time). Nothing to see here.

Absolutely this, except I think most of the reason why Gillibrand's campaign didn't take off is due to the Al Franken thing which is, frankly, a huge black mark on the Democratic Party that we're not talking about, but that's neither here nor there...

Republicans only care about racism when they can use it to deflect from their own racism.

[Da2017]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPJlNHeDxrs&t=48s Here is the part where she is asked about her Native American heritage. I'm getting Hillary email vibes. She not off my top 5 but this should give some pause.

[Blue3]

No one cares. Just like no one cares about Gillibrand forcing Al Franken out, Klobuchar abusing her staff, Harris sleeping with a married man, Sanders and whatever he does, and Biden's policy atrocities. This doesn't have a hook to sustain months of media coverage like Hillary's emails (which was an active investigation in real time). Nothing to see here.

Except it already has sustained months of media coverage, Klobuchar abusing her staff robbed her of a positive launch and young voter enthusiasm, and so did Gillibrand's actions leave her without a base.

[Rookie Yinzer]

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1134666451334311938

https://twitter.com/FarrellGabriell/status/1134668963483283456

Whoa.

[Da2017]

It's more how she handled it. She should of just said Look I made a mistake let's move on. Instead she explained it. This is the mistake Hillary made with the emails. It's obvious she got rattled.

[junior chįmp]

It's more how she handled it. She should of just said Look I made a mistake let's move on. Instead she explained it. This is the mistake Hillary made with the emails. It's obvious she got rattled.

Dude no one's paying attention and no one cares. That video has 35K views (of which we can assume half are by Trump supporters taking a break from their wank session to leave troll comments) while there are 200 million voters in this country

[Mr. Smith]

Wow. Just one week difference!

[Xing]

Anyone who would vote against Warren for this probably hates her for some... *other* reason, and would find a different explanation/excuse to not vote for her, such as her being "shrill" or "unelectable" or something like that.

[libertpaulian]

Anyone who would vote against Warren for this probably hates her for some... *other* reason, and would find a different explanation/excuse to not vote for her, such as her being "shrill" or "unelectable" or something like that.

No, it has to do with the fact that she failed the most important test of 2020: DON'T. GET. BAITED. BY. TRUMP. DON'T. LET. HIM. GET. UNDER. YOUR. SKIN.

[McGarnagle]

You know, I care more about Warren's ideas than I do about any of this other stuff. Her ideas are very good. Still supporting Bernie in the primary, but would happily vote for Warren.

I don't think the Rachel Dolezal comparison is accurate at all.

Perhaps Charlamagne tha God ought to change his pseudonym before he attacks others on the suspicion that they aren't being honest about who they are. After all, he is neither Charlamagne, nor is he a god.

[Joe Republic]

The correct way for Warren to handle the Native heritage thing from the beginning was to say, "well I was a Republican at the time, but I'm cured of all that silliness now."  It worked (in reverse) for Reagan!