Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[Rookie Yinzer]

If Warren replaces Sanders as the dominant candidate of the party left she could gain a lot of support as she is more acceptable to the rest of the party and to the establishment than Bernie. While I'm sceptical still about electability, if she can come from behind and win the primary that's a pretty strong case for her being a good candidate.

That would be disastrous, because while she's the best candidate policy-wise, she's by far the worst in terms of likability and electability. The sole reason is that Trump is utterly shameless and will hammer her on the "Pocahontas" thing with the intensity of "emails".

You have nothing to substantiate this claim other than what you feel. Just LOL at you thinking she will lose because Trump will call her a racist slur over and over again.

[Stranger in a strange land]

If Warren replaces Sanders as the dominant candidate of the party left she could gain a lot of support as she is more acceptable to the rest of the party and to the establishment than Bernie. While I'm sceptical still about electability, if she can come from behind and win the primary that's a pretty strong case for her being a good candidate.

That would be disastrous, because while she's the best candidate policy-wise, she's by far the worst in terms of likability and electability. The sole reason is that Trump is utterly shameless and will hammer her on the "Pocahontas" thing with the intensity of "emails".

You have nothing to substantiate this claim other than what you feel. Just LOL at you thinking she will lose because Trump will call her a racist slur over and over again.

Yes, of course it's a stupid racist slogan. That's exactly my point. It's racist, but there's just barely enough plausible deniability. Also, it's a punchy, one-word slogan. Also, she comes across as a Hillary-esque moral scold, even though she's far better on policy. And I hate to say it, but the fact that she's a woman doesn't help her on this front either, because female candidates are still judged by an entirely different standard. This obviously isn't good, and I expect things will be different in 20 years, but until then, what can we do? Obama-Trump voters in the Midwest will eat this up like the buffet at Golden Corral.

[PSOL]

Warren proposes $2 trillion 'green manufacturing' plan

The manufacturing program is the first in a new series of “economic patriotism” proposals Warren is unveiling intended to create American jobs and help U.S. industry.

“This is going to be a big plan for bold structural changes,” Warren said at a campaign rally in Detroit, Michigan.

Warren told the crowd of about 500 in a facility that teaches manufacturing skills that her proposal would be paid for by cutting subsidies in the oil and gas industry. Additionally, all companies paying more taxes, she said, singling out Amazon.com .

The rest of her “Economic Patriotism” plans have been just as good.

[GoTfan]

Warren proposes $2 trillion 'green manufacturing' plan

The manufacturing program is the first in a new series of “economic patriotism” proposals Warren is unveiling intended to create American jobs and help U.S. industry.

“This is going to be a big plan for bold structural changes,” Warren said at a campaign rally in Detroit, Michigan.

Warren told the crowd of about 500 in a facility that teaches manufacturing skills that her proposal would be paid for by cutting subsidies in the oil and gas industry. Additionally, all companies paying more taxes, she said, singling out Amazon.com .

The rest of her “Economic Patriotism” plans have been just as good.

Is it just me or does "Economic Patriotism" have similar connotations to TR's "New Nationalism"?

[Horus]

Calling it now, Warren will be the nominee.

[Rookie Yinzer]

THREAD:

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1136264757059772417

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

If Warren replaces Sanders as the dominant candidate of the party left she could gain a lot of support as she is more acceptable to the rest of the party and to the establishment than Bernie. While I'm sceptical still about electability, if she can come from behind and win the primary that's a pretty strong case for her being a good candidate.

I'm still convinced that one of them will drop out soon after the primaries start to clear the way for the other.

This requires that both be team players. And right now I only suspect one of them is given past behavior of each.

I, too, was disappointed that Warren mostly chose to sit out the 2016 primaries rather than coming out with a forceful endorsement for Sanders.

It would have been a huge moment. She passed on a major opportunity to stand out, establish her credibility, and make it clear that she wasn't just another Democrat. But at the time she must have decided that it was more important to fall in line with rest of the party and not mark herself as an Enemy of what everyone assumed was an ascendant regime.

Very cute turn here.

It's very revealing that to many Bernie supporters, staying within the crony-sphere of the Clintons is the most likely explanation for why Warren didn't endorse Sanders, and the several other (more plausible and less conspiratorial) reasons are dismissed out of hand.

Given that Warren's approvals have been increasing and she's been garnering nearly universally good coverage in both mass media and on more individualized platforms like Twitter, I'd say she's still doing a fine job of establishing her credibility. Yes yes we all know you hate the debt jubilee but the majority of her public image among D voters right now is based on being policy wonk with a suite of well-received plans for major issues (not just being a single issue candidate) - very hard to argue she's not standing out and establishing credibility so far (especially given that credible Sanders hasn't gained any traction since Biden entered).

[OneJ]

Warren’s campaign unionizes

[izixs]

I suppose that depends on what team you're on.

Exactly why I left my language there vague... Muahahaha

The notion of 'teams' can be very vague and open for interpretation, as has happened here. Folks projecting their particular thoughts and biases onto the term to try to justify their points. This is a natural thing that happens, but I kind of want to high light it more, especially when it comes to voters and supporters in my general ideological region of things.

Far too often we make the teams about specific candidates. Candidates however are only candidates and not the totality of what one's team can be. And I'd argue shouldn't be as candidates are people and people are fallible. Sometimes we think a little bigger picture and go all in on 'the cause'. As in all leftism all the time sorts of stuff. Which... often relies on pointing to someone and saying they define everything about what that means, which is just then the candidate problem again. A slight of hand to try to justify, before or after the fact, why this one person is the one true leftist.

Both of these options are limited. Both of these are singular and about just one (or sometimes a couple) person. They are not about the totality of the team for which we build our solidarity. It isn't about the us of everyone in the trenches fighting this fight. And it certainly isn't about the perpetuation of the movement beyond a single candidacy. Lip service may be applied to such a thing, but action must follow word for it to be believed and internalized. To keep the faithful going beyond the fall of the man/woman.

No, we need to be better about what we consider a team. And I'm not meaning the team as in the Democratic Party in total. The Party is, at the end of the day, a tool of whom ever can gain the most influence in it. And yes, doing so by default makes you the 'insider', even if you happen to seek an abolition of private property. So I always gotta roll my eyes at the use of such language. But a team can include the Democratic Party if one is willing to have an expansive, inclusive team. And if one is able to convince the party to come on board.

And so that's why I used that term there. I've been critical previously that Sanders' campaign is perhaps all talk and no action with regards to this. Especially given his sore loser attitude late in the 2016 campaign. I supported him then, and I voted for him then. But I had to roll my eyes just as hard as I did at Clinton in 08 for his refusal to face reality and to let angry supporters stir up trouble that threatened to put awful people in the white house. Among my plethora of reasons I didn't like Clinton in 2016 was, on top of the reasons I didn't like her in 08, that very same behavior. And Sanders engaged in it even more so.

He was doing this for some state reasons yes. And perhaps he even believed them himself. But that doesn't super matter when, at the end of the day, we have to face the realities that the biggest enemy of the left is not people like Hillary Clinton. Its people like Donald Trump. And the team I want to be on is the one that recognizes that fact. And doesn't waste time himming and hawing about I don't know maybe something could happen at the convention that just serves to rile people up.

And I don't trust him not to do it again honestly. I have 0 love for Biden and I hope he loses badly in the primaries, but if the voters decide they're his guy, then I got no time for folks that demand that their perfect candidate would have been so much better and now they'll abandon us because that perfect candidate didn't tell them not to. It will be such an annoying situation and I'm desperate to avoid it because I know this dynamic will be the situation. Where I gotta both put up with a terrible general election candidate and folks that want to take their ball and go home instead of fight the fascists at the ballot box. I want my team to be united in cause and motivation. To be working to save each other. Not at each other's throats while the orange man get by with another electoral college win.

[JGibson]

She's doing pretty well in her town hall tonight on MSNBC.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Warren is doing very well in this town hall.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

If Warren replaces Sanders as the dominant candidate of the party left she could gain a lot of support as she is more acceptable to the rest of the party and to the establishment than Bernie. While I'm sceptical still about electability, if she can come from behind and win the primary that's a pretty strong case for her being a good candidate.

I'm still convinced that one of them will drop out soon after the primaries start to clear the way for the other.

This requires that both be team players. And right now I only suspect one of them is given past behavior of each.

I, too, was disappointed that Warren mostly chose to sit out the 2016 primaries rather than coming out with a forceful endorsement for Sanders.

It would have been a huge moment. She passed on a major opportunity to stand out, establish her credibility, and make it clear that she wasn't just another Democrat. But at the time she must have decided that it was more important to fall in line with rest of the party and not mark herself as an Enemy of what everyone assumed was an ascendant regime.

Very cute turn here.

It's very revealing that to many Bernie supporters, staying within the crony-sphere of the Clintons is the most likely explanation for why Warren didn't endorse Sanders, and the several other (more plausible and less conspiratorial) reasons are dismissed out of hand.

There's nothing conspiratorial about it. I'm not suggesting that Warren's endorsement was a disingenuous choice, although it occurred late enough to suspect it wasn't an enthusiastic one. The 2016 battle lines were very clear. I also don't think that's a reason for anyone to rule out supporting Warren, just a cause for skepticism and, yes, amusing juxtaposed with accusations that Sanders is not a "team player." I suppose that depends on what team you're on.

Given that Warren's approvals have been increasing and she's been garnering nearly universally good coverage in both mass media and on more individualized platforms like Twitter, I'd say she's still doing a fine job of establishing her credibility. Yes yes we all know you hate the debt jubilee but the majority of her public image among D voters right now is based on being policy wonk with a suite of well-received plans for major issues (not just being a single issue candidate) - very hard to argue she's not standing out and establishing credibility so far (especially given that credible Sanders hasn't gained any traction since Biden entered).

I commented on a missed opportunity, not her popularity. Anyway, I expect Warren's campaign to do well over the next year. I also think that Sanders suffers from significant problems such as being nearly 80 and staffing his campaign with agitators and sycophants.

Of course, as of this posting, he continues to poll well ahead of her - including among crucual groups to turn out in the general election such as independents, non-whites, and non-degreed voters - outperforms her in match-ups, and has better GE favorability ratings. We'll just have to see what happens.

Fair enough. I think I projected the attitude I see from a lot of Bernie supporters (the "no true Progressive" argument) onto you. I wanted to make the point that Warren could have easily backed Clinton (and failed to back Bernie in primaries) for several reasons other than 1) insufficiently progressive beliefs 2) some sort of Clinton-machine boot-licking. I have very progressive values but hold candidates who bear the standard of progressivism to a high bar; Sanders didn't meet that bar for me and I considered a vote for him to be counterproductive. I would understand if Warren felt the same way. But perhaps that wasn't the point you were making? I think I was misunderstanding you.

I will say though that the distinction of team player (as izixs said) is an interesting one. Maybe it isn't so much what team you are on but where you think the battle lines are. The book "Identity Crisis" by Michael Sides and others demonstrated with polling data that how strongly a voter identified with the Democratic party was a much better predictor of whether primary voters supported Clinton or Sanders than any political or policy beliefs they had. In this sense I (and maybe Warren) definitely saw the "teams" as being any progress versus opposite-of-progress (Democrat vs. Republican) leading me to support Clinton. I suspect that, given the support Bernie got from people disenchanted with party infrastructure, people in the Bernie camp view the teams as progressive ideas versus non-progressive ideas. Using either view of what the teams are could lead you to suspect that both Bernie and Warren were being team players.

[Dr. Arch]

Calling it now, Warren will be the nominee.

Warren seems to be experiencing that slow, but steady and ultimately strong buildup in support, and, in terms of historical trends for successful primary campaigns, she's in the right position in terms of portion of support at this time.

You may well be right.

[GoTfan]

Calling it now, Warren will be the nominee.

Warren seems to be experiencing that slow, but steady and ultimately strong buildup in support, and, in terms of historical trends for successful primary campaigns, she's in the right position in terms of portion of support at this time.

You may well be right.

She seems to have set herself up to play the long game. Very shrewd.

[Arson Plus]

She rocked the debate and the question by that Union Sanders voter was clearly answered.

[Sestak]

Warren’s campaign unionizes

Excellent.

[Bismarck]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-endorses-democrat-elizabeth-warren-economic-plan-2019-6

Tucker Carlson supports Warren’s economic patriotism plan.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Warren DESTROYS Biden with facts and logic at Senate hearing:

[Sestak]

Warren DESTROYS Biden with facts and logic at Senate hearing:

Wow.

[PSOL]

Robert Reich endorses the Economic Patriotism plan

[Bidenworth2020]

I love this. Warren is seeming more electorally viable by the day.

[Saint Milei]

Calling it now, Warren will be the nominee.

[Saint Milei]

is there a full video to her townhall?

[Beet]

is there a full video to her townhall?

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/full-msnbc-town-hall-with-elizabeth-warren-61396037586

[Saint Milei]

is there a full video to her townhall?

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/full-msnbc-town-hall-with-elizabeth-warren-61396037586

godbless