Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[GeneralMacArthur]

I think Warren is holding her fire on attacking Biden right now, she has plenty to attack him on closer to the primary. This is probably wise-she doesn't want to peak and fall like Kamala Harris.

The danger of holding your fire is that other, less competent pols will steal your attacks and get easily beaten down by Biden, thus making him invulnerable to future repetitions of the same attack.

Everybody's too afraid to attack Biden over his memory now after Castro's very poor attempt.

[Pericles]

I think Warren is holding her fire on attacking Biden right now, she has plenty to attack him on closer to the primary. This is probably wise-she doesn't want to peak and fall like Kamala Harris.

The danger of holding your fire is that other, less competent pols will steal your attacks and get easily beaten down by Biden, thus making him invulnerable to future repetitions of the same attack.

Everybody's too afraid to attack Biden over his memory now after Castro's very poor attempt.

What's the precedent for that happening? It seems possible, but perhaps more likely the attacks wear down the frontrunner so they are more vulnerable to a competent assault?

[GeneralMacArthur]

I think Warren is holding her fire on attacking Biden right now, she has plenty to attack him on closer to the primary. This is probably wise-she doesn't want to peak and fall like Kamala Harris.

The danger of holding your fire is that other, less competent pols will steal your attacks and get easily beaten down by Biden, thus making him invulnerable to future repetitions of the same attack.

Everybody's too afraid to attack Biden over his memory now after Castro's very poor attempt.

What's the precedent for that happening? It seems possible, but perhaps more likely the attacks wear down the frontrunner so they are more vulnerable to a competent assault?

2016, Jeb! wasted all the best Trump attacks and Rubio/Cruz were left with scraps.

[GP270watch]

 Biden is out of step and has both feet in the past and is only speaking like a progressive because he knows that's the direction of the party. Biden is a decent politician who will work on some important legislation that helps people but he is also way too comfy with the big banks, big energy, big pharma, the for profit medical insurance and healthcare industry, and the Washinton D.C. influence game that corrupts every legislative process and social movement. Warren has fought on the side of people, not credit card companies. Warren has been wise to not attack other Democrats because she wants to focus her energies on the right targets. But comparing her to Biden currently is no comparison, Biden is on his way out.

[Pericles]

I think Warren is holding her fire on attacking Biden right now, she has plenty to attack him on closer to the primary. This is probably wise-she doesn't want to peak and fall like Kamala Harris.

The danger of holding your fire is that other, less competent pols will steal your attacks and get easily beaten down by Biden, thus making him invulnerable to future repetitions of the same attack.

Everybody's too afraid to attack Biden over his memory now after Castro's very poor attempt.

What's the precedent for that happening? It seems possible, but perhaps more likely the attacks wear down the frontrunner so they are more vulnerable to a competent assault?

2016, Jeb! wasted all the best Trump attacks and Rubio/Cruz were left with scraps.

It seemed the problem was more that both Jeb and the other candidate's attacks didn't resonate with the party. And, while I'm less inclined to see 2016 this way, isn't your thinking also that Bernie's attacks made Hillary weaker in the general so more vulnerable to Trump's attacks? Why would the minor candidates not have the same effect for when Biden faces a more formidable opponent?

[GeneralMacArthur]

I think Warren is holding her fire on attacking Biden right now, she has plenty to attack him on closer to the primary. This is probably wise-she doesn't want to peak and fall like Kamala Harris.

The danger of holding your fire is that other, less competent pols will steal your attacks and get easily beaten down by Biden, thus making him invulnerable to future repetitions of the same attack.

Everybody's too afraid to attack Biden over his memory now after Castro's very poor attempt.

What's the precedent for that happening? It seems possible, but perhaps more likely the attacks wear down the frontrunner so they are more vulnerable to a competent assault?

2016, Jeb! wasted all the best Trump attacks and Rubio/Cruz were left with scraps.

It seemed the problem was more that both Jeb and the other candidate's attacks didn't resonate with the party. And, while I'm less inclined to see 2016 this way, isn't your thinking also that Bernie's attacks made Hillary weaker in the general so more vulnerable to Trump's attacks? Why would the minor candidates not have the same effect for when Biden faces a more formidable opponent?

Bernie's attacks on Hillary were successful.  That is the difference.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Warren is holding her fire on attacking Biden right now, she has plenty to attack him on closer to the primary. This is probably wise-she doesn't want to peak and fall like Kamala Harris.

The danger of holding your fire is that other, less competent pols will steal your attacks and get easily beaten down by Biden, thus making him invulnerable to future repetitions of the same attack.

Everybody's too afraid to attack Biden over his memory now after Castro's very poor attempt.

What's the precedent for that happening? It seems possible, but perhaps more likely the attacks wear down the frontrunner so they are more vulnerable to a competent assault?

2016, Jeb! wasted all the best Trump attacks and Rubio/Cruz were left with scraps.

It seemed the problem was more that both Jeb and the other candidate's attacks didn't resonate with the party. And, while I'm less inclined to see 2016 this way, isn't your thinking also that Bernie's attacks made Hillary weaker in the general so more vulnerable to Trump's attacks? Why would the minor candidates not have the same effect for when Biden faces a more formidable opponent?

Bernie's attacks on Hillary were successful.  That is the difference.

Bernie attacked Trump far far more than he attacked Hillary.

[Rookie Yinzer]

She has nearly zero support from POC or party insiders, while Biden is locking it all up.  That's going to matter.

This is a lie. He doesn't have anything locked up. Biden doesn't even have a plurality with Latinos or Asians, nor with black voters under the age of 45. Just stop.

Biden has not inherited Clinton's 2016 coalition. His position is weak and tenuous.

[GeneralMacArthur]

She has nearly zero support from POC or party insiders, while Biden is locking it all up.  That's going to matter.

This is a lie. He doesn't have anything locked up. Biden doesn't even have a plurality with Latinos or Asians, nor with black voters under the age of 45. Just stop.

Biden has not inherited Clinton's 2016 coalition. His position is weak and tenuous.

I didn't say Biden has it locked up.  But he's on the right track.

In the latest poll (the Fox News one) Biden has 34% of non-white support, Warren has 11%.  Among non-whites in a head-to-head, it's 60% - 32%.

The only senator, current or former, supporting Elizabeth Warren is Ed Markey  Biden has 12 senators.  She has nine representatives endorsing her, Biden has 28.  She has one former governor (Dukakis), Biden has six.  I don't have an exhaustive list but I'm pretty sure 100% of endorsements from Obama administration alum have gone to Biden.

So I would present these two datapoints as evidence that Biden is locking up POC and party insiders, while Warren is lagging far behind.  This is something that will ultimately matter.  Those POC will be a rock-solid high-turnout base for Biden.  Those party insiders will do the ground work to secure their states for Biden when the time comes.  If Warren can't win the nomination outright, Biden will win a contested convention.

Is this the only thing that matters?  No.  Is the race over?  Hardly.  But Warren has a long way to go before I'll start believing she's "running circles around Biden."

[OneJ]

She has nearly zero support from POC or party insiders, while Biden is locking it all up.  That's going to matter.

This is a lie. He doesn't have anything locked up. Biden doesn't even have a plurality with Latinos or Asians, nor with black voters under the age of 45. Just stop.

Biden has not inherited Clinton's 2016 coalition. His position is weak and tenuous.

I didn't say Biden has it locked up.  But he's on the right track.

In the latest poll (the Fox News one) Biden has 34% of non-white support, Warren has 11%.  Among non-whites in a head-to-head, it's 60% - 32%.

The only senator, current or former, supporting Elizabeth Warren is Ed Markey  Biden has 12 senators.  She has nine representatives endorsing her, Biden has 28.  She has one former governor (Dukakis), Biden has six.  I don't have an exhaustive list but I'm pretty sure 100% of endorsements from Obama administration alum have gone to Biden.

So I would present these two datapoints as evidence that Biden is locking up POC and party insiders, while Warren is lagging far behind.  This is something that will ultimately matter.  Those POC will be a rock-solid high-turnout base for Biden.  Those party insiders will do the ground work to secure their states for Biden when the time comes.  If Warren can't win the nomination outright, Biden will win a contested convention.

Is this the only thing that matters?  No.  Is the race over?  Hardly.  But Warren has a long way to go before I'll start believing she's "running circles around Biden."

What do party insiders have to do with this though? Endorsements don't mean nearly as much today as they did in the past. Harris and Booker have more endorsements than Warren, yet they're far behind her in polling at the moment.

Also, yes Biden is, at the moment, solid with minority voters at large, particularly with Black voters. However, it should be noted that Warren has been gradually rising and building up her base. Don't count Warren out on convincing a good amount of minority voters to vote for her, especially if she wins Iowa by a convincing amount.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

It's why I think Warren's the frontrunner. Not only that, but she has by far the most to gain from her winning. I think she has the most to gain from other candidates dropping out - Biden and Sanders have most of the working-class vote locked up, while candidates like Booker, Beto, Harris, and Buttigieg's supporters are more resemblant of Warren's. If she wins IA or NH, she will absorb some of the true progressives from Bernie's side. 

Finally, it'll be likely Sanders stays in until the end like last time, splitting the working-class vote between them and Biden. Even without people like me, he still has enough of a base where he'll be able to run for as long as he wants.

[Crumpets]

Warren is now at 19.8% on the RCP average. Her all-time high and the highest of any non-Biden candidate since April.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Warren is gonna win IA, NH, NV, Cali and MN

[Heebie Jeebie]

https://mobile.twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1175566693768318976

My God. She might actually win this thing.  Go, Liz!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Sanders lost his campaign director in IA

[Heebie Jeebie]

Sanders supporters are absolutely correct that Warren is not serious about single-payer, and her inclination to not waste legislative time on a health care push that will definitely fail is a good reason to prefer her. Discuss.

[GP270watch]

 I think she will do something about healthcare even if there is no support for a single payer system because healthcare costs are crippling middle class families.

 I could easily see her being a busy bee with drug pricing investigations into the pharmaceuticals companies and taking executive action with the worst examples of drug price gouging.

[KaiserDave]

She's definitely gonna do something on healthcare, whether it's on pharmaceutical drugs, or on medical debt. And remember, a public option (if done right) is still a massive leap in the right direction.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Sanders supporters are absolutely correct that Warren is not serious about single-payer, and her inclination to not waste legislative time on a health care push that will definitely fail is a good reason to prefer her. Discuss.

Yeah. She avoided talking about it as long as possible for a reason and I am glad she has dodged giving the GOP a soundbite of her saying she will raise taxes (no matter how out of context it is). Warren would not have vulnerable Dems in a position where they would have to run away from her in the general election. I trust her.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I think she will do something about healthcare even if there is no support for a single payer system because healthcare costs are crippling middle class families.

 I could easily see her being a busy bee with drug pricing investigations into the pharmaceuticals companies and taking executive action with the worst examples of drug price gouging.

My bet is that, regardless of who's president, Congressional Democrats are going to produce a healthcare bill that builds on Obamacare by providing higher premium subsidies all the way through the middle class, imposing stricter rules on deductibles and OOP, and offering a public option to buy in to Medicare.

[politicallefty]

Some people don't know how to negotiate either. It's unfortunate trait among a lot of Democrats. It's the tendency to pre-negotiate. On a very good day with an expanded majority, there's a slim chance Pelosi could get Medicare for All through the House. The Senate is a pipe dream though. That doesn't mean we can't make significant progress towards that goal. Elizabeth Warren is ultimately a pragmatist and smart tactician. If the starting point is Medicare for All, maybe we could get Medicare for America (i.e. Medicare buy-in) through the nasty sausage-making process that is the legislative process.

[GP270watch]

I think she will do something about healthcare even if there is no support for a single payer system because healthcare costs are crippling middle class families.

 I could easily see her being a busy bee with drug pricing investigations into the pharmaceuticals companies and taking executive action with the worst examples of drug price gouging.

My bet is that, regardless of who's president, Congressional Democrats are going to produce a healthcare bill that builds on Obamacare by providing higher premium subsidies all the way through the middle class, imposing stricter rules on deductibles and OOP, and offering a public option to buy in to Medicare.

 I laugh at the corporate Democrats who defend the private healthcare system without being honest about how to make a private healthcare system work. In countries that have private health insurers as part of universal healthcare coverage they have reduced them to being government/private companies that are so heavily regulated and mandated that they function more like utilities. But they never mention this which shows what their real motivations are.

[GP270watch]

Some people don't know how to negotiate either. It's unfortunate trait among a lot of Democrats. It's the tendency to pre-negotiate. On a very good day with an expanded majority, there's a slim chance Pelosi could get Medicare for All through the House. The Senate is a pipe dream though. That doesn't mean we can't make significant progress towards that goal. Elizabeth Warren is ultimately a pragmatist and smart tactician. If the starting point is Medicare for All, maybe we could get Medicare for America (i.e. Medicare buy-in) through the nasty sausage-making process that is the legislative process.

 She is smart to be coy about certain things. Republicans run on lies and have a pro corporate, pro-wealthy, pro fossil-fuels agenda and they hit the ground running on that agenda and never stop pursuing it. They never run on the real agenda in earnest because it's not politically popular to say you're going to give billionaires a huge tax break, or let coal companies poison the environment. But they're tactical enough to shut up, win the election, and then do what they really feel is important.

[Crumpets]

Every candidate's ability to craft policy is directly proportional to how many seats they have in the Senate. If Warren has 61 Senate seats to work with, we'll get universal healthcare. If Bernie has 47 Senate seats to work with, we won't. Anybody pretending it's all down to how hard they push for it or what words they use to describe their ideology has no memory of the entire Obama presidency.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Every candidate's ability to craft policy is directly proportional to how many seats they have in the Senate. If Warren has 61 Senate seats to work with, we'll get universal healthcare. If Bernie has 47 Senate seats to work with, we won't. Anybody pretending it's all down to how hard they push for it or what words they use to describe their ideology has no memory of the entire Obama presidency.

Anyone claiming that Obama was a progressive leader has no memory of the entire Obama presidency.