Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

^Far leftists in the comments section saying that they'd sit the election out if it's Warren.

I gotta say...while I laugh at how extreme some of these people are, I do have to admire them for being so principled. If only more Democrats were like them!

From random leftist Twitter posts to random leftist YouTube comments.

Who cares?

[I Can Now Die Happy]

^Far leftists in the comments section saying that they'd sit the election out if it's Warren.

I gotta say...while I laugh at how extreme some of these people are, I do have to admire them for being so principled. If only more Democrats were like them!

From random leftist Twitter posts to random leftist YouTube comments.

Who cares?

I'm going to share random leftist (insert-more-controversial-website-here) posts in the future.

[Cinemark]

^Far leftists in the comments section saying that they'd sit the election out if it's Warren.

I gotta say...while I laugh at how extreme some of these people are, I do have to admire them for being so principled. If only more Democrats were like them!

From random leftist Twitter posts to random leftist YouTube comments.

Who cares?

I'm going to share random leftist (insert-more-controversial-website-here) posts in the future.

Good reason to put you on ignore then.

[dunceDude]

Rewatching Kamala's exchange with Warren on banning Trump from twitter, I really noticed how easily Warren can sidestep an attack dog. Kamala had zero control and burned two minutes on glossing up the twitter account while Warren got to pivot to campaign finance overhaul. One reason my confidence in Warren is growing is that she's always implicitly demonstrating how she'll handle Trump next year, and I like her strategy. She understands it's about exposure and she never lets herself go off message as a result. Trump can spend as long as he wants calling her Pocahontas and she can talk about universal child care.

People are starting to look down on Warren's evasiveness but it's one of the things I still like most about her. It shows me that Warren understands the nature of right-wing media, the trap of arguing on Trump's terms, and the electorate's preference for a smart, canny nominee. Considering that the only three to rise quite a bit in the polls so far (Warren, Buttigieg, Yang) are also the three wonkiest/intellectual, maybe dems are most sick of Trump's constant stupidity on basic topics.

[Dr. Arch]

Rewatching Kamala's exchange with Warren on banning Trump from twitter, I really noticed how easily Warren can sidestep an attack dog. Kamala had zero control and burned two minutes on glossing up the twitter account while Warren got to pivot to campaign finance overhaul. One reason my confidence in Warren is growing is that she's always implicitly demonstrating how she'll handle Trump next year, and I like her strategy. She understands it's about exposure and she never lets herself go off message as a result. Trump can spend as long as he wants calling her Pocahontas and she can talk about universal child care.

People are starting to look down on Warren's evasiveness but it's one of the things I still like most about her. It shows me that Warren understands the nature of right-wing media, the trap of arguing on Trump's terms, and the electorate's preference for a smart, canny nominee. Considering that the only three to rise quite a bit in the polls so far (Warren, Buttigieg, Yang) are also the three wonkiest/intellectual, maybe dems are most sick of Trump's constant stupidity on basic topics.

I didn't see this exchange. Could you post a link to it?

[dunceDude]

I didn't see this exchange. Could you post a link to it?

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1184302312413679616

[Dr. Arch]

I didn't see this exchange. Could you post a link to it?

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1184302312413679616

Thanks, and I agree with your initial post.

[GoTfan]

Rewatching Kamala's exchange with Warren on banning Trump from twitter, I really noticed how easily Warren can sidestep an attack dog. Kamala had zero control and burned two minutes on glossing up the twitter account while Warren got to pivot to campaign finance overhaul. One reason my confidence in Warren is growing is that she's always implicitly demonstrating how she'll handle Trump next year, and I like her strategy. She understands it's about exposure and she never lets herself go off message as a result. Trump can spend as long as he wants calling her Pocahontas and she can talk about universal child care.

People are starting to look down on Warren's evasiveness but it's one of the things I still like most about her. It shows me that Warren understands the nature of right-wing media, the trap of arguing on Trump's terms, and the electorate's preference for a smart, canny nominee. Considering that the only three to rise quite a bit in the polls so far (Warren, Buttigieg, Yang) are also the three wonkiest/intellectual, maybe dems are most sick of Trump's constant stupidity on basic topics.

Evasivenss is mostly a bad thing don't get me wrong, but when you've got someone who is pushing one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard, and when you're likely facing a guy who can't really attack on policy substance, it's a good thing.

When you're evading policy question, you are in trouble. Warren however seems to largely be shaping the primary debate. Whether that carries into the general, we'll have to wait and see.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1183903791487291392

Warren-McRaven

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The "strengthen the ACA" language gives me pause, but I agree with Hagrid: There is no reason to turn on a candidate who campaigns on M4A just because a senior political figure says that she would happily pass a public option. This is standard campaign in poetry, govern in prose stuff.

There are Democrats who I don't trust on health care: Harris has no interest in it, Biden is too attached to the ACA's framework, Buttigieg would look to the wrong policy people for guidance, and the list goes on. Warren is fine, and that alone is a reason to prefer her to any of the candidates who I just listed.

Why do you say Buttigieg would look to the wrong people?    Any idea who Warren would look to?

[American2020]

Warnings for Warren


Anti-Trump businesswomen are nervous about Warren, and the Democratic debate didn't help

It has been a big month for Sen. Elizabeth Warren. She was center stage in this week's Democratic debate, following recent poll numbers that showed her leading the field. Her third-quarter fundraising total of $24.6 million exceeded former Vice President Joe Biden's and put her on par with Sen. Bernie Sanders, a top fundraiser this year.

But rising along with Warren is anxiety among corporate leaders, especially the growing number of women working in the corporate sector, who fear her strident anti-corporate rhetoric could actually cost Democrats the presidency if she is the nominee.

Typical was this Warren response at Tuesday night's debate: “My question is not why do Bernie and I support a wealth tax. It's why is it does everyone else on this stage think it is more important to protect billionaires than it is to invest in an entire generation of Americans?”

https://news.yahoo.com/anti-trump-businesswomen-nervous-warren-041505382.html

Is Elizabeth Warren an Ideologue?

Elizabeth Warren, the senator from Massachusetts, is a strong candidate for president. She has a clear and compelling message about the unfair distribution of American prosperity. She’s smart, well versed in economics, and far more lucid than her fellow front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden. She’s a charismatic speaker. At campaign events, she’s excellent at answering voters’ questions.

But there’s a big risk for Democrats in nominating Warren: that beneath her talents, she has the soul of an ideologue. If that’s how she conducts herself in the general election—or if Republicans can effectively paint her that way—it substantially increases the danger that President Donald Trump will be reelected. And if Warren were to beat Trump, this disposition would make her a counterproductive president, more likely to revive the Republican Party than to enact significant legislation.

On this question—the question of who Warren is—Tuesday night’s debate sent ominous signals.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/elizabeth-warren-ideologue-health-care-antitrust.html

[Wiz in Wis]

The "strengthen the ACA" language gives me pause, but I agree with Hagrid: There is no reason to turn on a candidate who campaigns on M4A just because a senior political figure says that she would happily pass a public option. This is standard campaign in poetry, govern in prose stuff.

There are Democrats who I don't trust on health care: Harris has no interest in it, Biden is too attached to the ACA's framework, Buttigieg would look to the wrong policy people for guidance, and the list goes on. Warren is fine, and that alone is a reason to prefer her to any of the candidates who I just listed.

Why do you say Buttigieg would look to the wrong people?    Any idea who Warren would look to?

I don't know, which is a big reason why I don't count myself as a Warren supporter.

She has enough of a record as an "economic progressive" to have more credibility than any of the presidential hopefuls who signed on to the Sanders bill without understanding it, but I don't know what her real plan is or who has her ear on the subject.

I don't agree with the critique that she's been "evasive," though. To me, Warren looks like someone who's trying very hard not to tell the kind of lies that Obama found politically expedient in 2008: That his plan would cut costs, that his plan would not require a mandate, that anyone who liked their insurance could keep it, that including a public option would be a priority, and so on.

Buttigieg's caginess, on the other hand, reminds me a lot of what Obama did. If he wanted to support a more moderate plan, it would be easy enough to sign on to Bennet's Medicare X. Instead he wants to have his cake and eat it too: Claim support for M4A while playing to paranoia about Warren raising taxes and taking away your insurance.

Never mind that the last president to take away anyone's insurance was a fresh-faced figure from the Midwest, with an inspiring personal story and oratory that drove the media wild, who ran as a moderate-progressive hybrid seeking to heal America's divides...

This is getting lengthy, so let me put it this way: I would be surprised if Warren had anyone like Jonathan Gruber designing her health care plan, whatever it actually is, but that is exactly who Mayor Pete would have writing his.

Obama's was indeed fresh faced and from the Midwest... but overselling Obamacare really hurt him in 2010, and Warren is smart to not tie herself to that debacle.

[GP270watch]

 Obamacare had too many moving parts. It's not a simple system. It was subject to an entire political party being against it and that filtered down to the states which essentially run their own healthcare systems even if they're federal programs. The great success of Obamacare has been Medicaid expansion where it was accepted, which just goes to show that giving another out to the for-profit health insurance companies was a bad faith solution.

 Single payer is a better system. Democrats need to educate the public on the different versions of single payer and how it works in other countries. Make it so obvious that it's the better choice, that people rally around it and we decide what system we want.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The "strengthen the ACA" language gives me pause, but I agree with Hagrid: There is no reason to turn on a candidate who campaigns on M4A just because a senior political figure says that she would happily pass a public option. This is standard campaign in poetry, govern in prose stuff.

There are Democrats who I don't trust on health care: Harris has no interest in it, Biden is too attached to the ACA's framework, Buttigieg would look to the wrong policy people for guidance, and the list goes on. Warren is fine, and that alone is a reason to prefer her to any of the candidates who I just listed.

Why do you say Buttigieg would look to the wrong people?    Any idea who Warren would look to?

I don't know, which is a big reason why I don't count myself as a Warren supporter.

She has enough of a record as an "economic progressive" to have more credibility than any of the presidential hopefuls who signed on to the Sanders bill without understanding it, but I don't know what her real plan is or who has her ear on the subject.

I don't agree with the critique that she's been "evasive," though. To me, Warren looks like someone who's trying very hard not to tell the kind of lies that Obama found politically expedient in 2008: That his plan would cut costs, that his plan would not require a mandate, that anyone who liked their insurance could keep it, that including a public option would be a priority, and so on.

Buttigieg's caginess, on the other hand, reminds me a lot of what Obama did. If he wanted to support a more moderate plan, it would be easy enough to sign on to Bennet's Medicare X. Instead he wants to have his cake and eat it too: Claim support for M4A while playing to paranoia about Warren raising taxes and taking away your insurance.

Never mind that the last president to take away anyone's insurance was a fresh-faced figure from the Midwest, with an inspiring personal story and oratory that drove the media wild, who ran as a moderate-progressive hybrid seeking to heal America's divides...

This is getting lengthy, so let me put it this way: I would be surprised if Warren had anyone like Jonathan Gruber designing her health care plan, whatever it actually is, but that is exactly who Mayor Pete would have writing his.

Could you explain this a bit more?  I’m pretty sure you know more than me about healthcare, so I apologize if these are dumb questions, but could you explain how exactly Obama took away anyone’s healthcare?  

Also, it seemed like during the debate Warren not only said her plan would cut costs, but strongly implied that paying for it would be possible without raising taxes for anyone but the wealthiest Americans which - and granted, I’m certainly no expert - seems kinda hard to believe (even Sanders has, I believe, argued that his plan would increase the middle class’ taxes while ultimately reducing costs enough to produce a net reduction in the average American’s healthcare costs (and please correct me if I’m wrong).  Am I missing something here?  It certainly sounded like she was being evasive about how it would be paid for in the debate.  

Also, could you please explain how Buttigieg was “fear-mongering” b/c my understanding is that Warren’s plan would force people such as myself to give up our insurance even if we can afford something better than the quality of care the government is offering.  I certainly hope I’m just missing something obvious, but I can’t imagine what that would be.  But look, I’d love to be wrong.  

Genuinely curious.  Even if I end up disagreeing with some of your response, I’m sure I’ll still come away with a better understanding of the issue, at the very least.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I didn't see this exchange. Could you post a link to it?

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1184302312413679616

I honestly wish there was some way to compress her "no" into some solid substance, crush it, and snort it. It's like crack to me. It's just so good. I've watched this like five times every day since the debate.

ETA: also if Harris was a man he would get ridden so hard for interrupting her so much

[Galeel]

As a former Biden will win believer, I've been converted into a Warren will win believer. Obviously it's not certain, but I don't think it's very likely that he will come back, after being behind in the national polls. That was the only thing he had going for him, and the only reason I thought he would win.

[Ronnie]

As a former Biden will win believer, I've been converted into a Warren will win believer. Obviously it's not certain, but I don't think it's very likely that he will come back, after being behind in the national polls. That was the only thing he had going for him, and the only reason I thought he would win.

I still wouldn't count him out.  He's been very stable for a number of months now, even in the face of Warren's rise, which makes me believe his floor is rather high.  If Warren slouches because Buttigieg denies her a win in one of the early primaries, it's highly possible in my mind that Biden would be the main beneficiary.

[Holmes]

As a former Biden will win believer, I've been converted into a Warren will win believer. Obviously it's not certain, but I don't think it's very likely that he will come back, after being behind in the national polls. That was the only thing he had going for him, and the only reason I thought he would win.

I still wouldn't count him out.  He's been very stable for a number of months now, even in the face of Warren's rise, which makes me believe his floor is rather high.  If Warren slouches because Buttigieg denies her a win in one of the early primaries, it's highly possible in my mind that Biden would be the main beneficiary.

I wouldn't say Biden's been stable. He's been on a slow but steady decline while Warren's been on a slow but steady rise. But you're right that Biden shouldn't be counted out. A Warren win in IA, NH and NV with a strong Super Tuesday showing (including winning California) most likely means she wins the nomination. If someone denies her a win in an early state, the race will be tight.

I will say though that this feels different from 2016 in that there never really was a doubt that Hillary would lose, even when Sanders was rising in the polls. Warren's insurgence feels more threatening and real.

[Galeel]

As a former Biden will win believer, I've been converted into a Warren will win believer. Obviously it's not certain, but I don't think it's very likely that he will come back, after being behind in the national polls. That was the only thing he had going for him, and the only reason I thought he would win.

I still wouldn't count him out.  He's been very stable for a number of months now, even in the face of Warren's rise, which makes me believe his floor is rather high.  If Warren slouches because Buttigieg denies her a win in one of the early primaries, it's highly possible in my mind that Biden would be the main beneficiary.

Yeah, I'm not counting him out. If you came back from the future and told me Biden ends up winning, I wouldn't be all that surprised. I just think Warren is the favorite.

[GoTfan]

I didn't see this exchange. Could you post a link to it?

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1184302312413679616

I honestly wish there was some way to compress her "no" into some solid substance, crush it, and snort it. It's like crack to me. It's just so good. I've watched this like five times every day since the debate.

ETA: also if Harris was a man he would get ridden so hard for interrupting her so much

What is this fixation Harris has with getting Trump banned from Twitter?

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1186200448912392193

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1186216806626844674

Warren says she’ll release ‘plan’ to pay for Medicare for All

Days after 2020 rivals accused her of not being candid on how she would pay for Medicare-for-All, Sen. Elizabeth Warren told a crowd at a town hall that she would be rolling out a plan “over the next few weeks” detailing how she would pay for the plan.

“Right now the cost estimates for Medicare for All vary by trillions and trillions of dollars and the different revenue stream for how to fund it, there are a lot of,” the Massachusetts Democrat told a crowd in Indianola, Iowa, on Sunday at a town hall. “This is something I’ve been working on for months and months, and it’s got just a little more work until it’s finished.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/20/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-052757

[Heebie Jeebie]

Warren says she’ll release ‘plan’ to pay for Medicare for All

Days after 2020 rivals accused her of not being candid on how she would pay for Medicare-for-All, Sen. Elizabeth Warren told a crowd at a town hall that she would be rolling out a plan “over the next few weeks” detailing how she would pay for the plan.

“Right now the cost estimates for Medicare for All vary by trillions and trillions of dollars and the different revenue stream for how to fund it, there are a lot of,” the Massachusetts Democrat told a crowd in Indianola, Iowa, on Sunday at a town hall. “This is something I’ve been working on for months and months, and it’s got just a little more work until it’s finished.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/20/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-052757

Don't do it, Liz!!  Don't stake out an unpopular position for a bill that will never make it through the Senate anyway!

On a related note, Mother Jones's Kevin Drum presented some ideas on how to fund MfA a couple of days ago.  He suggests making employers pay most of the bill, as they do now.  Some very basic math leads him to conclude that MfA would cost the US about $14,000 per employed person. Currently, large corporations pay about $10,000 per employee in health care costs.  Drum suggests three possible responses:

*We could make large corporations pay $14,000 per employee. They’d just have to suck it up.
*We could keep them at their current rate of $10,000 and raise the remaining $400 billion elsewhere, perhaps from some combination of higher taxes on the wealthy and a small VAT.
*We could make all but the very smallest employers pay a head tax. With a larger tax base, the cost per employee drops to $11,500 and there’s very little to make up.

Something like this could actually be politically palatable.  https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/10/but-how-are-you-going-to-pay-for-it/

[Cinemark]

I gotta say, I'm more likely to support her if she actually had a concrete healthcare plan with actual numbers and figures. If the attacks from the center pushed her into doing this, I'd say its made her a better candidate.

[Heebie Jeebie]

https://twitter.com/rmc031/status/1186266465856565248
There's a lot to like here, but this is bad...
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1186267064450846720

[GP270watch]

 For-profit charters are insane. I read about one that fined parents money for uniform violations, in an area where the parents were very poor. Sending your kid to school shouldn't end up with you being in debt.