Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[Progressive Pessimist]

Looks like someone's a little testy when they have to go off-script.  Seriously...this is a bad look for her to act so defensive, evasive, and just downright nasty.  If she's this way with a fellow progressive, how's she going to handle DONALD TRUMP?!

https://twitter.com/josecanyousee/status/1193035415692832768

To be fair, Trump is not going to press on this kind of policy argument. He'll resort to his "Pocahontas" insults.

[Higgins]

Looks like someone's a little testy when they have to go off-script.  Seriously...this is a bad look for her to act so defensive, evasive, and just downright nasty.  If she's this way with a fellow progressive, how's she going to handle DONALD TRUMP?!

https://twitter.com/josecanyousee/status/1193035415692832768

"I'm just a player in the game" = I'm just like every other politician despite the fancy window dressing. I do what I'm told by the people running the show.

[Pericles]

She didn't seem nasty though, and had a good demeanor throughout. It was a light-hearted response. You can't reasonably expect presidential candidates to answer differently before Iowa and New Hampshire have voted, so I don't see how she could have given a different answer.

[GP270watch]

She didn't seem nasty though, and had a good demeanor throughout. It was a light-hearted response. You can't reasonably expect presidential candidates to answer differently before Iowa and New Hampshire have voted, so I don't see how she could have given a different answer.

 Yeah it's a weak attack. Is she supposed to skip Iowa and New Hampshire to make a point? People are grasping for straws at this point.

[libertpaulian]

She didn't seem nasty though, and had a good demeanor throughout. It was a light-hearted response. You can't reasonably expect presidential candidates to answer differently before Iowa and New Hampshire have voted, so I don't see how she could have given a different answer.

Watch her body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice.  She's thinking "Who the f[inks] do you think you are asking me this?!" Also listen to the way she says "Yeah"to Amy Goodman.

Warren is acting like the "Nasty Woman" that Trump accused Hillary of being.  She lacks the temperament to be on stage to outwit Donald Trump.  Take this and the Native American DNA test incident, and you have someone who very easily takes someone's bait.

[GP270watch]

 Blah Blah Blah. One second she's cagey and evasive, the next she "takes the bait". This is all nonsense. She's very likely won every single Democratic primary debate so far.

[Pericles]

She didn't seem nasty though, and had a good demeanor throughout. It was a light-hearted response. You can't reasonably expect presidential candidates to answer differently before Iowa and New Hampshire have voted, so I don't see how she could have given a different answer.

Watch her body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice.  She's thinking "Who the f[inks] do you think you are asking me this?!" Also listen to the way she says "Yeah"to Amy Goodman.

Warren is acting like the "Nasty Woman" that Trump accused Hillary of being.  She lacks the temperament to be on stage to outwit Donald Trump.  Take this and the Native American DNA test incident, and you have someone who very easily takes someone's bait.

I just don't see it. She seems positive throughout, and has a bit of a light-hearted smile at the question. Maybe you can find something if you want to find a reason to dislike Warren, but I don't so I don't see it (and idk what I'd think if I were a neutral observer tbf though you clearly aren't one either). Really though, it seems like you're stretching and being unfair to Warren here.

[Mr. Smith]

Not one of the better moments, but hardly something construable either.

Wake me up if this is an actual pattern down the road.

[RI]

Black women are a decently sized voting bloc who are 98% Democratic. Turning them out is going to be important for any Democrat. I think we would all be better off with less racially polarized politics, yes. But as it is, this group has earned the respect they get from Democratic politicians.

But the marginal black voters, the ones who came out for Obama and maybe even HRC but who are not guaranteed votes in 2020, are mostly younger black men.

Which happens to be the group with abnormally high Trump support.

Ahahhahahah

Laugh all you want. There have been several polls suggesting this, including the recent NYT poll.

[libertpaulian]

Black women are a decently sized voting bloc who are 98% Democratic. Turning them out is going to be important for any Democrat. I think we would all be better off with less racially polarized politics, yes. But as it is, this group has earned the respect they get from Democratic politicians.

But the marginal black voters, the ones who came out for Obama and maybe even HRC but who are not guaranteed votes in 2020, are mostly younger black men.

Which happens to be the group with abnormally high Trump support.

Ahahhahahah

Laugh all you want. There have been several polls suggesting this, including the recent NYT poll.

If the Dems nominate someone like Warren, I think there might be some validity to the theory that Trump will do better among black men than normal.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Black women are a decently sized voting bloc who are 98% Democratic. Turning them out is going to be important for any Democrat. I think we would all be better off with less racially polarized politics, yes. But as it is, this group has earned the respect they get from Democratic politicians.

But the marginal black voters, the ones who came out for Obama and maybe even HRC but who are not guaranteed votes in 2020, are mostly younger black men.

Which happens to be the group with abnormally high Trump support.

Ahahhahahah

Laugh all you want. There have been several polls suggesting this, including the recent NYT poll.

If the Dems nominate someone like Warren, I think there might be some validity to the theory that Trump will do better among black men than normal.

Because they stay home. Not because they’re voting for him. Trump is reviled by black men. No one is coming around to him. The black men that support him are the same conservatives and men with anti-women, anti-gay beliefs that supported him last time.

[izixs]

She didn't seem nasty though, and had a good demeanor throughout. It was a light-hearted response. You can't reasonably expect presidential candidates to answer differently before Iowa and New Hampshire have voted, so I don't see how she could have given a different answer.

Watch her body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice.  She's thinking "Who the f[inks] do you think you are asking me this?!" Also listen to the way she says "Yeah"to Amy Goodman.

Warren is acting like the "Nasty Woman" that Trump accused Hillary of being.  She lacks the temperament to be on stage to outwit Donald Trump.  Take this and the Native American DNA test incident, and you have someone who very easily takes someone's bait.

I just don't see it. She seems positive throughout, and has a bit of a light-hearted smile at the question. Maybe you can find something if you want to find a reason to dislike Warren, but I don't so I don't see it (and idk what I'd think if I were a neutral observer tbf though you clearly aren't one either). Really though, it seems like you're stretching and being unfair to Warren here.

I have seen a number of folks making the pitch that her response was just The Worst Thing Ever. Usually from the left but not exclusively.

On the question itself: Yes it is ridiculous that there is any sort of monopoly on what states go first. It is also ridiculous that state order is a thing to consider at all in terms of political strategy as the primary should actually be national. But me wanting that doesn't change the fact that giving a firm answer along these lines is straight up dumb for a politician who has to appease the 'We go first!' crowd in Iowa and New Hampshire whom are a voting block that she is trying to woo.

So in short, to give the best answer to the question is basically political suicide. You either answer that these states should not go first which then your opponents can use against you in those states, possibly costing you the nomination, you answer that these states should really go first which is obviously dumb because they shouldn't and most the rest of the country feels so, or you kinda shrug and give the kind of answer she gave and hope people read into it something positive for their position.

And knowing this specific dynamic, to ask the question, given the lose-lose-maybe-lost nature of the question is in itself an absurd thing and tantamount to an attack on the candidate being asked it. A more complicated version of have you stopped beating your wife. Folks won't call Amy Goodman out for it due to her well established credentials as a progressive fighter and the reality that yes it is indeed wrong that these states go first, but its still a bs question to ask despite that.

So how about this. Instead of trying to force a candidate to give an inevitably dissatisfying answer on this question, we work independent of presidential candidates to change the underlying politics so they can say screw it to the way primaries are done? Would that not be a better option than going 'oh, she didn't answer perfectly, she's just the worst!'?

It would be a better option, but those making the attack don't give a crap about actually enacting the changes necessary to make that possible. Because, you know, interacting with the party organization which actually governs this stuff is forbidden wizardy that requires people to work together and interact like normal human beings and yelling on twitter that someone isn't giving the exact answer you want is easy.

Heh, me yelling about lazy Democrats online rarely gets things done as is, so I guess I'm proving case via my ineffectiveness?

[libertpaulian]

Black women are a decently sized voting bloc who are 98% Democratic. Turning them out is going to be important for any Democrat. I think we would all be better off with less racially polarized politics, yes. But as it is, this group has earned the respect they get from Democratic politicians.

But the marginal black voters, the ones who came out for Obama and maybe even HRC but who are not guaranteed votes in 2020, are mostly younger black men.

Which happens to be the group with abnormally high Trump support.

Ahahhahahah

Laugh all you want. There have been several polls suggesting this, including the recent NYT poll.

If the Dems nominate someone like Warren, I think there might be some validity to the theory that Trump will do better among black men than normal.

Because they stay home. Not because they’re voting for him. Trump is reviled by black men. No one is coming around to him. The black men that support him are the same conservatives and men with anti-women, anti-gay beliefs that supported him last time.

I never implied that Trump was going to be the one to reverse the GOP's fortunes with African-Americans, male or female.  However, even the eensiest teensiest uptick in support could make the difference in key states and/or in how the popular vote goes.

[Devout Centrist]

Black women are a decently sized voting bloc who are 98% Democratic. Turning them out is going to be important for any Democrat. I think we would all be better off with less racially polarized politics, yes. But as it is, this group has earned the respect they get from Democratic politicians.

But the marginal black voters, the ones who came out for Obama and maybe even HRC but who are not guaranteed votes in 2020, are mostly younger black men.

Which happens to be the group with abnormally high Trump support.

Ahahhahahah

Laugh all you want. There have been several polls suggesting this, including the recent NYT poll.

Again, I think turnout differentials and small sub samples in polling are the most likely culprit here.

[Gustaf]

I actually thought Warren's answer on that question was refreshingly honest.

[Beet]

Ralph Nader has written a letter to the NY Times on Warren:

No wonder that Elizabeth Warren’s conservative proposals have Wall Street rattled. She offers comprehensive law and order to bring under control the corporate crime wave, the reckless speculation with “other people’s money” and the violations of fiduciary duties to their clients.

For years before and after the 2008 self-inflicted Wall Street crash — steeped in greed and conflicts of interest — the undertaxed financial firms have expected immunities and taxpayer bailouts, weaker regulation and diminished disclosures.

What Senator Warren is telling them is that the sheriff is coming to town. The Wall Streeters should not be above the law any longer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/opinion/letters/warren-ralph-nader.html

[GeneralMacArthur]

Ralph Nader has written a letter to the NY Times on Warren:

No wonder that Elizabeth Warren’s conservative proposals have Wall Street rattled. She offers comprehensive law and order to bring under control the corporate crime wave, the reckless speculation with “other people’s money” and the violations of fiduciary duties to their clients.

For years before and after the 2008 self-inflicted Wall Street crash — steeped in greed and conflicts of interest — the undertaxed financial firms have expected immunities and taxpayer bailouts, weaker regulation and diminished disclosures.

What Senator Warren is telling them is that the sheriff is coming to town. The Wall Streeters should not be above the law any longer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/opinion/letters/warren-ralph-nader.html

As soon as someone talks about banks "feeling entitled" to bailouts, I know to ignore them.

The "bailout" was a loan that the banks paid back to the government, with interest.  American taxpayers profited from the bailout.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Ralph Nader has written a letter to the NY Times on Warren:

No wonder that Elizabeth Warren’s conservative proposals have Wall Street rattled. She offers comprehensive law and order to bring under control the corporate crime wave, the reckless speculation with “other people’s money” and the violations of fiduciary duties to their clients.

For years before and after the 2008 self-inflicted Wall Street crash — steeped in greed and conflicts of interest — the undertaxed financial firms have expected immunities and taxpayer bailouts, weaker regulation and diminished disclosures.

What Senator Warren is telling them is that the sheriff is coming to town. The Wall Streeters should not be above the law any longer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/opinion/letters/warren-ralph-nader.html

As soon as someone talks about banks "feeling entitled" to bailouts, I know to ignore them.

The "bailout" was a loan that the banks paid back to the government, with interest.  American taxpayers profited from the bailout.

It was still corrupt and wrong.

[GP270watch]

 Ralph Nader is one of America's greatest consumer advocates. He wrote or spearheaded so much great legislation.

[GoTfan]

Ralph Nader has written a letter to the NY Times on Warren:

No wonder that Elizabeth Warren’s conservative proposals have Wall Street rattled. She offers comprehensive law and order to bring under control the corporate crime wave, the reckless speculation with “other people’s money” and the violations of fiduciary duties to their clients.

For years before and after the 2008 self-inflicted Wall Street crash — steeped in greed and conflicts of interest — the undertaxed financial firms have expected immunities and taxpayer bailouts, weaker regulation and diminished disclosures.

What Senator Warren is telling them is that the sheriff is coming to town. The Wall Streeters should not be above the law any longer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/opinion/letters/warren-ralph-nader.html

As soon as someone talks about banks "feeling entitled" to bailouts, I know to ignore them.

The "bailout" was a loan that the banks paid back to the government, with interest.  American taxpayers profited from the bailout.

And they never should have been allowed to get to that state in the first place. Banks gamed the system badly in 2008. Instead of selling off everything bad and closing ranks as they had in the past,  they instead bought up so much that they became too big to fail then went hat in hand to the government, asking for a bailout and promising they would be good little boys.

If someone else can remind me how that worked out, I'd appreciate it.

[Pheurton Skeurto]

Ralph Nader has written a letter to the NY Times on Warren:

No wonder that Elizabeth Warren’s conservative proposals have Wall Street rattled. She offers comprehensive law and order to bring under control the corporate crime wave, the reckless speculation with “other people’s money” and the violations of fiduciary duties to their clients.

For years before and after the 2008 self-inflicted Wall Street crash — steeped in greed and conflicts of interest — the undertaxed financial firms have expected immunities and taxpayer bailouts, weaker regulation and diminished disclosures.

What Senator Warren is telling them is that the sheriff is coming to town. The Wall Streeters should not be above the law any longer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/opinion/letters/warren-ralph-nader.html

As soon as someone talks about banks "feeling entitled" to bailouts, I know to ignore them.

The "bailout" was a loan that the banks paid back to the government, with interest.  American taxpayers profited from the bailout.

You're such a moderate hero, you're defending the BANKS? Good god, man. Get a grip.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Ralph Nader has written a letter to the NY Times on Warren:

No wonder that Elizabeth Warren’s conservative proposals have Wall Street rattled. She offers comprehensive law and order to bring under control the corporate crime wave, the reckless speculation with “other people’s money” and the violations of fiduciary duties to their clients.

For years before and after the 2008 self-inflicted Wall Street crash — steeped in greed and conflicts of interest — the undertaxed financial firms have expected immunities and taxpayer bailouts, weaker regulation and diminished disclosures.

What Senator Warren is telling them is that the sheriff is coming to town. The Wall Streeters should not be above the law any longer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/opinion/letters/warren-ralph-nader.html

As soon as someone talks about banks "feeling entitled" to bailouts, I know to ignore them.

The "bailout" was a loan that the banks paid back to the government, with interest.  American taxpayers profited from the bailout.

You're such a moderate hero, you're defending the BANKS? Good god, man. Get a grip.

Atlas: Hitler killed 1.5 trillion people
MacArthur: That’s not true, he killed about 30 million
Atlas: oh lawdy now he's defending Hitler!

[Pheurton Skeurto]

Ralph Nader has written a letter to the NY Times on Warren:

No wonder that Elizabeth Warren’s conservative proposals have Wall Street rattled. She offers comprehensive law and order to bring under control the corporate crime wave, the reckless speculation with “other people’s money” and the violations of fiduciary duties to their clients.

For years before and after the 2008 self-inflicted Wall Street crash — steeped in greed and conflicts of interest — the undertaxed financial firms have expected immunities and taxpayer bailouts, weaker regulation and diminished disclosures.

What Senator Warren is telling them is that the sheriff is coming to town. The Wall Streeters should not be above the law any longer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/opinion/letters/warren-ralph-nader.html

As soon as someone talks about banks "feeling entitled" to bailouts, I know to ignore them.

The "bailout" was a loan that the banks paid back to the government, with interest.  American taxpayers profited from the bailout.

You're such a moderate hero, you're defending the BANKS? Good god, man. Get a grip.

Atlas: Hitler killed 1.5 trillion people
MacArthur: That’s not true, he killed about 30 million
Atlas: oh lawdy now he's defending Hitler!

More like

Atlas: Hitler was bad
MacArthur: Whenever someone tries to talk about Hitler being bad, I ignore them. Who cares about what Hitler did? That's in the past.

[Morning in Atlas]

Ralph Nader has written a letter to the NY Times on Warren:

No wonder that Elizabeth Warren’s conservative proposals have Wall Street rattled. She offers comprehensive law and order to bring under control the corporate crime wave, the reckless speculation with “other people’s money” and the violations of fiduciary duties to their clients.

For years before and after the 2008 self-inflicted Wall Street crash — steeped in greed and conflicts of interest — the undertaxed financial firms have expected immunities and taxpayer bailouts, weaker regulation and diminished disclosures.

What Senator Warren is telling them is that the sheriff is coming to town. The Wall Streeters should not be above the law any longer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/opinion/letters/warren-ralph-nader.html

As soon as someone talks about banks "feeling entitled" to bailouts, I know to ignore them.

The "bailout" was a loan that the banks paid back to the government, with interest.  American taxpayers profited from the bailout.

You're such a moderate hero, you're defending the BANKS? Good god, man. Get a grip.

>implying MacArthur is a moderate on economics

[GP270watch]

 The way people are whoring themselves out to the billionaire class over a proposed 2% tax increase that only begins after a huge amount of money has been accumulated is very odd. Do people not realize how much money these people have? Or how much their fortunes grow every year through investments or growth in their business. We're literally talking about a drop in the bucket to give the working class some programs that will make a huge tangible difference in their everyday lives.

 What is the dilemma here folks?

 A 2 cent wealth tax isn't radical, it's literally one of the most sober and rational policy proposals in decades.