Elizabeth Warren 2020 Megathread v2 (pg 35 - Emily List support)

[Shadows]

It was better than the last couple of debates & especially last on where she was very mediocre but again Biden & Sanders both did far better than her (Biden in part due to high expectations) & Klobuchar as well.

I mean Warren did better than Pete who clobbered but this will not reverse her slump. if Anything this will solidify the 2 horse race of Biden & Bernie which could this be heading to. Warren did make a case to Bernie's VP Candidate tonight & her jabs @ Pete were very good.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

On a Saturday evening in June 2018, with temperatures in the 70s and the Red Sox playing at Fenway Park, supporters of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren gathered at the City Winery Boston for a fundraiser.

They were treated to songs by the Grammy-winning artist Melissa Etheridge and heard remarks from Warren, who was months away from announcing her campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. For the top donors, those who could contribute or raise $5,400 per couple or $2,700 a person, there was a VIP photo reception and premium seating.

For them and others who gave at least $1,000, there was also a gift: a souvenir wine bottle.

https://apnews.com/e14a600779dddcabb8a3a809573285e2

[GeneralMacArthur]

Big-money fundraisers are a necessity if you're going to run for president.  They are a necessity for the party.  Period point blank.

If Warren wins the nomination, she will have to do big money fundraisers.  The only reason she doesn't have to now is because she frontloaded all of them, by doing them in her Senate campaign and rolling the money over to her presidential run.

She's taken advantage of the fact that she doesn't need them (for now) by decrying them as a big terrible thing, where politicians go to get bribed, and demanding that nobody else should do them either.  And conveniently having a "change of heart" after finishing all her fundraising.

She's being a huge hypocrite, she's crippling the party for personal gain, and she's flat-out lying about what happens at these events.  The class-warfare "wine cave" attack (far from being exclusive, ritzy places, these are super common in California) is just icing on the cake.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Warren trying to join together the billionaires & racism in some way:

https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1208538824130912256?s=20

[Beet]

Big-money fundraisers are a necessity if you're going to run for president.  They are a necessity for the party.  Period point blank.

If Warren wins the nomination, she will have to do big money fundraisers.  The only reason she doesn't have to now is because she frontloaded all of them, by doing them in her Senate campaign and rolling the money over to her presidential run.

She's taken advantage of the fact that she doesn't need them (for now) by decrying them as a big terrible thing, where politicians go to get bribed, and demanding that nobody else should do them either.  And conveniently having a "change of heart" after finishing all her fundraising.

She's being a huge hypocrite, she's crippling the party for personal gain, and she's flat-out lying about what happens at these events.  The class-warfare "wine cave" attack (far from being exclusive, ritzy places, these are super common in California) is just icing on the cake.

This is such a bad faith criticism.

$10m is nothing in a presidential campaign, and even most of that was raised on small dollar donors. People forget that even in Warren's Senate campaign she raised a record amount from grassroots donors against Brown. Warren's only in this race because of her grassroots support (same with Bernie, who also transferred the same amount and has done big money events in the past, but doesn't get attacked by Pete). But both of them are competitive financially due to grassroots support. Pete can't say the same.

Also, people who cry 'hypocrisy' aren't even trying to defend these big money fundraisers. He's not even saying there's no corruption going on. They are just trying to muddy the waters and poison the well so that no one can talk about it.

Big money fundraisers are not necessary for presidential candidates. First of all in a GE, there will be  hundreds of groups mobilizing the vote and there is nothing stopping billionaires and other wealthy people from contributing to these groups or issue specific campaigns if they care about the future of the country. Raising the most money is not a sign of having the best campaign in the GE. Clinton was tremendously damaged by all the time she spent in August at big fundraisers instead of going out and campaigning or meeting with voters. It gave Trump a way to paint her as the establishment and part of the swamp that he loves to campaign against. He would do the same for Biden or Pete.

If the Democrats want Citizens United repealed and real campaign finance reform, it is more convincing if they walk the walk now instead of waiting for a day that is years away. You have to show and demonstrate the politics you want or people will think it's just talking points.

[Donerail]

https://twitter.com/AnnieLinskey/status/1208559153171578880

Seems bad

[Beet]

https://twitter.com/AnnieLinskey/status/1208559153171578880

Seems bad

Important context-

“She’s made these claims. We don’t know her. Personally, we wish her all the best — nobody’s bashing her,” said Michael, who is a professor of indigenous studies. “What we’re saying is, ‘We don’t want to be involved with it.’”

It's not a protest. They just don't want to be involved in it -- perfectly understandable.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Big-money fundraisers are a necessity if you're going to run for president.  They are a necessity for the party.  Period point blank.

If Warren wins the nomination, she will have to do big money fundraisers.  The only reason she doesn't have to now is because she frontloaded all of them, by doing them in her Senate campaign and rolling the money over to her presidential run.

She's taken advantage of the fact that she doesn't need them (for now) by decrying them as a big terrible thing, where politicians go to get bribed, and demanding that nobody else should do them either.  And conveniently having a "change of heart" after finishing all her fundraising.

She's being a huge hypocrite, she's crippling the party for personal gain, and she's flat-out lying about what happens at these events.  The class-warfare "wine cave" attack (far from being exclusive, ritzy places, these are super common in California) is just icing on the cake.

This is such a bad faith criticism.

$10m is nothing in a presidential campaign, and even most of that was raised on small dollar donors. People forget that even in Warren's Senate campaign she raised a record amount from grassroots donors against Brown. Warren's only in this race because of her grassroots support (same with Bernie, who also transferred the same amount and has done big money events in the past, but doesn't get attacked by Pete). But both of them are competitive financially due to grassroots support. Pete can't say the same.

Also, people who cry 'hypocrisy' aren't even trying to defend these big money fundraisers. He's not even saying there's no corruption going on. They are just trying to muddy the waters and poison the well so that no one can talk about it.

Big money fundraisers are not necessary for presidential candidates. First of all in a GE, there will be  hundreds of groups mobilizing the vote and there is nothing stopping billionaires and other wealthy people from contributing to these groups or issue specific campaigns if they care about the future of the country. Raising the most money is not a sign of having the best campaign in the GE. Clinton was tremendously damaged by all the time she spent in August at big fundraisers instead of going out and campaigning or meeting with voters. It gave Trump a way to paint her as the establishment and part of the swamp that he loves to campaign against. He would do the same for Biden or Pete.

If the Democrats want Citizens United repealed and real campaign finance reform, it is more convincing if they walk the walk now instead of waiting for a day that is years away. You have to show and demonstrate the politics you want or people will think it's just talking points.

There's money available from a wide variety of different sources.  Let's suppose, for instance, that 70% of the money legally available is from small-dollar donors and 30% is from wealthier individuals, be they billionaires like Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg or simply multimillionaires like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

By the Warren/Sanders purity-test rules, we should abandon that 30% of our fundraising base, because it's possibly to run a campaign without it.  Meanwhile the GOP are crushing us in the money game.  They start off with an advantage because they're willing to cheat and break every law in the book, and they get free help from the right-wing-media empire and foreign governments.  And our response to that is to say "hey we can beat you with one hand tied behind our back"?

I mean, money doesn't directly correlate to votes, but nobody would deny that having more money is a good thing.  Would all that millionaire/billionaire money help us push a few house seats over the top?  Could it have saved Bill Nelson in FL-SEN 2018?  Could it have helped us boot out Rob Woodall, Chris Collins, Will Hurd and Jim Hagedorn, all of whom lost by < 0.5% in 2018?  Would pouring a few million dollars into field organizing have helped make Stacey Abrams or Andrew Gillum the governors of their states?

I wish we didn't have to ask these questions, I really do.  I wish money didn't matter, and all that mattered was being a good person with a great message.  But this is the world we're living in, and trying to change it unilaterally is a fool's errand.  It's like if we got invaded by China and said "hey we just want peace, and to prove it we're going to destroy all weapons higher-caliber than a revolver."

In the meantime, we need to be giving ourselves every weapon available, every fighting chance, every avenue possible to win.  Not telling our wealthiest and most powerful supporters to go f*** themselves because we're afraid of being falsely accused of corruption by Elizabeth Warren.

[OkThen]

Warren campaign put out a fundraising e-mail where they're concerned with where their fundraising stands. They say they're currently at a little bit higher than 17 million for Q4 (they raised 24.6 in Q3 for reference).

They have a few days, and I don't think 17 million is anything to sneeze at tbh (especially with the holiday season, etc.) However it's quite difficult to ignore that decline.

https://twitter.com/ShaneGoldmacher/status/1210607342015746048

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Warren is done

[Crumpets]

Warren is done

Okay, Booker.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Bernie certainly has more staying power and a more loyal following. I don't see a path for Warren unless she's back to come back and win Iowa. Right now, it seems unlikely.

[OkThen]

Not sure if others caught it, and it may be too little too late, but I think Warren gave one of her best (if not the best) speech of the campaign today.

Looks like she's really looking to recharge her campaign going into the new year, we'll see how it plays out.

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1212041181032415232

[Dr. Arch]

Bernie certainly has more staying power and a more loyal following. I don't see a path for Warren unless she's back to come back and win Iowa. Right now, it seems unlikely.

Yeah, I lost interest in her campaign.

[GP270watch]

 Warren is working like she's always done. The buzz and media spin cycle is not what's important to her campaign, it's nice when she has it but it doesn't make or break her. I've talked to many people who are excited or already decided on her because of the issues they are facing in their own lives like student debt, child-care, medical debt and health insurance.

 I would not be shocked if she wins the nomination and Presidency and the media backtracks to see how they missed it.

 

[Eraserhead]

Warren is working like she's always done. The buzz and media spin cycle is not what's important to her campaign, it's nice when she has it but it doesn't make or break her. I've talked to many people who are excited or already decided on her because of the issues they are facing in their own lives like student debt, child-care, medical debt and health insurance.

 I would not be shocked if she wins the nomination and Presidency and the media backtracks to see how they missed it.

She absolutely needs to win Iowa and/or New Hampshire to have a real shot. I'm not counting her out yet either but things are looking tougher.

[redjohn]

For some reason, in the couple appearances I've seen from her lately, it seems like she's lost her passion. It feels like her campaign has completely transformed from a progressive campaign to a campaign just supported by former Clinton diehards who think they can fool leftist voters into supporting Warren this cycle. It's a shame, because she's been a good Senator and has some good ideas.

Backtracking on Medicare for all and AOC endorsing Bernie will be seen as her main downfalls in this campaign, I think. It's not looking good.

[GeneralMacArthur]

For some reason, in the couple appearances I've seen from her lately, it seems like she's lost her passion. It feels like her campaign has completely transformed from a progressive campaign to a campaign just supported by former Clinton diehards who think they can fool leftist voters into supporting Warren this cycle. It's a shame, because she's been a good Senator and has some good ideas.

Backtracking on Medicare for all and AOC endorsing Bernie will be seen as her main downfalls in this campaign, I think. It's not looking good.

Bad take.  Nobody ever thought AOC was going to endorse Warren.  She's Bernie's protege.  And I don't know of many Clinton people who support Warren.

[izixs]

For some reason, in the couple appearances I've seen from her lately, it seems like she's lost her passion. It feels like her campaign has completely transformed from a progressive campaign to a campaign just supported by former Clinton diehards who think they can fool leftist voters into supporting Warren this cycle. It's a shame, because she's been a good Senator and has some good ideas.

Backtracking on Medicare for all and AOC endorsing Bernie will be seen as her main downfalls in this campaign, I think. It's not looking good.

Bad take.  Nobody ever thought AOC was going to endorse Warren.  She's Bernie's protege.  And I don't know of many Clinton people who support Warren.

Oh no... I'm agreeing with you on something. This is going to be a strange year...

A lot of the folks I run into who support Warren were very Sanders last time, but then were seeing him as the better alternative rather than the perfect candidate for them. Some are a bit more moderate in scope, but most tend to be very left but have some big doubts about the Sanders for various reason. Doubts that were moot last election because there were no nearest neighbor alternatives who could offer up more than his specific stump speech. There's also the odd person about who would be all in on Sanders but don't like how much he's trying to make being left just about him by accident. I'm not talking the content of his speeches but the overall results of his campaign. This leads them to Warren instead who is running as a candidate and not a movement leader. Someone who wants to support the ideals being asked for without making themselves the core figure of it in the process.

Still, making yourself, even if unintentionally, the keystone of a movement is a great way for Sanders to siphon 'anybody but Biden/Buttigieg' types to his banner as it becomes more obvious that the true believers backing Sanders won't compromise until he's no long running (and perhaps not even then), leaving the left divided in its opposition to the centrist boys.

[JGibson]

Elizabeth Warren has released her plan for disability rights.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

It's difficult to take seriously any candidate who flirts with Medicare for All before backing away from it. It's a huge, momentous policy agenda and one to which many primary voters have a strong, emotional commitment.

Now no one, neither supporters nor opponents of M4A, has much reason to trust her on it.

When it's all said and done, people are gong to look back at Bernieworld's work to make M4A the litmus test for the campaign, including the 2017 bill which he managed to get most of his rivals to cosponsor somehow, as the smartest strategic move of the 2020 cycle. It's become a defining issue in a way which seems almost incomprehensible considering how unlikely it is to pass and the number of other incredibly urgent and pressing issues we have.

Warren actually has a ton of very good, important central issues her campaign wants to address and is as aggressive (or even more!) than Sanders on a handful of issues. But she got suckered into a battle on Bernie's home turf and is paying the price.

For some reason, in the couple appearances I've seen from her lately, it seems like she's lost her passion. It feels like her campaign has completely transformed from a progressive campaign to a campaign just supported by former Clinton diehards who think they can fool leftist voters into supporting Warren this cycle. It's a shame, because she's been a good Senator and has some good ideas.

Backtracking on Medicare for all and AOC endorsing Bernie will be seen as her main downfalls in this campaign, I think. It's not looking good.

Bad take.  Nobody ever thought AOC was going to endorse Warren.  She's Bernie's protege.  And I don't know of many Clinton people who support Warren.

You see, your problem is that you expected redjohn to say something positive about a candidate not named Bernie Sanders.

[Koharu]

Well, looks like I'm on this bandwagon now.

[Mr. Morden]

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1213190052987199488

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I’m still backing Warren, as she’s by far and a way my favored candidate. But if she can’t pick her numbers back up I might have to back Bernie when GA votes, at least to keep Biden/Buttigieg from getting the nod.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

It's difficult to take seriously any candidate who flirts with Medicare for All before backing away from it. It's a huge, momentous policy agenda and one to which many primary voters have a strong, emotional commitment.

Now no one, neither supporters nor opponents of M4A, has much reason to trust her on it.

How has she “backed away from it”? Has she changed her policy to support a public option? Has she repudiated M4A? What has she done on the issue now that is untrustworthy?