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

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Elizabeth Warren has released her plan for disability rights.

Some of her proposals I think are worthy of strong support, such as reforming the asset & income limits for SSI/SSDI, and protecting parental rights of those with disabilities.

But at the beginning of the document she proposes something unrealistic and harmful - the idea that you can increase the number of people with disabilities in the workforce, even while you abolish the program that incentivizes companies to hire them and provide them with support, instead requiring that they be paid $15 per hour.

A lot of the rest is just tangentially framing her standard policies as having something to do with disabilities.  And so much of her plans depend on the federal government micromanaging to an even greater degree.  I wonder if it occurs to her, for example, that the special education field could attract and retain more quality people if teachers didn't have to bury themselves in legalistic paperwork.

[Shadows]

Look @ how Yang, Booker, Steyer etc have fallen in the early states. With time there will be more consolidation in favor of the front-runners. Warren is 1% above 15% in Iowa. She needs to make this a 4 way race instead of a 3 way race. If she falls further & drops below 15% in Iowa, then she will fall below 8-10% in NH given there will be a debate in NH after Iowa results & there will be so much discussion about the results in Iowa.

[redjohn]

Warren in fourth, trailing her closest competitor by 7 in the latest Iowa poll. Such a collapse in expectations from last year, where almost everyone expected her to at least come in the top two (and likely win) the Iowa caucuses. I'm not sure where she goes from here to rebuild momentum in Iowa or if that's even possible with less than a month to go.

[Eraserhead]

The absolute collapse in New Hampshire is more worrying for her.

But you know, holiday polling and all, so we'll see...

[redjohn]

The absolute collapse in New Hampshire is more worrying for her.

But you know, holiday polling and all, so we'll see...

Completely true. A 13-point drop is catastrophic news for Warren... She doesn't seem to have a shot in IA anymore, so her only remaining hope is rallying progressives in NH. With Sanders surging in NH, though, there's little chance of that happening. Seems that Warren is over. 

[IndustrialJustice]

Extremely clear at this point that Warren should drop out and consolidate her support around Sanders.

That's how this works, right?

[libertpaulian]

Her only hope at this point is to hit Bernie hard in the debate next week.  However, that is likely to be highly problematic for her, given 1) Bernie is pretty much the purest progressive in the race, 2) they have a decades-long friendship, and 3) Bernie can hit her back twice as hard by pointing out how she's been trying to be Diet Pete for the past month.

[James Monroe]

EAST AMANA, Iowa — Anna Navin stepped out of her Honda, grabbed a large pink backpack from the passenger seat of her car and knocked on the door of Glenn Goetz, a 68-year-old retiree.

Navin, a 28-year-old organizer for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was meeting with Goetz to see if he would take on more duties as a precinct captain, including knocking on doors in other nearby communities and helping recruit volunteers.

As she stepped inside, Navin and Goetz greeted each other like old friends, and after a few months of running into each other at county parades and at volunteer events she had hosted on Warren’s behalf, they were. He offered her a cup of tea and a plate of freshly baked cookies as they sat down at his kitchen table to strategize about an area he was planning to canvass.

He had already been to the neighborhood, and he wondered if it was too aggressive. “You know, the more we talk to these caucus-goers, the better,” Navin assured him. “People will know you as the Warren guy.”

Organizing for Warren in one of Iowa's most rural counties.

[Beet]

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?

She revised her plan so dramatically that "step two" might as well not exist and she isn't talking about health care on the stump anymore. Almost every major media outlet has published some version of this account.

Moreover, it's just the latest demonstration of poor instincts. Somehow Warren took an issue that has never been anything but an advantage for Sanders and made it toxic. Bernie would have made mincemeat of Buttigieg if the same carefully rehearsed attack had been aimed at him.

Add that to the distorted stories that she has told about her ethnicity, her professional life, her children's public school attendance, and, most recently, her father's career... it sums to an unflattering portrait.

Bernie is in the race too-- he could have made mincemeat and he didn't-- why? Because he has no plan. He has a $16 trillion gap in how he's going to pay for Medicare for All that he can't defend, and if he gets into the GE the GOP isn't going to give him the free pass the mainstream media has been giving him in the primary.

Warren has at least been honest in admitting that it's not something that can pass in 2 years and that Democrats should settle for a public option if it's between that or nothing-- which is the choice in 2021, even if Democrats win the Presidency, the Senate, and the House, and get rid of the filibuster or use reconciliation. Abolishing private insurance simply isn't happening. We're not even talking Joe Manchin. Heck, even Nancy Pelosi doesn't friggin support it. And you can bet the Nancy Pelosis of the world will be key to any majority Democratic coalition.

The problem with Sanders people is that they go so far off the left cliff that treating it like you treat any other proposal-- which typically candidates are expected to have plans to pay for, especially if it's your signature issue-- becomes "backtracking" because you haven't met an impossible standard, even if you fully support it as an end result, as Warren does support for Medicare for All.

[💥💥 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.

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?

She revised her plan so dramatically that "step two" might as well not exist and she isn't talking about health care on the stump anymore. Almost every major media outlet has published some version of this account.

Moreover, it's just the latest demonstration of poor instincts. Somehow Warren took an issue that has never been anything but an advantage for Sanders and made it toxic. Bernie would have made mincemeat of Buttigieg if the same carefully rehearsed attack had been aimed at him.

Add that to the distorted stories that she has told about her ethnicity, her professional life, her children's public school attendance, and, most recently, her father's career... it sums to an unflattering portrait.

Bernie is in the race too-- he could have made mincemeat and he didn't-- why? Because he has no plan. He has a $16 trillion gap in how he's going to pay for Medicare for All that he can't defend, and if he gets into the GE the GOP isn't going to give him the free pass the mainstream media has been giving him in the primary.

Warren has at least been honest in admitting that it's not something that can pass in 2 years and that Democrats should settle for a public option if it's between that or nothing-- which is the choice in 2021, even if Democrats win the Presidency, the Senate, and the House, and get rid of the filibuster or use reconciliation. Abolishing private insurance simply isn't happening. We're not even talking Joe Manchin. Heck, even Nancy Pelosi doesn't friggin support it. And you can bet the Nancy Pelosis of the world will be key to any majority Democratic coalition.

The problem with Sanders people is that they go so far off the left cliff that treating it like you treat any other proposal-- which typically candidates are expected to have plans to pay for, especially if it's your signature issue-- becomes "backtracking" because you haven't met an impossible standard, even if you fully support it as an end result, as Warren does support for Medicare for All.

The difference is in what the campaign paints the candidate as. Bernie is a revolutionary movement builder and Overton Window shifter. Having detailed plans for execution is not supposed to be part of his appeal. And that's not meant as an attack. Warren on the other hand has built her brand around being a wonk and policy expert. You can't run a campaign with the slogan "she has a plan for that" and put out something sub-standard for the defining issue of the primaries. Of course someone like that is going to face more scrutiny for her M4A plan.

I think Averroes is off by treating this like a strategic blunder by Warren's campaign. As soon as Sanders made M4A the defining issue of the primaries in 2017, there was no way for Warren to address this issue in a way that didn't inflict damage (except for perhaps not cosponsoring his bill in 2017, although that probably would have made more problems than it was worth). There is no plan she could have put out which would have won over Sanders voters.

That's what I meant when I said this was a stroke of genius from Sanders and his campaign. He used his signature issue to paint Warren (and Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, and Merkley) into a corner a year and a half before any of their campaigns off the ground. It may win him the primary.

[GP270watch]

 Warren doesn't like corporations with too much power that exploit and take advantage of working people. So of course after examining the data she would be philosophically against private health insurance companies as they stand being the primary providers of our healthcare system. But at the same time Warren is pragmatic and practical and would favor policies that could immediately help the most people.

 Her attacks from the right of the Democratic Party are stupid because she's correct. Her attacks from the left and Sanders supporters are crap because giving millions of people healthcare or better healthcare on the way to an optimal system is critical as well. It's also what Sanders would do as he's always done as a longtime Senator. But everything, with Sanders and his supporters is a political revolution one that has a funny way of never materializing outside of campaign donations.

[Beet]

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?

She revised her plan so dramatically that "step two" might as well not exist and she isn't talking about health care on the stump anymore. Almost every major media outlet has published some version of this account.

Moreover, it's just the latest demonstration of poor instincts. Somehow Warren took an issue that has never been anything but an advantage for Sanders and made it toxic. Bernie would have made mincemeat of Buttigieg if the same carefully rehearsed attack had been aimed at him.

Add that to the distorted stories that she has told about her ethnicity, her professional life, her children's public school attendance, and, most recently, her father's career... it sums to an unflattering portrait.

Bernie is in the race too-- he could have made mincemeat and he didn't-- why? Because he has no plan. He has a $16 trillion gap in how he's going to pay for Medicare for All that he can't defend, and if he gets into the GE the GOP isn't going to give him the free pass the mainstream media has been giving him in the primary.

Warren has at least been honest in admitting that it's not something that can pass in 2 years and that Democrats should settle for a public option if it's between that or nothing-- which is the choice in 2021, even if Democrats win the Presidency, the Senate, and the House, and get rid of the filibuster or use reconciliation. Abolishing private insurance simply isn't happening. We're not even talking Joe Manchin. Heck, even Nancy Pelosi doesn't friggin support it. And you can bet the Nancy Pelosis of the world will be key to any majority Democratic coalition.

The problem with Sanders people is that they go so far off the left cliff that treating it like you treat any other proposal-- which typically candidates are expected to have plans to pay for, especially if it's your signature issue-- becomes "backtracking" because you haven't met an impossible standard, even if you fully support it as an end result, as Warren does support for Medicare for All.

The difference is in what the campaign paints the candidate as. Bernie is a revolutionary movement builder and Overton Window shifter. Having detailed plans for execution is not supposed to be part of his appeal. And that's not meant as an attack. Warren on the other hand has built her brand around being a wonk and policy expert. You can't run a campaign with the slogan "she has a plan for that" and put out something sub-standard for the defining issue of the primaries. Of course someone like that is going to face more scrutiny for her M4A plan.

I think Averroes is off by treating this like a strategic blunder by Warren's campaign. As soon as Sanders made M4A the defining issue of the primaries in 2017, there was no way for Warren to address this issue in a way that didn't inflict damage (except for perhaps not cosponsoring his bill in 2017, although that probably would have made more problems than it was worth). There is no plan she could have put out which would have won over Sanders voters.

That's what I meant when I said this was a stroke of genius from Sanders and his campaign. He used his signature issue to paint Warren (and Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, and Merkley) into a corner a year and a half before any of their campaigns off the ground. It may win him the primary.

Well by your own standard, there's nothing she could do. I just can't agree with that. It's circular logic that implies that no one else has a chance, which is patently not true even now.

If Bernie is a supposed revolutionary movement builder and Overton Window shifter, he has failed because (1) the Democrats took Congress in 2018 running on a moderate platform, and most of the freshmen Dems who control actual votes, remain moderates. (2) None of the candidates other than him and Warren support Medicare for All as he defines it. (3) His 'movement' is stuck in the position of simultaneously arguing that his biggest healthcare ally in the Senate, Warren, does not really even support his own proposal, and that he has somehow meaningfully shifted support for said proposal. It's incoherent. Unless one is to argue his movement is entirely Symbolic and has no real Substance, which is something I doubt his followers want to admit.

As far as healthcare, she does have a plan for it, and that's her slogan, "she has a plan for that". She does have one. You may not like it, but unless your candidate can put out a better one then there's no room to talk. (*If anyone has a better plan on healthcare, it's more likely to be Buttigieg or Biden than Sanders, since their plans are funded.)

Also, I keep hearing that "healthcare is the most defining issue", but sorry that is just not true. 90% of paying-attention voters choose a different issue than healthcare when asked. Even if you take out electability it is not the defining issue by far. Warren's top issue of corruption is actually a better one as it touches on the discontent that voters have with many issues (including healthcare). Where Sanders is doing well is that his campaign is being treated with kid gloves by the media and other candidates.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Well by your own standard, there's nothing she could do. I just can't agree with that. It's circular logic that implies that no one else has a chance, which is patently not true even now.

Strategically, there is nothing she could have done. Any plan she released would have been attacked by the center for obvious reasons (and a detailed plan gives specific ammunition to fire rather than trying to argue on moral authority, which is a losing point). Any plan she released would have been attacked by Sanders's vocal base and its media arms as being either too derivative or too watered down.

If Bernie is a supposed revolutionary movement builder and Overton Window shifter, he has failed because (1) the Democrats took Congress in 2018 running on a moderate platform, and most of the freshmen Dems who control actual votes, remain moderates.

I think the logic of the movement is that if you build a large enough coalition of M4A proponents (and more generally a strong working class/labor coalition) then Democrats in Congress will catch on and adjust their positions accordingly. I don't expect either of those will happen but that's what the goal of the campaign is.

There's a sizeable base of voters in the Democratic party who think that health care is a human right and several other candidates in this race (in addition to other party figures) either endorse or have highlighted merits of abolishing private insurance. He hasn't failed (yet) in this issue - he's been wildly successful.

(2) None of the candidates other than him and Warren support Medicare for All as he defines it. (3) His 'movement' is stuck in the position of simultaneously arguing that his biggest healthcare ally in the Senate, Warren, does not really even support his own proposal, and that he has somehow meaningfully shifted support for said proposal. It's incoherent.

It's incoherent if your strategy is to pass Medicare for All. It's totally coherent if your strategy is get Bernie Sanders to win the nomination.

Unless one is to argue his movement is entirely Symbolic and has no real Substance, which is something I doubt his followers want to admit.

I wouldn't go as far as to say it's entirely symbolic, but the symbolism and value-setting is definitely one of the primary objectives. You put out an idea, convince people it is a good idea, build a movement around the idea, and reorient the Democratic Party to enact your idea. The first couple of stages are necessarily symbolic.

Many of his ardent followers are peddlers of bad faith and personality worshippers. I don't care what they think at all.

As far as healthcare, she does have a plan for it, and that's her slogan, "she has a plan for that". She does have one. You may not like it, but unless your candidate can put out a better one then there's no room to talk. (*If anyone has a better plan on healthcare, it's more likely to be Buttigieg or Biden than Sanders, since their plans are funded.)

My candidate is Elizabeth Warren.

Also, I keep hearing that "healthcare is the most defining issue", but sorry that is just not true. 90% of paying-attention voters choose a different issue than healthcare when asked. Even if you take out electability it is not the defining issue by far. Warren's top issue of corruption is actually a better one as it touches on the discontent that voters have with many issues (including healthcare). Where Sanders is doing well is that his campaign is being treated with kid gloves by the media and other candidates.

Not only was health care the centerpiece of coordinated Democratic campaigns in 2018, but it's pretty obviously been at the center of the 2020 race. It's the most clear dividing line between the "moderates" and the progressives and it's been the issue the moderates have weaponized most effectively. It's been the lead to every debate thus far. Even when Warren was surging in Fall of last year there was a pretty obvious pundit-take (echoed by potential voters) as to when she would release her plan - it was supposed to be a sort of crowning jewel of her campaign. It's undeniably the central issue in the way the candidates and campaign have been discussed.

You can find surveys where Trump supporters won't select "cultural grievance" (or some coded variation) as their most important issue but that doesn't mean Trumpism isn't entirely based around grievance politics.

I think Warren's focus on corruption is great and comparable in importance to the health care debate. It's part of why I have been an unwavering supporter. That's why I think it's such a shame that the focus of the primary has been co-opted to be about an issue that won't pass in 2021. It's a pretty obvious extension to Bernie's campaign vision (and was an explicit part of his 2016 campaign) to fight corruption - the fact that a much more attainable issue has taken the backseat and sunk Warren's prospects is heartbreaking.

[NOVA Green]

Saw the MSNBC interview with Warren earlier today, and sound like she is sinking a ton of $$$ and resources into GA....

Looking for a Biden "Dead Cat Bounce"

IDK, but worth mentioning...

[Beet]

If Bernie is a supposed revolutionary movement builder and Overton Window shifter, he has failed because (1) the Democrats took Congress in 2018 running on a moderate platform, and most of the freshmen Dems who control actual votes, remain moderates.

I think the logic of the movement is that if you build a large enough coalition of M4A proponents (and more generally a strong working class/labor coalition) then Democrats in Congress will catch on and adjust their positions accordingly. I don't expect either of those will happen but that's what the goal of the campaign is.

There's a sizeable base of voters in the Democratic party who think that health care is a human right and several other candidates in this race (in addition to other party figures) either endorse or have highlighted merits of abolishing private insurance. He hasn't failed (yet) in this issue - he's been wildly successful.

The Sanders strategy is to engage in glittering generalities, while hoping no one challenges him on the details or costs of his bill. The only reason he's been able to get away with it so far is that no one has really questioned him on it. Warren has taken almost all the heat. The problem is that the details will have to come out eventually, and by avoiding it now he's just setting voters/his supporters up for a colossal shock down the road.

He had his chance in 2018 to show his brand of politics could appeal to places to the right of AOC/Tlaib-style districts and failed. According to his fans, Elizabeth Warren is not a part of his coalition. She's one of the strongest supporters of M4All in the Senate... she's not part of his coalition yet Senators like Cory Booker are going to be?

Not only was health care the centerpiece of coordinated Democratic campaigns in 2018.
, but it's pretty obviously been at the center of the 2020 race. It's the most clear dividing line between the "moderates" and the progressives and it's been the issue the moderates have weaponized most effectively. It's been the lead to every debate thus far.

Defending Obamacare was at the centerpiece, which has nothing to do with what's being debated in the primary today. Sanders and Warren were already progressives before the race started, and all the others were already considered moderate. It's been the lead to every debate (except the last two) because the media was obsessed about rehashing the same exchange every debate, not because polls show a majority of primary voters have it as their top issue.

Even when Warren was surging in Fall of last year there was a pretty obvious pundit-take (echoed by potential voters) as to when she would release her plan - it was supposed to be a sort of crowning jewel of her campaign. It's undeniably the central issue in the way the candidates and campaign have been discussed.

There was a pundit whisper about it, but it wasn't that prominent. It rose to prominence slowly during the debates as the media obsessed about it more and more - and now that impeachment and Iran are in the news it is not as prominent. According to something I read, Warren took 20 questions at a town hall recently and not one was about health care.

You can find surveys where Trump supporters won't select "cultural grievance" (or some coded variation) as their most important issue but that doesn't mean Trumpism isn't entirely based around grievance politics.

Do you think people who select electability or gun reform or the economy as their top issue secretly care more about health care? The reason Trump supporters don't select "cultural grievance" is because there is a social taboo against it - no one wants to admit their politics are based on "cultural grievance". There is no social taboo against saying health care is your top issue.

I think Warren's focus on corruption is great and comparable in importance to the health care debate. It's part of why I have been an unwavering supporter. That's why I think it's such a shame that the focus of the primary has been co-opted to be about an issue that won't pass in 2021. It's a pretty obvious extension to Bernie's campaign vision (and was an explicit part of his 2016 campaign) to fight corruption - the fact that a much more attainable issue has taken the backseat and sunk Warren's prospects is heartbreaking.

Well we agree there.

[Continential]

I wonder what the GA posters think of Warren focusing on Georgia?

[Shadows]

Warren's campaign unfortunately is over. She won't even make it to Super Tuesday or she will get 1-2% odd.

She needs to get into the Top 2 in Iowa. If she gets the distant worth, she will sink to at most 10-12% in NH & will get 0 Delegates. Pete will get a reasonable showing in Iowa which will push him past 15% in NH.

People are under-estimating the effect of Early States. The entire media narratives, 3 Debates after Iowa & between Super Tuesday will be based on early state results including questions about why the old didn't vote for X, or why the young votes for Y. Even if the NH CBS poll, 63% say Iowa results will be a factor in their vote (It will show GE electability & the real contenders according to NH voters).

Warren can't come @ a distant 4th in Iowa & make it to Super Tuesday. She has to drop out after NH with this performance given Nevada & SC both look tough to win for her.

[Cinemark]

I really like Klobuchar, but Warren is pretty great to. Wish she was a little more moderate though.

[darklordoftech]

I feel like Warren suffers from the perception that she’s “Sanders lite”.

[GP270watch]

 She's better than Sanders because she can achieve more. Sanders is an ideologue but not much of doer. All Warren does is roll her sleeves up and get to work. She'd have the best work ethic of any President since Bill Clinton.

[Crumpets]

Just throwing this out there: Warren has been recovering pretty handsomely on 538's national tracker. She could be back in 2nd nationally within a month, although Iowa will obviously have a big say in whether trends continue or not.

[Shadows]

Just throwing this out there: Warren has been recovering pretty handsomely on 538's national tracker. She could be back in 2nd nationally within a month, although Iowa will obviously have a big say in whether trends continue or not.

She is 3rd nationally & is 6.5% behind Sanders & is 12-13% behind in many polls including Morning Consult.

She is 4th in Iowa (Sanders 1st Pete 2nd). She is 4th in NH (& almost 7% behind Sanders, Biden 2nd). From leading Iowa, she is now 4th & her fall has even worse in NH where is around 4% behind Pete & Joe Biden. She is below 15% in NH (0 Delegates).

If that is an upward trend, I hope Warren continues to have more of the same !

[Pericles]

Just throwing this out there: Warren has been recovering pretty handsomely on 538's national tracker. She could be back in 2nd nationally within a month, although Iowa will obviously have a big say in whether trends continue or not.

A late Warren surge in Iowa is still possible, she can still win Iowa and from there perhaps the nomination.

[Crumpets]

Just throwing this out there: Warren has been recovering pretty handsomely on 538's national tracker. She could be back in 2nd nationally within a month, although Iowa will obviously have a big say in whether trends continue or not.

A late Warren surge in Iowa is still possible, she can still win Iowa and from there perhaps the nomination.

(Doing math to make myself feel better as a Warren supporter) I just have in the back of my mind that she seems to be sucking up a lot of Buttigieg supporters as he falls back down to earth, and these kinds of dynamics tend to be compounded in the Iowa caucuses as late deciders break towards the person with momentum and people whose candidate doesn't break 15% in their precinct have to go with their second, more popular choice.

[RogueBeaver]

https://twitter.com/KristenOrthman/status/1216879913078329344