Elizabeth Warren 2020

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

How is Liz going to get her agenda passed?

Trump being offered $25 billion by Schumer for an absurd 2000 mile border wall no one wanted kinda makes anything possible.

I happen to believe Liz is going to fight for her policies because she actually believes in them and Liz is a much better fighter than Trump. 

 She will use her bully pulpit to sell her policy ideas and persuade the public to her side.  She will put political pressure on the folks that need it.  

But we’re a long way off from that.  First she has to overthrow the Democratic Party. 

Edited June 25, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz
Not overthrow...take over

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

But we’re a long way off from that.  First she has to overthrow the Democratic Party. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Overthrow, take over, clean up, consolidate, lead, whatever you want to call it. 

Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will also win the leadership of the party.   

Liz isn’t an Obama or Pelosi democrat.  She’s an Elizabeth Warren democrat.  The Democratic Party will be much stronger with her at the top.

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

I really like Liz and will run to the polls to vote for her. But I'm calling it right now: If she wins the primary, she'll have a soft pivot in the general to seem less "divisive" to general voters. 

Like I said, she's currently successful with the "progressive fighter" stance right now because Bernie's platform gives her cover. I don't think she'll be as confrontational to the Democratic Party as you do. 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31535]

It's kind of comical to me that having actual policy ideas brands one a "progressive," these days, which is also code for flaming commanis hommasekshul librul.

IIRC, the term originated with around the first Roosevelt campaign, and while indicating a slight left lean, was not completely "liberal" in the sense that it would be used today.

 

[texastough 1129]

I ain't worried about no soft pivot. About 59% of voters are going to pick "not Trump" regardless of his/her policies or position on the political spectrum

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's kind of comical to me that having actual policy ideas brands one a "progressive," these days, which is also code for flaming commanis hommasekshul librul.

IIRC, the term originated with around the first Roosevelt campaign, and while indicating a slight left lean, was not completely "liberal" in the sense that it would be used today.

 

Fair point. I'm just leaning on the rhetoric I've seen from Warren supporters and "progressive" pundits. 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

3 minutes ago, texastough said:

I ain't worried about no soft pivot. About 59% of voters are going to pick "not Trump" regardless of his/her policies or position on the political spectrum

I'm not super convinced about that number just yet. 

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

21 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Overthrow, take over, clean up, consolidate, lead, whatever you want to call it. 

lol those are all very very different words

"murder, marry, greet, whatever you want to call it"

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

23 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I really like Liz and will run to the polls to vote for her. But I'm calling it right now: If she wins the primary, she'll have a soft pivot in the general to seem less "divisive" to general voters. 

Like I said, she's currently successful with the "progressive fighter" stance right now because Bernie's platform gives her cover. I don't think she'll be as confrontational to the Democratic Party as you do. 

I don’t think she pivots.  I think she goes after that section of Trump voters that know they got screwed.  The disgruntled Trump voters are angry at the establishment and the 1% that keep fucking them over.  She will try to harness that anger.

If they really want to stick it to the man, Elizabeth Warren is going to sell them a plan for that, or at least try to.

That’s been her shtick the whole time... FIGHTING against the 1%. 

She is one of the more dangerous candidates for the GOP because she’s always been a proud capitalist, the socialism crap isn’t going to stick as well.  She will also resonate with some of the religious folks with her moral clarity.  

She is capable of peeling off more Trump voters than Biden.  

Edited June 25, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

lol those are all very very different words

"murder, marry, greet, whatever you want to call it"

Yeah, mea culpa.  Poor word choice on my part. 

[TwiceHorn 31535]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Fair point. I'm just leaning on the rhetoric I've seen from Warren supporters and "progressive" pundits. 

 

 

I wasn't picking at you, just scattershooting on the term.  I'm not a political junkie, really, so any evolution of the term wouldn't surprise me, but I looked it up, and yes, it was coined or first frequently applied to Roosevelt's Bull Moose party, which departed from the GOP as a result of its "entrenched conservatism."  So it really meant "more centrist conservative," originally.

[Hank Kingsley 21054]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t think she pivots.  I think she goes after that section of Trump voters that know they got screwed.  The disgruntled Trump voters are angry at the establishment and the 1% that keep fucking them over.  

If they really want to stick it to the man, Elizabeth Warren is going to sell them a plan for that, or at least try to.

That’s been her shtick the whole time... FIGHTING against the 1%. 

She is one of the more dangerous candidates for the GOP because she’s always been a proud capitalist, the socialism crap isn’t going to stick as well.  She will also resonate with some of the religious folks with her moral clarity.  

She is capable of peeling off more Trump voters than Biden.  

You very well could be right. 

She's a fighter, and Trump WANTS a fight. She'll need to be disciplined and not take the bait. If Warren focuses on the voters then she should be fine. 

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That’s been her shtick the whole time... FIGHTING against the 1%. 

Not the whole time.

She was an anti-regulation conservative. (She told The Breakfast Club that she "wasn't that political" which... is a lie.)

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not the whole time.

She was an anti-regulation conservative. (She told The Breakfast Club that she "wasn't that political" which... is a lie.)

Lolz, she’s a GOP PLANT!  

A paper she wrote in 1980 titled   “Regulated Industries' Automatic Cost of Service Adjustment Clauses: Do They Increase or Decrease Cost to the Consumer”

Just because she was a policy wonk doesn’t mean she was political. 

Never miss an opportunity to sandbag tho...

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

It's not the title that's key, it's the argument that regulation should be eased so that utilities could be "innovative" in their price adjustments. It was a conservative Republican anti-regulation argument from a conservative Republican. That's fine, I think her conversion is genuine, but "the whole time" is a lie.

As I said to you before, either Paul was with Jesus the whole time OR he had an inspirational conversion on the road to Damascus. You can't have both.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

She changed her mind over time, you know, once she educated herself, got all the facts, and checked under the hood.  I don’t think that’s a negative.  

She doesn’t need to advertise it. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

We’re seriously going back to an academic paper written in 19fucking80???

But don’t dare criticize Bernie for bullshittery he spewed 20 years ago.

You need a Valium and a nap, BT.

[bad_teammate 13224]

What bullshittery are you talking about from Bernie?

I was pointing out that Elizabeth Warren used to be a Reaganite, anti-regulation Republican after Hugo said that she's been progressive "the whole time".  It's the reality of the situation. I'm fine with it, but the fact that you guys freak out when that plain reality is brought up says a lot more about you than it does about her.

[bad_teammate 13224]

Hell yes Liz. Hell yes

Fucking Beto was giving his stupid El Paso speech like 300 yards from people locke dup behind chain link fences and he just doofused it up and walked away.

BRING THEM HELL, LIZ! BRING THEM HELL!

[TwiceHorn 31535]

I imagine that her experience on the National Bankruptcy Review Commission and BAPCPA soured her on the mixture of big business and politics.

For those that don't recall, that was enacted in 2005 and pro-business legislators cited "personal responsibility" for making bankruptcy more onerous in various little ways.

It was really a solution in search of a problem, as creditors are not generally getting any money out of people who file bankruptcy, whether they file or not.  BAPCPA might have caused creditors to receive a few more cents on their defaulted dollars than had it not passed.

But it was completely bought and paid for by the banks and credit industry.

It was a microcosm of the last 15 years, really 20, as it was introduced in 1997.

And her remarkable empirical research on consumer bankruptcy in the US told her that this just made things needlessly harder on people, all in the name of some elusive and illusory corporate goal.

Edited June 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Doc Sam Beckett 5797]

3 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I'm not super convinced about that number just yet. 

 

No, and I'm confident that it's even lower with Warren in the rust belt. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

The hope Warren brings is that she can relate her very Cool and Very Good story about being a young mother who wanted more education to Rust Belt women who will be won over.

Other than that, yeah... might be kind of yikes.

 

[Fozzz 152]

Does anyone know what Liz’s healthcare policy is? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

Edited June 26, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Turkleton 145]

No reason to have borders, right?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

25 minutes ago, Turkleton said:

No reason to have borders, right?

I suppose you’re for the wall with machine guns. 

These border crossers are stealing MORE of YOUR tax dollars when we put them in detention centers.   You have to feed, bath, cloth, and give them healthcare when you imprison them.  

AS OPPOSED TO THEM EARNING IT ON THEIR OWN AND PAYING TAXES. 

 Because we know that’s what you really care about, how much they TAKE from you.

Don’t even pretend you give one fuck about sovereignty.

[Fozzz 152]

Does Warren support Creepy Joe's plan?  No one seems to seriously believe that she supports Medicare for All.  There doesn't appear to be any information whatsoever on her website regarding her policy on healthcare.

 

 

[Turkleton 145]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I suppose you’re for the wall with machine guns. 

These border crossers are stealing MORE of YOUR tax dollars when we put them in detention centers.   You have to feed, bath, cloth, and give them healthcare when you imprison them.  

AS OPPOSED TO THEM EARNING IT ON THEIR OWN AND PAYING TAXES. 

 Because we know that’s what you really care about, how much they TAKE from you.

Don’t even pretend you give one fuck about sovereignty.

Landslide 2020

[Mojo Hand 4580]

52 minutes ago, Turkleton said:

No reason to have borders, right?

No, Warren wants repeal the misdemeanor border crossing offense and rely exclusively on the civil deportation process to enforce the borders.   Which is the primary way we've done it for years.   The misdemeanor offense is unnecessary and has been used as a pretext to split up families.   This is the right approach to enforce our borders. 

[Js1 85570]

12 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

No, Warren* wants repeal the misdemeanor border crossing offense and rely exclusively on the civil deportation process to enforce the borders.   Which is the primary way we've done it for years.   The misdemeanor offense is unnecessary and has been used as a pretext to split up families.   This is the right approach to enforce our borders. 

*Actually think it was Castro's plan first. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Fozzz 152]

Love me some Zuc.  Zucman, Saez, and Piketty are the Holy Trinity.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

FUCKING GET THEIR ASSES LIZ

please don't let us down

[F250 28818]

10 hours ago, Turkleton said:

No reason to have borders, right?

That's the conclusion a retard would come to isn't it?

It's only been tried as a crime for less than 20 years.

Like ICE, these things recently came into existence. Decriminalizing border crossings and abolishing ICE are just proposals to roll immigration back to pre- the Bush era. Nothing radical about that.

9 hours ago, Js1 said:

*Actually think it was Castro's plan first. 

It was. Booker jumped on the train too. Expect a hard pivot from Beto soon.

[bad_teammate 13224]

Warren made (mostly) the right argument about how to defeat McConnell, which is with popular pressure.

That is the only way to do it, for sure.

Here's the problem... whoever is going to accomplish that needs an army.

Q1 fundraising results

imgur

Liz was outraised by Bernie, Kamala, Beto, and Pete. She was barely ahead of Klobuchar and Booker. 

Joe's day 1 haul of $6.3M was more than Warren's entire Q1 fundraising effort. (Joe isn't on this graph b/c he announced after Q1)

Her campaign was/is kept alive by a massive transfer from her Senate campaign, funds which were not raised in the same, grassroots-only style she is trying out in the 2020 presidential.

--------

So if Warren is entering the "change through political revolution" lane, those Q2 numbers better show a MASSIVE improvement.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Warren made (mostly) the right argument about how to defeat McConnell, which is with popular pressure.

That is the only way to do it, for sure.

Here's the problem... whoever is going to accomplish that needs an army.

Q1 fundraising results

imgur

Liz was outraised by Bernie, Kamala, Beto, and Pete. She was barely ahead of Klobuchar and Booker. 

Joe's day 1 haul of $6.3M was more than Warren's entire Q1 fundraising effort. (Joe isn't on this graph b/c he announced after Q1)

Her campaign was/is kept alive by a massive transfer from her Senate campaign, funds which were not raised in the same, grassroots-only style she is trying out in the 2020 presidential.

--------

So if Warren is entering the "change through political revolution" lane, those Q2 numbers better show a MASSIVE improvement.

I've heard her answer the question before, and like when she talks about playing hardball, how Dems always play by one set of rules and Rs no rules (Merrick Garland, Trump's national emergency), and that's gonna stop with her.  I wish she had gone there last night, it would have brought down the house.  I don't think she should come out and say that she's going to use a particular tactic like declaring a climate change or gun national emergency, but I do think she should leave it to the imagination.   If I worked for her campaign, I'd tell her to talk about how progressives need to go back to the way LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed through sheer will, and how it's time to leverage the power of the presidency for big positive things again. 

Edited June 27, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[bad_teammate 13224]

LBJ had a huge dick (literally and figuratively) and a long track record of dominating fools to get what he wanted by any means necessary. He didn't turn into that person in his 70s after a lifetime of not being that person.

We don't have an LBJ on the table.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Warren made (mostly) the right argument about how to defeat McConnell, which is with popular pressure.

That is the only way to do it, for sure.

Here's the problem... whoever is going to accomplish that needs an army.

Q1 fundraising results

 

 

Liz was outraised by Bernie, Kamala, Beto, and Pete. She was barely ahead of Klobuchar and Booker. 

Joe's day 1 haul of $6.3M was more than Warren's entire Q1 fundraising effort. (Joe isn't on this graph b/c he announced after Q1)

Her campaign was/is kept alive by a massive transfer from her Senate campaign, funds which were not raised in the same, grassroots-only style she is trying out in the 2020 presidential.

--------

So if Warren is entering the "change through political revolution" lane, those Q2 numbers better show a MASSIVE improvement.

It's almost like you're new to how organic grassroots movements develop. 

All the indicators show a slow and steady drumbeat of a rising Warren movement. 

Do you really think her quarter 2 numbers are going to fall short of something remarkable?  

Go ahead and draw your second quarter money line now.  

$10 million? $20 million? $30 million? 

Where does she need to be to persuade you?

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

LBJ had a huge dick (literally and figuratively) and a long track record of dominating fools to get what he wanted by any means necessary. He didn't turn into that person in his 70s after a lifetime of not being that person.

We don't have an LBJ on the table.

Well, no, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't make the argument that it's the way to use the presidency.  I think it's a good campaign strategy. 

[David Dennison 18946]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

LBJ had a huge dick (literally and figuratively) and a long track record of dominating fools to get what he wanted by any means necessary. He didn't turn into that person in his 70s after a lifetime of not being that person.

We don't have an LBJ on the table.

Not to nitpick, but he never made it to his 70s. He was 64 when he died.

Point taken, though.

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

Klobuchar not getting enough respect for being able to pull of "arrogant" and "nervous" at the same time. Skilled work.

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Do you really think her quarter 2 numbers are going to fall short of something remarkable?  

I'm sure they will be good. I don't know, however. She hasn't said anything.

Quote

Go ahead and draw your second quarter money line now.  

$10 million? $20 million? $30 million? 

Where does she need to be to persuade you?

If I am going to buy her as the #1-with-the-grassroots-people candidate then she needs to beat Bernie. If she has more contributors/contributions than Bernie, then it's clear she's grabbed the reins.

That's a very high bar, so let's talk about lower bars...

- She needs to be the clear #2 in grassroots fundraising. In Q1 she was 5th place among <$200 contributions. She needs to get ahead of Pete, Beto, and Kamala (Bernie is probably too far ahead to be caught by any of them).

- She needs to show growth and dominance among the young people in polling. That's the future, that's the movement, and whoever the young people support is who will get the juice from media and the grassroots.

[bad_teammate 13224]

Good, "Dem strategist" (AKA corporate whore), I'm fucking glad you feel uncomfortable.

You should.

Bernie and Liz are coming for your ass.

[David Dennison 18946]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Good, "Dem strategist" (AKA corporate whore), I'm fucking glad you feel uncomfortable.

You should.

Bernie and Liz are coming for your ass.

We're never going to end private insurance in this country.

What we need to do is say everyone pays into and gets Medicare. Then, if you want to purchase supplemental insurance, have at it. If you want a plan administered by a private insurance company a la Medicare Advantage, that, too, is an option. But everyone is paying into Medicare for All.

We already have this for people 65 and over. Just apply that to everyone.

What we need to end is employer provided health insurance.

Edited June 27, 2019 by David Dennison

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

BT yesterday:  Warren isn't clear on Medicare for All?!? Why not? What is her deal?!?! Why is she running away from this issue?!?! (concern troll voice)

Warren today:

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

We're never going to end private insurance in this country.

No one was talking about supplemental insurance. That's a minor, unimportant side issue.

Medicare 4 All is an actual bill that spells this stuff out.

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

BT yesterday:  Warren isn't clear on Medicare for All?!? Why not? What is her deal?!?! Why is she running away from this issue?!?! (concern troll voice)

Warren today:

 

You know who else said her lack of clarity was a legitimate criticism? You did.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You know who else said her lack of clarity was a legitimate criticism? You did.

I didn't doubt her position on it.  Glad she cleared it up for the concern trolls tho...

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I didn't doubt her position on it.  Glad she cleared it up for the concern trolls tho...

Ah yes, Mr. NANCY PELOSI SLAY KWEEEEEN is calling out progressives/leftists for "concern trolling" about progressive/leftist policy. Nice.

lol  you're so fucking bad at all of this

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Delaney at zero is correct