Elizabeth Warren 2020

[bad_teammate 13224]

SYNERGIZING CORPORATE VERTICALS!

 

[ChickenSandwich 9849]

2 hours ago, 6th Street said:

Come on son, you can do better than this. 

No he can’t. It’s perfectly acceptable to bankrupt a company based on his emotions. 

[tantric superman 4667]

Man, I viscerally don't like Warren or Bernie.  Would vote for either over Trump of course, but they just don't fit the profile.  I want folks to start passing them by.

[RPM 26341]

Warren is probably the smartest person the Dems have. Her heart is in the right place, too. Problem is she is facing some Hillary level hate and that may be too much to overcome unless she absolutely dresses down Trump in a debate. Not sure Trump would ever agree to one. You can only cry Pocahontas so many times when faced with serious questions. She would have serious answers.

[bad_teammate 13224]

 

[Anastasis 23481]

12 hours ago, 6th Street said:

Come on son, you can do better than this. 

Relax man. The socialists got this. 

[BradInATX 9208]

12 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

These companies do not "need" to grow at their current pace in any rational sense. They "need" to grow only under the mental illness that is an economy dominated by speculative trading.

If Facebook as a social network cannot survive on its own, that's the market speaking.

If Apple has a hardware business cannot survive on its own, that's the market speaking.

If Amazon as a retailer cannot survive on its own, that's the market speaking.

If Google as a search engine cannot survive on its own, that's the market speaking.

What these mergers and conglomerations do is prop up untenable businesses by stifling competition, opportunity, and choice. We understand that's what they are doing. You don't need to explain it to us, MBA Brain Genius. What we are saying is that them doing that is bad for the economy and country and we shouldn't allow them to do it.

"But if Apple doesn't retain control over the hardware AND the platform then it might not earn $20B+ in profits every single quarter!! OUR NATION WILL DIE!!"

Listening to Giant Business Brains talk is like listening to preachers. It's all rhetoric.

These companies innovate some technology and that's great, but to talk about them like they are the fountain of all (or even most) of our technological innovation is ridiculously ignorant.

"These companies innovate some technology and that's great, but to talk about them like they are the fountain of all (or even most) of our technological innovation is ridiculously ignorant."

Who said that? Don't pull a Hugo and completely mischaracterize someone's point then slink away when called on it. 

Anyway, to your larger point, before I respond to it, let me make sure I'm understanding your argument. Because I actually want to fairly understand what you're saying before I jump in on it. Correct me where I'm wrong, etc.

From what I can tell, by "If Apple has a hardware business cannot survive on its own that's the market speaking", you're saying one of two things, either:

- A company needs to specialize in one specific product line and nothing else, else it's predatory

 or

- A company shouldn't be able to subsidize one non-profitable product line via another, more profitable product line (AWS vs. Amazon retail, for example)

I think you're smarter than to argue for the former, so I'm assuming it's the latter. Essentially that's what you're saying? That it's predatory for Amazon to run one product line (retail) at a loss and subsidize it through AWS, because the market has spoken?

 

We can go ahead and ignore the greatness of you of all people talking about "the market has spoken" while at the same time lamenting "MBA bros" or whatever. But I thought it worthwhile to point out if for no other reason than to highlight the fact that you're basically dunking on yourself. You're a pro-market libertarian now eh? That's cute.

Edited March 31, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13224]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Who said that? Don't pull a Hugo and completely mischaracterize someone's point then slink away when called on it. 

Slink away? Nah.

You: It's remarkable that you think we should break up three of the most important companies in our economy, three companies that are doing a ton of heavy lifting in regards to maintaining our country's status as technology leader for the free world, three companies that employee several hundred thousand people and millions of contractors/vendors, without considering the ramifications of what that would look like and how it would impact our economy and the jobs and livelihoods of millions. Without considering how that would impact our lead on the global technology stage. 

Me: These companies innovate some technology and that's great, but to talk about them like they are the fountain of all (or even most) of our technological innovation is ridiculously ignorant.

That's not an unfair characterization at all.

You're dramatically overstating the "importance" (whatever the hell that means) of these companies and inflating their necessity in "our country's status as technology leader" (whatever the hell that means). It's overwrought and silly.

Quote

From what I can tell, by "If Apple has a hardware business cannot survive on its own that's the market speaking", you're saying one of two things, either:

- A company needs to specialize in one specific product line and nothing else, else it's predatory
 or
- A company shouldn't be able to subsidize one non-profitable product line via another, more profitable product line (AWS vs. Amazon retail, for example)

Neither. I already said it in the post. I'll say it again.

"What these mergers and conglomerations do is prop up untenable businesses by stifling competition, opportunity, and choice. We understand that's what they are doing. You don't need to explain it to us, MBA Brain Genius. What we are saying is that them doing that is bad for the economy and country and we shouldn't allow them to do it."

I have no problem with a corporation having multiple products. I have a huge problem with anti-competitive practices.

Quote

That it's predatory for Amazon to run one product line (retail) at a loss and subsidize it through AWS, because the market has spoken?

It depends on what you mean by "predatory" (a word I didn't use).

[BradInATX 9208]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Slink away? Nah.

You: It's remarkable that you think we should break up three of the most important companies in our economy, three companies that are doing a ton of heavy lifting in regards to maintaining our country's status as technology leader for the free world, three companies that employee several hundred thousand people and millions of contractors/vendors, without considering the ramifications of what that would look like and how it would impact our economy and the jobs and livelihoods of millions. Without considering how that would impact our lead on the global technology stage. 

Me: These companies innovate some technology and that's great, but to talk about them like they are the fountain of all (or even most) of our technological innovation is ridiculously ignorant.

That's not an unfair characterization at all.

You're dramatically overstating the "importance" (whatever the hell that means) of these companies and inflating their necessity in "our country's status as technology leader" (whatever the hell that means). It's overwrought and silly.

Neither. I already said it in the post. I'll say it again.

"What these mergers and conglomerations do is prop up untenable businesses by stifling competition, opportunity, and choice. We understand that's what they are doing. You don't need to explain it to us, MBA Brain Genius. What we are saying is that them doing that is bad for the economy and country and we shouldn't allow them to do it."

I have no problem with a corporation having multiple products. I have a huge problem with anti-competitive practices.

It depends on what you mean by "predatory" (a word I didn't use).

"Doing a ton of heavy lifting" =/= being "the fountain of all of our innovation". We've been around enough for you to think you can bring that weak shit with me. You can't ignore the fact that, as I stated up thread, those companies represent several million jobs, directly or indirectly. I know it's not a complete zero sum game, but as I said upthread, if you break up Apple and the sum of the whole ends up losing market share, then you're essentially shipping American jobs to Korea. What are your thoughts on that? Break up big tech sounds great, but the most likely outcome, while it could be consumer-positive, is a net negative on jobs for Americans. You want Americans to lose jobs? Why?

To the second part that actually has some meat in it.. help me understand what's anti-competitive about anything that Amazon does? 

Work with me here. They take money from AWS, whose revenue largely comes from big, rich tech companies, and subsidize a retail business that delivers goods to the American consumer at low price points, while creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. That's Robin Hood as fuck - where's the problem?

And sweet try at the stereotype but I don't have an MBA and have never worked for a company with more than 30 employees. On a visceral level, Amazon can eat a dick. But on a level where I respect our economy, jobs, and status as technology leader on a global stage, sometimes you have to grow past hormone-fueled rage and deal with reality, even if it's kinda annoying to watch the human penis named Jeff Bezos own a few yachts.

Edited March 31, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13224]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

"Doing a ton of heavy lifting" =/= being "the fountain of all of our innovation".

What about "maintaining our country's status as technology leader"? 

Quote

You can't ignore the fact that, as I stated up thread, those companies represent several million jobs, directly or indirectly.

Jobs change. Industries change.

Quote

I know it's not a complete zero sum game, but as I said upthread, if you break up Apple and the sum of the whole ends up losing market share, then you're essentially shipping American jobs to Korea.

Apple isn't a huge employer so this is kind of a bad example. Many of their jobs are retail jobs that aren't even $15/hr to start. They're kind of a perfect example of the problem, really.

Quote

Break up big tech sounds great, but the most likely outcome, while it could be consumer-positive, is a net negative on jobs for Americans. You want Americans to lose jobs? Why?

lol WHY DO YOU HATE PUPPIES!?!?

Quote

To the second part that actually has some meat in it.. help me understand what's anti-competitive about anything that Amazon does? 

- Price-parity agreements
- Removal of competitor's products

There are two.

Quote

Work with me here. They take money from AWS, whose revenue largely comes from big, rich tech companies, and subsidize a retail business that delivers goods to the American consumer at low price points, while creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. That's Robin Hood as fuck - where's the problem?

Like Wal-mart before it, Amazon's online retail kills physical retail businesses and annihilates the jobs you pretend to care about.

 

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What about "maintaining our country's status as technology leader"? 

Jobs change. Industries change.

Apple isn't a huge employer so this is kind of a bad example. Many of their jobs are retail jobs that aren't even $15/hr to start. They're kind of a perfect example of the problem, really.

lol WHY DO YOU HATE PUPPIES!?!?

- Price-parity agreements
- Removal of competitor's products

There are two.

Like Wal-mart before it, Amazon's online retail kills physical retail businesses and annihilates the jobs you pretend to care about.

 

 

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What about "maintaining our country's status as technology leader"? 

Jobs change. Industries change.

Apple isn't a huge employer so this is kind of a bad example. Many of their jobs are retail jobs that aren't even $15/hr to start. They're kind of a perfect example of the problem, really.

lol WHY DO YOU HATE PUPPIES!?!?

- Price-parity agreements
- Removal of competitor's products

There are two.

Like Wal-mart before it, Amazon's online retail kills physical retail businesses and annihilates the jobs you pretend to care about.

 

I'll be back shortly as soon as I figure out how to quote in chunks like you did, tech bro. Being a lot of tequila deep doesn't help

Edited March 31, 2019 by BradInATX

[BradInATX 9208]

 

Quote

What about "maintaining our country's status as technology leader"?

 

I mean I'm not legitimately worried about losing that status in the near term, but a long, slow degradation/downslope does concern me a bit. Especially with the way China and other countries couldn't care less about respecting patent law, etc. Someone else on this thread made the point that if you break up Facebook or whatever, there are foreign companies ready to fill that void. Will they? probably not. I don't see a bunch of people switching over from a decentralized Facebook to anime-Facebook, but there's still some risk there.

 

Quote

Jobs change. Industries change.

 

Non-answer. Try harder than that.

 

Quote

Apple isn't a huge employer so this is kind of a bad example. Many of their jobs are retail jobs that aren't even $15/hr to start. They're kind of a perfect example of the problem, really.

 

Apple is the least predatory of all of the companies we're even talking about. They're not even remotely close to a monopoly (25% market share is a monopoly?), and nothing they do is really that special other than the fact that they do it better and smarter than everyone. And this comes from a PC/Android guy. Sometimes I don't even understand how they rule the market like they do. They just out market, out-engineer and out-simplify their products for the every person. They really have no protection other than continuing to do it better and smarter than the market. There's not even a reason for them to be in this conversation outside of being big 4 evil tech. 

 

Quote

lol

 WHY DO YOU HATE PUPPIES!?!?

 

lmao. You just got bad teammated. But you didn't address the issue of it being a net negative for domestic jobs - you gonna get to that?

 

Quote

 

- Price-parity agreements
- Removal of competitor's products

There are two.

 

Both fucked up. I already said upthread that I agree with you on #2, and I'm with you on #1. But those are things that should be addressed in a more targeted fashion than "zomg break up big tech!!". I'm all for both of those. 

 

 

Like Wal-mart before it, Amazon's online retail kills physical retail businesses and

 annihilates the jobs you pretend to care about.

 

Fuck Wal Mart. But as you so eagerly espouse, "the market has spoken".

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by BradInATX

[BradInATX 9208]

Hell yeah I did it.

Edit: kind of

Edited March 31, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Someone else on this thread made the point that if you break up Facebook or whatever, there are foreign companies ready to fill that void. Will they? probably not. I don't see a bunch of people switching over from a decentralized Facebook to anime-Facebook, but there's still some risk there.

Who cares? Facebook is dogshit and it adds nothing to our society. In fact, it actively makes our lives worse. It would be great if it died and we would lose nothing. Twitter is shit. Amazon is shit.

"I like it!" is fine and everything, but we also like drugs, alcohol, and strange tail.

Quote

Non-answer. Try harder than that.

You didn't prove your assertion that it would be "net-negative on jobs". Saying it doesn't mean it's true.

Automation and technology replace jobs; they don't really add them.

Quote

Apple is the least predatory of all of the companies we're even talking about. They're not even remotely close to a monopoly (25% market share is a monopology?), and nothing they do is really that special other than the fact that they do it better and smarter than everyone.

They are extremely anti-competitive on their platform. They're in the SCOTUS right now on an anti-trust rap. eBook price fixing.

 

Quote

And this comes from a PC/Android guy. Sometimes I don't even understand how they rule the market like they do. They just out market, out-engineer and out-simplify their products for the every person. They really have no protection other than continuing to do it better and smarter than the market. There's not even a reason for them to be in this conversation outside of being big 4 evil tech. 

Yikes.

[BradInATX 9208]

Who cares? Facebook is dogshit and it adds nothing to our society. In fact, it actively makes our lives worse. It would be great if it died and we would lose nothing. Twitter is shit. Amazon is shit.

LOL. C'mon man. Facebook sucks. Twitter sucks. The Kardashians suck. American consumerism sucks. Move to Iceland. Now you've just distilled your platform to "Facebook is shitty fuck them". Which I don't disagree with, but that's not how things work. While I agree with you and part of me is like "fuck yeah, man", that's just as bad as the "14 year old libertarian" stuff that you like to rag on. There's nothing to it. There's a market for the garbage that Facebook peddles, and it creates jobs. We can't support 300 million people on jobs at dog adoption agencies, breweries, and organic farms, as cool as that would be.

"I like it!" is fine and everything, but we also like drugs, alcohol, and strange tail.

So you're saying booze drugs and tail are just as bad as Facebook? Fuck off.

You didn't prove your assertion that it would be "net-negative on jobs". Saying it doesn't mean it's true.

I mean it's pretty easy math.

- Phone market share is mostly zero sum.
- There are only two major players in the game - one US based and one Korea based
- If the US based one is weakened, the Korean one will gain market share and thus jobs

The only thing you could realistically argue is that breaking Apple up wouldn't weaken it, and you're smarter than that. Weakening it is kind of the point, isn't it?

Automation and technology replace jobs; they don't really add them.

Agreed though not sure your point.

 

They are extremely anti-competitive on their platform. They're in the SCOTUS right now on an anti-trust rap. eBook price fixing.

Will do. 

[BradInATX 9208]

Yep - the eBook price fixing thing was BS. I'm with you in outrage on that.

It's almost like there should be some laws against price fixing and hefty fines for companies caught violating said laws.

[maninblack 7974]

On 3/28/2019 at 9:08 PM, bad_teammate said:

Libertarians are 14-year-old boys who never got smarter.

Says the guy who supports a political idealogy that is responsible for the suffering and deaths of millions

[NWBuck 8583]

48 minutes ago, maninblack said:

Says the guy who supports a political idealogy that is responsible for the suffering and deaths of millions

Wait... B_t is an Aggy football booster? 

[TwiceHorn 31529]

This debate, to a certain extent, demonstrates the problem with the antitrust laws.  There's this vague idea out there that "big is bad."  It may actually be a valid idea. The various "trusts" were certainly bad, both economically and criminally.  But so far, articulations of why "big is bad" are lacking, for the most part.

When you legislate, you can't say " big is bad," you need some other rational rationale.

The banks are easy:  they hold so much of the world's capital that to allow them to cease or curtail operations would irreparably damage the world economy.  If they get a little too frisky at the world's backjack table, like they did in 2008 and years prior, they jeopardize the world economy.

For other types of businrssrs, the rationale invented in 1890 was the possession and exercise of "monopoly power."  The problem was, and remains, that identifying and "punishing" bad monopolies is still something the dismal science doesn't agree on, even in the most fundamental ways, more than 100 years later.  And it was quickly realized, even almost 100 years ago, that "breakup" or divestiture of "monopolies," was an extreme remedy that couldn't or shouldn't be exercised lightly.

The antitrust laws are still around, and get employed against nasty little practices in restraint of trade and to block anti competitive mergers, all the time.  But it would take some serious, and I think ill-advised expansion of the antitrust laws to start breaking up companies again (at least on antitrust grounds).  They have gone from a blunt and rusty instrument to a scalpel.  I'll even accept that they have gone a bit too narrow, on issues like resale price maintenance, but again, it's because there's little or no agreement among economists as to what practices ought to be proscribed (with a bit of help from the corrupt practices of business itself, both as to what the economists study and the more usual purchase of political influence).

It is my sense that the internet companies are more like the banks:  they control and centralize too much of the infrastructure of the internet, of what may be becoming essential facilities of the internet (e-commerce and advertising and related things), and of customer's privacy information.  I think some study of the issue by some sort of blue-ribbon panel type thing and a policy like Glass;-Steagall requiring business that operate in certain  sectors to be separate from one another is a more likely solution than blundering around with the antitrust laws again.

/end concern troll 👹👹

[TwiceHorn 31529]

Also, venture capital right now is tight and new company starts are slow.  One reason that is beginning to be cited is the anti-patent policy pursed by Congress and at the PTO as an overreaction to "patent trolls."  The charge at the PTO was led by Google's former, and current head of Patents and Patent Strategy, and, of course they purchased Congress outright.

The Obama Administration was very much in thrall of "big tech."

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

When you legislate, you can't say " big is bad," you need some other rational rationale.

I never said it in the first place. You made it up because you guys are like Marco Rubio with a memorized script in your head and when someone says something that triggers you respond with, "WE HAVE TO DISPENSE WITH THIS FICTION..."

The MBA Genius crowd is so used to just jerking itself off that it cannot process what other people say. It is only capable of dealing with the strawmen they build for themselves in their circlejerks.

I don't care about big.

Big can be great. Give me a big corporation where the workers control the board and receive great wages, equity/profit-share/etc.... Where the executives only make 2-3x the average worker. I'd love it. In fact, it's even preferable in many ways.

Here's something I don't like: Tim Cook, Apple CEO, has $1.3B.

Know how he rose in the company? By eliminating most of Apple's warehouse and manufacturing workforce in America and either outsourcing it or converting it to contract work with lower labor standards. That's not about being "big" as a company, it's about hurting American workers, the environment, and the economy to get a tiny number of individuals "big".

Quote

They have gone from a blunt and rusty instrument to a scalpel.

I swear to god you guys all say the exact same things, like you're grown in pods in a basement at McCombs. The same metaphors. The same phrases. The same intonations.  The same "let me explain some obvious things I heard in a lecture while openly ignoring what other people are saying" ramblings.

WE MUST DISPENSE WITH THIS FICTION

[bad_teammate 13224]

Let's say we all agree this is real...

MBA Brain Genius: "Sounds great! Inspiring job synergizing strategic co-visional partnerships to maximize revenues!"

Lib: "WE 👏🏻 NEED 👏🏻 MORE 👏🏻 BLACK 👏🏻 FARMERS."

Warren: "Break up Monsanto."

God-King B_T: "Keep Monsanto, expropriate the wealth of its executives, and give all power in the company to America's farmers."

[TwiceHorn 31529]

You know who else was complicit in offshoring American jobs?  Big labor, that's who.  In Germany, corporations, labor, and government came together after the Iron Curtain fell and worked out some at least temporary solutions to business sending jobs to the cheap former Eastern Bloc.  In the US big labor just said "fuck you pay me."  And big business acquiesced, until they didn't.

Business absolutely bears some blame for failing to consider all the stakeholders.  But other stakeholders screwed the moose, too.

As a general proposition, I really like a lot of Warren's proposals to make business more accountable to non-shareholder society.  Too bad we didn't have more like her 20-30-40 years ago. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

Not that this wasn’t a quality rant about how the ideal big corporation is one where workers control the board and the whole operation is an anarcho-syndicalist commune that produces ... something ... but that in any case eliminates rich people.

The rich can be rich as long as no one is poor. The problem isn't plenty, the problem is deprivation.

Quote

However, if I could dream up a big corporation, it might be one that, I don’t know, makes it where I can instantly order literally anything I need and get it delivered to my door step the next day.  It would be cool if we had something like that.

Agreed, we should have the USPS open an online retail wing in addition to postal banking, basically creating a state-owned Amazon. I'm glad you're on board.

Welcome to the Glorious Revolution, comrade.

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

You know who else was complicit in offshoring American jobs?  Big labor, that's who.  In Germany, corporations, labor, and government came together after the Iron Curtain fell and worked out some at least temporary solutions to business sending jobs to the cheap former Eastern Bloc.  In the US big labor just said "fuck you pay me."  And big business acquiesced, until they didn't.

Imagine being such a shitlord that workers demanding living wages, healthcare, and a comfortable retirement is characterized as "fuck you pay me".

SO FUCKING TIRED of these economy-destroying, rich-as-hell fatcats in...
*checks notes*
Kenousha, Wisconsin and Ypsilanti, Michigan

Also, do you know what the word "complicit" means?

Powerful Brain Energy: "One might say the slave was complicit in his own subjugation due to his acquiescence. Also, the Jews in concentration camps didn't fight back adequately. Thus, both the slave owner and the Nazi were incentivized by the negative action of their own victims. Had the Africans and Jews behaved differently, the negative outcomes would not have occurred."

[bad_teammate 13224]

8 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

You realize your economic ideas are basically the ones from Stalinist Soviet Union and Maoist China, right?

lol, are you seriously going to start pretending to be an expert on Stalinism and Maoism?

You didn't mention Venezuela. I'm disappointed.

How many other FOXNews tropes can you shove in pointlessly? Anything in there about red diaper babies? Uncle Rush got any other gems for ya?

Quote

Do you have 5 year plans for the state-owned Amazon, the state-owned Monsanto that pays profits to all the other farmers, and the system in which nobody is rich as long as anyone is still poor?   I remember on another thread you thought NYC should step in and regulate who gets what apartment, so can we also get the national housing plan?  I’d like to know which gulag I would be assigned to so I can pack accordingly.

I don't even know what you mean by "regulate who gets what apartment". You probably don't, either.

I mentioned a bevy of different options that might help with the housing problems. Rent controls, subsidies, public housing with means testing, etc...

Does it mean literally assigning people to apartments? If so, lol you're parodying yourself (a common thing among the right/center-right these days).

[Patrick Bateman 3918]

She also hasn't made much, if any, headway in the polls.  Gonna need to find some paper.

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

Just pitched in $75

LIZ NO

Edited April 1, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Bruh Man 3160]

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

Liz isn't fighting with anyone and no one hates her, so she's not in the headlines. No drama around Liz, really.

[NWBuck 8583]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Liz isn't fighting with anyone and no one hates her, so she's not in the headlines. No drama around Liz, really.

So she needs to go on the warpath?

(I'm sorry. I'm a terrible person.)

[wildcat09 29376]

More in the thread. Elizabeth Warren should just become the entire Democratic policy shop.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Hell yeah! 

[bad_teammate 13224]

LOCK THEM UP!

LOCK THEM UP!

[Doc Sam Beckett 5797]

She's so badass, and it's such bullshit that she doesn't gain traction. Any chance she could be a VP candidate? 

[gmr548 16607]

Put simply, she gets it. It is the reason why I support her and also why I am extremely pessimistic on her chances.

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 hour ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

She's so badass, and it's such bullshit that she doesn't gain traction.

100% agreed.

My wife was telling me today that the women she works with are all Beto/Biden and the sexism among her female friends against Liz is gross.

I won't speak to it because I'm a guy and I'm not going to comment on that, but that's what Mrs. B_T tells me and she's the best person in the world (only a saint would put up with me, as all of you would probably agree).

[Bama Chick 28596]

I agree that there’s an element of sexism from women involved.

But I also think her campaign announcement was too early and then it just kind of dropped off the map.

And her team hasn’t done a great job in getting her coverage.

Now that could be the sexism in the media - not covering the female candidate or it could go back to she announced so long ago that she’s “old news” so they’re covering the new shiny toys (Beto), the interesting underdog from out of nowhere (Pete), the grumpy, divisive “front runner” (Bernie), and the will he or won’t he guy with pervo stories dropping every hour (Joe).

Klobuchar and Gillibrand are also getting ignored but I don’t chalk that up to them being women - they’re frankly boring and don’t have a shot.

Cory Booker is being ignored for the same reasons.

The other bottom feeders like Hickenlooper - same thing, no shot and they’re either weird or boring.

Kamala Harris isn’t being as overlooked as Warren but she isn’t getting the same coverage as the dudes - I feel like she’s being included as, for lack of a less offensive term but nonetheless the correct one, the token so the media can’t be accused of only covering the white guys.

Bottom line - Warren’s campaign mechanism is subpar for such a quality candidate. Put her with Beto’s machine and I think she’d be a force. And her fundraising is apparently abysmal. Finally, her charisma and appeal seems to shine in a personal/retail setting and not through mass media.

Add that all together and it’s not a mystery to me why she’s struggling to break through in a crowded field where her competition is strong in the areas that matter at this stage.

Back to you, Jake.

[bad_teammate 13224]

I don't know how accurate Nate is here, but there are some numbers on coverage. Liz isn't being held back.

I bet her higher newspaper rank is because she comes out with a bunch of policies and longform journalism is better at covering that than the low-content, short-attention-span nature of TV news.

 

[Skyline 325]

10 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I agree that there’s an element of sexism from women involved.

But I also think her campaign announcement was too early and then it just kind of dropped off the map.

And her team hasn’t done a great job in getting her coverage.

Now that could be the sexism in the media - not covering the female candidate or it could go back to she announced so long ago that she’s “old news” so they’re covering the new shiny toys (Beto), the interesting underdog from out of nowhere (Pete), the grumpy, divisive “front runner” (Bernie), and the will he or won’t he guy with pervo stories dropping every hour (Joe).

Klobuchar and Gillibrand are also getting ignored but I don’t chalk that up to them being women - they’re frankly boring and don’t have a shot.

Cory Booker is being ignored for the same reasons.

The other bottom feeders like Hickenlooper - same thing, no shot and they’re either weird or boring.

Kamala Harris isn’t being as overlooked as Warren but she isn’t getting the same coverage as the dudes - I feel like she’s being included as, for lack of a less offensive term but nonetheless the correct one, the token so the media can’t be accused of only covering the white guys.

Bottom line - Warren’s campaign mechanism is subpar for such a quality candidate. Put her with Beto’s machine and I think she’d be a force. And her fundraising is apparently abysmal. Finally, her charisma and appeal seems to shine in a personal/retail setting and not through mass media.

Add that all together and it’s not a mystery to me why she’s struggling to break through in a crowded field where her competition is strong in the areas that matter at this stage.

Back to you, Jake.

What I find weird is that "electability" is only mentioned as a concern for Warren. Whereas other candidates don't have this problem. Namely, Pete, and Bernie. Although I haven't seen much of that for Kamala. 

[Patrick Bateman 3918]

16 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

She's so badass, and it's such bullshit that she doesn't gain traction. Any chance she could be a VP candidate? 

For the right candidate, she could be considered.  Not sure the map would work for her though.  She's really really strong on policy though and for someone who is a bit less specific on the nuts and bolts, maybe she could provide a more experienced and robust policy running mate.  She's an extremely formidable policy wonk.  She also isn't afraid, which is great....

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

What I find weird is that "electability" is only mentioned as a concern for Warren. Whereas other candidates don't have this problem. Namely, Pete, and Bernie. Although I haven't seen much of that for Kamala. 

In Warren’s case “electability” is code for “men won’t vote for a nagging old lady who’s smarter than them “.

[bad_teammate 13224]

Bernie isn't hit with "electability" concern-trolling? Turn on your monitor.

The Washington Post alone has run 8+ editorials in the last two weeks talking how dangerous and unelectable Bernie is.

[Skyline 325]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie isn't hit with "electability" concern-trolling? Turn on your monitor.

The Washington Post alone has run 8+ editorials in the last two weeks talking how dangerous and unelectable Bernie is.

He was hit with those in 2016 as well, but I believe the tide is changing on Bernie and we won't see as many of those editorials in the future. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Bernie is absolutely electable.  Hell, anyone is electable in 2020, including Donald Trump. 

[Skyline 325]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

 

In Warren’s case “electability” is code for “men won’t vote for a nagging old lady who’s smarter than them “.

 

There's also the case of people looking at Warren and assuming she will get the "Hillary Treatment" while also ignoring that the GOP will attack any Dem candidate so it doesn't matter who gets picked. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

There's also the case of people looking at Warren and assuming she will get the "Hillary Treatment" while also ignoring that the GOP will attack any Dem candidate so it doesn't matter who gets picked. 

The GOP absolutely will attack and smear any Democratic candidate but let’s not pretend there’s a different tenor and vitriol they use against women.

Hillary is just the most obvious example.

Look at the obsessive weird venom AOC gets. Nancy Pelosi gets used in attack ads in districts all over the country. Michelle Obama was just the First Lady for fucks sake and look how they still speak about her.

The GOP has a special brand of hell for democrats with a vagina.

[bad_teammate 13224]

Oh my god their hornyrage for AOC is breathtaking to behold.

If one of our minority or female candidates goes into the general, we have to be ready for war.

[Incredulity 11682]

52 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bernie is absolutely electable.  Hell, anyone is electable in 2020, including Donald Trump. 

I think this is right.  2016 proves anything is possible.

[kevwun 15856]

She needs to be talking about breaking up AT&T.  It really needs to be done, it would be easier than any of the companies she has mentioned and there would be less push back.

Edited April 4, 2019 by kevwun