Elizabeth Warren 2020

[GSU&UT 1,798]

17 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I can't wait for her plan showing how marketized healthcare is actually superior to universal healthcare.  

Yep, probably the only reason I'm leaning towards Bernie now. People want to freak the fuck ITT but pretty much all the other developed countries don't let you purchase private insurance as an option for basic health needs. I struggle to understand why anyone would go to bat for letting private insurers exist for anything other than supplemental needs.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Healthcare is the #1 issue for voters.  It would be political malpractice for Warren not to have a comprehensive plan to address it and it’s naive to think she doesn’t.   

You know why we can’t solve Healthcare?  Corruption.  The doctors, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies run that shit and they write their own laws through lobbyists and buying lawmakers.  Elizabeth Warren has the best solution to that problem through anti-corruption legislation.   Once you curb the abusive corporate control of lawmakers, only then can you get a successful egalitarian solution to Healthcare passed. 

Medicare for all is a pipe dream until to you cut off the money faucets to Capitol Hill and Elizabeth Warren knows this. 

I anticipate any Warren Healthcare plan will be littered with anti-corruption regulations. 

Edited June 14, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Fozzz 152]

woke grants

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Here’s the plan:

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/leveling-the-playing-field-for-entrepreneurs-2a585aa2b6d7

Every American should have a fair shot at starting a small business. The only things that should determine whether a new business succeeds are the strength of the idea and the hard work of the owners and employees.

But today, the playing field is tilted against entrepreneurs of color. On average, Black, Latinx, Native American, and other minority households have a lot less wealth than white households. That means they have less of their own money to put into their business and less collateral to attract outside credit. The typical Black entrepreneur starts a business with $35,000 in capital — a third of the startup capital for the typical white entrepreneur — and other entrepreneurs of color face similar challenges.

A lot of successful minority entrepreneurs have been able to overcome these hurdles to create thriving businesses. But this disparity in startup capital is the single biggest reason that promising Black-owned businesses on average are less profitable and bring on fewer employees than white-owned businesses. It’s part of why entrepreneurs of color own less than 20% of businesses with paid employees despite making up almost 40% of the population. And it’s helping create a small business gap that costs us millionsof jobs and billions in economic growth.

The small business gap is another example of how the racial wealth gap in America holds back our economy and hurts Black, Latinx, Native American, and other minority families and communities. And because the government helped create that wealth gap with decades of sanctioned discrimination, the government has an obligation to address it head on — with bold policies that go right at the heart of the problem.

That’s why I have a new plan: a Small Business Equity Fund to help close the startup capital gap for entrepreneurs of color. Because it’s part of my economic patriotism agenda — which aims to use all the tools of government to defend and create good American jobs — this new program will be run by my new Department of Economic Development,

Here’s how it works:

The new program will have $7 billion in funding to provide grants to entrepreneurs — not loans or loan guarantees. Current government policies focus on providing access to credit to entrepreneurs, but loans aren’t as good as no-strings-attached equity because they leave businesses with debt when they’re trying to grow. Equity helps businesses thrive from the beginning without having to worry about ongoing financial obligations or the risk of default.

The program will have clear federal standards and accountability but operate through states and municipalities, like the successful State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI), which created thousands of jobs and catalyzed billions in private financing.

It will be targeted at closing the entrepreneurship gap by limiting grants to entrepreneurs who are eligible for the Small Business Administration’s existing 8(a) program and who have less then $100,000 in household wealth. That wealth threshold is roughly the national average, but it’s five times the median net worth of Latinx and Black families, and over ten times the median net worth of Native American families.

States and cities will have to follow best practices based on the SSBCI to ensure taxpayer money is generating a strong return, including requirements to partner with private parties to make investment decisions, to institute strict conflict of interest rules, and to collect data on outcomes.

Why $7 billion in funding? That’s enough to ensure that if Black, Latinx, and Native American entrepreneurs started businesses at the same rate as white entrepreneurs, we could fully close the startup capital gap for every single one of these new minority-owned businesses for the next ten years. That means supporting 100,000 new minority-owned businesses, which together would be expected to provide 1.1 million jobs.

But we need to do more. We have to recognize that even if we fully close the gap in startup capital, deep systemic issues will continue to tilt the playing field against entrepreneurs of color.

The average Black-owned business only gets 3% of what a similar white-owned business receives in outside investment shortly after founding. A big reason for this disparity is the startling lack of diversity among investors: 86% of venture capitalists are white, and women and minority-owned firms make up less than 10% of the asset management industry. This hamstrings entrepreneurs of color: studies show that investors are more likely to partner with entrepreneurs that share their gender or race.

We need to address this disparity head on too:

I’ve pushed the federal government to seek out investment managers of color to manage federal funds. On day one of my presidency, I will direct all federal pension and retirement funds to seek out a more diverse set of investment managers, building on successful programs like the Smaller Asset Managers Pilot Program.

And I will go further, requiring states and cities administering my new Equity Fund to work with diverse investment managers too — putting $7 billion in the hands of minority- and women-owned investment managers.

Finally, while the Trump Administration has tried to slash funding for the Minority Business Development Agency — an organization dedicated to empowering entrepreneurs of color with access to funding networks and business advice — I’ll triple the MBDA’s budget so it can expand on its good work.

The cost of this entire initiative can be covered by my Ultra-Millionaire Tax — a two-cent tax on every dollar of wealth above $50 million.

We need to use all the tools available to address the racial wealth gap. That’s why I’ve proposed an expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act to ensure that mortgage lenders in communities of color lend to everyone on an equal basis, a student debt plan that invests $50 billion in HBCUs and Minority-Serving Institutions and substantially increases Black and Latinx wealth, and a historic new down payment assistance program that would help people in formerly redlined areas buy a home and get the wealth-building opportunities that were denied to previous generations because of government discrimination.

The Small Business Equity Fund is another tool we should use. It will create jobs, spur economic growth, and move us closer to an America where everyone has a fair shot to succeed.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Did you know Elizabeth Warren is a CO-SPONSOR on Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All Bill? 

Yes, which is why it is puzzling that she won't commit to it in her campaign to become president. Is it because she doesn't really believe in it? Is it because she is playing a political game?

Are we supposed to believe she's going to roll out some completely out-of-left-field plan with the genius idea no one has thought of?

24 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

woke grants

 

 

I'm fine with targeting women and POC with money, but I'm so fucking tired of "entrepreneur"-focused programs. Get out of the god damned 90s/00s. We aren't going to small-business our way out of this shit.

[Fozzz 152]

She won't support medicare for all because the stakes are a little higher now.  

[bad_teammate 13,132]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

She won't support medicare for all because the stakes are a little higher now.  

You're 100% correct and I 100% don't want to believe it anyway because fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

There needs to be more than 1 candidate who isn't a fucking garbage fire.

GOD DAMNIT

[bad_teammate 13,132]

I know that many (most?) are just concerned with getting gross, uncouth, embarrassing Donald out and are just furious at the Bernie Bro purity testing with regard to universal healthcare, but look at this...

Look at how pointless market reforms like ACA are.

The ONLY solution that will work is health coverage as a 100% universal, government-provided right. That's the only thing the bastards can't take away. It's the only thing that will stick and persist.

ACA, at its best point, took us from ~16% uninsured to ~11% uninsured.

Any candidate who is advocating anything other than 100% universal, government-provided, single-payer healthcare is offering a solution that will not, and cannot, work.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

IMO it's going to be Medicare buy-in no matter which Dem wins.   And Dems will move the government towards paying for more and more of it over time.   That's the compromise that will get enough votes. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

You're 100% correct and I 100% don't want to believe it anyway because fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

There needs to be more than 1 candidate who isn't a fucking garbage fire.

GOD DAMNIT

Don’t hate the player, hate the game.  Funny watching you turn on Liz when she’s threatening Bernard, like everyone predicted.  

Who could have thought Elizabeth Warren would have a plan to become President? 

Edited June 14, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Pescado_Rojo 19,330]

5 hours ago, 6th Street said:

Warren would make a good Sec of Interior or HUD in Biden's cabinet given the opportunity.

Position coach? Maybe a coordinator? 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

And Dems will move the government towards paying for more and more of it over time.

Which the Republicans will then march backwards.

This shit doesn't work. We are 18 months out from the general election, we have to demand better.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Don’t hate the player, hate the game.  Funny watching you turn on Liz when she’s threatening Bernard, like everyone predicted.  
Who could have thought Elizabeth Warren would have a plan to become President? 

Or maybe it's because she was for my #1 policy (m4a) and has backed away from it?

Not everyone is an intellectually bankrupt troll like you, Hugo.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

At least we know exactly what it will take for her to win you back.

[Fozzz 152]

Do we know where Putin stands on M4A?  

Edited June 14, 2019 by Fozzz

[henrygandorf 29,174]

15 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Do we know where Putin stands on M4A?  

on trump's windpipe hopefully.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

At least we know exactly what it will take for her to win you back.

Win me back? What the fuck are you talking about? When has my ranking ever been anything other than 1) Bernie, 2) Warren?

You guys should try having beliefs and goals. That way you don't have to constantly vacillate between which personality grabs you the hardest in the moment and you'll stop basing your beliefs off of how much you dislike the supporters of other candidates.

[Bruh Man 3,160]

8 hours ago, Fozzz said:

woke grants

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

If it's going to farmers, great. Perfect. We absolutely SHOULD guarantee food independence by propping up farmers through collective action when harvests are bad or international markets are unfavorable.

But it's probably just going to massive agribusiness, so... yet more capitalist bullshit in action.

[NWBuck 8,547]

34 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If it's going to farmers, great. Perfect. We absolutely SHOULD guarantee food independence by propping up farmers through collective action when harvests are bad or international markets are unfavorable.

But it's probably just going to massive agribusiness, so... yet more capitalist bullshit in action.

Aren't the largest farms in Iowa owned by Chinese companies? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

You guys should try having beliefs and goals. That way you don't have to constantly vacillate between which personality grabs you the hardest in the moment and you'll stop basing your beliefs off of how much you dislike the supporters of other candidates.

This might be your most hilarious post yet.  

[Huckleberry 32,694]

Win me back? What the fuck are you talking about? When has my ranking ever been anything other than 1) Bernie, 2) Warren?
You guys should try having beliefs and goals. That way you don't have to constantly vacillate between which personality grabs you the hardest in the moment and you'll stop basing your beliefs off of how much you dislike the supporters of other candidates.

This is true. Too many people have no guiding principles or beliefs these days. Lots of Democrats worrying only about electability and potential ability to enact policy by reaching compromise are basically the other side of the TahoeHorn coin and don't even realize it.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

electability is a myth and policy-through-compromise is another

Agreed

glad to have you on board

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Interview from today.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/14/18678099/elizabeth-warren-2020-capitalism-plans-primary

“I asked Warren where she disagreed with the democratic socialists, and didn’t get much. “I believe in markets,” she told me. “But markets without rules are theft.” I asked her about health care and education, which are the only places where Bernie Sanders suggests nationalizing even part of an industry, but Warren agreed with him. “Markets mostly don’t work in those areas,” she said. “It’s not to say there aren’t pieces that you could make work, but no. Health care is something that is a basic human right, and we fight for basic human rights. Public education is public education because it’s not market-driven.”

Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist and Warren calls herself a capitalist, but the difference between them is subtler than that suggests. If you ask Warren about capitalism, she’ll wax rhapsodic about what properly regulated markets can create. Ask Sanders about capitalism and he’ll focus on its failures and fundamental immorality. It’s a sharp difference in affect, but it doesn’t lead to all that much difference in policy.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Whenever someone conflates market economics with capitalism it's always a good sign they don't know what any of the words involved mean. Warren is a smart lady, but "I believe in markets" is a stupid answer to that question. You can have a socialist or capitalist market economy. You can have a socialist or capitalist planned economy. Democratic socialism, especially as espoused by Sanders, is a market-based economy.

Market economies are good for underwear and headphones, but they're garbage for anything that's actually necessary for human life. I'm very glad Warren agrees. She's smarter than every other candidate, my beautiful grandfather Bernard included (Bernie's probably not even Top 5 in pure smarts, for whatever that is worth in isolation).

Warren should go left of Bernie on healthcare and say we need to straight-up nationalize the whole thing a'la the British NHS. That's the only way to actually be more correct than Bernie on healthcare.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

11 hours ago, Fozzz said:

Do we know where Putin stands on M4A?  

Unlike you, not even Putin thinks Subway is vastly superior to Whataburger. Neither does Hitler. Or Bob Stoops. Or Chip Brown. Or Jeff Fisher. 

[tucker 238]

On 6/13/2019 at 1:45 PM, Hank Scorpio said:

Are you 2 years old?

 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

On 5/31/2019 at 10:53 AM, Message Board User said:

 

That was some funny ass shit. Mrs. Warren gets completely schooled, and basically avoids answering direct questions. Huge blunder she made early on in her career in an attempt to get ahead using minority status. It's still an issue mostly because she doesn't just say she was wrong. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

8 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Warren should go left of Bernie on healthcare and say we need to straight-up nationalize the whole thing a'la the British NHS. That's the only way to actually be more correct than Bernie on healthcare.

You can still buy private insurance in Britain and see a private doctor.  I’d be cool with that model. 

[babysdaddy 2,718]

Whenever someone conflates market economics with capitalism it's always a good sign they don't know what any of the words involved mean. Warren is a smart lady, but "I believe in markets" is a stupid answer to that question. You can have a socialist or capitalist market economy. You can have a socialist or capitalist planned economy. Democratic socialism, especially as espoused by Sanders, is a market-based economy.
Market economies are good for underwear and headphones, but they're garbage for anything that's actually necessary for human life. I'm very glad Warren agrees. She's smarter than every other candidate, my beautiful grandfather Bernard included (Bernie's probably not even Top 5 in pure smarts, for whatever that is worth in isolation).
Warren should go left of Bernie on healthcare and say we need to straight-up nationalize the whole thing a'la the British NHS. That's the only way to actually be more correct than Bernie on healthcare.

Market based economy gave you immunotherapy which is curing certain cancers. Garbage? There are thousands of examples. Mansplain away why I’m wrong berniebro.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

12 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Market based economy gave you immunotherapy which is curing certain cancers.

James Allison was not participating in any economic markets while slaving away in relative obscurity for decades. His research and education were all funded by... market competition? HOW!? What the hell are you even fucking talking about? Can you explain what this means?

"I LIVE LIKE A CAPITALIST EVERY SINGLE DAY!" - people who definitely understand what capitalism and markets are

[bad_teammate 13,132]

If she wins the nomination I will volunteer/donate/canvas/yell-at-right-wingers-online for her, but god damnit...

Here's my real concern: Warren will never be hammered hard enough to develop the right message during the primaries. Bernie's not going to come out in a headdress doing a tomahawk chop. Kamala isn't going to call her "Pocahontas". Biden isn't going to do a rally with a bunch of Native Americans behind him on stage.

Her response to Charlamagne tha God on The Breakfast Club was not confident and not convincing.

Do I, personally, care? Fuck no. I think this is a stupid-ass manufactured controversy. I think she's a cringey, try-hard dork who believed her family story and then acted like a nerd about it "oooh, let me copy some recipes from somewhere and put them in 'Pow-Wow Chow'!". It's about as relevant to her ability to be president as Dubya's dick size.

But she's her own #1 spokeswoman, and even if I get some takers to fight me in a Spec's parking lot over unfair attacks against her, I can only take so many ass-kickings and I won't get hundreds of thousands of viewers/listeners as I lay in traction. She's got to be able to win these more convincingly. I will never listen to right-wingers or care about their critiques on this, but when you're in there with someone like Charlamagne, you're in a sparring session and not an actual fight, and you can't get your ass kicked in a sparring session.

I really hope she has people, at least in private, training her up on how to deal with this. Because if Charlamagne can get her on the back foot, holy fuck when Trump gets on stage...

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Whenever someone conflates market economics with capitalism it's always a good sign they don't know what any of the words involved mean. Warren is a smart lady, but "I believe in markets" is a stupid answer to that question. You can have a socialist or capitalist market economy. You can have a socialist or capitalist planned economy. Democratic socialism, especially as espoused by Sanders, is a market-based economy.

Market economies are good for underwear and headphones, but they're garbage for anything that's actually necessary for human life. I'm very glad Warren agrees. She's smarter than every other candidate, my beautiful grandfather Bernard included (Bernie's probably not even Top 5 in pure smarts, for whatever that is worth in isolation).

Warren should go left of Bernie on healthcare and say we need to straight-up nationalize the whole thing a'la the British NHS. That's the only way to actually be more correct than Bernie on healthcare.

Warren’s approach appears to be more regulatory and watchdog oriented on our existing institutions while Bernie seeks to vastly expand the public sector.  

It appears Warren wants to shift wealth from the top of the pyramid to the bottom in the private sector.  Hence all the plans explaining specifically where she’s moving the money in the economy.  As opposed to wholesale nationalizing like Bernard has a tendency suggest.  

My #1 issue is corruption/white collar crime and and the main reason Warren is my choice.  I don’t think this country has seen a higher level of corruption among people who should be the best and brightest among us given their positions of power and wealth in society.  

In my opinion, until we get our houses cleaned in the public and private sector, there’s no way this country moves towards a better place on anything.   IMO Elizabeth Warren is the best person suited to tackle that problem because its what she has done her entire life.  She has the potential to hold everyone to higher standards and teach the public the importance of demanding higher standards.  Like Teddy Rosevelt, she uses morals to guide her policy decision making.  

Edited June 15, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[gmr548 16,481]

On 6/14/2019 at 8:04 AM, 6th Street said:

Warren would make a good Sec of Interior or HUD in Biden's cabinet given the opportunity.

Avatar checks out.

I think her answer the original question in the Breakfast Club interview was fine. Explain it was a family thing, admit it was wrong, move on. When pressed on it she froze up, no doubt she has to do better than that in the future. Frankly, with all the issues tied to the current president and indeed much of the Democratic field, if the Native American thing is the knock on her then I don't give a fuck. I don't trust this country not to zero in on it and make way too much of it, so she'd better be more prepared than that in the future.

Edited June 15, 2019 by gmr548
wrong name

[Pancho 44,434]

45 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If she wins the nomination I will volunteer/donate/canvas/yell-at-right-wingers-online for her, but god damnit...

Here's my real concern: Warren will never be hammered hard enough to develop the right message during the primaries. Bernie's not going to come out in a headdress doing a tomahawk chop. Kamala isn't going to call her "Pocahontas". Biden isn't going to do a rally with a bunch of Native Americans behind him on stage.

Her response to Charlamagne tha God on The Breakfast Club was not confident and not convincing.

Do I, personally, care? Fuck no. I think this is a stupid-ass manufactured controversy. I think she's a cringey, try-hard dork who believed her family story and then acted like a nerd about it "oooh, let me copy some recipes from somewhere and put them in 'Pow-Wow Chow'!". It's about as relevant to her ability to be president as Dubya's dick size.

But she's her own #1 spokeswoman, and even if I get some takers to fight me in a Spec's parking lot over unfair attacks against her, I can only take so many ass-kickings and I won't get hundreds of thousands of viewers/listeners as I lay in traction. She's got to be able to win these more convincingly. I will never listen to right-wingers or care about their critiques on this, but when you're in there with someone like Charlamagne, you're in a sparring session and not an actual fight, and you can't get your ass kicked in a sparring session.

I really hope she has people, at least in private, training her up on how to deal with this. Because if Charlamagne can get her on the back foot, holy fuck when Trump gets on stage...

 

I get the point of this post, but Charlemagne has no credibility. Essentially this is about debate skills and I get that, but this topic isn’t going to stop blacks from voting for her.

he tends to ask dumbass questions on that show anyway. 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

51 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

As opposed to wholesale nationalizing like Bernard has a tendency suggest.  

What industries has Bernie advocated nationalizing?

Bernie SHOULD be talking about massive nationalization of huge sectors of the economy (healthcare and energy being the two obvious ones), but he doesn't. You're not talking about Bernie, you're red-baiting a phantom because you're a troll.

Quote

In my opinion, until we get our houses cleaned in the public and private sector, there’s no way this country moves towards a better place on anything.   IMO Elizabeth Warren is the best person suited to tackle that problem because its what she has done her entire life.

You can't have "reformed-Republican-who-saw-the-light" and "lifetime-of-fighting-to-clean-up-the-country" at the same time.

Paul wasn't a saint forever AND an inspirational convert.

You gotta pick one, buddy.

29 minutes ago, Pancho said:

I get the point of this post, but Charlemagne has no credibility. Essentially this is about debate skills and I get that, but this topic isn’t going to stop blacks from voting for her.

he tends to ask dumbass questions on that show anyway. 

I wasn't bringing up Charlamagne as a representative of black voters, but of a kind of dimly-aware voter of medium/low knowledge and insight. Like Joe Rogan.

Dumbass questions, sure, but we have a lot of dumbasses in this world.

[Hank Kingsley 20,676]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Nate saying shit everyone could see coming nine months ago.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

If a candidate gets more voters than a different candidate, they might have more voters and keep getting more voters.

That'll be $1M for political consulting insights.

[Hank Kingsley 20,676]

Nine months ago? No.

Over the last month or two? Yes. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

If I could see it nine months ago, I’m sure others could.  I am not a smart man.

On 10/1/2018 at 9:54 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Elizabeth Warren’s political strategy has been in the making for a while.  She’s positioned herself to capture the Bernie bros early even though she’s actually much more conservative than Bernie when it comes to the welfare state.

 Her positions aren’t far left, they’re just so disruptive to the status quo’s culture of corruption and corporate greed.  

 

[Hank Kingsley 20,676]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

In other news, around 40% of millionaires expect to be worth over $50 million sometime in the near future. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Imagine if there was a candidate for president that studied our problems closely, listened to experts, and invested a lot of time writing all these plans to help fix America for the next several generations.  

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Serious question, Hugo.

Do you think Elizabeth Warren actually writes these policies?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Serious question, Hugo.

Do you think Elizabeth Warren actually writes these policies?

I think she has a staff of policy writers that kick around ideas and pitch policies for Elizabeth Warren to propose. 

I don’t think Elizabeth Warren is at home at night writing these things out on the back of a napkin and publishing on medium the next morning. 

However, this is a distinction without a significant difference. 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

9 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

However, this is a distinction without a significant difference. 

It's significant in that Warren follows the same path every other candidate does, but you (and many others) try to create the impression that she's actually writing them. What sets Warren apart is that she takes policy more seriously than many of her rivals and is making them the marketing center of her campaign, not that she's investing her own time and effort into crafting them.

She doesn't write them or have unique input vs all her rivals, she has a catchphrase about it (see the media coverage and polling surge since "I have a plan for that!").

Does Warren have more plans than her rivals? Not really, no. Especially not Andrew Yang, who has 50000+ policies from MMA fighters' rights to the penny. Bernie (of course) is loaded up.

It's smart of her to center her policy team, and also create the impression that she's the one writing it up late like Abraham Lincoln before the Gettysburg Address. It sets her apart from the majority of the field who either are or at least seem like empty suits.

And, of course, the fact that she is policy-focused is one of the things that make her FAR better than 20 of her rivals.

[RomaVicta 29,769]

I appreciate your last sentence, bad teammate. I thought you were about to dismiss her as just another candidate with a superior catch phrase.

I don't expect candidates to write every word they speak or present. A candidate who did so would not impress me more than a candidate who didn't. Such is the case for me with Warren.

The difference between what sprang from her own mind and what she has internalized doesn't matter in my judgment of what she believes or how she will act. I like that she does seem to be a believer and a dynamic actor. I agree with just about everything I hear her say.

I'm not a political junkie. I don't like the horse race part of how view and cover elections. I get bored quickly when conversation turns to electability. Warren shines through for me on a gut level as well as an intellectual level, but there are a number of candidates whose faces I wouldn't even recognize.

 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

I like that she does seem to be a believer and a dynamic actor. 

Same.

- She's smart.
- She is largely motivated by her empathy for working people specifically. Even her early years in which her politics were bad stem from her naive (but not disqualifying) belief that Republican politics of the 70s/80s were pro-working-people. (Empathy for working people, and calling them out as "working people" is #1 for me, obviously.)
- She wants to make positive change in the lives of working people.

This is why she's better than basically everyone else.

If I'm critical of Warren it's because we need to be critical of all candidates. We cannot let shit slide through the primaries that loses us the general. We can't do another, "it's his/her turn! shut up about the weaknesses, you're just giving the Republicans ideas!" round where we drop the ball in the game itself because we wanted to ignore problems in practice.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If I'm critical of Warren it's because we need to be critical of all candidates. 

Hahahahahaha