Elizabeth Warren 2020

[Hank Kingsley 20903]

But I thought billionaire donations were bad?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

But I thought billionaire donations were bad?

Warren has pledged to not accept big dollar donations from corporate executives in her presidential campaign. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/10/15/elizabeth-warren-expands-big-money-pledge-banning-large-donations-from-tech-and-bank-execs/UAuuAW82WDb2tNQeCDiB9K/story.html%3foutputType=amp

However, there’s nothing stopping Sandberg from going on ActBlue, donating to Warren, then producing a receipt of that donation as a private citizen. 

It’s a weird flex to think a $2,700 contribution from her Senate campaign is going to have any influence on Warren’s future policy decisions considering she would reject any future contributions given Sandberg’s executive status. 

But here we are.  

[jimmyjazz 45880]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She probably maxed out to all the contenders including Trump.  We’re talking about $2700 here from a woman that’s worth $1.8 billion.  

I'm sure there's a good reason for this line of thought, but what is it?  The tax donation isn't going to move the needle.  Is it just access to future power?  There are far more effective ways to get there.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm sure there's a good reason for this line of thought, but what is it?  The tax donation isn't going to move the needle.  Is it just access to future power?  There are far more effective ways to get there.

Hedging bets. No matter who ends up winning you can say you were totally onboard with the campaign from the beginning and have the receipts to back it up.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[jimmyjazz 45880]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hedging bets. No matter who ends up winning you can say you were totally onboard with the campaign from the beginning. 

That's what I meant by "access to future power".

That argument would get destroyed by the revelation of a 100X (or more) donation to whatever SuperPAC truly aligned with the donor's actual perspective.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

That argument would get destroyed by the revelation of a 100X (or more) donation to whatever SuperPAC truly aligned with the donor's actual perspective.

Eh, I don’t think they care that much. There’s more liability not supporting the winning candidate than supporting all potential winning candidates.  Especially when we’re talking about chump change for these people. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

All roads lead to Warren.  

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-2020-candidates-have-something-in-common-their-supporters-also-like-warren/

This helps explain why the last debate was a Warren ambush.  It’s not so much that Warren is the clear front runner, it’s that she’s the one most likely to bleed supporters from everyone else.

 

 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Message Board User 12395]

She was in public school a long, long, long, long, time ago.  Times have changed.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

30 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

She was in public school a long, long, long, long, time ago.  Times have changed.

That’s kinda the thesis of her economic message...That real opportunity isn’t what it once was because our public schools are underfunded and higher education is overpriced. 

Edited October 23, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Good.

[GRHorn 105]

On 10/21/2019 at 8:24 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

We must stop the privatization of public schools. My administration will end federal funding for the expansion of charter schools, ban for-profit charter schools, and ensure existing charter schools are held to the same level of transparency and accountability as public schools.

Why does Liz hate urban minority children?

[GRHorn 105]

 

 

[mdmost 42999]

No politician is ever allowed to change their mind especially 15 years later. GOTCHA POCAHONTAS!

[henrygandorf 29189]

caught up on axios from sunday, and there was a segment about the economists behind warren's wealth tax.

could only find a 1 minute clip, but the whole segment/episode was pretty good this week.

 

near the end, they say they're interested in talking to any candidates who contact them.  they ask if kamala has been in touch, they say a little.  they ask about pete, they say they're in touch with pete.  they ask about bernie, and they're like, "bernie's plan is a lot more radical than this."  lulz.

[bad_teammate 13185]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

near the end, they say they're interested in talking to any candidates who contact them.  they ask if kamala has been in touch, they say a little.  they ask about pete, they say they're in touch with pete.  they ask about bernie, and they're like, "bernie's plan is a lot more radical than this."  lulz.

Bernie > Liz: It is known.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

19 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie > Liz:

Prior to the heart attack, Bernie could probably beat Liz in a game of hoops but now I’m not so sure. 

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

On 10/23/2019 at 2:30 PM, GRHorn said:

 

 

Well looks like ya got her, dabnabit!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[bad_teammate 13185]

Katie Porter is awesome

[Message Board User 12395]

Warren scrambling to figure out how to pay for M4A (without massive tax increases) and how to communicate it in a way that doesn't make the middle class say fuck that noise.

 

[Fozzz 152]

Paying for M4A partly with a regressive consumption tax is fucking hilarious.

[Biff Tannen 45663]

4 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

She should just stick with lying.

Or, you know, just tell the truth that taxes will go up, but the majority of people will pay less out of pocket due to the lack of premiums, co-pays, etc.  This isn't hard.

[Message Board User 12395]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Or, you know, just tell the truth that taxes will go up, but the majority of people will pay less out of pocket due to the lack of premiums, co-pays, etc.  This isn't hard.

Lying is a better route than this.  

And the Warren-ites are incredulous that people like me think she will have a difficult, if not impossible, winning those key states in the Midwest.

[Biff Tannen 45663]

Just now, Message Board User said:

Lying is a better route than this.  

And the Warren-ites are incredulous that people like me think she will have a difficult, if not impossible, winning those key states in the Midwest.

If people are too stupid to understand the truth then we probably don't deserve it anyway.  So I guess we probably actually agree.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The kiss of death:

Billionaire George Soros says Elizabeth Warren ‘is the most qualified to be president’

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/george-soros-elizabeth-warren-is-the-most-qualified-for-president.html

[bad_teammate 13185]

Democrats who don't have the courage to show pride in the welfare state and the taxation necessary to fund it are going to fold under right-wing pressure.

[softlynow 1812]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Democrats who don't have the courage to show pride in the welfare state and the taxation necessary to fund it are going to fold under right-wing pressure.

Democrats who run for high office saying taxes will go up will have no cards to fold.

Lying is the way to go. Low info voters buy bullshit. THAT is why Trump won. Also why Obama won, W, Slick ...

It never ceases to amaze me that people who follow the circus year ‘round don’t understand the basic gags that keep ‘em coming. 

[bad_teammate 13185]

Democrats who run for high office saying taxes will go up will have no cards to fold.

Bullshit. The common belief among right and center-right white guys that everyone else is like them pervades all "common sense" takes on this forum.

Tax hikes to fund social programs are approved all the fucking time via direct referendum, and that's in an environment of politicians pretending taxes are evil.

Leadership and courage are what is needed.

[RayDog 682]

On 10/25/2019 at 12:44 PM, bad_teammate said:

Katie Porter is awesome

Republicans sent a nude picture of her with a bong that was taken with her lesbian lover and boyfriend and I am still wondering why they are trying to help get her reelected.

[bad_teammate 13185]

Republicans sent a nude picture of her with a bong that was taken with her lesbian lover and boyfriend and I am still wondering why they are trying to help get her reelected.

Katie Hill is the fun and freaky one

[Bozo_Casanova 26434]

Republicans sent a nude picture of her with a bong that was taken with her lesbian lover and boyfriend and I am still wondering why they are trying to help get her reelected.

That’s Katie Hill. Katie Porter is awesome in a different way

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

11 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Democrats who don't have the courage to show pride in the welfare state and the taxation necessary to fund it are going to fold under right-wing pressure.

 

10 hours ago, softlynow said:

Democrats who run for high office saying taxes will go up will have no cards to fold.

Lying is the way to go. Low info voters buy bullshit. THAT is why Trump won. Also why Obama won, W, Slick ...

It never ceases to amaze me that people who follow the circus year ‘round don’t understand the basic gags that keep ‘em coming. 

Is it possible to do both? Anecdotal: earlier this year I used to mention my neighbor-the Trump voter? She is retired, and voted for Trump and off and on we've been having conversations. She is not hugely involved in politics and sometimes has the right leaning talking points, but health care is a big deal for her and she brings that up as well as her friend group being worried about it. She brought up socialism and so I asked if she meant as a political system or economic system, which drew a blank. So we had a short discussion about that and US policy. The upshot of the conversation (in my mind) was that if a candidate can essentially have a visual math problem with side by side columns you  might have a chance at illustrating to some (not all) of the low info voters that the long range plan is better for the country as a whole and does not harm the individual as much as they think it will. Or as I explained it, the insurance companies always find a way to make billions off of your health care needs. Why are you letting them tell you what you need. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

 

*On second thought, @softlynow, I may have made your point. Not sure. I obviously don't debate well.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

28 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 

Is it possible to do both? Anecdotal: earlier this year I used to mention my neighbor-the Trump voter? She is retired, and voted for Trump and off and on we've been having conversations. She is not hugely involved in politics and sometimes has the right leaning talking points, but health care is a big deal for her and she brings that up as well as her friend group being worried about it. She brought up socialism and so I asked if she meant as a political system or economic system, which drew a blank. So we had a short discussion about that and US policy. The upshot of the conversation (in my mind) was that if a candidate can essentially have a visual math problem with side by side columns you  might have a chance at illustrating to some (not all) of the low info voters that the long range plan is better for the country as a whole and does not harm the individual as much as they think it will. Or as I explained it, the insurance companies always find a way to make billions off of your health care needs. Why are you letting them tell you what you need. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

 

*On second thought, @softlynow, I may have made your point. Not sure. I obviously don't debate well.

If she's retired, maybe try explaining it in the context of Medicare, which she already has.  

[softlynow 1812]

5 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 

Is it possible to do both? Anecdotal: earlier this year I used to mention my neighbor-the Trump voter? She is retired, and voted for Trump and off and on we've been having conversations. She is not hugely involved in politics and sometimes has the right leaning talking points, but health care is a big deal for her and she brings that up as well as her friend group being worried about it. She brought up socialism and so I asked if she meant as a political system or economic system, which drew a blank. So we had a short discussion about that and US policy. The upshot of the conversation (in my mind) was that if a candidate can essentially have a visual math problem with side by side columns you  might have a chance at illustrating to some (not all) of the low info voters that the long range plan is better for the country as a whole and does not harm the individual as much as they think it will. Or as I explained it, the insurance companies always find a way to make billions off of your health care needs. Why are you letting them tell you what you need. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

 

*On second thought, @softlynow, I may have made your point. Not sure. I obviously don't debate well.

I think you did. Campaigns must reach people as they are, not as we wish they were. They aren’t remedial educational courses, they’re the process by which you take power. Dems must learn that 1. anything goes and 2. much of what your heart tells you is idiotically stupid in this context. You win by being ruthless and smart. Warren has that look. Bernie does not.

 

[softlynow 1812]

9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

 

 

Bullshit. The common belief among right and center-right white guys that everyone else is like them pervades all "common sense" takes on this forum.

Tax hikes to fund social programs are approved all the fucking time via direct referendum, and that's in an environment of politicians pretending taxes are evil.

Leadership and courage are what is needed.

 

Sure, call me a centrist and that sinking feeling you know I’m right will be gone ... for a while. I could spend time educating you, but unlike Mrs. W’s friend you don’t seem aware of your obvious short-comings.

[ndawg 1242]

18 hours ago, softlynow said:

Democrats who run for high office saying taxes will go up will have no cards to fold.

Lying is the way to go. Low info voters buy bullshit. THAT is why Trump won. Also why Obama won, W, Slick ...

It never ceases to amaze me that people who follow the circus year ‘round don’t understand the basic gags that keep ‘em coming. 

No, Dems should just run on, "we're raising taxes on the rich."

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Edited October 26, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[softlynow 1812]

4 hours ago, ndawg said:

No, Dems should just run on, "we're raising taxes on the rich."

That’s not how this works. The sound byte blasted into every home/on everyone’s Facebook feed is “we’re raising taxes.” You can say the words. Just like you can’t say “I was before X before I was against it” or any other phrase that requires any kind of explanation. Voters suck at their job, and the opposition is dangerous when you give them the easy use of magic words. Costs will go down is all you say. Period. 

[Message Board User 12395]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Bad news cycle?  

[Hank Kingsley 20903]

Is this where I disingenuously pretend to think Warren is owned by Soros? 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 Media is already scrapping at the bottom of the barrel for click-bait Warren articles but fuck yes, let's do George Soros conspiracy theories again!

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I didn't know that the Pete crowd was with the Republicans on the Soros bogeyman, but I guess it figures. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

NYT gonna NYT.

The reporting is good.  The headline is click-baity.

 

[bad_teammate 13185]

Tiegen is both hot in real life and funny on Twitter. Kind of the platonic ideal of a woman in 2019.

Just read the Warren piece and none of that is news to me, I already knew she was a Republican until her late 40s and is a "capitalism is good!" type even today. Social, racial, and environmental justice are pieces she's fit into her persona and message only within the last year. People are mixing up economic justice for working families with all this other progressive stuff. That's just not the reality of Elizabeth Warren.

Lawyers do unsavory things because we have a legal system that requires it. C'est la vie.

The reason I, King Snowflake of the Safe Space, have her as my #2 despite her completely non-existent record on issues of social, racial, and environmental justice, is that I'm a materialist. Economic justice is the most important out of all of those. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, and sexism basically disappear when there is no economic advantage to be leveraged against the marginalized groups.

I'll take a socially conservative/economically liberal candidate over a socially liberal/economically conservative person any day of the week. Give the oppressed people enough money and they'll be a better advocate for themselves than my white self ever could be.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Sweet Frances Perkins campaign video:

 

Still flexing on Zuckerberg 

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Yay!