that would be the case for any of our front runners?

for the misogyny that will come?

in 2016 ... and some of us have seen it all our lives.

Nevertheless, we have persisted.

And we will continue to do so.

but that's just me.

choose appeasing misogynists personally. And I am not saying that is the choice...but if it was, it is a no brainer to me...a misogynist in the white house our being nice to a few assholes in order to kick said misogynist to the curb...easy choice, If Trump wins reelection, we may not have a country to save in four years. We win, we live to fight another day; we lose and God help us and this Republic.

Listen to yourself. What's the point of defeating trump if we don't beat the mysoginists?

Stand for something and do better.

praised as showing "toughness."

4th place, barely ahead of Klobuchar.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-endorsements/democratic-primary/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Amy is an amazing person and would do well in Texas if she was the nominee

Unlike certain other candidates isn’t promising things that cannot be delivered

the Audacity of Nope

I read the Salon story and found the article to be amusing. Basically there are a number of mainstream leaders in the Democratic Party who are worried about Warren being electable. These leaders are not alone and I also doubt that Warren is electable.

I and a number of real hardcore Democrats have been working hard to turn Texas blue. Right now, Texas will be a battleground state for the Presidential race if we nominate Biden or another moderate. In 2018, we flipped two Congressional seats from red to blue (Lizzie Fletcher and Colin Allred). Colin and Lizzie are being targeted by the GOP and we will have to work hard to defend these seats. I have already donated to Colin and will be donating to Lizzie

In addition the DCCC and the Texas state party have identified 6 additional congressional seats that could be flipped. I have donated to Sri Preston Kulkarni, Kim Olson and Wendy Davis. In addition, Texas Democrats picked up 12 seats in the Texas state house in 2018 and we need to flip 9 seats in the Texas state house to control the Texas house and the 2021 redistricting session.

If Warren is the nominee, I am convinced that Texas will not be a battleground state and it is clear that we will have trouble flipping any seats and may lose Lizzie's and Colin's seats. I doubt that we will be able to flip the Texas state house and will see some horrible redistricting.

I tend to agree with the persons described in the Salon article as to having doubts as to the electablity of Warren.

moderates when the real reason is they were attacked mercilessly by our supposedly own side...nope can't have your cake and eat it too...attacking our candidates leads to a loss...always has.

describes people who are in the WaPo article.

The Salon writer seems to be believe that EW is not getting a fair deal.

But I am used to seeing Dems being held to different - and higher - standards than GOPers and even more, to having women Dems being held to impossible standards.

I hate it but recognize the world as it is. That is why we MUST continue to try to change it. Because if we don't try, it will never change.

I love it that you are working hard to turn Texas blue!

But remember that Elizabeth has barely begun to campaign there. You and Texas state party officials may be more positive about her campaign once she has begun to campaign there in earnest.

had run on a theme and left the policy for later...however, I still don't think she will be the nominee...I hope not. I think she loses a general. She of course has my support in a general.

Themselves from her and hope for the best.

Sure hope we don’t loose the house and back to all 3 branches in gop hands...sad!

I live in what used to be deep red Texas. We flipped my county and flipped 12 state house seats and 2 congressional seats. We hope to pick up six more congressional seats and 9 state house seats. Warren would keep Texas red and kill any chances that we have to flip Texas Banning private insurance would kill Warren in Texas

But IMHO, you are being much too negative about Warren.

She really connects with people when they actually see her in person instead of having their impressions "translated" for them by pundits or naysayers. Remember also that she was born and raised in OK and attended school in TX.

She has just hired a campaign director in Texas. Why don't you keep an open mind for awhile yet? There is still a LONG way to go and there are still many candidates in the race.

In addition Warren refuses to say how much her plan costs and how she will pay for it. Texas will be a battleground state unless Warren is the nominee

Both Biden and Warren have said they would be open to a buy-in option.

Biden: "Our plan will give Americans the choice to buy into a public option like Medicare. That’s the best way to lower costs and achieve universal coverage."

Warren: "So right now, there are multiple bills on the floor in the United States Senate. I’ve signed onto Medicare for All. I’ve signed on to another one that gives an option for buying in to Medicaid. There are different ways we can get there. But the key has to be always keep the center of the bullseye in mind. And that is affordable health care for every American."

Last edited Thu Oct 10, 2019, 06:20 PM - Edit history (1)

plans and how feasible they are considering their costs and viability.

that would actually increase her popularity.

She would have bee more electable in the GE had she untethered herself from Bernie

Its the media that in general wants to focus on anything other than her many well thought out policy proposals.

sites, fear-mongering about proposed policies and lack of accounting that adds up to the cost. M4All is very scary to some. So far, Trump keeps his powder dry.

be.
I evaluate plans myself, mindful of whether they are needed or simply wishful thinking, over-distribute investment to one pet project at the expense of already hurting social programs and safety net, will likely raise taxes more than being proposed or than can be anticipated, factor in other anticipated big ticket investments like infrastructure, deficit pay down, need to give citizenship to 11 million and process and humanely care for our migrants at Southern borders, cast too wide a net in income level of people served, are redundant or re-invent the wheel, show candidate to be out of touch with majority of Americans to the degree that I question their ability
to serve all, not a faction etc.

It is not an RW talking point to say we don’t need this plan or at this level of investment in it, we
need X. I am not a Republican if I want coverage for all Americans but also want to keep my terrific plan which I worked for in lieu of better wages.

It is also not right-wing to say that I am not prioritizing bold domestic economic policy ideas as coming before the need for experienced and knowledgeable foreign policy making right now.

Exactly.

Oh...

"some Democratic donors" or the oft-used "some people say" in our very lazy broadcast media.

Until now, Sen. Warren wasn't worth vetting but now she is. No point in complaining.

Just remarking.

Gopeee needs! It will sink her like a stone.

She should have parted ways with Sanders long ago

Sanders. She shares some of his convictions. But she also knows how to compromise and she is a team player.

And she actually knows what she is talking about.

Considering her relatively short time on the political stage, her actual accomplishments are amazing.

and she said nothing that I have heard.

Effective.

If you don’t think so. Google it! I am being considerate enough NOT to put them further out there

clearly this will be a line of attack on all our candidates...it is all the GOP slime have.

The Republicans will do so much worse. Our nominee has to be able to handle it.

believe that Elizabeth can't handle vetting?

This particular article points out that the WaPo article is not true vetting. It is "some say" with lots of innuendo.

All things considered, EW is pretty spanking clean.

Yes, some of her proposals need refining. But at least she has them in the first place.

If there is anyone who can "hit the ground running," she can.

I agree that article isn't true vetting. What she, or any nominee, will get from the Rs won't be true vetting either.

Well said.

Although I don't like the idea of "purging" anyone.

I prefer to think of it as moving on without them if they choose not to be with us. They can decide for themselves whether they want to continue being relevant or not. If they want to continue being relevant, they need to realize that the political world is NOT what it used to be ... if it ever truly was what they think it was.

I also disagree with her on a number of policies. As for 'purging' purge the hated 'centrists' then be prepared to lose badly. There are more of them than you and me.

Like it or not the bulk of the Democratic Party is not as far left as EW and BS supporters would like to think.

not so. The country is center left.

Unless you're willing to 'purge' the majority of the Democratic Party. The majority of Dems fall into the slightly liberal to moderate to conservative category. Still Democrats every single one. All of whom we'll need to win in 2020.

The questions about Warren should not be personal but on her proposed policies: whether they're realistic and affordable.

The Wealth Tax, for instance, which presumably will be used to pay for all these new programs. Everyone likes the idea of taxing the rich, making them pay their 'fair share.' That being said, Wealth Taxes have been tried in Europe, the vast majority rescinded over time. Because they simply did not work; the administration costs ate up most of the revenue. And the super-rich? Many of them moved elsewhere.

Medicare for All sounds great in the abstract, not so much in the nitty-gritty, particularly when people realize they'll need to give up their private insurance packages. The chronically ill and those suffering with deadly disease cannot afford a disruption in healthcare. And union people having fought like hell for their benefit packages are not keen on the idea either. A transition to universal coverage via offering a public option has far more public support. And a better chance of passing through Congress. Btw, Vermont tried mightily to create a statewide M4A package and failed. Shumlin and his team could not get the numbers to work without onerous tax levels or reducing the healthcare benefits below what citizens already had. Their conclusions? The program will not work until Pharma and healthcare service costs are substantially reduced. That should tell us something about magic wand proposals, as in The Math always has the final say.

Democrats who question these ideas are not scared of Elizabeth Warren. They're simply questioning the soundness of her policy stands and whether that will hinder her electability. And electability is still a thing because as James Carville said last night: Democrats have a moral imperative to soundly defeat Donald Trump.

wealth taxes have been tried and do not work?

I live in Europe and I pay a wealth tax here in addition to my income tax - as well as US federal and state taxes. Given my comparatively modest wealth, I don't pay much. But wealth taxes do work.

A wealth tax also doesn't require much additional administration. Where on earth did that idea come from? It's simply part of the tax burden and people accept it because tax revenue isn't all going to the military, but to health care, education, infrastructure and social programs that work to make the whole community a pleasant place to live.

Here’s one discussion from NPR’s Planet Money
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs

Another critique run by NBC News:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/elizabeth-warren-s-plan-tax-super-rich-has-been-tried-n963971

And here at factcheck.org
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/06/facts-on-warrens-wealth-tax-plan/

In fact, there are a slew of articles out there discussing the pros and cons of implementing a Wealth Tax in the US, whether the revenues collected would be as rosy as Warren has suggested, the administration and enforcement costs and the history of wealth taxes in other countries. And then the big hurdle of getting a package like this passed through the US Congress and/or if such a tax would even pass constitutional muster.

My point being that proposals can sound and read attractive on the surface but there are often problems lurking beneath what we see at first glance. And from what I’ve read, the Wealth Tax is the source of funding for a number of Warren’s social programs. If it doesn’t work or doesn't raise enough revenue does she have a plan for that? Because if she doesn't there will be a lot of disappointment and another round of cynicism about government overall. And that's the last thing we need.

most part in one of the three Europeans countries that still implement the wealth tax.

A lot of high-income French who feared the wealth tax there "fled" to this country to escape their wealth tax. But you can bet your boots that they're paying the wealth tax here.

So it does work when it's implemented correctly. The nay-sayers have other motives methinks. There is no reason why it can't be tweaked.

Given Elizabeth's comparatively short time being active at all in politics - beginning only in 1996 - and her very short time as a political activist - beginning only in 2008 - and her extremely short time as a Senator - beginning only in 2013, she has accomplished more positive actions than many other "professional" politicians during their entire professional lives.

She has also served as the Vice-Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus since 2017.

She has gotten where she is BECAUSE of her financial savvy and BECAUSE of her abilities as a team player in the Democratic Party.

So I have a lot of faith that she knows what she is doing, whatever the doubts from the nay-sayers.

much less healthcare, child care, free college, paying off college debt, environmental needs, and whatever else she’s gonna offer. All those things would be great, if we can pay for them assuming they would even pass, but .....

Warren MIGHT win against trump, he’s that bad. She’d get beaten by a Romney, Haley, etc.

Now she is being vetted and that is not a bad thing because she must stand up to this in order be our nominee which I still doubt will happen.

attempt to deceive. Typically trying to splinter away those leaning far left with the lie that Democrats are practically conservative, that there’s little difference. That’s Sanders message to those vulnerable to it, the Republicans’ message, and Russia’s message.

Our party is strongly dominated by liberals; and on ideology graphs there’s a serious and unmistakable gap in the center separating Democratic ideology and that of conservatives grouped over solidly on the right.

Reality is both parties need some overall “centrist” in ideology and mostly don’t have them. But liberals do understand that democracy requires reaching agreements with others, and we have a lot of people who do look for a way to make our democracy work the way it’s supposed to. Both the trumpists on the right and the far left prefer it broken to compromise.

The Democratic Party is committed to representative democracy, as Lincoln described it, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Just like calling Democrats socialists.

....and most often the label is used by a "leftist" (again, loose definition)

Russia and the Repubs.

Go too far left and there's precious little liberalism left. Instead, it's replaced with a reactionism very similar to that of the far right. The far left and far right have a great deal in common.

And to put it mildly, that's NOT the open-minded, relative acceptance of different points of view that is characteristic of the liberals who dominate the Democratic Party.

Btw, that last? If the far left dominated, there would be no liberalism. Just LW extremism. But there never has been a successful LW extremist party -- all attempts have failed, and you should ask yourself why.

There is no real currently viable plan B for the centrists. Harris foolishly went hard left, Pete is handicapped by the tragic cop shooting and also still-present homophobia in certain groups, and Bullock just never, unfortunately (as I think he could smash Rump if he had Abrams for a VP) caught fire at all. Klobuchar the same as Bullock (granted, she has fared better in the polls), but still is subject to misogyny issues (that Warren will definitely see as well) t the top of the ticket, and has had a failure to connect with PoC in terms of the polls as well.

Because there is no centrist plan B option, if Biden truly does start to really slide (that is so not a certain outcome, he is still very strong for now) then attempts are going to made to pull Warren back down so Biden can still pull it out.

Bernie has zero chance, other than to play true wrecker, which I am certain he will not do so himself, but his non-DU, more radical supporters are ofttimes out of control. They already are chopping away at Warren (the pregnancy thing that they started and the RW ran with.)

can and will handle vetting.

had to fight slurs and smears all their lives.

I agree that Pete is running an excellent campaign!

doesn't have a son who took a job for which his qualifications were apparently none other than being the son of the Vice President.

There was nothing illegal or wrong about that.

But still ....

We all know that Dem men are held to a higher standard than GOPers are. So yes, I am sure that slurs galore will come at Elizabeth Warren too.

Because Dem women are held to impossible standards.

Since we still haven't elected a woman, I'd say it's still time, but of course no reason to fixate on Warren just because of that. No one is saying it's her turn ad nauseum either, but she hasn't ran before might be the reason.

That smell is blood in the water! They wouldn't be attacking Warren now if they weren't scared.

She running to return to a history of progressive reform from the New Deal era when the government worked for the little guy. Take that and put it into the times of existential crisis we face with climate change.

We can no longer afford to move in baby steps when so much of Washington is corrupted by lobbyists and dirty money rigging the system to see us screwed over.

It is almost a bonus that Warren gets to make history as the first woman President in US history.

well lose. It is a sexist country. I would rather try a different year when won't get Trump if we fail.

A out the "uncertainty" of a lunatic thug sociopath currently in the White House making incomprehensible decisions in the interests of himself and foreign dictators.

Warren is sensible and pragmatic and leftist. That scares them... that she is likely to be a successful progressive president .

They'd rather have a lunatic thug rightist.

saddest thing of all.

I truly, genuinely feel your pain. Last week, MSNBC ran multiple segments, including Morning Joe and Last Word, declaring that progressive initiatives such as Medicare For All NEVER would pass the United States Senate, totally missing the point that Sanders and Warren have made it clear that they realize that they will have to mobile an army of advocates in order to egg the Congress to take action.

Naturally, these segments offered no chance for rebuttal either from the Sanders or Warren camps.