Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-12-2019, 12:25 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,874

Elizabeth Warren campaign goes full blown populist


Wow, the Warren campaign has taken a hard ‘angry’ populist turn over the last couple days.

1. Got a fundraising email last night with ‘Stick it to the billionaires who are fighting against our movement’ as the opening line.

2. Got a text this morning, ‘Companies like Exxon shouldn’t be able to pour money into junk science and use or to lie to fed regulators.’

I assume she’s trying to grab any of the Bernie supporters that are still gettable. Still, I’m not sure this is a great strategy. She’ll have a fervent army of Twitter warriors but most us don’t wake up in the AM wanting to smack Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg in the face.

It looks like the primary strategy is for her to knock out Bernie and then for Biden or Buttigieg to emerge as her competition. The drawback from this strategy is that I’m not sure Bernie will drop out when it becomes hopeless. Bernie went scorched earth in 2016 even when his campaign was all but mathematically eliminated. Whereas, I do think Biden or Buttigieg would drop out once it becomes clear that they’re not going to be the nominee.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #2  
Old 11-12-2019, 01:14 PM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,678
"Goes full blown populist"? What are you referring to? Policies that she has been fronting all along and/or that are consistent with her promoted platform?

Or that she uses relevant current media buzz antithetical to those policies as a jumping off point for promoting them and herself?
  #3  
Old 11-12-2019, 01:20 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
...but most us don’t wake up in the AM wanting to smack Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg in the face.
For others, it's the only reason to get out of bed.

As to the rest, I think Bernie is going to throw his unequivocal support behind Warren if/when it comes to that.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #4  
Old 11-12-2019, 01:55 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42
I assume she’s trying to grab any of the Bernie supporters that are still gettable. Still, I’m not sure this is a great strategy. She’ll have a fervent army of Twitter warriors but most us don’t wake up in the AM wanting to smack Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg in the face.
We should. We’ve got people working two jobs who still have to beg for insulin money on the internet. Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos could burn a hundred billion dollars and still be one of the richest billionaires in the world. That shit ain’t right.

I don’t for a moment believe Warren is sincere, but the sentiment is a righteous one.
  #5  
Old 11-12-2019, 02:40 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
These are fundraising emails, right? You're saying these are radically different from last month?
  #6  
Old 11-12-2019, 02:51 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
These are fundraising emails, right? You're saying these are radically different from last month?
Yes, they are. I went back just a bit more than a month to get past the debate and post debate fundraiser emails. The one on October 8 was about pregnancy discrimination.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #7  
Old 11-12-2019, 02:54 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
For others, it's the only reason to get out of bed.

As to the rest, I think Bernie is going to throw his unequivocal support behind Warren if/when it comes to that.
I’m well aware that plays well on college campuses and liberal urban blue bubbles. But, perhaps she should read a chart of soybean prices and spend some time telling voters about how awful Trump’s trade wars have been.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42

Last edited by dalej42; 11-12-2019 at 02:54 PM.
  #8  
Old 11-12-2019, 03:35 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
I’m well aware that plays well on college campuses and liberal urban blue bubbles. But, perhaps she should read a chart of soybean prices and spend some time telling voters about how awful Trump’s trade wars have been.
Warren is believed to be a bigger hawk on trade than Trump in many ways. So she hasn't challenged him much on it except to say she has a plan and he doesn't.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #9  
Old 11-12-2019, 03:59 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
. But, perhaps she should read a chart of soybean prices and spend some time telling voters about how awful Trump’s trade wars have been.
Sounds riveting. Wh doesn't like a good commodity price chart. The problem is that only means anything to farmers and economists, and the administration is propping up farmers to keep from getting too upset.
  #10  
Old 11-12-2019, 04:14 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,042
Although it seems weird to me to use "populist" to refer to criticism of an elite as tiny as the approximately 750 individuals who now control more wealth than the bottom 50% of all Americans, that seems to be a thing now, so OK?

But I remain baffled as to what's "populist" about objecting to corporations generating junk-science propaganda and lying to federal regulators. I mean, everybody except swindling crooks and liars is opposed to that kind of behavior regardless of their income level, right?

Does "populist" now just mean "in the interests of literally everybody except a minuscule minority of unbelievably wealthy power-abusing oligarchs and scofflaws"? If so, sign me up for the populist movement.
  #11  
Old 11-12-2019, 04:28 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,545
Hasn't "populist" always meant that? Against whichever group one can muster a popular negative sentiment.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #12  
Old 11-12-2019, 05:29 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Sounds riveting. Wh doesn't like a good commodity price chart. The problem is that only means anything to farmers and economists, and the administration is propping up farmers to keep from getting too upset.
I could make a damn good commercial about how Trump’s trade wars are destroying the family farms. Yes, I’d run in it in farm states, not in Manhattan.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #13  
Old 11-12-2019, 07:27 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Hasn't "populist" always meant that? Against whichever group one can muster a popular negative sentiment.
Not AFAICT. The original self-described Populists of the late 19th-century People's Party pitted tenant farmers against local landlords and merchants, for example. And self-identified Trumpian "populists" are mad at a huge variety of so-called "elites" including pretty much all Democrats, schoolteachers, journalists, academics, etc.

The OP is the first time I've ever seen such tightly targeted criticism of such a minuscule bunch of super-wealthy and corporate bad actors labeled "populism".
  #14  
Old 11-12-2019, 10:30 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
Going after "those fat cats in Washington" is a pretty common populist refrain. That's a pretty small group of people. Afaik, populism is merely positioning yourself as the defender of the common man against the elite.
  #15  
Old 11-13-2019, 05:53 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Wow, the Warren campaign has taken a hard ‘angry’ populist turn over the last couple days.
Why do you say that like it's a bad thing...?
  #16  
Old 11-13-2019, 09:14 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Why do you say that like it's a bad thing...?
Well, as a supporter of Buttigieg, I’m happy for Warren’s campaign to make mistakes.

But, Democrats should be focusing their ire on Donald Trump and the Republican Party. I get the impression that some of Warren’s supporters would happily take 4 more years of Trump in exchange for the opportunity to bend Bezos or Zuckerberg over their knee, take the belt off and give them a good hard spanking.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #17  
Old 11-13-2019, 09:43 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Well, as a supporter of Buttigieg, I’m happy for Warren’s campaign to make mistakes.

But, Democrats should be focusing their ire on Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
Actually history shows that just focusing on the hate of the opponent and forgetting to offer better solutions is a recipe for failure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
I get the impression that some of Warren’s supporters would happily take 4 more years of Trump in exchange for the opportunity to bend Bezos or Zuckerberg over their knee, take the belt off and give them a good hard spanking.
Maybe you did not get a recent memo from Buttigieg.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/butti...173109754.html
Quote:
NASHUA, New Hampshire (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said Thursday that he believes Facebook's policy to not filter out phony political ads is "a mistake" and that breaking up big tech companies should be "on the table."

The social media giant has "a responsibility to pull false advertising and ... to intervene when there is advertising that would contribute to voter suppression," Butttigieg told reporters after hosting an economic policy event in New Hampshire.
  #18  
Old 11-13-2019, 11:18 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,874
Just saw on the official Warren Twitter account that they’re selling Billionaire Tears coffee mugs.

https://twitter.com/teamwarren/statu...597333505?s=21

Well, it’s a campaign strategy.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #19  
Old 11-14-2019, 04:54 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Just saw on the official Warren Twitter account that they’re selling Billionaire Tears coffee mugs.

https://twitter.com/teamwarren/statu...597333505?s=21

Well, it’s a campaign strategy.
Liz Warren utilising the awesome power of 2015 memes to prove she’s got her finger on the pulse
  #20  
Old 11-14-2019, 10:37 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,534
Her strategy is not appealing to me. Yes, I think Bezos and Zuckerberg and other very wealthy folks should be paying more in taxes. A lot more. Because for whatever reason, they benefited the most from the society we all built and all pay into. They need to give back and I think there are institutional problems that occur when individuals are allowed to accumulate the kind of wealth associated with nations, like wealth corrupting the political system.

But I don’t hate or even particularly dislike these people. In fact, many of them have qualities that I admire. I know many of these ultra-wealthy people personally and they are people. Some are assholes and some are genuine and kind. And I don’t want to “stick it to them”. I just want them to pay their fair share, which is way more than they pay now.

I also hate the term “economic inequality”. I don’t think it adequately describes the issues and I don’t think it’s inherently wrong that some of us have more than others. I prefer the term economic injustice when addressing the systemic problems

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 11-14-2019 at 10:39 AM.
  #21  
Old 11-14-2019, 11:25 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Wow, the Warren campaign has taken a hard ‘angry’ populist turn over the last couple days.

1. Got a fundraising email last night with ‘Stick it to the billionaires who are fighting against our movement’ as the opening line.

2. Got a text this morning, ‘Companies like Exxon shouldn’t be able to pour money into junk science and use or to lie to fed regulators.’

I assume she’s trying to grab any of the Bernie supporters that are still gettable. Still, I’m not sure this is a great strategy. She’ll have a fervent army of Twitter warriors but most us don’t wake up in the AM wanting to smack Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg in the face.

It looks like the primary strategy is for her to knock out Bernie and then for Biden or Buttigieg to emerge as her competition. The drawback from this strategy is that I’m not sure Bernie will drop out when it becomes hopeless. Bernie went scorched earth in 2016 even when his campaign was all but mathematically eliminated. Whereas, I do think Biden or Buttigieg would drop out once it becomes clear that they’re not going to be the nominee.
i just think that you haven’t been paying attention, none of this is a departure from what she’s been saying since elected to the senate.
  #22  
Old 11-16-2019, 04:58 PM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Her strategy is not appealing to me. Yes, I think Bezos and Zuckerberg and other very wealthy folks should be paying more in taxes. A lot more. Because for whatever reason, they benefited the most from the society we all built and all pay into. They need to give back and I think there are institutional problems that occur when individuals are allowed to accumulate the kind of wealth associated with nations, like wealth corrupting the political system.

But I don’t hate or even particularly dislike these people. In fact, many of them have qualities that I admire. I know many of these ultra-wealthy people personally and they are people. Some are assholes and some are genuine and kind. And I don’t want to “stick it to them”. I just want them to pay their fair share, which is way more than they pay now.

I also hate the term “economic inequality”. I don’t think it adequately describes the issues and I don’t think it’s inherently wrong that some of us have more than others. I prefer the term economic injustice when addressing the systemic problems
Warren isn't hating at billionaires, she's responding to billionaires who are stating to the media that her policies are dangerous. Does some of those responses run the risk of being misrepresented. Sure, but 99% of her message is "I just want them to pay their fair share, which is way more than they pay now."
  #23  
Old 11-16-2019, 05:04 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
Warren isn't hating at billionaires, she's responding to billionaires who are stating to the media that her policies are dangerous. Does some of those responses run the risk of being misrepresented. Sure, but 99% of her message is "I just want them to pay their fair share, which is way more than they pay now."
Not doubting you but do you have specific billionaires in mind?
  #24  
Old 11-29-2019, 09:13 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,874
Even as her poll numbers drop, it looks like the Warren campaign is still focused on the anti-billionaires strategy. Her latest Instagram ad is for a sticker saying, ‘I’m tired of freeloading billionaires.’

Maybe it’ll work, I still don’t think most voters wake up every morning seething with hatred towards billionaires. Her campaign might be looking too much at her most avid twitter supporters.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #25  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:33 PM
adaher is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Just saw on the official Warren Twitter account that they’re selling Billionaire Tears coffee mugs.

https://twitter.com/teamwarren/statu...597333505?s=21

Well, it’s a campaign strategy.
Now some billionaire HAS to get a "progressive tears" mug ready for when Biden wins the nomination.
  #26  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:36 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Now some billionaire HAS to get a "progressive tears" mug ready for when Biden wins the nomination.
I'll make my own "centrist tears" when Sanders gets the nomination and personally mail you one if you so want.
  #27  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:45 PM
adaher is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,939
If Sanders wins the nomination I'll send you MY tears.
  #28  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:59 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Although it seems weird to me to use "populist" to refer to criticism of an elite as tiny as the approximately 750 individuals who now control more wealth than the bottom 50% of all Americans, that seems to be a thing now, so OK?
That's the definition of populism though - the wider People against the smaller Elites. Who the People is varies, as do the Elites ; but whenever the discourse is framed that way it's populism. It's not an inherently bad thing mind you - only the Elites say that .
  #29  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:15 AM
adaher is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,939
The problem for populism is that it basically requires Warren to act as if people making six figures are hard pressed and should receive more government support.
  #30  
Old 12-03-2019, 07:08 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
The problem for populism is that it basically requires Warren to act as if people making six figures are hard pressed and should receive more government support.
Yeah, over this weekend one of my friends, along with the Twitter left, were twisting themselves into a pretzel trying to attack Pete’s college plan.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #31  
Old 12-03-2019, 08:13 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Yeah, over this weekend one of my friends, along with the Twitter left, were twisting themselves into a pretzel trying to attack Pete’s college plan.
Well, it is pretty stupid, when you come right down to it.

I mean, if you're going to provide free college to 80% of the population, and give partial assistance to another 10%, why not just go ahead and make it universal?

But the real issue isn't that his own proposal doesn't go that last mile, it's the bullshit attack on Warren and Sanders over free college for the kids of billionaires. It's a farcical issue, but it lets him play Younger Joe Lieberman for a new generation, I guess.
  #32  
Old 12-03-2019, 08:36 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
The problem for populism is that it basically requires Warren to act as if people making six figures are hard pressed and should receive more government support.
As I said, if you're going to pay for college for 80% of the population, and subsidize it for another 10%, why not make it universal?

It's not like it would cost much more - the rich and near-rich are mostly going to send their kids to elite private universities - and not even Harvard or Princeton; remember those parents who were paying a bunch of money to scam the system and get their kids into the University of Southern California? (Nothing wrong with USC; my parents went there, but I don't think of it in the same breath as Stanford or Swarthmore.) Parents who want their kids to go to a good private college and can afford to send them there aren't going to take advantage of free college at a public university just to save some money.

Not to mention, if it's universal:

1) Nobody needs to jump through a ton of paperwork just to prove they're not too affluent to take advantage of the program. And quite seriously, the paperwork itself is a barrier for many families at the lower end of the scale, just like many families eligible for various forms of public support already fail to take advantage if they've got to prove they're eligible. Universality helps poor families take advantage of the program.

2) Universal programs have much closer to universal support. Once you start means-testing a program, it's slammed as welfare, and lots of people are reflexively against welfare.

3) And once you means-test a program, it's easy for it to be turned into something like welfare. The next round of budget cuts might well shift the line of ineligibility downward - those people making $70K can afford college for their kids! - and then it gets shifted again, at which point it really is aid to poor families, and then it's on the chopping block.

The point is, rich people would be paying for this program anyway - through Warren's wealth tax, or whatever tax Sanders has for rich people. That's how you do it: make them pay for public college for everyone's kids, and then they can be part of 'everyone' and take advantage of it if they want to send their kids to a public college.
  #33  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:31 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Well, it is pretty stupid, when you come right down to it.
Exactly. It's hypocritical and divisive and, yes, extremely populist. "We're going to help you but don't worry, we're not going to help These people, they're elites, fuck 'em, amirite ?"
  #34  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:33 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
But the real issue isn't that his own proposal doesn't go that last mile, it's the bullshit attack on Warren and Sanders over free college for the kids of billionaires.
And that's another bingo.
  #35  
Old 12-03-2019, 05:15 PM
adaher is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Well, it is pretty stupid, when you come right down to it.

I mean, if you're going to provide free college to 80% of the population, and give partial assistance to another 10%, why not just go ahead and make it universal?

But the real issue isn't that his own proposal doesn't go that last mile, it's the bullshit attack on Warren and Sanders over free college for the kids of billionaires. It's a farcical issue, but it lets him play Younger Joe Lieberman for a new generation, I guess.
Here's the thing though: you're not providing it to 80% of the population. You're providing it to the 30-40% of the population that goes to college and is capable of finishing college. Most of whom are either pretty well off or are going to be. Now if a bill with a GENUINE funding source that hits only the upper class is part of a free college bill, I can get behind that. I'm not vehemently against free college, so much as I want to see an actual bill get scored by the CBO, because campaign promises involving revenue numbers and promises to spare working families are usually bullshit.

And I'm not even against taxing working families, if it's providing a benefit working familiies will use. But most kids from middle class and lower middle class families won't go to college, so it would be a terrible idea to have them pay for it, either directly, or indirectly.
  #36  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:07 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Exactly. It's hypocritical and divisive and, yes, extremely populist. "We're going to help you but don't worry, we're not going to help These people, they're elites, fuck 'em, amirite ?"
Well, it looks populist at first glance, doesn't it?

Then you add in all the hoops that families with no resources will have to jump through, just to prove they're not affluent, and it's not populist at all.

Open it to everyone, so there are no hoops.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017