Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 09-14-2019, 06:12 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
An interesting read in Politico today about Warren's relationship with Obama and his administration: 'Why are you pissing in our face?': Inside Warren' War with the Obama Team.

I'm still processing the article myself, and how this applies to the 2020 race. Any others' thoughts would be welcome. But I do think that if she were to win the nomination, it might be important to extend an olive leaf to this powerful contingent of the Dem party by picking an running mate from out of the Obama circle. Julian Castro or Anthony Foxx perhaps. Hell maybe even Tom Perez or Eric Holder.
What, is Team Obama going to act out like a bunch of BernieBros because she disagreed with them and was willing to go to the mats over it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I am foursquare with the Obama team on this. Reading that, I was reminded of how dishonest she has been about TARP over the years. She constantly refers to it as a “taxpayer bailout”, strongly implying that taxpayers were left holding the bag—when in fact they made a profit from those loans.
So the program wound up coming out ahead. The crux of the argument is, could and should the Obama Administration have kept the banks from tossing people out of their homes while they were saving the banks' asses? Geithner and Summers come off pretty bad for being pissed at Warren for pressing them to do just that. They kinda waved their hands and said basically that they had been too busy saving the financial system, but never explained beyond that just what the problem was that they had with her.

Given that it was Politico, I have to believe it was intended to be a hit piece on Warren, but she should use it in her campaign.
  #202  
Old 09-14-2019, 06:29 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
She's adopted the Inslee plan. So the Inslee plan is anti-nuke? Because it's gotten rave reviews from people like David Roberts at Vox who says we absolutely need nuclear to make it work.

There was plenty of debate commentary after that debate, and I didn't see a single mention of this. Can you link to the video and tell me what time this happens?
This what I refer to re nuclear https://www.google.com/amp/s/freebea...nge-plans/amp/
Quote:
Sanders and Warren want to end license renewals of existing nuclear plants and stop the building of new ones.

"We're not going to build any nuclear power plants and we're going to start weaning ourselves off nuclear energy and replacing it with renewable fuels," Warren said during CNN's climate town hall.
The laughter bit was discussed here and while the first link is Fox it is still real. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...isnt-funny.amp
  #203  
Old 09-14-2019, 06:32 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
There was plenty of debate commentary after that debate, and I didn't see a single mention of this.

I noticed that too. Really fucked up. I don’t know if the media is covering for her or what, but I couldn’t believe it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Can you link to the video and tell me what time this happens?

I’m not going to go through the whole debate to find it, but this video clip (the single, solitary one on YouTube) provides the context:

https://youtu.be/8lYHU6as7Rs

It’s weird that the audience laughed, but her reaction is SO bad. How can anyone argue that she doesn’t come across like the stern, strict teacher at your high school that everyone was afraid of? It’s TERRIBLE politics. This should have been a big point in the coverage, and for it to be utterly ignored is scandalous, almost Orwellian.
  #204  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:26 PM
ShadowFacts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I This should have been a big point in the coverage, and for it to be utterly ignored is scandalous, almost Orwellian.
Or your politics meter is not quite as calibrated to everyone else's the way you think it is.
  #205  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:36 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I noticed that too. Really fucked up. I don’t know if the media is covering for her or what, but I couldn’t believe it.





I’m not going to go through the whole debate to find it, but this video clip (the single, solitary one on YouTube) provides the context:

https://youtu.be/8lYHU6as7Rs

It’s weird that the audience laughed, but her reaction is SO bad. How can anyone argue that she doesn’t come across like the stern, strict teacher at your high school that everyone was afraid of? It’s TERRIBLE politics. This should have been a big point in the coverage, and for it to be utterly ignored is scandalous, almost Orwellian.
Dave Weigel sort of did hint at that. The media have treated her very positively and some might say with kids gloves. He said some part of that is she is a favourite among younger reporters who prefer progressive policies (in other words not Biden) but don't like the abrasiveness of Bernie. Warren's "I have a plan" message combined with her good campaigning helps create the narrative she is the electable one.
  #206  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:48 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
I can see that. Do you have a link?


Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowFacts View Post
Or your politics meter is not quite as calibrated to everyone else's the way you think it is.

It doesn’t require any special politics meter to say that if a debate gets millions of words of coverage, it’s weird if virtually none of it even briefly mentions that one of the frontrunners got laughed at by the audience, and admonished them for doing so. That should be notable. If you want to argue that it shouldn’t be treated as a huge scandal and obsessed over to the exclusion of everything else, OK. But for it to be something where people who didn’t watch the debate but read coverage about it or watched highlights have no idea it even happened? Come ON. That’s called a coverup.
  #207  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:54 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Something like that. It's not like capital flight is an unheard-of-concept that Warren would be shocked to encounter. Her plan has anti-avoidance measures:

In general, if you find a trivial objection to a Warren plan, it's likely that the objection is already answered. Sure, people will search for a way to avoid this tax, just like people try to avoid all taxes. That doesn't mean it's a bad proposal. It just means that enforcement needs to be part of the proposal.

Edit: also, to be clear, Alice Walton's $20B tax burden would've been paid over the past 37 years (and, to be ultra-pedantic, not all of that wealth shrinkage would've been directly paid to the IRS). It's not like she'd take that as an immediate hit.

My violin is shrinking as I type.
Sure, it's nice to say that, but it's not much more fleshed out than the vapid Yang plans. To think that the ultra wealthy would simply allow their tax burden to rise dramatically without combating it somehow is wishful thinking. It's not like moves wouldn't be made as the legislation is advancing.
  #208  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:01 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Sure, it's nice to say that, but it's not much more fleshed out than the vapid Yang plans. To think that the ultra wealthy would simply allow their tax burden to rise dramatically without combating it somehow is wishful thinking. It's not like moves wouldn't be made as the legislation is advancing.
Well, of course there'll be shenanigans dancing on either side of the legal line. That's going to be true of any major tax reform. But of all the people running, Warren is by far the most knowledgeable about financial shenanigans.
  #209  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:20 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
... this video clip (the single, solitary one on YouTube) provides the context:
https://youtu.be/8lYHU6as7Rs
It’s weird that the audience laughed, but her reaction is SO bad. How can anyone argue that she doesn’t come across like the stern, strict teacher at your high school that everyone was afraid of? It’s TERRIBLE politics. This should have been a big point in the coverage, and for it to be utterly ignored is scandalous, almost Orwellian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowFacts View Post
Or your politics meter is not quite as calibrated to everyone else's the way you think it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
... for it to be something where people who didn’t watch the debate but read coverage about it or watched highlights have no idea it even happened? Come ON. That’s called a coverup.
Or it's called a difference in perception. Here's the transcript:

Quote:
TAPPER: At the last debate, you said you’re, quote, “with Bernie on Medicare for all.” Now, Senator Sanders has said that people in the middle class will pay more in taxes to help pay for Medicare for all, though that will be offset by the elimination of insurance premiums and other costs. Are you also, quote, “with Bernie” on Medicare for all when it comes to raising taxes on middle-class Americans to pay for it?

WARREN: So giant corporations and billionaires are going to pay more. Middle-class families are going to pay less out of pocket for their health care. And I'd like to finish talking about Ady, the guy who has ALS...

(CROSSTALK)

WARREN: This isn’t funny. This is somebody who has health insurance and is dying. And every month, he has about $9,000 in medical bills that his insurance company won’t cover. His wife, Rachael, is on the phone for hours and hours and hours, begging the insurance company, “Please cover what the doctors say he needs.”

He talks about what it's like to go online with thousands of other people to beg friends, family, and strangers for money so he can cover his medical expenses.

The basic profit model of an insurance company is taking as much money as you can in premiums and pay out as little as possible in health care coverage. That is not working for Americans...

TAPPER: Thank you.
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...cratic-debate/

The transcript calls it "crosstalk" and that's defensible; clearly some laughs are heard, but it's not really an incident of uproarious mirth. It's more that some portion of the audience wanted to stop Warren from recounting her anecdote about the ALS patient.

So what would have been the response from Warren that would meet with the approval of the freaked-out?

What she did was say three words that got the audience quiet. And they remained quiet. That's demonstrating good crowd control skills.

This is only raising ire because some have a viscerally negative reaction to a person whose "proper" role is to be silent, saying three words that quiet a crowd. It's an outrage! Schoolmarmish! Why aren't all the news anchors talking this up?!?!






Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The floundering over that was particularly pathetic. Her “quips” of Trump not wanting to fight a girl, also pretty sad. The way she dealt with the crowd laughing inappropriately at her story in debate two was also not reassuring of someone able to handle it if the crowd is unfriendly. ...
Okay, so, thanks: you have three pieces of what you consider to be evidence that Warren "cannot weather attacks well" :

**"Floundering" over her DNA test (of what does this "floundering" consist?)
**Making "quips" about Trump not wanting to fight a girl (?)
**Quieting a crowd using the three words "this isn't funny."

Not a very convincing list, really.

I understand that the current situation is very hard on people who have definite ideas on how people of certain demographic traits should behave. But to deep-six this candidate, you're going to have to do better than "cannot weather attacks well". It's very thin.



* (Apologies for firewalled source, but I couldn't find a free one. NBC has what's labeled "Night One" but is actually Night Two, July 31; annoyingly it's what's linked to everywhere else, it seems, when July 30 is searched.)

Last edited by Sherrerd; 09-14-2019 at 08:21 PM.
  #210  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:24 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
Dave Weigel sort of did hint at that. The media have treated her very positively and some might say with kids gloves. He said some part of that is she is a favourite among younger reporters who prefer progressive policies ...
But it’s not only the media giving her the kid gloves. Minimally the narrative is forming that she and Biden are the top contenders, even if some think my belief that it is already basically down to the two of them is premature. That sucks the oxygen out for others who want to be the one who is one on one with Biden. The lack of anyone going after her is both odd and paradoxically not good for her campaign I think. Her sealing the deal with those possibly leaning to her is contingent on her demonstrating that she can handle hostile questions and unfriendly rooms. Not getting the chance to do that, assuming she can, serves her poorly.

Last edited by DSeid; 09-14-2019 at 08:25 PM.
  #211  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:38 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
But it’s not only the media giving her the kid gloves. Minimally the narrative is forming that she and Biden are the top contenders ...
Is it your view that this 'narrative is forming' completely independent of polling results? (And of fundraising results?)




Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
... The lack of anyone going after her is both odd and paradoxically not good for her campaign I think. Her sealing the deal with those possibly leaning to her is contingent on her demonstrating that she can handle hostile questions and unfriendly rooms. Not getting the chance to do that, assuming she can, serves her poorly.
I agree that all the viable candidates should get plenty of practice with dealing with attacks. I'm not sure that having the Democrats put a lot of energy into attacking each other is the smartest way to accomplish that, though.

Town halls and sharp questioning by journalists seem to me to be two better ways of acquiring experience with handling opposition.
  #212  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:43 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Okay, so, thanks: you have three pieces of what you consider to be evidence that Warren "cannot weather attacks well" :

**"Floundering" over her DNA test (of what does this "floundering" consist?)
**Making "quips" about Trump not wanting to fight a girl (?)
**Quieting a crowd using the three words "this isn't funny."

Not a very convincing list, really.
That's a matter of opinion. I personally didn't mind the stern teacher thing. I think that's a legit archetype for a strong female politician.

But the problem is that I bet you can't come up with a more impressive list of successful attack weathering. And, imho, the dirth of list components is part of the concern. She has no practice and experience in tough political campaigns.
  #213  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:53 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
Sherrerd,

While I don’t believe this has anything to do with expectations of behavior based on demographic traits let’s go with that for the sake of argument. If highly educated center left folk who have had many female superiors in the workforce like me, who want to be convinced that their tentative support of her is not a mistake, have those implicit biases that she fails to overcome then what chance does she have with those less left and less educated than me?

I am not a skillful politician. Tough gig I am sure. I do however know when I am impressed by how a politician handles a difficult moment and when I’m not.

You complain my evidence that she cannot is thin. I am complaining that the evidence she can is nonexistent.

Before I am all in I want to see her stress tested a bit.

The narrative is supported by polling, its stability, and persistent directionality. It is based on the reported strength of her on the ground organization in key early states. Biden is up there for obvious reasons. Sanders has not connected with anyone who he wasn’t already connected with, which isn’t enough, and has lost some of them. Harris had her shot and has fallen ever since. Buttigieg, despite money and attention, has not moved beyond a small group of highly educated white voters, and lost some of them. No one else is even worth talking about now.

Last edited by DSeid; 09-14-2019 at 08:55 PM.
  #214  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:05 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
That's really not good at all. According to those I follow who seem to be both passionate about the environment and know their shit, we really need nuclear power as part of the mix.

And the objections - which I certainly had - pale next to what we're looking at here. How many Fukushimas, how many Chernobyls, does it take to equal one global climate disaster? I can't claim to have crunched the numbers with any precision, but by my back-of-the-envelope calculations, the answer is somewhere around a shitload or two.

We can't let being all pure on nuclear power get between us and keeping the planet in a condition that will support seven or eight billion people.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 09-14-2019 at 09:07 PM.
  #215  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:06 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Sure, it's nice to say that, but it's not much more fleshed out than the vapid Yang plans. To think that the ultra wealthy would simply allow their tax burden to rise dramatically without combating it somehow is wishful thinking. It's not like moves wouldn't be made as the legislation is advancing.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Who on earth thinks that "the ultra wealthy would simply allow their tax burden to rise dramatically without combating it"? Obviously Warren doesn't, or else she wouldn't talk about how to guard against this.

The economists who helped her devise this plan have a white paper about it. They discuss in some detail, starting on page 3, how to guard against loopholes/avoidance, but to a large degree they point to other nations in which such guarding has been successful.

Any time you ask people to pay their share of taxes, you'll have cheats. This is just like any time you ask people not to speed, you'll have speeders. Some folks are gonna break the law. As a general principle, we can't say that lawbreakers render laws pointless. In this specific case, there's good reason (i.e., success in other countries) to think that a wealth tax can be enforced to a degree that makes it a useful law.
  #216  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:08 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
Oh, and as for her cringe-inducing DNA tests, I wonder what percentage of the electorate is even aware of it? I know the "consensus" is that she fucked up; but of the percentage who's aware of it, what percentage considers it a significant event? Of that percentage, what percentage would have ever voted for her in the first place?

It's turned into Trump's main attack on her. Of course she'll prepare for that attack. I don't think it's a particularly effective attack.
  #217  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:10 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's a matter of opinion. I personally didn't mind the stern teacher thing. I think that's a legit archetype for a strong female politician.
But the problem is that I bet you can't come up with a more impressive list of successful attack weathering. And, imho, the dirth of list components is part of the concern. She has no practice and experience in tough political campaigns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
... I do however know when I am impressed by how a politician handles a difficult moment and when I’m not.
You complain my evidence that she cannot is thin. I am complaining that the evidence she can is nonexistent. ....
The claim was that Warren can't weather attacks well. I didn't make it, so I'm not obligated to provide evidence or citations of any kind. But let's look at CK's request. It amounts to:

IF Sherrerd cannot provide video (or other acceptable evidence) of Warren successfully weathering an attack,
THEN it is proven that Warren cannot successfully weather an attack.


This is clearly fallacious. If I provide no videos---or even if no videos exist---it cannot be legitimately concluded from such circumstances that Warren has never successfully weathered an attack, much less that Warren is incapable of weathering attacks.


I suppose that as any readers of the thread come across video of someone saying something harsh to Warren and Warren responding, they may post them. Then we can argue over the "weathering"---was the weathering successful? Partially successful? Cloudy with a chance of showers?
  #218  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:11 PM
ShadowFacts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It doesn’t require any special politics meter to say that if a debate gets millions of words of coverage, it’s weird if virtually none of it even briefly mentions that one of the frontrunners got laughed at by the audience, and admonished them for doing so. That should be notable. If you want to argue that it shouldn’t be treated as a huge scandal and obsessed over to the exclusion of everything else, OK. But for it to be something where people who didn’t watch the debate but read coverage about it or watched highlights have no idea it even happened? Come ON. That’s called a coverup.
Slacker, your dislike of Elizabeth Warren has been spewed widely across every thread in this forum, over and over. You have such a hate-on for Warren that you are now suggesting that there is a media-wide cover-up (!!) of a statement she made in a (heavily-covered, live) televised debate. I respectfully suggest that you stop rolling your eyes, because they are seeing things that clearly do not exist.
  #219  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:12 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
It seems to me that if the problem is that she's never weathered an attack, then Biden should attack her. Either:

a) She'll crumble under it, and we should all breathe a sigh of relief at the bullet we dodged, knowing that she'd also have crumbled under a Trump attack; or
b) She'll weather it (maybe making Biden look like an asshole), and we'll all breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that she's ready to take on Trump.

I don't see a downside.
  #220  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:14 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Oh, and as for her cringe-inducing DNA tests, I wonder what percentage of the electorate is even aware of it? I know the "consensus" is that she fucked up; but of the percentage who's aware of it, what percentage considers it a significant event? Of that percentage, what percentage would have ever voted for her in the first place?

It's turned into Trump's main attack on her. Of course she'll prepare for that attack. I don't think it's a particularly effective attack.
That's missing the point of the current conversation. No one was talking about how devastating the Pocahontas thing is. We were talking about how it demonstrated her scrappiness or lack thereof.
  #221  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:18 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's missing the point of the current conversation. No one was talking about how devastating the Pocahontas thing is. We were talking about how it demonstrated her scrappiness or lack thereof.
I thought we were talking about whether it was "by consensus a failure to Weather Attacks Well", right? If few people know about it, and few of the people who do know about it give a shit about it, I consider the attack well-weathered, even if she didn't threaten to take Trump behind the gymnasium for fisticuffs.

I propose she can handle attacks without scrappiness; and indeed trying to defeat the Orange Menace at scrappiness is a fool's game.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 09-14-2019 at 09:19 PM.
  #222  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:31 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
To be clear. I have not and do not state that she cannot weather an attack. I do state that I see some evidence of her not doing it well ( to be generous) and none that she can. What then is one going to conclude is what current evidence suggests?

I do state that assuming she can is not something I am willing to do. And I think it is a concern of quite a few more than me alone.

I have hope that she can and my tentative support of her is predicated on that. It would be firm if I had any confidence it was true.

Biden won’t do it as it goes against his brand to attack another D or even many Rs that aren’t Trump. If when it is just the two of them it will be fairly polite. Oh you’ll have others attacking her in the public sphere but not him directly.
  #223  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:56 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I thought we were talking about whether it was "by consensus a failure to Weather Attacks Well", right? If few people know about it, and few of the people who do know about it give a shit about it, I consider the attack well-weathered, even if she didn't threaten to take Trump behind the gymnasium for fisticuffs.
This is all pretty silly. Almost everyone who was paying attention thought her DNA rollout was a failure. And she can't take credit for it not getting noticed by many people and thus "well weathered". She was the direct source of the story! This was a press release!
  #224  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:22 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
This is all pretty silly. Almost everyone who was paying attention thought her DNA rollout was a failure. And she can't take credit for it not getting noticed by many people and thus "well weathered". She was the direct source of the story! This was a press release!
And yet nobody gives a shit. Attack? Weathered.

The point is, she may not be handling attacks in the way other people would, but the fact that no attack has managed to stick on her in any reasonable fashion is itself evidence that her method works.
  #225  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:56 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
And yet nobody gives a shit. Attack? Weathered.

The point is, she may not be handling attacks in the way other people would, but the fact that no attack has managed to stick on her in any reasonable fashion is itself evidence that her method works.
Well-weathered, maybe, but I think she would be leading the polls if she hadn't been rebuked by the tribal elders for the DNA test.
  #226  
Old 09-15-2019, 05:57 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Oh jeez. If a male candidate rebuked the crowd, that would be very newsworthy as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowFacts View Post
Slacker, your dislike of Elizabeth Warren has been spewed widely across every thread in this forum, over and over. You have such a hate-on for Warren that you are now suggesting that there is a media-wide cover-up (!!) of a statement she made in a (heavily-covered, live) televised debate. I respectfully suggest that you stop rolling your eyes, because they are seeing things that clearly do not exist.

Then how did we have someone in this thread, obviously very tuned in to politics, who read extensive coverage of that debate and never heard anything about this? Can you cite mainstream news sources that mentioned it? Lots of people just read about the debates and/or watch TV news clips. If something happens during the debate that does not make it into either of those, it is to all those people who rely on secondary sources just as if it didn’t happen.

And that is a coverup, because a confrontation between the audience and a candidate is a very unusual event that cannot be dismissed as so lacking in newsworthiness that it does not deserve even a quick mention. It’s hard to conceive that you really believe this deep down and are not just trying to cover for her yourself. Try to imagine if Biden got into it with the audience and no one reported a peep about it.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-15-2019 at 05:58 AM.
  #227  
Old 09-15-2019, 06:36 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
... I was reminded of how dishonest she has been about TARP over the years. She constantly refers to it as a “taxpayer bailout”, strongly implying that taxpayers were left holding the bag—when in fact they made a profit from those loans.
Not nearly as big a profit as they should have made. Warren Buffet and a Saudi Prince were ready to buy bad paper and new share issues for pennies on the dollar. That would have been the free market in action, creative destruction, capitalism at its finest. Instead the Feds stepped in, poured money to buy over-priced paper, at no cost or risk to the private banks that had brought the financial system to the brink of collapse. Despite well-thought-out proposals that would have benefited both homeowner and banks, no effort was made to save millions of home-owners from eviction: It was more important that Wall Street have the cash to keep up with its multimillion-dollar bonuses.

I don't blame Obama for that. Modern history is rife with instances where political leaders can turn only to bankers for advice about the arcane and terrifying roles of high finance. The hen-house is guarded only by foxes.

House prices eventually recovered from that burst bubble, but the former owners look on sadly from their cheap rental homes: the fresh housing profits went to big-money speculators, often with inside connections at the private banks.
  #228  
Old 09-15-2019, 06:45 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
I agree that all the viable candidates should get plenty of practice with dealing with attacks. I'm not sure that having the Democrats put a lot of energy into attacking each other is the smartest way to accomplish that, though.
What I'd like to see is a "debate" — perhaps on Saturday Night Live — between real Democratic candidate(s) and an imposter "Donald Trump." The Trump would recite actual Trump words, and make new dimwit insults trying hard to imitate the real Brat-in-Chief. The Democrats would get all the best punchlines. Hilarious.

(Or would this risk helping GOP strategists understand that they dare not let their oaf share a debate stage with a real human being?)
  #229  
Old 09-15-2019, 06:45 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
None of that changes the fact that most Americans believe their taxpayer dollars went to fund big bonuses for bank execs, and Warren is only too happy to encourage this misapprehension.
  #230  
Old 09-15-2019, 07:03 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
None of that changes the fact that most Americans believe their taxpayer dollars went to fund big bonuses for bank execs, and Warren is only too happy to encourage this misapprehension.
But in effect, that is exactly what happened. It isn't really relevant that eventually, partly on the backs of evicted home-owners, the bad paper rose back to the price taxpayers over-paid for it.
  #231  
Old 09-15-2019, 07:21 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
None of that changes the fact that most Americans believe their taxpayer dollars went to fund big bonuses for bank execs, and Warren is only too happy to encourage this misapprehension.
From the POV of the average citizen, how much does it matter that, in the end, the government came out a few bucks ahead on the deal?

The fundamental truth is, the government saved the banks, and the banksters are getting those big bonuses. But the government didn't save people's mortgages, and they lost their houses, because they had to pay inflated prices for their homes in the mid-2000s on account of all those tranches and NINJA loans and all the other gimmicks that the banksters came up with.

"I lost my house in the crash, but since the government somehow came out a few bucks ahead on its rescue of the banksters, it's fine with me that they're rolling in money again."

Yeah.
  #232  
Old 09-15-2019, 07:26 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
I agree that all the viable candidates should get plenty of practice with dealing with attacks. I'm not sure that having the Democrats put a lot of energy into attacking each other is the smartest way to accomplish that, though.

Town halls and sharp questioning by journalists seem to me to be two better ways of acquiring experience with handling opposition.
This. And FWIW, Warren has done a shitload of town halls. (I wonder how many Biden has done so far this year.) And AFAICT she's not exactly avoiding interviews either.
  #233  
Old 09-15-2019, 08:11 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
But it’s not only the media giving her the kid gloves. Minimally the narrative is forming that she and Biden are the top contenders, even if some think my belief that it is already basically down to the two of them is premature. That sucks the oxygen out for others who want to be the one who is one on one with Biden.
1) What sucked the oxygen out of the room, all the way back when Warren was still polling in single digits, was that there were two dozen Dem candidates for the nomination.

Eight or ten candidates, even people who are only thinking about this occasionally can see, OK, there's a few front runners, and there's a few who I'm not gonna bother with, but maybe I should pay some brief attention to the few candidates in between.

Two dozen, and most people just threw up their hands. The sorting process was too overwhelming.

2) To the extent that any single candidate has been sucking oxygen out of the room, it's been Biden. He's taking up the space that Hickenlooper and Booker and Klobuchar and Bullock and so forth would be fighting over if he weren't there.

3) On the leftish end, there's been plenty of competition between Sanders and Warren and Buttigieg and Harris (who's really trying to split the difference), but after most of a year of campaigning, yes, it's shaking out: Buttigieg's got good ideas, but he's inexperienced; Harris came out of the first debate with a huge opportunity, and frittered it away; and Sanders, well, he's still there, and believe it or not, over the past ~8 weeks, his support and Warren's have both been increasing. So Warren isn't squeezing Bernie out just yet.

Not sure who would get a shot if not for Warren, except maybe Beto, who would have been able to get into the race back in the spring if he'd been able to articulate what he contributed to the race that nobody else was. He's finally found that, but he may have missed the bus.

Quote:
The lack of anyone going after her is both odd and paradoxically not good for her campaign I think. Her sealing the deal with those possibly leaning to her is contingent on her demonstrating that she can handle hostile questions and unfriendly rooms. Not getting the chance to do that, assuming she can, serves her poorly.
What rooms should she go into that she hasn't? Has she been turning down interviews, other than with Fox News which no Dem should be stupid enough to help legitimize? (I don't think so, but I can't say for sure.) Has she refused to do town halls except for when she could count on a favorable audience? (A. No.)

Not sure what she should be doing to deal with this concern of yours.



Apropos of nothing: Chrome's spell-check wanted to turn 'Klobuchar' into 'Bucharest' and 'Hickenlooper' into 'chickenpox.' Buttigieg merely got turned into Bugatti.
  #234  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:51 AM
ShadowFacts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Then how did we have someone in this thread, obviously very tuned in to politics, who read extensive coverage of that debate and never heard anything about this? Can you cite mainstream news sources that mentioned it? Lots of people just read about the debates and/or watch TV news clips. If something happens during the debate that does not make it into either of those, it is to all those people who rely on secondary sources just as if it didn’t happen.

And that is a coverup, because a confrontation between the audience and a candidate is a very unusual event that cannot be dismissed as so lacking in newsworthiness that it does not deserve even a quick mention. It’s hard to conceive that you really believe this deep down and are not just trying to cover for her yourself. Try to imagine if Biden got into it with the audience and no one reported a peep about it.
What is the mechanism for this alleged coverup? Did The Media [tm] get together for their weekly cabal video call and decide "No matter what happens, don't say anything bad about Liz! Pinky promise, everyone - you, too, Fox News!"

Here's the actual explanation from RealityLand:
  1. You don't like Elizabeth Warren and don't want her to be the Democratic nominee.
  2. Because of this, you seek out anything she says that you don't like and try to make it disqualifying for her.
  3. You find things she says that bother you immensely and - here's the important part - assume everyone else feels or should feel the same way.
  4. When other people don't think these things are that important and don't trumpet them from the rooftops, you invent a coverup/conspiracy.

It's not complicated. We all make allowances for the people on "our team" and have much stricter scrutiny for people on the "other team." It's just that you've now taken your strict scrutiny of everything Warren says to the level of Worldwide Media Conspiracy and you think that's completely rational. It's not.

There is no coverup. There is no media conspiracy to help Warren (or other female candidates). Take off your tinfoil hat.
  #235  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:53 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post

... Not sure what she should be doing to deal with this concern of yours. ...
In fact I agree that this item is not her fault. Other than the alleged non-aggression pact with Sanders, she's not forcing the media or her rivals to kid glove her.

Not sure how she could make them treat her a bit rougher. But not knowing that she can in fact handle that gives me great pause in concluding she is the most electable of this bunch.
  #236  
Old 09-15-2019, 02:01 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
The fundamental truth is, the government saved the banks, and the banksters are getting those big bonuses. But the government didn't save people's mortgages, and they lost their houses, because they had to pay inflated prices for their homes in the mid-2000s on account of all those tranches and NINJA loans and all the other gimmicks that the banksters came up with.

They also didn’t end poverty and hunger or solve global warming. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s wrong to encourage the erroneous belief that taxpayer funds went to banker bonuses.

She and Bernie have advocated canceling student loan debt, with the rationale that if we bailed out the bankers, why can’t we bail out people who went to college and racked up large amounts of student loan debt? Since the way we “bailed out” bankers was to lend them money and get repaid with interest, that would clearly indicate that we are already “bailing out” college students. It’s called the federal student loan program.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowFacts View Post
There is no coverup. There is no media conspiracy to help Warren (or other female candidates). Take off your tinfoil hat.

You are the one alleging some kind of gender based conspiracy, when as I have said over and over this would be an equally big deal if a man did it.

And I don’t at all believe there is any conspiracy in the sense of meeting and plotting and colluding. Just that as someone else noted on the thread, the reporters covering this don’t have a desire to make Warren look bad, so they quietly avoid drawing attention to things like this. If what she did is not anything to be ashamed of, why not cover it? Regardless of whether you think it is a demerit for her politically, it’s an interesting and odd thing that happened during the debate. The only reason not to mention it is that you don’t want to make her look bad.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-15-2019 at 02:04 PM.
  #237  
Old 09-15-2019, 02:20 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You are the one alleging some kind of gender based conspiracy, when as I have said over and over this would be an equally big deal if a man did it.
It'd be almost equally a nothingburger if a man did it. It'd actually be an even bigger nothingburger, because if a man did it, nobody would be making these smirking references to how he reminded them of their fearsome high school teacher scolding them. That's a gendered reference if ever there was one.
  #238  
Old 09-15-2019, 03:26 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Really? 80% of my high school teachers were male.

ETA: Any kind of hostile interaction between the crowd and a major presidential candidate is never a “nothingburger”, whether the fault lies with the candidate, the audience, or some murky grey area. You can say that all you like, but it’s patently absurd.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-15-2019 at 03:29 PM.
  #239  
Old 09-15-2019, 03:33 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
... most Americans believe their taxpayer dollars went to fund big bonuses for bank execs, and Warren is only too happy to encourage this misapprehension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
... it’s wrong to encourage the erroneous belief that taxpayer funds went to banker bonuses.
Saying the same thing 2 or 3 times doesn't make it true. If I lend a junkie money to visit his family but he spends it on heroin then, like it or not, I funded that heroin purchase.

I thought you were a smart guy but your understanding of the "bail-out" is confused. Are their partisan blinkers getting in your way?
  #240  
Old 09-15-2019, 03:40 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Saying the same thing 2 or 3 times doesn't make it true. If I lend a junkie money to visit his family but he spends it on heroin then, like it or not, I funded that heroin purchase.
Ok, the heroin is the bonuses in your analogy, right? What is the family visit representing?
  #241  
Old 09-15-2019, 03:47 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Saying the same thing 2 or 3 times doesn't make it true. If I lend a junkie money to visit his family but he spends it on heroin then, like it or not, I funded that heroin purchase.

I thought you were a smart guy but your understanding of the "bail-out" is confused. Are their partisan blinkers getting in your way?

Please tell me how we are not already “bailing out” college borrowers, if loans that must be repaid with interest are “bailouts”.
  #242  
Old 09-15-2019, 04:31 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Ok, the heroin is the bonuses in your analogy, right?...
Well the heroine is clearly supposed to be Warren ...
  #243  
Old 09-15-2019, 04:36 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
...

3) On the leftish end, there's been plenty of competition between Sanders and Warren and Buttigieg and Harris (who's really trying to split the difference), but after most of a year of campaigning, yes, it's shaking out: Buttigieg's got good ideas, but he's inexperienced; ...

Not sure who would get a shot if not for Warren, except maybe Beto, who would have been able to get into the race back in the spring if he'd been able to articulate what he contributed to the race that nobody else was. He's finally found that, but he may have missed the bus....
I like Mayor Pete, but we have to face facts- a openly gay man cant win in 2020. I hope that changes, and i think it will, maybe by 2028, and then I hope he is still ready to run.

Beto just killed his chances and maybe the chances of any Dem candidate winning. Door to door gun confiscation is exactly the boogie man the thinking Dem candidates have been trying to tell the 70 million gun owners the dems don't want.
  #244  
Old 09-15-2019, 04:55 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Really? 80% of my high school teachers were male.
Right--which is why "strict teacher" is a criticism leveled so often at male politicians.
Quote:
ETA: Any kind of hostile interaction between the crowd and a major presidential candidate is never a “nothingburger”, whether the fault lies with the candidate, the audience, or some murky grey area. You can say that all you like, but it’s patently absurd.
The only thing keeping it from being patently absurd is that it's true. You're the only one going on about this, and you're incredulous that it's a nothingburger, but you refuse to accept any explanation of why it is, except for some conspiracy theory or something.
  #245  
Old 09-15-2019, 05:32 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,993
This stuff is just NOT that complicated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Ok, the heroin is the bonuses in your analogy, right? What is the family visit representing?
The U.S.G. overpaid for paper to keep banks solvent. The banks spent some of the money intended to ensure their solvency on bonuses for the very gamblers and fraudsters who helped cause the crisis in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Please tell me how we are not already “bailing out” college borrowers, if loans that must be repaid with interest are “bailouts”.
If the free market determines that a piece of paper is worth $43, and we buy it for $43, that's not a "bail-out" — it's an investment. If we pay $100 for the piece of paper worth $43, that is a "bail-out."

I don't know how to help you guys Google this. It's very basic.
  #246  
Old 09-15-2019, 05:35 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
This stuff is just NOT that complicated.



The U.S.G. overpaid for paper to keep banks solvent. The banks spent some of the money intended to ensure their solvency on bonuses for the very gamblers and fraudsters who helped cause the crisis in the first place.
What were they supposed to do with the money that they failed to do? This isn't a complicated question.
  #247  
Old 09-15-2019, 05:59 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
What were they supposed to do with the money that they failed to do? This isn't a complicated question.
Here 'they' means the banks? They did what they did, to nobody's surprise. Greedy rich bankers are greedy rich bankers. That's not complicated.

The objection is not to greedy banks doing what greedy banks do. It was to the government funneling taxpayer dollars to feed that greed.
  #248  
Old 09-15-2019, 07:15 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
What I'd like to see is a "debate" — perhaps on Saturday Night Live — between real Democratic candidate(s) and an imposter "Donald Trump." The Trump would recite actual Trump words, and make new dimwit insults trying hard to imitate the real Brat-in-Chief. The Democrats would get all the best punchlines. Hilarious.

(Or would this risk helping GOP strategists understand that they dare not let their oaf share a debate stage with a real human being?)
The SNL idea would certainly be entertaining. But the question of Trump's willingness to stand on a debate stage with particular candidates is interesting. Trump loves bullying others, so he'll want to do it...but he's going to have trouble bullying a lot of those folks. I can't picture most of them cowering before his insults. I worry a bit about Joe, who might clam up (displaying disdain) in the face of Trump's egregious rudeness. I suspect that disdain isn't an effective counter to Mr. Nasty.

Meh---too soon to speculate, I guess.
  #249  
Old 09-15-2019, 07:31 PM
ShadowFacts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You are the one alleging some kind of gender based conspiracy, when as I have said over and over this would be an equally big deal if a man did it.
WTF are you on about? I am quite clearly alleging no conspiracy at all. That is, in fact, the entire point of my last two exchanges with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
And I don’t at all believe there is any conspiracy in the sense of meeting and plotting and colluding. Just that as someone else noted on the thread, the reporters covering this don’t have a desire to make Warren look bad, so they quietly avoid drawing attention to things like this. If what she did is not anything to be ashamed of, why not cover it? Regardless of whether you think it is a demerit for her politically, it’s an interesting and odd thing that happened during the debate. The only reason not to mention it is that you don’t want to make her look bad.
Or (quite obvious to everyone but you) they just don't think it's a big deal. In order for your narrative to work, every reporter from every newspaper and TV station and blog would have to "quietly avoid drawing attention to things like this." Do you honestly think every single one of them is backing Warren in this way? Really? Really truly?

I don't know why I'm arguing with you about this. You've quite clearly got a screw loose when it comes to your analysis of Warren in this election.
  #250  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:32 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 249
Another sign she is the lead progressive candidate. The Working Families Party endorsed Sanders in 2016 but have now endorsed Warren for 2020. Sanders fans are furious but it's a sign that his 2016 M.O. of being an outsider from nowhere yelling and berating Wall Street and the millionaires and billionaires isn't enough now Warren is in who has a better legislative record, able to build relationships and can detail her policy plans beyond aggressive soundbites.

https://twitter.com/WorkingFamilies/...14425565204480

She still has a big problem with black voters and to overtake Biden she has a lot of work to do in that respect. But she is a solid second right now.
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 05:26 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