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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh jeez. If a male candidate rebuked the crowd, that would be very newsworthy as well. :rolleyes:
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
[ol]
[li]You don’t like Elizabeth Warren and don’t want her to be the Democratic nominee.[/li][li]Because of this, you seek out anything she says that you don’t like and try to make it disqualifying for her.[/li][li]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.[/li][li]When other people don’t think these things are that important and don’t trumpet them from the rooftops, you invent a coverup/conspiracy.[/li][/ol]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Ok, the heroin is the bonuses in your analogy, right? What is the family visit representing?