Oh, you don’t know?
She listed herself in a faculty directory as being Native American. Cite
She has explained that she thought it would be a good way to meet people. It wasn’t.
You can plainly see how that would be a campaign-shattering event in these turbulent political times. :rolleyes:
Isn’t that basically what I said? She went to Harvard as a woman of colour.
Trump’s derailed people with less. He beat Jeb by calling him ‘low energy’. He beat Ted Cruz - an experienced legislator and championship winning debater who was advancing the same political agenda as him - by giving him a silly nickname and calling his wife ugly. He even managed to successfully smear Hillary as ‘Crooked’, even though he was involved in ten scandals for every one of hers. So yeah, the Pocahontas thing could genuinely be a campaign shattering deal for Warren.
It makes her look like a phoney. It doesn’t matter that she wasn’t an affirmative action hire. Trump and FOX have already said she was so many times that most people believe it, and the fact that Harvard touted her as their first Native American professor is all the proof they need that she was trying to game the system. Never mind the fact that she’s, like, the whitest white woman ever.
Then, inexplicably, she doubled down! She got a DNA test that showed that her last Native ancestor was literally a great-great-great-great grandparent and then waved it around like it meant something. That’s not only stupid, it’s funny. If you thought the Hillary memes were bad in 2016 then brace yourself, because I guarantee the Warren memes will be a thousand times more creative and more numerous if she gets the nod in 2020. And against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand.
So yeah. I really don’t think the severity of this Pocahontas thing can be underestimated.
Look, here is all she has to say:
“I may be only .0001% Native American, but you sir, are 100% draft dodger.”
I disagree with you on the effect of this criticism on Warren, and this portion of your comment largely encapsulates why: I simply don’t think that “most people” take what Trump or Fox say seriously enough to believe them.
What the average person “knows”, in my opinion, is that Warren once claimed native ancestry, based on family stories, and it may have helped her in her academic career.
And, as I alluded to earlier, I simply think that’s trivial compared to what is going on, politically. Maybe, yes, in a typical election year people can let something like this color their perception of a person’s integrity and decide their vote. But these are not those times. The feelings about Trump are visceral; people are genuinely panicked.
So while we will hear over and over again the refrain, “hur hur, Pocahontas sucks” once she has the nomination, it will only come from a small and isolated corner of the political spectrum, and I just don’t agree that it will hold meaningful sway.
In fact, I think the belittling will merely underscore how vapid and lacking in substantive ideas her opponent is and how little he cares about American people or their concerns. Warren will be able to nicely contrast that with regular responses like “While Trump is obsessed with my family, I’m more interested in ensuring that there is help for the rest of America’s families.”
^This.
The ‘she wants to take away your health care [by eliminating private insurance]’ attack will be far more dangerous to Warren, than the ‘we were told we had Native American ancestry so I used to mention it’ story.
And the former is a tough attack for Trump to make given that he has utterly failed to come through with that ‘Beautiful Health Care to replace Obamacare’ promise.
"Sorry, unlike the Dems, I don’t like illegal foreign wars. If Obama was in charge, we’d still be in Vietnam. No thanks, Pocahontas. "
::wild cheers from back third of audience::
I think it says a lot that the right still hasn’t come out with anything other than the Pocahontas shit as a Warren attack. And none of us can think of anything else either. If her claiming Native American ancestry is the most scandalous issue Trump could exploit, this makes her an unusually unblemished candidate, not a weak one. I say this as someone who only months ago thought the opposite.
Trump has told more that few fibs about his roots. He’s claimed his father was born in Germany multiple times. If he calls her Pocahontas, she can call him President Drumpf.
And the first two thirds of the audience rolls their eyes.
I can almost hear her voice.
"The Republican party - the party of manufactured intelligence to get us into Iraq - doesn’t get to lecture us on illegal foreign wars. And Mr. Trump certainly doesn’t get to lecture us on illegality; not when his former campaign manager and his former attorney are in prison, not when he’s looking at his own criminal investigations.
Now, you want to throw out childish insults to distract from the real issues: fine. But I think the American people care a lot more about their everyday concerns - how to save for retirement, how to put their kids through college, how to pay for their healthcare - then they do about whether you can get a crowd into a frenzy with a turn of phrase. It’s like this: At the end of the day, when you vote, you are voting for yourself and your family, and your future. And I trust that at the end of the day the American people aren’t going to have a hard time figuring out who that is running to help them and their family in the coming years. All they have to do is listen to what is being said."
Uh huh,well that all worked out for Hillary. All I know is that next year’s Shadenfreud thread is going to be delicious.
I can’t imagine thinking there are similarities between Warren and Clinton other than their party and gender.
Have you researched, at all?
This is what backers of base-oriented candidates always try to say. She is catnip to a big chunk of the Democratic base, to be sure. But those are not these disaffected, apathetic nonvoters you are trying to conjure up. They are the most hardcore voters who are sure to vote for any Democrat against Trump next year.
You think her anemic Massachusetts election performances are a point in her favor? 
None of us? Speak for yourself. Have you actually read this thread? I have “thought of” plenty of other shit to attack her with.
The subject matter was trading oh so exquisitely worded quips with Trump. What research have you done on that subject?
Eta: but since you asked: they’re both old, wonky, lawyers. Both had short elected office careers before running for president. Neither are generally considered gifted quipsters.
But if you mean, do they approach Wall Street regulations differently? Yeah, I know they do.
Yes, I overstated that. But you have to admit that people keep coming back to “Pocahontas”, because that’s the only thing low information voters will be able to point to.
I think her real weakness came out last night.
Not this Pocahontas thing which is bloody boring to hear about.
The first time in a debate people took her to task on the specifics. Both candidates and moderators. She did not handle criticism well.
Klobuchar was absolutely right in calling Warren out for trying to have the ownership of what is bold and what is not. Not being bold indicates a lack of courage. It’s insulting to the candidates whose plans actually resonate better according to the polls than Warren’s.
Klobuchar also called her out for the strawman line about “people supporting billionaires”. No one does. Not even the billionaire Steyer who I thought represented himself well.
The fact of the matter is Warren is “my way or the highway”. I believe the Democratic electorate is a lot more pragmatic.
She is an awful candidate. Her evasiveness on her “plans” is downright smarmy. She has a “how dare you question me” attitude and a blank stare when asked about modest detail.
Her plans are nothing but handouts. “I have a handout for that”. Free college, free healthcare, free reparations, free child care, free everything.
She attacks successful businesses like Google and Facebook and wants to break them up - what ever that means. How do you break up a search engine or network?
She is terrible on trade. She is even more of a protectionist than Trump is. She blames free trade for the job losses in manufacturing caused by automation.
Her wealth tax is unconstitutional and is woefully inadequate to pay for any of her handouts.
I cant think of a single redeeming virtue of hers other than she is not Donald Trump.
posted in wrong thread…
I agree with much of that.
Andrew Yang schooled her on the issue of automation but a combination of her being the media darling and Yang being a media outcast means it won’t get much notice.
I just watched a live clip of Warren speaking at some kind of teachers’ rally in Chicago. (It popped up on YouTube after a different video finished playing.) I have to say, there is simply no way around this - her voice sounds like she is perpetually about to cry. I don’t know how else to put this, that’s the way it sounds. I haven’t ever heard anyone else whose style of delivering public speeches is so …beseeching? Bleating? Quavering? I don’t know what other words to use. It sounds weak. It sounds grating. It’s downright hard to listen to for prolonged periods of time.
This has nothing to do with her gender. Harris doesn’t speak this way. Gabbard doesn’t speak this way. Klobuchar (who I don’t like, but still) doesn’t speak this way. Hillary Clinton did not speak this way. If that tone of voice were coming from a dude, it would be every bit as unsettling to me. What can I say?
I think this is a weakness of Warren’s. I’ve made no secret of the fact that I think Buttigieg has the best speaking delivery of any of the candidates - that’s my gold standard of how it should be.
I agree, she’s no great orator like, say, Donald Trump. But I’m not gonna hold that against her.