# Warren forms Exploratory Committee **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 31, 2018, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983 "2018-12-31T14:40:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![UnwittingAmericans](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d9b06d/32.png) [@UnwittingAmericans](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwittingAmericans)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/101 "2019-01-02T20:56:11Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Love her in the Senate, unenthusiastic about a presidential campaign. She doesn’t have that “person you want to have a beer with” quality about her. She comes off as shrill and schoolmarmish. I’d like to see her and Bernie split the far left vote and let someone more electable run up the middle. Whoever’s heading Warren’s committee should come here and notice that the snowflake wing hasn’t even bothered getting their knives out of the drawer for you over this remark, lol. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/102 "2019-01-02T21:00:04Z")
What are the male versions of “shrill” and “schoolmarmish”? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/103 "2019-01-02T21:01:43Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What are the male versions of “shrill” and “schoolmarmish”? Annoying, pedantic, lecturing. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/104 "2019-01-02T21:03:26Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > 1. 2016 provided plenty of evidence that misogyny is alive and well. Not saying that is the ONLY reason Hillary lost, but I’m confident it was sufficient reason for some significant number of voters to vote for anybody w/ a penis. Sorry ladies - not this time around. Maybe in the VP slot. I think you’re right that misogyny is alive and well. But looking at the success of women candidates around the nation in 2018 (and in Virginia in 2017 as well) I think there’s more than that going on in attitudes towards Hillary, Pelosi, and now Warren. It’s misogyny, crossed with the right wing hate machine, that does the job - but it seems to take some time for its work to really sink in. Hillary was under attack for decades, of course. Pelosi, well over a decade. Warren, just a few years, but long enough already that it’s driving up her negatives. Some people I follow say the same thing will happen to others when they get attacked, but the effect on Warren is already priced in. A few years ago, I was saying the same thing about Hillary, and in retrospect I think it’s pretty clear that I was way wrong on that. I really think there’s a cumulative effect here. So I’m also leery about Warren as the nominee, which is a damn shame. (Also, I agree that it’s a bad year for an older candidate.) But I think that if the right-wing noise machine keeps throwing its misogynist shit at Pelosi and Warren throughout 2019, there’s no reason why Kamala or Gillibrand or Klobuchar can’t run and win. Not that it can’t make a mark on one of those women if they’re the nominee, but my WAG is that the attacks won’t have time to seep into the deeper culture, and their damage will be limited. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/105 "2019-01-02T21:04:05Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Annoying, pedantic, lecturing. In other words, a description of Michael Dukakis, who I see as a male version of Warren. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/106 "2019-01-02T21:06:24Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Annoying, pedantic, lecturing. Then say so. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/107 "2019-01-02T21:38:40Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Then say so. What’s the point? I said that I thought Warren was a bad campaigner, which we can probably agree isn’t gender specific complaint, but I still got a a “go make me a sammich” retort as an answer. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/108 "2019-01-02T22:38:49Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > What’s the point? I said that I thought Warren was a bad campaigner, which we can probably agree isn’t gender specific complaint, but I still got a a “go make me a sammich” retort as an answer. Nah, you got that because, for no apparent reason, you repeatedly tried to drag me into some spat that you were having with **GIGObuster**. I’ve said this twice before now, plus **JC** quoted me saying this, so that makes three times before now, so [by your own standards](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21405881&postcount=54), it should have sunk in. This post makes four. I’m done with you. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/109 "2019-01-02T23:03:52Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I think you’re right that misogyny is alive and well. But looking at the success of women candidates around the nation in 2018 (and in Virginia in 2017 as well) I think there’s more than that going on in attitudes towards Hillary, Pelosi, and now Warren. It’s misogyny, crossed with the right wing hate machine, that does the job - but it seems to take some time for its work to really sink in. > > … Of course. But even if 5-10% of the folk who voted against Hillary were primarily motivated by misogyny (and I’d wager it is more), is the safest bet to alienate that 5-10%? Maybe I’m over cautious. I’d happily vote for another female candidate. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/110 "2019-01-02T23:12:56Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Nah, you got that because, for no apparent reason, you repeatedly tried to drag me into some spat that you were having with **GIGObuster**. > > I’ve said this twice before now, plus **JC** quoted me saying this, so that makes three times before now, so [by your own standards](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21405881&postcount=54), it should have sunk in. This post makes four. I’m done with you. I’m perfectly fine with you being done with me, but I didn’t "try to drag you in for no apparent reason. The rather obvious reason is that you interjected into the exchange between me and GIGO to nitpick something in a decidedly snarky manner. It was not remotely unreasonable for me to think “hey, he’s arguing GIGO’s side of the argument”. It is quite unreasonable for you to have taken such offense to my apparent mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2019, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/111 "2019-01-02T23:37:52Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Love her in the Senate, unenthusiastic about a presidential campaign. She doesn’t have that “person you want to have a beer with” quality about her. She comes off as shrill and schoolmarmish. I’d like to see her and Bernie split the far left vote and let someone more electable run up the middle. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What are the male versions of “shrill” and “schoolmarmish”? > [@DrDeth](#): > > Annoying, pedantic, lecturing. It seems reasonable to ask those dismissing Warren for being “shrill,” “schoolmarmish,” “annoying,” “pedantic,” and/or “lecturing” to link to some examples. Otherwise many may assume that these are simply the terms that certain people _automatically_ apply to any woman over, say, fifty. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2019, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/112 "2019-01-03T00:03:12Z")
[Warren hires top Iowa talent](https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/02/warren-iowa-staff-1077881) > [@](#): > > Sen. Elizabeth Warren announced the hiring of four high-level staffers in Iowa with deep caucus experience – including snagging Sen. Bernie Sanders’ former caucus director for the early presidential state. Along with stealing a march by being the first big name that’s able to start collecting campaign donations she’s hired a key Iowa staffer out from under Sanders. Not a bad first day of “exploring.” ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2019, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/113 "2019-01-03T00:09:42Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I know, but the sort of demands for pandering that the Sanders crowd had been demanding in 2016 are echoed by the demands for the House to do whatever Ocasio-Cortez wants. At least judging by my Facebook feed. 😉 Oh no, politician with popular positions is popular! ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2019, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/114 "2019-01-03T00:10:15Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > It seems reasonable to ask those dismissing Warren for being “shrill,” “schoolmarmish,” “annoying,” “pedantic,” and/or “lecturing” to link to some examples. I heard her for the first time in awhile, if not ever, this week, and I certainly wouldn’t consider her any of the above in the clip I heard played. I could certainly see how someone not inclined to like her anyway could consider her lecturing or annoying but those voters can’t be reached in the first place. I’d consider most things I’ve heard from Robert Reich more shrill, annoying, lecturing, and yes even pedantic than what I’ve heard from Warren. ETA: and I was _expecting_ her to be pedantic-sounding and was disappointed because she didn’t seem to have enough substance even if her words were true in a general sense. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2019, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/115 "2019-01-03T00:17:33Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Personally, I think the level of misogyny prevalent in our society is a disgrace. But this next election is just too important to run the risk. Looking longterm, I’d like to see a younger male - maybe hispanic? - at the top of the ticket - with an EXTREMELY diverse VP and cabinet. Set the stage for the next several elections - and hopefully influence what the Repubs will have to bring to compete. Yeah, because what Middle America wants for stability in the White House is a _young Hispanic male._ That’s going to reassure the typical voter between Dallas and Pittsburgh that America is still their America, in a way a kind of white-bread little old lady from Oklahoma never could. Sure. You’ve got your finger on the pulse of Middle America right there. [/sarcasm] Seriously, can we just get in the progressive leader we have before looking for another Obama figure? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2019, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/116 "2019-01-03T02:07:22Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > … Just in general, I hope we don’t get a cast of dozens running for President. Have to win at all levels in 2020, hate to see all the Dem energy go into the Presidential race. And there’s the rub. I agree with some of what you wrote in post 53. Her well thought out positions on issues that she has honed over many decades are a flag in the sand that can help focus debate. Having that in the process could be a plus non matter how very poor an actual candidate she’d make. But she crowds the lane and lowers the chances of the newer generation of leaders, who share many of her positions on those issues but who would make better candidates for a variety of individual reasons, from getting the traction they’ll need. Someone who won’t win and who would be a poor choice for the general election but who is known enough to get some shifting significant donations to her, should not be in the race sucking out resources. Even though the discussions regarding the issues (agree or disagree with her) might be the better for her being there. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2019, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/117 "2019-01-03T12:55:44Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > What’s the point? I said that I thought Warren was a bad campaigner, which we can probably agree isn’t gender specific complaint, but I still got a a “go make me a sammich” retort as an answer. The point is that use of gender-specific invective when it doesn’t add actual content is playing \*their \*game. We humans need to be better than that. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2019, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/118 "2019-01-03T13:29:16Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > It seems reasonable to ask those dismissing Warren for being “shrill,” “schoolmarmish,” “annoying,” “pedantic,” and/or “lecturing” to link to some examples. > > Otherwise many may assume that these are simply the terms that certain people _automatically_ apply to any woman over, say, fifty. I don’t remember people calling Clinton schoolmarmish. Warren is schoolmarmish, but so is the progressive ideology. It has been schoolmarmish, often in the literal sense, since its beginning. The fanatical pietist Christians who set up the early public schools were the beginnings of that movement. “Schoolmarm” is a handy invective to be hurled at progressives of all genders. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2019, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/119 "2019-01-03T13:59:53Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I don’t remember people calling Clinton schoolmarmish. But you’ve heard of “Shrillary”, haven’t you? > [@](#): > > Warren is schoolmarmish, but so is the progressive ideology. It has been schoolmarmish, often in the literal sense, since its beginning. The fanatical pietist Christians who set up the early public schools were the beginnings of that movement. You could have said that more simply with “They’re right”. > [@](#): > > “Schoolmarm” is a handy invective to be hurled at progressives of all genders. But it’s only used at a man if it’s intended to dismiss his masculinity as well. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2019, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983/120 "2019-01-03T14:26:57Z")
First campaign slogan - “Warren for President - It’s In Her DNA”. Warren has already shown that she will allow herself to be dragged down into mud-slinging by Trump, and not in a good way. She doesn’t have the DNC in her hip pocket the way Hillary did, nor the massive fund-raising advantage. She is going to have to make it on her own. So far, she appears to be trying to [fake authenticity](https://hotair.com/archives/2019/01/02/tragic-elizabeth-warren-authentic-beer-instagram-clip/). It remains to be seen if she can bring it off. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-forms-exploratory-committee/826983.md?page=7)