Who is Elizabeth Warren?

Thanks for that.

I should note that I am not asserting that whatever trouble Sanders may have with black voters it is due to blatant anti-Semitism.

The only reasons I can come up with for the extent of Biden's support among black Democrats is:

The flimsy Obam-Biden connection. I really can't see how that holds up, over the long haul, in the face of his numerous soft-racist remarks.

Most of the elected black leaders have secured comfortable positions of privilege and prestige within the Democratic Establishment. They know Biden will maintain that Establishment. They don't know what the wild hares in the field will do if they win. Black voters don't have to be wild about Biden if the people they trust are supporting him, they will too.

I agree. A Sanders-Warren or Warren-Sanders ticket would make zero sense.

A nominee always picks a candidate who will help them win the election. This means countering their weaknesses, and appealing to a wider group of voters.

Warren will pick someone younger with a different said of policy strengths.

But if the republicans and democrats are corrupt, why not an independent president?

Do you want a serious answer to this question? The way our electoral system is design makes an independent president very unlikely.

Stacy Abrams?

That's what most Trump voters voted for. How did that work out for us?

You are not the political wonk, my dude.

Warren / Sanders may not happen, but if one of them is a shoe-in for the nod, they’d be stupid not to coalesce because Bernie has a great deal of poor, college student, and black support where Warren has virtually none. Warren is appealing to hillaryists. Two quite different groups.

They would destroy Trump and all comers, but if Warren wins the nod, the DNC will not allow her to choose Bern, nor would a sizable chunk vote for Liz at the top of the ticket.

Considering she has nothing but Identity Politics, (and a penchant for living in a fantasy world) I can't see the gaps in either Warren or Sanders she would fill.

No offense but I'm not sure you would recognize a "political wonk" if he or she ran you down. Your idea of one seems to be someone astute enough to recognize that Bernie Sanders can leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Ideological fervor is not the same as political acumen. You have had a quixotic view of Sanders since 2016 and I feel sure you still think he would have beaten Trump if the DNC hadn't robbed him of his (somehow) rightful place at the top of the 2016 ticket.

Warren is likely desirous of winning over Clintonistas, and she may eventually do so, but as of this point in time, the only ones she may be able to count on are those whose sole reason for supporting HRC was that she was a woman running to be our first female president.

Warren is a good bit more Establishment than Sanders (not too difficult when he isn't even a member of the party whose nomination he seeks) but Biden is far more so than her. Virtually every Democratic grandee and former Clintonista poobah, who appears on TV or writes ob-eds in the Establishment liberal press supports Biden. That support may fade if Joe can't clear the cobwebs from his aged brain, but there's no guarantee that it will move to Warren. If you listen to these folks you will, of course, hear them say that Warren is a wonderful person, but you will also hear them repeatedly remark that she may be too far left for America. They are, I believe, actively seeking an alternative moderate because there is a real concern that Uncle Joe's best day was long ago when he confronted Corn Pop the Bad Due with pomade in his hair and a straight razor in his hand.

Poor Joe. He isn't even aware that the people who may have actually listened to that fantastic story without splitting their sides laughing are old enough or sophisticated enough to recognize Mr. Pop as a stereotype of black thugs in the '50s and early '60s.

The straight razor reference was priceless. He might as well have added that the Bad Dude was not only on the brink of introducing pomade into the community pool but also grease from the fried chicken he held in his hand at the time. Stereotypes tend to have tenuous origins in less generalized fact, but they are near-instantaneous triggers in the 21st Century.

There probably was a local street thug who called himself Corn Pop (no one could make that up and one of Joe's friends in the NAACP has confirmed Corn Pop's existence by, presumably, checking the Bad Dude Registry for that place and time.) and given the time of the alleged standoff, he may very well have worn pomade in his hair. (I'm sure you have familiarity, if not recollection, of Little Richard and Chuck Berry.) He may have even been a black bully who carried a rusty straight razor, but if Young Joe Biden backed him and his friends down with a 6' foot length of chain some tough words and an apology (For referring to him as "Esther Williams!" ) then the urban menace, Corn Pop had to have been no more than 10 years of age with a old cracked razor his father had thrown in the trash.

Notwithstanding how entertaining I find Uncle Joe to be, I believe more than a few of his Establishment supporters are getting worried. I keep hearing them mention Mayor Pete (Almost as cute as Corn Pop) more and more and am wondering if he has been approached by the Establishment to begin tacking more to the center. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened or, if it has, that Petey is willing to forgo his current firm grasp on far left cliches and platitudes, but he did scold Beto and if you see him tone down the Climate Change hysteria, it may signal that he's been chosen...or wants to be.

In any case, the Dem Establishment is never going to embrace Bernie. If he manages to win the nomination, they will most likely support him because they'll figure they might as well try an ingratiate themselves so they can return to feeding from the public trough under a Sanders Administration, but these are true Party Loyalists who I firmly believe resent Sanders trying to glom a ride on their train. In addition, if he was screwed in 2016, many of them were turning the driver. It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, but everything to do with paying one's dues to the Party and respecting its Elders, as well as they're being rightfully afraid that he will clean house if he takes over.

So Sanders has virtually no Establishment support and Warren has little. Sanders may have more support among black Democratic voters than Warren (I really don't know), but it's not as if he essentially controls that particular bloc, or any other for that matter. Didn't he just lose the support of a Communist Feminist organization to Warren?

With the exception of some diehard Berners like edgar and perhaps you, most of Sanders' support will turn to Warren if necessary and visa versa. Neither really needs the other to secure the socialist vote.

Sanders needs a minority running mate more than Warren, for obvious reasons, and both would be helped by a #2 who is younger and can be a real attack dog with some skill at it. This leads to the most important consideration: Having come this far and at his age, it seems inconceivable that Bernie would be content (even for ideological reasons) to accept the #2 spot whose job, during the campaign, would largely be to throw the poison darts at Trump so that Warren doesn't run the risk of appearing to be an unpleasant old shrew (Yes, I know this is a sexist consideration, but as political wonks know, sometimes the candidate has to bend with the popular wind).

And what would the VP job be for Bernie? Warren could easily promise him the moon and then pull the rug out from under him. Presidents really don't like having to compete with their VPs or look, in any way, like they are not running the show...alone. I don't know if there's ever been anything like a true partnership of even near equals running the show together, but it would be incredibly difficult to maintain in 2020 with the News Media watching and commenting on every little tic and twitch; posied to run a headline about tension between POTUS and the VP.

Warren is hardly a spring-chicken herself and so having to possibly wait 8 years for her time seems problematic. Poor Uncle Joe waited 12 years (only because he really was loyal to Obama) and look how that turned out.

Obviously anything is possible, but if we see a 2020 race between Trump/Pence and Warren/Sanders (or Sanders/Warren) I absolutely promise that I will announce in an individual thread in this forum that I am not only not a political wonk, I am a political cretin.

We had Obama choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate.
Then we had Trump choose Ted Cruz
Then we had Hillary Clinton choosing Bernie Sanders.

So of course Warren will choose Sanders too

#ProgressiveParty
@GottaBernNow
·
1h
Elizabeth Warren Declares War on Lobbying, Hires Lobbyist One Day Later https://news.yahoo.com/elizabeth-warren-declares-war-lobbying-112400418.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=tw via
@Yahoo

I definitely get the difference between my desire and what’s likely to happen, and I beat you hands down on reading the tea leaves.

If you’d read what I said, you’d’ve seen that.

My prognostications re Sanders and Warren were fact-based with knowledge of their factions—not hopes.


You quite incorrectly said—“Warren is likely desirous of winning over Clintonistas, and she may eventually do so, but as of this point in time, the only ones she may be able to count on are those whose sole reason for supporting HRC was that she was a woman running to be our first female president.”

Warren refused to endorse Bernie in 2016 and toured with Hillary, widely said to be wrangling for a spot in the shoe-in Hillary administration. She bet wrong, like most of the world. This is a big reason she’s known to progressives as a carpetbagger and opportunist.

Warren has met with Clinton in recent weeks. She has already bagged a hefty glut of clintonistas. That is her primary demographic minus black people.

Going to dinner now. I’ll be back to share with you several deeper layers of how wrong —and ignorant—you are about everything else you said.

🔥

Elizabeth Warren Surging in Iowa, Leads in Key Poll for First Time.


Published September 22, 2019



https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elizabeth-warren-iowa-poll-888191/

Nice pic.



(from: Elizabeth Warren's 'Electability' Isn't the Problem, by Esther Wang, Jezebel.com)

Warren has virtually no black support.

The one democratic politician who MAY be able to straighten out Washington d c if the voters elect a democratic congress.

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren and her husband Bruce Mann share the story of how they met.

Published September 30, 2019

Elizabeth Warren is being revealed as a pretty prolific liar.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mediaite.com/news/watch-elizabeth-warren-lied-about-losing-public-school-teaching-job-because-she-was-visibly-pregnant/amp/

WATCH: Elizabeth Warren Lied About Losing Public School Teaching Job Because She Was ‘Visibly Pregnant’
TOMMY CHRISTOPHER OCT 5, 2019 8:32 AM



Massachusetts Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren claims she lost a public school teaching job because she was “visibly pregnant,” but that’s not true according to Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren, who told a very different story in 2007.

Over the past several days, people have been circulating the claim that Warren lied about being fired over a pregnancy, and while that’s not quite right, it does demonstrate how the lie that has become a regular part of Warren’s stump speech has evolved. The central idea has always been that she was living her dream of being a public school special ed teacher until some villainous Mad Med-era principal put the kibosh on the whole thing because of her baby bump.

When Warren tells the story now — as she did at a Carson City, Nevada rally this week — she says she’d be teaching special needs kids right now if it hadn’t for that dastardly principal.

She told the crowd she had “lived her dream job,” emotionally described how it was a “calling” and not just a job, and after getting cheers from the other teachers in the crowd, described the wrenching circumstances that forced her to abandon that dream.

“I still remember the 4 to 6-year-olds, I still remember the faces of every one of them,” Warren said. “I remember some of our lessons, the things we worked on, I remember our successes, and our failures. I loved that work, and I would probably still be doing in that work today, but my story has some more turns.”


“By the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant, and the principal did what principals did in those days,” she said. “Wished me luck, and hired someone else for the job. Okay.”

[jwvideo id=4xHVwzSL

That does sound a lot like getting fired for being pregnant, but if you listen to Warren’s earlier tellings, that’s not exactly what she’s saying.

When Warren first began telling this story on the stump, there was no encounter with a principal, the suggestion of a link between the loss of her job and the pregnancy was more passive, and instead of saying her job was given to someone else, she says she simply wasn’t invited back.

“My first teaching position was as a special needs teacher,” Warren told a New Hampshire crowd in February, to cheers.

“There we go!” she said, responding to the cheers.

“I loved that job,” Warren said, then added “But by the end of the first school year, I was quite visibly pregnant, and the principal didn’t invite me back for the next school year.”



That version was closer to the truth, in a lawyerly technical sense, but according to Elizabeth Warren the 2007 law professor, still a lie.

Warren is absolutely right that women in the early 70s were subjected to pregnancy discrimination, which was legal then, and persists now even with laws in place. But in a March 8, 2007 interview with Harry Kreisler for Conversations with History, Warren made it clear that such discrimination had nothing to do with the loss of that teaching job.


Warren told Kreisler how she had earned a full scholarship to George Washington University at 16, and graduated with a degree in speech pathology and audiology, and didn’t mention the commuter college that has become another pillar in her bio. She then explained that she left her public school job after one school year because she lacked the educational credentials to qualify for a permanent position, and that she decided on her own to abandon the calling.

I was married at nineteen and graduated from college after I’d married, and my first year post-graduation I worked in a public school system with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an “emergency certificate,” it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, “I don’t think this is going to work out for me.” I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, “What am I going to do?” My husband’s view of it was, “Stay home. We have children, we’ll have more children, you’ll love this.” And I was very restless about it.So, I went back home to Oklahoma — by this point we were living in New Jersey because of his job — I went back home to Oklahoma for Christmas and saw a bunch of the boys that I had been in high school debate with and they’d all gone on to law school, and they said, “You should go to law school. You’ll love it.” I said, “You really think so?” And they said, “Of all of us, you should have gone to law school. You’re the one who should’ve gone to law school.” So, I took the tests, applied to law school, and the day my daughter, who later became my co-author, turned two, I started law school at Rutgers Law School in New Jersey, which at the time had the nickname of being the “People’s Electric Law Company,” a really crazy place.


It is possible that the timing of these events — the pregnancy and the failure to be invited back to teach — coincided, although it doesn’t sound that way. There may even have been a principal who wished her luck. But Warren herself said she wasn’t invited back because she lacked the required courses.

Watch the clip above, via UCTV.
———————————
She uses any extraneous narrative to make her look sympathetic. It’s a similar lie to the one she used to pretend Native American heritage to get jobs and benefits designated for actual native people.

Everything you stated about Warren and the truth is also true of you and Bernie.

A biting variation on the ‘I know you are, but what am I’ deflection. Brilliant.