One word. Misogyny. So tiresome and destructive. Warren has it all. Except for a body part that seems to be important for some reason.
20
First Gillibrand thought she could play the #MeToo card and she's gone already.
Harris thought she could play the race card and discovered not even black voters like her.
Gabbard thought she could play the Ron Paul card and now she is being called Putin's ally.
Warren, as we now see, thought she could play the "I have a plan for that" card until people requested to see the plan.
Can Klobuchar get away with the "Mid west nice" card?
I would not hold my breath. None of these women candidates can hold a candle to the old gals from the Party hierarchy: Nancy and Hillary.
1
You know, "balance" would come from a rule that every op-ed from a journalist at the Koch organ "Reason", should be followed by an op-ed from a writer for Mother Jones or The Baffler.
I'm not holding my breath.
It is child's play to find an opinion that Joe Biden is too far to the left; there's probably one on today's front page. Can you find a "balancing" article from somebody who thinks of Bernie Sanders as too far to the right? Almost a joke to even suggest.
Actually, I don't think the NYT could produce an opinion piece that argues that Bernie is far enough left, but Warren is not, that we must all hold true to the "strict liberal" (remember Romney, the "strict conservative"?) positions of Sanders.
That opinion is held by a substantial fraction of the political party currently getting the most votes. But that opinion has no champion in the major media.
Hence, they are not "balanced". QED.
3
The DNC is anxious, not the voters.
12
The majority of democrats are just too afraid and too ignorant to realize the deep structural changes needed to bring our country into a functioning 21st century democracy that cares for 98 percent of its citizens rather than the billionaires and corrupt politicians and lobbyists that run it.
While I believe the other candidates know all too well that Ms. Warren is correct, they will play to the moderate older voters who have been entrenched in our miserable system all their lives and feel comfortable, even though they are beaten down at every turn by the corruption which facilitates its very being. Notice, not one candidate, even Ms. Warren, spoke up for term limits and Citizens United, is the worst mistake the Supremes have made since Jim Crow.
While I don’t think Mr. Steyer should become the candidate, I do wish the others would stop pandering to keep this monolithic form of government alive and well only under a democrat.
Without past bold vision and change, there would be no civil rights, social security, Medicare, Titles VII and IX, to name a few. Why is there no Equal Rights Amendment, why isn’t Roe codified after almost fifty years? And climate change, they’ll be talking about it until we’re all dead from flooding, fires and the oceans swallowing everything but the Himalayas.
Instead Biden is harping about marijuana and all his experience, when he can form a coherent sentence.
And you all wonder why the Youngs are disgusted and don’t vote.
9
i have read some articles say that the Dems have yet to present a candidate who could beat Trump. Really? My God with what has been going on you'd think my cat could be beat Trump. Oh but wait a minute, 40% of this country doesn't believe in Facts, Science, or Laws.
6
I totally agree with Warren policies... she's brilliant! I would so appreciate her being our next president. She deserves it, blah, blah. BUT! She sounds shrill, grating on my nerves in her effusive diatribes. We need a middle way to bring the country on board. Go Pete, Cory, Amy... !
I can't imagine her beating the t.
3
I fear that "no one was attacked like Warren" will be the theme of media coverage--for yet another stellar, women, candidate.
8
It is a new day and people are paying attention to the corruption of the status quo in the democratic party and the greed of the GOP.
People have a right to a life and right now we are nothing more than worker bees for the plantation owner. Just pay your fair share in taxes, take care of seniors, sick people with health care like the rest of the world.
Have discussions that are not game shows and see the monster in the White House. It was a woman who was the first to testify who had been attacked by corrupt white men and it is the women who are standing up. It is time for Ms. Warren to be in the white house so that we can all grow and prosper.
Bloomberg is another failed rich boy trying to hold on but the past is the past. It is not coming back the public is tired of being abused by the rich and corrupted.
Its about time for justice and respect for all human beings not just the smug elites.
8
I need to get this straight: an attempt to steer between too-far-left and too-far-right is still the sin of "both too radical and too timidly wonky at the same time".
In short, it's impossible. There is no position that will win approval.
All of these article commit a great journalistic sin: they skip over the single most important fact, that Medicare-for-all has a 70% approval rating.
So such articles give much space to fleshing out the notion, paragraph after paragraph, that while people approve of the position, join in the 70% approval, but fear other people will not vote for it.
That objection is unanswerable, of course. On purpose, I think.
If journalists could predict these things, they would have predicted Trump. They should have been ignored ever since, except for that significant number of them that should have been ignored since they supported the Iraq War. They just keep failing upward.
6
"The message was clear: Warrenism, which would wait until year three to fight for single-payer, was insufficiently devoted to the revolutionary cause.". Revolutionary??? Such fear mongering! Sanders is not arguing for compete change. It's not even particularly dramatic in the overall scheme of things. Yes, he will take steps, such as greater taxation of the wealthiest one percent to fund sectors of the economy that promote the common good, such as public education and infrastructure, which will at most modestly constrain those, such as Wall Street hedge fund titans, who would advance their own financial interests over the good of the country. But Americans historically come together to promote the common good. That's hardly dramatic change. Our economy will still be squarely capitalist. US property rights will still be robust, that is to say America will be governed by laws where individual property rights are paramount. Elections will still be governed by a Constitution engineered to favor the interests of the wealthy. President Sanders endorses an advancement of the works and philosophy of President FDR, hardly a revolutionary himself but rather a man of property who protected capitalism from those whose selfish inclinations would run it into the ground.
3
As Senator Warren's rising popularity has now plateaued, the road ahead is still uncertain. That she was attacked for her plans and Sanders, whose plans are as radical if not more so was not, may reflect sexism among the Democratic candidates themselves.
7
The other candidates are all attacking Warren because she has thought through the mechanics of how to actually do the things she is proposing. Bernie may have good ideas but his Medicare for All on day one is wishful thinking. Buttigieg is high minded and his calls for our better angels is respectable but his incremental approach is just a little more of what we currently have. Change is scary and there might be some missteps along the way. But people are dying right now from lack of healthcare. I'm a pragmatist for Warren because she is hard working and always looking for solutions.
13
It's crazy that HC for All should still be a contested issue in the 21st C. All Americans should have the right to good insurance, no matter their income or job status.
In the US, our high premium charges support excessive corporate profit and CEO pay. No one should make profit off of sickness.But in America it's legal and even idealized as part of our 'Freedoms'. Some of this profit is donated to politicians passing laws for higher profit. A vicious cycle.
US workers with employer HC are forced to take whatever their companies choose to give them. That's not 'Choice and Freedom' as political PR promotes.
And if they quit or are laid off, they lose HC for their families. Then, if sick or in an accident, financial disaster can follow. These Americans are actually not free, they're stuck.
In other countries if not single payer, they use insurance mandates, but with costs regulated by the citizens who elect the govt.
That's the purpose of democracy. They don't do street protests to change to a US high profit system.
They have the freedom to change jobs, go back to school, start their own business, or stay home to raise kids, without worrying at all about access to medical care.
Here, a GOP led govt would purposly underfund HC, then they would say govt doesn't work.
Read nyt op ed --The Fake Freedom of American Health Care--by a journalist from another civilization.
4
I suggest that all pundits look at "Reader Picks" in places like this. You might learn something about Warren.
Otherwise, it just comes across as bought and paid for. The wealthy and powerful elites of this country don't want Warren.
Most of us here do. And our arguments are powerful, if you will only read with an open mind (and heart).
We cannot afford to be dominated by billionaires, multimillionaires, and liars. The planet is speaking up, and the truth matters.
Return taxes to the level before Reagan (greed is good) - or at Eisenhower levels. Put Carter's environmental efforts back to work. Return religion to the Jesus of the Gospels. Stop worshipping fetuses and ignoring children, families, and the elderly and sick. Stop blaming victims. Social Security? Get rid of the cap and lower the rate, so it's a flat "tax" rather than regressive, charged only on income that people actually need to survive. Stop criminalizing poverty.
Stop cheating on elections to "win". Stop twisting the truth to help your "team" win. Everybody loses that way.
11
Yes, Warren's appeal is limited to those who "just happen to dominate the corridors of elite power."
Orwell much?
6
Thanks, but I don't need advice about radicalism on the left from from the libertarian, anarcho-capitalist radicals at Reason.
10
All the Nay Saying Nabobs may attack Warren but WE the Americans WILL VOTE only for Warren.
There are only two real candidates who are trusted by Americans on left right and center and they are Sanders and Warren. Either one would be fine but Warren seems to have the best plans for American Progress.
6
Warren and the Economy:
Warren's plans on enforcing our antitrust laws will help entrepreneurs and small businesses. It fosters economic growth. Breaking up Big Tech, Big Ag, Big Pharma is something we must do.
Warren's two-cents tax is a simple concept that anyone can understand. No one cares about the intricacies of our tax system except tax lawyers. What matters is the goal. Warren Buffet should not be paying a lower tax rate than his secretary.
Warren's plans on investing in education, stretching the availability of public education from preschool to college, is a huge investment in HUMAN CAPITAL, which fosters economic growth.
On Buttigieg. He has still to be tested. I’m not so sure he can withstand an attack from Trump, who will punch him like beanbag.
Warren, on the other hand, smacked Trump directly in her first two-minute response. It was commanding and direct.
10
Cory Booker misses the point about the need for a just tax structure. Gross economic disparity is doing real harm to democracy and to the economy. We need to shift the vast hoarded caches of money back into the economy where it will provide stability and opportunity.
While there is room to decide what is the most effective mechanism for breaking up this hoarded wealth, i.e., value added tax, wealth tax, the need to accomplish the goal is critical.
5
@Lois
I don't think he was disregarding the need to fix gross income inequality via proper tax structures. He was just saying that shouldn't be the only focus. He's right.
3
"Fussy" technocratic populism? Do you mean detailed explanations regarding how a candidate plans on fulfilling a promise? You do not have to agree with the goal, but shouldn't we all applaud the effort? Also, would you refer to a man's plan as "fussy"?
14
@Kathy I've noticed that this is the new attack line from the center and right. Having detailed policy ideas is actually a bad thing now because it's "wonky" and "micromanaging." Politicos and hacks demand details, but when they get them they ignore them and resort to complaining about too much detail. Like every line of attack on Warren at this point, it's a rhetorical ruse based on the philosophy of "whatever it takes."
9
Hey! I've got an idea. How about Social Security for all who want it?
We can make contributions to FICA voluntary and let people who prefer to invest on Wall Street stop contributing. Sound good?
That is basically what every Democratic candidate other than Warren and Sanders is proposing. Under FDR, we created a Social Security for all program that has worked. It created a pool of retirees who were required to pay into the system in return for Social Security when they retired. A voluntary system would have collapsed by now. That is why Medicare for all is logical replacement for the one that now exists.
284
@Andrew Zuckerman
Give people a public option and they will see the lower price and move toward it. Force anyone to do anything and they will resist. Just think about telling a teenager that CAN'T have or do something and they will dig in. The American electorate is not so different.
10
@Andrew Zuckerman
Retired people are not directly comparable to non-retired people. Social Security and Medicare were set up for people who couldn't work any longer. They must be, and are, treated differently.
5
@Polaris
Social Security wasn't set up for 'retired people'. It was set up for working people who would pay into the system and receive benefits after they retire. Medicare covers people who are 65 years of age or over whether they are retired or not.
Both Medicare and Social Security require all citizens to contribute to the system before they retire in order to receive benefits after they qualify for them. Both systems depend on money provided by working people to pay beneficiaries who qualify. In other words, both Social Security and Medicare work just like any insurance program except that they require everyone to join so that everyone is insured and the pool of participants is as large and diverse as possible.
Please explain what it is about retired people that cannot be compared to non-retired people.
13
I couldn't possibly disagree more. Warrenism is going to be the antidote to the nearly 40 years of Reaganism we've suffered - which has led to flat wages for all of us who work for a living and the redistribution of wealth upward to the top 0.1%. And to answer your question, this Democratic voter trusts Elizabeth Warren absolutely. Liz is smart, knowledgeable, and she genuinely cares about making things better for all Americans. I trust any action she takes will be carefully considered beforehand. Of course it's possible she'll be wrong - but that's true for anybody. I think Liz is also flexible enough to adjust if or when that happens.
480
@Xenia
The American public bought Reagan's script and Mr Trump's Three Stooges imitations.
Bright and shiny? We'll take two.
6
@Xenia
Good news/bad news. It's not really the Democrats that you need to be worried about when it comes to Warren. It's the roughly 38% of voters who identify as either moderates or Independents. They don't trust Warren and are highly skeptical of the ideas that you view as the "antidote". And while it may make a nice headline if 2 million or so more people in already Blue states vote for Warren, it won't mean a lick in the actual election because of that thing called the Electoral College.
Warren, like Sanders, is weakest against Trump in the very swing states that the Democrats must carry to win the election. She can try to moderate towards the center all she wants, but all her talk and rhetoric up to this point has been far left and it will come back to haunt her.
6
@John
I'm not big on polls in general, but Sanders outperformed Clinton versus Trump in many of the states that swung from Obama to Trump in 2016. I remember being told then not to worry about that because she was going to "cruise to victory" anyway.
9
"...her brand of fussy technocratic populism, which can come across as both too radical and too timidly wonky at the same time."
Well said! Love that phrase "fussy technocratic populism!"
2
@SMS
You wouldn't talk like that about a man.
Heads you win, tails I lose. Warren has been attacked for not having thought it through. Meanwhile, she's worked all her life on these issues, and is an effective legislator. So the attack was she hadn't done so. If she replies, she's fussy and wonky. If she doesn't, she doesn't know what she's talking about.
Tired of hypocrisy!
6
Watching Mayor Pete's face and body language he seems very thinned skinned and does not take any sort of criticism well at all...very defensive...he is a big corp donor guy, totally status quo, has never actually done anything in terms of public service.....not Progressive or Green without an inspiring vision or plans and clearly can't even manage his small town in Indiana. Not ready for prime time Pete. Being Gay is not enough....and I would happily support a qualified LGBT candidate.....Mayor Pete is over reaching. What a waste of donations, just imagine what all that $ would mean if given to small businesses and entrepreneurs.
8
I hope readers are aware that Reason magazine is funded by the Koch brother(s). Enough said.
11
This article is full of sophistic comments and outright errors.
The points he is putting forth are not the opinions of "most Americans" by a very long shot.
They are the talking points of the for huge Profit Insurance corporations who have purchased the votes, souls, of a number of elected representatives, who do their blather.
As Michael Moore made abundantly clear many, if not "most" people hate their insurance companies.
"Democratic voters become anxious that her campaign for “big, structural change” is too liberal, too radical and too risky to trust in a high-stakes election against Mr. Trump"
That statement is an insurance company talking point. SOME democratic voters are mired in the illusion of halfwayness. They are nowhere near a majority of democratic voters let alone the independents.
Let us not confuse moderation with caution. Moderation is a product of fear, not caution. Going all in is the only real path to any goal.
We have been being held in all kinds of bondage by the delusion of making a deal with the very forces of greed and power that have generated poverty, disease, war for centuries. Every bit of growth towards Liberty,Freedom, dignity, for all has been made only when we have been willing to go all in... One or 2 examples will suffice for those who can still think. The U.S. Civil War..620,000 dead soldiers. WW2 420,000 US forces, 70 to 85 million worldwide dead.
What if the Normandy Invasion had been a halfway thing?
WW
War...about 700,thou
4
Why did Warren get a complete pass by everyone (moderates, the other candidates, post-debate commentary) on her egregious misstatements in her initial defense of her wealth tax plan.
i.e., "You know, I have proposed a two cent wealth tax. That is a tax for everybody who has more than $50 billion in assets, your first $50 billion is free and clear. But your 50 billionth and first dollar, you've got to pitch in 2 cents. And when you hit a billion dollars, you've got to pinch in a few pennies more."
The first three mentions of "billion" should have been "million".
Warren has stalled in the polls because people don't think she can win. November's election results are in. You have to be blind to not be able to read these tea leaves. Voters, especially swing voters are rejecting Trumpism but endorsing centrists. The Democrats who won in red & purple states ran as moderates. If the Dems nominate Warren they will lose in 2020. There's no progressive majority in the U.S. & never will be. The numbers are not there. There certainly is no progressive Electoral College coalition in the U.S. that could get to the needed 270 votes. This point can't be emphasized enough: almost every progressive candidate in whom Dems invested tremendous time, money, & emotional energy in 2018—O’Rourke, Gillum, & Abrams— lost. Almost every progressive ballot initiative in this country was voted down. If this election is about kitchen table issues: jobs & education there's no way the Dems lose. If it's about reparations & immigration there's no way we win. Warren wants to provide free health care for illegal immigrants, which would be paid for by raising taxes on middle-class Americans. Warren wants to eliminate criminal penalties for illegal immigrants. These are the only issues that would compel independent swing voters in say Kentucky & Virginia to hold their nose & vote for Trump again. We can win with or without progressives. We can't win without swing & centrists voters. A moderate candidate can win in 2020. That's all that matters. Everything else is noise.
2
@Bill Brown
Clearly, you have forgotten about the historical democratic party disaster of 2016 in which Hillary Clinton was the so -called "moderate/centrist/corporate/establishment" candidate and the results are now recent history. She, like the democratic party as a whole misjudged the country, offered little vision and policies outside of the usual mainstream, hence, a good portion of minorities and the under 45s stayed home handing the election to the candidate with the worst approval rating in Presidential history and now you still think that is a winning strategy?
In reality the "noise" is coming from those who refuse to accept the results from poll after poll which confirms the overwhelming majority of American from BOTH parties are in favor of "progressive" policies)i.e.universal healthcare, minimum wage, money out of politics, etc. etc.
8
After decades of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and deficit spending to enrich war profiteers, the establishment Democrats have decided doing much of anything for average Americans is just ruinous wishful thinking. I guess the Republican strategy of starving the government has worked if this is the case. Are the establishment Democrats expecting to excite voters with a strategy of let’s get rid of Trump but keep the predatory healthcare system and income inequality along with the economic insecurities common to many if not most Americans. That wasn’t the message that got FDR re-elected four times.
7
The idea that wealth mustn't be taxed at early 20th century levels lest we impair our nation's prosperity simply doesn't hold up.
Towering wealth of the sort now regularly weaponized in federal, state and local elections is by far the greatest threat to representative democracy not only in the USA but throughout the world. Decades ago, many nations had strict limits on CEO income. Today, following USA example such limits have fallen by the wayside, and oligarchs on the march everywhere, not just China and Russia, but everywhere. Read the infamous Citibank plutonomy memos. There's a reason that Citibank went to court to try to quash their public distribution. They highlight the arrogance of America's financiers not only toward the voters, but to the actual power of the vote itself.
5
There has been a veiled, but concerted, effort by the Powers That Be, the oligarchy to use the correct tag, using the MSM which they control, to undermine Ms. Warren, as they've continued to undermine Bernie Sanders. What both Liz and Bernie propose is a dismantling of the Status Quo which is based upon "trickle down" economics. Both parties have embraced this system because their chief donors benefit the most from it. And the massive disparity in wealth which this system has produced, has effectively erased democracy from America.
But Liz and Bernie present a threat to this monopoly of power. They've tapped into the deep unrest and frustration of most Americans with the Status Quo, as Trump did himself. The major difference between them and Trump however is that Liz and Bernie actually intend to deliver on their promises, whereas Trump never did. This is why the billionaires have remained silent about Trump, but now are expressing their "concerns" about Warren. While Trump is terrible for most Americans - even those who still support him - he's wonderful for the oligarchs, both here and in Russia and eastern Europe. They're not worried that his policies may cause more unrest or even a financial collapse because they always profit from such catastrophes. But the idea of them being forced to share some of their obscene wealth absolutely terrifies them!
So they employ their levers of power in the media and attack their enemies. Too bad the NYT is no longer independent.
13
@Kingfish52
Well, actually, the "veiled, yet, concerted" effort from the "Powers that be" to maintain the "status quo" in America is actually no longer veiled, but, right out in the open. It started in 2016 when an unknown Independent Senator from a very small NE state who has been preaching much the same ideas his whole political life came from 60 points down to the "annointed one" in the primaries and although he ultimately lost, he won 22 states and 45% of the vote. They saw the trends and didn't like it and that is why so many switched to Trump, because he would represent their interests and Sanders would be their enemy.
As predicted, it has been enhanced even further today by either ignoring Sanders altogether or constant criticism of his policies. It is also interesting to note that prior articles about who was raising the most money in these democratic primary candidate choices were a regular occurrence in the NYT, but, have you noticed reference to money raised has all but disappeared?
Bernie Sanders has consistently raised the most money from the most donors from the largest cross section of America and it has now exceeded Trump's totals, yet, you would never know would you?
6
"Yet in recent weeks, her momentum has seemed to slow as Democratic voters become anxious that her campaign for 'big, structural change' is too liberal, too radical and too risky to trust in a high-stakes election against Mr. Trump."
Perhaps that has something to do with all the handwringing op-eds in publications like the NYT about how EW is radical and risky. I remember polling that showed a majority of people (not just Dems) supported universal healthcare. Follow-up polling and subsequent articles and op-eds went to great lengths to point out how radical it was, and what unintended consequences were theoretically possible, although I don't recall them asking people whether they thought it made any sense for their employer to be so actively and intimately involved with their families' healthcare decisions in the 1st place.
The way news is covered has a lot to do with the conclusions people draw from it. The GOP benefits from the media's assumptions they're making data-based policy decisions and operating in good faith, which recent history tells us is no longer true. Biden is given a pass on virtually everything that comes out of his mouth, most of it reheated "conventional wisdom" from a quarter-century ago that doesn't hold true (if it ever did). But Warren is being taken to task for certain details of her plan being vague or arguable, something that, if true, was far more true for Trump in 2016.
The media are biased, all right. The bias isn't liberal, though.
11
Clearly, any candidate that attacks Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren for their policies that will ultimately help all Americans are guaranteed to be taking money from corporate donors who wish to maintain the status quo. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability to enact such policies and what they may or may not cost.
Wake up America, you are being conned by the massive money influence of the Oligarchs and it is so obvious.
10
What do the impeachment hearings have to do with running for President, or leading the country?
It was embarrassing to watch.
2
This whole approach to the non-debates is, frankly, disgusting. Approaching them as an entertainment spectacle -- which, sadly they are -- is not journalism but merely people giving a TV show review. I started reading the Times coverage during the debates but quickly gave up, as the reviewers "substance" consisted of who got in who's face, who had the funniest lines, who had "zingers", and everything else that has absolutely nothing to do with the qualities necessary for a good President or even what is likely to appeal in the primaries to Democratic voters who think there are more important things than Times reviewers' scorecards.
If I want handicapping, I'll check with the bookies in Vegas, not the Times.
As it is, these non-debates basic effect is simply to produce a Democratic version of The Apprentice, thus allowing the punditocracy (as in this review/article), twitterati, and commentariat to get their jollies saying, "You're fired!" and "You're hired!"
3
Warren needs to back off her everyone with money is bad stance.
Of course this doesn't apply to her or Sanders, why would it.
I find it really annoying how this field likes to push this narrative on the lower income folks and how they're kept down. Why are you making this class the victim? If I had gone to law school maybe I could have Warren's wealth but I didn't so I need to live with that choice. No one on that stage will call it for what it is, we all make choices. Some of those lead to bigger paychecks and some don't. I don't blame those that have more it only pushes me to work harder.
Another joke from last nights debate "the homeless issue" IS NOT just housing, I've yet to see homeless around SF (a lot of them in their 20's) that were pushed out of their apartments from a rent increase. This is a false narrative, they're mentally ill and in a lot of cases not capable of having a job, if you want to address it they need hospitals but don't play us with this false narrative that all these kids are on the street using the sidewalk as a toilet because their rent went up. It's just not true.
@T
Just for starters, she doesn't say "everyone with money is bad".
Grotesque misrepresentation.
621 billionaires
329,064,917 people, midyear 2019
so, about 0.00019%
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
I don't understand how people think voting for another centristic candidate that proselytizes continuous compromise with the right even as it gets more fascist will restore our liberal democracy to its former glory.
Huh?
My entire adult life I've watched corporate Democrats promise a better life for the average American. Things have only gotten worse as the mainstream Democratic Party has become republican lite and the GOP has become something truly frightening.
From my perspective, corporate democrats have a had a lifetime to deliver, and they've blown it. Time and time again. I'm done giving insanity another chance.
13
@maryann
Well, didn't you know, candidates like Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and others in the corporate/establishment keep saying they want an America that existed before Donald Trump. Of course, they don't finish the statement in that the "time before" was when the democrats lost almost 1000 seats at the state and federal levels, two-thirds of the states in Republican control AND, last but not least, ALL THREE branches of the Executive.
It also was a time when a democratic party's lack of vision and the pre-occupation with collecting corporate dollars over actually offering meaningful policy alternatives and winning elections got America Donald Trump elected in the first place!
You are right, insanity just might prevail again.
6
And all the while, Joe Biden just keeps getting smaller and smaller.
1
Is it really surprising that this columnist, who for most of his adult life has worked for the Koch brothers -- "Reason" is one of its many projects -- celebrates "growing uneasiness" of corporate Democrats with actual liberalism?
4
I'm not sure I watched the same debate that Suderman did.
It was definitely lively, with only a couple dumb Bidenisms. And I came away with a good feeling about most of the candidates, although I do get tired of hearing the Republican talking points ("more free stuff") when it comes to meeting the needs of more Americans, not just the richest of the rich.
I also came away with an even stronger trust in Warren and the vision she is painting for the future.
Not so sure I trust Peter Suderman, though. He must be another one worried that she might actually win this thing.
8
Neither Mayor Pete Buttigieg nor Elizabeth Warren were 'attacked' in the debate at the Tyler Perry studio complex in the Atlanta Georgia hometown of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Why is the 37 year old white European Judeo-Christian gay married mayor of the 4th largest city in Mike Pence's Indiana receiving so much attention and credibility from the mass media?
Buttigieg represents about 20% as many people as any member of the House of Representatives. Mayor Pete is no 49 year old Atlanta Mayor Keisha Bottom Lance.
While Elizabeth Warren lacks the political governing experience and talent of Hillary Clinton.
Since the most loyal and long suffering base of the Democratic Party is black African American, particularly black African American Protestant female think about putting a black face on Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Elizabeth Warren and imagine where they would be in this field?
The black mayor of Miramar Florida Wayne Messam dropped out of the 2020 Democratic Party Presidential campaign quest yesterday. Miramar has about the same size population as South Bend Indiana. Who knew or noticed?
1
There was a debate last night?
I trust her
7
So it's ok to have the wealthy dip so low within the tax percentage range that the common working person is actually paying a larger percentage of their hard earned money on taxes? So it's ok for the IRS to determine what's "affordable" and what's not when it comes to healthcare? So it's ok to hand out corporate welfare like it's no biggie? So it's ok to allow this unrequited love affair with extreme wealth without expecting as much as a back rub from the privileged for the privilege to have so much money that it's obscene and predatory?
I still fail to see what's so radical about Elizabeth Warren besides her guts to address these issues, even they are in a grey tone at these debates. I would like to hear some details about how wealth can be created, Sen. Booker, like profit sharing, getting rid of stock buy backs, etc but to get into too much detail would be stepping on too many investor/donor toes. I am fed up, but the person I am the least fed up with is Elizabeth Warren.
Many people don't have huge aspirations in life---they just want to work and be able to afford what they truly need. Life is simpler than we think, but it becomes a nightmare when the simple even becomes difficult to achieve. The American public knows this, but are too distracted by how they can get ahead past the simple, without even caring about the simple anymore. That's a GOP characteristic, not Dem, but the line is sure blurring.
7
@duvcu in other words, most people are sheep who need to be fed and watered and led by the woke avant-garde toward the paradise they don’t know they want? That’s a perfect encapsulation of the left-wing attitude to the masses that unleashed untold catastrophes in the last century. And of course, it’s not true. People have ideals, even simple people. All those Trump voters you despise vote their beliefs over the contents of their stomachs because they are human beings, not farm animals. If you think those ideals are wrong, argue your position. But since even a cursory look at Warren’s socialist philosophy shows how wrong-headed it is, all you can do is to speak in the name of the “people” you despise.
1
What's emerged in the Times is a concentration of its fire on Elizabeth Warren, not unlike what happened to Bernie four years ago.
00:25 EST, 11/21
5
So the Times starts the day with a lead Opinion piece headlined the 'Danger' of Elizabeth Warren- and we end the day with this hit piece bashing Warren again. The Times led the way in obsessive and overblown coverage of Hillary Clinton's emails- for which they, like the CNN commentator Jeff Toobin, should apologize. Or better yet: try not 'hillary-ing' Warren: a strong, brilliant and bold candidate who is arguably the one on the stage best positioned to unite both wings of the divided Democrats. Knock it off, NYT.
10
Seriously? How many articles trying to scare people away from supporting Warren is the NYTimes gonna run? Sheesh.
11
Health insurance companies have been shown time and time again to be dishonest, conniving, and predatory. Buttigieg's "MFAWWI" plan would allow insurance companies to skim away healthy participants, and so many other ways of destroying the attempt to provide a simple, universal government run program. Republicans would say, "See, it doesn't work." The insurance companies and Republicans are dishonest players in this scenario. They will destroy any partial, half-hearted attempts by any means necessary. Warren and Sanders know this. Free the American People from the slavery of the insurance companies and the Republicans.
#Warren2020
7
As I posted in another article about Medicare For All:
I am an independent voter and find things to dislike about both parties. Right now, there are many more things wrong with the Republican party, starting at the top and extending to the Senate.
I want the Dems to put up the strongest possible candidate to run against Trump, and that means someone who can win back Obama voters who switched to Trump in 2016, as well as moderate Democrats AND Independents. That last group (40% of the electorate now) will likely decide who wins in 2020.
Any policy proposals must sound reasonable to the majority of voters, as well as promoting the restoration of integrity and transparency in Washington. This is not the time for "pie in the sky" proposals. Idealism will only get you so far.
Remember - the objective is to take back the castle, not argue about the best way to do it. Focus on those bread-and-butter issues that affect all Americans. And once the battle is won, there will be plenty of time to focus on the details of policy making.
@hdtvpete
It was the LACK of "pie in the sky" policies(like Universal healthcare that exists pretty much everywhere else in the industrialized world)from the democratic party and its corporate establishment that got Donald Trump elected in the first place and you want to do the same thing all over again?
2
I like Warren on economics, I like her on health care, I like her because of her intelligence, her resume of getting things done in government and especially I like her intense anger about the many ways lower and middle class workers have been screwed for decades.
She scares rich elites and their hand maidens in both parties and that is a very good thing.
11
Ugh, I got tricked by the headline into reading a hand-wringing hit piece on Warren. As a born and bread Midwesterner who lived many years in NYC and now am in LA, I’m so sick of people on the coast thinking they know the hearts and minds of the heartland. Smug, privileged Pete, who never knew a moment of economic uncertainty, is not the fountain of wisdom this author believes. Look, he’s a Dream compared to the current prez, but Liz Warren comes from a working class background and is smart as hell with a demonstrated mission of improving lives for everyday Americans. Not everyone is looking for a man in a suit to be their savior. I’d rather have a champion like Liz.
11
"It is no longer good enough for us simply to be pro-Israel. I am pro-Israel," Sanders said. "But we must treat the Palestinian people with the respect and dignity they deserve."
"What is going on in Gaza right now, where youth unemployment is 60, 70 percent, is unsustainable,"
---- Bernie Sanders last night.
A Presidential candidate truly intent on solving the youth unemployment problem in Gaza should have begun by advising the Palestinian leadership to finally reconcile themselves to the permanency of the Jewish State of Israel.
A better, more honest way for Bernie to have begun would have been by saying “ Seventy-one years of rejection of the State of Israel by Palestinians since 1948 must cease.”
2
The scary thing is that Warren appears to believe her own proselytizations when, in fact, the data simply doesn't add up. Believing something doesn't make it true.
1
Shame shame shame for democrats turning on each other.
There should be a better way to conduct those debates.
Innovate.
I will vote for E. Warren
7
“Yet in recent weeks, her momentum has seemed to slow as Democratic voters become anxious that her campaign for “big, structural change” is too liberal, too radical and too risky to trust in a high-stakes election against Mr. Trump.”
Really? Or maybe her momentum has slowed among Democrats who write columns for the NYT. Certainly, the one poll you cite to support your point is pretty slim evidence.
9
As usual, the Democrats are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by piling on to bash their strongest candidate.
6
"Libertarian Attacks Tax-Raising Candidate" is on a par with "Pope Says He's a Catholic" in terms of news-worthiness, and I can't be the only reader to be sick and tired of Peter Suderman's continual rants against Elizabeth Warren.
7
"Ms. Warren’s appeal, as a recent survey from Echelon Insights suggests, turns out to be strongest with a relatively narrow slice of the Democratic coalition — the college-educated, culturally liberal Acela voters who just happen to dominate the corridors of elite power."
Incredible.
Here in California, we have no "Acela voters who just happen to dominate the corridors of elite power," but many Warren supporters.
Quite a few of those Acela voters--Cohen, Friedman, Edsall, Rattner among them--write frequently for the opinion pages of this newspaper, prompting the question: Where does that "relatively narrow slice of the Democratic coalition" really reside?
6
I'm so tired of the "How did that work out in 2016" argument against moderate candidates.
In 2016, nose-holding voters had a choice of two repulsive candidates; the winner has turned out to be so far worse than he seemed back then that the "radical" answer this time will be the opposite of his daily indecencies and incompetence.
That would be a ticket chosen from Biden, Klobuchar, Pete, Bullock.
Please, spare me blatherer-in-chief Booker; ranting Sanders; snarky Harris; Russian troll Gabbard; impervious-to reality Warren and the other well-meaning no-shot otherwise decent people distracting us from the top priority - landsliding Trump and the GOP out of office next year.
Interesting how an editor at Reason seems to support candidates with no apparent project other than aspirational values, rather than candidates who are giving voters concrete reasons to vote for them.
4
Warren is always very obviously the best person in any of these debates. True last night as well. I'm thus not sure whether to blame the increasingly obvious and growing conspiracy of journalistic indifference/hostility against her candidacy to the deep pockets of her wealthy enemies or to fear of Hillary 2.0. This post-debate piece seems to be part of it [only one of two NYT anti-Warren hits that appeared immediately post-debate], as its overall aim appears to be to convince voters of her inelectability.
7
Shame Buttigieg wasn't attacked more because I believe we would have seen just how great his is at taking incoming. Then again, that might be why his opponents avoided taking him on. It's just a matter of time and I look forward to it.
1
Moderates want the two parties to work together like they did in the mythical days of yore, the days that usually were mythical and not real. They have no answer to the situation in which one of the parties refuses to work with the other at all, or the situation in which one of the parties pretends to work with the other but has no intention of actually doing so and instead uses the pretense as a cover for moving the goalposts.
A moderate answer to immoderation is known as a Munich. When Hitler invaded Poland, he got an immoderate answer from Britain and France, an answer that the French in particular were unprepared to make stick. Perhaps giving him Poland would have persuaded him to go after the Soviet Union (his real objective) and leave France and Britain alone as countries whose moderation posed little threat to him.
Please be careful when you use an adjective such as "fussy" and an adverb such as "timidly" for Elizabeth Warren. Would you use these words for a male candidate?
5
The editor of Reason magazine writing as if he is an objective commentator on Elizabeth Warren? The magazine is funded by the Koch and Scaife Foundations, is libertarian, does not deny climate change but opposes doing anything to slow it. It is opposed to expansion of government programs and to higher taxes so, of course, its editor is predisposed to dislike Warren's policies. To feature this op ed the day after the most recent debate -- and no column on any other Democratic candidate -- provides more evidence that the Times is on a campaign to bring her down.
9
How many transparent hit pieces will the Times need to run against Warren? The claims herein are neither accurate nor the subject of any attempted support. In the spirit of this hit job I could say “ the Times can’t see the truth from the line it walks between its corporate paymasters and its desire to pretend to cover the news of the day. This is unsurprising given that everyone who works there has his or her eye on the next job which will be necessary after the layoffs, “.
3
it's really striking, instructive and significant to contrast the republican and democrat electorates.
the republicans fixed on the single candidate who was obviously "morally unfit for the job", a grifter, a policy idiot, widely derided as a sexual predator, toxic to the process, mocking of convention, crowd baiting, hysteria stoking and full of false promises.
he won the primaries, he won the nomination, he won the election.
the democrats are chronically afeard of the single candidate who is morally among most fit for the job, principled, intelligent, upstanding, playing by the rules, caring for the people, truth telling, with a resume of public service and plan for structural change.
the democrats quaver, whimper, tremble, seek the political equivalent of lite beer, sugarless soda, gluten free cereal, lo cal tofu.
as far as i can tell, the upcoming election won't matter. the money is talking and real, substantive change is off the table. "can't we just play nice?" is every victim's last words.
i'm too old for it to matter to me personally; but i feel sorry, truly, for all those "OK boomer" young folk. i would not trade my boomer life for your selfie tiktok future on any terms. i remember what america used to be: you're bought and sold like cattle in the car.
1
For all the editors, opinion piece regulars and anyone else who thinks Elizabeth Warren doesn't know what she's talking about:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=98120
Can you do that?
Brilliant and accomplished as he is, in practical terms Buttigieg's leadership style is corporate. I'll take the professor over the Wall Street/Silicon Valley fave and former McKinsey hire any old day.
5
The way NYT & DNC trivialize & exploit accusations of Nazism, white nationalism & treason for Russia - against TULSI GABBARD, who supports universal health care, a $15/hr national minimum wage, massive gun control, etc. - is a total disgrace to the actual victims of those evils. It's not an exaggeration to say that anyone who criticizes the Democratic Party, the DNC or US foreign policy (as supported by the CIA/NSA) is instantly, and for that reason alone, viewed as an agent of Moscow. They don't even hide their McCarthyism: it's the explicit formula. If you criticize Kamala Harris' record of harsh prosecutions for non-violent criminals and the role she (and Biden) played in mass incarceration - one of the worst evils in the US - it means you're serving Moscow's interests. This is the sickness that permeates the Democratic Party.
https://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/2019/02/04/worries-warranted-over-warrens-wealth-tax/
Mr. Suderman has been an anti-wealth tax, anti-Warren advocate for some time. He's probably the wrong person to write an opinion piece on a the debates, being that he already has an agenda.
6
Why beat around the bush? Why not just tell us that you'd like Mitt Romney as a Democrat?
5
People actually watched this?
This is America. It was only a matter of time before we all found a reason to not like a woman in favor of a white man.
3
Here we go again.....The media bears great responsibility for Donald Trump's win in 2016 and it looks like we're in for a repeat in 2020. The media sat on its collective a_ _es and helped Trump by glossing over/ignoring his deplorable history as a con man while magnifying every negative about Hillary Clinton. Now the media is playing a major role in promoting Trump's re-election by helping to promote division among the Democratic Party candidates and focusing much negativity on Elizabeth Warren. Let's get real folks: Biden is too old, well past his prime, and his son's Ukraine deals are a major liability; Buttigieg couldn't even win a state-wide election in Indiana and lacks necessary experience. He is the Doogie Howser of the field; Sanders is not a Democrat and he has been a do-nothing career politician. He's also too old; Klobuchar is just too "middle of the road" and totally lacks the "pizzazz" and personality to go toe-to-toe against Trump. She has put forth no concrete plans. Apart from Warren, the others simply don't stand a chance. Let's stop attacking Warren and focus on beating Trump.
3
you know why the democrats are struggling in their primaries right now and on their current path could and could be destroyed in the general election? this point really pertains to Warren. Most Americans want politicians and leaders that inspire them. people want to believe that when they or their children walk down the street and see that big house on the hill they say i am going to have a house like that someday. under Warren that dream becomes i am going get that guy someday. she does nothing to inspire hope in people. she is purely punitive; someone has to lose for others to win. why can't we have leaders who inspire all Americans no matter of race, education, or income to be the best version of themselves? lets make the distinction right now the best the government can do is make an optimal environment for this to happen which i guess the argument is about in this country. it is not the government's obligation to make you the best version of yourself; it is each individual's. There is an old saying which for all his faults (and there are many) Trump capitalized on last election cycle; conservatives are true believers, liberals pure cynics.
The successful Democratic candidate will:
(a) Understand that American voters DON'T like the government imposing policies on them. They DO like having choices and being given the option of choosing. The best approach is to develop a Medicare buy-in program as an option, which would find strongest appeal among voters in their mid to late 50s and early 60s who are dealing with high medical insurance premiums and job insecurity. This age group (not coincidentally) has some of the highest voter turnout rates, and the rising cost of health insurance is a vital, bread-and-butter issue for them.
(b) Focus on tax reform issues so that the tables aren't so tilted toward wealthy people. Stop talking about wealth taxes, which may be unconstitutional. Instead, repeal the SALT limitation, keep the current standard deductions, and re-adjust marginal tax rates on higher income individuals. Renew tax credits for investments in energy efficiency, such as electric / hybrid vehicles and solar panel installations.
(c) Renew a focus on infrastructure repair. Our roads, bridges, water supplies, energy pipelines, electrical grid, etc. are aging and falling apart. It's time to fix what's broken and create some real, good-paying jobs along the way. And that would include projects to protect against things like rising ocean levels in towns and cities at risk. Everyone benefits from these improvements.
(d) Skip identity politics. That's just background noise to a majority of voters.
1
People who are deeply invested in the status quo have reason to fear "big structural change."
People who are deeply resentful of the control of our economy by corporations and the wealthy have reason to yearn for big structural change.
Warren is "too liberal, too radical, and too risky," suggests this libertarian pundit.
Then vote for someone who represents the status quo. That's not for me. Big structural change is exactly what's called for after four decades of the plutocratic oligarchy having its way while the rest of us are left behind.
8
The reality is that today, in the post-2016 world, the Democrats can no longer be simply a left-leaning party to match against a similar right-leaning opposition party. No, today the Democrats needs to be the party of every voter who has not succumbed to ethnonationalism. Somewhere in the realm of 35-40% of the American electorate have succumbed, and are likely not recoverable by 2020.
Among those who have not succumbed, and who still believe in liberal democracy, nearly as many lean right as lean left. As such, no candidate's world view and policy positions are going to be favored by the entirety of the part of the electorate who are opposed to Trump. No candidate is going to be able to inspire both those who idolize FDR and those who idolize Reagan. It is an impossible task that has been put before Warren, Biden, Sanders, etc.
Nonetheless, if our democracy is to survive, both the left and right leaning sides of the party will have to be willing to pull the lever for whomever ends up being the nominee. The sooner we all acknowledge that fact, and take seriously our responsibility for saving the republic, the better. We can't sit on our hands and wait for some mythical super candidate to inspire us all to action. It is imperative that we erect an American "cordon sanitaire" (or quarantine) against Trumpism in the same way the French have done against the National Front. If we don't I fear for the world we will leave our children.
I was very disappointed that Corey Booker was willing to repeat the Republican talking point about providing "opportunities for growth" - words Republicans have always used as an excuse for lowering taxes and doing nothing else.
The investments that Elizabeth Warren wants to make ARE about providing opportunities. As any educator would tell you, getting a good start early on, and having support - both emotional and financial - are ALL ways to encourage Americans to take risks and grow.
Shame on Booker and shame on anybody else who buys into the narrative that supporting the fundamentals - good education, good health, good support for families - are distractions from growing opportunity.
6
I love that in this article Warren is attacked for being too left and too centrist. It's like saying, "Hey, I believe in leftish ideals but also understand political reality" is unacceptable to some. I also wonder if she would be so attacked if she were a man.
6
Why I love Warren and not Bernie: precisely because she will take her time implementing universal healthcare instead of foisting it on a wary public on "day one."
She is exactly what this country needs.
4
Good to see Warren and her populist, divisive, unelectable rhetoric fading in the polls. Sorry Warren folks, you mean well, but your views represent a small slice of the general electorate, and a minority of the party. Please follow the data that demonstrate this, and when the time comes do the right thing.
12
@Keith In the general election I'll be giving centrist democrats who have dominated the party since 1992 with generally terrible showings at the polls--consistently losing the senate and the house to Republicans--exactly what they deserve: four more years of Donald Trump. I used to hold in contempt uncompromising liberal voters who sat out the election. Now I realize that the centrists need to be disciplined. Otherwise, they'll be making the same stubborn electability arguments for the next 30 years while the world burns.
20
@AB I do think that is the likely outcome. I just hope we can all start listening to each other and stop the demonization of those who hold a different worldview. There's a middle way to reconciliation, as President Obama has suggested. Best wishes.
The right thing is to vote for Warren and Sanders. Not a Goldman Sachs Corporate Democrat that will enable another Donald Trump and the Oligarchs. Do you know what an ‘oligarch’ is. Do you know what an ‘oligarchy’ is? Warren does. Sanders does. I am afraid the others haven’t a clue and merely wish to serve an oligarchic economy. As it seems they have consistently done. Radical!? Electable?! These are most certainly not the questions before us all. One must ask one’s self “Am I for an oligarchy or not?” Is the fundamental question for all United States citizens. All this asthe rest of the world watches!
6
Warren and Sanders are utopians. Their idealistic dreams are comforting to adolescent philosophers who ignore the evidence about the nature of human behavior from evolutionary psychology. An adult leader will be required to heal a wounded nation. What kind of leaders would the adult candidates with a real chance to be elected be like? Joe Biden makes me think of Gerald Ford. Means well, better than what we have, and good at negotiating. Pete Buttigieg makes me think of a Harry Truman in the making, but in need of much more experience. Amy Klobuchar makes me think of Angela Merkel (There is no U.S. female example). Practical, with high integrity, caring, experienced, knowledgeable and skillful; but not flashy.
3
@Howard Winet meanwhile Sanders and Warren have both preformed well in their elected positions for decades they are hardly mere dreamers. But I understand why the status quo is nervous.
4
@maria5553 I wish them well in their elected positions. That is where they can be constructive. But their approach won't work for the entire nation. If by "status quo" you mean anything short of revolution, then I plead guilty. History has much to teach us about the cost of replacing evolution with revolution. We have still not fulfilled the promise of our own revolution; which I consider a constructive event. But we have evolved and, in spite of some backward steps along the way, we have made progress. Before we embark on another revolution we might want to estimate its potential for success by examining what we are. That means understanding evidence about the nature of human behavior from evolutionary psychology. This evidence substantially conflicts with the basic premises of the progressive utopian ideologies of Warren and Sanders (see Pinker's "The Blank Slate" for a summary of the evidence).
Why is it that "Warrenism" is such a philosophical threat to the Democratic Party, and apparently, given the hyperbole from so many pundits in recent weeks, to democracy itself, while "Sandersism" is not? Is her energy and dynamism more threatening to the status quo than Bernie? Why so? The only obvious explanation is their gender difference. If neither Warren or Sanders gains the most delegates during the primary process, together they will still have a significant number. There a significant non-elitist set of voters in the Democratic coalition that want structural change and their viewpoints should be denigrated or dismissed at significant peril to the party as much as the opinions of the moderates and rich people who oppose them.
7
I hope the Democratic Party knows what's best for them. Did they learn anything from the last elections? You can't force a candidate. Otherwise, we'll end up with another situation like 2016 when Bernie won the primaries, but super-delegates decided Hilary was the candidate. Look how well that turned out. We need a candidate the people vote for, and if that happens to be Warren, great. If it's Biden, that works too, but we have to make sure that voters come first. Not the party.
3
With all due respect, single payer health care is far from "revolutionary". Every advanced nation in the world adapted it decades ago. Canada's single payer health system is what made it the best country in the world to live. Just ask any Canadian.
9
As a country, we have to decide if we are going to do big things, or not. In the new deal era, the answer was 'yes'. Since the cold war, the answer has only been force-feeding the M.I.C. so we can wage more war, and going small on everything else. Trump simply wants to give all the money to the plutocrats because that's all he knows.
Sanders and Warren are the only ones who think we can do 'big' things on health care, education instead of just force-feeding the M.I.C. so we can wage more war. Clearly this scares the neoliberals to death, including many on the NYTimes staff apparently.
5
2016 repetita and the Wall Street wing of the democratic party strongly believes that only like-minded socially liberal, free traders and economically conservative candidate can beat Trump. They are more scared with Warren than Bernie because her campaign is vastly better organised.
This will not end well if and when Wall Street has what it wants and a "moderate" is selected only to be wiped out in swing states by Trump. So many NY Times readers so much want to believe in the linearity of politics when win voters must be in the middle when across the world things have gotten so much more complex. There are far more swing voters that will respond well to economic populism that holds an actual promise of helping Middle Classes. As an aside, "medicare for all who want it" is mumbo jumbo political speak that will basically keep 99% of our current dysfunctional healthcare untouched, with millions uninsured and dozens of millions terrified of losing jobs and benefits and getting ruined by co-pays. Warren and Sanders are the only one to call it as it is and go to the core of the problem.
5
I find Senator Warren fundamentally dishonest.
She knows the costs of her programs run into tens of trillions, that there's no realistic way to pay for these, but continues to beat up on anyone who argues for a more realistic path by calling them timid.
Poll after poll finds she is the weakest candidate against Trump among swing voters in swing states. If we lose this election, we could lose our democracy.
Warren is an impressive senator, and I hope that's where she'll stay.
5
@Sparky
Why is it that as soon as the Democrats propose something that costs money , everyone gets to pile on to [Democratic Candidate] and yell "HOW will we pay for this!?!"
But as soon as a Republican proposes a tax break, no one bats an eye. I have yet to hear much hoopla over "How are we gonna make up for the lost revenue!?!" from the GOP Tax break they passed last year.
Warren has her financing issues - but let's not pretend that the Democrats are the only one with issues describing how much things actually cost. The GOP gives lip service to "Fiscal Responsibility" only when questioning the Democrats - and never when it comes to their own.
6
@Andrew She is proposing plans but understanding that they cost money, which is why she actually proposes incrementalism towards end goals. Likely by year 3, she would know how much the ultra wealth taxes bring in and could write a reasonable bill based on that. Also, (at least for healthcare), in a single payer system, costs usually go down quite a bit.
2
I found people that claim Warren is dishonest, are dishonest themselves. They know that the healthcare as it is will cost twice more than under Warren's plan, but they pretend that high premium and deductible that kills American do not exist. Funny, how they count the Government money, leaving the burden of healthcare on individual Americans unacknowledged.
3
So much of the punditry are employed by corporate billionaires who have given them the mission of discouraging America from nominating a true reformer who will make the corporate billionaires pay their fair share. So these pundits attack Warren and Sanders. Buttigieg and Biden are not likely to shake things up and fix the terrible inequality in our financial and governmental systems.
9
No its not voters who have become nervous about Warren. Its the establishment.
12
Some time ago following an earlier debate, Chris Matthews conducted a brief interview with Elizabeth Warren. He repeatedly asked her how much she would raise taxes on the middle class to pay for her Medicare for All proposal. She attempted to explain to him that his question was misleading in that her ideas must be considered in the context of overall healthcare savings. Yet he continued to ask the same question while interrupting her attempts to explain. Nevertheless, she persisted in her explanation, and he abruptly ended the interview. His attempt to create what he hoped would become a damaging sound bite had failed. When this kind of bias is coming from a “liberal” news source, what hope do we have for rational consideration?
10
Please stop making reference to national polling numbers and who leads in these numbers. The only polling numbers that matter are those in the battleground states. Democrats can will 99% of the vote in NY and California and it doesn't make a difference. This is not a popularity contest. It is a contest for electoral votes.
2
What exactly does it mean when Warren's (and Bernie's) opponents say "I trust the American people" with regard to Medicaid for All? Or when her opponents advocate for "choice" in health insurance. This assumes that all goods and services function and are responsive to consumer choice in the same way, when left open to the free-market. Medical care is not open to market "choice" in the same way most products we buy are. What are we being "trusted" to do with our "choice" according to corporate democrats? Right now I have no choice regarding my health care, I take the plan my employer offers and hope it covers my needs. "Medicare for All For Those Who Want It" is a choice between bad options. True Medicare For All that offers equal high quality care for everyone is the best option for lowering cost and giving people actual choice and freedom in healthcare.
6
Why are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders the only two candidates who understand that Americans want health coverage. I don't care whom the insurer is. Insurance companies are profit-making businesses that consider the profits for shareholders over the health and wellbeing of customers. Let them all fail... I don't care. ”I MUST keep my current insurance plan, ” said no one ever.
227
@Laura Excellent point. And most people realize they don't get to keep their healthcare plan as is. These plans are constantly being negotiated. Usually the outcome is worse for the employee.
We also always run the risk of losing everything in order to stay alive if the insurance company decides to deny our claim.
38
@Laura
Americans want....
You do not speak for this American.
Warren and Bernie are ideologues who are trying to force us to follow them into a government knows best land.
That has failed us and they both are headed for well deserved retirement.
29
@Laura
You're wrong. I love my private health insurance and will not vote for anyone who supports taking away my right to choose what is best for me and my family. It is the height of arrogance for any candidate to say that the government will, without a doubt, do it better and that as a result I shouldn't have the right to choose.
9
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a candidate so attacked by their own party and the punditry as Warren has.
One thing is for sure - we’re never going back to the Obama era. Too much has happened, too many Americans are falling behind, many ugly truths have finally been exposed about power and influence in this country and incremental moderation just doesn’t cut it any more.
102
@Bill Yes, it is truly astounding how the punditry has attacked Warren.
Every day, the NYT Opinion pages are filled with anti- Warren hit pieces, and it is getting very tiresome....
"The Danger of Elizabeth Warren"
"Leon Cooperman: A Wealth Tax Is a ‘Dead End’"
"The Warren Way Is the Wrong Way"
"Elizabeth Warren’s Health Care Albatross"
"Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote"
"Elizabeth Warren’s Plan to End Private Health Insurance"
"Can Warren Escape the Medicare Trap?"
"The Question Warren Won’t Answer"
"Elizabeth Warren Divides the Room"
Ok, we get it.
The NYT is really, really, against Sen. Warren getting the nomination.
I can only hope actual voters, and actual Democrats will disregard the constant stream of attacks, and make up their own mind.
16
@Bill
Lol...please.
When Liz gets 16 Negative Stories in 16 Hours, come back and I'll buy you a drink or pack us a bowl.
Agreed, we can't go back.
https://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/
https://harpers.org/archive/2016/11/swat-team-2/
6
@Bill Um, Gabbard? And she's not leading any polls.
1
Balderdash!
Senator Warren is the most prepared, most qualified, and most able to relate to and communicate effectively with Americans, urban and rural, school-aged to advanced age, across demographics and biases. She does her homework, and she has a track record of establishing a federal agency and making it work for the American citizenry over predatory corporations and practices.
The worrying about Warren trope is harmful. It does not faciliate an informed citizenry. It reflects horse race polling political coverage at its worst.
This entire op-ed attempts to weaken and divide Americans, and to make them timid and hesitant about engaging. It is a disservice to the American citizenry, and it needs to stop.
16
I am a life long democrat. I would never vote for Warren. She is as divisive as Trump. I despise her us versus them memes. I feel as if she is scolding me for working hard, saving and investing. She is punitive. If we don’t recognize our country under Trump, think of what it will be under Comrade Warren when the economy tanks. No thanks Dems. If she’s the nominee, I’ll just sit this one out.
10
The Dems have run moderates at all levels in the red states for years. How has that been working out? Just maybe there's a stay-at-home contingent that has been waiting for candidates that give them more than a choice between republican and republican-lite.
00:35 EST, 11/21
6
Once again the NYT tucks and runs in the face of a great candidate, by spreading dissent disguised as 'analysis'. Trump has no chance of winning again; Never Trumpers and right leaning independents will stay home or vote third party. Many Democrats who stayed home last time because they were convinced that Trump couldn't possibly win, will go to the polls to put a nail in his coffin. The man is being impeached for crying out loud, and while many conservatives are obstinate enough to vote for him again, many are disgusted with his antics, so Democrats can win with sheer numbers. Bottom line, Ms. Warren is the best candidate, with the best policy solutions, the most experience, and the right temperament to be a great POTUS. She's pragmatic and knows that she won't be able to implement much of her agenda, as does the NYT, but the moneyed social liberals or so-called 'centrists' don't want to pay more in taxes. I find these attack pieces exhausting to refute, but we have to finally stand up and elect a true reformer who can steer the country back from the rightward slide towards corporate oligarchy instead of getting Clinton and Obama republican light.
12
I think Warren is close to the last person I'd vote for. And I'm a millennial who grew up dirt poor [like, for real] and still has LOTS of student loan debt. The student loan stuff almost feels like a bribe - like, let's throw caution to the wind, do something we can't afford, and all in order to forgive debts that people willingly took out and which, the numbers show, have enabled them as a group to enjoy far more prosperity than their unschooled counterparts.
I think she's a phony, and her rhetoric has sometimes crosses the line from "the wealthy should be paying more taxes" to a "blame the rich for everything, storm the Bastille" type of talk - and I certainly see that in her supporters' memes (not that that's definitive). At some point it crosses into resenting success and absolving yourself of all responsibility by placing the blame squarely on factors outside your control.
Klobuchar and Booker have a narrow opening to unseat a gassed Biden and to edge out "media-narrative-but-not-really-that-moderate" Buttigieg.
7
@B Samuels
I'd genuinely like to understand your position, which sounds like you think Senator Warren is a phony, and you don't like her policies. But those positions appear contradictory- is she a phony that doesn't really care about helping make life more affordable for the middle class, or does she care too much with policies that are impractical? Have you heard of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (https://www.consumerfinance.gov/)?
1
Big corporate donors including the insurance industry are behind Buttigieg but he is a loser with to little experience. The big money Democrats are pushing him and Harris but neither could win the election. The one candidate who again demonstrated integrity, experience wisdom and the ability to win in big numbers remains Sanders, though it would be bitter blasphemy for the corporate press to acknowledge.
2
They all attack Warren because they know if people could wave a magic wand to choose a president, she would be the overwhelming choice. Intellect, ethics, experience, temperament, charisma, and the desire to govern for the benefit of the people..She is the candidate.
Warren is the star and my choice for president.
8
Sad that this wasn’t a real debate.
Attack dog mentality in election process !
The reality show flavor of our nations politics is getting so old for serious voters that operate from a position of research and facts and honesty.
Normal spectrum voters cannot wait to vote and see if the electoral college and trumpism interferes with the voters wishes.
None of the voters that read and think believe our election will be clean.
Russia has won.
And we need a new party system.
This two party monopoly discredits the will of the voters and tax payers.
The words that leaped out to me last night were from Amy Klobuchar: If you think a woman can’t beat Donald Trump, you’re wrong because “Nancy Pelosi does it every single day.”
Pelosi is unparalleled in experience, savvy, leadership, and the ability to dispatch the child-emperor Donald Trump with aplomb. If Nancy Pelosi had been on the stage last night, there would have been no question she is the candidate to beat Trump! Wish she was running.
1
I agree with Xenia from Las Cruces! I am wholeheartedly behind Elizabeth Warren and I trust her absolutely - she has the brains and she has the heart.
6
Gee, I wonder what the writer thinks. He seems to have a direct line into what everyone else is thinking. And, while lambasting Warren’s world view, he gives no idea what that view is. Actually, what she said was absolutely responsive to Booker’s melodramatic eyerolling. If people have child care, education, etc., that lays the groundwork for being entrepreneurial. As for Biden’s pandering choice comment... he’s playing on people’s fears of change... in fact, Warren’s gradual approach is precisely designed to give people the opportunity to see that Medicare for all is something they want and then to CHOOSE to get off their insurance plans. As for the author’s cheap shot about Warren being a technocrat, it’s a gratuitous put down of Warren’s actually having thought through what will work. We wouldn’t want that in a president would we?
3
As far as I can tell, the Democratic elites are terrified of Warren; what better recommendation can you ask for?
6
I watched the after debate program on MSNBC and there was Michael Moore touting Bernie Sanders and his appeal to younger voters. I could just feel the "donor class" seethe as they saw a guy on TV supporting the guy that wants to upset their corrupt apple cart of campaign cash that buys the tax policy they demand.
The establishment's darling Pete Buttigieg has no path to the presidency if nominated once the Trump team drops the bomb on the Democratic base that Mayor Pete was not fair to the black police chief and officers in the South Bend police department.
Elizabeth Warren petrifies the donor class, she or Sanders will beat Trump. Pete cannot. Running up the flagpole Clinton 2.0 in the name of Biden is a guaranteed loser. As are the rest of the milquetoast establishment, "centrist" candidates.
You need to analyze what it is that brought you Trump, it was a populist campaign that turned out to be a campaign of lies. The populism is still there and waiting for the right candidate. There aren't that many billionaire voters out there. Sanders and Warren are the populists the country is looking for. The people are tired of the donor class corruption and that includes Dems, Reps, Independents, Greens and all the
others.
I saw Chris Matthews warn Sanders and Warren about calling our democracy corrupt. What he doesn't quite get is they aren't calling democracy corrupt they are calling the electoral system and campaign cash corrupt. They are right and the people see + feel it
8
The countries that “abandoned” wealth taxes “abandoned” them because they found very high taxes on high incomes easier to implement. You can look it up. I assume that is what Mr Suderman is advocating.
1
With empty paeans to “the American people” and empty dismissals of policies that would actually help those people, aren’t the “moderates” the real populists in this campaign?
Senator Sanders is the only Democratic Party candidate whose proposals can attract the millions of working class voters who the corporate, technocratic Democratic politicians have abandoned to the racist demagoguery of Trump . . . If our billionaire class refuses to let a reformist Social Democrat be nominated, and thus convince the young voters that its useless to try and work within the system, they may, in years to come, be faced with a more radical, in fact, a revolutionary alternative. Then they will wish they had backed Bernie when they had the chance . . . .
1
The Echelon Insights comment is just wrong. If you actually click on the survey link, it shows that a plurality of Warren's supporters are "Labor" voters, just like Biden and Sanders. What's more, a *larger* percentage of Pete's supporters are "Acela" voters. To say that he criticizes her for appealing to a narrower slice is hypocritical to say the least.
Please read your own sources before writing articles!
5
Is this going to be another Warren will be attacked in the press like HRC, but not Biden or Sanders? I thought the media claimed that they had reformed after the 2016 debacle.
3
It's hardly college educated liberals who "dominate the corridors of elite power." Wealthy mega donors/corporate lobbyists obviously do. The S. Court ruled any limits on big money in campaigns is anti 1st Amendment---so used our own Constitution to amplify the voice of the elite and muffle the voice of the average citizen, who can't compete.
We can't reach 20th C norms of modern countries for HC as a right, portrayed here as radical left extremism. Many nervous voters haven't had the alternatives explained to them, so are scared by propaganda, repeated on our media.
Where is 1 NYT columnist to inform us how millions of people in dozens of democracies have long financed their HC?
Do millions of US voters have to keep hoping, asking--- Oh, please, pretty please--- can’t we have guaranteed healthcare like multi millions in other nations enjoy? And they’re capitalist, too.
No, not yet? Ok, we'll wait. Maybe someday. But how many more election cycles must we wait? What excuses will parties and media pundits think up in 2024, 2028?
Policies in the public interest are defined as "left wing/big govt" taking over our freedoms. It's one of the great propaganda cons in any democracy, and it's worked. Our political 'center' can't give us proper Representation for Our Taxation.
Can a Dem nominee dare to build on what Warren & Sanders had the guts to propose? Can America be liberated from "profit as 1st priority" in the life/death matter of medical care?
4
The unmentioned part of Warrenism, which it shares with Bernieism, is its intolerance of and/or condescension towards anybody who doesn’t share its views. Moderates are being told that they lack commitment or spine, as if it is impossible that there be a well grounded intellectual argument against nationalizing an industry in a way that has never been done in our 200 years of history. That is what many independents and moderates feel as elitism at its worst: dismissing concerns and claiming “I know better, and if you disagree you aren’t just wrong, you are weak.”
5
Bernie needs to withdraw from the race and throw his support to Elizabeth Warren. Bernie is trying hard to look healthy, but he doesn't. He just looks like a freshly scrubbed survivor of a heart attack. Warren can beat Trump. Sanders would have beaten Trump in 2016, but the DNC cheated him out of the nomination. His time is passed.
Booker is desperate and knows he is going nowhere. Harris is biding her time. Biden is a loser, just like Trump said. Yang and Steyer are jokes. Gabbard is in over her head. Klobuchar is a local pol who cannot think in national terms. Buttigeig holds out some promise for 2024, but not now.
1
This is way over the top, absurd propaganda.
"Ms. Warren’s appeal.. turns out to be strongest with a relatively narrow slice of the Democratic coalition — the college-educated, culturally liberal Acela voters who just happen to dominate the corridors of elite power."
1
Thus the New York war against Warren has begun. If you watched the recent 60 Minutes fluff piece on Jamie Dimon, casting him as the savior of Detroit and Warren as the one who would get in the way of good things he and his rich friends would do for the poor and downtrodden, you saw a mainstream network pull off a piece of propaganda Fox would envy. Fear, in the guise of anti-trumpism, brings out the worst of the ruling class. The network executives might not like Trump, but they fear Warren more. One wonders why. To throw a guy like Dimon soft pitches offers a hint. No mention was made of his time at the helm of Associates Financial, the big subprime finance company that engaged in the mass cheating of the working class out of their hard-earned wages with high interest loan traps. Or, as Rep. John Lewis called it back when Associates was in its subprime prime, economic slavery. New York’s powerful elites may not like Trump for his trash talk, but they really dislike Warren for her straight talk.
3
And I don't like her either. Her phonieness resonated in the debate last night. Her invocation of her father's blue collar reminds all of her equally phony claim of native American background. This alone should disqualify her as a liar. She listed that on her Harvard resume/application. A former Harvard professor who made big side bucks for white shoe law firm pay is not a true progressive and, in any event, vote Biden.
3
Too many people on stage. If you want a debate make it two nights till you get down to the final 4.
And nevertheless she persisted.
2
So tired of the nay sayers. If you don't speak about what you belive in you don't win. Curated messages to appeal to a broad electorate doesn't work.
Al Gore, lost passion and he lost the election because he was forced to give a blande vision that supposedly appealed to everyone.
And ultimately this is about achieving political goals MORE than about winning. We have seen an amazing thing with Warren and Sanders, which is that they have managed to push the whole democratic party partly towards their view.
If they had not been there energizing the base, the centrist would not have moved an inch.
Extreme compromises like Obama care end up being so complicated and convoluted that they fail both to cover everyone and to cut costs.
When you have a universal system as in many places in Europe, my native Norway included you end up with an amazingly simple system. Maintaining an elaborate patch work of systems create massive complexity. From my stay in the US I've been impressed with US doctors, but the system around is an absolute mess I've never seen anything like. They way they keep medical data, bill you etc. No standards, often not even within the same hospital.
1
I marvel (not) at Warren’s uncanny ability to have her arms waving wildly in the air through almost every photo op.
Is this some kind of strategy she has decided makes her look super earnest? Like, “I’m so convinced of my righteousness, I need to shout it out to the world!” I think she is a little off.
5
Her closing statement -- attacking corruption -- should be the party's theme.
Re Ms. Warren, this is more or less along the lines of Mr. Edsall's excellent op-ed yesterday.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/opinion/elizabeth-warren-2020.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
1
Senator Warren hit the nail on the head with her talk about corrupted US government being bought up and owned by corporate world. We MUST stop that for all the world's sake.
86
There has been much opposition to Senator Warren from the wealthy donor class precisely because she has a chance to be the nominee and because proposals like her wealth tax could become popular. I find astounding that the column fails to consider that this is at least partially drives the criticism of "Warrenism" by Biden, Buttigieg, Booker, and Klobuchar, all of whom rely on or need to attract big money donors and PACs.
4
I don't like Warren nor Sanders, since I don't see their policies going anywhere without solid majorities in both the House and the Senate. However, a I find the recent wave of anti Warren articles in the NYT disturbing.
4
Buttigieg rise in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire may be following the political path of former Democratic presidential aspirant: Jimmy Carter. The VOTING Democrats are weary of the far Left (they had seen McGovern fall to Nixon, by 49 states). Buttigieg is a left of center, "moderate." Like Carter, Buttigieg is a Washington outsider (people know about Buttigieg's South Bend about as much as they knew of Carter's "peanut" Georgia). Buttigieg is positioned totally outside of the impeachment fray. And, his candidacy comes after (or contemporaneous with) the country's experience with a highly flawed Republican president. Perhaps Mayor Buttigieg really is the "candidate."
39
@Joanna Whitmire
No. Many of them did not see McGovern fall to Nixon. That happened over half a century ago. This can't be how we judge the present moment.
5
@Joanna Whitmire His platform is milquetoast at best, he pretends to be progressive while taking shots at them, and he has a troubling history regarding race relations. He's among the more troubling candidates still in the race. I'll have nothing to do with him.
7
@Joanna Whitmire Buttigieg is a great speaker but he's short on ideas and, crucially, he has really stumbled on racial issues. I grew up near enough to South Bend to know of its history of racial strife, yet while he was mayor there, Buttigieg did very little to work on it. He should not in good conscience be the nominee of a party that depends on black people for its very existence in national elections. It's just not right.
9
This “Warrenism” scaremongering is getting old really quick. Obviously she’s onto something powerful and she has more integrity in a single cell than the whole Republican Party. Let her rise. She’s the real deal.
132
@Lynn
I love this response, because it is so obviously self-serving. Warren enthusiasts turn legitimate criticism of Warren and questions about the viability of her plans into "evidence" that they are just and right and good. It also allows Warren supporters to dismiss the criticism as part of some elitist billionaire plot, not the product of actual voter concern and angst about the radicalism in her platform.
To this registered Independent, Warren is a radical and not someone the Democrats can put any faith in to deliver the White House.
13
@Lynn YES!! The scare tactic employed by the mainstream is only making me support her more.
5
@John
So don't vote for her in the primary.
Her "radicalism" only seems radical because our country has spent the past half-century buying into free-market claptrap that we're profit-maximizing machines built on shaky foundations and exposed as the utter fraud it always was when the global economy crashed ten years ago.
And how come those on the left are the only ones who ever have to answer questions about the "viability" of their plans? How "viable" was the claim the Republican tax cut would "pay for itself?" How "viable" was the New Deal before FDR began putting it into practice?
I'll tell you what I don't think is "viable:" handing the nomination to a prop VP to a talented politician whose own centrism was such a failure it opened the door to President Trump, because he promises he can convince the GOP to stop being insane and start working with Dems in the interests of the common good.
3
Elizabeth Warren and her reckless false bravado are the single biggest obstacle to the Democrats ousting Donald Trump from the White House next year. Warren and her supporters are not going to apologize to us if she hands Trump and his enablers another four years.
5
She is only a threat to the big Democratic donors, which the Democrat Party coddles, she is what this country needs, (just read the article about the paycheck distribution scandal). Now we hear that China and US will never be the same economically and the pundits are forecasting a huge slowdown in the world. Money is truly the root to all evil.
59
@CathyK
Actually, it's the love thereof, according to St. Paul. Wealth is a good thing. It's the greed that devours us. Nor is it a coincidence that the tenth commandment bears a parallel message: "Thou shalt not covet." These are fundamentals of the Judeo-Christian tradition too long set aside by our leaders. When Pope Francis and the urbane words of FDR (read his speeches) sound the same warning, we should pay attention. Along comes Warren who insists that capitalism functions best when greed isn't its prime motive. Yet lots of Democrats seem to lack her confidence. Meanwhile no Republican of presidential stature has sounded such a warning since TR. That's a long hollowing out of the ethical core of Republican economic policy, whose end result has been a Casino Presidency.
2
Wow, another hit piece on Warren minutes after the debate ended. I wonder if the author had already scripted much of this before the debate and filled in the particulars after.
This is just the beginning folks as Warren becomes the undisputed front runner the elite owned media won’t be happy giving her the Bernie silent treatment, they will come after her with both barrels.
1
I love Mayor Pete!
That said, I’ll be voting - and fighting - for whomever wins the nomination.
The cancerous trump & gop nightmare has to end.
Other than Tulsi Gabbard, any Democratic candidate running for President is better than the walking lump of corruption named Trump.
It is great to see a vigorous debate of does between qualified candidates.
The fact that all Democratic candidates (besides Tulsi) is an American and not Russian-backed is a testament to the democratic contest.
Putin needs to feel the effect of his malevolent behavior around the world, for the benefit of the Russian people.
May Russians one day join the league of democratic prosperous nations without the anchor of Putin and Trump around their necks.
2
You cannot generate the wealth that Booker refers to unless you alleviate the debt that saddles the very groups that Booker says he speaks for.
The importance of Warren's position is just that - she's talking about making it financially possible for the "regular Joe" to see social mobility. This means not being saddled with student debt or medical bills, not being victim to bank redlining policies, etc. She wants to provide the playing field that allows people to generate the wealth that Booker was talking about.
The tragedy of the Democractic Party is that all they can see is wealth - the end product -- and not the many things that need to be done to make it possible for a larger number of people to realize it.
The Dems should be arguing that the wealth tax is a form of reparations. The super wealthy have become so because of the highly inequitable tax structure we've had for the past 40 years. It's time for those who benefited to pay back some of those billions and to rights the wrongs of a system which benefits so few while casting millions into a life of hourly wage labor, where they can't save nor plan for the future.
14
I'm so tired of reading comments complaining about "hit pieces" on Elizabeth Warren. Some of you may think she's the best thing since sliced bread, but many of us do NOT. What you see as a hit piece, many of us see as legitimate concerns regarding her policies and presentation.
Personally, she's like nails on a chalkboard for me. I appreciate her passion and her willingness to tackle difficult issues, but I just don't LIKE her. And I truly hope she's not the nominee, because she cannot beat Trump in the swing states.
11
I trust her and I think her policies are just what the country needs!
13
To propose any plan to reduce inequality, or to provide better health care options, or to contain climate change is to open oneself up for criticism. But Trump solves this problem by shouting such phrases as our economy has never been so good; I'll reduce everyone's taxes; we'll get rid of Obamacare; regulations on industries take away jobs; we have the greatest military in the world; the Democrats are socialists who will destroy our country. Since this kind of bluster is the mainstay of their rival, all this nitpicking about policy proposals seems like an exercise in futility. None of the Democratic candidates are speaking the same language as Trump, and a large part of the electorate likes his language and the way he delivers it.
7
@William We are in a conundrum, aren't we. And the apparent frontrunner Biden says he trust the American people. I assume that he is including those who like Trump's language and means of delivering the good. Well, I don't. I actually love what I hear from both Warren and Sanders but I am that social worker with a wall full of diplomas. I'm afraid of change and has had to actually use my health insurance and found I don't love it at all. Unfortunately (IMO), I don't represent the average voter. My dad, who hates Trump, has already declared he can't vote for Sanders, and presumably Warren, because he oddly thinks that saving the programs that he benefits from will destroy our economy. He's an emotional voter, hanging on to a framework he knows and unwilling to consider that he is being duped. That is the American voter.
4
The party is right to criticize Warren's plans. They will have the opposite impact than intended as the less affluent always suffer more from economic downturns.
Even assuming that government in a few years could take over all these programs and run them efficiently, stop fraudsters from gaming the system, and create barriers that prevent Republicans from undoing them the next time (all very unlikely) her plans suffer from static assumptions of no impacts from her policies on the economy which is naive at best.
There is a reason that wealth taxes don't work. For one if you tax appreciation on assets (assuming you can come up with a way to value things such as private companies) some needs to be sold each year to pay the taxes which will impact their prices and ability to finance.
A far better solution where we need funding is to have higher income taxes including taxes on investment income such as capital gains. Even then it is complex as you need to address the double taxation of corporate structures to be economically competitive in today's globally competitive world.
5
@Ross wealth taxes work. We had one in France until the neoliberal Macron gang abolished it. Funny, nearly everyone in the present government would have been paying it....
3
Just once I would like to see some to ask me questions in a national poll.
So here is my stand on this land election. I am a supporter of Elizabeth Warren.
26
Biden has struggled in all these debates. Mayor Pete won tonight. I'm sending money. Wish I could send more.
7
The problem with M4AWWI is that it is a cowardly fold in the face of the extreme right.
People who don't want to receive M4A health care never have to. But leaving intact a corrupt system that thrives by producing dangerous drugs and overpriced surgery via price-fixing doesn't advance anyone's health. It merely ensures that the financial scams of a rigged system continue on indefinitely.
9
Key point is the distinction between her worldview and strategy. Strategy to elect is transactional and evaporates once election is over. Worldview's are ingrained and will be at the core of her presidency. Example, our current president's narcissistic, amoral, worldview drives his every action and move. Warren's worldview seems to be that of a Massachusetts academic. Her capacity to engage the entire nation is questionable.
4
@HPower She has spent most of her life in the Texas/Oklahoma are, then to Pennsylvania. Her world view is that of an experienced educated person who has asked the questions and done the research. Someone who thinks and listens. Someone who plans.
Now of course we could just go with our gut or accept the gut feelings of an amoral, incompetent. narcissist.
1
Either this nation is more inclined to be engaged by narcissistic, amoral person, or this engagement is not necessary condition for winning election
1
If there is anything that we have learned from the House impeachment hearings, it is that the “malefactors of great wealth” cannot be tamed. They must be crushed. That means either Sanders or Warren.
Oh, the above quote was from Roosevelt, not Franklin, but Teddy.
23
@Walt Bruckner if only we could find sufficient support among the public, who, from my observation, does't want to personally be a part of the solution even when they will be the beneficiaries.
1
The anxiousness about Medicare for All can rightly be credited to a news media that has been banging the drums against it day and night at every mention since Bernie ran on it in 2016. They play fast and loose with the statistics like telling how much it will cost without saying that the current system would actually cost more.
I have not decided who to support this time, but Ms Warren's waffling on Medicare and other things gives me reason to be suspicious that it is will not be a priority should she become President.
This forum- it really was not a debate - moved faster and seemed much better run than the NYT/CNN debacle of gotcha questions. It will be nice to see the field narrowed more and hopefully soon.
4
I loved the debate and liked comments from all...but this article is about Warren...and despite what was said...she never got flustered or attacked. I love this about her. She wants to work for the American people and has American people...all of us...as her values.
19
@Gene Nelson I connect with her but I don't think a lot of people do. They don't like her wonkiness . . . she talks about things that they either don't understand or have been taught to fear.
1
In 2016 we Democrats, against all odds, managed to nominate the only person in America who could be characterized as less appealing/more dangerous than Donald Trump. I'm afraid we are about to repeat our mistake, to truly catastrophic results.
6
That's what everyone said about Hillary Clinton - and everyone believed it. I guess since it won him the election last time, we shouldn't be surprised that Republicans are taking the misogynist strategy again.
Have fun voting for 45 again.
1
@beenthere Too true! Vote Biden !!! Send her back to Oklahoma.
you suggest that the candidates on the stage represent "what the democratic voters want" when they argue with Warren on her policies. Not so fast. These people are offering their version. The voters are looking over the buffet. Most aren't even paying attention yet.
4
The question now is whether our nation can trust the minority of our citizenry who, coupled with an apparently biased Supreme Court and our outdated electoral college, seated our last two Republican Presidents.
7
Anti-Warrenism is brought to the citizens by the very people who benefit from gutting the middle-class and transferring wealth to the richest citizens and corporations.
Don't believe them.
Citizens have been told a lie for 40 years about "trickle-down" and "supply-side" economics. Meanwhile, wealth has steadily transferred up, corporations are no longer regulated and violate anti-trust, labor, financial and environmental laws with impunity while the middle-class is fleeced.
Warren is what our country needs to rebuild our middle-class to allow our citizens to prosper.
58
I like Ms.Warren- she's as smart and as hard working as any man or woman in politics. But I have to repeat my views about these candidates: they could staff the ultimate dream cabinet. All of them agree that the country, with all of its warts and bruises, must be preserved and its basic political system be respected and accepted. If you don't, then you're not really a member of either major party. That's OK- it's your right in a free nation. But for a group to rule, you have to adhere to the laws of the land, especially the one about checks and balances. Sure, the Constitution can (and must) be amended sometimes.
Political wisdom didn't end in 1787. Some of us are incapable for some reason to distinguish what is a wise choice versus what is a "momentarily entertaining" one. But they can't let the "other side" win the election either. So as planetary sustainability starts to collapse, the things we all depend on will fade away. Another "smarter" country may eventually tell us what our "new rights" are to be, or face strict punishment. Well, you didn't want "your" creature comforts to be taken away- just those snot-nosed elites you hate so much. This is no small choice we make every day, each and every one of us. As for the Democrats running, I don't see a bad pick- I see too many excellent choices. Each has special abilities that could really make a huge difference. But like a visit to the ice cream parlor, you've eventually got to pick a flavor.
5
Warren is the only candidate offering a practical way to get Americans true affordable, universal coverage.
Sanders has the right goal, but he hasn't worked out the details very well.
Everyone else is offering nice-sounding platitudes about public options and choice, but with few details that show how this option would work and be funded or, more critically, how it would actually lead to affordable coverage for all Americans.
The sad thing about the debate is it reveals the superficiality of the American electorate. Health policy is complex and takes considerable effort and study to understand. Most Americans, however, react on emotions, spending little time to really understand the issues or the details of the proposed solutions. Warren is, in fact, the only candidate offering a realistic well-considered plan for universal, affordable health care coverage and for the transition to it. Yes, her plan is ambitious and also not possible without some radical and even risky change. But it's a real, feasible plan. Everything else is, to be blunt, just pleasant-sounding talk.
My fear is our democracy is no longer capable of solving big problems like our health care challenge. And the root cause of that inability, I'm afraid, is that democracy has simply become too difficult and too demanding for today's Americans.
27
I agree about health care, foreign policy, the economy, being too complex for most Americans to evaluate anymore.
Earlier this week Jimmy Kimmel interviewed “man/woman on the street”. I know only the dumbest make the cut for the segment, but thinking Gerald Ford is vice-President and that we are at war with Vietnam- from someone who appears to be in mid50s!
I have spent a lot of time evaluating candidates and issues. And this dummy will vote against whatever I choose, with pretty much zero research, just whatever Fox says. I am so discouraged after seeing that.
2
Virtually every progressive idea in Warren's platform was said by Bernie first in 2016 when Warren decided not to run. It kind of irks me that she tends to get the credit as well as the flack for Bernie's vision....not that I doubt that she actually believes most of what she says.
In the first debate she embraced Bernie's "Medicare for All Plan," but was afraid to fall into the perceived Walter Mondale trap of being straight-forward about raising taxes. More recently she watered down her version of the Medicare for All plan by saying that she would first pass Buttigieg's hybrid plan (Medicare for All…Who Want It) and not push for Bernie's plan until the third year of her administration when the president is always weaker due to Congressional losses in the midterm election.
The problem with Buttigieg's plan is that it would continue same inefficiencies that plague our health care system today. Her latest position on such an important issue has lowered my opinion of her.
Bernie got it right the first time by advocating a health care system that has a proven track record in Canada and many other countries around the world and never waffling on his position.
The corporate media works very hard projecting a false image of Bernie as an angry old man. What matters is being willing to stand up for what you really believe in and demonstrating an ability to work within the system. Bernie is the only one that gets it right.
4
Elizabeth Warren has become a cult hero of sorts to progressives, who see in her a combination of Sanders meets Harvard meets Mensa. She's quick, sharp, prepared and suffers no fools. I don't blame progressives for flocking to her and I get why, to some people, she is inspiring.
Yet, I think Cory Booker is right. Warren's philosophy and worldview is very much grounded in income redistribution, which isn't inherently wrong, but also doesn't change the fundamental problem at the heart of income inequality. Long term success isn't achieved through handouts. It's achieved through education and a strong economy driven by private/public industry.
Billionaires, despite what progressives would like everyone to believe, do not steal from the poor and middle class to build their fortunes. A CNBC article from May noted that 85% of billionaires were either entirely self-made or took small inheritances and turned them into billions. Most achieved their success through innovation and investment acumen. And most of their collective wealth is tied up in the stock market, so it's not paper money or gold or sitting in some vault.
Yet Ms. Warren looks at these people as if they are leeches on society. She points to them and tells her followers that they are to blame for their lot in life. She then spins a farcical tale of how she will enact an unconstitutional tax on them to make things right. This is utter nonsense, as is Warren's campaign.
7
@John 95% of every profit dollar has gone to owners, top executives and shareholders for 25 years at least. The rules were changed to enable this scheme. Along with lax anti-trust enforcement, it is the primary source of income equality. Unless we return to being a nation of shopkeepers, the small business start ups that Booker praises will not change this dynamic. Our economy and society can’t continue with this kind of inequality. Warren is all about addressing this problem. You want to pretend it’s not a problem.
18
There are only to way, either fair distribution from the start when everybody got fair slice of money or redistribution that corrects uneven original distribution. Warren sticks with latter, as most workable, and practices by many capitalist countries. Booker is more about the first model, that so far was practice by socialist countries where the Government decides who is worth what. It will be very interesting to see What exactly Booker's plan.
1
@Bruce
Shareholders includes pension plans, mutual funds and just about everyone with a 401k or IRA. That includes teachers, firefighters, police officers and various other civil servants. It includes basically everyone that works for a moderate to large corporation. So its easy for you say that only the CEOs profit from the market when the reality on the ground is far far different.
Two things.
First, as I had predicted in these comments sections for a while, Elizabeth Warren is already tacking a bit back to the center on the health care issue, as her recent timetable modification of a more gradual transition to Medicare through a voluntary buy in indicates. She may further modify her position in the months to come, depending on future analyses and news cycle events, and I fully expect some modification in her taxation proposals, too.
At the very least, she seems capable of coming up with detailed plans and then adjusting them as new data comes in. If we weren't such an anti-intellectual nation, that might even count for something.
Second, even Warren and Sanders most "radical" proposals are hardly radical by historical standards, let alone international ones. Most of them were very mainstream FDR/Truman/LBJ Democratic principles--e.g., those of "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party". The constant reactionary rhetoric of our allowed-to-be-loud oligarchic class has moved the "center" sufficiently to the right that it all looks leftist to them, and they, and the others who follow them, should be reminded firmly of the previously mentioned historical and international perspective.
24
@Glenn Ribotsky
I'm sorry but the argument that Warren/Sanders policies aren't "radical" because people endorsed a similar ideology 90 years ago or are part of mainstream politics in other countries is neither compelling or relevant in our country today. America is not Sweden or the UK or any other country with universal healthcare. We long ago moved beyond the New Deal and touting it as a success has no bearing or relevance to the problems of today. Income inequality is not the same thing as the Great Depression. Unemployment is historically low right now. People are not living out of their cars or standing in line for bread.
As a registered Independent and a moderate, I can also tell you that the center has not moved to the right. It is the left and the right that have moved further and further away from the center. Folks in the center do not subscribe to a single political or social ideology. They are comfortable mixing things up. For example, I support greater gun control laws, environmental protections, more investment in social security and a fairer tax code - all liberal ideas. But I also support greater border control and am opposed to medicare-for-all, forgiving student load debt, government takeover of private industry and decriminalizing illegal border crossings - all conservative ideas.
The center is real. 38% of registered voters identify as Independent or moderate, which is more than either liberal or conservative.
7
Voters can identified themselves as independent and moderate, but how do we know what the consider 'moderate' and 'independent'? I consider myself moderate and independent and I am all for M4A.
1
@John get real. People actually are living in their cars. And going to food banks. And sleeping under bridges.
One wonders which country you live in. You sure don't know much about the United States of 2019.
3
Delight that sunlight is hitting the noise in the forest and waking the madding crowds to the mass upheaval of the impractical and impossible attempt to belittle success, innovation, and accomplishment rather than encourage and support that for all through uplifting programs rather than punishing dogma.
1
The critics of Warren's ability to beat Trump may be right. But one should be clear about why that is: Republicans have taught vast swaths of voters that thinking and planning about real issues is not as important as ginned up "values issues." Even Booker now has become an American Enterprise Institute entrepreneur guy. I am afraid that translates into "we can't trust voters to understand what is good for them."
6
Democratic PUNDITS see Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sanders' historically mainstream Democratic positions as "too liberal, too radical and too risky." Democratic voters don't. We think it's time to address the embarrassment and peril of having the most expensive and least effective health care system in all developed (and many undeveloped) countries. Of unaffordable higher education. Of democracy and the "pursuit of happiness" undermined by a widening and unprecedented wealth gap. Of a planet on fire. A Sanders/Warren ticket is the only hope for Democratic victory in 2020, and the only Democrats who seem not to know that are the pundits.
18
@moviebuff. this is the policy that will reelect Trump
Articles like these attempt to drive the narrative on candidates like Warren who are perceived as threatening to the pundit class represented by the author of this article, as well as the wealthy she challenges.
He cites a few equivocal sources as if they are laws of nature, and ignore many other solid economists who have supported her plans and ideas as viable. Yes, they would be a big challenge, and inevitably result in compromise. But that would be a lot better than a Biden or other so-called moderates who will simply do what previous dems have done for decades: pander to the privileged classes and throw a few crumbs at everyone else, and nibble at climate change while it devours the environment.
The result, even if they beat a weakened Trump, will lead to latter republican presidents and congresses following justified frustration of the middle class as the current inequities deepen, and climate change lifts the oceans, creates hundreds of millions of refugees, and floods and withers crops. Repeating the failures of the past, which Biden represents, will only give us the same results!
16
The US taxes citizens on worldwide income. Not many countries do that. A wealth tax would therefore be easier to administer for the US than other countries - all US citizens would be subject to it even if they live abroad.
Would wealthy people renounce US citizenship (and the security, protection, access to power that US citizenship offers (even more so for the wealthy)) to protect their wealth? More likely they would come up with convoluted tax avoidance structures to evade the tax.
Some may renounce or seek to evade but those that do would hopefully face a publicity campaign. At least some would risk the profits of their empires as US consumers would surely disapprove and vote with their wallets.
It’s time for our modern oil barons to give back to the country that made them. Like the rest of us, they should contribute relative to their wealth and not be able to choose how their contributions to this society get spent. Improvements to the environment, infrastructure, schools, healthcare - for all.
9
@Traveler They can give back without a wealth tax which is impossible and far too costly to administer. How do you plan to determine a person's wealth? The IRS used to use a net worth method to prove tax evasion but abandoned it because it was too labor intensive to figure out. Eliminate the carried interest provision and limit the home mortgage deduction. Also, tax corporations on worldwide income and you will greatly improve the country's financial health without eliminating the incentives that trigger national economic growth and prosperity
1
Well, collection the tax could be complicated and costly, but much more costly is not to collect them, especially when it is a main source of income for the Government budget. I think innovations in tax collection should be encouraged and implemented.
1
There was the usual combination of demagogic promises, canned one-liners, and mutual backstabbing, followed by vacuous rhetoric about the need for unity and the desire to serve the people—the baloney offered up in every election cycle. The purpose is to cover up the class realities in America: the capitalist class controls the two major parties, while the working class, the vast majority of the population, is politically disenfranchised. It is given a “choice” in the presidential election between two equally right-wing representatives of the corporate elite. Sanders acknowledges that the dominance of the super-rich represents a growing threat to democracy and once elected president the oligarchy hopefully will meekly accept the enactment of policies to pay for universal health care, childcare, free college tuition, and elimination of student debt. Sanders plays a specific role in the Democratic Party. He provides a left cover for this right-wing, corporate-controlled organization that has become the favorite of both Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus. We can't count on Democrats to change the system. The fact that we have two political parties that support corporate control of the state IS the system. Stop expecting the problem to give you the solutions. By being utterly corrupt and not offering a clear alternative to the profit-over-people ideology of the GOP, the Democratic Party establishment have allowed the Trumps of the world to come to power
3
Elizabeth Warren demonstrates a mountain of contempt for her voters by taking selfies with them and promising them things she knows will never happen.
If you think this was bad, wait and watch what happens if she is chosen as the Democratic nominee.
12
It'll be like Hillary, where everyone believes right-wing propaganda about her and then we'll end up with the least qualified candidate to ever run for president again?
2
@Dave T.
What will happen? She’ll take even more selfies? Or will she stop taking selfies after promising to do so?
@Dave T. :
That is absurd.
You don't think Warren genuinely believes in the policies and proposals she advocates?
So, she's just 'fooling us' by deliberately taking on controversial & some semi-unpopular postions, so that she can win the popular candidacy vote??
Right. Brilliant nefarious strategy--
1
The truth is, Warren is the centrist candidate. Less sweeping than Sanders in her critique of the sources of economic injustice, she is focused on highly practical plans for the necessary redistribution of wealth and actual swamp-draining, as well as tackling the emergency of climate change — which is simply essential, not radical. Taxing wealth over $50M is hardly radical either.
There is no time to take baby steps, given the pace of ecological collapse. So selling some false narrative about gentle changes palatable to low-information voters is irresponsible. And our current norm has been hauled radically to the right by the spectacularly corrupt, self-dealing Republican Party.
Warren has been doing a terrific job of educating the electorate about her issues. This is what a leader does.
40
My fellow Democrats, we are the people who make a candidate electable. I don't care for most of these candidates, but I'm committed to fight for whoever wins the nomination. The concept of "electability" has a plausible surface meaning but it functions as a complete dodge. "I assume swing voters will have an easier time voting for this guy" is not a winning GOTV message. Is there anyone who regularly canvasses during campaigns who is inspired to go door to door selling Joe Biden?
7
it's interesting to me that the more detail and more focused and the better and broader Elizabeth Warren's campaign gets, the higher the bar gets. How she raises money gets treated like a gimmick. Whether she'll help elect Congress and Senate- something Obama really wasn't good at doing- becomes a big deal. Billionaires are whining and chaffing.
Meanwhile mostly men, on the Wall Street big money dime, offer few specifics, focus on getting along and keep slicing their center-moderate learned folksiness finer and finer. Because they offer jello salad for policies, there's nothing for reporters and opinion writers to challenge them on and they don't. Soon there will be op-eds on who you'd want to have a beer with. And if one of them, it'll be a white male, barely wins, they'll turn center-right, want to focus on reducing the deficit by cutting social security and Medicare. At that point, predictablly, there'll be the what happened to Warren articles, reflecting on how the path she suggested might have kept more families from losing their homes and jobs.
43
Fussy? I've never heard that term used to describe a male politician's articulation of a well-thought-out plan.
At least he didn't call her shrill. I'm sure someone in the comments section will, though. Hope I am wrong.
52
Somehow, the Dems have to get 4 people off the stage for the next debate. I know i didn't tune in due to so many candidates still meeting the basic requirements for appearing. My fear is that many Americans won't tune with so many candidates trying to get airtime.
7
The basic results of the polling have not shifted dramatically: some undecideds are deciding, and backers of candidates who have dropped out are reaching for a new star.
No, the real story is how this writer and so many in the media are using minor polling adjustments to promote a narrative that supports the plutocratic status quo. The only thing that has changed is that rich people with egos the size of Trump's (Gates, Bloomberg, et al) are panicking that easy street might soon have a few laborers strolling along its avenues.
Just witnessing the dismissal of the public good in favor of personal gain that is so apparent in DJT's cabinet members should be reason enough to recognize that the status quo (of profit above populace) must change. The moneyed classes, whose out-sized voices in the media, can't abide the chastisement that their way of life inherently injures (by subverting social priorities) those without their cash. And they really can't stand that the heat is coming down on them from a woman.
this article is a red herring that masks criticism of Warren.
39
Excellent call out by Booker regarding Warren's painting of the wealthy as all bad. This may be great bar room chatter, but good monetary, tax and health care policy doesn't require plastering the rich as evil.
8
@Ed Except, as the facts demonstrate, they are evil if by evil you mean that they want to keep increasing their share of the money while decreasing our share of the money, and continuing to pay less in taxes (by percentage) then the massive majority of the people of the United States.
As individuals, SOME billionaires are not evil. As a class they are the biggest human evil in the country.
19
@Ed
I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the President has no involvement in monetary policy.
1
But he does sign the tax bill.
I don't know if Warren's Medicare For All is the right approach but I do believe that higher taxes on the very wealthy does have broad support.
The wisdom of the American people understand what happened during the 2007-2008 financial crisis and how the banks made off like bandits at the American taxpayer's expense.
We know that many corporations and the wealthy pay less as a proportion of their taxes than the middle class. How does that happen? It occurs because the wealthy have access to politicians that the less fortunate do.
This is nothing more than a shakedown of the middle class, squeezing them for every dollar. The rich get what they want and the middle class goes begging for health insurance, clean water, clean air, decent roads, decent schools.
The rich need to pay more in taxes.
Call it redistribution, socialism, Marxism. It is just and proper whatever name you give it.
26
Booker was spot on! Democrats need to avoid the whinny “tax the rich only strategy” to solve our social and fiscal inequities and also have a plan to promote wealth creation for our constituents. The trickle down approach of Reagan, Bush and now Trump has once again failed to lift our economy except for the rich and corporations. We need a multi-trillion dollar plan for financial investment in infrastructure, the inner cities and rural America. Booker is right and the democrats need to have a positive message of hope again and something more than just ridding us of Trump.
5
@EPMD Elizabeth Warren has a positive message of hope that includes real details, not platitudes, so I do not understand what you are saying.
7
I missed his message of hope. What was it? Let's do nothing and God will help us all? Sounds gimmick to me.
1
The debate was interesting and I've come away with a view that a Klobuchar/Booker P/VP ticket could win.
If I were advising the DEMS I'd suggest that they rally around a platform and choose their candidates based on how well they sell it (everyone selling the same ideas but with their own spins and personalities).
Eventually I'd suggest Klobuchar and Booker at the top of the ticket, convince Biden to support it and promise him Secretary of State, Warren as Commerce Secretary, Harris as AG, Buttigieg as HUD Secretary, Yang at Treasury, and Sanders at Defense.
All pull together, as one and crush Trump.
5
Is the memory of the Times editorial board really so short that they are once again championing the 2016 strategy that a centrist, rather than proponent for sweeping change, is the way to beat Trump and his crew? How did that work out in 2016? The majority of working people wanted change in 2016 and elected Trump. They still want change, and have little interest in continuing the pre-Trump status quo which brought them little by way of improvement of their lives. Warren and yes, Sanders (who had the best chance of winning in 2016 and was scorned by the DNC and NYTimes), bring the integrity and courage to right the ship to a direction that benefits the majority of our citizens. We need health care, not empty promises. Yes, vote blue in all events, but a lackluster centrist campaign seems to me to bring the greatest risk of loss. Kind of like 2016.
32
We need Trump out. I don’t care who wins in the primary. I’ll take any of them. Just get Trump out.
As Senator Warren has said, nibbling around the edges of our problems won't solve them. Some of her policy prescriptions are bad ideas. Nevertheless, the political "market"---Congress--will correct them. Those that she can get through Congress will amount to great progress for the country.
Specifically as to Senator Booker's point about growth versus distribution: It's time to stop making economic growth our goal. Economic growth inevitably leads to environmental degradation: climate change.
The national income and wealth are sufficent for everyone, right now. It's a question of distribution, not quantity.
Yes, wealth taxes are problematical. But suggesting that the only available alternatives are wealth taxes and economic growth is an error.
23
Honestly, the idea that Warren's (or Sanders') proposed wealth tax is somehow radical is beyond belief. Her proposed wealth tax - 2 percent tax above $50 million and a 6 percent tax above $1 billion - doesn't touch the vast majority of American tax payers. Most Americans can't even fathom the levels of wealth of those who would be impacted. Furthermore, even after paying a wealth tax the most wealthy would remain incredibly wealthy.
The idea that Booker and others attempt to portray this proposal as something that would stifle growth and wealth creation is risible, at best. And in doing so, they ignore polling results indicating that Americans believe the wealthiest should pay more in taxes.
Politicians and the media endlessly refer to other countries that had wealth taxes and eliminated them. France is often cited. President Macron eliminated France's wealth tax (ISF), which so far, has accomplished nothing. He said more of the wealthiest would return to France. They haven't. He said the wealthiest would invest in the French economy. They haven't. He said revoking the wealth tax would lead to higher growth. It hasn't. By all measures, revoking the wealth tax has increased the deficit and done nothing to help the French economy.
BTW, the French wealth tax was imposed on those with assets in excess of 1,300,000 Euros (appx. $1.4 million), explaining in part why it became so controversial. Macron chose to axe, rather than tweak, the ISF, appealing to his wealthy base.
27
@cbadgley We don't want to be a stagnant France where taxation is the great overlay that imposes its will on individuals and business. France is going nowhere. They don't like to work as we do. Their productivity is low and it isn't going to rise without stimulation. The French would rather live than work an extra hour during the week. Thats' fine for them buy where will they be in 50 years with all the cheap labor in Asia?
Finally, an accurate and pretty objective account of the power dynamics in the primary. Warren can't play both sides of the party and can't win with only the East Coast elite behind her. Moreover, her untrustworthy nature will be used by Trump over and over. The DNA test was a huge mistake.
6
I trust Elizabeth Warren. She understands the issues better than anyone else up on the stage last night and can get it done. Our country is at a tipping point. The question is, can we be bold enough to make our system of government work? Half measures will not cut it.
35
Except when it comes to HC; then half measures will cut it.
2
I have not put my support behind any Democratic candidate as yet, but vote democratic I will. However, I am increasingly resentful of blanket pronouncements by the media about each candidate’s key issue, as if each were a scary monster with the accompanying dire warnings again them. For example, the position by Senator Warren to make structural changes to the way the United States substantial wealth and social supports get distributed is not scary or dangerous. Just look at the structure changes our current president has made to how our own government operates. Here is a short list. Government representatives are no long responsible to serve this country. Lies are an acceptable means of communication with the public. The branches of government primary functions do not serve the public interest but rather serve the monetary or social advancement of personal friends and large corporate interests. Foreign policy strategy does not advance democracy and aid allied countries but is a bargaining chip used by the president to condone murder, encourage dictators, misuse tax payer funds, or worse stroke his ego. Presidential integrity and statesmanship has been reduced to bullying, slandering, and racial bating. Advancement of human rights has fallen off the list. Our honor to commitments and international agreements is void. Call these current structural changes big and scary. Nothing the democratic candidates have proposed as yet are as frighting as our current policies.
34
In re to: "...her [Warren's]momentum has seemed to slow as Democratic voters become anxious that her campaign for “big, structural change” is too liberal, too radical and too risky to trust in a high-stakes election against Mr. Trump."
That would be much closer to the truth if stated as "her momentum has seemed to slow due to a barrage of attacks by wealthy and powerful Democratic Party insiders and donors who have become anxious that her campaign for “big, structural change” is too liberal, too radical and puts at risk the economic status quo that has served them so well over recent decades.
43
@Matt - As I have said more than once, the greatest threat to a Warren Presidency is not Trump. It is the DNC.
22
My great concern is that the Democratic presidential candidates are competing to see who can make the most woke and socialist promises:
Free college tuition. Medicare for all, including illegal immigrants. College loan forgiveness. Reparations for blacks and gays. Guaranteed basic income. Federal job guarantees. Federally mandated school busing to achieve integration. Green New Deal (eco-socialism). Voting and early release for prisoners. Open borders.
All the fabulously wealthy US individuals and corporations together do not have the many trillions of dollars needed to pay for these goodies year after year, and even Bernie Sanders has admitted that taxes would have to be raised on the middle class to pay for Medicare for All, not to mention the additional trillions needed for the other items. (For perspective, the current US budget is about $4.4 trillion, with a deficit of about $1 trillion.)
As Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
Don’t forget that our goal in 2020 is to elect a Democratic president, and that will require appealing to the independents, undecideds and others whom the Democrats failed to reach in 2016.
If all of these progressive (socialist) promises, or even a few, are planks in the 2020 Democratic platform we are doomed to a second term of Trump as president.
8
@Mon Ray
You seem to have been taken in by a fair amount of disinformation. We are not talking about "other people's money," but about our own money. We already pay for health care (if we have it) one way or another -- through an employer's partially (and often very minimally) funded plan, through our own purchase of private insurance or through government-funded programs. The Morrill Act established a series of state universities through block grants -- give the state land and non-profit status and the state will educate its citizens: the states have fallen down on the job, deciding that universities should not be funded as a public good.
Instead of bringing up Thatcher (35 years after the fact), why not consider what our guiding philosophy of government should be -- is health care a right, is education something that should be accessible to all, does it make sense to have a highly stratified society where some rake in millions and others can't get a living wage ($15,000)?
44
Might as well be in Trump University. Anyone who uses the motivation-talk flimflam expression "grow wealth" is neck-deep in corporate pockets, defending the status quo, repackaging the same fraudulent "American Dream" that has been dangled in front of generations. We all readily sign up but most of us never achieve it. Not as it is sold at least. Growing wealth is all very fine for those whose wealth grows, for those who grow wealthy. But most of America never grows wealthy, not even in the best of times. Most people, if they are being realistic, just want to get by a little easier, less threatened by catastrophe, with simply more dignity and time for their families, their friends, their community. The endless American palaver, in which both parties indulge, about "lifting people up," "helping them achieve," etc., is always a way of ignoring the needs and humanity of those who are not lifted up, for whom achievement is survival with some modicum of self-respect. And, often, in the end, insidiously blaming them for it. A better promise than any promise of opportunity to "grow wealth" would a promise to take the sting out of "failure." If you think we just can't do that and have a vibrant economy, then you have to admit that we have an economy structured for the relative few with the vast majority necessarily goaded and cowed into serving them, ever whipped by fear and anxiety.
18
With 11 people on the debate stage, no one can win. The best one can hope for is to not lose. It is always the single-digit candidates who attack. It never works. Harris attacked Biden. Biden survived and Harris lost support. Booker who is polling around 2% is unlikely to make the next debate. He attacked tonight out of desperation. In fact, he was attacking everyone. What these candidates need to understand is, that no one is going to win the nomination on the back of another candidate. A candidate has to win on his or her own merits. With 11 people on the debate stage, no one can win. The best one can hope for is to not lose. It is always the single-digit candidates who attack. It never works. Harris attacked Biden. Biden survived and Harris lost support. Booker who is polling around 2% is unlikely to make the next debate. He attacked tonight out of desperation. He was attacking everyone. What these candidates need to understand is, that no one is going to win the nomination on the back of another candidate. A candidate has to win on his or her own merits.
3
Warren has plans, Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and the rest of the corporate sponsored moderates say as little as they can about their plans, reserving most of their words to attacking her "radicalism". We recently had a Democratic President who campaigned as a reformer, spouted soaring banalities that allowed everyone to fill in the blanks with their own hopes and dreams. What we got instead was a Wall Street Trojan horse, who gave away the store and governed to right of Richard Nixon. Had Obama's quest for a "Grand Bargain" succeeded, millions would be receiving lower Social Security benefits right now. If these candidates don't like Warren's proposals, save the focus group platitudes and present plans of their own, in excruciating detail, if you please.
55
@stan continople
Obama "governed to the right of Richard Nixon?" Were you there when Nixon was President?
Democrats have a duty to vote to protect the vulnerable. And that means, in this election, there is one objective: To defeat Trump.
Policy differences matter less than they perhaps should, but that is where we are now. The important matter is who can appeal to the most voters and get elected. Warren will not appeal to enough voters, and she will get defeated.
And then, as Democrats, we have failed in our primary duty to protect the vulnerable.
Warren's plans will frighten off more voters than they will attract. Maybe her world would be a wonderful one, but as Edsall's column yesterday illustrates, the most likely outcome of a Warren candidacy is to lose the Presidency AND the Senate AND the House.
Then, we have a madman running our country for four more years.
7
@Travelers
Edsall's column yesterday does not "illustrate" that "the most likely outcome of a Warren candidacy is to lose the Presidency AND the Senate AND the House." It simply proposes that, erroneously and inadequately, with a handful of cherry-picked centrist maxims from wealthy and powerful individuals who have been well served by the economic status quo over recent decades and have no interest in seeing a more equitable distribution of our nation's wealth come to fruition.
11
I will never forget when Obama put Social Security on the table.
3
Warren has to tie her many plans together in a consistent theory. Warren has the best case but it has to be explained in a way that makes it coherent.
When the quantity of $$ that go to shuffling insurance papers, big insurance CEO's and clerical staff in doctors' offices, medical bankruptcy courts, goes into the pockets of consumers instead, it works as a tax cut. It is prosperity. The stock of insurance may go down on Wall Street but the money doesn't go down the drain, it goes to consumer goods, better pay for doctors and hospitals, etc. and the stock of other corporations goes up and economic theory would say the more efficient system would produce higher stock indices.
When the price of broadband goes down, the monopoly profits to Comcast may go down but demand for broadband goes up, supply increases and there is more supply meaning more jobs for a broad array of services.
Indeed, even immigration should be highlighted as a net positive for prosperity. Immigration has driven our economy forward ever since our beginnings.
i.o.w., Warrenism is prosperity which doesn't depend on taking from the rich to pay for everything but rather a coherent ideology which seeks to bring the economy back from the extremisms of recent right wing ideology towards the center.
32
@Excellency I wish you'd write Warren. She needs the clear connection here to prosperity.
The attacks are working to create doubt and more importantly tell the story of Warrenism helping reset the table for the vast majority of Americans.
She had a good night in clips, but I am ready for 7 dwarves to drop off and let the top 4-5 people have a round.
I think Iowa being a caucus state is still Warren's to win. She has a well organized campaign and the headwinds and attacks now about big structural change are good news.
She will become a better President and continue to be the central candidate framing the debate.
Be like a river, not the rock, Elizabeth! Stay in the flow.
15
I like Pete, but I urge him to come back in 10-years.
Get more of a record......of winning elections and a voting record.
Booker has been a Rhodes Scholar and a mayor, but of a much bigger city....and a Senator.
Pete, become a Senator.
16
The reality is that we need a President who can get things done. That means not only ridding ourselves of the person in the White House, but in the Senate as well, and holding on to Democratic control of the House.
While I believe Ms. Warren to be the most qualified of the candidates running, and enough of a pragmatist to understand she would need to temper her vision against the realities of politics, I fear her nomination would cost Democrats the House and cement GOP control of the Senate, guaranteeing four more years of gridlock. We cannot afford that.
ANY Democrat would be better than what we have now in the White House. But we need the Senate as well, to start remedying the harm to the judiciary the current incumbent has inflicted for a start. And to begin reversing the tax "reforms" designed to enrich the already obscenely wealthy.
That being said, we likely need a moderate to head the ticket. Who that is I cannot honestly say right now. Maybe a progressive VP candidate would get the overall job done, especially if Senator Biden is it. Because, frankly, I'm unsure how long he would survive in office, so the VP choice would be key.
We cannot afford to lose. Nor can we continue this extreme polarization if we want to have a country left. We are dangerously close to seeing it end as we know it. We need to become not great again, but America again.
5
@Publius Every party nominee dials back their rhetoric in the general election. It’s how the game is played. Warren has interesting ideas, is inspirational, but, like all Presidents, legislation goes through Congress. Only a few, at most, of her legislative ideas would come to fruition. It’s curious that everyone attacks Warren, but not Sanders.
2
Americans often replace incumbent presidents with successors who are completely different than the incumbent. See: Carter-Reagan. See Clinton-Bush. See Bush-Obama. See Obama-Trump. There is no Democratic candidate more different than Trump than Mayor Pete. It could happen.
@Milton Lewis No candidate more unlike Trump than Pete? What on earth makes you say that? Both male, both white, both willing to change their views at the drop of a poll or a rich donors whim.
1
I think that the real problem with Elizabeth Warren's candidacy is not her programs or vision, but the fact that everyone is going to ignore all that and just keep telling us that she is unelectable. There will be articles about how moderation is the key to appealing to voters. You can't propose big things, or things that require a little thinking, because that won't appeal to voters. Is this saying that moderate voters and Republicans aren't interested in or persuaded by facts and evidence? Elizabeth Warren doesn't distrust voters. It is commentators like Mr. Suderman that distrust voters. How sad.
58
@smcmillan no one really knows who is electable. It’s just that Warren is the only candidate to come out with specific solutions. This makes her easy to attack. Vague promises are amorphous, hard to get a handle on.
5
@smcmillan
When they say Candidate X is "unelectable," what they mean is that they are going to try to convince us not to elect Candidate X. At least with Sanders in 2016, I thought it was honest self-delusion, bred from smug self-confidence in the conventional wisdom they circulate among themselves. Now, after watching them get 2016 so wrong in so many ways, it's hard to see it as anything other than a bad-faith effort to tip the scales towards one of the center-right nominees.
1
The problem with Ms. Warren is not that her proposals are so outlandish, nor are her ideas or vision out of step with what America needs. Her world vision is a deserved distrust of American capitalism. It is predatory, it is dominated by a few big players. Big companies need to be broken up not consolidated. The same is true of wealth. Having wealth consolidated in the hands of few is not creating prosperity for all nor creating positive outcomes for even the majority. Over the last 30 years we have done exactly what we should not have by lowering the tax rates for the wealthy and basically eliminating estate taxes. Those that have keep getting more and the rest of us struggle. Cory Booker has no plan, and no path to creating prosperity. The problem with Elizabeth Warren is you have to listen and pay attention to what she is trying to accomplish. Whether Bernie has paid attention or not, Medicare is not an easy system to navigate, and Medicare for all is not going to happen overnight. Medicare does depend on private insurers now to make it a comprehensive system. There are things about Medicare that need fixing, but as a concept, a concept that all people deserve health insurance, it is the right thing to do. Ms. Warren is trying to reduce inequality, and that includes breaking up massive wealth, provide infrastructure improvements, protect consumers, and move towards universal health care. Can anyone else say the same.
56
@smcmillan How exactly is this a problem? Reducing inequality, taxing massive wealth ($50 million+), infrastructure improvements, consumer protection, and universal healthcare sounds pretty good to me.
3
@smcmillan
Yeah, he's kinda paid attention. Sanders has been fighting for Medicare and the need for single payer for decades. Not just election years.
"Can anyone else say the same" Lol... it is Bernie's lane.
3
I like Booker but strongly disagree with the premise of his statement about needing to "grow prosperity". No one including Warren opposes giving people a chance to grow in prosperity, but the issue is so much more complex and as Warren has said many of those with wealth came by it through less noble work ethic are applying various financial schemes to build and guard wealth, not through entrepreneurial creativity or applying that wealth to productive growth in the country instead of the stock market.
As for the "risky" aspects of Warren's structural change plans, I recognize the risk but think it's mostly because too many middle class Americans are stuck complaining about a rigged system while failing to embrace transformational ideas. The tweaking of modest incremental change didn't work during the Obama years to greatly improve the lot of poor and middle class Americans, stop income inequality or stagnant wages, or overturn the severely dysfunctional government we see in DC.
Warren would still have to deal with a Congress, whether under Dems or Rs in the Senate, that could obstruct any major plans. But it's time to think bigger, certainly beyond the edges of the cliched kitchen table with its limited view of American society and the economy. I can't say I'm optimistic that millions will abandon their own dysfunctional mix of economic and social dissatisfaction to finally see transformational change as essential. But it's time. Past time.
27
I wonder if Pete Buttigieg has ever heard of "cream skimming". Insurance companies will identify relatively good risks, charge them slightly less than Medicare, and drive up the price for Medicare, making insurance companies huge amounts of money.
At the same time, doctors will have to continue to deal with an exceptionally complex claims environment which will keep administrative costs high.
"Medicare For All Who Want It" may be a good sound bite, but it is terrible policy.
59
When Cory Booker attacked Warren proposed wealth tax at the outset of the debate, he sounded like Hillary Clinton leftover reheated.
We tried that muddling, miserable "moderation" four years ago, and although our percentages in blue districts were as high as ever, the turnout was severely depressed, e.g., the turnout in urban areas of Michigan and Wisconsin nose dived from 2016.
I love Warren's populist wonkism. She is an intelligent leftist, not a tie-dyed sentimentalist.
62
We need to survive. We can't just muddle on. That's why we need Warren, who is the most pragmatic and effective, while embracing the need to survive.
We cannot continue. Trump and the Tea Party felt it had to be broken, and they broke it.
But they were wrong. We need hard work and serious action, and Warren is our last best hope of survival.
Don't forget climate change/global warming is getting serious.
Ignorance is not bliss. We have to help each other and work together to solve things. Pablum and business as usual won't do it.
The wealthy like their privilege, and they are fighting tooth and nail, and they have too much power.
This must be dealt with, or in 10 years we won't recognize our planet. The warning signs of greed and inequality, injustice and violence, blaming victims, are in plain sight.
74
I am a life-long democrat and a progressive voter from Seattle, a liberal city. Nonetheless, I do NOT want Warren as our Democratic candidate. She is simply too far to to the left to appeal to those voters who are needed to remove Trump. If she becomes the Democratic choice, I guarantee, Trump will be in office for another four year, and our country will be damaged beyond recognition. Taxing the wealthy. That's not going to win votes. How about providing incentives for homeless to get jobs and homes?
10
@Jennifer You mean all those Trump voters in the Rust Bekt that voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary but switched to Trump in the general when the alternative was a centrist democrat? These arguments about electability are uninformed.
37
@Jennifer,
What do we get if your guarantee is broken?
But seriously, we ran this Moderate v. Trump thing in 2016. It didn't work.
Democrats shouldn't be fighting for the 70,000 Trump voters who flipped the Electoral College last time. It's too risky. (When they get behind that curtain, we know what will happen again.)
Dems should be motivating the 100s of thousands (is it millions?) of progressive and change-minded people who didn't vote at all in 2016. That's a sure margin of victory. Tom Steyer spoke of the track record of effectiveness of get out the vote initiatives.
It can be done for a candidate Warren. And, as a bonus, we would then get to attack the corruption in Washington and make government work for more people. Real change. Not moderation.
21
@Sara C Interestingly enough, I thought Steyer's answers made him seem more in alignment with Warren than anyone on the stage. Wouldn't that be a remarkable ticket: Warren – Steyer?
Moderation in all things .... including moderation.
7
Warren's version of delivering health care is too heavy on negativity. Destroy the private sector! Take away unions' insurance plans!
How about positives like building community healthcare networks for hugely underserved neighborhoods? How about re-opening federally-funded clinics closed over the past dozen or so years? How about going back to the public option? Let's see the public sector compete its way to larger market share, not force it down people's throats.
6
@Fiorella
One's forced to give up one's health insurance upon termination or company insolvency. Nobody gets to stay at the same job forever.
13
@Fiorella The proposal does not destroy the private sector. It does eliminate the insurance companies. Everything that insurance companies do is can be done in a federal system.
We do not need insurance companies to manage healthcare. They simply skim profits out of the system and allow for unmanageable growth of costs.
19
@Fiorella Perhaps you should consider the negativity of being uninsured or underinsured or only insured with a gigantic deductible because that is how some can afford any premium at all. Nearly 90 million people in our country face these difficulties. We are still in a crisis.
The whining of the entitled is so loud that you cannot hear the pain of the people in those situation who will probably live shorter, more painful lives. Then there are the people who can't afford dental care or a new pair of glasses. That is more pain.
As for the community healthcare networks? One can assume that is where all the really good doctors will go ....not. And the wait times will be so short...not. And did you know about how hard it is to find a doctor when a person is on Medicare? It can be nearly impossible.
If the Democrats do not substantively address the very serious problems with access to medical care that is at least roughly equal in quality, access and outcome for all Americans then maybe the voting adult population of the nearly 90 million people with this inadequate access and care should stay home in the 2020 election. You want Democrats to play keep away with 'all men are created equal.'
American lives are being lost to grow the profits of the overly privileged American private medical sector.
Perhaps you should have protested the extreme inequality in this country a long time ago if you wanted to protect medical profits so badly.
12
I trust her. And that is the point. She IS trustworthy. So, she has hopes and aspirations. Remember our former President Obama who not only wrote about but also believed in The Audacity of Hope. Yet this has been a proverbial eternity since our former POTUS campaigned and succeeded in rallying the troops, so to speak. A lot has happened and changed since then, and not for the better. I believe it will take more than returning to the ways of the Obama Era. We have a new, young generation which is the future of our nation. Senator Warren understands their frustrations, challenges, and struggles. For those Americans who fear "too much, too soon," I would posit that there are just as many who are fed up with the status quo that has haunted us for too long. The corruption of this administration adds to our anxiety exponentially. Finally, keep in mind, too, that Senator Warren is flexible and open to modifying her policies such as health care. Her experience, smarts, and political savvy are to be appreciated and not criticized.
106
@Kathy Lollock Warren will NEVER defeat Trump. That's the main point.
1
It's sad to see Democrats present Warren's academic credentials as a liability. I didn't think we were the anti-intellectual party. I guess people forget that president Obama was a legal scholar. His obvious intelligence didn't make him any less relatable. Law professors aren't sequestered in the Ivory Tower. They dedicate their lives to solving practical problems that touch concretely on every aspect of our lives and most of them continue to practice law while teaching and publishing. Warren is brilliant and empathic and had the courage to lay out a nuanced health care plan for all to see and criticize. She's the antithesis of Trump and the fact that she's female is just gravy. Don't fret over Medicare for all. It's aspirational. It tells us what her values are and that she has the intelligence to translate those values into detailed policy proposals. The proposal will be shaped and modified through the legislative process. Moderates will have their seat at the table.
92
@AB... and so will insurance companies.
@AB
As someone on the left, I've been told for decades that my opinions don't matter because "we have to court swing voters."
I'm sick of it. Moderation as a political identity is a failure. Moderation led to the Dems losing 1000 offices during Obama's 8 years. Moderation led to record levels of inequality. Moderation led to a Dem president with a cabinet drawn from Wall Street and industry. Moderation softened the ground for Trump. What if the moderates took the back seat for a couple years and we gave progressivism a shot for once?
3
In the last election Democrats had a "perfect" moderate candidate. Not to risky not to liberal, not to progressive. Who is now in White House? I would say that in this high stakes election Democrats can't risk another "moderate" beloved by Wall Street and wealthy candidate like Biden Buttigieg or Harris. Democrats need a common people warrior like Sanders or maybe Warren. In this day and age "moderate" doesn't mean reasonable it means corrupted by big money interest m
53
@Robert Hillary Clinton was hardly the perfect moderate candidate. She couldn't connect with people not in her base and ran a horrendous campaign. She only gathered the popular votes she did because of the Trump horror.
14
@Rocky
Exactly because "moderates" are in fact members of disconnected elite. So unless they have great personal charisma they will not be able to connect to most people bases on the issues and policies they propose.
4
@Rocky
I think that's the point. Moderate is usually code for "smugly self-satisfied technocrat who protects the wealthy and powerful but does so with slightly more humane social policy than the GOP." I was no Clinton fan, but she wasn't as bad as Schumer (for example). The moderates ran the show for almost 40 years, and it brought us Trump. If we go back to moderates now, God knows what they'll lead to next.
1
Throughout her life as a public servant what stands out about Elizabeth Warren is that she is invariably right. She studies issues, thinks them through, and makes good proposals for ways to move forward. Examples include her role in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, her persistence for justice in the Senate, and her analysis of the Mueller report. She takes the trouble to figure out how to do the right thing, and she consistently finds the right way to accomplish it. The attacks on her do not refute her ideas. They just propose watered down alternatives and incite fear about her popular appeal. Warren has a different way of doing things from what we have come to expect from politicians. With her debate rivals, she does not attack or even counterattack. She just forges ahead with what she knows is right. There is clarity in her vision that is being more broadly recognized. As for her performance in this debate, there was not even a close second.
139
@Polaris
One can look at her "forges ahead with what she knows is right" approach to questions another way.
She doesn't listen.
That "my way or the highway" attitude is exactly what makes her a poor candidate to go up against Trump. She rarely actually answers a question - whether it's a moderator at a debate or an anchor or voter at a town hall meeting. She goes to her stump speech, repeats a plan she has come up with, and refuses to engage with anyone. Anyone.
That is a fatal flaw for a president - as we see today because that's the way Trump is.
3
@Polaris Warren is not "invariably right" -- rather, she is the living embodiment of the old Reaganism that "it's not that liberals don't know anything, it's that they know so much that just ain't so." For example:
Wealth tax: Here, you have a HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR proposing something that, whatever it's merit, it clearly unconstitutional, a fact that she has not addressed in any way.
CFPB: Also unconstitutional. Main achievements so far have been to raise the cost of credit to consumers and enrich plaintiffs lawyers.
Medical Bankruptcy Research: Has been thoroughly debunked as shoddy and misleading, transposing cause and effect.
Medicare for All Financing Plan: So unrealistic that even left-wing commentators and the NYT are skeptical.
@Mimi
I'm beginning to think that if you watch the debates at all, you just do so to mine them for evidence that supports your predetermined conclusions about the candidates. And if she ignores moderators' questions, I couldn't care less. The moderators are creating entertainment television and should be ashamed. We'd all be better off if debates were handed back off to the League of Women Voters or another org that actually foregrounded questions of policy and governance.
1
Pete is like a holistic doctor. He sees the conditions that have caused the symptoms everyone has been flailing at for forty years. He used a phrase once which I think he was approaching tonight. He once alluded to or urged a "solidarity of empathy." In a country so devoted and seemingly obsessed with categories it's the only way forward. ie"We must love one another or die." Pete at this exact moment in his life is what America needs at this moment in its evolution.
18
@Bill C. Context:
I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.
Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.
Exiled Thucydides knew
All that a speech can say
About Democracy,
And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analysed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.
Into this neutral air
Where blind skyscrapers use
Their full height to proclaim
The strength of Collective Man,
Each language pours its vain
Competitive excuse:
But who can live for long
In an euphoric dream;
Out of the mirror they stare,
Imperialism's face
And the international wrong.
Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.
[first half; more to come]
1
@Bill C. Only one thing wrong with your prescription. America isn't the pharmacy to fill it for another decade. Now is not the time for a loss leader gay-candidate adventure.
@Bill C. He is a phony and a hack.
1
The Democrats' dilemma in a nutshell. There doesn't seem to be any viable candidate to fill the window between Klobuchar's dour pragmatism and Warren's over-airiness, which gap is where a winning candidate must be. (I don't see any candidate other than those two who is viable as President, and Klobuchar has little charisma and the continuing concern about her stability as CIC.)
"Congratulations, Mr. President. You've narrowly escaped conviction after impeachment, and you've been rewarded with a second term." The world weeps. The grifters rejoice. Moscow has a new Trump Hotel.
3
@Rocky Warren is not airy—she is strong, determined, and sophisticated. Oh, but I forgot that we’re talking about a female candidate.
Suderman joins the actual privilegettes from the advocates of the male status quo (ad nauseam) to go after Warren under the guise of pointing out that everyone's going after LIZ. But too bad for you et al. Repeatedly Warren demonstrates better than anyone on that stage that she has worked deeply and long to understand and provide "REAL" answers to the critical problems we face. She knows that we are dangling over a precipice and the people know that we must have solutions that have more than a prayer to work. Spend some honest time on what she thinks and proposes. And then ask the question. Do we trust her to work intelligently and well? Your answer will be more than anyone that has run for president since FDR.
68
Who paid for this hit job on the most qualified person on stage? Warren spoke eloquently, defended her positions well, and showed compassion. The only two people who came close to her quality of performance were Kamala Harris (who has redeemed herself after some poor showings) and Pete Buttigieg. Pete lost points by not realizing (as Warren pointed out in rebuttal) that her phase-in Medicare for All started with Medicare for All who want it, and when that proved successful, going all the way would be the will of the people. The unspoken corollary of that is if that it doesn't work, she won't continue to push. But of course, Mr. Suderman, as hit man, ignored that.
213
@beaujames
Elizabeth Warren has a stump speech.
Never answers questions - she deflects and goes to some part of her stump speech. This is not good enough for me. Did you notice how there's nothing ever new out of her mouth? Just like a teacher - an ineffective teacher.
1
@beaujames Check out this conservative light weight who pens article after article with the same criticisms of Warren and they are all phony and in defense of income inequality. He really is not only against Medicare for all but also a public option and even the ACA and a shill for big Pharma and Big Health Insurance Companies. What health care policy does he offer in return--nothing! Oh and he reviews movies on the side and not very well.
8
@beaujames Thanks, Beaujames. You’ve just articulated the Buttigieg approach to achieving universal health care. Glad to know Warren now sees a path with a much higher chance of success.
4
II would like to hear more about Booker's plan "prosperity for all". I hear that often enough and yet we have 17% of children are living and poverty and half of Americans who don't have 400$ in the emergency fund. Yes, let's see the Booker's plan for 6 figures salary for everybody
14
May we soon have the debate when the unelectable will absent themselves from the stage so that those candidates who actually have a chance of being nominated, and who have articulated comprehensive plans for governing, can have more than 30 seconds to present and defend their policies?
It is tiring to listen to the self-promotions of Steyer, the stirring but empty rhetoric of Yang (nice guy though), the insufferable Gabbard (what was that with Buttigieg?),the self-promoting Klobuchar, and the constantly eye-rolling Harris when we all know that none of them is going to rise about two or three percentage points among registered voters.
Yes, we are the party of diversity, the Big Tent, the theater with no cover charge, but at some point those candidates who enjoy broad-based support and who are truly experienced have to be given a chance to convince voters to get out and support them.
And while I have the stage: please, Mr. Obama, keep out of this. Not all Democrats are convinced that your administration was the Golden Age to which we wish to return.
78
Warren did just fine with a strong showing as usual. Mayor Pete might now be labeled Sleepy Pete, but did show a spark when talking about farming in America. Cory Booker took platitudinous rote & turned it into a jazz form. Biden scored the gottcha moment of the night in bringing up Steyer's coal background, but then maybe the billionaire wasn't aware of smog & acid rain back in the day.
An entertaining evening.
9
Based on Warren's presentation of herself, most people have difficulty seeing her as president. College professor type, no executive experience of any kind. The other women in the debate
simply seemed more presidential, more calm. For those looking for a woman candidate, Senator Klobuchar seems more appropriate for the job.
19
I like Amy but what executive experience does she have? Reminds me of the quoted moderate’s chant: what do we want? Incremental change! When do we want It? As soon as possible!
5
@David Starting a new federal agency is not executive experience? She built it and then handed it over to a trusted colleague she recommended for the job. It was running beautifully and continued to be until finally gutted under the current administration.
6
@David
Klobuchar was not calm. She was shaking just as she did in the last debate.
1
I live in a democracy. Our government is lead by moderates like Elizabeth Warren. She would fit neatly into our center right Provincial government as would almost all of the Democratic Party. It is only in the area of immigration where our center right government seems at all Republican. We are an imaginary line from Vermont and 3 and a half hours from Massachusetts.
We are a Democracy sometimes our citizens move us left , sometimes our citizens move us right. We make mistakes but we are free to try and correct them. We adapt to fill our needs.
I do not understand ideology over pragmatism. The last thing America needs right now is more neoliberalism.
We know where we all stand on the environment. Our major political problems are the result of trying to correct past wrongs. Most of our workforce is female and they are filling most of our most complex functions and we have no use for obsolete old men who only know how to give people their assignments.
Does anyone have an idea of what to do with our Jim Jordans, Devin Nunes and their peers who know nothing and can do nothing but make other people angry and miserable?
42
Bless her heart....
She has a lot of plans, big ideas and breathless enthusiasm, but all of it adds up to a recipe for disaster, in my opinion.
There is simply, no one the Republicans would rather smear as a hopeless idealist and as a recurring nightmare as a fifth grade teacher or crusading president.
To really win in 2020 Democrats need every vote we can possibly wring from progressives, young people, whites, minorities, independents and disenchanted Republicans.
If we can hold the House, and flip the Senate, we will inevitably win the presidency and be set up to govern the country well so we don't lose it again two years later.
If Warren or Sanders could possibly win in 2020, I believe they will face such a backlash in 2022, financed by lots of angry millionaires the upper middle class, that we'll end up losing the Senate (maybe the House) in 2022 and with another real Republican beauty in 2024.
11
You mean the same way how it happened when we elected the centrist Clinton and the centrist Obama?
1
@Dennis
If your last para comes true, then America is not a democracy.
Complete nonsense. If Sanders or Warren win and go after the Wall Street and corruption. Increase taxes on wealthy and fund infrastructure and schools Democrats will get a Super majority in Senat by 2024. Backlash to Obama was a result of him being black and his pro corporate agenda as he failed to go after Wall Street after financial crash and instead he bail them out.
As appealing and fair as Elizabeth Warren's policies sound they would be DOA in Congress. Warren cannot win without much stronger African American support. Don't see that dynamic changing because she is essentially unknown among black voters. Ironic that the two African American candidates, Booker and Harris (both smart and accomplished politicians), poll nearly as low as Warren among African American voters. Biden still remains the most electable. If Biden picked Stacy Abrams as a running mate, it would cement his victory against Trump and establish Ms. Abrams as a serious Presidential contender.
6
@Jeff Biden has Obama as the President and he was not able to have the "public option" in ACA with Democratic Congress, why should we believe he will be able to do it now, especially if he doesn't have the Congress. I am not even sure he will be willing to fight for the public option.
6
I really like the ideas of Warren, but unfortunately she is dead wrong on the issue of a wealth tax. There would need to be a huge increase in the bureaucracy to have any chance of enforcing such a law, since ultra-wealthy households don't keep their money in bank accounts, much of it is tied in art, and the value of a business they own is subjective.
A UBI and VAT combination (like Andrew Yang proposes) would have a similar effect as the theoretical wealth tax, but with far less bureaucracy and without distorting incentives. A wealth tax incents underreporting, capital flight, and higher consumption so the money is spent instead of taxed. A VAT, however is a tax on consumption. On the business side, companies like Amazon, who currently pay 0$!! in federal taxes, would be forced to pay part of the tax (depending on the elasticity of demand vs. supply, as you may have learned in econ 101). This will decrease the profitability of giant corporations, whose real advantage is being able to game the tax structure, as there will be no getting around this tax. On the personal side, it won't punish people simply for being successful, it will punish them for consuming excessively.
This video of leading economist Greg Mankiw will probably change how you think about a taxation, and I personally found it illuminating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cL8kM0fXQc
7
@Will : No need for a wealth tax. Just restore the tax brackets to what they were before Reagan.
43
Most wealth is in investments in stocks and bonds, very little in art. Those holdings are easily measured and taxed. Property is already appraised in most states for property tax purposes. The only hard thing about a wealth tax is fighting against the power the wealthy use to try to avoid paying their share.
30
That’s income tax from wages. But that is not where the wealthy make most of their money. Their money makes money for them. That must be taxed fairly as well. Why should a wealthy man who makes his money with investments pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than someone who makes their money by working for a wage? How is that fair?
11
Warren scored no points tonight.
She continued to speak as an ivy league law professor, referring to her plans ( though never about the reality of paying for them other than having billionaires paying 2 cents and other bogus memes).
She is flailing and sinking in the polls and will continue to do so. Lost her lead in Iowa and barely hanging on in NH where Pete in St Anselm poll is 10 points ahead of her.
As expected Pete was attacked and did well responding like a president to all attacks.
His line about how 100 years of Washington centered players has failed and gotten us into this mess and that Washington would do well to look like our towns instead of the other way around, was great.
It will take someone who is not part of the system like Pete to lead us out of this mess.
I also liked Booker, Amy, and Kamala. I thought that Biden was impressive though, unfortunately, that meant that he didn't fall apart.
All in all, I liked the debate.
18
@Simon Sez
Pete might not be part of the system (disagree), but he's been trying hard to be for most his adult life.
2
I'm relieved that literally every single Democrat out there tonight is about a million times better than Trump. But I didn't see a clear standout tonight. Pete, Warren, and Bernie were a bit stronger, I thought, and to tell the truth, I think we're over-blowing the Medicare for All deal. It's a great idea, but does anyone really think it will get done without a lot of compromise? No. It's a miracle that we got the Affordable Health Care act, so whoever wins will probably build on that. I'd say let's cut Warren some slack. She'd make a great President. So would just about any of them for that matter. I will put my time and dollars into whoever wins the Democratic Primary.
106
I agree with you. Ultimately, our system of checks and balances will mold and shape ideas far from their starting point. The important thing is to *have* ideas, really idealistic ones, that help slowly bend the arc of the United States in that direction. How the person presents themselves, from their compassion to their zeal to their imagination, is honestly more important than the pragmatics of ideas, because the later will be filtered out through Congress and the courts.
For me personally, when Senator Warren speaks, I listen. I like that she’s a professor and a teacher. I think that’s what we need right now. I like that she’s spent time on the other side of the political spectrum. Know thy enemy. I like that her ideas can shift and change while fitting thematically to her core values. That indicates compromise and mental flexibility. Dreaming big is such a vital task for a president. That’s what we need right now.
17
@Brannon Perkison
I, too, will (probably) vote for whoever wins. But I'd much rather vote for someone with a clear vision of the specific ways they intend to improve the lives of regular Americans than a candidate whose hazy pitch seems to boil down to a "return to normalcy" when the normalcy they're referring to was what led to record inequality, the loss of 1000 Dem offices nationwide, wide swathes of hopelessness leading to rising rates of deaths of despair, and ultimately President Donald Trump.
1
Every time I see the phrase intellectual elites- it terrifies me. We need voters with developed intellect - so that they won't be led, they will lead.
76
Warren is sustaining a lot of minor knocks, including this article which is clearly a bit of a hit piece. I wonder as we move through the primaries if pundits will stop attacking her so regularly. She is far and away the best candidate we've got (though Harris looked great tonight) and time is getting shorter by the day.
242
@Jeremiah Crotser I was thinking exactly the same thing.
5
@Jeremiah Crotser they won’t stop the hit pieces because the monied interests...those corrupting forces...won’t let them stop.
She’s talking about the root of all ills...corruption in Washington. And that’s what really scares corporations and the super wealthy.
9
@Jeremiah Crotser It's very much a man thing. It's male fear and the bonding between men who back each other no matter what, and sneer at the female they know is more capable.
8
Senators Warren, Sanders and Harris all had a good night and are 3 of the 6 qualifiers for the December debate.
Old Biden and Young Biden (Pete) and Klobuchar can huddle in the middle and bore us all to death. May they revel in their corporate dollars and exit through the trap door of Wealth Disparity of which they will do nothing.
146
Peter Suderman's article serves as a hit piece. It is far from "correct" that wealth taxes have been hard to manage in other countries; instead they have been abandoned in some instances due to opposition from entrenched elites and lack of political will. Senator Booker did voice his opposition to wealth taxes without providing a clear, concrete alternative - only a weak claim that other taxes would take care of the problem of vast inequality. Simply put, they won't; the massive disparities in opportunity and power in the US rest on wealth, not income. Only Warren and Sanders are brave and honest enough to speak to - and address - the real problem.
Next, Suderman creates the smear of "Warren-ism" - falsely implying that Warren's goal is redistribution for its own ends and is antithetical to opportunity. Warren's agenda is the precise opposite; she wishes to create a fairer America where everyone can thrive and, yes, be an entrepreneur if they so wish. Warren, unlike most of the other candidates, has actually mapped out how such an America could be created. Naturally, Suderman labels Warren's compassionate, meticulous, and people-focused agenda as, " her brand of fussy technocratic populism"
The hatchet job concludes with an attempt to smear the Senator as an elitist. No doubt Suderman does not care about Warren's strong polling in Iowa and New Hampshire - both far from the corridors of power; he's just interested in dumbing down the debate. Mission accomplished.
343
@Zabed M
Warren's strong polling in Iowa and NH is not so strong.
She has been overwhelmed by Pete in both states.
Next time, fact check before writing.
You are beginning to sound like warren and her pie in the sky, let the government save us all ideology.
5
@Zabed M
Exactly correct. "Reason" magazine is a right-wing organ funded largely by the Kochs and this piece is a heavy-handed attempt to smear Warren.
Republicans would not lend any credence to an article in Mother Jones attacking one of their politicians, and this article merits the same reaction.
18
@Simon Sez
Your attacks on Warren are utterly devoid of facts or analysis.
4
Warren has been playing it a touch too safe lately. I though she could have handled Booker's "opportunity" knock much better. She could have even turned it around on him, pointing out how much opportunity her wealth tax would create. She doesn't just have big ideas, her ideas are also great. She should be our nominee but she needs to speak with a little less expertise and a little more rhetorical finesse. I can tell she's got it in her--I've even seen it in her when she speaks in public. She'll be a good nominee, I'm sure of it.
86
Booker is right but it won't get him elected......vengeance taxes won't do what Warren(and sanders)think it will do. Se\he may hate the rich but most people do not since most people would rather identify upwards than downwards. The downtrodden are worthy of sympathy, for sure, but they are not admirable. As Fitzgerald said, "the rich are different" but that doesn't mean they are bad. The poor are what they are and need sympathy and support but they are not poor because others are rich.
9
Sometimes they are poor because others are rich, if those rich people running the companies they work for would rather buy their own stock back to make themselves more money, than invest in their staff and pay decent wages.
8
@bellicose It's not about hating the rich. It's about disparity. If Bill Gates has enough money in his own bank account to pay for universal child care for everyone, that's a question of disparity. I don't dislike Bill Gates at all, but his net worth is an injustice. Things can't go on this way, with so many of us struggling and so few of us with all the leftovers.
1
@bellicose they’re not vengeance taxes. They’re fairness taxes. Using that divisive language feeds right into the billionaires’ hands.
130
It’s probably true that Ms. Warren’s appeal is not broad enough for her to win the presidency. That is unfortunate for the United States, for I believe she would make a good president (though I am a college-educated liberal). At least with Ms. Warren we have someone who applies her mind to a problem, thinks on it deeply, and comes up with a rational solution. If that is being “timidly wonky,” so be it. She’s still the class of the field.
156
Yes, we trust Warren. We’ve been saying that for months. We’re not going away, no matter how much pundits and the Democratic establishment and Republicans try to scare us.
Warren is the right woman, in the right place, at the right time.
I’m sending her another small donation right now (because I don’t have the big money that supporters of other candidates have). Do the same to show your support.
Vote Warren!
371
@TJ
Unfortunately, this Twitterized debate format is the absolute worst way for her to get her message out. Warren's ideas are bracingly original and therefore need explaining, they need to be questioned by voters across the country, and they deserve answers, which I'm sure she can provide. This all takes more than twenty second snippets, though one could argue that this is just the way our corporate media likes it.
5
@TJ Great idea.
2
Thank you, Mr. fiscal conservative, for this spicy take on what Democratic voters want! I’m sure you’ve aspired to real change in your life, and fought for literally anything that would make the lives of working people better!
133
@Drew
"People like me and ideas like mine already destroyed one major US political party> Perhaps now I can convince the other major US political party, with which I agree on virtually no policies, to read my hot takes on what they need to do if they want to win."
1
The attack started before the debate by Obama when he stated that the country is not ready for big changes. The country is ready and if Biden (the safe choice) wins the nomination he is sure to lose the election. Because in spite of what the polling shows, it is not capturing the mood of those democrats who will work to get a democrat elected. And those folks are those who no longer have landlines but only cell phones. And IF they vote for a middle of the roader, they will not go out and actually get out the vote for that person. And only if the democrats nominate someone who generates the kind of enthusiasm Trump does with his base, will the democrats take back the White House and probably the Senate.
181
@Vicki I am a huge Obama fan, but that was a mistake on his part, and really made me angry. I am looking for a candidate who inspires me.
101
I heard the “inspire me” thing a lot in 2016. People saying they wouldn’t vote for Hillary because she didn’t “inspire” them. She was so incredibly qualified but instead people wanted to be “inspired.”
Well, are they inspired now with the horror that is Trump??
We aren’t looking for an inspirational leader. We’re looking for a President that can run the Country and work with Congress to address our problems.
So please stop with that stuff. We need to look for a candidate that can be ELECTED, above all. Because if Trump is still in office and wins another four years, kiss our Democracy goodbye.
And to do that, we have to win moderate states and to do that, we have to run a moderate progressive candidate. Period.
23
@Bodyman Warren has stalled in the polls because people don't think she can win. November's election results are in. You have to be blind to not be able to read these tea leaves. Voters, especially swing voters are rejecting Trumpism but endorsing centrists. The Dems who won in red & purple states ran as moderates. If the Dems nominate Warren they lose in 2020. There's no progressive majority in the U.S. & never will be. The numbers are not there. There certainly is no progressive Electoral College coalition in the U.S. that could get to the needed 270 votes. This point can't be emphasized enough: almost every progressive candidate in whom Dems invested tremendous time, money, & emotional energy in 2018—O’Rourke, Gillum, & Abrams— lost. Almost every progressive ballot initiative in this country was voted down. If this election is about kitchen table issues: jobs & education there's no way the Dems lose. If it's about reparations & immigration there's no way we win. Warren wants to provide free health care for illegal immigrants, which would be paid for by raising taxes on middle-class Americans. Warren wants to eliminate criminal penalties for illegal immigrants. These are the only issues that would compel independent swing voters in say Kentucky & Virginia to hold their nose & vote for Trump again. We can win with or without progressives. We can't win without swing & centrists voters. A moderate candidate can win in 2020. That's all that matters. Everything else is noise.
15
Mayor Pete was the standout performer of the night.
Biden is really having trouble articulating his thoughts clearly in these debates.
63
@Kyle
I got a kick out of Buttigieg’s counter to Tulsi Gabbard’s absurd military policy accusation. She is awful.