Warren made a big mistake accusing Sanders of saying a woman can’t win. He would have been correct if he said Warren can’t beat Trump.
Warren attacking Sanders after the debate with “You called me a liar on national tv” was another mistake. It sounded whiny. What would he do...agree that he said a woman can’t win even if he didn’t? She brought it up in the first place & now it’s up to voters to decide who’s telling the truth. His record is better than hers on truth telling!
Vote Bloomberg!
6
I don’t see any of the Democratic candidates going to the Army-Navy game and taking any pleasure in it, or, frankly, getting much genuine applause. To be conceived of as The American President means you probably should like certain American institutions, it seems to me. Maybe that’s what Warren was hinting at with her lame “... gonna get me a beer” spot. Didn’t work.
2
I was a Warren supporter from the start, but since I vote in NJ, I I'll be waiting to see who the frontrunners will be. I'm also tired of this idea that there's a moderate independent voter out there that is uncertain about voting for Trump or a Moderate-Democrat. The Trump-supporters are loyalists and everyone else will either not vote for vote for any Democrat to get rid of him. The country is so divided right now, I think any Democrat has a chance.
1
Senator Warren, gifted as she is, suffers from the "fix everything at once" syndrome. Most of the comments below deal, understandably, with Senator Warren's sweeping healthcare proposal, but that's not the only "sweeping" change she seeks. There's climate change, student loans, a wealth tax, new corporate taxes, regulations on big technology companies, regulations on housing costs and Pentagon contracting and more. If you've got a problem, she's got a plan. And, so, Ms. Warren is a bit like the proverbial kid in a candy shop: she wants it all, and wants it now. It's impossible not to appreciate her candor and her thoroughness. But what voter can avoid feeling a little uneasy? That it's too much, too fast.
3
It’s puzzling that Bernie Sanders is virtually never pressed for specifics on how his Medicare For All plan will be funded, yet people repeatedly demand – and question – details from Elizabeth Warren. I don’t attribute it to misogyny.
I attribute it to dangerous blind spots. People are unnecessarily impressed by the kind of declamatory, arm-waving statements Sanders issues, ignoring his lack of substantiating specifics. In contrast, people demand more and more specifics from a person (Warren, for example) who’s known to be capable of dealing in details. The probably unintended but unfair result is that Sanders skates by, but Warren is picked almost to death.
Critics and pundits: your blind spots are warping the Democratic presidential contests.
5
One cannot deny the force of the emotion utopians must feel for their saviors Liz and Bernie. But they are not in the majority nationally. Meanwhile, an unflashy but solid Amy stays on course in the wings, gently prodding the adults among us to notice her qualifications and uncommonly common sense. Think of the choice as between Joan of Arc and Angela Merkel.
5
It’s interesting that when one of the two progressive candidates releases a paper describing in detail her Medicare for All plan, that people are shocked. They are shocked at the enormous cost, the fact that people will lose private health insurance and how she proposes to pay for it (a soak the rich tax, which will never pass in the Senate). I believe that both progressive candidates should be forced to describe in detail their plans for free college, Medicare for All, $15/hour minimum wage and other programs and how they will be paid for if all were implemented at the same time.
I read The Times’ interview of Bernie. He was asked how he plans to deal with McConnell after he is elected to get his programs enacted into law. Significantly, Bernie never answered the question.
Both Bernie and Elizabeth are promising programs which will never be put into law. No one asks them the details. When one releases a detailed plan it meets with resistance from their own supporters.
Do Bernie and Elizabeth know they are peddling pipe dreams? I suspect Sanders knows. In 2016he was left with a fat war chest which under Federal election laws became his personal property. He is 78 and has had a heart attack. He will never be nominated by the Democrats. Bernie continues his DOA campaign because of the money in his war chest. Both Bernie and Elizabeth are modern day McGoverns, way too far left for the country. Our first concern should be the defeat of Trump.
6
I'm for Warren and Sanders and their Green New Deal in all it's manifestations, but all the President can do is lobby, and then sign or veto. I know my Republican Representative will do everything in her power to repeal the ACA, and one of my Senators will be very very cautious about rocking her own boat.
1
Trump people voted their fears and hopes in 2016. They won on a technicality. I am going to vote my hope for the best candidate we have, and that is Sen. Warren. All the rest of this hoohah in the media is the La Brea Tar Pit of the usual us versus them patriarchal mindset. Don't submit to fear. Don't submit to sexist divisiveness. Forget the idea that some mythical Big Daddy is the only choice if we want to avoid disaster. If your conscience, heart, and mind say WARREN, vote Warren. Be true to yourself.
3
Well, reality is beginning to settle in and sort things out. I think Warren will make an excellent Secretary of Education, but that's all. One commenter said:
"Iowan Democrats must realize political tinkering and tacking toward the middle won’t address the corrupt form of capitalism that has has wrecked the American Dream and threatens democracy with an endless legal stream of corrupt funds of, by, and for the super-rich and multinational corporations."
They are thinking ahead, which on the one hand is good, but on the other hand we must think of the immediate and very urgent short term goal - defeating Trump. With responsible leadership we can right this tottering ship and begin to rebuild toward the future. To do that, we must appeal to the broadest range of voters, who are moderate in their views and avoid sudden upheavals like Bernie's "political revolution" or Warren's dream plans for everything which will put moderate voters, like me, off.
1
Medicare for all. Forgiving all student loans. That’s stuff that can only be done in Massachusetts, Elizabeth!
Doing those things translates into expanding the reach, and debt, of an already pitifully debt-ridden federal government, that nobody trusts.
Elizabeth Warren can’t possibly win outside of Massachusetts. If she’s the Democrat’s candidate, Trump will win in every battleground state.
Pinch your noses, Democrats, and go for a moderate - Bloomberg, Biden, Yang, or Klobuchar. Bloomberg is the most pragmatic of the four, and the one with the most relevant executive bona fides.
4
People saying that her policies are impractical are simply acknowledging a common underlying fear of standing up to the rich and powerful. I wish Warren would acknowledge that out loud. It's time to pull on our big girl (and boy) britches in spite of our fears, and do what's right. Not what's easy. We can, we just need to be reminded of that.
2
After the DNC’s 2016 treatment of him which favored Hillary, Sanders is used to the skullduggery practiced by his party, including Warren’s lies and CNN’s favoritism of her. This was clearly on display during the debate, and people saw it and are still commenting on it. Warren, who was once considered sort of refreshing, with her wild arm motions and professorial demeanor, has now been unmasked as just another hack. You may disagree with Bernie (the closest politically to Warren among the remaining contestants), but he carries himself with much more dignity and gravitas. I have noticed during each debate he looks directly at the person who is arguing against his positions; Warren looks away, like a petulant prepubescent teenager. This means something.
5
Warren is a name caller/opportunist from way back. Calling out Mayor Pete for campaigning for $ with rich people-you got to go where the money is until the system limits the money, Calling Bernie a misogynist- Bernie may be a lot of things but a misogynist he is not, Biden not progressive enough-that is who he is -not bad in my book.
Remember Warren was a corporate lawyer for LTV steel and their bankruptcy for their coal assets which is OK with me.
Universal Healthcare is a must but Medicare for All is like having the DMV or Social Security Office running your healthcare...not good.
Warren's arrogance and know it all attitude reminds me of Trump...not appealing. Having candidates with money or knowing rich people is not a sin. But doing favors because of donations is.
Bernie
5
I want her to be the front runner because that is a sure win for President Trump. He will run all over her. What a delight to watch.
2
Bernie did no favors for Clintion in 2016; I would harldy call his actions support for the female presidential candidate. I would also say sexism shows clearly in this campaign when this is what we are talking about, rather than policy and polotical talent. That a small city major with a policing inequality problem and no national experience is polling as favorably as a whip smart woman dedicated to protecting consumers from the detrimental operations of banks, insurance companies and big tech, and has considerable depth of experience in Washington demonstrates the obstacles these courageous women face on the campaign trail.
1
When the candidate is a person of principled integrity who fights for the truth is a man, he's a charismatic firebrand and fighter for the common person.
When the candidate is a woman with the aforementioned
qualities, she's a strident know it all, finger-wagging high -school principal, a rigid Nurse Ratchit.
Elizabeth Warren built her reputation on the creation of Consumer Protection Bureau. It has (before the Republicans weakened it) protected millions of credit card customers and banking costumers from abuse at the hands of the mega-financial services industrial complex. Rather than acting as a hanging judge for oligarchs and capitalism writ large, she is more like a referee who is calling for a level playing field for capitalism, where oligarchs, monopolies and industry-written regulations stifle competition and initiative.
The bad-faith doubts and frankly sexist questions raised about her truthfulness might lose her the nomination, and that' would just be another maddening setback for women.
3
The argument that she has demonstrated ability to defeat Trump in a national election in 2020 based on her record of winning elections and defeating an incumbent Republican in Massachusetts (perhaps the nation's most liberal state, and in a year with very different electoral dynamics) would not survive even minimal Socratic Method scrutiny in a Harvard Law School classroom; why does Prof. Warren want to sell Democratic voters a bill of goods that she wouldn't allow to go unchallenged from even a first-year law student?
2
These electoral consumers need protection from her, perhaps!
2
The "electability" notion propagated by the media – including the New York Times – threatens to undermine our electoral process.
Our electoral system should not require psychological gymnastics. Each voter has a responsibility to simply cast a vote for his or her preferred candidate: that is good-faith participation in our electoral system.
When we substitute our projections of our neighbors' preferences for our own preferences, we cease to act in good faith as citizens – we make it impossible for the electoral system to accurately tally up its constituents' preferences.
Whom do you think you are helping, by the way, when you look for an "electable" candidate instead of a good one? Have you noticed that "electable" invariably means “friendlier to big business?" Doesn't it seem that the "electability" bogeyman is simply a tool for preserving the power of entrenched interests?
Rather than fighting to preserve the status quo (which is all that conventional wisdom like "electability" amounts to) we need our journalists to help us choose candidates based on policy records and proposals.
4
Warren will now be in impeachment hearings six days a week. Biden will not. This is an important fact that the author failed to touch upon. Warren will be showing up to very few events in the coming weeks in Iowa.
1
Elizabeth Warren is acting immature and arrogant. Blaming Bernie Sanders for her fall from grace and her being a woman. Perhaps it is the policies like Medicare for all. Or her know it all attitude....sounds familiar?? Trump from the left? childish attacks on Mayor Pete for cavorting with the rich...please you were a high priced corporate lawyer for the bankrupt coal cos.
Focus on well thought out middle of the road objectives like universal healthcare with government corporate and personal finances.
3
“Then there are the worries about her ability ... to overcome the challenges presented by sexism.“
So Sydney and Shane just wrote that. Does that make them as guilty as Bernie purportedly is?
4
Warren wouldn’t have a hope. If Hilary in her power pantsuits couldn’t swing it, Warren in her woolly cardigans hasn’t got a hope. Democrats need to be pragmatic. They need a rude, tough street fighter and Biden is the closest there is.
4
I would appreciate the New York Times discussing what’s bringing her up and not dragging her down-again. Another hit piece in disguise and completely unproductive for this country. Thanks again New York Times/frown emoji. I am in for a progressive Democrat first. And of course will vote blue no matter who. But as I have told each progressive campaign as i donate small amounts as I can, THIS is the time to unite-not give into media created cat fights. Form a United progressive ticket NOW and take over the narrative finally making an inevitable progressive nomination the DNC cannot deny. If this doesn’t happen the Trump path to a second gerrymandered hacked propaganda laden criminal term is sadly very possible for 2020. What part of
America doesn’t want the status quo anymore don’t you get? The question and times articles written accordingly should be ...When will corporate Democrats realize this and get on board and find solutions that work for every day Americans?
Bernie/Warren 2020.
*Or the reverse Is just fine by me
4
NYT, please stop writing articles about Warren’s unelectability masquerading as “news.” Seriously, your handwringing is getting old.
1
"... But they are really scared to vote for who they like the best. Because they’re worried that not enough people feel the same way.”
Worrying about Elizabeth Warren being a "loser" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. People panic and then a stampede starts and then people get hurt. But the people who get hurt are the people who panicked.
Nobody knows what the "winning formula" is. This is your chance to vote for the person you believe will make our best president.
4
I’m for Biden because of electability.
I tremendously respect Elizabeth Warren, but just can’t envision her carrying the Purple States.
Same thing for Bernie Sanders.
3
So Democrats are afraid of change or electing a woman so they are going to vote for a radical like Bernie or a sleep walker like Biden? Give me a break. It’s time for a smart, capable woman like Elizabeth Warren.
2
Sexism? Are you serious? That’s not what turns people off to Warren. It’s her superiorness on everything. Her talking down. There have been great great woman leaders, who inspired, whose quiet strength did not come from intimidation. Thatcher, Merkel, many from India, from Nordic countries , come to mind. Sexism is just another obstacle Not to be bowed to, not an excuse.
4
Or, she IS superior. It’s a shame that Warren’s confidence in her own intelligence and complete command of policy and economics issues turns so many people off. Since when would that be a liability in a president?
5
Warren is as phony as Hillary, playing the perpetual victim with her contrived grievances. Oh, woe is me, when the polls shift, bringing up old, unproven un-Bernie-like allegations from the past in a he said/she said that CNN stands behind, without sources other than Warren, CNN’s pet. Bernie clarified that he pointed out to her that Trump would be throwing the kitchen sink at whoever the Democratic candidate was, and whomever that nominee was, he or she should be prepared to take incoming, big time. Warren more than likely pulled an internal Freudian slip in inferring from Bernie’s comments that she, as a woman, might not be up to the challenge. Or else she’s completely lying about the details of the encounter. No other explanation makes sense. It’s very good this happened now, before the Iowa Caucuses. I fully expect Warren’s poll numbers to plummet as a result.
6
American voters are full of fear of the unknown.
We have been so brow beaten by GOP tactics and undermined that we simply are terrified of real change to our entrenched system.
In my opinion Warren is the best candidate to enact systemic change without fear of stepping on Republican toes.
How will we know if a woman can govern as president if we don’t give her a chance?
Perhaps Americans are afraid that she can govern, more effectively than a man. This of course would burst the male propagated American myth that only a man can do this job.
Just as Obama burst the American myth that only a white man can do this job.
3
My problem with Warren's and Sanders' plans aren't the goal, it's their implementation and transition paths.
Abrupt and disruptive, they're impractical and will hurt the people most who have the least resources to adapt.
That's why voters are walking away, looking for a more moderate alternative.
4
Warren needs to acknowledge that not all of her plans are achievable, but that she presents them to show where her vision is and where her heart is. Make this an election about vision, cause the GOP doesn't have one. How will they make our lives and the world better?
3
I am a male. I want to be part of this ME-TOO movement. I cannot vote for Warren. I can skip the first line on my ballot, president, and keep going. I think I will.
3
this election is about whether this country goes down with tRump or whether we collectively decide that our democracy is worth saving. Please do not skip the first line.
2
As a progressive, I like both of them. I do have issues with both though. Warren’s past remark about being of Native American heritage was a stretch IMHO. So is she stretching again, on what Sanders actually said. Politicians stretch, I understand that......but as a progressive, stretching Is What Lousy GOPers ( Good GOPers don’t) do. Sanders is on a roll, but to tell you the truth can he endure a presidency for four or eight years? It takes a lot out of you at 50 to 60 years old.And who is his Vice President going to be, can she/he win the 2024 election or we going to bounce back to a Republican President? Biden to me is too lame, if he had run during The 2018 election I was all in, but now he’s my old mans politician. I want new blood in our future.
2
I have a real sense of who Amy is. Same with Bernie, Pete, Joe, and Yang.
Elizabeth is a high energy achiever who came a long way from
Oklahoma. She has a lot of admirable traits.
I just don't get much of a sense of who she is.
3
After the recent episode involving Bernie Sanders, this voter has serious concerns about Elizabeth Warren's character.
In plain English, that means: I will not vote for her under any circumstances.
16
The electability issue is a legitimate problem and a byproduct of the real issue for Warren, her BELIEVABILITY. Because she has a rich history of opportunistically misrepresenting the truth (often in trying to deny her privilege), she is not very popular among the working class, even in her own state of Massachusetts. And these are the very people she advocates for! They've got her figured out (as do the papers in Boston).
20
I understand her concern, IF (and only IF) Warren’s accusations are true. But if they are true, why bring them to light now? This conversation took place over a year ago??
15
Sorry repeating part of my comment from another story.
"Michael Bloomberg please. Confident, smart, well spoken, self made. Would destroy Trump. Please support.
Kate McKinnon and Larry David take a seat :)"
But America needs a lot of things, fair paying jobs, health care for all, climate/environment protection but most of all Trump needs to be defeated! That is the number one goal. And part of taking him on is defeating him on the economy. Mr. Bloomberg can do this. It is crazy what the Republicans and Trump have done to the national debt. And it only benefits the top 1%.
But in the end I will support whomever wins the nomination from the Democrats!! This is the most important US election in my lifetime and I'm pretty.... pretty old. :)
2
We desperately need Elizabeth Warren's agenda in so many ways. Please, do not get distracted by anxiety-driven concerns about the chances of a 'woman' (a very educated woman; kinda like Obama) beating Trump. Everyone in the primary should vote their conscience and think about the future, not about the past. So, silo yourself off it you need to, but do not allow worries about Trump to override your choices. That gives him crazy control over things he has no business being involved in.
6
I’ve been on the fence between a Bernie and Elizabeth but last nights debate really put me off. She hadn’t brought up the supposed controversial comment by Bernie until now? Seriously? Trying to say he is essentially sexist? Nah I can’t #Bernie2020
18
Details of this article are a hodgepodge of stupid. Supposition and dollars spent. “But there has been grumbling in the western part of the state about Ms. Warren’s relative absence.“ Can we please stop predicting our potential president’s chances based on an unrepresentative (rural, white, old) population thinks on any given Wednesday? Please?
6
Confronts the issues dragging her down? Meanwhile no issue, no matter how low and disgusting, ever drags down Trump. Two sets of standards at play.
7
let it go!!!!!
1
Voters see how this woman is a shamelessly manipulator and perennial victim when she wants to get her way. Not trustworthy is an understatement. Hillary, please enter the race and 3 will be the charm! Promise...
10
So make candidates are all straight shooters?
@Moe
Hillary? You can't be serious. Hillary nominated: that's when I vote for Trump -- no kidding, I would do it.
4
While I am part of a circle of family and friends of all political stripes, I live in a a relatively liberal sphere.
Almost everything I hear lately from every side is how annoyed everyone is with their perception of what a scold Warren has become - to the point that it drowns out her policy positions. She has transformed her earnestness into a liability through her intemperate tone, out of context personal attacks on Bernie and others, and lack of political timing. As much as everyone talks about core values and policies of candidates, ultimately - at least in the Democratic party - how it is presented within a statesmanlike framework is what gains traction with voters.
18
You are summing up my own perceptions very well: Too far on the left, uncompromising and off-putting.
Possibly worse than Trump in many ways, but obviously not all.
I understand the argument In this article, but I’m still voting for Warren in the California primary. If another candidate is the Democratic nominee, I’ll vote for that person in the general. As far as Warren being too far “out there,” she did go too far with the free this, free that dialogue. But, let’s also acknowledge we’re electing a president to preside over our government. Not a dictator. Every policy will be negotiate and debated in both houses by all House and Senate members before it goes to her desk for a signature. I’m ready for a President who is more concerned about Main Street than Wall Street. And her range of knowledge and details will give her an advantage over Bernie.
12
Perhaps campaigning for president is not Warren's skill set. In other roles: her fierceness showed her a warrior for justice, here she seems a condescending scold; her focus was a laser illuminating complex issues, here it seems a rigid fixity of mind; her tenacity served well articulated policies, here it seems an inability to let go of unformed aspirations.
More troubling than her increasingly bizarre, and sometimes hypocritical attacks on rival Democrats, is her persistently dodgy relation to the truth. Yes, if 'holier than thou' is your brand, truthiness is a bad look. But more importantly, if Warren wants us to trust her on the really big things, then she has to get the little things right.
When in the recent debate Warren asserted that she was 'the only Democrat to defeat an incumbent Republican in 30 years' and Bernie Sanders replied that he had defeated a Republican incumbent in 1990...she should have acknowledged her mistake rather than disputing whether 1990 was in fact 30 years ago. Sometimes Warren's persistence has been very good and worthy but here she looked like Wiley Coyote going over the cliff. This is a problem. If I may be permitted a sports analogy, being chief executive is like being the captain of a soccer or basketball team if your skill set is swimming in your lane you ought not be running for president.
6
To characterize the Warren campaign's embrace of Senator on Senator violence as mutual 'sparring' or a two way 'feud' is a completely dishonest distortion. What are the facts? When Sanders passed her in the Iowa polls, suddenly Warren remembered a grossly sexist comment, which would have been completely out of character for Bernie, that she claims he made to her privately, with no other witnesses present, five years ago? . . . . We already have one opportunistic liar in the White House. We don't need another.
11
The more people see her, the more she'll remind them of that tough nasty teacher in school that most of us had at one point. The condescending type that lectured endlessly about the same thing over and over again..That can get weary and annoying. That demeanor, combined with her unrealistic and unpopular policy positions are why she likely can't beat Trump.
10
Warren's recent tactic has been to move between Bernie and Biden (e.g. w/ her modification of M4A) and, as a progressive but a "capitalist," claim the role of being able to unite the two wings of the party.
Picking a fight with Bernie just blew that strategy out of the water and I don't think she can change lanes and tactics again.
This episode may be a clear demarcation point in her candidacy as the point where she could no longer turn around her decline.
7
When it comes to healthcare, the American public can't seem to get out of the dummy zone. You keep hearing that question about Medicare-for-All (or some variant thereof): "How are we going to pay for it?" The answer is, the same way you're paying for the fractured, dysfunctional and unaffordable market-driven system we have now, except the country would actually be paying less. Also, nobody would be forced off their insurance. Universal healthcare would be phased in gradually. Eventually, we'd end up like Denmark or Switzerland. Or maybe like Germany or France. They each have their own approach to universal coverage. But regardless of the details, they're all better off than we are. And not a one of them would swap their system for ours. Senator Warren, carry on.
11
Innocent or naive? Warren is not for me. Neither is Sanders for that matter. The same mold as Goldwater or Humphrey. And what happened to them? I do not want to waste my vote on either of these two.
Neither of these two key points she seems to be able to articulate, so my conclusion is that she doesn’t know what she is talking about.
Hey Iowa voters, I am assuming none of you having these vapors are the one percenters or possibly not even the ten percenters.
Vote for Warren or Bernie, you will not make a mistake. They will work themselves into the ground representing you as President. The others? not so much. The center right candidates, the rest of them, will conform to the Clinton/Obama model of not upsetting the moneyed interests. If that's what you want, go for it.
This opportunity of Iowa being first will have an expiry date, we in California are working to make that happen, so go out and vote or caucus or whatever you do to pick one of those two.
Remember, the others will pay lip service, much like Hillary did, but will throw you the crumbs.
5
Warren was my favorite early on, but like many, I lost interest in her. She is just not charismatic (for lack of a better word) enough, and this attack on Bernie, calling him a sexist of all things, has completely soured me on her. Confronting and accusing him of lying (in front of a live mic, no less) was the last straw. It was certainly not a good look, and wasn't very smart either. The whole argument is absurd, and the fact that she decided to go with it, doesn't speak well for her judgement. She is not even in my top three anymore. I'm not a fan of m4a, but am leaning towards Bernie currently. I really wish he would just admit that m4a is a pipe dream, or at least that it is only the ultimate desired outcome, and that it will take a long time to get there. I'd much rather he focus on fighting the corruption that is destroying our government, and the warming that is destroying our planet.
8
I have the wonderful Union-job, healthcare coverage that every moderate says people like me will refuse/abhor to give up. Let me tell you, once you’ve actually had to really use that coverage, you get really uncomfortable with how easily it can be taken away - Say you cancer, after being out of work for 30 days (your sick pay and vacation exhausted) they can completely cut your coverage (no matter you are in the middle of chemo) and your only option is to go on Cobra coverage and pay $thousands per month to keep your existing healthcare. So please spare me the descriptions of ‘cadillac’ Union healthcare coverage, even in the public sector , you are cut lose after 30 days!! Maybe a lot of people don’t think about this when saying how much they like their employer-provided healthcare. Warren and Bernie understand this - but I think he somehow gets a pass, while she has to explain where every single cent will come from.
7
Why is she “MS” Warren but her opponent is “SENATOR” Sanders? Last time I checked, she has as much right to that title as he does. Perhaps this explains (in part) why it is so hard for a woman to be elected
7
Another NYT analysis based on anecdotal evidence. My guess is that all voters are feeling this way about all the candidates. The situation is fluid. Yet the Times chooses to focus on the woman candidate.
5
This is all so unnecessary.
It’s real simple everybody. Stop worrying about who’s “electable.”
Those who love Trump are the minority. This has been the case since day one.
All we have to do to beat him is to agree to vote for whoever opposes him in the final election.
That’s it. Tell me why you’re fave candidate is awesome, work hard for them in the primaries. If they lose vote for whoever wins. Boom, we win.
We lose only if we split the vote. Be disciplined and don’t give fellow progressives, Dems and moderates reasons to split the vote by bad mouthing them or their candidate. Get along. Stay united. We can do this.
20
True that. I agree if all democrats turn up on Election Day and vote we will be just fine. It was just 99k that lost us the electoral college. I don’t understand why so few seem to recognize this
5
The article nicely captures the dilemma on being able to win. As for myself, if she backs off medicare for all just a bit, if she says okay, Medicare for all who want it for a while, until the country is ready for the universal Medicare for all, she's got my vote. Because then I think she can win.
4
Democrats are over-analyzing issues, and repeating the same arguments every debate. Whoever made the decision to have so many debates did their cause a disservice. The candidates’ positions were clear months ago, and the only “winners” are the news media outlets broadcasting these over-hyped events.
3
The idea that this is an Elizabeth Warren issue is emblematic of the muddled thinking dominating the Democratic primary narrative right now. Sure a woman faces special obstacles - this remains a sexist society - but what makes her unelectable ultimately is not the fact that she’s a woman but rather is equally applicable to Bernie Sanders. It’s policy. The Party had better get its head on straight about what constitutes progressivism. Progressivism is not revolution, it’s ensuring everyone has access to the basic needs of life. Every Democratic candidate - including Bloomberg, Biden and Bennet - has committed to that principle. What distinguishes Sanders - and Warren, to the extent she continues to support what she said she supported a few months ago - is the idea that it all has to be run by the government. That is not a necessary condition for a progressive policy platform.
1
While Warren's policy issues are a good cause for concern it is very true, she is really being hurt as well by her actual candidacy as a specific personality and her presentation. That is fair enough.
5
Who in there right mind would vote for trump over Warren. Certainly not anyone that makes under 1 million annually, and isn't crippled with racism. She would advocate to raise the minimum wage, releave student debt, establish affordable if not free child care, bring down household medical costs, etc. Trump is going to act against all these things, like he has done over the past 3 years.
This is not to even mention the striving for equal rights, a change in immigration mentality, and a movement toward a more equitable society over all.
This election is a no brainer, like many other have been.
6
MC.. you missed a few things. Turn weapons into plowshares. Stop extracting oil here in the states. Free education. Retirement at 55 with full SS. Which increases 10 percent annually. Free MD burgers every Monday. Ice cream on Tuesday. You get the picture. Pease broaden you objectives a little more.
2
Why not the same scrutiny for Bernie who offer pie in the sky proposals and refuses to say even more than Elizabeth the costs or provide details. Sexist article unless a similar one is coming out for Bernie.
7
@Jennifer It really is a mystery. She's pilloried for taking the time to get the details right and he gets a pass for completely general big picture proposals, details of which will be worked out at a later date. It's insane.
3
If you want to know the truth, she lost me at “I’m gonna get me a beer.” Pure phony.
10
Irrelevant Iowan details are irksome.
One of two people will be president come next January: Trump or Biden.
Which do you prefer?
2
Is that Julian Castro in the front row?
1
You must mean that the media are dragging her down. It appears that The American People very much want her as our president. No more stories about “Can a woman win?” That is so 19th Century!
5
“Look at the men on this stage,” she said. “Collectively, they have lost 10 elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women.”
Why is no one discussing the numbers in context?
Say the men ran, cumulatively, in 30 elections, and lost 10. They've won 20 elections.
Say the women only ran in six elections cumulatively.
They've won six elections.
Then there's the question of the difficulty of each election.
The stat's meaningless without context. Is anyone going to do that?
9
I think it's a sad commentary on whoever it is that is distressed over the many and detailed policy and other proposals put forth by Elizabeth Warren. The other candidates have not nearly matched the breadth of her ideas and proposals. Why not?
It is for this reason that she has been my favorite of all the candidates. What she has done is what all the candidates should have done ... should be doing.
However ! I'm afraid she's not up to handling in the campaign against Trump his wild behavior and attacks.
So ... I will probably be voting for Bloomberg. I think he's more likely to be able to beat Trump than any of the others.
Yeah, he's not perfect, and I didn't agree with everything he did as mayor of NYC. But none of the candidates is perfect, and Bloomberg would be a very competent president.
3
So while the Democrats are looking for the perfect presidential candidate to run against Trump and finding flaws in each one, the Republicans obviously will put up with whatever the Republican Party gives them--even if it the "worst" President ever in American history.
And don't discount decades of Republican and right-wing media Pavlovian conditioning and employing the principles of advertising to get "conservative" Americans to hate and fear Democrats/liberals/progressives/democratic socialists more than they fear Russia and authoritarian dictators.
It is so bad now that I would't be surprised if Trump Republicans and Fox News fans would rather vote for Putin than for Warren.
To those who identify as "Republican" or "conservative," Warren has several strikes against her:
She is a smart progressive with policies and plans, such as the need to redistribute the wealth from the obscenely rich to the middle class;
She is a smart, highly accomplished woman, and independent thinker,
She is very especially savvy about what is going on in the financial and banking industry that is really hurting Americans and our society. Warren knows where the bodies are buried and who the murderers are.
It's called fear-mongering, and it works very well in the USA. Why?
7
@PB
"It's called fear-mongering, and it works very well in the USA. Why?"
Because, I think, too many American voters are not -- or no longer -- the proud independent individuals they still assume they are. They need someone to tell them what to think and how to vote. (For many, that "someone" is Fox News; they gobble it all day long and regurgitate it at every opportunity.)
6
In order to understand whether Warren has a chance we need to understand why Trump made short work of a large, diverse field of Republicans.
Trump’s biggest win wasn’t against Clinton. It was against the Republican establishment.
8
Bloomberg might very well be the candidate who can beat Trump, and beat Trump by a convincing margin. Bloomberg has the political savvy, the business acumen and unparalleled amounts of money. Dems will be a lot less nervous once Bloomberg takes the stage while Trump doesn’t know how Bloomberg will debate ( unpredictably will help Bloomberg)
2
@LTB
Bloomberg is wasting his money and the time of those who listen to him. He will be swept away soon after the primaries begin, along with Buttigieg and (I hope) Biden.
2
If some voters have reservations about Elizabeth Warren because they're looking for the one to beat Trump , then they need to look no further than Nancy Pelosi ( a democrat) who has had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and proceed with impeachment . It is not only about sharing values but also about not being self defeatist and afraid to do something , taking a chance and standing up to a bully . Trump may very well win but I suspect he'll have a lot of help (again) ; pulling the covers over your head will definitely not be a winning strategy . As to her not shaking Bernie's hand , why should she when he and his campaign are playing her like they did Hillary . He is one of the reasons Trump is there . Am not a fan of medicare for all as I think the time is not right but , we do need a candidate that will not only stand up but withstand the slings and arrows of the Republicans and Trump . I'm with Pocahontas .
2
I have to agree with the synopsis and comments by Simon Sez.
I think Mike Bloomberg is our Dragon slayer!
1
Why against Warren's Medicare for All?
Much of this resistance is psychological:
1. People like to think they have choices (even when they really don't or it's no choice at all, really), and
2. They just don't like it when stuff is taken away from them, especially when the government takes it away.
A big part is cultural: Decades of conditioning started by Reagan & pounded into our heads by the GOP that: (1) the business of government is business; (2) the private sector can do everything better than the public sector; and worst of all, that (3) government is the problem, not the solution. All of these myths are false, based on research. Who in public life or in the media is disputing such myths?
BUT:
1. There are people who have excellent health care coverage provided by the private sector (i.e., the very rich and powerful; some unions bargained for health benefits over salary increases; and a few other "lucky" individuals. I don't know what the percentage of Americans is that are unhappy with their health insurance coverage--my guess is there are many more of us in that category than those who are thrilled with their coverage.
2. Those of us on Medicare know that Medicare is no panacea either--a lot is not covered such as dental, hearing aids, eyeglasses--and we have to get expensive supplemental insurance to cover the pay gap between the low reimbursement by Medicare to health care providers and the high cost of delivery. Drug coverage is another total mess.
10
On electability against a Republican, especially Trump, if that's the issue, any of them should win. There is a stark contrast between his criminal presidency and anything else.
There is more to Medicare for All than just a price tag, and one would be surprised if what we have now didn't cost a lot more over the same time period, even with fewer being covered and worse insurance. The lobbying for the status quo includes yearly cost increases across the board, especially drugs already on the market, as we are now seeing.
The Times, and perhaps also the candidates, has not laid out what the premiums will be on average for those who are working and how they will be collected. Subsidy for those opposed or doubtful, sounds like a giant giveaway. Ordinary insurance has premiums. Assuming children will be covered, what is the breakdown between subsidy and premiums. It should be noted the present system insures those who don't pay with emergency care, the most expensive way to offer healthcare.
In other countries with single payer, premiums are paid through taxes; the cost is less than private insurance; and the coverage is better--even house calls in France. And if the U.S. adopts a Medicare system, Medicare pays only 80%, meaning there will still be robust private insurance offered, competing to cover the difference.
2
It's too soon to decide who is electable. Why? Because we await the effect on this race of Mike Bloomberg. Is he what the Democrats need, someone who looks and feels like a winner? If there was someone like that right now, we'd know it. We don't feel it. We're nervous about that. Despite all the debates, no one is truly a front-runner, no one gives us confidence that they can win in November. For Democrats, Trump is a frankenstein hovering over the candidates. Biden, given the best chance, can hardly articulate a whole sentence without needing to correct himself at least once. So, it is too early to decide who is electable.
4
Why all the hate? Most Democratic candidates have ideas worth talking about. The debates are supposed to encourage discussion and thoughtful consideration of how we ALL want our country to move forward.
Name calling and nit picking and refusing to even truly listen to any candidates ideas are not what we need right now.
By all means, demonstrate support for your favorite candidate with specific reasons for why you favor her or him.
But PLEASE STOP TEARING DOWN OTHER CANDIDATES who have been willing to step forward and try to make a difference. They ALL deserve our respect.
5
@TJ
"They ALL deserve our respect."
OK, I get it: Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg deserve my respect, but I am not in a respectful mood -- can't be helped. However, if they want to show their respect for this elderly (actually "antique") voter, they should disappear... go back home do the dishes, play with the kids (theirs or the neighbors'), learn knitting, anything but campaign.
Respect is a two-way street.
Elizabeth Warren is so desperate That she played the victim card against Bernie. Watch her ratings drop now.
19
Whomever the Democrats nominate will beat Trump in the biggest turnout of any election in history(both sides). The more populist the candidate, the bigger the win. Warren would destroy Trump with her real populism vs. Trump's lying,billionaire populism!
5
@Bosox rule
Really? The mainstream media was giddy all day on election day last time, certain that Hillary was soon to be coronated. That is, until states like Wisconsin, NC, and PA went for Trump.
Trump will feast on any of the clowns on the debate stage last night.
4
What is clear in watching Warren is how there is an almost total disconnect from the blue collar worker - she seems oblivious that her desire to wipe out college debt is a giveaway to the very elites who look down on them. She is a millionaire professor hectoring all those who do not agree with her self-perceived brilliance. It plays poorly.
12
I think the biggest question dragging her down is why did she lie about being part American Indian?
7
Medicare for All is the defining issue in this election. The poison that will be spilled by the Republicans, Health Insurers, Big Pharma will be immense. But realize that Medicare for All will bring true equality to a nation that never has had equality, as it was founded on slavery and inequality. Medicare for All will bring economic prosperity to the United States. It will bring freedom for workers to move to a different job if needed, it will allow workers not to fear being dropped by their insurance company if they get sick, it will bring meaning to the words of Thomas Jefferson - "all men are created equal". Realize that Medicare for All is not a radical idea, but the foundation of a just society. All other developed countries have a government run and managed health system and is supported by both conservatives and liberals alike. it is a needed, foundational, middle of the road, centrist idea whose time has come now to institute in the United States.
3
@Time - Space
In a nutshell: Medicare for All means peace of mind for all those who have to work for a living.
When was the last time the working class had peace of mind?
2
Warren is not doing herself any favors by not shaking Bernie's hand. Such actions are indicative or her all or nothing political approach that will fail to win over voters who may be on the fence about her.
14
Pretty tough to shake someone’s hand after he made a bold face lie on national television (I am assuming that her version is true). It is likely that she would have acted differently if she had realized, as she should have, that she was very likely being filmed. But as a personal interaction (where he essentially called her a lier) I am not sure I would have acted any differently.
2
@Avigail why are you assuming her version is true?
True as in the way she lied for decades about her heritage?
5
@Avigail
She knew the cameras were still on.
But she may not have know CNN would release the audio . . .
"But voters have had second thoughts over how her sweeping agenda would sell against President Trump."
I like her, but honestly? That was my first thought.
7
We lost the 2016 election (the electoral college) by 99k votes. That is not a lot of votes. We know that many democrats did not show up to the polls in 2016 because they couldn’t stand Hillary and others voted for Trump thinking he would bring the change they wanted in Washington. If all those people show up and vote for the democratic nominee (let’s suppose, Warren), we WILL win. And so, rather than worrying about electability we should focus on which candidate is the right one to manage the post-trump transition. It is going to require a massive clean up job. And I believe that person needs to be one who has a plan for everything and knows about policy and has a track record of not being scared off by the corporate lobbyists (who currently control policy in congress). It will be a close election so we all better get out and vote and bring our neighbors along. 
4
I don't care about Iowa. It's Republican, white, christian rural and boring. Let's move on.
1
@Pecos Bill this attitude is why liberals are completely out of touch. You totally disregard the other side of the coin.
6
@Pecos Bill
It’s also has a rich progressive history. If a slave reached our borders, they wouldn’t be returned to their slave state. Voting rights for African Americans before the country made it legal. First in college programs for women. Property rights for women. Check out the time line of “Iowa’s Progressive History” from the Council Bluffs Community Alliance. (We think about things out here, and what is good for the country!)
8
Insanity is thinking not one of the Democratic candidates is better than the current criminal, ex-game show host, compulsive liar and tax cheat.
Trump is going to lose the popular vote again by millions. The only way for him is once again through the Neanderthal Electoral College that should have been abolished 100 years ago.
Oh and of course the GOP's best friend Russia.
12
Amen. I agree with you. And think we have an easy win of every democrat shows up to vote. That didn’t happen I. 2016 in large because the Hillary ans Bernie drama ... and the fact that not many believed that Trump would win (including Trump himself!). Let’s not get disheartened, ans instead get involved in registering voters and making sure we have a strong turnout.
6
Forget "electability". Let each of us vote for the candidate we deem best (for me it is Warren).
Only voting-sheep would worry about the "electability" of candidates, as that would mean acknowledging that we do not know what we want and rely on "our betters" (the DNC my betters?) to tell us what to think and how to vote.
What happened to the proud independent Americans? Do they need "the Party" to tell them how to vote?
5
Yes! I agree completely. There are more Democrats in this country than Republicans… At least as far as who shows up to vote. We lost the electoral college by 99,000 votes - we can win this no matter which candidate ends up with the ticket. And yes, we should elect the person most capable to right the ship in the post-Trump era. Like you, I believe that the best person for the job is Elizabeth Warren.
4
Most comments reflect a lack of understanding of what leadership is about. People don’t realize that what a candidate stands for is not what will become law. Presidents don’t implement M4A, outlaw private insurance or mandate wealth taxes. They can’t even pass immigration policy without the courts getting in the way. Leaders have visions that inspire others to do the work. MLK didn’t stop racism, yet he paved the road for civil rights laws to be passed. Warren and Bernie have a vision for change, yet voting for them does not mean their plans will take place in their lifetime, only that the seeds of change are planted.
4
She is a white Senator Kamala Harris, swinging in the wind with her positions, walking back on her identity, dropping a questionable Last Minute Bomb on Bernie Sanders (to whom she is allegedly closest ideologically), and unfortunately exuding more and more inauthenticity as the campaign progresses. Were I on the left, I'd support Sanders. Were I in the center, I'd support Klobuchar. Were I really after victory, I'd support Bloomberg.
11
Warren will Corbynize the Democratic Party almost as disastrously as Sanders would.
5
Warren was criticized for her lack of specificity on health care, so she released detail. The detail was criticized. Who else has released ANY detail of their programs. So much more is asked of her than the boy candidates. Who can point to specific, detailed programs of Pete or Joe? Bernie talks in hyperbole. Warren has a myriad of ideas and put the detail directly on the table. There is always detail to pick at and dislike in any large program. When will the boys put theirs on the table so that we can criticize them?
13
Very true. Can you imagine a male candidate being criticized for claiming to have ‘a plan for that’, and insisting they are the ones to do it best. I can’t. Misogyny can be very subtle, but it is pervasive. 
4
It's telling that in 2020, the NYT chose to highlight (with lame, split second video) that "she didn't shake Bernie Sanders hand."
Really? I expect more from you.
13
The reason Warren won’t make it and will continue to fade is because she is being discovered to be a phony and a fake and a liar. Even with the bias and the help of CNN and the NYT, she’s toast. When she stabbed Bernie in the back last night, she can now also kiss goodbye her chances to be someone’s VP selection.
16
@John
She is not running for the vice-president job. She is running for president, and president she will be: President Warren.
She also did not "stab Bernie in the back"; she just did not shake hands with him. They had a misunderstanding and she was upset; no big deal: they are still friends and when she is nominated he will campaign for her. Just wait and see.
3
Hi Bernie Bro. Who said you all with a myth. Here you are again, trying to steer the internet.
1
I have researched the question in various places, Googled it and looked for answers in a number of the MSM outlets, but I still have no answer. Maybe I can get one here.
What is the true, rock bottom value of a Democrat in winning in the Iowa Caucus? Other the obvious benefit to the MSM during a period in our former normal lives would be the news doldrums. Why a caucus at all?
A bunch of people get together on a cold February night and talk. Results are not binding, the real deal is 9 months away and Iowa has only 6 votes in the Electoral College.
I only ask because I worry that potential voters who lack the stamina and obsessive nature of some of us will be so over elections by July that the Democratic candidate may lose simply because of this voter fatigue.
I feel certain that all of us know we cannot afford to lose a single vote for any Democrat anywhere this year.
8
Primary voters didn’t particularly like John Kerry, but they voted for him because they calculated that he was the most electable candidate. Don’t make the same mistake with Biden.
4
Democratic supporters have good reason to be in a pique. Their run of candidates are making fools of themselves. As they quibble jobs are being created, the markets are soaring, everyone is making more, we've taken on China and are doing well with that, illegal immigration is down and we've put Iran on notice. Imagine what could have been accomplished if the Left's hatred was absent.
3
The deficit is still exponentially growing, but everything is fine, right?
3
@RamSter
Did you see President Trump's health-care plan? He seems to have forgotten that promise.
1
I like Mike.
5
I’m still undecided but I keep coming back to Warren. On domestic policy she reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt, who took on an oligarchy that was dragging the country down. I don’t find her inauthentic either. She evolved from a doctrinaire, Reagan Republican to a progressive Democrat by researching conservative economic myths, expecting to find that they comported with reality. When she found that they didn’t, she changed her views. I like that. A lot. She’s not as strong on foreign policy but expect that she’ll come up to speed. Bernie, by contrast, is blunt and has conviction but, to my mind, speaks in slogans and ideology, which I find empty. Warren digs into the details to find a path forward and then fights for the right outcome. For the record, I’m a middle aged white dude with a pretty healthy income. We need to spread the wealth more to really make the economy hum, for everyone.
12
Suggest Warren supporters read her 15,000 word "Fair and Welcoming Immigration System" plan and do some hard thinking about how this will fly with white working-class swing state voters.
Wade through the rants about Trump and look at what her plan actually proposes. There is no enforcement at the border, because her plan will decriminalize crossing it anywhere, anytime for anybody. No one crossing will be turned back or detained. If caught, they will let loose in the US after being given a distant civil court date, a free lawyer and free health care.
She actually does not mention deportation of felons, only mentioning "focusing on real threats". The only targets would be to "disrupt and prosecute human trafficking".
Beyond that she also plans "amnesty" for 11 million or more "illegals" already here, and for any undocumented people who come here in the future and settle down. In total, her plan would be a huge target for attack ads, and would, frankly, not seem a realistic policy for the border control or for practical immigration reform.
4
There are only two Democratic candidates that would seal my vote for Trump: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Theirs are the misleading promises of failed regimes, which take aim at the rich, but squeeze the middle class. Why vote to rid the country of a populist egomaniac on the right if it means supporting populists on the left in promoting a crushing socialist program, which will extend the reach of government, feed a bloated bureaucracy, drain the middle class with ever higher taxes and hamper the country’s economic productivity, and in the end cause more harm than Trump ever would?
5
Crushing socialist program? Like the programs that put the Nordic countries at the top of the list for quality of life?
4
@Kevinlarson
The Nordic countries have had their defense paid for for decades by the US taxpayers. That is how the Nordic countries afford much of their social spending. Also they have been cutting back on some of it. Seems "free" stuff turns people into lazy sponges.
3
I know it's not kosher for any Democrat to criticize Hillary.
But this nonsense of a woman not electable is just a reflection on her loss.
I am a Republican.
What Mrs Warren needs to do is come out and declare I am no Hillary.
If she can effectively jettison Hillary off her back - this would be a dead issue.
And one way to jettison Hillary is to say what is obvious - she is not corrupt - as in a thrall of money.
Or, Mrs Warren does not care to hang around with deep pocketed folks.
And one other thing - she could jettison Hillary with is to pledge she will not accept so called Super delegates.
It is these Super Delegates who denied Sanders the nomination.
She could even analyze Hillary loss without getting personal by saying how different her campaign would be.
That's the only way Ms. Warren will ever overcome this nonsense of an unelectable woman.
2
I think people need to vote their conscience and their values and not try to predict who is the most likely candidate to vanquish Trump. That’s a trap. We have had so much garbage from this administration that it is real easy to see our way out of the swamp that is Washington under Trump and the spineless republican senate.
People, VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE AND YOUR VALUES and the candidate who best represents those! Period. I believe enough in the American people to know that they will get rid of the canker sore in the White House. Even those who voted for him are smart enough to see that they have been duped and sold a bill of goods. They are smart enough to see that the promises were not kept and the poor and almost poor are worse off under this administration protecting the interests of the rich and famous .
3
I don’t really understand what motivates the Times to publish articles like this one. The headline is vague and negative, the substance sexist and doesn’t reflect the feelings of any Warren supporter I’ve encountered, myself included.
12
I think sexism IS dragging Warren down. Saunders has the same healthcare policies (in less detail) and he’s reportedly surging in Iowa? Warren is smart and has the policies to make real change in America, yet she is repeatedly criticised in these comments because sounds too much like a “know it all” and has too much to say - an answer for everything. Because a woman should keep silent, play dumb and know her place, right? If she was a man you’d call her a visionary and her authority would make her a leader. And as a woman if she didn’t stand for something and have an answer for everything, she’d be grilled for that too. Except if she was Jo Biden, Mayor Pete, or Bernie Saunders. Believe me, it is harder for women to break the glass ceiling even than for a man of colour. Obviously, Obama is the obvious example. But, it happens in other professions too. Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s much Warren can do about it and calling it out has only backfired. Do I think Bernie Saunders said what Warren claims? YES. But, he only said what everyone already knows, that no matter what she says or does America will not vote for a woman for president, even if it means voting for someone as divisive and base as Trump. However, as an Australian I will say this to Democrats. If your main goal is really to defeat Trump, you must vote Democrat in 2020 regardless of whether the Democratic nominee is your preferred candidate. Also, Medicare for all is great, ask the rest of the world.
8
@Kay
This is plain baloney, the sex of the candidate hardly matters. What people won’t tolerate is lying, stealing, and dirty tricks.
5
Really? That’s why Trump’s President?
2
What's really dragging her down is her absolute insincerity. That fake beer "sitdown" on Instagram says it all--she is a first-rate phony. Her bald-faced lie about Native American heritage that went on to allow her to make millions off her Harvard pedigree will sink her for sure, even though this paper and the rest of the leftist media failed to make much of an issue over. What's really dragging her down is her absolute insincerity. People know who President Trump is and they accepted him for who he is. Still, he is maligned daily in the press for lying. Here's the rub: the American people (not Santa Monicans and Soho or Upper West Side residents) are aware that most politicians lie. But lying about WHO you are is what will bury Warren. President Trump has never done that, and all the biased reporting in the world will never make Americans see otherwise.
11
@R. Cooper yup. IDK if this particular habit is homegrown or not but I am really tired of hearing her refer to women as "mommas" and "mamas" (with their babies), occasionally "daddies". It's never simply mothers, or fathers. I guess it's Betsy from OK but it's also patronizing and annoying.
2
I’m all in for Warren. She’s brilliant, empathetic, authentic, and committed to making the lives of all Americans better. Her policies come from decades of experience, she’s a capitalist and I have no doubt she’ll be a pragmatic president who won’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I am extremely proud to call her MY senator (she IS popular/respected in her home state) and I look forward to a future with her as our president.
137
@Jules MC That’s right! There is no possible way the former Republican, former Native American, former Medicare for All supporter and soon to be former Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren ( because she cannot get ahead in Bernie’s lane on issues or appear more electable than hapless Joe Biden) is a liar.
4
@Jules MC if she's so brilliant, why can't she adequately explain why her medicare for all will be cheaper for everyone? I have an idea. Because it won't. She needs to explain who will be paying more, because somebody will.
5
@Jules MC
I had hopes for Warren but I've seen so many cringe-worthy videos of her flip flopping on everything from Medicare for All to trivial stuff that I've really begun to question her integrity. Really, does she not know that we can actually watch this stuff from her past. It's really worrisome. Every time I've tried to give her the benefit of the doubt (and believe me, I've tried) she says something totally at odds from what she's has said before. I could give a list, but it's too long and, as I said, it's all out there (https://bit.ly/2tnENbX). This latest business of smearing Sen. Sanders, a person who actually encouraged HER to run against Hillary in 2016 in order to push for a progressive platform, and where he jumped in only after she declined to run is amazing. What unbelievable hutzpah.
8
I've thought from the beginning that Elizabeth Warren's principal problem is the degree to which she panders to her base. Every politician has this issue, of course, but some are better able than others to navigate around it. So far, Senator Warren's ability in that regard is open to question, and time is short.
5
Are you serious?
"The Day That AOC Endorsed Bernie Sanders Was The Day That Warren's Campaign Effectively Ended,and She Became Bitter."
AOC's endorsement may be quite useful to help establish a candidate's progressive bona fides. But will it get that candidate elected, or hurt the candidate's chances? I think the latter.
4
@Commenter
I believe you are quite correct. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's endorsement of Senator Sanders will have no effect upon the outcome of the primary season.
3
She cannot beat Trump. It is not because she is a woman. She lacks charisma and it's boring to see her waving her arms and always wearing what looks like a black body suit and just changing the color of her jacket. That comes across as lack of imagination.
8
Wow. She is not my favorite candidate, and has not won my vote, but she is charismatic. Maybe not to you’re liking but I see it.
And I can’t imagine any male candidate getting criticized for their wardrobe choices.
8
@Phillip Kearney
Yes, she is charismatic. Compared to Hillary.
Compared to a human? Not so much.
4
@Phillip Kearney
"she is charismatic"
No, you are (to coin a phrase) charismatized by her. There's a difference, you see.
In fact, her act is off-putting to a great many potential supporters. The unfortunate aspect of that is she and her handlers don't seem to understand that at all.
2
Elizabeth Warren may or may not be "electable." (Frankly, I think she is.) But if she's not, it won't be because she's a woman. It will be because her policies are not acceptable to voters.
One could argue persuasively that Warren's policies are not much different from those of Bernie Sanders, and that his staying power must, therefore, owe to his maleness. I don't think it matters, though, since Sanders is too old (so is Biden) and when voters choose among candidates, Warren will get many of Sanders' supporters -- especially if Sanders withdraws or dies before or during the Democratic convention (as I expect).
The only thing missing in this now daily hit piece on Warren in the Times is criticism on what she had for breakfast.
Did anyone else notice how much airtime that the corporate darlings Buttigieg and Klobuchar received after the debate on CNN.
2
I can honestly say that a candidate's gender is irrelevant to me in deciding whom to vote for. But that doesn't solve female candidates' "electability" problem, since there undoubtedly ARE some voters who do care. I think this is offset by the tendency of some female voters to vote for a female candidate (my dear wife, for instance, does that), and so these "offsets" may cancel out each other. But I can't say I know that.
2
Warren has too many problems to list. But being is a hypocrite is one. She talks about greed and corruption and a rigged system. Yet she wants to reward colleges and univeristies for decades of wreckless spending and mismanagement by forgiving student debt and making higher ed "free." If any student debt is forgiven it's the schools that should be paying the bill. Instead she wants to send even more taxpayer money to the schools. Makes sense. For years and years she has made 100s of thousands of dollars per year by teaching just one session of one class per sememster.
3
Warren’s work ethic and intellectual vigor are unimpeachable. She also very publicly takes personal responsibility for her mistakes, learns from them and grows. She will be a brilliant President, but only if we show up and vote.
119
@Dabney L:YOU elect EW and you, second person plural, will have open borders, a stock market crash "aussitot" and tens of thousands of journos will lose their jobs! Massive layoffs in the news business will be the result. Warren's inability to hold an audience bigger than those who could fit into a phone booth is a distinct possibility. EW is in her mid seventies, a 1 percenter, promising Medicare for all which would boost taxes for America's middle classes tremendously. If she were able to get elected and pass legislation guaranteeing health care for all the burden would not fall on the wealthy,her class of people, nor the very poor, unskilled,"analphabetes,"but on the quickly vanishing middle classes. Just look at California to get an idea of what the rest of America would look like were Sanders, or I might add, EW win the presidency!
3
@Alexander Harrison you sound like many progressives before Trump was elected!
1
@Alexander Harrison If the rest of the country were like CA, it would be awesome. My favourite state is CA and my favourite city is San Francisco in the USA (and Bangkok in the world).
CA is an American success story.
13
If Warren wins the nomination, it will be in spite of the oligarchy and the media, which has worked tirelessly to convince the electorate that Warren can't win the Presidential election. The voters only got that fear from the press.
9
If Iowans are looking for an excuse not to vote for Warren, they will find one. This IS the state that decided not to vote for Hillary in 2016, after all. I suspect the reason was and will be the same. They are both WOMEN.
1
@Purple Spain
Of course. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are both lying hypocrites.
5
This is nonsense. Elizabeth Warren can't convince the working class in her own state, the very people she supposedly advocates for, to support her... and this is the state of Massachusetts.
There's no way she'll get the working class in rural and urban America to vote for her. Would ANYONE wager their own money that this is wrong? We sure don't see many poll results for Warren from these groups or from, say, the rust belt states. You can be darn sure that if Bernie Sanders had such dismal poll numbers we'd be hearing about them.
5
I would like to thank all of the commenters here. Now I’m more confused, depressed and anxious then ever. PLEASE. PLEASE. PLEASE. Vote for whomever gets the Dem nomination. Our lives and the planet’s survival depend on it. I know I will not mentally survive another four years of trump. That would mean a four year medically induced coma for me.
8
Regarding electability, it’s not her gender that worries me, it’s her healthcare plan. Too expensive, too absolute. Americans don’t dig that. And for her to put that policy proposal out there - as a candidate - makes me question her judgment.
5
Right. Just like it’s too expensive to put an American on the moon and fight the Vietnamese at the same time. Too expensive.
3
What's been dragging Warren down is her lack of integrity and willingness to do and say anything she thinks will help her get ahead, no matter how dishonest or conniving. She turned me off with her attempts to smear Buttigieg's character by innuendos of corruption for him doing what she herself had done, and more recently with the obviously planned and rehearsed attack on Sanders.
11
"Elizabeth Warren Confronts the Issue Dragging Her Down"
The New York Times?
1
How could Senator Warren stoop so low? Just got the mail in and there’s a flyer from good old Senator Sanders. The man who, unlike Senator Warren, has spent his life campaigning for the dignity of others —wages, healthcare, seniors —always says things like, “I respectfully disagree” before disagreeing with his comrades. Extends his hand to a woman who just fired a shot at his heart. Senator Warren you are a disgrace to women!
10
Her comment about electability and never having lost is disingenous which is not surprising for Warren. She won twice in the liberal state of Massachusetts and that makes her more electable than Joe Biden or anyone else? I have no doubt that she would easily be elected President of Massachusetts, and equally sure that her politics will cause her to lose the election for POTUS.
4
@Meg
Your objection to M4A on the grounds of Senate resistance is often made and mostly logical. However, recent history shows how fast these obstacles can be overcome under the right set of circumstances and presidential leadership. And my main issue with Amy or Booker for that matter is that, even if we end up with Baby Steps, i don’t believe Baby Steps philosophy wins most hearts and minds.
I read LBJ biography and the advent of Civil Rights and Medicare/Medicaid. Congress objections were at least as great if not more. It took a ruthless, manipulative leader to make these things happen. I could talk about FDR. Or Teddy. Or even, quite frankly, Reagan or Trump from a republican lense. The republican party of 2012 would never have supported a Russian and North Korean appeaser, nor someone with an extreme Anti-immigration agenda so at odds with American values. Yet, here we are.
I am not saying M4A will happen. But EW has a, hum, plan for that too. The anti-corruption bill first, setting the stage for very different money dynamics in Congress than the one we have, and a far less “rigged” system. Using immediate executive powers to advance immediately parts of that agenda. Get people used to it. See that the earth is still rotating. Start rallying behind a vision.
Or not. But the odds with EW are as good as they will get. I like Bernie too. He just does not have a plan for making it happen.
2
My great concern is that Warren and most of the other 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.) And Warren proposes to ADD $2 million/year for Medicare for All and to erase student debt by executive order, costing an extra $1.6 trillion on her first day in office!)
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.
5
Elizabeth Warren does herself and this critical election no favors by picking petty fights with other candidates. Last debate with Buttigieg, now with Sanders. I like her but her criticisms of both rivals seem petty and contrives compared to the threat of climate change, further erosion of reproductive freedom, the integrity of our elections, our social safety net, a balanced SCOTUS, and so much more if Trump is reelected. She is mot speaking to the economic and social issues that Trump exploited in 2016. Baseless accusations that Sanders is sexist won’t reassure voters she is the woman who can win. If Sanders said or implied anything, it may be that Warren can’t beat Trump. I am a dedicated voter and would support any on last night’s stage but I am not typical.
4
I’m going to Iowa next weekend to campaign for Elizabeth Warren because I think that her plans would be great for America and I think that she is the best candidate to beat Trump. I’m excited by her efforts to bring real policy and substance to the presidential election. We need that. Trump is the candidate of intangibles. His whole presidency is a smoke and mirrors show. Warren will defeat him because she is his opposite. Trump offers endless distraction, but Warren offers real, concrete policies that would make a big difference to American families. I think they’ll listen, and vote for her.
8
Klobuchar would be far stronger vs Trump. Winning in Mass. as a Democrat means literally nothing, and in fact can be a negative across the key battleground states / districts. Charlie Baker is something to take note of. But Klobuchar can compete in those very areas where Warren will get shellacked. It's time for the MSM to for once, take off the partisanship lens, and call it as it actually is.
4
Why I do I support EW? I keep asking myself that question when reading comments, however speculative, about electability. And I have come to view “electability” as a fool’s errand. Not because people may be prejudiced by gender, race, religion or else, we all are in our own ways, but because the track record of forecasting winners 9 months ahead is horrendous. Joe looks good now? Wait until Trump aims the GOP cannons 24/7 on all these vulnerabilities that the primaries have barely touched on. By November 2020, nobody will ever understand how anybody could think Joe was a working class bro or a black american bro. Bernie started to make that point, barely.
I like EW because she is a detailed-oriented technocrat rolled into a political populist. A late comer to politics. Someone willing to base her opinion on facts. What people call hypocrisy for her late switch to the democratic party, I call it a fact-based decision and opinion making process. In business, these are the people I want around me too.
She goes on to Washington during the great depression to advise the Senate on financial reform and becomes an Advisor to Obama, tasked with building up an entire federal agency. Against the odds, she overcame republicans and many Obama cabinet members, using her sheer willpower and convictions, she won my admiration for the rest of my life. With the Consumer Finance Bureau, she did more for working class Americans and further the progressist cause than nearly anyone else.
11
I clicked on the headline eager to learn which was “the issue” dragging down Warren‘s candidacy. Was it being a woman? Was it a perceived lack of clarity on Medicare for all? The DNA episode? I skimmed through and didn’t see anything specifically identified as “the issue”. So I read through carefully and was dismayed to see essentially her entire candidacy is “the issue”. She’s not winning because she’s not winning. Circular reasoning passed off as analysis and voting hasn’t even started.
6
Anyone who has studied her "wealth tax" proposal, it practicality, history, passibility, and constitutionality, know we are more likely to find a mountain in Colorado filed with gold bars than it funding her programs.
6
Warren's biggest problem is that Sanders is running which splits up the progressive vote, which is the political base for both. She does seem to be getting some support from center-left voters but with several candidates running to her right there are only a limited number of center-left voters she can count on. As long as Sanders remains in the race I don't think Warren will have much chance, I think she needs to clearly get more votes than Sanders in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada to establish herself as the number one progressive candidate. I think she really needs to go after Sanders on the purity stuff and whatever else he may be vulnerable on. She needs to get out of that mutual agreement they made of not attacking each other and go on the attack against Sanders. I think that is her only chance. Her campaign may have realized that based on the charge that he told a woman cannot win. It comes down to he said versus she said I tend to believe Warren on this one.
38
@Bob
True, but f you add up all the moderates poll numbers they are far ahead of the combined Warren/Sanders scenario which makes sense because even among Dems only about 45% identify themselves as liberals. Then you have all the independents and moderates to court in the General Election as well.
3
@Bob
Senator Warren's problem is not Senator Sanders, nor sexism, nor the price tag of her M4A. Her problem is a popular perception among many voters that Senator Warren has misrepresented facts in many instances (e.g., Indian heritage, her children's attending private school, her "dismissal" due to pregnancy, etc.), and that she is not forthcoming with unfavorable information (e.g. how to fund her M4A). Trump exploited the perception of "untrustworthiness" of Secretary Clinton even though there was no objective evidence, and that she was (and still is) the most qualified. In the case of Senator Warren, unfortunately, the perception is self-inflicted. It also shows her lack of political instinct which is important to be an effective leader. Her electability problem is self-inflicted.
12
We have then established one of them is a liar
2
Bernie supposedly questions electability and he gets eviscerated.
But then this article talks about the same issue in depth.
Really folks? Really?
It’s not about dollars spent on ads. It’s not about external genitalia.
It’s about ideas on the table and whether people can picture you in the Oval Office. And do they *want* you in charge. Ultimately, plausibility trumps likability.
4
It’s more than just beating Trump — although that is essential. But if we beat Trump and then usher in another era of continuing divisiveness, this country is headed for even worse days. Any candidate can say they want to bring people together, but if you’re saying that while cooking up a beef with the candidate next door, implying religious conservatives can’t get a date, or getting sucked into a trumpland tussle about Native American ancestry, you’re not not bringing people together, even if you do “win”
3
The New York Times is conducting a campaign against Elizabeth Warren with articles like this. The Times continually hammers away about how her ideas are to ambitious and about what a disadvantage she has as a woman running for president. Not a very subtle way of telling readers to think such negative thoughts. Be advised editors, we see you.
3
No one on that stage will or can beat Trump.
Biden was running on fumes, unable to speak complete sentences without closing his eyes.
He looked horrible. Time for life support.
Bernie literally ran off the stage at break time, bent forward in the classic geriatric stance of " I gotta go, and I gotta go NOW!". Someone get that man a catheter.
Warren wanted to rip Bernie's eyes out. She refused to shake his hand after the debate.
Pete was mr. nice. The honor high school student. Floating in a sea of crazies.
Amy was making a last ditch effort before sending out an SOS call prior to her defeat on 3 February.
Steyer has become an echo chamber for the far left.
The only one who can beat Trump and save the Dems is a nice Jewish billionaire from NYC.
He has organized a national presidential campaign in 33 states with 1,000 full time staff. They are getting it done.
Mike Bloomberg will go on to defeat Trump, win the election and be our next and best president.
9
@Simon Sez
Spot on.
3
Well done. Truth jumps forth from your summary. Please keep speaking out.
1
From the headline "The Issue That Is Dragging Down Elizabeth Warren in Iowa" to the text, the NYT seems to be trying to do to Elizabeth Warren what it did to Bernie Sanders in 2016. Negative coverage; many attempts to slow or kill momentum; pandering to moderates.
What the NYT does not realize is that it is hearing zebras, not horses, when it puts its ear to the ground and listens to the Democratic electorate. Please start doing more unbiased coverage of the candidates and less negative-leaning analysis of their non-status quo plans and goals. Are the corporate, financial, and healthcare lobbyists also meeting with news editors? Seems so.
2
She is a shrill voiced technocrat. A hypocrite at that...look at her legal work. She will never be a leader, despite her ambition.
6
Any promise to pay out reparations will meet with electoral defeat in 2020. Blacks have been the recipients of over one trillion dollars in entitlement and transfer payments pursuant to the passage of the Great Society legislative package in 1965. What do we have to show for all this largesse that cost the taxpayer so much? How to prove that a person is actually descended from chattel slaves brought from Africa may or may not be problematic in this age of DNA testing but reparations are a vindictive racist initiative, one that will sink any candidate foolish enough to advocate them.
5
I see the NYT is preparing us for a repeat of their 2016 tricks. I can hear it now. Biden is Hillary redux with a gender change.”Yes, he made mistakes about the Iraq invasion, etc., etc, but the editorial board hopes he has learned.”
This is the best the NYTs can do?
Negative gossip reporting on the two most dynamic candidates. Always negative coverage of Sanders.
It's too bad these two will split the vote of the most motivated part of the Democratic voters.
3
It's the Rachel Maddox effect.
Ms Warren comes across as a public scold.
2
Precisely why I support EW. Enough with voting with a guy you can have a beer with and ending up with an illegal war on Iraq. We are picking a US President not a barbecue organiser.
3
@Observer
I don't think Rachel comes across that way ay all, she seems very open minded so long as real facts are being debated. I think Rachel is a rare gem in that regard.
3
It would be lovely if the Times could simply report the news, instead of writing wistfully about what they wish the news was.
4
Everyone like Senator Warren. The issue is she is alienating too many groups with her grand plans (medicare for all v. those that like their hard earned insurance); break-up of US technology dominance (one of our few economic bright spots in World Economy) etc. She appears too stubborn to listen to these groups and come up with a softer position that meets the needs of the majority needed to beat Trump.
3
According to the CDC website total U.S. healthcare expenditures in 2017 were $3.5 trillion, and the Centers for Medicate and Medicaid Services projects these costs to grow to $6.0 trillion by 2027 — for a total 10-year cost of over $45.0 trillion.
In other words, even if Warren’s Medicare For All program wound up costing twice what’s been estimated, it would still be less than our current system would cost, and by expanding coverage would provide substantially better outcomes.
Whether people should be forced to be on Medicare For All is a legitimate question for debate; but only a universal single-payor program has the potential to achieve both truly universal coverage and better outcomes, at less cost (through negotiated blanket pricing and much lower administrative costs) than what we’re doing now.
I wish responsible news media like the Times would cut through the fog to make these facts clear to the public.
2
@Cinclow20
Our current total outlays are around 3.5 trillion and we are already running close to a 1 trillion deficit. To pay for a plan that covers everything would likely add a couple of trillion to our entire yearly outlays - thus we would need to double our revenues to pay for it and break even. This means doubling taxes. Yes- double! This would cause an uproar even if the middle class was to save overall, it would be quite a shock for a lot of folks. Thus, the more gradual and incremental approach of the moderates is the better way to get there. Besides, we need to address climate change too.
1
@Meg
Correction:
Our total revenues are about 3.5 trillion (not outlays) with a trillion dollar deficit = total outlays of about 4.5. This still does not invalidate that we would essentially need to double revenues to pay for M4A and eliminate the deficit, and then we need revenues for other programs as well.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-08/55551-CBO-outlook-update_0.pdf
1
@Meg, you missed the point. We’re already spending $3.5 trillion, in taxes, out-of-pocket, co-pays and insurance premiums — that’s much more on a per-capita basis or as a percentage of GDP than any other country, and it’s more than MFA is projected to cost. Does it make a difference to an average family whether they pay a dollar in taxes or a dollar in premiums and co-pays?
And what are we getting from the current system? Worse health outcomes than any peer nation (i.e., untreated illnesses and premature deaths), tens of millions of Americans with no coverage at all, and families driven into bankruptcy.
MFA is one way to slow or reverse the rate of inflation in healthcare costs, and if funded through progressive taxes, a way to share costs in a way that reduces the burden on working and middle class families and ensures no one has to go bankrupt to pay for medical care.
1
If you're wondering who would make the "most electable" candidate, ask yourself who would make the best President. Honest enthusiasm is infectious.
I hope this time my comment is not first published then taken down like the previous one.
Unfortunately Ms Warren has been caught lying too often and this time with her alleged conversation with Sanders it's the same thing. Read Nathan Robinson's Current Affairs column about this; all the times when Ms Warren lied are listed.
Also a liberal woman won in Massachusetts mostly because she was a liberal in a liberal state. If you go back to Sanders' 1988 video in which, in support of Jesse Jackson, he says that what matters is not whether you are black or white, a woman or a man and adds that of course a woman can win the presidential election then all this bad ploy totally unravels. Warren will go down in ignominy without serving her cause, the cause of women or the cause of all ordinary decent Americans of any race, gender or religion.
4
"Then there are the worries about her ability to unite the party against President Trump as a liberal Democrat, and the sexism she would face from some voters."
Don't forget the sexism from all the newspapers and TV channels reminding everyone who smart women are unelectable.
7
an edit to be made to this article.
When you talk electability, you mention all former presidents, except one, have been white men. That is true. But they have been STRAIGHT white men.
Since we have, for the first time, an openly gay man running for president, it is time newspapers start adding this qualifier in. Every time it is removed, it erases the historic nature of Pete Buttigieg's candidacy.
Her refusal to shake Sander's hand tells me all I need to know about her. She is, in her way, as narcissistic and immature as Trump. Presidents have to be civil to everyone in order to get things done. If her ego is so fragile that she can't shake hands with Sanders, she is unfit to be president.
6
"We have nothing to fear but great itself."
The lesson from the recent UK election is that offering too much of a good thing was a vote loser. They even came up with a term for it: policy incontinence.
1
I really don't think it is Warren's sex dragging her down.
As was pointed out, Hillary not only won the popular vote by a few million, she even won the primary over Bernie by about 2 million votes, as well.
What is dragging her down is the same thing that dragged Bernie down in 2016 - M4A.
Although it is true that other countries have more universal coverages, even the ones that Bernie points to as examples are often nowhere as liberal as his plan. This was often discussed in the primary debates. Things often did not add up with his claims, although it is nice that he has pushed us a bit further towards the goal of improving our healthcare system.
In addition, Klobuchar hit the nail on the head with the fact that even if we were to take the Senate, we would not have the votes to pass M4A (less than 1/2 of Dems identify as liberals and this includes members in Congress)
So, although the idea is worth debate on an intellectual level, it is really a waste of time to run on it as a policy proposal for a new president when it can't pass, and the best the debate at this point can do is to alienate moderates and swing state voters.
We will only have the votes to improve the ACA and add a public option, so that is what we should be debating - how to best do what we can actually do
Thus, focusing on M4A as a policy proposal makes Warren seem as if she is willing to defy logic and is unrealistic
We need to focus on climate change and quit putting our heads in the sand over M4A
6
I like her and I like her policy ideas but I believe she has no chance in a general election.
3
For a long time, I held Warren and Bernie above the rest of the "usual politicians." I consider "usual politicians" to be your typical neoliberal fare: bought and paid for by large donors, and people who fundamentally believe in incremental progress / maintenance of the status quo.
I no longer believe in Warren. Her dishonest attack on Bernie last night felt like a slap in the face to the ideas she and Bernie have been campaigning on. As a Californian, she will never get my vote.
3
The debate process always seemed to advance genuine enlightenment with moderators from the League of Women Voters. They tend to skip over the electability- centric non issues that drag us down counterproductive rabbit hole where we waste precious time and energy.
2
The Storm Lake Times endorsement is a very big deal indeed for Warren in western Iowa. The population of Storm Lake was 10,600 in the 2010 census. This clearly has huge national implications!
This Iowa caucus idiocy can be circumvented. Here's how. Let Mr. Bloomberg (he of the deepest pockets) fund a system which does the following: on Sunday, February 2 (Super Bowl day, one day before the Iowa caucuses) a huge computer bank is set up to receive nationwide text messages at a single number. It runs from 6:00 am EST and Mr. Bloomberg advertises it during his 2 Super Bowl ads now PSAs. All you do is you text the name of the candidate you support to the designated national number. Once you do so, your phone number is noted and thus can't be used twice. During the day the number of people texting is released hour by hour to build excitement, but of course no results are tabulated or announced. That happens as soon as the game is over, and gets announced on TV and is texted to all who voted.
The national data should be very informative, and based on area codes can show your own state results. Oh - and just to preserve the purity of the Iowa caucuses the following day, the four area codes of Iowa will not be allowed to enter this text-based survey, only area codes from the other 49 states.
Wouldn't that be rather meaningful information on the extent of candidate support? Heck it might even help all those professionally undecided folks in Storm Lake, Iowa to make up their minds!
1
Says the New York Times, "Electability is an amorphous concept that intersects with gender and race and can disadvantage those who don’t fit the mold of all but one past president: white men."
No, it's not. This is fatuous nonsence. Whether a particular candidate is "electable" against a particular opponent in a particular election is an informed judgment which may be supported by polling data, feedback from campaign workers in the field, media coverage, and professional political experience. A host of white men are not notably electable this year. Neither are some men who are not white and some women. The only "intersection" we're at is this: one road leads to retiring Donald Trump to his phony businesses. Another gives him four more years to wreck the United States of America.
2
After seeing her complaining so much i saw Mr Bloomberg on a show last night. He shut down 350 coal minds out of 500 and will close the rest. Then he will make the billionaires like Trump and family pay taxes and the churches also i hope. He has my vote. He just better not pick a Republican running mate. I won’t vote at all for him then.
2
So voters in Iowa are worried about how Warren’s big transformational changes will compete against Trump? But they have no problem voting for Bernie (who is ahead of her in the polls)? This is the sexism at the heart of this election.
3
The extreme Trump must be beaten by another extreme candidate, practically the polar opposite, either Warren or Sanders. Where's the passion in voting for Buttigieg, Klobuchar or Biden? Anyone of them is just as likely to be beaten by Trump.Any Democrat is a long shot right now. So go with the gut of doing something for the country to re-align the direction. These 3 moderates will moderate themselves into the same circles that have cursed our nation for over 20 years. If Democrats seriously want someone who is most likely to beat Trump they should be hailing Bloomberg who is more progressive and more activist on some issues.
2
Folks, most of you “know” me, from years of reading my comments. I’m one of the resident known Feminists, with a very strong practical bent and a lot of common sense. I’m proud of that. My heart is with Warren. That said, there are just too many Voters that will NOT vote for a Woman for President. Any Woman, and especially outside of the Coasts. What to do, besides waiting for the old misogynistic types to die off ???
A unity ticket. Biden/Warren, in that order. It’s the logical and common sense solution, and brings together the two main factions of the Democratic Party.
The ONLY thing that matters is defeating Trump, and beginning to undo the damage He and his Collaborators have wrought.
Step up, VP Biden and Senator Warren. Do it for America, do it for ALL our Children. I’m begging you both.
1
When has Warren led in Iowa by more than a point or two? Or pulled away in any meaningful way?
1
Canceling student debt on day one lost my vote. I paid off my school loans and pre paid for my child and Warren wants to wipe out 1.6 trillion in student loans for irresponsible people. Unlike healthcare, higher education is optional and the loans and assumed debt to get one was their first lesson. Most Americans will not support "something for nothing" and will vote accordingly.
7
Her agenda will sell very well, thank you. The substance of her plans is very much what most voters want. Also, her sharpness and articulateness, along with her communicative ability, would be altogether too much for Trump. However, the irritating thought persists: why is this sleazy criminal still in the White House? He shouldn’t even be in the debate.
2
For what it’s worth: it really is sad and pathetic that a tiny primary State like Iowa wields so much political power in elections. Entire huge States like NY and California are relegated to obscurity in our Presidential elections. It’s the same problem with the Senate. Small States have outsized power which leaves the majority of citizens in this country captive to a small majority.
@Mike L California and New York obscurity? Try New Jersey in June. Still, Iowa does not effect my vote. Why should it?
Warren has decent policies, but a terrible political instinct.
Her new lame attempt to go after Bernie is just a new example of this issue out of many.
It's extremely unlikely that she will ever be president.
3
Democrat's greatest flaw is believing they cannot win on a Liberal Agenda.
Never once have I heard or seen a Republican candidate (for anything) run from-shy-away-from the label of Conservative, or Extremely Conservative; they wear the label as a badge of honor.
In 2016 the bevy of GOP presidential candidates fell all over themselves trying to define themselves as the most conservative of the bunch. People (the electoral college) elected an imbecile...which demonstrates, the more the message is heard...the better it sounds. Every current Democratic candidate has adopted some portion of Bernie Sander's 2016 message...Now-as-before, the media has worked hard to make him disappear....it's overt and those who care need to take heed.
1
My hope is that the people of Iowa give Senator Warren a swift kick out of Iowa. Don’t come back!
In citing her own electoral success, she neglected to mention that she’s only won two elections. Compared to Bernie and Joe, she’s a neophyte. Perhaps if she had been in politics for as long as them, she too might have lost an election somewhere along the line. Playing the gender card in this way is typical is typical of her mendacity. She’s been called on so many claims, from her faux Indian heritage, to being fired for being pregnant and her mM4A cost estimates, that her credibility is at least suspect. In a “he said/she said argument, Bernie wins.
3
i have Medicare and my private insurance now that I'm retired.
between the two I pay next to nothing out of pocket for my medical care ,monthly premiums only.
I'm much happier with what I have now than with what I had previously and I was very happy with just my private insurance.
4
Electing Elizabeth Warren would obviously rescue us from our current nightmare, but would also carry the delicious gift of Trump
spending every remaining day being reminded that: “he got beat by a girl.” It doesn’t get any better than that.
80
@Shiva
You gloat over something that has not happened. Trump would enjoy clips of Warren losing on election night, too. So what?
5
@Shiva "Quels enfantillages!" I have difficulty believing that some comments are actually written by educated adults!TRUMP, elected by 63 million of us who believe in FAIR PLAY, that a candidate whom the Democratic Party and the liberal media have it in for cannot be all that bad, and is actually, after Obama, the best possible c-in c for America, WHO KEEPS HIS PROMISES is the victim of such contumely, which is why the EB needs strengthening, in need of reporters who see all sides of a question, who do not select on the basis of the commenter's anti or pro Trump bias, but on the basis of the comment's educative value!Where are the William Safires, R.W. Apples, Tom Wickers, Westbrook PEGLERS when we really need them?Suggest that you return to college to learn about Descartes, father of logical analysis, and about how to write an expository essay in miniature!
1
@Shiva and it's never going to happen in a million years. She's a phony and a liar. Lying about who she is is a sin Americans will not forgive.
2
Iowan Democrats must realize political tinkering and tacking toward the middle won’t address the corrupt form of capitalism that has has wrecked the American Dream and threatens democracy with an endless legal stream of corrupt funds of, by, and for the super-rich and multinational corporations.
Warren has the best understanding of the horrible effects of unregulated corrupt capitalism and the most complete set of policies to restore opportunity to all Americans.
Vote your hearts Iowans, electing Elizabeth Warren to the presidency. Hated by bankers and the super-rich, as was FDR, her egalitarian vision gives her real potential to be the FDR of our era.
87
@dt Here is the problem with your post: Iowans don't solely elect a candidate for the presidency. We have another 49 states. Giving Warren a strong mandate early on that may not be sustainable could harm the democratic chances for victory in 2020.
I wish my fellow democrats would understand, this election is about getting Trump out. Warren is not going to appeal to the swing voters who got Trump into office. Only a moderate can.
7
@N
"Iowans don't solely elect a candidate for the presidency. We have another 49 states."
And 41 of them do not matter when it comes to electing a president.
That we even have a presidential contest outside the 8 swing states is cruel. Among the 85% of the U.S. population who live in the 41 "irrelevants," even those who bother to vote might as well leave the top line blank, for all the difference it makes.
2
@N ...this is part of the continuing damage Trump/Gop does to our country. We can't move ahead to reach 21st century standards of democracy and fairness. The most mediocre Democrat can win, and look saint-like vs Trump.
We are stuck--- stuck with 'swing' voters who have been well propagandized.
Maybe 2024 or 28, or later, when the younger generation is in the majority--we can get unstuck.
Elizabeth Warren has never lost an election. That's a really good point.
Keep in mind, though, that George McGovern never lost a presidential election in Massachusetts either.
5
@Allen Rebchook
And Walter Mondale never lost one in Minnesota, as I recall.
2
Please stop with the out of context historical comparison. Just finished a Nixon biography: 1972 was the year Nixon’s “Silent Majority” of turning the Deep South red finally paid off. McGovern had very little to do with that. Deep white resentment and anxiety post Civil Rights as well as a strong anti-Vietnam undercurrent had everything to do with it. In 1972, any democrat, left or right wing, would have been crushed.
1
People who are afraid to lose, usually experience their worst fear. Those Democrats too afraid of big change are going to get it anyway - the big, disastrous change delivered by another 4 years of Trump.
And why is the meme "Everyone who has health insurance loves it" allowed to go unchallenged. Where is the poll of these people attesting to this claim? Most people I know who have health insurance are NOT happy, especially with the premiums, co-pays, and out-pocket expenses. Given a choice of whether to keep what they have - at the cost of it - or to get as good or better coverage for no cost, do you really think people will choose to keep their plan?
Further, why is it that Liz and Bernie are the only ones who have to justify the cost? What about the cost of the existing system, including the federal budget outlay and the total cost of everyone's insurance costs? You don't think that adds up to far more than MFA estimates?
It will take energy, passion, and courage to beat Trump. Both Bernie and Liz possess these qualities, far more than "Sleepy Joe" and the rest.
3
When will the Left realize that Mrs. Warren is inauthentic and has her feet firmly planted in the air? She was conservative and Republican for the majority of her life and now all of sudden she is the darling of the Left. Bernie is the only true candidate on the stage.
2
Myth or fact: - the best way to beat a 'right wing' politicians is with a 'left wing' politician.
In the key swing states like Michigan and Florida, the voters in the middle (indepedents and moderates may decide the election). Voters across the nation should consider this before they select someone like Warren or Bernie...
1
This is “I’m afraid my neighbors won’t vote for her even though they like her” sentiment is a great argument for Ranked Voting.
1
I'm not sure if I would vote for Biden under any circumstances. I also think that how to pay for M$A is a red herring basically pushed by Republicans. The important fact is how much families are paying now for health care. Add up insurance premiums, prescription drugs and medical devices you pay each year and call it a tax. Instead, probably less than that would go to support M4A. This pay for idea needs to be clarified by candidates every single day.
2
Regarding electability of Senator Warren, this report omitted an important factor - a popular perception among many voters that Senator Warren has misrepresented facts in many instances (e.g., Indian heritage, her children's attending private school, her "dismissal" due to pregnancy, etc.), and that she is not forthcoming with unfavorable information (e.g. how to fund her M4A). Trump exploited the perception of "untrustworthiness" of Secretary Clinton even though she was (and still is) the most qualified candidate and even though there is no objective evidence. In the case of Senator Warren, unfortunately, the perception is self-inflicted. It also shows her lack of political instinct which is important to be an effective leader.
Her electability is not about sexism.
10
The real issue dragging Warren down is her unpopularity with the corporate press, including, to a disheartening degree, with the NYT.
She is the only candidate to systematically challenge the increasingly oligarchic structure of American society in this era of end-stage capitalism, and corporate juggernauts that manage the flow of information do not want to be challenged. So, political reporting is reduced to the statistical metrics consistent with sporting events and the occasional color piece about who shook who's hand.
3
Though they owned up and admitted their sins after it was too late, the NYT pretty much excised Bernie Sanders from timely, relevant reporting, even going so far as to alter headlines after the fact. I think there's a similar effort at work with Elizabeth Warren, except that rather than omitting her, the reporting tends to spotlight isolated or transient items and globalize them into ominous blanket flaws and insurmountable threats. Wherefore this animus towards Elizabeth Warren? As with Bernie, it might have something to do with the candidates' potential impact on a publicly traded company's bottom line; i.e., Selective omissions and/or bashing for adding shareholder value.
It seems those who claim to be democrats, forget what the party REALLY used to stand for and it was NOT trying to emulate Republicans. That is why the country got Trump in the first place!
2
Terrible corporate framing by the NY Times as usual.
Sanders is surging...there is a huge desire for structural change. That is not the issue.
Warren made several tactical mistakes. Her campaign was always about tackling corruption, which is the right idea in my view. She needed to situate herself outside the traditional left-right ideological battles to be the "uniter" that she wanted to be.
Instead she tried to run too close to Sanders, got attacked by corporate media and simultaneously rebuffed by the Sanders left and then changed course on M4A which also pleased no one.
She has tried to re-center her campaign on corruption rather than big ideological policies but it might be too late a switch for her.
By Super Tuesday, it is likely going to be Biden Vs Sanders...and the primary will be fought along the traditional left vs corporate divide.
trump will have a billion dollars to run endless attack ads and Warren has unilaterally disarmed by refusing large donations. It is going to be a one-sided bloodbath and I hope we choose someone else.
Bloomberg can’t be bought and he’s quite tough to beat.
2
That Warren can win Massachusetts is laudable. However, the most important test and the critical question is whether she can and will win all or most of six critical swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Winning Massachusetts, or even California, Illinois, and New York, goes for nought if she cannot cut it in these six swing states. Warren’s ability to win in these swing states is doubtful. That is why the Democrats must look elsewhere for a presidential candidate.
4
I agree Senator Warren might not match up well against Trump. It’s more than the bones of her platform. There are intangibles in her presentation - she comes across as a professor displaying a sense of exasperation knowing the rest of us will never be able to fully see it on her level. Of course in the case of Trump this would be true, but he would find ways to bring out her worst.
55
@RJH Lad, Trump will demolish the professor. It has nothing to do w/gender, it's simply the Kennedy approach of I know best for you now do as I say. This would be Dukakis 2.0.
7
@Northcountry uh huh. And a woman could be president just not this woman. It's never THIS woman. Any theoretical woman would do but not any real one-- no matter how qualified (- just don't like her. It's her voice. It's her manner. It's her hair). But of course, that's not misogyny. Is it?
22
@Michele Underhill
HRC would have been great.
We need to be careful what we beg for. The Republicans will likely have Nikki Haley ready to serve up in 2024 - if not in 2020, if Trump decides he needs her. Then what? Will we be saying it’s not time for that particular woman?
4
Yes, Warren lost ground when she did Bernie's homework for him. Acknowledging the outcry from those committed to their private health plans, she came out with a modified plan. She will take three years to expand Medicare so that it will compete favorably with private health plans. After three years, she'll put it to a vote. If Medicare doesn't prove itself better, then private plans deserve to survive. She spells out ways she'll cut waste in the existing system, inequities of billing, drug pricing. She will include long term care, dental and mental health care in an improved Medicare. She spells out how her plan will be paid for. And she has figures for the huge cost of an ever more expensive ACA. To me, a primary care physician, Warren has understood much of my daily frustrations with the inefficiencies, the gaps in our current system. I see ACA as a good beginning in a corporate dominant nation, but it is not above improvement.
In SF and in Sacramento, we will have review sessions of Warren's plans (pop up politics, pints and politics). I still believe in education; learn about Warren's plans and how they unite us in addressing the most common needs of medical care, housing, environment and economic justice.
190
@citizen vox
Being President is NOT all about health care.
4
@citizen vox hi when and where in Sacramento?
1
@T
Pints and Politics
Kupros Craft House
1217 21st St
Sacramento Ca
Saturday 2/1/20. 6-8 pm
Sign up on events on elizabethwarren.com
Do search by city date
They are on the ground in Ca
Ask if you can have it in your area
3
I really wanted to like Warren. She is a woman and an academic like myself, and we need more of both in the government. But I was put off by her rhetoric of class envy and resentment against “the rich” - a nebulous concept that has no clear definition and seems to include everybody who is better off than a cashier in Walmart. Her plans are either impractical, unnecessary, or both. Wealth tax was repealed in almost every European country that tried it. Breaking up tech companies will likely have the effect of stifling innovation. And her program of M4A outlaws private insurance altogether, which nobody in their right mind wants. So she finds herself in the position of neither fish nor fowl. If you want to live in a country like Venezuela, Bernie is for you. If you want the return to normalcy, take Biden. If you want a smart, young leader who will steer the US into the future of technological innovation and global change, you have Mayor Pete. Warren has lost her narrative, and there is nothing worse for a politician.
122
@Mor
You nailed it.
Warren is not real. She tries to be all things to everyone. When actually she is nothing to the real world - why? She's an academic.
15
@Mor Stop with the tired Venezuala references. It was a petro state steeped in corruption. Socialism was not their problem.
32
@Mor, normalcy? Your normalcy is toxic to this country, and it played a role in electing Donald Trump.
Here's what moderate-Republican lite normalcy has given us:
1. Bill Clinton helped eviscerate Depression-era laws that prevented problems like the housing bubble's burst;
2. Some companies are "too big to fail," so moderates just let millions of individual Americans crash instead.
3. The ACA did nothing to stop runaway drug pricing and gouging by hospitals.
4. Moderate Democrats are now embracing the lie that our current healthcare system gives us "choices." See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/14/opinion/healthcare-choice-democratic-debate.html
5. I didn't see the minimum wage go up during the Obama years --- not even when Dems had control of the House and Senate.
6. Innovation typically comes from the little guys, not the giant behemoths. Giants don't need to innovate.
Etc.
31
The media keeps questioning Warren's "electability," while often giving other candidates, like Biden, a free pass. The media ponders how Warren's programs will be paid for when she has already specified that in detail, and yet doesn't seem to seriously question how much we are spending on the military. Do you see a pattern here? It's called "centrist bias," and it afflicts all coverage of progressive candidates.
172
@JS
Yes, she has provided a lot of detail. But detail does not equal practicality and many of her ideas for raising funds are just implausible. Moreover, she has made major strategic mistakes (Native America DNA, proposing the termination of all private insurance) that cause some of us to question her political judgment. In the end, like many, I will support any Democratic candidate who emerges -- while carefully noting that this excludes Sanders, who is not a Democrat. But we have to WIN in 2020, not just fight.
20
@JS Yes, the NY Times does an excellent job of this! I couldn't agree more. Biden gets a free pass with centrist bias. Plus, saying that Elizabeth Warren "seems like the candidate to beat" in Iowa, despite Bernie Sanders leading the polls there. It would be too progressive to give these candidates what they're actually due, I'm afraid. I choose not to get too caught up in the recent tit for tat that CNN made fools of themselves over. Warren and Sanders have it all over Biden, but we who know this must endure a lot of weird media coverage....
6
Your comment shows that there is a vast difference between reading and understanding.
3
Like anyone who cares about equal opportunity, I am frustrated by the "glass ceiling" that so often keeps women from achieving their full potential. I understand the anxiety about "electability" in the 2020 presidential race and the question about whether Americans "are ready" for a woman president. But I have also come to realize that those questions ARE the glass ceiling. I refuse to be part of this trap any more. If we're
not ready" now, then when? Another 8 years? Another 80 years?? Elizabeth Warren is a terrific candidate and has my wholehearted support. And yes, I believe she can win and win big.
102
@Anne Marie Holen more white women voted for Trump in 2016 than they did for Clinton. If you want to blame anyone for the glass ceiling blame the people that look like you.
4
@Anne Marie Holen
If you believe she can win, I'd like some of what you're smoking. She lied about WHO she is. She used that lie to earn her Harvard pedigree and made millions in the process. She's even less likable than Hillary Clinton. President Trump will destroy her in an election. Americans hate phonies. He is not one, you may not like him, but he is who he is. Not this woman.
4
@Anne Marie Holen Just imagine she’s a 45 year old white guy instead. She’s a bright academic who’s made a lot of good points, taught Harvard and been a successful senator.... now what do you feel about candidate Mr Warren? If I visualize her as a him, I just find myself more likely to shrug, not less. Her being a woman adds to her cachet in my mind, rather than undermine. Still, I do not find her very persuasive in the end. But if she were a he, even more so. I find it amazing, devastating, that I’m this entire country not one reasonable democratic candidate can come forth who can beat trump, a bonafide dunce, but a genius huckster.
1
While Elizabeth Warren has a lot of positives, there is too much drama surrounding both her and positions on issues to unite voters to vote against Trump. Add to it the echoes that sound like a repeat of Hillary's mistakes (playing the victim, knowing what is best for everyone), and the constant whining about early hardships that make her sound like she was born in a log cabin next to Lincoln, and she doesn't sound like the optimistic leader that is needed after four years of Trump. She would be great in a cabinet position or can do great work if she stays in the Senate, but there are better candidates both female and male that can go head to head with Trump and put across a positive agenda that is the opposite of his and sound a lot less like a lecturing school marm. Any of them would alienate fewer voters than Warren would if she was the nominee.
89
@Kevin
Sad to say, but I agree.
I
14
@Kevin I typically don’t respond to comments, but it’s a presidential election. What campaign is without drama? The 2016 Sanders campaign paid women less than men. Somehow the person at the top of the ticket was unaware. Staffers and the NYT have noted how demanding it is to work for the Klobuchar campaign. Biden has consistent gaffes. It seems like there’s enough drama to go around. I’m generally concerned about the candidates. Biden during debates has been inarticulate. Sanders has great ideas, but he never explains how he’ll execute those ideas. Buttiegeg has been the Mayor of a city smaller than Baton Rouge, but he’s qualified to run the country? Comparatively the women on stage have much stronger resumes. Sanders spent the last 30 years complaining about inequality, but Warren created an agency that addressed it. If Klobuchar were a man with the same resume from the Midwest, she’d probably be the front runner. Considering Buttiegeg hasn’t even done a great job of managing his small city. Somehow the women would be much better in cabinet positions? I believe there’s a difference between playing a victim and inequality. If I were a woman, I’d be extremely annoyed at the men on stage. The standards for them are so much lower. I think in America we often tell women and minorities to wait or to take a lesser role despite their qualifications. If they’re the most qualified and most liked, why don’t we give them a chance?
45
@Kevin Ditto. I also feel like this is Hillary 2.0. As a graduate-degrees woman I would love to see a woman president but Warren doesn’t do it for me. After listening to The Daily interview with her my lack of enthusiasm solidified. She seems self-righteous and uncompromising. And while she may have a plan for healthcare among others I feel it will be “more complicated than anyone knew” and fail without substantial buy-in from physicians and nurses. Same goes for Sanders. You can’t upend massively complex $3 trillion per year enterprise in a few years.
9
I think what scares moderates most is not that Warren’s plans are unrealistic or unaffordable but that they actually could work. Many simply fear change and believe they will somehow be on the losing end of one thing or another if it happens. I suspect if social security didn’t exist and Warren was proposing it, moderates would question how we’d pay for it, and Republicans would claim it was nothing more than a socialist plot to buy votes. If you’re up in the air on any of this, consider just how risky and costly it is to marry heath care to employment. Losing health care because you’ve lost your job makes absolutely no sense. Seems we are the only industrialized country that thinks it does.
131
@Richard Frank brilliantly put.
5
If you are worried about employer based healthcare leaving people in the cold if they lose their jobs (a main argument for M4A) then make it portable. You get help on the transition time to next job - funded by prior employer and / or the federal government. Next employer picks it up.
But don’t restrict the plans that people can negotiate with their employers - many done with union help - to a single type. You lose the incentive for innovation and customer service and it’s too disruptive for the many who are in fact covered.
You could of course tax as income the value of plans over a certain baseline.
1
@Richard Frank I think the other thing that scares people about her is her fearlessness in pursuing answers to problems that people are suffering from and willingness to go all the way in finding answers from listening, thinking, researching. She is radical in her persistence.
9
Vote your convictions and principles. No one has any idea of who the most "electable" candidate will turn out to be. Trump's primary campaign promise was "Let's build a beautiful wall and make Mexico pay for it." Usually coupled with "Lock her up". He won. So please don't tell me Medicare For All is an impractical pipe dream and a sure loser. Many voters with some employer organized health insurance (we all understand we pay for our insurance, not our employers, right?) are acutely aware that their family's medical care is no more secure than their job - which is to say not at all. Many employers would much rather not be in the insurance organizer role but would rather focus on their business.
75
@KenC
I would love to free myself from my employers medical and keep costs down. Right now we have no choice and if something happens there is always the question of being able to keep it. If you are truly sick and you lose your ability to keep your job and your medical what good is that?
How many of us pay $10 of thousands per year to show up a few times a year and they keep upping the costs faster than wages.
5
@KenC agreed. "I love my health insurance company" said no one, ever.
4
@Michele Underhill
I appreciate the coverage I get from employer based healthcare. And I wouldn’t trade it in for higher taxes and guaranteed m4a to save my life
Because I know- and trust me anyone making 75k or more knows- you’ll be paying multiples more, for less, with any government run system.
It’s not about healthcare that Bernie and Warren are pitching. They’re attempting to “level the playing field”. And the public, more or less, sees that.
1
Warren's "decision in November to release her own sprawling Medicare for all proposal has particularly damaged her standing with moderates who balk at the plan’s $20.5 trillion cost"
This is poor, misleading reporting by the NYT and the press.
The $20.5 trillion 'cost' is over a ten year period, so the 'cost is $2 trillion annually.
We presently spend 17% of GDP (GDP = $20 trillion) on healthcare which is $3.4 trillion annually on healthcare.
Warren's annual projected $2 trillion 'cost' would be lower than the our current $3.4 trillion annual healthcare costs...because medical extortion, greed and excess profits would be regulated out.
That creates an annual national healthcare cost savings of $1.4 trillion each year.
The major difference is that instead of Americans dealing with 500 different commercial health insurers, monthly insurance premiums, copays, deductibles and nickel and diming operations, Americans would have none of that headache and premiums would be paid in the form of taxes....but the overall costs to Americans would be LOWER and everyone would be covered instead of our current Rube Goldberg contraption.
Senator Warren's plans are quite sound and thoughtful and benefit the average American; and if you're afraid of progress, remember, the President is not a king or queen...legislation must be passed by the House and Senate before the President signs it....so there's plenty of opportunity compromise.
Relax, Iowa, and vote for Warren.
She's a jackpot !
320
@Socrates That’s not quite right. The cost of her plan is $52 trillion over 10 years. Of which, according to Warren, $6.1 trillion is pushed to the states $26 moved from existing federal spending (Medicare, Medicaid, VA) and $20 trillion in NEW spending.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-releases-plan-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all.html
6
@Socrates: Right on, brother, unfortunately, too many people buy the lies about universal single payer and freak out over facts they don't bother to educate themselves on.
10
@Socrates
Hear, hear!
5
I appreciated this article, thank you. Can we have something similar for each of the other candidates? I am not alone in questioning how any of the frontrunners, especially Sanders, plan to pull off, much less pay for, any of their plans.
3
I'm surprised that articles on Warren and Sanders don't comment on the degree of opposition to them by Democratic donors affiliated with Wall Street, big tech, big, pharma. and other corporate sectors. This is a major reason why at least one centrist, posing as the pro-business and "electable" alternative to Warren or Sanders, is likely to be in the contest to the end.
22
I have Medicare and love it because I had really bad medical insurance before I turned 65. However, I appreciate the fact that not everyone feels the way I do and likes their medical insurance.
My question to Elizabeth Warren is - before you take away people's jobs you have to replace it with something else. Millions of people have jobs in our healthcare industry and millions will lose their jobs. How are you going to make sure that these people find other employment first?
I'm sure they'd like to know that before they consider voting for you.
13
Nearly everyone I know, democrats all, personally dislike her. More women than men. That she refused to shake Sanders hand after the debate seems so in character for her.
I think that is at the heart of her failing campaign, not the policy proposals. Not everyone is meant to be President. Personally, I would love to see Klobuchar catch fire, though it seems unlikely.
29
Just because someone sticks out their hand, one has to shake it? He's up to his tricks again, and knows that she knows it.
I would like to see Klobuchar catch fire too. Just like the Honeymooners joke: Ed asks, “Ralph, do you mind if I smoke?” And Ralph replies, “I don’t care if you burn.”
Can we get real? We are one of the richest countries on the face of the planet.
We can do whatever we decide we need to do.
We can decide we need to fully educate our people, address climate change in a determined and innovative way that will employ millions of our citizens, we can, and must, rebuild our infrastructure for the 21st-century and beyond. We can provide healthcare for every citizen. We can do everything that urgently needs to be done in this country, and we have the money to do it.
The question is whether or not we prefer to give giant tax cuts to billionaires and corporations and continue to build expensive and useless military hardware instead.
We can do whatever we decide to do. All we need to do is figure out what’s most important to us, and then do it.
59
Very well said. No one questions gigantic military spend. However , when it comes to affordable healthcare, candidates are asked to explain how they would fund it. Did Trump explain how he planned the budget deficit he created with enormous corporate tax cuts?
1
Warren will say anything to get elected. She totally lost me in every way with her recent mantra to forgive students loans her first week in office with an executive order. That may win over over the students (most of whom won't even show up to vote in 2020) but it will also alienate many hardworking people like me who aren't in favor of multi-billion dollar handouts. She will not win over moderates and Republicans.
34
I consider myself a progressive Democrat. When it wasn't popular to be a liberal, I called myself a flaming liberal. That said, I just don't believe that Medicare for All is the right policy for our country at this time ... for any number of reasons. All of which is to say that I would like to vote for Elizabeth Warren, but I think it was poor judgement on her part, just as it was for Kamala Harris, to raise her/their hands when asked if they backed MFA. I
And, honestly, it is beyond me why the Democrats have put so much emphasis on health care, as important as it is, when what Obama-Trump voters really want is an infrastructure program that would put them back to work while improving the sorry state of our roads, bridges, telecommunications, etc.
I guess that makes me a conservative Democrat
16
That is quite a journey you took. In the course of one reply to the NYT you started by calling yourself a “progressive Democrat” with a brief stop at “flaming liberal” finally to arrive at “conservative Democrat”. I got whiplash just reading it.
1
Healthcare proposals seems to be what most if not all the candidates are talking. That's all well and good because our existing medical coverage system is seriously dysfunctional. So good for them for focusing on it.
But at the end of the debates and the discussions, it is the Senate along with the House who will be the final arbiters of what healthcare coverage will look like which was the process used to bring ACA to life. What emerged was not BHO's original ideas, but something like the definition of a camel, a horse designed by a committee.
I'd rather see the candidates engage in discussions on voter suppression which is going on right under our noses throughout this country, and foreign meddling/attacks on our elections. If this isn't addressed and then fixed, it doesn't matter what any candidate has to say.
6
Electability is often more about symbolism and perception than policy. Many working class people voted for Reagan and Trump because of what they symbolized even though their polices hurt working class interests. Sen. Warren’s polices are bold and imaginative. But to many, her polices do not represent something new. Her policies represent more big government and a Washington solves all mentality. Symbolically, she is the past.
Symbolism has worked for the Democrats in the past. Bill Clinton, a young governor from a rural state, ran against a sitting president who was the former head of the CIA, a UN ambassador and WW 2 hero. Everyone expected Clinton to select a seasoned running mate to add gravitas to the ticket. Instead he chooses a man younger than himself from a neighboring small state. The choice symbolically transformed the election into a generational choice – the information age guys vs. the cold warrior.
In this election cycle the refrain “too many old white men running for president” represents a powerful thought running through the electorate. It has profound symbolic potential. A Klobucher-Booker ticket could be the symbolic answer to “too many old white men running for president" and transform epicenter of the election into one of generational change.
7
Great comment and insight! First time I see the election from this perspective
2
We need to acknowledge that there are two ways to assess the Democratic candidates; their policy positions, domestic and foreign and, informed by the most up-to-date and credible data, who is best able to beat Trump in November. We need for Trump to be convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors or voted out of office and there are no three positions by a Democratic candidate that is are as important or consequential to the nation's future as a democracy.
3
Iowa has 6 electoral votes out of 538. If losing in Iowa is such a big deal, there is something very wrong with the nomination process.
12
Iowa is just a beginning, and a relatively small one at that. Elizabeth Warren, like Bernie Sanders have very large war chests, and can sustain themselves through the entire primary process.
If she's smart, and she is very much so, her talking points will be adjusted to merge with how the voters are reacting.
Senator Warren has a fire going inside her that won't let up. And she can beat Trump.
5
Warren is up against a demographic reality.
Me.
I have never seen so many parts of the progressive electorate willing to consider radical change. But there are simply too many of me -- privileged boomers who may be among the last generation to retire with generous health care and large private and public pensions -- still alive.
Don't worry about the long-term. I can assure you that as a group we are currently doing our part by dying at pretty much at the rates predicted by actuaries. That's right, you really can look forward to the day when our admittedly tired tales of tie-dye shirts and huarachi sandals will be silenced.
Until then, though, I am afraid that we are simply still too numerous and self absorbed -- especially those of us who are affluent suburban voters in swing states -- to consider voting for a primary candidate who even thinks about upending decades of our careful planning about how we would handle health care in our retirement. Single-payer, for all its wisdom and economic justice, is simply a non-starter in Democratic primaries for many of us.
I say this with all the shame that I should feel. But those like Sen Warren seeking the nomination have to understand the continued prevalence of this deeply felt selfishness.
There is no Democrat imaginable we would oppose in the general election. But "single payer" is deadly in a primary and this is probably the best explanation for Sen Warren's slippage.
18
@Horace Dewey Disgusting but honest. This is how the world got into the battered shape it's in. Thanks.
1
The Electoral College dictates that the Presidential election will be decided by voters in Great Lakes States. This from the UAW web site:
"The UAW has more than 400,000 active members and more than 580,000 retired members in the United States..."
These voters have generous private health insurance they have won through painful strikes over the years. Most live in the Rust Belt. I would love to see Warren President of the United States, but this is her Achilles heel, and, having read this article, it seems that I'm not the only one to realize it.
10
We all need some very simple math as to why it’s all very feasible and how other countries support such sweeping policies- “collecting taxes on the multi billion/trillion dollar companies can pay for MFA in one fell swoop” or pulling our forces out of Yemen, Syria, [insert whatever unpopular place] can pay for all of education”
Many countries serve as simple examples of how we can change the lives of millions of people. It’s not a matter of affording, because we absolutely can, it’s a matter of priorities.
4
Warren’s campaign mantra was “I have a plan for that.” Turns out that she had no plan for Medicare for All (whether you want it or not), a central part of her platform. She has advocated decriminalizing illegal entry into the U.S., reparations for African Americans, the withdrawal of all U.S. troops (later amended to combat troops) from the mid-East. She’s super smart and a valiant campaigner, but those are not winning positions in the handful of mid western states that will determine the next president. An uncharacteristic, offhand comment from Sanders that he may not have even said, is hardly a noteworthy issue, despite what CNN and pundits with air time to fill think.
11
Presumably most voters vote for the person they would prefer to see in the White House, and that has everything to do with "persona" and personal impressions. Just as many people look at "judicial temperament" in considering judges and justices, many people look at presidential temperament. This is also the reason most employers insist upon a personal interview before hiring someone. This goes far beyond gender, age, and interesting policy advocacy. While Warren appears to have a policy position for everything, is never at a lose for words, that is not exactly what most people are looking for in a President. Many voters are looking for someone who seems "presidential" in their view.
2
Warren has a "Plan" for everything, however all these plans still cannot convince enough voters in Iowa.
Is "Liking" a candidate a feasible attribute to elect a person President of the United States?
Probably not since many voters did not like Donald Trump and he won the election.
Look at the current field of Democratic candidates and put them in every scenario that President Trump has gone through before even his first day in office, with the Mueller Investigation right through today with House Democrats and Impeachment and ask yourself, how would these candidates handle everything?
3
@MDCooks8
How wonderful that you know the outcome of the Iowa caucus, even though it's not taking place for another 19 days.
I feel for those early voters. If this past year hasn’t demonstrated that campaigning and fundraising go on far too long, I don’t know what will. I am wondering if one of the super-rich guys is just going to win because of the money he has for ads. At this point, I am going to give to the national committees until we have a clear front runner. I don’t have a lot of discretionary spending and I will not spend it until I know it will do some good. By the time we vote in MD, the nomination is usually clinched.
5
Iowans are the most pampered voters in America. I’m sick of hearing about how weak-minded and cowardly they are.
16
Echoes of Hugo Chavez scare me away
14
@mb , for those that understand history that led to the current tragic situation in. Venezuela, deep concern and even fear are valid responses
Starvation is nothing to make light of. Please read up on the policies that led to the rapid decline in Venezuela
3
An excerpt from this article:
=====
In December, Ms. Warren scored the coveted endorsement of Art Cullen, the Pulitzer Prize-winning editor of The Storm Lake Times, which is based in the northwestern part of the state. When she called to thank him for the endorsement, Mr. Cullen said, he gave her an earful on why she needed to show up more often.
“I’ve not understood why she’s not been present in Iowa as much she should be,” Mr. Cullen said in an interview. “Specifically, I mean western Iowa.”
=====
This is as good an illustration as any of how screwed up the nominating process is. An editor of a small newspaper in a sparsely settled corner of Iowa feels entitled to give advice on campaign strategy to a candidate who is running for a NATIONAL office. Couple this with the televised debates that do no more than give an excuse to media outlets to rate the candidates on their "performance".
Why can't we do better than this?
79
@David Paul
As Storm Lake goes, so goes the nation.
1
"In December, Ms. Warren scored the coveted endorsement of Art Cullen, the Pulitzer Prize-winning editor of The Storm Lake Times, which is based in the northwestern part of the state."
This sentence encapsulates the utter insanity of our presidential nominating process.
48
@mpound The endorsement is a game changer. No?
1
@mpound Even more so when you realize that the publication (its online edition is actually quite good) is a twice weekly and has a circulation under 4,000.
1
I hope that Warren has some dignity left to admit what really took place in her meeting with Bernie, but she appears to be desperate to win at any cost. It seemed like an orchestrated attack on Bernie by the Warren campaign and CNN “moderators” on an over year old private conversation that got “leaked” a couple days before the debate and weeks from the Iowa caucus.
This is what really happened, but certain media are desperately trying to spin the story against Bernie. The same Bernie that wanted Warren to run in 2016 instead of himself.
“Two people with knowledge of the conversation at the 2018 dinner at Warren’s home told The Washington Post that Warren brought up the issue by asking Sanders whether he believed a woman could win. One of the people with knowledge of the conversation said Sanders did not say a woman couldn’t win but rather that Trump would use nefarious tactics against the Democratic nominee.”
“What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could,” Sanders said in the statement. “Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.”
21
The people who want a strong male "coach" to confront a repulsive male bully like Trump will include a significant number of women and a lot of men whose preference for a male is a direct function of their revulsion of Trump.
Senator Warren's boast that she has a better record at winning elections than the male candidates on the stage with her is not going to cut a lot of mustard. Moreover, I doubt that all the fuss about what Bernie Sanders supposedly said about the unelectability of a woman candidate for president is going to hurt him. Sanders voters are ideological as he is and such voters are like Trump's: they don't go anywhere.
Wake up Democrats! NOTHING MATTERS MORE THAN BEATING TRUMP.
11
@David A. Lee To quote the great Vince Lombardi, Winning isn't Everything, it's the Only Thing.
1
@David A. Lee Who is your preferred candidate?
@Gypsy Mandelbaum My dream candidate is in fact, a woman named Michelle Obama. A near-second is a Biden-Michelle Obama ticket, both options guaranteeing the re-utilization of the country's most talented political family, bar none. But I like her not because she's a woman but just because she (and with her Biden) have the talent and the broad appeal. Michael Bennet, Chris van Hollen, Xavier Becerra. Chris Murphy, Steve Bullock and Seth Moulton were also ruled out by the ambitious zeal of self-glorifiers, ideologues and others sucking up the oxygen. At the moment Trump has the office (and the treacherous support of Putin) to mount a horribly hard hate-filled spectacle. The senior leadership of the party were deceived by the election results for the House last year. The country remains in perilous shape, in my view, and the Democrats remain remarkably weaker than pointless current polling data might otherwise suggest.
Funny how this article is framed as Warren losing support because of voters’ fears about her expansive policy proposals when her ideological counterpart, Bernie Sanders, is surging in Iowa. This is just the latest example of the Times pushing the false notion that broad structural change to improve the lives of Americans is not the answer to win the White House. The editors want the status quo preserved above all else and this article’s framing is a perfect example of that.
100
@Wayne Evans I agree. When I saw the subheading for this article, my first thought was, "Well, what about Sanders?"
6
@Wayne Evans
Yep. You nailed it.
@Wayne Evans Agreed!
Am I missing something here...Warren says she is more electable because she has a winning record...from Massachusetts...last two elitist Dems from Massachusetts who ran for President (Dukakis and Kerry) got crushed by George H and George W...that state and Warren’s winning there are in no way indicative of America as a whole.
53
@Will schafer I like her and Bernie and I think similar issues arise for him. While he sounds like he’s never left Brooklyn, he’s from tiny, liberal VT. And while there are several Jewish candidates, I worry that there are people who will never vote for a Jewish president, just as there are those who will never vote for a woman. That’s disgraceful, but we have not even had a winning ticket with a woman or Jewish VP nominee (which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy). Obama’s two victories are just short of miraculous.
1
@Will schafer The Times is merely trying to add shareholder value.
Keep watch for the manipulatively obvious handshake from Warren to Sanders at the soonest opportunity.
9
@James At least six pumps and a pat on the shoulder. Well maybe not the pat on the shoulder. That could be considered inappropriate touching or maybe elder abuse. Thin ice on that one.
Warren could run as Christ incarnate and the only thing she’d unite are independents and Republicans in an election she’d loose in McGovernesque like fashion to Trump.
20
Sadly now more than ever electability will be an ongoing issue throughout the primaries. Yes, she won against a Republican, but be mindful where and how. She took down a 2 year Republican Senator who basically won on a low turnout election against a bad Democratic candidate. Besides the governorship in Massachusetts, the state is one of the most solid blue states out there. Furthermore, her races were somewhat close since has had issues with the blue collar vote compared to Ted Kennedy or others.
I digress, but electability will be an issue due to the electoral college. I have no doubt in my mind she would likely win the popular vote, but could likely lose the electoral college. The battle ground states are older, whiter, and less progressive. The New York Times own polling in these states show a huge uphill battle for her due to her political leanings. It will be interesting how February plays out.
4
Warren has watered down Sanders policies too much. He fights harder for the working class and has the broadest coalition of supporters.
15
@Aimee Warren has "watered down Sanders policies too much?" Well, what's going to happen to Bernie when/if he finally tells us how much HIS Medicare0for-All plan will cost? And will America actually elect a Socialist as President? I'm beginning to think if we nominate either of them, The Orange Moron will get a second term, God help us!
1
Once again, in this election cycle, the Democratic Party has shot itself in the foot. By making "beating Trump" the number one priority, they have directed the voters attention away from who is the smartest, with the best proposals, to who they think can possibly win. Thereby directing voters to think about who their neighbors might vote for, not who they want to vote for.
This same kind of misdirection diverts voters attention away from candidates with real ideas and proposals, and toward bland, middle of the road candidates. Definitely a ploy to take the voters away from the most progressive candidates.
The result will be a candidate that no one is particularly enthused about, thereby suppressing the Democratic vote.
And I have to laugh at the latest TV ad from Bloomberg. He says he has never taken a penny in campaign contributions from any special interest donor. I guess he does not consider himself as having any special interest.
27
@RM "Once again, in this election cycle, the Democratic Party has shot itself in the foot. By making "beating Trump" the number one priority, they have directed the voters attention away from who is the smartest, with the best proposals, to who they think can possibly win."
Once again, Democrat voters think this election is about one thing when it's about another.
Sanders/Warren voters insistent delusions that the next president, the president that follows Trump, the president that will have years of cleanup work ahead of them, must also be the savior of us all and completely revolutionize our systems.
You need to focus on reality my friend. We need to elect a president that has the qualifications and capabilities to get us back in line. That's job #1. That's what's important.
Then, and *only* then, can the tasks be put forth to usher in the major systematic changes that need to occur and that you want.
First things first. Fire Donald Trump. I swear you Sanders/Warren insistent supporters are absolutely going to ensure four more years of Donald Trump if you don't learn a little reality.
3
In her own way, Senator Warren is as divisive at Dangerous Donald. Her it’s everybody against the rich message is not going to bring the country together. We need a candidate who can convince vote the pie can be grown for all of us and that all of us can partake.
21
Both Warren and Sanders and their frequently immature bases are only getting in the way at this point. Neither has any chance of winning the general election because they scare away far too many people.
Both Warren and Sanders are, more and more, each day, proving to by a detriment to what should all be our singular goal - getting rid of Donald Trump.
23
@M.A.A
As confirmed in 2016, it actually is the corporate/establishment centrists that have gotten in the way of defeating Trump, NOT Sanders or Warren.
1
@M.A.A I have always had more than one goal at a time and that usually makes me more successful. One goal thinking is what put Trump in the White House in the first place. We are intelligent beings - we can handle more than "one" goal.
5
@M.A.A Sez youse
I do not care if she is a woman, or a man, single, divorced, or whatever else. I want an electable candidate who can run against Trump. And she is NOT IT. I will not waste my vote on her. Wether I like or dislike her is not the question eiother. Can the democratic camdidate beat Trump? She will PUSH voters away from voting. They may really dislike Trump, but they will not vote for her. Same goes for Saunders. A crucial piece here though is that her VOICE, just like Saunders and the AOC possee, their voices will still be heard. They will not be silenced. They wil move the country in a new direction, they will force us to talk about things we wopuld rather not ever talk about. Democrats have always placed a value on difference of opinions. Where as republicans have this heard mentality and will goose step with who ever. You may LOVE her or Saunders, but will you throw out your vote for a candidate who is frankly unelectable?
12
@Per Axel how are they not electable? Because she has plans and ways to make the country better? What don't they have?
1
@Per Axel "I will not waste my vote on her." This plus the electoral college determine who's electable or not. But I know how you feel. I just couldn't bring myself to vote for Hillary -- BUT coming from a blue state, I knew it would make no difference. If I lived in a red or purple state, I'd have voted for Hillary, then washed my hands.
@Per Axel It's Sanders, not Saunders. Also, you wrote: "I will not waste my vote on her." So IF she's the eventual nominee, you'd rather we face another four years of The Moron than vote to defeat him?? Isn't that part of what happened in '16?
Too many voters who lean Warren have been sold on the idea pushed by national (aka corporate) media that only a pablum, "moderate", band-aid Democrat is "electable." They have been taken in by the steady stream of the chattering class to play pundit themselves, completely ignoring the simple political fact that this election, like the last, is going to be fought and won by base turn out, not conversion of either Trump voters or the wishy-washy. It's boots on the ground, people face to face, not candidate labels or positions, that are going to marshal the lazy and move the hesitant. A candidate merely the most acceptable to most when pollsters call, but inspiring to few willing to serve to get others out to early and election day voting, is never going to beat Trump. It's not just Warren who has suffered from this media mantra of "electability," which ultimately serves only billionaires who don't want to be taxed and corporation that don't want to be regulated. It is also every candidate of color who has been driven from the field by "electability," which, in addition to "do nothing much," is also our cultural code for "white man."
12
@RRI
I’m not sure who you surround yourself with, but Democratic Socialism, whether you call it that or not, is not the Democratic base. The base is pragmatic progressivism of someone like Buttigieg or Harris or Booker, or even center-left like Biden or Klobuchar.
But you are right that we also have to excite voters, and that’s why whenever we have nominated someone who actually won the general, it was a center left (Bill Clinton) or pragmatic progressives (Obama) who was new ans could inspire and excite people. I think that’s why Buttigieg’s support so far is beyond expectations.
2
In both the NYT interviews and now this article, the NYT has focused on Warren’s “Medicare for All” issue electability and not a word about Sanders’. It seems to me that in this case “what’s good for the gander is good for the goose”. At least Warren, unlike Sanders, has said how she will pay for it. Personally, that issue scares me vis-a-vis beating Trump. But I think the NYT should at least point that out about both candidates. Unless, of course, they’re planning on endorsing Sanders and don’t want to point out what might be his Achilles heel.
21
@David Belz Exactly. But I'd phrase it as "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
1
Ms Warren and Mr Sanders are taking the socialist strategy of vilifying corporations and the wealthy.
While this may appeal to some, no government has solved poverty. Just look at European socialist models like France. Cities shut down because people have been made to believe that they can depend on their government to secure their personal retirement.
Putting your faith in your elected leaders to solve your personal/individual problems is a recipe for disaster.
Both Warren and Sanders peddle this to their voters. Show me a country that has solved poverty and I will show you my leprechaun.
5
@JP At least Warren and Sanders could put a substantial dent in poverty which is probably the best we can hope for.
2
Cities are shut down in France because French people demand that the Government protected interests of all people not just the rich. Contrary to the US where the Government works in the interest of corporations.
Before he said/she said overblown reporting, Warren seemed steadfast with sustained polls. But the unnecessary coverage felt like she just lobbed grenade at Sanders Momentum. Desperate. It would have been wise for Warren to wave on rather than build up this pointless, seemingly untrue story.
12
HRC ignored Michigan, to her ultimate peril. It had nothing to do with gender or race. Lazy, indifferent litmus tested Democrats are the problem, and this group may be testing the edges, but look like they will fight for their votes and voters.
5
Ms. Ember is very good at framing her reporting to push certain ideas. In this case it’s the idea that Warren’s agenda is too radical. The truth is that Warren started dropping in the polls right after it became clear that her Medicare for All support was flexible. Sanders meanwhile has risen in the polls while staying consistent and strong on all his core issues, which are by far the most left leaning. His network is wide, deep and enthusiastic. Just this morning he picked up the Take Action endorsement in Minnesota, with 5000 dues paying members and strong experience getting out the vote. The country is ready for real change.
18
@John Krumm You wrote: "The country is ready for real change." Really? Can you share your sources?
Exciting candidates win elections. "Next in line" inoffensive milquetoast candidates do not. Trump over Clinton. Obama over Romney and McCain. Bush over Kerry and Gore. Clinton over Dole and Bush. In the modern era, the exciting candidate wins. Stop this nonsense about how a moderate but sleepy Joe Biden is more likely to beat Trump based on useless polls a year out from election, something which is statistically as useless as a coin flip. Vote for an exciting candidate who can unify the party. Warren checks that box best for me, though others could as well. Don't overthink it, that's a Romney/McCain/Kerry/Gore/Dole/Bush Sr mistake.
272
@JS An interesting analysis, but I would argue that we've never had a candidate or President like Trump. Quiet normalcy has never been more appealing.
12
@ JS
The most exciting thing that can possibly happen is to defeat Donald Trump. Nothing else matters because we are not in normal times. If the polls consistently show that Joe Biden is the one who can beat him, that’s enough for me. And I’m very excited about that.
8
@JS One voter’s excitement is another voter’s nightmare.
7
I love Warren and I will vote for her because she is my State Senator; however, her Medicare for All plan scared me as does her free tuition if it includes private non-profit Universities. She will never be able to beat Trump. I think Sanders in his Dotage meant that this time around a Woman could never win and I concur with that, but that is not how his comment came out. I do believe Warren that he said it. Biden is the only viable Candidate to take on Trump and a lot depends upon who he chooses as VP. Better not be from the East Coast.
8
@Philip W
Tell me, where are those Biden inspires with deep passion for his candidacy, whom he will move to volunteer oceans of their time to get out the early and election day vote? Gone are the days when labor unions alone could handle this for the Democratic party. It's now a party without a machine. Candidates must inspire the machinery themselves, though maybe a billionaire of Bloomberg's wealth can buy it.
Show me those Biden deeply moves and I'll agree that he can beat Trump. It's not enough to be generally liked and indifferently acceptable to most. Democrats should have learned their lesson by now, but they never do: Never nominate anyone who cannot ignite a crowd. Take note: set a crowd on fire is the only political skill Trump has. But it was and remains enough to win. It's the sine non quo political measure as old as politics, yet regularly ignored by those who pretend to political wisdom for a living. Like them or not, Sanders and Warren are the only Democrats left in the field who can draw crowds and inspire on the stump, since others who could have been driven from the field by "electability" media chatter.
24
@RRI Sanders, Warren, AND a surging Yang whose numbers keep growing and growing are the candidates generating enthusiasm. Yang is a candidate who came from nowhere and is quite strong considering how much he is shunned by the media and the DNC. But the DNC keeps pushing bland on the people and the people turn right instead. Trump is an entertainer - bland will never stand up to that.
2
@Philip W If Biden wins the nomination, he should take Harris. Would be very healing.
Fairly or unfairly, both Warren and Sanders would - much more than the other democratic candidates - struggle in a general election to convince people that their policies will not negatively impact the economy.
29
The problem with the current healthcare system is that it works fairly well for those with a good job and benefits and is awful for everyone else. The political challenge is to find a way to preserve what’s working ok and help the people who need it. Maybe it would be better if we all had Medicare. Maybe not. Honestly, who knows? The private sector has a ton of problems. The government is likely to have many problems managing healthcare as well. But more importantly, it’s unrealistic to think that millions of moderate voters who have decent private health insurance are going to vote to tear up that system and try out a government-funded and government-managed program instead. Telling those people they are wrong is fine, but it’s not going to change their vote. Most people don’t want a “trust me, I know what’s best for you” President. Even if you think that candidate happens to be mostly right.
35
@Baldwin Medicare is not a new, untried healthy plan.
3
I would be so excited to see Elizabeth win Iowa. I hope Iowans vote with their principles and their convictions, not out of fear.
61
E. Warren and many other Democrats need to narrow their responses to the constant haranguing by the media and moderators of these debates. The onslaught by the media about healthcare and how to pay for "plans" and policies by the candidates needs to be succinct and definite.
When asked what the candidates who support single payer/medicare for all will do when people complain that they like their employer insurance and don't want to be "Thrown off it" they should stop them in their tracks and say that those same people will have excellent health care just as good as millions of Americans currently on medicare. The media gives the impression that these employer covered workers will be out of insurance altogether or covered by some hack witch doctor with no credentials or experience. It just ain't the case and they should say so.
Next they should pound into the psyche of every American that the same doctors who are in the system today will continue to be doctors in the new system. There won't be a mass exodus of doctors and perhaps their same doctor will be available to them.
The media's portrayal of the boogie-man mystery of medicare for all needs to be shot down and destroyed once and for all.
38
@Magan
Factual and effective. Great comment.
Cheers.
6
@Magan It is somewhat scary that those who want to run our country can't lead the conversation with media pundits. How are we supposed to think they can lead a country when a news anchor gets the best of them? (Your comment is great, by the way.)
1
@Magan But the insurance I (and many other union workers) have now is better than Medicare, and Medicare doesn't cover everything. Many people on Medicare have supplemental insurance because Medicare doesn't cover everything. Many voters are spooked when candidates tell them they're going to get Medicare but won't be allowed to have supplemental insurance. Yes, Warren and Sanders tell people that their version of Medicare for All will cover everything, but won't that depend on what Congress decides Medicare for All is going to cover? What happens if Republicans take over Congress and pass legislation limiting what is covered? Many countries with single-payer systems allow supplemental insurance. I don't know why Sanders and Warren are so insistent that private insurance be completely banned. They're just scaring voters away.
14
So, the issues described are (a) concerns about the cost of Medicare for All (a plan that began with Sanders, who won’t estimate a cost) and (b) the lack of “unity” with Sanders (who, notwithstanding the “women can’t win” issue, stated last night in the debate that he would support any Dem nominee), yet there are voters out there “afraid” to vote for “who they like best”?
Sounds like a tempest in a teapot, stirred up by some in the press and encouraged by a too-long primary process.
To those voters who are afraid: the GOP want you to be afraid. Don’t let them win.
33
@VandyAlum Your final paragraph. Well done.
1
Democratic voters' obsession with electability ironically increases the likelihood of eventual defeat. The party has behaved like a whipped dog for so long, it has little or no confidence in the popularity of its own preferred policies (which, in fact, tend to poll well). And so it risks nominating "nothing" over "something," for fear that the latter may turn off too many people. But three Democratic presidential candidates this century (Gore, Kerry, HRC) all gravitated to varying degrees toward a "nothing" candidacy, and all lost. Only Obama, who campaigned as a change and ideas candidate, was able to win, and win handily.
The fact is, no one has the faintest idea how their neighbors will vote, and basing one's own choices on reading tea leaves in this manner is not only absurd, but self-defeating. But there is an added dimension here: "moderate" or "centrist" Democrats, most of whom are financially comfortable, are genuinely committed to the status quo for obvious reasons and resist progressive change. But will a progressive candidate cause them to vote for Trump, or stay home? I think not, but the pressure to conform should be on them, not on the progressive wing of the party that both recognizes big problems and wants to solve them.
Among my friends and acquaintances, I am semi-seriously offering $100 bets to any takers that Joe Biden will lose in the general election if he's the nominee. Bill Clinton already taught us: strong and wrong beats weak and right every time.
15
@corvid My take is that the left wing of our party has gone so far left that it's very difficult for people outside of the "Woke Bubble," a vast majority of Americans, to relate to them.
The Progressives think running for office is a series of giveaways-- free health care, free college, student loan debt cancellation, reparations, free universal pre-k. It may triple or quadruple the federal budget, but we'll just raise taxes, though even a 100% tax bracket won't cover half of it.
I am not in love with Biden, Klobuchar or Mayor Pete, but they seem like grownups to me in a way that Sanders and Warren are not.
19
"The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women.”
I think Klobuchar can beat Trump, but Warren's response is meaningless. They won in very blue states. The presidential election will be won or lost in a handful of swing states. No comparison.
79
@Polaris Warren's comment deserves scrutiny. Many times you lose before you win and that is a testament to persistence and perhaps even being in the minority and fighting for an unpopular cause. Abe Lincoln lost and lost. It's great that women are putting themselves out there more and more and winning, but I don't understand why this comment is catching on so much without people reflecting just a bit. Putting yourself out there and winning are related.
1
Massachusetts is a blue state with a republican governor. Scott Brown was a very popular senator and Elizabeth “beat him like a drum”.
She is the candidate most Americans would be LEAST likely to invite to a dinner party. Certainly she wouldn’t attend if you held it in a wine cave. I’d take the wine cave over the sour Warren any day. She even refused Sanders’ handshake. No thank you, Mrs. Warren.
47
@ManhattanWilliam why william I wouldn’t want bernie the grouch at my dinner party. *Senator* Warren is welcome at mine any time.
3
@ManhattanWilliam Your criteria is someone's demeanor at a dinner party? Are you kidding?
5
Many Democratic voters are struggling to decide for whom they will vote or caucus but many seem confident that they know with some degree of certainty for whom millions of others will vote for.
Maybe we each should simply vote or caucus for the candidate we each thinks offers to best path to a better nation and a stronger democracy.
18
I am not voting for either Sanders or Warren. Nevertheless, I read pieces like this with disappointment, feeling as though we’ve gone straight back to 2016. It seems like the women are getting a lot of scrutiny not always given to the men. The media needs to be careful about how it is covering the race, making sure fairness and balance in reporting are addressed.
96
You say you’re not voting for either Sanders or Warren with such certainty that I can only assume you plan to do one of two things: 1) vote for Trump, or 2) not vote at all should either Sanders or Warren end up as the Democratic nominee — which is voting for Trump.
6
@AL
I surely hope you will vote for them if one of them becomes the Democratic nominee!
2
I don't agree. Look at how the MSM treats Senator Bernard Sanders.
If any of the Democratic candidates were a ‘sure thing’ to win, everyone would be for that candidate. All the angst in people is not about policy (although there are truly differences of option there). The angst and uncertainty is about picking the winner. Honestly, I don’t see Warren as that winner.
39
I don't understand how anyone who has to choose between tens and hundreds of plans every year, be scared of visiting the doctor because of the risk of paying hundreds/thousands of deductibles before any benefits kick in - turns around and is like - "Oh my, I love my private insurance. My vote is for the status quo".
275
@Justin
Well said, Justin. My company just laid off 13 people (we are a small organization, but part of a huge corporation which has made too many mistakes to count). The other day in the community room, 3 of the people who will be leaving the company, were talking about healthcare and how frightened they are about not having any. Why in heavens name people stick with the status quo is beyond me! Now is the time for bold thinking and bold change--and that change is Warren and Sanders. (Full disclosure: I'm for Warren). But if you want the same old, same old....then stick with Biden or Amy---neither one of them thinks big.
128
Because she hadn’t laid out any viable alternative, economically or practically (ie kbe which doctors and hospitals can make work for them.) The picture she’s painted is a rosy fantasy, and voters are more comfortable accepting a reality they know over nonsense, however appealing it may sound.
23
@Justin
Great point. Let's take the case of my BIL, a high school graduate with no savings and a job that does not offer any benefits at all. He gets his insurance through my sister who has a BA and works for a major corporation. The other day he was (loudly) telling me how great his situation was. How he would never vote for Warren, Sanders or anyone else who would take his choice away. "They're taking away my choice!" he kept insisting as if I were incapable of understanding such a complex debate point.
I tried to point out (1) the only reason he has insurance is because his spouse has it. Have any idea how many couples don't finalize their divorces because of health insurance? (2) My sister could lose her job (3) My sister may want to quit her job, yet feel trapped because of insurance (4) her employer might change carriers with no say (aka "choice") from her (5) he might think they have great insurance but neither has ever been sick, so how do they really know? You know how many people thought they were covered until they weren't?
Anyway, that's one report from the front lines.
211