She's screwed either way

Said this Tuesday night and it kind of got lost in the hubbub:

JFLNYC wrote:Warren is going to have a really tough choice. She’s going to lose her home state but is still going to get a non-trivial number of delegates. She’s also still got money and I’m sure wants to be a player as long as possible.

OTOH, she’s got no real path to the nomination. But if she quits, who does she endorse? Up until now you’d have thought Bernie, no question. But if it looks like Biden is going to get the nomination she’d be foolish not to try to cut a deal with him.

Should be very interesting.

I think the thing that will piss me off the most about her campaign is how having a plan to actually get to Medicare For All sank her campaign.

The thing that sank her campaign is being Elizabeth Warren.

I also think there’s merit in endorsing and/or working with Biden, but I don’t know if my brain/heart could take the vitriol from the Bernie bro’s.

My personal hope is she endorses Bernie though.

Uncle Milty wrote:The thing that sank her campaign is being Elizabeth Warren.

Yes. If she was Chuck Warren she’d be the front runner.

Grotewold wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:M4A is antithetical to fundamental conservative principles.

They merit re-evaluation, then, as Werthless describes

Is the 1st amendment a statement of conservative principles? I think so.

Is freedom from preventable death a reasonable freedom to argue for? I think so.

Is equal opportunity a fundamental american value, conservative and libeal? I think so.

Is saving money, while saving lives, in our healthcare policy consistent with conservatism? Can conservatism be compassionate? I think so.

If social conservatives want a Christian-influenced government, does that mean a more compassionate government that supports the teachings from Matthew? That's not what I've seen, but it could mean that.

I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’

My personal view of conservatism and libertarianism means having the default position be: "Can government provide this service better than the private sector? Often, the answer is no." But I think we should be willing to say "sometimes," or "the evidence suggests it might be so." Close-mindedness is not a conservative characteristic that we should be proud of. Having principles that guide our decision-making is critical, of course, but our politicians are our elected agents whose job it is to allow us to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We can do better.

TomatoPie wrote:No matter how much it is authentic and how much people like free stuff, M4A is antithetical to fundamental conservative principles. All of Bernie's core positions are about spending your money on his dreams, and grade school math proves it's impossible.

Care to elaborate? I haven't seen this math.

All I've read on this is studies that indicate that Medicare For All both reduces US healthcare spending and improves outcomes. I haven't seen that it would raise costs, but perhaps I'm not understanding your comment.

Uncle Milty wrote:She's screwed either way

Yah, I don't think it makes any sense for her to endorse

If she endorses Biden, it I think damages her brand among a lot of her most dedicated supporters.

If she endorses Bernie, it's unlikely to change the outcome, and she'll have backed the losing horse. Maybe she reassesses if Bernie does well next Tuesday.

She can sit tight for a few weeks or months and then be a force for unity backing whoever becomes the presumptive frontrunner/nominee when that becomes clear.

Gimpy wrote:My only qualm is that you frame yourself as someone with libertarian ideals yet many of the things you’re in support of are the complete opposite of what libertarians would want.

Yeah, that is my qualm, too. How did I get here??

jerseyhoya wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:She's screwed either way

Yah, I don't think it makes any sense for her to endorse

If she endorses Biden, it I think damages her brand among a lot of her most dedicated supporters.

If she endorses Bernie, it's unlikely to change the outcome, and she'll have backed the losing horse. Maybe she reassesses if Bernie does well next Tuesday.

She can sit tight for a few weeks or months and then be a force for unity backing whoever becomes the presumptive frontrunner/nominee when that becomes clear.

Agreed. I think her objective is now to take the course of action to bring unity to the party.

slugsrbad wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:The thing that sank her campaign is being Elizabeth Warren.

Yes. If she was Chuck Warren she’d be the front runner.

iirc the democrats nominated a woman last go around

slugsrbad wrote:

threecount wrote:Warren to suspend her campaign today.

Sad. I wonder if she’ll endorse Bernie. There’s an interesting ideology vs demographics question on where her supporters will go. Also, lucky she seems rational and tough enough to ignore the contingent of Bernie Bro’s who blamed her for Super Tuesday.

They met yesterday, so I assumed it was to discuss this situation today. Will she endorsed him? Hard to say. I don't see any way that she really falls into the Biden camp even with my dream of her bringing something to his campaign.

In other news Tulsi gabbard still in the race right.

CalvinBall wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:The thing that sank her campaign is being Elizabeth Warren.

Yes. If she was Chuck Warren she’d be the front runner.

iirc the democrats nominated a woman last go around

Yes, and Barack Obama had two terms as President and racism ended forever.

Warren is smart and tough; the kind of person you’d want with you in a foxhole. Yet she spent the last amount of her political capital eviscerating another candidate who did not pose an immediate threat to her candidacy, rather than directing it against the one candidate directly in front of her in her lane who she had to pass to have any hope of being nominated. If she endorses Bernie now it will be like endorsing the Confederacy right after Gettysburg.

Werthless wrote:long post

I am unlikely to muster the energy to reply to this in full at any point in the near future.

I would like to at least point out though, since you've cited it a few times, is the Medicare for All savings/health outcome improvement study numbers are essentially made up nonsense - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... l-savings/

All of Bernie's core positions are about spending your money on his dreams

Lol

Uncle Milty wrote:The thing that sank her campaign is being Elizabeth Warren.

It's not hard to assert that Elizabeth warren was the brightest, most qualified and most capable candidate in the race. Also that when voters had a choice to actually cast a ballot for her, they mostly said, "nah." It was my only hesitation in supporting her, since there were certainly signs of it long before people got a chance to vote. The nationwide lack of support still surprised me in its degree. Certainly gender entered into it, but the scope of it tends to indicate there were other factors that I can't really understand or describe.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Werthless wrote:long post

I am unlikely to muster the energy to reply to this in full at any point in the near future.

I would like to at least point out though, since you've cited it a few times, is the Medicare for All savings/health outcome improvement study numbers are essentially made up nonsense - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... l-savings/

Thanks for sharing, although I wouldn't call it "made up nonsense." From your article, I would summarize it as unreasonably optimistic and deserving of much more scrutiny than it's been presented.

swishnicholson wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:The thing that sank her campaign is being Elizabeth Warren.

It's not hard to assert that Elizabeth warren was the brightest, most qualified and most capable candidate in the race. Also that when voters had a choice to actually cast a ballot for her, they mostly said, "nah." It was my only hesitation in supporting her, since there were certainly signs of it long before people got a chance to vote. The nationwide lack of support still surprised me in its degree. Certainly gender entered into it, but the scope of it tends to indicate there were other factors that I can't really understand or describe.

Those factors are called feelings. Maybe there's something about social media, maybe it's always been this way (Hume certainly thought so.) There's something about old men, whether avuncular like Biden and Sanders, or angry like Trump that appeals to lots of voters. (To be fair, I'd say Obama and Clinton were also effective at reaching people's feelings. Bush less so, but he had the good fortune to run against a robot in 2000 and John Kerry was hardly anyone's idea of a warm person.

Warren had a lot of support among people like me--left professionals. There aren't a lot of people like me in the world. But Warren did make me feel good about lots of things. And now I feel bad.

It's sort of like when Ted Cruz compared Republicans to Homer and Democrats to Lisa Simpson. I mean, if I were a Republican, I would have found that kind of remark very insulting. But in fact, it seemed the opposite--Republicans embraced their Homer.