There's a reason Warren is surging

[bluewater]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) held a town hall in Los Angeles on Wednesday in front of a huge audience. If you saw her just a few months ago, you would have been impressed by how she weaves her personal story into her policy objectives, the ease with which she can explain a complex problem in simple and direct language, and her skill in presenting lots of individual ideas under a big theme (give ordinary Americans a chance). Well, she has gotten even better.

For one thing, she’s not telling exactly the same story. Sure, she tells how her mother had to get a minimum-wage job at Sears after her father had a heart attack. But we also hear about her three brothers in the military and her non-linear life and career. She has gotten “looser” and funnier. She interacts with the crowd more. She has less anger, more determination and more confidence. She is high-energy.

And she has put more substance into her three-part plan to end corruption, to use a wealth tax to pay for a whole lot of child care/education programs and to fix our democracy (e.g., end gerrymandering and voter suppression). If we do all that, we can make progress in a bunch of other areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/23/there-is-reason-elizabeth-warren-is-surging/

[OnDoutside]

1. A nice article, in comparison with the Huff Post hit job

[yardwork]

4. Huff Post has a lot to answer for. Their behavior in 2016 helped hand the White House to Trump.

[Ligyron]

48. Sure did. nt.

[DIVINEprividence]

90. The Democrats had a good showing in the midterms

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall the 40 or so swing state pickups were from super left wing candidates touting medicare for all etc. All we have to do to win bigly is just present a center left agenda and candidate who is competent and sane. To take a huge risk with these pie in the sky left left proposals that will turn off independents seems very politically foolish to me. Having said that, I do like Warren. She is my Senator. I live in Boston. I donated to her campaign and think she has done a solid job and will support her enthusiastically if she wins. But I have to say, I lost a lot of respect for her when she threw Al Franken under the bus. That was lame.

Don't underestimate Biden. Rewatch his speech at the DNC Convention. He is a powerful orator and the man has overcome some really heart breaking tragedies and is a great great man and inspirational. That is why Obama picked him. But whatever way this shakes down, we must unite in the end and kick Trump's are up and down the sidewalk.

[gopiscrap]

135. welcome to DU

[cwydro]

2. I like her more all the time.

Rec.

[Pachamama]

127. Same here...

[lark]

3. She is #2 on my list and I like her quite a lot.

I love her policies and how she presents them in such a logical clear manner

[bonniebgood]

5. Thanks for the Post. When I see Articles on her, I don't usually comment, instead I

go straight to her donate page. I love her. "Yes We Can".

[saidsimplesimon]

15. thanks for the donate reminder

I will do so today. "Yes We Can", hope President Obama did not trademark

[highplainsdem]

6. Going from 7.3% to 15.4% over a six-month period wouldn't fit most people's definition of a surge.

She's had a slow but fairly steady rise in the polls as she takes more support from Sanders.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Usually when people talk about a candidate "surging" they mean a large increase in support in a short period of time.

I think it would be more correct to say she's slowly eroding Sanders' base of support among the left wing of the party.

[onetexan]

7. +1 -K&R

[bluewater]

9. "We need someone who's inspiring..." one voter said

Link to tweet

[highplainsdem]

10. Since Biden's the frontrunner and many of us find him inspiring -- as this USA Today op-ed

explains --

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287253708

it's interesting that perennial Biden critic David Axelrod somehow can't find anyone who really likes Biden.

[redstateblues]

33. Just like MSNBC can't ever find a POC for Biden. Strange

[emmaverybo]

51. They can only find ardent anti-Biden POC and boy, do they give them lots of time. It is curious,

given Biden’s support with the black electorate, the numbers of leaders who have endorsed him, his record going way back, and his having been VP to the first (and wildly popular) president of color in America.

[highplainsdem]

11. And btw, your sniping at Biden again isn't a refutation of my pointing out that Warren's slowly

eroding Sanders' support.

She is not eroding Biden's support.

[Princetonian]

17. ZING!

6. Going from 7.3% to 15.4% over a six-month period wouldn't fit most people's definition of a surge.

She's had a slow but fairly steady rise in the polls as she takes more support from Sanders.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Usually when people talk about a candidate "surging" they mean a large increase in support in a short period of time.

I think it would be more correct to say she's slowly eroding Sanders' base of support among the left wing of the party.

<snip bluewater>

10. Since Biden's the frontrunner and many of us find him inspiring -- as this USA Today op-ed explains -- https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287253708

Response to bluewater (Reply #9)Sun Aug 25, 2019, 01:08 PM

Star Member highplainsdem (22,377 posts)
11. And btw, your sniping at Biden again isn't a refutation of my pointing out that Warren's slowly
eroding Sanders' support.

She is not eroding Biden's support.

[cannabis_flower]

27. Doesn't matter

If Warren can manage to erode most of Sanders supporter and maybe some of the other candidate's support she might pass Biden up. It's pretty clear to me that almost everyone who is going to be for Biden is probably already for Biden.

[emmaverybo]

52. What evidence makes that clear to you?

[at140]

91. Brilliant observation...Warren is more inspiring compared to most others

But main reason I prefer Warren is her experience on banking and Wall Street issues.
We will direly need a president who knows how to clean up the financial mess Trump has created.
Because another financial collapse similar to 2008 is coming and lot of people will suffer if that is allowed to happen.

[saidsimplesimon]

16. I would say she is the clear choice

for those deciding between her and Biden. Plenty of time before the Primary elections in 2020 for Senator Warren to move up.

[bluewater]

19. The enthusiasm for Warren is growing!

She's attracting huge crowds.

[redstateblues]

35. Like Bernie did in 2016

[druidity33]

58. was there really a need for that? nt

[redstateblues]

74. It's true. The point is that big crowds did not lead to the nomination

[druidity33]

77. Joe Biden has run for President twice before...

he didn't get very far. That's also true..... and it also didn't need to be said.

[redstateblues]

81. It's been said many times here and I'm sure it won't be the last

I say “Third times the charm”

[DIVINEprividence]

92. Please anyone but Bernie

Unless you want all the Clinton voters staying home

[qazplm135]

22. doubling your percentage in just six months isn't a surge?

lmao

going from 4th in some polls to tied for second isn't a surge?

that's hilarious.

[highplainsdem]

23. I definitely don't recall ever seeing a candidate's gain of 8 points in six months described as a

surge, till now.

And if doubling is all it takes, then by that standard any candidate going from 1% to 2% is also surging.

[qazplm135]

25. when the leading candidate has around mid 20s to at most low 30s

and you go from 7s to 15s and higher in some polls, any reasonable person would call that a surge.

When Harris briefly doubled in a similar way it was a surge.
And when she went back to where she started it was a significant fall. Which you certainly had no problem calling it so at the time.

It's a ridiculous position you are only holding because you think it somehow threatens Biden.

[highplainsdem]

26. Harris's rise is the polls WAS a surge, though a brief one. A surge refers to a sudden powerful

movement. Again, a slow rise over 6 months isn't a surge.

I realize Warren supporters like the term. But it isn't accurate.

[qazplm135]

29. it's absolutely accurate

and it's not actually six months.

By the end of April, she was almost exclusively in the mid to high single digits.
By the middle of July, she was almost exclusively in the mid teens. Last I checked, May-July is 2 and a half months, not six.
And she's hit 20 in four polls since August began.

[bluewater]

30. Biden's support has fallen since he announced on April 25th

On April 25th, the day Biden announced as a 2020 candidate, his support was at 29.3%

As of today his support is at 28.8 %.

This is why many people consider him a fragile front runner. He is not generating enthusiasm.

Anyone can see the rise and decline of Biden's support at RCP Polls Tracker:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

[redstateblues]

75. Sorry. I'm enthusiastic about Biden. Don't tell me what I am.

[qazplm135]

126. so a new poll shows she's ahead of Biden now

is that a "surge?" Or is Biden's 13 point fall a "drop?"

[redstateblues]

36. The media was calling it a surge when it went up 2%

[DrFunkenstein]

116. There's More Evidence That Warren Is Taking Votes From Biden and Harris

The pollsters expected Warren and Sanders to have a zero-sum race for the progressive lane, but it hasn't worked out that way. Their backers are separated more by demographics than ideology.

There will come a time in the race when they will have to winnow out one of them, but that hasn't happened. At this point, the ones who have seen their base of support erode have been Biden and Harris.

[Agschmid]

130. It is a short period of time, most people aren't even engaged in the primary.

Also hard to get a 30 point “surge” when there are 20+ candidates.

[blm]

8. You should stick to articles like this and

Skip the pieces attacking other candidates. You do more harm than good here when you attack others.

[BlueMTexpat]

12. Thanks for posting!

I am already among her committed supporters and I like her more every day.

[bluewater]

13. Warren is inspiring!

My pleasure!

[iwannaknow]

14. I'll take Kamala or Elizabeth

[wasupaloopa]

37. In a way she is like Bernie promicig things she

probably can’t deliver on.

Congress would have to come up with a wealth tax.

That requires that Dems take over the government and there is a willingness to take it up.

Presidents have agendas but do not write law,

I would say repeal trump’s tax cut, bring down the deficit then talk about new tax policy.

[emmaverybo]

56. What she proposes, plans put end to end, would bankrupt us. Many plans would come at a cost to

existing social programs. And she throws around far more money than she needs to. She could
make a difference in the student debt problem with sensible steps. Get the forgiveness program up and running (currently turns down almost all eligibles), cut compounded interest rates by a half to one percent, provide relief to lower income folks without hope of repayment, make it illegal to garnishee social security, regulate the big loan companies etc.

But she’s like a person given an infinity credit card.

I hope she prunes her proposals, prioritizes which plans to focus on, modifies many to serve
needy folks not people who can well afford services, finds better responses to concerns raised about her sweeping plans than “Republican Talking Point” or “tax the one percent.”

[BlueMTexpat]

84. I think that she understands

bankruptcy - and certainly economics - a heckuva lot better than most of us do.

In her comparatively short time as an activist and an even shorter time as a politician, she has actually accomplished quite a lot. Please see Elizabeth Warren Fast Facts https://www.cnn.com/2015/01/09/us/elizabeth-warren-fast-facts/index.html

From the link:

...
Warren is an expert on bankruptcy law and was an adviser to the National Bankruptcy Review Commission in the 1990s.
Warren has written or co-written 11 books. Her books include two co-written with her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, "The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke" and "All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan."
...
2007 - Warren writes an article outlining her idea for a federal agency designed to protect consumers from fraudulent or misleading financial products, like mortgages and credit cards.
November 14, 2008 - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appoints Warren to a Congressional oversight panel overseeing the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program.
September 17, 2010 - President Barack Obama appoints Warren as assistant to the president and special adviser to the Treasury secretary in order to launch the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
July 2011 - Due to opposition from Republicans and some Democrats, Obama declines to nominate Warren as permanent director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
August 1, 2011 - Warren steps down as a special adviser to Obama.
...

So I wouldn't dismiss her plans so lightly.

[emmaverybo]

85. She would make a few economic advisor.

[Magoo48]

18. I see her as the real power of the top four

in regards to which way others might throw final support.

[TryLogic]

70. I agree.

[democrank]

20. Elizabeth Warren is truly inspiring.

She’s s tough, smart as can be, principled and she would clean up the White House starting day one. I love how real she is, how honest she is. I’d be proud to vote for her.

[TryLogic]

71. I agree.

I like intelligence much more than old fashioned political talk, even if the person is likeable.

[mainstreetonce]

21. Can you show us the electoral map that Warren wins?

I'd love for it to happen,but it's a worry.

[cannabis_flower]

28. Probably

The electoral map where she puts O'Rourke on the ticket and takes Texas.

[mainstreetonce]

32. Love to see that

But it's risky

[redstateblues]

38. Love O'Rourke but he couldn't beat the odious Ted Cruz in TX

[customerserviceguy]

45. Exactly

We need winners, not also-rans if we're going to take this country back from the Trumpsters.

[zackymilly]

46. Isn't Biden an "also-ran" 3 different times in the past? n/t

[redstateblues]

78. I think Beto will win something big someday. Like Biden " 3rd Time's the Charm"

[customerserviceguy]

105. Even though he was not the top of the ticket

he won the vice-presidency twice. Also, he managed to get elected Senator from Delaware numerous times.

[zackymilly]

124. "Won the vice-presidency twice". I thought he was selected. n/t

[customerserviceguy]

132. Yes, that is true

but he sure didn't do any harm to the top of the ticket. I personally think that Barack Obama put him on the ticket (and kept him there) was to add gravitas. His experience at the job of VP was not insignificant, like that of say, Mike Pence.

[Autumn]

120. People are hoping the third times the charm. It won't be. nt

[NewJeffCT]

117. Cruz is very popular with Texas Republicans

John Cornyn and Donald Trump are not.

[redstateblues]

129. Not that popular. Approval is at 46.

[NewJeffCT]

133. overall?

but, among Republicans, Cruz was 90% approval and Cornyn was in the 70s the last I saw. So, Republicans turned out to vote for Cruz, but might not be as enthusiastic for Cornyn against a strong Democrat.

[redstateblues]

41. I worry that she can't win back the rust belt and we'd have another

Electoral College win for Trump

[bluewater]

43. Warren has an economic message that resonates in the Rust Belt too.

Recent polls show her doing well in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, for example.

Her support in the Midwest continues to increase.

[qazplm135]

79. why exactly?

Because she's a woman? Because she's a progressive?
Why?

All of this only Biden can win stuff is based solely on fear. Irrational and baseless fear.

[redstateblues]

102. No it's based on the fact that the Democrats lost 3 critical states

I do think there is a problem if the Democrat goes too far to the left. The “woman card” you pulled on me is bullshit BTW. I was a hard core HRC backer and phone banked for her in 16

[qazplm135]

108. Barely lost

And there's no reason those states can't be won this time around.

[floppyboo]

55. Here's your Electoral Map - I posted this a few days ago, along with Bernie's. Biden's is out today

[LAS14]

100. Fascinating!! Where did you get this? nt

[floppyboo]

123. Link to the youtube channel Let's Talk Elections:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ0H9_lidl67AqiC9-RxfvA

My only complaint with these latest comparisons is that he uses RCP averages, which seem in most cases to 'average' 2 state polls, one in May and the other in August. I think if he had used Warren's August only numbers - which might even underestimate her 'electability', given trend lines in other national polls, she would be doing even better.
If I remember correctly, the creator of this site in an earlier video, gives the link to the program he is using, so you can play around with it yourself.

Also, I note that the trend in Texas towards democrats ends up being a Dem win for Biden, although not for Sanders due to averaging and an early Biden surge that is now on the decline, although they both are equally polling against Trump at +2 (edit - in the august poll).

[LAS14]

128. Thanks for posting! nt

[RobertDevereaux]

113. And here's the Bernie one..

[HeartlandProgressive]

24. Elizabeth Warren is inspirational

She represents a way forward the country needs right now

[wasupaloopa]

31. What about climate change. What is her position?

[aeromanKC]

34. Does MA have to have special election if Warren becomes President?

Or do the Dems lose het seat untill 2022 because of R Gov.?

(something reminds me of special legislation that was passed after Sen. Kennedy died)

[patphil]

39. She's got it, yeah baby she's got it!

[Baclava]

40. Nice crowd!

Meanwhile, are they hiding Joe out in the woods?, lol


:small

[zackymilly]

47. Family reunion practice speech? I don't see any POC there. n/t

[NNadir]

42. This early in the game, I have never wanted a person to be President more than her.

In fact, I have not supported a candidate this early in the game who won the nomination, but I hope I'm going to break my record of losing.

The closest I ever came was Howard Dean, but she's something else, really something else.

[Viz]

44. Front and Center

I I was part of a group that attended on Wednesday. She brought the electricity and clarity of thought about what is most needed to right the ship. I think she will be our nominee!

[MFM008]

49. I like that

She has a plan for everything!

[PatrickforO]

50. I really like Warren, more and more as we go.

Her policies would make so many lives better.

[BeckyDem]

53. I have said from the beginning she would surprise a lot of people

in a good way and she has. Warren is just getting started.

[Ligyron]

54. She's definitely the Explainer in Chief.

If there's anybody in the Democratic Party who can explain to those Trumpsters how their and our economic problems are not the fault of Democrats, black or brown people or poor people, and just who and what's really to blame and exactly what we can do about it, how much it will cost or save and even how long it will take: why it's Senator Warren for sure.

If she isn't elected President or doesn't become one of our other fine candidate's VP, then she really needs to be appointed to some high level Cabinet position provided her Senate seat isn't at risk of going GrOPer.

[emmaverybo]

57. All she explains are basically her own pet plans and how these magically result in income equality.

I find her making the same lecture over and over.

Can she explain any issue involving foreign policy? Any issue outside of the fallacies of the Trump/
Republican economical theory vs. her own?

And if she is explaining so well, why is she still unable to reach POC?

[NNadir]

59. I expect anyone with outstanding intelligence and a highly analytical mind...

...as well as an engaging personality would do quite well in foreign policy.

Let me ask you something; in history could Abraham Lincoln explain military strategy in 1860?

How about, Barack Obama? Did his emerge from Zeus's forehead an expert in foreign policy?

I agree with those who regard Lincoln to have been our greatest President. Some of it was the opportunity to follow what was generally believed to be the worst American President until Trump came along, but the operative point was a quick mind, the ability to change approaches when the results of earlier efforts demanded it, and an unwavering loyalties to his goals rather than his policies.

The more I see and hear of Ms Warren, the more I feel these kinds of essential capabilities.

[emmaverybo]

63. One of the reasons Obama chose Biden was for his foreign policy and relations expertise.

[NNadir]

64. So, is there any impediment to Ms. Warren, like Obama and Lincoln doing something similar?

I like Joe Biden, but he of course was most active in a time when America was a respected nation rather than a rogue nation.

The situation may require a different set of skills than those that operated even a short time ago.

In any case, I have never had the impression that he ran Obama's foreign policy. Would you care to explain how I am wrong in that assessment?

In the case of Lincoln, one of his most important foreign policy tasks was to avoid British and/or French intervention in the American Civil War, a topic for which he sought the assistance and advice of William T. Seward. (Seward for a brief moment before Lincoln's inaugeration thought he was going to run the whole country, but, um Lincoln disabused him of the idea.) Did the French or the British intervene or not despite his inexperience, as an Illinois attorney, in foreign affairs?

What about Bill Clinton? Was he a skilled international diplomatic entity in 1992?

Ms. Warren will do fine, in my opinion, because of overwhelming smarts and the ability to learn quickly and think on her feet. I also believe that Americans of good will will rally around her in her efforts to restore American leadership and prestige after this assault on it by a buffoon.

[emmaverybo]

66. No. But then we are in a very precarious position now with Trump's damage to our alliances and

wooing of our enemies. We are also closer to a first nuclear war than ever before in history, which will bring on climate catastrophe and mass famine.

A first bit of business is to get Iran back to the table. It took decades to get them where we wanted, but that only happened with Obama leading. And he led while Biden was his second in command.

It is of great importance that world leaders have confidence in our new president, that Iran does, for instance. Personally, I don’t think we have time for a learning curve, no matter how intellectually all capable our leader.

Snip—————-


World leaders tell Biden: We need you
The former vice president would bring deep relationships and heavyweight credentials to a 2020 Democratic field lacking in national security experience.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/20/biden-2020-foreign-policy-national-security-1228345

[NNadir]

76. Really? We're closer to a nuclear war than ever before?

I was a child in 1963. I thought at the time - I remember it well - I would be vaporized in the afternoon.

You have touched on two issues on which I have paid deep and considerable attention over 30 years, climate change and nuclear science.

I certainly know more about this topic than any common journalist I've seen in the last twenty years.

You are trying to make a case that Joe Biden, and only Joe Biden can save the world, and frankly, although I have great respect for him, I think you are making a very weak case.

This isn't 1964. We have an insane person in the White House and even he is too afraid of nuclear war to use nuclear weapons.

I think that Obama was the best President of my lifetime, and I very much appreciate the role Biden played in his administration, which was hardly passive.

First of all, on climate change, Joe Biden was a member of an administration that hired Steven Chu, who was an excellent choice on climate change, but later the Obama administration also hired the complete fool Gregory Jackzo to head the NRC.

There is no one who has ever done as poor a job at the NRC the job that Glenn Seaborg, Democrat Nobel Laureate and effectively his predecessor in the nuclear job Jackzo held in the Obama administration. I am sure Glenn Seaborg would have been as appalled by Jackzo as I am. Jackzo came into the role with a supremely ignorant bias that borders on criminal.

This shithead thought that his fear of radiation - fear, not fact, outweighed the fact that seven million continuously observed people die each year from air pollution, and that the fact of massive climate change was also outweighed by picayune bureacratic nonsense directing his fear.

That ignorance kills people, every day, 19000 of them.

Jackzo was the worst, and most ignorant person ever to have held that position and, in fact, the worst appointment of the Obama administration, by far.

And please don't tell me about Jackzo's Ph.D. I have personally known thousands of people holding scientific Ph.D.s and I'm hardly always impressed by them. It's very clear that Jackzo was a tragedy for the planet.

The key to both nuclear disarmament and to climate change passes through plutonium, and frankly, no Democratic candidate is going to deal with those dual realities unless we have someone who can change their mind and think in a completely new way. The only way to see what is clearly there, is to look at data and interpret it.

I see no evidence whatsoever that Joe Biden is better than any other Democratic candidate on climate change. I do know that he is probably already familiar with people with bad, weak and old ideas.

Nor, citing the cases I did previously, do I believe that by virtue of being a former VP, one is supremely qualified to be President. This is no dig at Biden, but the last former VP with lots of foreign policy experience, some of which worked for good, was Richard Nixon. Another President with lots of foreign policy credentials, a former Secretary of State, was, until Trump came along, generally considered the worst President in history, James Buchanan.

Too much familiarity with the old ways, particularly in times of great instability can actually be a bad thing.

I am not supporting Ms. Warren because she agrees with my positions on nuclear energy. I have not looked at her views at all. But I do know that she can do what Lincoln asked Americans to do in an even more dire time than this one, He said, "We must think anew."

What I do know is that she looks at the data, and she thinks, and she can change her mind.

The facts are clear on climate change, and I trust no one more among our candidates to act on them than Ms. Warren.

I'm sorry that I don't agree that Joe Biden is the hope of the world. I like him; I admire him; and if he's the nominee I would not question for a New York second to vote for him, but I would prefer someone who, again, has a demonstrated ability to "think anew."

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. - Lincoln, 1863 message to Congress.

Ms. Warren is way too smart to put aside.

[emmaverybo]

88. Yes, really. And yes, I would rather have experience and knowledge at

the helm. Biden is not Richard Nixon. Since the writing of the following piece, the Kashmir situation has worsened.

Snip—————————————

We’re Edging Closer to Nuclear War
byStephen Kinzer

Last month two nuclear-armed countries, India and Pakistan, came to the brink of war. Their border skirmish was a scary message from the future. If controls on nuclear weapons continue to weaken, more countries will probably develop those weapons. Each time one does, its rivals are likely to do the same. Local conflicts will suddenly have the potential to explode into nuclear war.

Like more than a few neighbors, India and Pakistan have a property dispute. Theirs is over Jammu and Kashmir, a former princely state nestled against the Himalayas. India is in control and Pakistan sponsors militant raids under a fig leaf of deniability. Conflicts like these exist around the world. They are a natural consequence of geography and politics. If contending parties arm themselves with nuclear weapons, these regional quarrels will suddenly have apocalyptic potential.


https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/09/were-edging-closer-nuclear-war

[NNadir]

93. I'm sorry, but I don't credit Common Dreams all that much.

The journalists there are not even remotely close to be informed on nuclear issues.

As a scientist, I have recently developed a theory that one cannot get a degree in journalism of one has passed a college level science course with a grade of C or better.

The understanding of nuclear issues at websites like Common Dreams is laughable.

Frankly, they don't know shit from Shinola. The argument is no different than 1970's rhetoric along the same lines.

One may ask, quite reasonably, why I wasn't vaporized in 1963. I think the answer is pretty clear.

In some sense, nuclear weapons have done what Fritz Haber thought poison gas would do in 1915. It's introduced MAD thinking into war and has generated the concept - awful as it is - of limited war. Even a crazy person has to think twice to launch a nuclear war, since it is very likely that nuclear war is suicide.

I do not believe that Indians and Pakistanis are both crazy and suicidal.

One can imagine a Trump like person being so, which is not comforting, but I don't think he's quite there. He's clearly not as insane as Curtis LeMay was in 1963.

Now, the fact that a crazy person controls one of the world's largest nuclear arsenals is a serious matter. I'm not happy about it, of course, but I do believe that it is possible to minimize, but not eliminate the risk of nuclear war.

I believe in nuclear disarmament, and I know how it can be best approached, but as I pointed out elsewhere, we can never make nuclear war impossible, since uranium exists and always will exist.

I wrote about it on another website: On Plutonium, Nuclear War, and Nuclear Peace

Trust me, there is not one person who writes on Common Dreams who could even remotely understand what I was saying in this post.

I'm not sure that Joe Biden would quite get this either, to be frank. Doing so would involve "thinking anew."

[emmaverybo]

95. So far candidates other than Biden have not devoted due attention to foreign policy, the work

needed to do on working against nuclear weapon proliferation. Biden has spoken of India and Pakistan before. Unlike his recent rivals, he grasps the delicate geo-political situation across the globe.

Common Dreams is not featuring obscure opinion. How close Pakistan and India came to nuclear
war has been written about far and wide.

You don’t need to be a nuclear arms expert to see the dangers confronting us, in fact, the world.

[NNadir]

104. I'm sorry. I'm an old man. For my entire life I've been hearing generalized opinions about...

...putative nuclear wars.

The nonsensical evocation of them has been more dangerous than nuclear wars themselves.

I remind you that hundreds of thousands of human beings died in Iraq in the early part of this century because Dick Cheney, assisted by Colin Powell, used nuclear scare language to kill people, in vast numbers, with dangerous fossil fuel weapons of mass destruction.

There has been one, and only one, nuclear war, despite all the talk I've heard since I was a child - and I'm an old man - about the danger of nuclear wars. That nuclear war took place before I was born, and in fact, before the majority of people now living were born.

It would be interesting if we could pay as much attention to oil wars as we pay to theoretical nuclear wars, since oil wars and oil based weapons of mass destruction have killed tens of millions of people since the last nuclear war, which was in 1945 and oil (and related) wastes have killed hundreds of millions of people since 1945. The number of people killed in nuclear wars, going back to 1946, despite endless discussion and violence derived from these discussions, is zero.

Nuclear fear mongering is certainly not an obscure opinion but it is nonetheless an absurd one. Many things that are popularly held are simply mythic nonsense. It is comparable, in my view, to the view held by tens of millions of people - not any of us of course - that Donald Trump is a great man. It's a lie that gets credibility simply by being constantly repeated.

Lies have that property. Repeated enough, they gain credibility.

I also don't believe for a New York second that because Biden "has spoken of India and Pakistan" that he is in any position to deal with either country or to bend them to his will because he's Joe Biden.

You and I are "speaking of India and Pakistan" right now, and I don't think that either nation is impressed by our discussion.

If Elizabeth Warren begins speaking on India and Pakistan, that is not likely to have any more or less effect than India and Pakistan than Joe Biden doing so.

It is probably the case that Pakistan in particular, holds a jaundiced view of the United States, since, with justification, American aircraft flew into their air space and killed Osama bin Laden. As much cheering as there was in the United States, Pakistan was humiliated by it, and I'm sure they have a long memory. They might notice Joe Biden sitting by Obama during the famous photographs of the raid being monitored in the situation room. Now I believe killing Osama bin Laden was a good idea, and I admire Obama's guts for doing it; but then again, I'm not the leadership of Pakistan.

Neither is Joe Biden.

Their interests are not American interests, nor are they dependent on the United States to survive.

Let me tell you something, OK? India and Pakistan are not our little brothers. They are fully capable independent nations. They don't need a Daddy to come straighten them out.

It is absurd to think that any American President, even a sane one, will have as much impact on India and Pakistan as the knowledge of what they can do to each other.

You seem to think that without Joe Biden's parental guidance they will fight a nuclear war.

This is silly, and occurs at the level of Common Dreams kind of journalistic thinking.

I certainly wish that people could demonstrate a little common sense, rather than toxic common nightmares, when approaching nuclear issues. If they had been able to demonstrate such sense, perhaps, as should have been the case, Colin Powell would have been laughed off the stage and the US would be facing international sanctions for unjustified aggression.

Every serious nuclear expert knew that Cheney and Powell and Bush were liars, from Hans Blix on down. It was the ignorance of the general public, fed by scientifically illiterate journalists - I do recall that idiot Wolf Blitzer on CNN for example - that led our country into a frenzy of unwarranted violence.

The real nuclear issue is climate change. Without nuclear materials we will be unable to address it, and we do need to "go nuclear" to have even an outside chance of addressing it. Climate change will kill more people and destroy more resources with a higher certainty than any tiresome nonsense about nuclear war. Unlike nuclear war, it's happening now.

It's not time for more drunken hysteria. It's time to be sober and serious.

[emmaverybo]

111. You would sleep better at night with another candidate at the helm. I will sleep better at night

when Joe Biden is president. Comes down to that.

Fix the damage, Joe (busterbrown)
The world needs you

[DIVINEprividence]

97. India Pakistan

What is going on right now there is absolutely terrifying. Total absence of Presidential leadership. All this nationalist bs is gonna get us all killed

[blm]

106. Iran happened because Kerry knew how to make it happen and

Had the knowledge, credibility, and skill to carry it through. It was a strong decision by Obama to give him the room to maneuver.

[emmaverybo]

110. Absolutely. And if Iran would come back to the table after Trump's betrayal, it is Biden who

could get them back. Obama hired him in greater part for his foreign policy cred. He is well respected and trusted on the world stage.

Kerry would have been a wonderful president. I have always believed, as do others, as Kerry did, the election was stolen from him. .

[blm]

112. Whoever our Dem prez, the best move would be to

Let Kerry, Munoz, and their team reassemble and get back to work.

[emmaverybo]

114. You are probably right. They know the agreement and the players inside out.

[Chicago1980]

61. Vs Biden who has what plan?

That's right, not a damn thing.

He can't run only on having been Obama Vice President.

And trying to humanize these bastard republicans is unappealing.

[emmaverybo]

67. If Biden ran solely on having been VP, the qualifications he demonstrated over those eight years,

and the experience being Obama’s second-in-command afforded him, would far outstrip any rival’s resume.

The American public wants bi-partisanship, and we needed it at crucial times under Obama. Biden was the negotiator in those cases. We need all the votes we can get, including those of Republicans or former Republicans who are anti-Trump.

It is not a popular or sensible strategy to demonize Republicans, not for a presidential candidate who should be a leader for all Americans.

[TryLogic]

72. "The American public wants bi-partisanship" -- I'm not buying that even though I hear it a lot.

Americans want things done that need to be done. They think bi-partisanship is the answer, and of course that would be nice. But, when the Republican party is owned by Russia, the NRA (also apparently owned by Russia), radical conservatives like the Kochs, friends of Epstein, the grim reaper (Moscow Mitch), and all the other greedy self-serving jerks, bi-partisanship is not practical.

Bi-partisanship is just old fashioned talk about politicians being nice and cooperative. Republicans have stopped doing that. If individual Republicans want to be reasonable and work for the country rather than themselves and their donors, they can join in with the repair and advancement of our country. Otherwise, let them continue to be an anti-democratic, self serving, white nationalist evangelical cult.

[emmaverybo]

73. The candidate who says that and tells the American public that she can not get anything done in

Congress, will not work with them, commits political suicide. The public is rather like the neighbors who hear bickering next door every night and no matter that partner A is the cause, blames them both.

It will be very difficult for a new Dem president to get any liberal, much less progressive, policy through, but what is possible—infrastructure perhaps—must be done.

We will have our hands full protecting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

[progressoid]

86. She says she won't work with Congress? LMGTFY...

She introduced legislation with GOP Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa to make hearing aids available over-the-counter, which was signed into law by Trump. She cosponsored the “Smart Savings Act” with GOP Senator Rob Portman of Ohio to boost federal employees’ savings. She cosponsored an opioids bill with Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia. And with John Cornyn of Texas, legislation to make it easier for veterans to obtain commercial driver’s licenses.

[emmaverybo]

96. I was responding to the post, which was rejecting the idea of bipartisanship. I did not claim

Warren made any statement along the same lines.

[MasonDreams]

89. If we don't even try for positive change things will just get worse.

Have you noticed? These guys that Biden has been compromising with are silent. Quiet as a mouse, while their "fine people on both sides" are gunning us down. In S Carolina church, in El Paso walmart, in Pa. synagogue.
We have a once in a lifetime mega landslide opportunity. Voters will not be inspired or moved by TV $$$. TV ratings and lots of polls are a joke. Remember 2016? Bernie's delagates will put Warren over the top on the first ballot. Yes we can!

[emmaverybo]

98. The point is there is every reason for Biden not to demonize Republican voters and to tout his

negotiation abilities. We will have to work with Congress on what we can as did Biden at Obama’s
direction.

[MasonDreams]

103. You're giving ground, and we've been giving ground since Jimmy Carter

We must at some point stand on principle. There's lead in the water and 72,000 fires in the Amazon. Give me progress or give me death.
P.S. just a reference to Patrick Henry. I'm not suicidal or homicidal or violent in any way. Just can't watch injustice w/o screaming never again. If Biden wants my vote he's gonna have to carry a big stick. Hickory or Ash, and a when you knock on moscow mitch, you can join my team. Metaphorically speaking.

[ChubbyStar]

101. bi-partisanship...and American the public

Ah just no on that. Everybody I know has picked a side and stuck with it. You have a different experience? Share it, I am sure it is GREAT!

[Ligyron]

62. Her unilateral no nukes policy sure didn't go over well with most Americans.

MIC either but I'm sure the Russians loved it.

Sure, we on here have heard her lectures and economic proposals repeatedly but most of the average citizens have not. I thought her hard work and pushing for the creation of a Consumer Protection Bureau was brilliant. The corporate masters sure hated that idea and made destroying it a priority.

IDK how many POC she reached when she won her Senate seat, I'll have to ask those I know but I'm sure there are other candidates better suited to addressing issues specific to POC. However, I'm kinda with Bernie and she in that, in the end, it's really "all about the money (economy)stupid". A larger proportion of the POC community need a way out of poverty and economic fairness and eliminating the racist GOP's all out attack on anybody not already seriously wealthy would benefit them far more than people like myself. Like it or not, you can paper over a lot of hurt and heal a lot of boo boo's with money.

If we could tax or fine the top 1 or 2% who's family and businesses benefited economically from slavery and pay that money as reparation to those now struggling economically whose ancestors were slaves, that might not be such a bad thing.

[Nitram]

122. I see nothing "magical" in Warren's proposals.

They are relevant, practical, and address exactly the issues we need too address. But I imagine the right will certainly accuse her of proposing magical solutions.

[DIVINEprividence]

94. I am surprised Tulsi Gabbard is not getting more support

Running a vet against Trump would win over a lot of independents. Her biography is incredible and her debate performance was impressive. She knows how to deliver a knuckle sandwich. She is a warrior but is liberal. I love that. I think she would kick Trump's arse and would be a solid VP pick perhaps.

[pansypoo53219]

60. i bet she was a great teacher.

[soldierant]

65. She was. Just ask Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA).

Katie was on Bill Maher's show again on Friday. That's just her most recent TV appearance; there are more vids to find and watch, but when she first announced, Elizabeth sent out a letter of endorsement referencing Katie's first day in class with her which made me fall in love with both Katie and Elizabeth (again.)

[PandoraAwakened]

68. Smart, badass, female teacher

Works for me!

[MRDAWG]

69. BUT she can not win!

Watch last Friday's Bill Maher.

[MasonDreams]

82. Cable tv is over, and so is corporate "already paid for"

horse hockey. Bill Maher's just more MSM status quo "conventional wisdom" stinky stuff. Harris tanked because she couldn't respond to Tulsi's allegations about her record. She's mockingly laughing at scared poor folks. Her idea, her actions, her telling of the story. Biden peaked the day he announced. We must have a change to vote for, not a just a fear of trump to vote against. Remember 2016?

[Kurt V.]

80. her entire campaign has a central theme. the corruption of power. That's true in every walk of life

to some degree or another. That's a winning message.

[blm]

107. When Dems won in 2006 the top issue for voters was corruption

And the strategist class had no clue. Here at DU we were not surprised.

[Prosper]

83. She has the answers and is in the know.

The US is in critical shape and she knows the blame belongs to money stagnating trading and dynasty trusts et al. Money needs to be spent to have prosperity and growth. Bernie even more so but whatever it takes to get money into the real economy of goods and services.

[zentrum]

87. Love her. So

...grateful she's here.

[grantcart]

99. At a recent meeting of the Maricopa County Democratic Party they asked

The 70 attendees to stand up for the candidates the currently supported.

My friend told me a couple stood for the first couple of names and when they announced Sen Warren's name 55 people stood to the stunned amazement off the entire room

IMO Warren has it to lose it and she isn't going to lose it.

Poll results, especially in a primary are a 2 dimensional picture of a 3 dimensional world. Poll results don't show how deep the individuals support the candidates. It's like looking at an ice covered lake. Is the ice 6 inches deep or 6 feet.

I sense that Warren's support isn't just larger than others but thicker and stronger.

I don't know how she has done it but she has built support that is not only broad but deep.

[myohmy2]

109. "There's a reason Warren is surging"

...she had too many burritos?


...in the meantime, check out Bernie...

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

...you may be surprised...

[Roy Rolling]

115. The Biggest Reason?

She is the anti-Trump. She doesn’t need to explain to people why she is the best at beating Trump, she embodies the reason she can beat Trump—she’s a teacher.

Trump is the exact opposite, a dumbass who sucks the intelligence out of a room wherever he shows up. A dolt, a moron, a socially-promoted D-student pushed along by daddy’s money and Russian friends because he is incapable of having an original thought or idea.

Elizabeth Warren is the polar opposite—she’s a firehouse of water putting out his raging fire of idiocy.

And people are soooo ready for someone smart again.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

118. She's my first choice. 💙 n/t

[Autumn]

119. I love watching hers, Bernie's and Kamala's rallies. The crowds, diversity and excitement are

amazing. You can see that these three top contenders excite the people.

[Nitram]

121. Warren has the knowledge and the ideas to set forth relevant, practical policies.

[zackymilly]

125. I wish Warren had run in 2016. We may not have had trump to deal with now. n/t

[Blue_true]

131. She is Trump's worst nightmare. She is smart, campaigns everywhere and is in good physical shape.

The intellectual and physical contrasts between her and Trump will be clear with her on a debate stage with her. If he refuses to debate her, her momentum will simply grow larger.

[ecstatic]

134. Her transformation has been an incredible

thing to witness.