Elizabeth Warren was, in my view, a victim of two things.

[guillaumeb]

First, and the most obvious, is systematized misogyny. A misogyny that gave her negative ratings for the very character traits that are necessary, even essential, for any Presidential candidate. And, having seen the example of 2016, she knew that the same misogynistic attacks that occurred in 2016 would happen again in 2020.

The corporate media promoted and spread what they framed as her negatives, from their choices of pundits, and the way they concentrated on what they called the negatives. But, as we know, the negatives, such as ambition, and strength, and genius level intelligence, are only negatives when they are exhibited by a female.

Second, Warren, like HRC in 2016, is and was, victimized by her incredible competence, and grasp of the issues. Yes, Warren did have plans for many things, but the media, and many voters, do not want to have the in-depth type of discussion that would have been required to examine her plans. The plans could never be reduced to 10 second sound bites and 6 word bumper stickers.

And her plans were anathema to the very rich, and the media that they own and control.


And for a corporate media that prefers flash to substance, and an acceptance of things remaining the same, that became a negative for Warren.

[turbinetree]

1. Very well said........................right on the mark.................the media owns this from the

beginning to the end......................2016-2020............................they own it....................

[guillaumeb]

3. And the media, being controlled by the rich,

has an interest in presenting what they prefer to see as the only logical and inevitable narrative.

[ismnotwasm]

2. Exactly

The minute they started calling her “a policy wonk” I had doubts for her campaign. She was too smart, too thorough, and, unfortunately being a woman is still a no go for many positions of highest power. Or just power.

It’s disgusting.

[guillaumeb]

5. Only for females is competence seen as a negative.

What sane person would prefer an idiot like Trump to a hyper competent person like HRC or Warren?

[kaotikross]

72. men that insist the goold ol' boys club stay in power, anti-choice folks, bible thumpers, etc

Warren is another extremely smart person who should be given a position. Were I the winner I'd round up the whole lot except Gabbard and place them all. Gabbard can kiss off.

[guillaumeb]

81. Perhaps Gabbard should run for Governor in American Samoa.

She did finish second there.

[demigoddess]

107. just men. any man. all men. big men. little men. jealous men.

the men that ruin the world.

[LisaM]

4. Yes.

I actually honestly believed the people in 2016 who called for her to run. I thought they would support her. I didn't really buy the "not that woman" narrative a lot of people spewed about Hillary, of course, but I honestly believed that there was some subset of Bernie supporters who truly meant that they would have no problem with a woman candidate if it was Elizabeth Warren. I couldn't have been more wrong.

Of course, I also believed that Bernie Sanders was finished after the shellacking he took in 2016, but that was another instance where I didn't read the tea leaves correctly.

I need to check my idealism at the door, because it clearly has no place in today's political climate.

[guillaumeb]

8. My view is that Sanders peaked in 2016.

I say this as a person who is generally the farthest to the left in many gatherings. While I agree with Sanders' class-based economic and historical analyses, changing minds is a long process.

[LisaM]

13. We all agree with that.

It's so disingenuous of him to act as if he alone cares about the class struggle. Unfortunately, he can't nuance it with the fact that racism, sexism, and homophobia all contribute to income inequality; it's all part of the larger picture of our tiered society.

[guillaumeb]

15. Agreed.

And those were my issues in 2016 as well. Any class-based analyses that do not consider the foundational role of slavery and discrimination are inherently flawed because they do not address what must be corrected.

[marlakay]

18. I agree and while progressive

And a Liz supporter, I am undecided.

I will vote for either one in November so not sure if I will even vote in primary for pres, will vote as many other local things in May in my state.

[LisaM]

22. Oh, I'm not undecided.

I'm a loyal Democrat, and I haven't cast my primary vote yet, and it's going to Biden, much as it pains me that I can't have my first few choices.

[Sympthsical]

121. I believe that subset did and does exist.

Sanders’ primary ceiling was significantly lower this go around. How much was not-Clinton and how much was progressives given another option?

I voted for Sanders in 2016 and Warren this week. If Warren had run in 2016, I would have voted for her then, too.

There a lot of us around, I think.

[tritsofme]

6. You might consider that many voters understood her plans just fine, but did not support them.

[guillaumeb]

9. Many here, yes.

But, from my experience here, the level of knowledge is much higher than I experience in daily conversation about politics.

[LisaM]

17. I find the candidates to be prety much on the same side of things.

What specific plan are you referring to that voters didn't support? (Assuming Democratic voters here).

I went and heard her last week at an enthusiastic, heavily attended rally that got basically zero press coverage (Bernie's rallies around the same time were all the rage on the local news though), and in her short, fiery speech made to supporters who couldn't get in, she outlined ideas for education, climate change, and banking regulations that I'm pretty sure no voter in the Democratic party would disagree with.

[tritsofme]

31. Lots of good stuff, no doubt.

But as were discussed throughout the debates, big signature items like her healthcare plan and wealth tax were controversial.

[LisaM]

47. Well, that's damning Biden with faint praise.

I'd hope he'd do a little more than just keep the status quo with the ACA, and definitely hope he has a plan, so to speak, to tax the wealthy a bit more.

[tritsofme]

52. Biden has argued for strengthening ACA, and higher taxes on the wealthy.

Medicare for All and a tax on wealth are not the only solutions, or ones that I support.

[alterfurz]

59. Yesterday's market surge was led by health insurance stocks...

...because the big investors know there'll be no MFA/single payer under Joe.

[BeckyDem]

102. +1

[oldsoftie]

163. But that doesnt support the view that losing isnt her or her campaigns fault.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

167. Very true. Especially if you are trying to appeal to

the segment of what I call socially conscious, fiscally conservative independent type voters. This group is cautious and don't believe ALL business is bad. And would never go along with huge spending bills unless soundly justified with full financial proformas, constraints with remediation, and incremental steps of roll out over time. To me, she is absolutely brilliant but wasn't savvy enough to recognize this.

[Taraman]

7. You nailed it.

She would have made a fine President, just what we needed.

[guillaumeb]

11. She presented a challenge to the rich.

And the rich control the mass media. Witness the effect of Bloomberg spending 500 million to essentially create himself as a candidate.

[Mr.Bill]

131. I have talke to

republican women and men who probably watch Fox News and have a net worth of under a million dollars who are absolutely certain that the day Warren was inaugurated their bank accounts would disappear. Idiots.

[guillaumeb]

133. But someday, these GOP voters might play the lottery.

Or invent something.

Or inherit something.

So they vote as f they are rich.

[Nikki28]

10. I agree

It is a damn shame this world has come to such a misogynous world and this is just plan wrong on so many levels. I feel for our country because I can't get excited about an election when we have so much against us like Russia/cheating/purging voting to name a few.

[guillaumeb]

12. Welcome to DU, Nikki.

If you need motivation, know that Trump can only get worse if he is President for another term.

Yes, the GOP will cheat, but they cheated in 2008 and 2012 and Obama won both times. We need a huge turnout.

[stopbush]

14. I couldn't disagree more with your simplistic - if expected - post mortem.

Warren did not resonate with enough Ds for her to do well in the primaries. Most of those Ds are women, and Ds in general are not rich, nor are they members or acolytes of the corporate media.

Were the black women (the backbone of the D Party) who voted heavily for Joe rather than Liz misogynistic and rich?

No, they are Ds, just like the rest of us, for whom other candidates were more appealing.

The bottom line is that most Ds voting in the primaries did not see Warren as the candidate best equipped to take out tRump, and taking out tRump is the single issue overriding all else in 2020.

[guillaumeb]

16. Understood.

But, as you might expect, I disagree with your analysis.

[LanternWaste]

20. True to form, your reponse is just as simplistic as what you allege of others.

[stopbush]

21. My response - while perhaps simplistic - has the advantage of being fact based.

[stopdiggin]

50. yes. but ...

The bottom line is that most Ds voting in the primaries did not see Warren as the candidate best equipped to take out tRump, and taking out tRump is the single issue overriding all else in 2020.

Quite true .. but "seen," particularly in this cycle, through the lens of "electability" .. which is largely monitored and driven by ...? And while I'm usually loath to label everything misogynist .. I think it almost undeniable that there was a huge swing in enthusiasm for a female candidate from HRC to current day. And, yes .. that lack of enthusiasm prevailed in the female voters as well. Given perilous times, women can be persuaded that the "safe" option is a man, just as well as their male counterparts. And this year ..many of them did. Is that misogynist? Guess that depends on your score card .. but it's certainly something!

It's rather telling that Sanders was relatively weak in the same demographics that you point to. This is just not the year that a lot of voters were willing to take a wild swing.

[stopbush]

62. Kamala Harris was my first choice this year. I wish she would have stayed in

because she was a candidate I could see taking tRump down a few notches. She has a different set of skills and strengths than does Liz, and IMHO, Kamala’s strengths made her a better anti-tRump candidate than Liz, or Biden, for that matter.

I await the posts explaining how my support for Kamala was somehow misogynistic.

[stopdiggin]

77. Ummm? not from me.

Personally .. I liked Warren. I think she was a good (though perhaps not great) candidate. And I liked the fact that she was intellectual. She did have plans! Would the same candidate given XY chromosomes have prevailed over Biden and Sanders (and the rest of the field)? Not convinced.

[LakeArenal]

64. I agree on your points

For me: Joe is the most qualified nationally and globally.

Warren isn’t ready for globally. None of the others were.

Also, the Franken baggage was a concern for all those that I feel eliminated him from this race or any race.

I won’t say I’m happy to see only Sanders left with that baggage.

Saying that doesn’t mean I don’t think Warren is a smart, true thinker. She should get some other job than President with a lot of visibility.

[Kota]

19. Well said.

I thought she was better than Joe and Bernie in every way. She could have brought the whole party together. And I think Independents and some Republicans. I don't know who to support. Joe is safe, a good man, but we won't get the kind of change Warren would have given us. And he's old, it worries me, look at Trump. Same can be said of Bernie mostly with his health. He promises the change but I don't see Independents and Republicans crossing over. Not sure he can even bring the party together. Wish Warren would have held on longer.

[guillaumeb]

30. Either Democratic candidate is far better than Trump.

But I understand your dilemma as far as choosing in the primary process. I am not sure at this point, but Illinois votes March 17 so I have time.

[Kota]

44. I'm in Illinois also, you are right, anybody is better than trump.

[kaotikross]

68. me too, Illinois

I can vote for either one. I'd be happy with either. Probably go Joe just because i think he has a better chance of not scaring off anti-trump repubs and farmers.

Something some folks forget is no matter how extreme some liberal policies may appear, these folks are NOT Trump and won't rule by fiat or through EOs, they can be talked to and take advice. It's not gonna be a "one man show" with a few kowtowers kissing asses, it'll be seasoned and sensible men who proceed after considering the impact all around. I'm sure I'm not alone in praying the bernie folks realize that Bernie could well get an appointement to a position if Joe wins. I'm for putting Bernie in charge of HHS, 100%

[guillaumeb]

80. Welcome to DU.

I too could vote for either. While I supported Sanders in 2016, I chose Warren this time for a number of reasons.

[LizBeth]

23. Right on. Clearly, hands down the best of the candidates.

[frazzled]

24. You're right, with a proviso

Warren had more or less positioned herself in the "progressive" camp of what the media kept calling the "moderate-progressive" split. (I never fully agreed with that assessment, but whatever: it was basically those calling for M4A and free tuition or wiping out college debt vs. most of the others).

That camp had only two major contenders: EW and Bernie Sanders. So "progressives" had to choose to align with one or the other. They obviously chose Bernie, and thus the misogyny predominantly came from the Sanders camp. No surprise to me.

[Thekaspervote]

53. This!

[stopdiggin]

84. I think that should read

"and thus the misogyny predominantly came from the 'progressive' camp" Right?

[frazzled]

114. Okay, I accept that change

My argument was aimed at the progressive bloc consolidating around Sanders rather than Warren. Since there were only those two in that group, it made sense at the time of posting to state it otherwise.

The same could be said for the center-left bloc, who coalesced around Biden. But in that case, it was a function of waiting to see who among the still many candidates was going to do best in the early contests and Super Tuesday: it was a lightning-fast, last-minute coalition. For myself, I would have voted for any of the remaining candidates on that side, including Warren, who I think could be seen to straddle the two sides. As it stands, the decision has been made for me (I don't vote for a few more weeks).

I don't know. I'm not an analyst.

[pampango]

109. Uniting the party one insult at a time?

… the misogyny predominantly came from the Sanders camp.

So the 'Sanders camp' is rife with misogyny? Those damn misogynistic progressives! If someone prefers Sanders over Warren they must be a misogynist!

What is someone prefers Biden over Harris? Misogynist?

[stopdiggin]

124. the OP invests heavily in the misogynistic explanation

it sort of follows that someone in the party ....

[Martin Eden]

25. "And for a corporate media that prefers flash to substance"

The way the debates have been conducted is an absolute disgrace.

The DNC should conduct their own debates which feature issues, ideas, policy solutions, and qualifications. Give each candidate equal time. If they want to use half their total time on a single issue, they may.

Sound bite debates with questions designed to elicit conflict between the candidates make all our candidates less appealing to voters.

I've really liked Elizabeth Warren ever since she came to national attention. The main reason I switched to Biden this week after being undecided is electability. I think Warren would make a fine president, but in our media-soaked culture the perception was negative, and perception becomes reality.

[guillaumeb]

33. I agree with your prescription for the debates.

And yes, the corporate media has no interest in issues, only conflict.

[beachbumbob]

26. what about the fact that some us just didn't like what she was offering? ANd now we hear the

same old victimization bullshit

[guillaumeb]

34. I am not accusing any individual voter.

Simply making a comment on what I see as important issues that affect female candidates.

And how the media prefers conflict to discussion.

[beachbumbob]

38. the first thing thrown out there is because they are a woman, I hate the victim card

I know why I did not support warren and did not mean I did not like her or much of what she said. I found her to be an unwinnable candidate against a GOP machine with trump.

Sometimes pragmatism HAS to be the play

[guillaumeb]

39. Warren is female.

And the role misogyny is unavoidable.

[mr_lebowski]

27. Given that Trump won I think one could argue that 'intelligence' is seen as negative even for males

For a significant portion of the voting population.

Other than that, agree w/everything you said ... I'll miss Liz in this race, I was pulling for her.

[guillaumeb]

40. The media created Trump, and presented him as smart.

And yes, Trump's racism and misogyny are seen by some as assets, not liabilities.

[totodeinhere]

28. So when if ever are we going to break the glass ceiling?

A good start would be putting a well qualified woman on the ticket. There are several very good possibilities. Then whoever that is would automatically be a front runner for either the 2024 or 2028 nomination.

[guillaumeb]

35. I agree.

Imagine that this had been done in 2008.

[ancianita]

66. That ceiling is a CEMENT ceiling in a gaslit room called the "catch and kill" zone.

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2020, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

We've HAD two brilliant, competent, qualified women.

There IS NO start. We've LONG since started with Shirley Chisolm back in the day.

LONG since waited,
worked,
out-graduated men in law schools,
got elected at state levels,
got elected at federal levels,
served in the military,
served and headed16 intelligence agencies,
served in the FBI,
served at the highest levels in the cabinet,
led in the United Nations.

Women have LONG since watched as other 75 women headed other nations.

Presidential politics is the catch and kill zone for women.

It is the insidious cowardice and fear of this country.

[guillaumeb]

79. There is much truth in your post.

There is obviously a reluctance to acknowledge how deeply misogyny is embedded in this country.

[beastie boy]

29. Warren has a Hillary problem.

She is super smart and she is a woman.

The combination of the two has never been welcome in America. It has been like this for centuries. The media has very little to do with this. It is the American culture that goes back to its puritan roots.

[guillaumeb]

36. The US corporate meda is owned and controlled by rich white males.

So I feel that your good observation is reflected in the media.

[beastie boy]

55. This attitude is certainly reflected in the media, but it is not endemic to it.

As it is not endemic to rich white men. Poor minority men are just as susceptible to this attitude. An attitude that was present way before the mass media became dominant.

[MisterProton]

162. Hillary won the popular vote

Also, she won her own senate seat. Smerconish had a great analysis of this very topic this morning on CNN where it was discussed, and yes there could be some bias - but some of it is the bias of thinking other people are biased - so why waste a vote (sic) for someone who isn't going to win (not my view, they were describing people in general). It's a self fulfilling prophesy.

[Moderateguy]

32. Her problem can be summed up in 1 phrase: America does not like smart women

[guillaumeb]

37. Agreed. eom

[Hortensis]

41. Might add 3 and 4: Sanders and Biden. And 5.

Both benefit from being men, of course. But Sanders already had his ardent base mostly locked up. And Biden was the favorite of most mainstream liberals, as well as others who made electability a priority from the beginning. (The power of that is evidenced by his Super Tuesday wins in spite of being broke and spending almost no money in those states. Scarborough said he spent a whole $100k or so total in VA!)

5: What I believe was a fatal mistake in not strongly sdifferentiating herself from Sanders. Warren was difficult to peg as there was no hole for a "radical in defense of traditionalism" as someone defined her. As such she is a true successor to FDR's New Dealers -- very unlike Sanders, who believes tradition is corrupt and unfixable, and FDR's capitalism-based legacy its epitome.

But with Sanders calling for the need to destroy tradition on one hand and claiming he was its defender on the other, many never broke through the confusion to see the enormous differences. Especially since it also made it easy for hostile pundits to equate her excitingly competent iconoclasm with Sanders' dysfunctional "wish on one hand" extremism, from whose planless rhetoric only one thing came alarmingly clearly: his antipathy to Democrats and the democratic systems we inherited.

Maybe a 6: She should have run in 2015, and if only she had! Sanders stepped forward out of years of obscurity to take advantage of the excitement and unfilled demand HER activism and achievements created. In the beginning he claimed to be picking up her banner. Not exactly. And if she'd run, win or lose the primary, Trump and the Republicans would have been toast. She'd have done all she had to to make sure of that.

[guillaumeb]

42. A great #5.

And FDR's program would be called impossible and not doable today by many voters.

Given that, in my view, Sanders and Warren approached the issues in a similar way, one difference is that she saw the solution as a highly regulated capitalism, rather than the essentially unregulated predatory capitalism that exists in the US today.

So you suggest that if Warren had announced in 2015 history might have been quite different?

Thank you for the excellent response.

[brooklynite]

43. Why can't she just be a candidate that voters didn't support?

My arguments against Warren (who I’ve supported as a Sewnae candidate) are largely the same one’s I havre again Sanders. Gender and age have nothing to do with it.

[John Fante]

60. Let's hear them.

[brooklynite]

106. MFA is the largest one..

FORCING people to join a Government run health program with no option to keep private plans is a losing proposition in the rust belt States we have to win back.

Despite being a woman, Warren was rising in the polls until October, when this became a controversial issue.

[MoonlitKnight]

125. Supporting civil rights lost us the south.

Should we have rolled back the Civil Rights act to win those states back? Of course you don’t mean that, but it’s an example of taking a stand on an issue that is morally and objectively correct. Just like being pro choice. We could just cave on that issue in a quest for power. But what good is having power without purpose? Doing so only leads to corruption.

Once the primary is completely done, I hope that the Democrats who have been against single payer healthcare take another objective look at it. And a look based upon what is best for the country as a whole and not just for anyone’s current personal or political situation.

I look forward to that discussion free from the influence of a campaign.

But for now, our remaining candidates support progress on the issue. So that is at least something.

No other candidate received the kind of coverage Warren did today when they dropped out. Heck, Warren never received the kind of coverage when she was running like she did today. That says something.

[alarimer]

144. Why keep a plan that costs you more money and lands you in bankruptcy?

300,000 medical bankruptcies every year.

Lots of people diagnosed with cancer or other diseases end up completely broke.

Medicare for All saves everyone money. GM builds cars in Canada because it is cheaper due to not having to pay health care.

Imagine what individuals and companies could do without that financial burden.

There are no valid arguments against Medicare for All. None.

[brooklynite]

145. The most valid argument: voters don't support it

[guillaumeb]

82. Understood, but my points remain.

Misogyny, like racism, is embedded in this country.

[BusyBeingBest]

45. She wasn't victimized. She was even front-runner for a time.

Being female didn't hold her back from being nominee. Some bad campaign decisions did, coupled with shaky political skills. She went full wonk, and total woke--almost to the point of parody (a transgendered kid picking your secretary of education? Really?), and right there some people tune out. She didn't have her M4All plans ready to go when the spotlight was on her as front-runner. Her attacks on other candidates sometimes worked, and sometimes bounced back and hit her in the face really hard (wine caves). She always came off as energetic, but sometimes people don't respond well to that. Sometimes she came across as scolding or sanctimonious-- Bernie and Pete could too, so not necessarily a female thing. Sometimes she was unfairly ignored, that I will give you. She didn't always get the media coverage other candidates got, and media coverage is key.

[guillaumeb]

85. We agree on the aspect of her being ignored by the media. eom

[Yavin4]

46. Three, Bernie

Let's be honest here. Bernie should have stepped aside and let Warren lead the progressives.

[deurbano]

51. Especially after the heart attack at 78!

[guillaumeb]

86. That argument can certainly be made. eom

[Awsi Dooger]

48. Elizabeth Warren would flunk the Dina Titus or Tessa Hafen test

That's the one I apply to every female candidate, based on hosting debate watching parties for so many years in Las Vegas. Apolitical types and swing voters in my living room did not like Dina Titus at all when she ran against Jim Gibbons for Nevada governor in 2006. Titus was an academic policy wonk. Long detailed responses. People in my living room were nitpicking Titus' hair, her accent, her mannerisms, everything. She could have recited the greatest policy proposals of all time and it wouldn't matter.

Elizabeth Warren is pure Dina Titus to voters like that. Warren has no chance nationally and never did. Like Warren, Titus can win under favorable demographics.

Tessa Hafen was a sweet upstart who ran against Jon Porter as a huge underdog in a Nevada house race during the same year. In contrast to Titus, the same group of people in my living room absolutely adored Hafen. That race should have been won if the DCC had understood Hafen's capability to pull the upset. She was not funded until very late and lost by about 2 points. Bill Clinton singled it out as one of the great missed opportunities of that cycle.

Amy Klobuchar is Tessa Hafen. No question she could win nationally. The primaries were always going to be greater obstacle for her.

[squirecam]

74. Amy can help bring suburban women in the midwest

To Biden in November.

Joe/Amy 2020.

[guillaumeb]

87. Excellent observations.

And proving the larger point.

[Taraman]

49. Mostly, I'm just sad today that she's out of the race.

She gave it all to the race. Brilliant, decent, compassionate woman. Some of my very favorite qualities.

I hope the eventual nominee incorporates some of her ideas. The status quo wasn't very good for many Americans. That's why we got this con man for president.

[FM123]

54. So many wonderful things about her were twisted around and framed to mock her.

[blm]

161. ✔️

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-changed-democratic-party-primary_n_5e6140cdc5b601904ea7196f?

[Act_of_Reparation]

56. Sexism can't be understated.

She was easily the most intelligent and capable person on the ballot, but she couldn't prove she was "electable"... you know, electable despite being the most intelligent and capable person on the ballot.

[guillaumeb]

88. And this pretense of being concerned with "electability"

is applied most often to women.

[Act_of_Reparation]

128. And don't forget about a "plan"

If you're a woman running for president, you need to have a three-thousand page omnibus outlining every move you will take to enact the change on which you're campaigning.

There is no such requirement for milquetoast mediocre white men.

[guillaumeb]

132. And the GOP runs on slogans.

The advantage of slogans is that there are no details to be criticized.

[robbedvoter]

57. True. There was also stuff she chose herself: not to speak up about

Sanders' misogyny (girls can't president - first private, then public) I was considering switching to her after Kamala and that gave me pause. I felt she picked the bros over me. Again. I was willing to overlook the old "primaries were rigged" about the last election in which she erased me. But fool me once... Still, her presence will be missed. Edited to ad an excellent thread about misogyny, from Hillary onward, to the 2020 candidates

Link to tweet

[CaptYossarian]

58. Best post I've read in a very long time.

100% correct.

[guillaumeb]

90. I have read better.

Tygr Bryght is one of my favorites.

[jimlup]

61. I agree in all respects

Because Warren put her details out there she opened herself up to the microscopic analysis of the nay-sayers.

I'm a former Warren supporter and still think she was by far the best choice. I see the writing on the wall and will ultimately support Biden IF he is in fact the nominee. There is still time between now and July so I'm voting for Bernie next week because I don't think the mainstream (including most here) have given the progressive agenda a fair assessment. Call my coming vote on Tuesday a protest vote and also perhaps a warning vote.

The mainstream had better have a damn good campaign against the orange clown. And they better come up with a way to inspire people and inspire turnout.

[guillaumeb]

91. Thank you.

I think that last Tuesday showed that Biden can and will inspire people.

[Politicub]

63. The patriarchy must be abolished

It is a caustic force in the human condition, and it’s time to move on from testosterone-fueled policies.

[guillaumeb]

92. Like endless war? eom

[Reader Rabbit]

65. And her "mistakes" were blown all out of proportion.

Even here on DU, some were quick to chide her for the foolishness/stupidity/tone-deafness/etc. for the Native American DNA Test thing. And all the while, any number of male candidates made far more bone-headed gaffes that were either brushed aside or pooh-poohed.

[guillaumeb]

94. Agreed. eom

[Bernardo de La Paz]

67. People who don't state plans don't get picked to pieces on the basis of plans. It's that stupid. .nt

[guillaumeb]

95. Trump, like Reagan ran on a slogan.

Both also ran on appeals to racists.

[TygrBright]

69. Female and competent. The Kiss of Death in American politics, yep... n/t

[democrank]

70. Highly recommended

[relayerbob]

71. I will add one other thing

by not going after Sanders' inadequacies as a candidate early on, she ceded that entire lane to him, giving him enormous power. To win, she had to beat him at his own game, and chose not to. I get why, and it's tied directly to the other two reasons, but nonetheless, she needed to do to him what she did to Bloomie. It left her with almost no room to maneuver

[guillaumeb]

96. That is a good argument to make.

Perhaps she felt sympathy for Sanders. They are the closest ideologically.

[Harker]

73. Top notch, gillaumeb.

I was decided, now I find myself...

[guillaumeb]

98. As was I. And thank you. eom

[OhNo-Really]

75. Rural areas require non-stop canvassing imho

Unless & until the disinformation bubble bursts, boots into the ground sharing the truth ie short videos of ppl sharing their medical horror stories

That is what Warren & Amy did. We need to keep doing it.

A huge information sharing army of brave volunteers

This once every 4 years thing is working too slowly

Imho

❤️Warren❤️

[guillaumeb]

99. And both are Senators, which requires much time and effort.

And there is the need to compete with the media centric, money controlled politics that the GOP does so well.

[dansolo]

76. She was a victim of bad choices

She was never going to appeal to the Bernie crowd. She should have forged her own path instead of trying to be a less combative Bernie Sanders. Every time she defended M4A, she was essentially ceding the entire debate to Bernie.

[NCProgressive]

78. She ran a Bernie-Lite campaign

and it turned off moderates without garnering very many progressives.

She figured that Bernie supporters would come to her in droves but that didn't happen because they were just true devotees of the person rather than wanting specific policies. This left no room to maneuver.

She was one of the best candidates - just chose the wrong lane to drive in.

[customerserviceguy]

83. Before we blame sexism and ignorance

let's consider the ways that Elizabeth Warren undermined her own campaign.

First, there's that whole "Native American" thing. It was bad enough when she released her DNA report right during the end of the 2018 election, taking up media space that would have been better used by our candidates to flip the House from red to blue, but when I saw that Texas Bar form where she, in her own writing gave her race as "American Indian", I knew that it would be something that the GOP could effectively hit her on.

Second, she was all over the place on Medicare for All, adopting different positions on an almost weekly basis.

Third, she made a big deal out of not accepting PAC support during the campaign, until just before Super Tuesday.

Fourth, while it was fun to watch her gut Bloomie in the last two debates, and it raised a lot of money for her campaign, it made her look a bit like a scold. When she said, "How many non-disclosure agreements?" to Bloomie, I liked watching him squirm, but it called to mind the times the teacher said, "And how much of your homework did your dog eat?"

There are other little things here and there, but I believe that she sabotaged her own campaign.

[Taraman]

89. Oh puhleaze

[customerserviceguy]

93. Tell me

which one of my points is incorrect, noob.

[Taraman]

97. No. It's pointless. I'm going to go cool off.

[customerserviceguy]

100. So, you have no refutation

I'll at least give you credit for not pulling out the "Republican Talking Points" card that is often used as a substitute for actual reasoning.

[guillaumeb]

103. Before you go and cool off, welcome to DU.

And read my post 101.

My view is that what I spoke about in the original post is validated by what I just read.

[Taraman]

108. Not a newbie.

Why assume that if someone doesn't have 20,000 posts that they are newbies?

[guillaumeb]

111. Agreed.

And calling Warren a scold, and schoolteacher validates my original point.

And yes, I did assume from the post count.

[guillaumeb]

101. Reread your fourth point.

My opinion is that my point is being reinforced by your observations.

[customerserviceguy]

110. Agreed

That's how she came across to me, and others may have indeed felt differently. I almost had to feel sorry for Bloomie, and mind you, I got a post removed for saying that I coult vote for Bernie Sanders in November, whereas I wouldn't vote for Bloomberg were he the nominee because I wanted to still look black people in the eye.

Perhaps my perception of her as a scold is from my own experiences, you don't forget those Catholic school nuns with their rulers! But, I may well not have been the only one who felt that. At least I can acknowledge it.

Thanks for starting this thread, it's good to talk about these things.

[guillaumeb]

112. Thank you for your response.

I too attended Catholic schools, for 17 years.

[customerserviceguy]

113. During the first Star Wars movie

you could always tell who had been. They'd try to protect their knuckles when Darth Vader first appeared on the screen!

[MoonlitKnight]

126. Exhibit A

[customerserviceguy]

141. I don't seem to recall

Amy Klobuchar blaming sexism for her having to drop out. Weren't the same sexist forces working against her? Also, it seems odd to blame Democratic voters for sexism, when we have a solid example of a sexist pig current rooting around the White House.

[LaurenOlimina]

104. Sounds right

[Faux pas]

105. Amen

and

[rainy]

115. All so true!!!

[guillaumeb]

117. And indicative of how far we have to go. eom

[Piratedog]

116. Oh FFS. She lost because she couldn't convince

Enough people to vote for her. Period

[guillaumeb]

118. Welcome to DU.

We disagree, both on my analysis, and perhaps on the structural nature of misogyny.

[we can do it]

119. She is so much more competent and prepared than BS.

Had actual plans and how to pay for them. Compassion and intelligence and preparation. But once again the media and bros deprive us of a superior leader.🤮🤮🤮

[guillaumeb]

120. The US corporate media fears her ideas. eom

[Vivienne235729]

122. I disagree that it was the media's fault. They covered her pretty well.

It is now nearly 4 years since we have unleashed the orange bastard. Our country is not what it was in 2016. There is more racism, xenophobia, hate, and misogyny. Between trump and our very racist and misogynistic Republican party, it's no wonder Warren didn't have a chance. People don't want to acknowledge or accept it, but we have gone backwards. And not a little bit, either. We have greatly devolved as a society. Warren had to climb far higher obstacles than Hillary.

We need to get trump out of office and the reality is that she would not have appealed to enough people to win the general. Her base is educated white women. That's just not enough to win a general election. She does not have the AA or even the POC vote.

[guillaumeb]

134. But HOW the US corporate media covers someone is crucial.

Trump, like Reagan, ran on a slogan. Just a slogan, with nothing of substance.

Similar to "tastes great", or "fewer calories", or other advertising slogans. And the media said nothing. The media that figuratively created Trump, the myth of Trump, said nothing.

Warren's plans were detailed, and these details were attacked immediately, especially, in the case of MFA, by the very industries that most benefit from the current system.

And while we regularly heard about Warren's supposed un-electability, Trump's obvious incompetence was ignored.

[Kaleva]

123. Warren didn't go after Sanders hard and early.

beginning in Apr of last year, Warren began a steady climb in the polls, overtaking Sanders in early Sept., until she reached a zenith in early October where she was essentially tied with Biden. But then she began a decline and Sanders started climbing again.

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

[guillaumeb]

135. She was polite, and professional.

Her fault, if it can be framed as such, was that she assumed that the media was interested in actual discussion.

[Kaleva]

140. Something that's never happened, media interested in actual discussion of the issues.

[guillaumeb]

147. The media prefers easily preseented soundbites.

Nuance is simply not part of US media coverage. Thus, a reality television celebrity, through the magic of the media, becomes a viable candidate.

[Kaleva]

156. Primarily because so many voters prefer that.

The media is a profit oriented business and they'll put out what gives them the highest ratings.

[blm]

151. Biden and Pete didn't, either. They went after Warren all fall, though,

attacking her integrity, even as they completely laid off Sanders.

[Kaleva]

155. There'a aticles going back to May of last year discussing Sanders and Biden attacking each other

An example from July 2019

"To Mr. Biden, Medicare for All is a costly and complex proposal that means eliminating private health insurance — and scrapping the Affordable Care Act.

“I knew the Republicans would do everything in their power to repeal Obamacare,” he said in a video this week as he rolled out his own health care proposal. “They still are. But I’m surprised that so many Democrats are running on getting rid of it.”"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/us/politics/sanders-biden-health-care.html

"Bernie Sanders ramps up his attacks on Joe Biden
28
Published: May 15, 2019 at 5:20 p.m. ET"

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bernie-sanders-ramps-up-his-attacks-on-joe-biden-2019-05-15

"Bernie Sanders Goes After Joe Biden On Afghanistan

CHRISTIAN DATOC
SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT
November 20, 2019
10:28 PM ET"

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/20/bernie-sanders-joe-biden-afghanistan/

"Biden, Sanders Spar Over Social Security
THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN IS HITTING BACK AFTER THEY SAY SANDERS LAUNCHED NEGATIVE AND DISHONEST ATTACKS AGAINST THE FORMER VP'S RECORD ON SOCIAL SECURITY.
Biden, Sanders Spar Over Social Security"
BY TANYA A. CHRISTIAN · JANUARY 22, 2020

https://www.essence.com/news/politics/biden-sanders-spar-social-security/

I don't think you can say that Biden ignored Sanders all fall when google search results show otherwise.

[blm]

157. Lol. Sept, Oct, Nov was Attack Warren season.

Biden and Pete pretty much laid off a Sanders because of his health issue at the time.

They focused their attacks on Warren to bring her numbers down.

We lived it here at DU. If you could have found articles on Biden’s attacks on Bernie last fall, you would have posted them. There are plenty of articles referencing Biden’s attacks on Warren then.

I’ll be supporting Biden, but don’t try to BS us on why Warren’s numbers started going down in Nov and Dec as Sanders started rising.

And then Warren goes and takes out Bloomberg who had Biden running spooked. People who were poised to endorse or vote for Bloomberg changed back to Joe.

Warren was treated unfairly all around.

[RDANGELO]

127. Warren made two big mistakes.

1. She hedged on Medicare for All which lost her progressive voters.

2. She stated that she was going to pay for all of her programs without raising taxes on the middle class, and people did not believed her.

[guillaumeb]

136. MFA is, and was, the subject of a disinformation campaign

that Putin would be proud to run.

The healthcare industries spent millions on propaganda that converted initial overwhelmingly positive public support into uncertainty.

[MD shmoo]

129. She was a victim of her inability to give a straight answer to a simple question

That question being "will your healthcare plan raise taxes, yes or no?"

It doesn't matter if you think it's an unfair question, or misleading question, or other candidates might get away with being evasive or exaggerating in other cases. When you're the frontrunner and refuse to answer a binary question then you're done. Being a woman, or having the "wrong" policy ideas, or anything else doesn't matter at that point. People are tired of the bullsh!t and lies being shoveled out by the cubic meter by the current President and don't want someone else with a smaller shovel dispensing it instead.

[guillaumeb]

137. Welcome to DU.

The actual question is, of countries that provide healthcare via taxation, a single payer system, do these countries spend less per capita than does the US.

The answer is yes.

And the question should have reflected that. Higher taxes are more than offset by elimination of co-pays, premiums, non-covered expenses, and out of pocket expenses that are a feature of the US system.

[MD shmoo]

139. She's smart and could have explained this

This is the Democratic primaries and not the general election being driven by 3 second soundbites. A debate stage where you have 90 seconds or more to explain how her plan provided more VALUE than the current system. Value however is impacted by both accounting sides of her healthcare plan. Value is both the non-monetary considerations (like de-linking healthcare from your employment situation) but is also heavily a function of total costs vs. benefits received. And total costs are a factor of both outlays (medical costs paid out plus costs to run the system itself) and inputs (revenues gained by taxation whether employer-paid or individual payroll taxes, plus insurance premiums paid if any). She could have easily explained this yet chose to attempt to ignore and deflect questions about one side of the equation, the tax portion of the inputs side. That leads people to question her honesty about her assertion that overall costs will go down and not believe the better value claim either.

[guillaumeb]

146. Given the current, sound bite driven, debate format,

this could not have been done.

And information about per capita healthcare spending, by country, is a short search away, but given that many, perhaps a majority, of US voters admit that they do no follow politics until after Labor Day in election years, the larger, critical question remains.

How do we, and how can we, convince the mass of voters that ignoring politics and the issues often leads to terrible outcomes.

[MD shmoo]

153. Of course it could be done. Sanders did it.

He honestly answered the question about his MFA plan raising taxes and said yes. And took way less than 90 seconds in doing so. Plus he's still in the race and Warren is out so it's obvious their respective actions led to very opposite results. She either lacked the courage to give a straight answer or figured the truth would not be well received and decided to hide it. Misogyny didn't force her to make that choice and fail to do what Sanders did easily, that was completely on her.

[Chalco]

130. Well said. nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

138. Not to mention the media erasure of her very presence.

I certainly noticed the media message has been faithfully aimed at Sanders and Biden. With a surge of focus on Pete. The media really decides who people think about.

[guillaumeb]

148. Absolutely.

In my view, Warren was seen by the rich media owners as the more serious threat.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

154. Quite rightly.

Damn the goddamn sexism. And the nasty online bullying she’s mentioned. Which of course is misogyny.

[Scruffy1]

142. The whole debate thing is a farce.

There were too many candidates to have any in depth discussions. The whole thing looked like a lame reality show that could have been titled "Who Wants to Be President." The shallowness of the talking heads was stifling. Of course all of these talking heads are very rich and more interseted in how they look and their own ratings than they are in a substantive discussion. Go for the gaffe, the soundbite or the pratfall. if we let the media decide what's important for us we deserve to get screwed. Let's see a bunch of very rich people whose main talent is looking nice and acting like they know stuff who are highlypaid by huge corporations. I think they dercided that talk about actual policy was to boring and they never gave her a chance,

[guillaumeb]

149. Really well stated.

The debates are, indeed, reality television.

[alarimer]

143. I'm still voting for her

Because I want my choice known and I want to lodge a protest, however quixotic that might be.

I think people don't even realize how much sexism pervades our lives. We internalize and don't even know it.

Almost all of the talk around likability or electability really comes down to sexism.

[guillaumeb]

150. Most voters have not even voted yet.

There might be many such votes.

[Blue_Tires]

152. At least 17 states got the chance to vote for her...

As a Kamala supporter I didn't even get that opportunity...

[guillaumeb]

159. That is true.

Which suggests that the US needs s shorter primary season, at best no longer than 2-3 months. And group states together so no one state has an advantage.

[Blue_Tires]

166. Actually I'm in favor of tearing up the whole presidential election format

and starting with something new... The current system we have now might as well be the stone age

[JGug1]

158. Elizabeth Warren

Forgive me....I think your piece is bullshit. Elizabeth Warren had the same opportunities that every single Democratic candidate had. Those two with the only chance of gaining the nomination are where they are because they attracted the most admirers. They aren't there for any other reason. Shortly, I suspect, that number will be down to Joe Biden because Sanders' campaign is falling apart because of its weaknesses. Hillary Clinton won the nomination in 2015 because she did the best job of attracting supporters. Yeah, it really IS that simple.
Am I saying that the playing field is level for women in politics? Hardly. Clinton made it and she made it in spite of the significant baggage that she carried.

[guillaumeb]

160. We must agree to disagree.

Your position suggests that misogyny and racism play no part, and that position must ignore 400 years of actual history.

[StarfishSaver]

164. Hear, hear!

You nailed it.

[guillaumeb]

168. Thank you. eom

[patphil]

165. Unfortunately there aren't enough voters who want an intelligent candidate...

who challenges you to think about the issues.
Elizabeth Warren was my first choice, Biden my second.

[guillaumeb]

169. The GOP runs on slogans.

Democrats run on plans.