"I Am Burning With Fury and Grief Over Elizabeth Warren. And I Am Not Alone"

[wackadoo wabbit]

I apologize if this has already been posted. I searched and couldn't find it.

This is well worth reading:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/06/opinion/elizabeth-warren-women-president.html

Consider every moment, since the dawn of woman, when a female aspired but to no avail. She asked to attend school but was denied. She raised her hand but wasn’t called on. She applied but wasn’t hired. She enlisted but wasn’t deployed. She created but wasn’t credited. She ran but wasn’t elected.

Imagine the sadness and frustration of every such instance as a spark, their combined energy the size of many suns. That is the measure of grief and fury I felt rise inside me as I watched Elizabeth Warren’s bid for the Democratic nomination wane.

When Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, it hurt in similar ways but didn’t surprise me. Out here in the red hinterlands, it was plain to some of us that centrist ideas did not excite in times of historic inequality. This election, though, I thought Senator Elizabeth Warren — a class revolutionary to match the moment — might go to the White House.

It turns out that she won’t even go to the general election. Now the same pundits who in 2016 proved they know very little will list the reasons, without realizing they’re among the reasons.

[LaurenOlimina]

1. Warren!

:loveya





:loveya





:loveya

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

4. Gotta love Elizabeth!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[ehrnst]

13. Smart cookie. Didn't jus quit and endorse Bernie specially after

him callin her a liar n' stuff.

Good on her!

Joe/Kamala or Biden/Harris 2020!!
Jump on the Biden Bandwagon & abandon the revolution!!

[TexasTowelie]

2. Warren never did better than third place in the 18 states and territories

that held caucuses or primaries and she is nearly 500 delegates behind Biden. Examining the primary schedule there aren't any states where she could be expected to do better than third place. As Andrew Yang said when he withdrew, it is wrong to continue asking people to donate to your campaign when there is no realistic chance of winning or accomplishing your goals. I commend Warren for coming to that realization and I respect her for her accomplishments, but it was time for her to withdraw.

[pattyloutwo]

3. Can't believe it

And won’t get over it soon. I think I’ll vote for her Tuesday as a protest vote. I’m not able to rally around either of the 80 year old men, both of whom yell. It’s nuts. Parents who didn’t support her shouldn’t be telling their girls a woman can be president. They should be answering truthfully - no, not yet.

[democrattotheend]

8. I'm leaning toward doing the same

Since it probably won't be that competitive by the time my state votes, and even if it is I am not thrilled with any of the remaining choices, I will probably just vote for her anyway if she is still on the ballot.

[hedda_foil]

5. Goddamn right!! I am bereft that she won't be my president.

[anamnua]

6. I would love to have seen her go head-to-head with Trump in a debate . NT

[pattyloutwo]

7. Yes

When she took down Bloomberg she was showing us how she’ll take down Trump, but people didn’t think.

[wackadoo wabbit]

9. She would have eviscerated him

. . . and done it in a way that no other candidate could have done.

[Awsi Dooger]

10. I have no idea how a New York Times writer could be surprised

His own paper detailed Warren's problems late in 2019, when the Times looked at the new breed of swing voter...both the broadly defined group and the truly persuadable types. Warren fared awful with both groups. I thought it was one of the more interesting studies I've seen on the new swing voter. That's why I bookmarked it. New swing voters are now primarily male while they had always been majority female.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/upshot/swing-voters-2020-election.html

"For now, these persuadable voters in battleground states have a favorable view of Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, but not of Elizabeth Warren, our polling shows."

<snip>

"Mr. Trump leads Ms. Warren, 49 percent to 27 percent, among this broadly defined group of persuadable voters, slightly improving on his margin over Mrs. Clinton. He holds a narrow 43-37 edge over Mr. Biden, a slight improvement for the president over the Republican performance in the midterm election but far from matching his tallies in 2016."

<snip>

"These truly persuadable voters supported Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 by eight points and have less developed views on the presidential race. They support Mr. Biden over the president, 38 percent to 27 percent, but prefer the president to Ms. Warren, 37 to 20. Mr. Sanders is in between, with the president leading him, 34 percent to 32 percent. This group voted for Mr. Trump by a smaller margin in 2016, 37 percent to 30 percent, with the rest casting ballots for minor candidates."

[bobGandolf]

11. Sanders/Warren will not help him win.

The Socialist will haunt him throughout the primary campaign.
If you know anything about politics, you know T-rump will be hammering this
every day of the campaign. It will keep enough voters with him to win.
Remember this prediction because god forbid if Bernie wins the Dems will lose.

[SharonClark]

12. The author of the NYT piece is delusional.

"When Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, it hurt in similar ways but didn’t surprise me. Out here in the red hinterlands, it was plain to some of us that centrist ideas did not excite in times of historic inequality. This election, though, I thought Senator Elizabeth Warren — a class revolutionary to match the moment — might go to the White House."

So she claims that Clinton, who won over 3,000,000 more votes than Trump is a centrist and couldn't win in the "red hinterlands' because she wasn't revolutionary enough to excite people.

The author is delusional to think those in the red hinterlands want a revolution. There is no evidence of that in any primary held so far.

And I was a Warren supporter.

[Blue_Tires]

14. +1000

[IluvPitties]

18. Exactly.

[Blue_Tires]

15. Her "fury and grief" should be pointed at white women

which is the demographic Warren needed to dominate and didn't even come close...

I mean FFS, she finished third in her own state?

[k2qb3]

16. Warren's problem wasn't her gender or her policies...

I'm fairly certain if she was a man, with the same speech patterns and mannerisms, he/she would have done worse, the rejection would be visceral.

The presidential voice is a thing, and I'm sure a woman can find it, Warren didn't.

Leadership psychology is problematic at this scale, but it can't be ignored.

[ismnotwasm]

17. And systemic, invasive sexism with patriarchal rule for millennia is also a thing.

Did you just criticize her voice and expressions? And then say her gender wasn’t a factor?

Sexism is a lot like racism, it’s so ingrained, at times so insidious, that if hard sex examination isn’t done—which so many people don’t do, it’s never addressed.

Warren wasn't my favorite, but I’m never going to deny she was a victim of sexism

[squirecam]

19. I'm getting tired of this.

Amy was my top choice of those running. Michelle would have been if we were in fantasy land.

But I would not have supported Warren.

Clinton won last time because she was the best candidate. Obama beat her in 08 because he was the better candidate.

Warren was not the best candidate this time. Not everything comes down to sexism.

[ismnotwasm]

21. Everything comes down to the underlying power structures we live by

Which include systemic racism and systemic sexism. The problem is, these issues tend to be most outlined and discussed in academia, and most people don’t want to think that hard. Don’t blame them actually. It’s hard.

White women are rising, yet the majority voted for Trump. Women of color are rising, yet other than a pre-chosen, secondary position they aren’t reaching the top. And not just in politics.

Hillary was a uniquely qualified candidate in every sense of the word. She faced ENORMOUS sexism. She was a candidate, and eventually nominee despite sexism.

Warren was on the bottom of my list as was Sanders from reasons both personal and philosophical but I can and do acknowledge that part of the reason she gained no traction was her gender. She wasn’t in Hillary’s political league, but she is brilliant, with policies she could support with data. Unlike some of the male candidates, she could outline how to get from point A to point B

It’s not enough to say “I supported a woman” or “I supported a black man” That doesn’t erase the power structures. It never does. It never will.

[squirecam]

22. I can't stand Sanders.

But it isn’t because he is a man.

[Demsrule86]

20. And there were plenty racists when Obama ran, he won anyway. And the first woman president will

have to do the same...maybe starting with a woman VP would be best and would lead to a woman president...The country has to be willing to vote for one remember.

[gollygee]

23. Wow yes

Great example of sexism she faced right in that post. She didn't sound like a president? I like Biden, but he's forgiven for speech issues. Sanders doesn't have an amazing voice either. But it's only an issue for Warren. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.