A Warren supporter is curious: What do you not like about EW?

[LAS14]

I'm not soliciting "bashing." (I couldn't find the definition, but there's got to be room for critiques.) And I assume from the get-go that any responders will diligently, if not enthusiastically, support or nominee whoever he or she is.

I'm just curious about how people's views differ from mine.

tia
las

[wasupaloopa]

1. For me she is to excitable. I find it irritating to listen to her. As is true for any candidate,

Presidents do not make law. We need to defeat trump before any progressive ideas can be put into law.

If we do not beat trump, chances are we get a dictator and progressive ideas die on the vine.

She needs to say that

For another thing, I can't picture her as President. I can picture almost all the other candidates as President.

[LAS14]

3. Yeah, this is what started me wondering. It's her excitedness that...

... excites me. But all my life I've been aware than my own energy level can be off putting. I'll be watching, in particular, if she can begin to make inroads with the black and hispanic communities.

[Croney]

26. Are male candidates ever described as too excitable?

Maybe they are, but I can't think of one right now. It seems a bit sexist to me.

[Funtatlaguy]

29. Beto screams & waves his arm in unison with each syllable.

[Croney]

33. I like him, so I wouldn't call him "too" anything.

I wouldn't call EW "too" anything either.

Any Democrat who can end our current nightmare will have my vote, so I'm leaving all options open.

[Bettie]

66. I grew up with people who talk with their whole bodies

so that doesn't even phase me!

[HelpImSurrounded]

39. Thank you for asking.

[DrToast]

43. Howard Dean? Pretty much sank his candidacy

Not everything is sexist.

[Bettie]

51. It wasn't his energy level

it was one second that someone decided to make a big deal out of and the media ran with it.

And in the room he was in, it didn't sound anything like that one mic caught it as.

[DrToast]

58. Whether it was a fair critique isn't being discussed

Fair or not, it certainly damaged his campaign.

[Bettie]

59. But previous to that no one had said

that his energy level was grating or annoying or that he wasn't "Likable".

Which is the point at issue.

No one called him arrogant for having ideas and principles.

No one said his enthusiasm was annoying.

[DrToast]

60. You're not following the discussion

Here’s what was said:

Are male candidates ever described as too excitable?

Excitable.

Where are you getting “arrogant” or “likable”?

Edit: Also, I completely reject the notion that male candidates aren’t ever referred to as arrogant, since you brought it up. I hear that about Bernie all the time and I definitely hear it about our current President.

[Bettie]

65. From a comment by you

in another post in this same thread:

You said:

And I think she’d lose because:

-she lacks the temperament to handle Trump
-the country won’t support many of her ideas (not all but many)
-I wouldn’t quite say she’s arrogant, but she’s close
-She’s not a team player (see relatively low number of Democratic endorsements)

Not quite arrogant, but close

Lacks the temperament

Likable is one I've been hearing about all the female candidates, but never about any of the male ones, but it dovetails with the others among the typical reasons women shouldn't be elected.

[DrToast]

67. We can certainly talk about that!

But I was addressing the comment above about excitability, which is all that was mentioned.

[brewens]

2. I guess I could say she scares me because she might rock the boat and I can't risk losing any

of what I've got. But I can't say that because I'm not wealthy. Of course a lot of people that should be admitting that won't.

[LonePirate]

76. So we can't improve the country/society because it might hurt you? There's a word for that.

Republicanism.

[brewens]

78. Read it again.

[stonecutter357]

4. posts removed !!!

[LAS14]

6. Could you elaborate? nt

[stonecutter357]

38. yes .

[Skya Rhen]

14. +100,000,000

[Green Line]

5. I don't really like or dislike her

I just don't think she can win a general. She will not win the midwest, she has no AA support, most of her support is from younger voters who most of the time don't bother to vote.
Also most of her plans are pie in the sky, with no chance of passing or being funded.

I'm a single issue voter this time, beat Trump, that's all.

[JI7]

8. not true. most of her support is higher educated women who DO vote

you are thinking of the Sanders supporters who have low turnout.

the ones supporting Warren have high turnout

[Green Line]

20. She still can't win the midwest

and has little AA support. Looking at the internals in all the polls she has low support with voters over 55 and they do vote.

[qazplm135]

30. this again

IF she gets to the primary she will get the same 90 percent or so AA support that EVERY OTHER DEM Candidate has gotten in modern history.

As an AA, seeing other folks proclaim that she won't have AA support against Trump is infuriating.

She will win, at a minimum the midwestern states Hillary won, and I see no reason why she can't win PA or MI. WI is a conundrum no matter who runs.

[DrToast]

7. Biggest issue is I think she'd lose

And I think she’d lose because:

-she lacks the temperament to handle Trump
-the country won’t support many of her ideas (not all but many)
-I wouldn’t quite say she’s arrogant, but she’s close
-She’s not a team player (see relatively low number of Democratic endorsements)

I’ll add more but that’s the bulk of it.

[LAS14]

11. Her temperament is one of the things....

... that attracts me to her. Have you ever seen her lose her cool? I don't know of a time. This is a question, not an argument. I'd like to know more about how you perceive her temperament in this regard. tia

"-she lacks the temperament to handle Trump"

[DrToast]

15. Trump got under her skin with the whole Pocahontas shtick

Yes, Trump was being reprehensible, but that’s what he does.

[HelpImSurrounded]

45. No, he didn't

She addressed the issue straightforwardly as she does will all things - by seeking MORE DATA and when the data was against her, she admitted it. She then took responsibility for it, apologized and has been working with Native American communities to better understand the harm she's done.

She's disabled the Pocahontas claim for any reasonable person, it's only an issue for Trump supporters.

[qazplm135]

31. not a team player??

She's literally the only candidate who has rejected every incitement to go after other dem candidates negatively.

Arrogant? How so?

What exactly is wrong with her temperament?

I don't find any of this remotely substantive except the policy positions, and plenty of her positions have broad favorability among Democrats.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. I like her a lot. What concerns me is that some of her plans

are not realistic and have no chance of surviving the congressional meat grinder, so she's offering something to voters that she wouldn't be able to deliver.

[HelpImSurrounded]

47. Please elaborate?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. I haven't got all day to elaborate but my point is simply

that all plans for taxation and spending must be approved by Congress. Warren proposes tax increases (which are never popular and will be opposed by powerful interests) as well as drastic overhauls of the health care system. Drastic overhauls of anything are extremely difficult to accomplish (just look at the ACA) and never, ever survive Congress as originally proposed. Although she's done a very good job of laying out the details of her plans (much better than Bernie has done), she has not explained how she proposes to convince Congress to pass them. Even if the Democrats succeeded in taking the Senate, a lot of her plans will be DOA because voters are skeptical of major changes to anything.

[HelpImSurrounded]

63. Neither have any of the other candidates.

None of them have explained how they will convince congress either. It comes down to us having to elect a friendly congress.

But Warren's plans have something the rest don't - real data that can be analyzed and debated in public.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

72. None of the other candidates, with the exception of Bernie,

have offered proposals as drastic as Warren's. Bernie's are even more pie-in-the-sky and he's done little to explain how they'll work or how they can be paid for, let alone what Congress is likely to do to them. But I think it's a fair question to ask of all of them.

[LonePirate]

81. We need massive change in this country so support a milquetoast candidate who won't rock the boat?

No wonder this country is in the mess that it is in nowadays.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

82. How is "massive change" supposed to come about

if not enough people support whatever it is, either in Congress or among voters? We're still a democracy, or at least we're trying to be.

[LonePirate]

83. Some of us prefer not to throw in the towel before the main event has begun.

Assessing what can or cannot pass Congress is tantamount to surrender given that a president’s first two years are usually the most productive, especially if Congress is controlled by the same party.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

84. Massive change imposed from the top down rarely works.

You have to have a buy-in from the people from the ground up first if you want the change to succeed in the long run. The idea of Medicare, for example, was being floated in the late '40s but it was not enacted into law until 1965, when popular support for it became too strong to ignore.

[TreasonousBastard]

49. I've been saying for a while that her place is in the Senate where she can incubate...

some of those plans.

Other than that, she'd make a great a Cabinet secretary.

[peggysue2]

10. I actually like Elizabeth Warren

Last edited Thu Sep 12, 2019, 01:00 PM - Edit history (1)

I simply do not see her defeating Trump and his odious gang because her reach and appeal is too narrow. And we need a big, big win to counteract the dirty tricks and/or cheating that's likely to go on within Republican ranks. That being said, my husband and I would absolutely vote for Warren if she were to take the Democratic nomination. I am worried, however, about those who would reject her very liberal stance as a step too far and just stay home. Plus, we need someone with coattails to win the Senate, regaining the majority without which none of Warren's plans are remotely feasible.

[Skidmore]

22. +1

and you can't have all those plans in the air at the same time. Especially if many depend on the success of each other. I would like her in the Cabinet where reorganization and actualization can happen.

[Desert grandma]

23. My feelings exactly peggysue2

[DrToast]

25. The Senate

I forgot one, but your mention of the Senate reminded me.

We could lose her seat! Sounds crazy, but so did Scott Brown.

[bucolic_frolic]

12. Any critique I have is general rather than specific

I think Democrats have had difficulties in the past when their candidates or operatives have not participated in the rough and tumble of competitive elections, states or regions. Why do we keep drawing on candidates from Massachusetts? There's no effective competitive party in MA. That was the problem with Mike Dukakis - tactical and ideological strategy. He hadn't faced it before. In the HRC campaign, Robbie Mook, from VT. HRC herself - elected as Senator from New York, not the most competitive. Experience counts, and staff and consultants and message and policy can only go so far. At some point the candidate has to exercise judgment and control, has to feel the passion and understand how the overall full political spectrum public will perceive it, and they have to do this *in the moment* of speeches, pressers, debates. Trump is experienced in manipulating the press, a conman would be. We have to meet that challenge and exceed expectations.

[LAS14]

13. Just a small point of clarification here. You're not...

... actually saying that Hillary hadn't held office before, right?

HRC herself - hadn't held office before.

[bucolic_frolic]

19. Yeah you're right

Senator. From the great competitive state of New York. Sort of Massachusetts south.

[qazplm135]

32. Biden's from Delware so...

isn't that the same thing?

Trump's manipulations are overrated. He does what all con artists do, he fools the unwary with promises.
And, like all con artists, once those promises go unfulfilled, he has to move on to a new pool.

Well, kinda hard to move on to a new pool after being President.

If he was so good at manipulating the media, he wouldn't be sitting in the high 30s across the board right now.

[bucolic_frolic]

46. Biden has campaigned in 2 presidential elections as VP

and ran for president before. I would say those are competitive elections to be sure.

[ooky]

16. I love Elizabeth Warren. I think she would make a great president. But

I'm concerned she's a risk to delivering the battleground states we need to win, and above everything else I fear another 4 years of Trump and the carnage that would bring.

[oldsoftie]

17. As someone who lives amongst the red staters, here's what i heard from 3 trump voters.

These 3 people are not related to each other, i've dealt with them in business over the years. All 3 voted for trump but dont really like him. They couldnt stand hillary.
1- 2 of the 3 dont want to vote for trump in 20. The 3rd is likely to, but didnt seem committed.

2- these 2 wont vote Democrat regardless of the nominee, but if Warren is the nominee they will hold their nose and vote trump again, because they think she is double left of "normal" Dems. But if Biden is the nominee they'll stay home. They see him as being a "reasonable" Democrat. Still 2 less votes for trump.

All three could be lying , sure, just like any other "survey".

My personal opinion is that she is making too many promises that cost far more than what any proposal for funding would raise. And really, none of the candidates have realistic numbers when it comes to raising revenue to support new programs. Even my own choice.

[qazplm135]

36. Trump voters won't decide this election

our base will.

So I don't care what Trump voters do.

[oldsoftie]

48. Who DOESNT vote will matter almost as much as who DOES.

The Dem nominee is going to get 99% of the Democratic base, i have no doubt. (I think it will be Biden, Warren or Harris) But its the non-GOP voters who voted for trump last time who could really decide this. Remember, many of them also voted for Obama twice. They need to change votes or stay home & trump gets destroyed

[qazplm135]

77. No

There are more of us than them.

If we come out, we win, if we don't we won't.

Counting on Trump voters voting for Biden or any Dem candidate is ridiculous...if they come out, it's to vote for Trump.

[nsd]

18. I like her very much. I just like Biden more. /nt

[Hoyt]

21. Do not like her "Economic Patriotism" in any respect. She has promised more than

she can possibly get enacted or realistically pay for. All good, needed programs, but she'll have trouble convincing the majority of people that their taxes won't go up significantly. The programs may well be worth it, but convincing people is going to be difficult.

In the general election, she will be branded and eaten alive as a "tax and spend" Democrat. Again, while that is otherwise a good thing, I don't think she will be able to convince most people and will lose the GE.

Finally, I think her and Sanders' bashing of Obama's trade agreements, were partially responsible for Clinton's loss in 2016, and gave trump cover for his actions with China. This is the result of "Economic Patriotism" or America First, in a world that we are but a small part of.

You asked, and that's my belief.

And, yes, I will support her if she gets the nomination. I would like to see many of things she's promising enacted, but perhaps more responsibly.

[bigtree]

24. her lack of executive experience

...regret that she didn't get the Obama appointment to the bureau she created.

CPB would have really soared even higher with E. Warren at the helm.

[The Mouth]

27. She's my number two, after Pete.

And incredibly competent.

Given a number of great candidates, and only one I really dislike, I'd be quite happy with her.

[kydemo]

28. Warren

I think Warren and government servants like her are more effective as Senators. We need squeaky wheels but a squeaky wheel as President is often just that. Her message would be over powered by her delivery.

She could possibly win but there is a significant chance that she could lose. The most recent buzz is that democrats did 10% in NC09 than Trump's 2016 election in that district. Yes but McCready was not Elizabeth Warren. Those districts that turned to Democrats in 2018 elected moderate democrats.. I think there is a great chance that all of those people would not vote for her. She did not even when her last Senate race in Mass by a lblowout margin that you might expect from democratic Mass.

I am a liberal Democrat from Ky. I know that.the presidency is not in play in Ky, bit having some one at the top of the ticket in 2020 that is not so perceived as elite and. extreme would be helpful for down ticket races.

Her plans are not pragmatic. How much would they cost average Americans.? I don't believe most of her ideas could ever be passed.

I will of course vote for and work for her If she is our nominee. I just don't think she is our best candidate.

[Loki Liesmith]

34. Her spending plans

More than I want to spend.

From a managerial perspective I’m perfectly comfortable with her.

[highplainsdem]

35. She's a policy wonk, and I'd like her to continue being a gadfly in the Senate, like Sanders. I

don't see her as a leader, especially at the POTUS level. (I'll vote for her, of course, if she's the nominee.) And I think she's moved so far left in her policy proposals that she'd have a much harder time winning the GE than Biden would.

[aeromanKC]

37. Can't affotd to lose her Senate seat

Shame on Massachusetts for voting in an (R) Governor!!

[Green Line]

50. I'm from MA

Charlie Baker pretends he's a moderate, he isn't, he's a stone cold Republican. His Dem opponent in the last election was a pitiful candidate, I'm still angry I gave him my primary vote. He didn't campaign at all, just basically conceded to Baker. The state is doing extremely good, and that's why Baker was reelected.
But, if she wins, he will get to appoint a Republican Senator until a special election sometime in April or so, not good, if it's a reasonable person there's a chance he/she could win the special. It's not worth taking the chance.

[aeromanKC]

61. Thanks for your local info

First of all, it just adds a to my belief that you can never trust a Republican!!
Second, I thought I remembered something about Ted Kennedy and a law passed in MA about a new election to fill a Senate seat. Still can't afford to lose a valuable Senate seat. Why risk it. (Still remember Brown)

[Celerity]

54. it would only be for few months, per Massachusetts law

https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/parti/titleviii/chapter54/section140

Section 140: Senators and representatives in congress; vacancies

Section 140. (a) Upon failure to choose a senator or representative in congress or upon creation of a vacancy in that office, the governor shall immediately cause precepts to be issued to the aldermen in every city and the selectmen in every town in the district, directing them to call an election on the day appointed in the precepts for the election of such senator or representative. The day so appointed shall not be more than 160 nor less than 145 days after the date that a vacancy is created or a failure to choose occurs. Filing a letter of resignation creates a vacancy under this section, even if the resignation is not effective until some later time, but the date of the election to fill a vacancy under this section shall be after the resignation is effective.

(b) If a vacancy under this section is created after February 1 of an even-numbered year, the governor shall not issue the precepts required by subsection (a), except as subsection (c) provides for a vacancy for senator.

(c) If a vacancy is created for senator in congress after April 10 of an even-numbered year, the governor shall issue precepts under this section, unless section 152 requires that office to appear on the biennial state election ballot in that year. If this section prevents issuance of precepts for senator, the office shall appear on the biennial state election ballot in that year. If a vacancy for senator is created after April 10 of an even-numbered year, but on or before the seventieth day preceding the regular state primary, the precepts shall appoint the day of the regular state primary and the biennial state election for holding the special primary and special election required by this section.

(d) If at the time a senator or representative in congress is elected at the biennial state election, there exists a vacancy in that office, the senator or representative shall also be deemed to have been elected to serve out that vacancy.

(e) A senator elected to fill a vacancy under this section shall serve for the remainder of the unexpired term.

(f) Upon failure to choose a senator in congress or upon a vacancy in that office, the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall serve until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy pursuant to subsection (a) or (c).

[aeromanKC]

62. Scott Brown

[Green Line]

68. Exactly

[Celerity]

74. Joe Kennedy III is not Martha Coakley, and Warren herself beat Brown in 2012 fairly easily

Warren is not going to be the nominee anyway, so this is all academic.

[Green Line]

79. Kennedy

May challenge Markey in 2020, but there is always Maura Healey, I think she could win.

[Celerity]

80. I really hope Kennedy doesnt challenge Markey, but I have no dog in that fight at the end of the day

[Celerity]

70. as if a Rethug would lose to Joe Kennedy III in Massachusetts nt

[snowybirdie]

40. Nothing to dislike

Support for one candidate over another isn't dislike, it's preference. She's smart, capable and competent. Vote Blue, no matter who!

[Hortensis]

41. Imposing zero choice in healthcare. She feels slightly lower

costs of forcing everyone onto one program would justify taking away our rights to choose for ourselves. Single payer or MfA (both capitalism-based with for-profit providers), if both good and less expensive than any other option, will become the choice of by far most Americans. The popularity needed to be successful is not in question and doesn't justify stripping of important rights to achieve.

The one answer for all espoused by universalist creeds, on the cliff edge of extremism, is disturbing. Freedom requires acceptance of some looseness and imperfection.

Also, wouldn't it be highly desirable for citizens to have some comparison, even potentially for some somewhere else to go, for those inevitable times when anti-tax administrations cut funding and coverages, often deeper and deeper?

“I think of this as about our values. Health care is a basic human right,” Warren replied. “What we’re trying to do is make sure everyone is covered at the lowest possible cost. And that’s Medicare for All.” ... “I get financial decisions over whether you’re going to be able to get a new car or what it looks like, but not financial decisions at the heart of basic health care. Medicare for All is about a relationship that all of us have to each other.”

I so agree it's about our values. But universal healthcare not only is not our only value, it is completely dependent on our larger, sacred rights to choose to have government-organized healthcare at all. If We the People need to pay a bit more to protect our rights to privacy, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then we NEED to.

And Senator Warren needs to pull it in and correct her priorities a bit, on healthcare and anything else she's eyeing for imposition of universalist solutions. If she can't, I'm thinking I'd like to see her as a very dynamic and bold cabinet head working under a president who can.

[empedocles]

42. Would be great to have an intellect in WH. However, EW has less of the broad appeal,

and the 'purist' streak supporting Dem challengers definitely gets in the way of November 2020. [I do understand the primary votepracticalities of getting women's votes from BS]/

[rogue emissary]

44. Not as much as dislike but I have my doubts about her.

-The tweet about bankers fearing her.
-The primary endorsement against a sitting Democrat.
- her continued criticism of Hillary and the DNC.

[LAS14]

87. What is her critique of Hillary? I haven't seen that. Link?

I'm particularly interested because she has come across to me as someone who refuses to get into the bashing of Dem opponents. Maybe I'm wrong?

tia
las

[rogue emissary]

88. Here's the quote in context.

During a campaign event in Seattle on Sunday, Warren asserted that she will not allow Trump to disrespect her on the debate stage in 2020. "I know how to fight and I know how to win. Nobody's getting behind me on a debate stage and doing a handsy thing. That's not happening," she said, in reference to Trump's bizarre performance during a 2016 debate in St. Louis when he appeared to follow and lurk behind Clinton as she answered questions.

https://www.newsweek.com/elizabeth-warren-takes-aim-trump-clinton-2016-debate-moment-no-ones-doing-handsy-thing-1456218


She didn't call Clinton out by name, but the inference is Clinton allowed Donny do a "handsy thing."

She might not bash current opponents but she bashes the DNC. As she has never retracted her statement that they rigged the last primary against Bernie, or pointed to any evidence to back up the claim.

[Amimnoch]

52. Nothing at all.

I adore her. I think she would make one HELL of a great president.

What I hate about myself is that she's not my #1 choice due to misogynistic reasons.

While I do totally understand that she is a very different candidate than Hillary was in 2016, one thing that election positively showed me is that there's still a large number of people, especially in key swing states, that are willing to listen to, and take to heart the worst, most miniscule bullshit lies about a woman running while simultaneously giving a pass to and ignoring the most flagrant, obvious, and horrendous bullshit coming right from the mouth of a grossly repulsive man.

I have no indication that the Neanderthals of our key electorate that will decide 2020's Electoral College results have evolved past this point.

I'm disgusted with myself for allowing myself to decide my own support to feed and effectively reward such disgusting misogyny, but winning is just too important.

[happybird]

53. Thank you for summing up exactly how I feel, too

I love Liz and, in a perfect world, she'd easily be my top pick. By far. But I don't think she can win the General Election because of the reason you mentioned. I hate it but am trying to be pragmatic. As you said, winning is just too important.

[Backseat Driver]

85. I've considered the same, though I have to take that

"Leap of Faith" (Rent) to jump over the moon. She speaks to both my rational mind and emotional heart. The rest all seem to be in denial of the myriad insideous ways that the wealth gap and aggressive abuse has corrupted the agency of government to provide EVERY ONE of the People with the opportunities of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Corruption at every level is destroying the dignity of life, installing tyranny, and lessening opportunities to pursue what makes us American, the pursuit of our calling to pursue our dreams with our families, our careers, and our dreams. She's proposing changes that benefit people in the long-term, not just for the now living rich. As a teacher, I think she can sell that. She understands economies, and her life exemplifies that she knows how money functions and needs to be managed, micro and macro. She understands the forces that brought and bring women to the workplace and how the patriarchy and misogyny in male aggressive tendencies to compete, to war and to bully their dominance that makes you now contemplate staying within that paradigm of bad choices - it's time we test if a woman can bring forth a nation with a better balance and stability. It's not necessary to be rich to be happy, but it helps. When it's the only thing that makes one person at the pinnacle of power happy, that's trouble in capital letters. It's why he's not gone yesterday per a very capable woman, Ms. Pelosi. It's time to knock him off his bully pulpit and make Elizabeth Warren our nominee.

[roody]

57. I like her a lot. I'm volunteering for

Bernie because he has a forty year history of pushing for people-centered ideas. Also he has no fear to say what he believes.

[NewJeffCT]

64. She's on of my favorite candidates - my concerns are

1) Will she be able to turn out African American and Hispanic voters?
2) How will she handle the Pocahontas attacks if she does become the nominee and the attacks are daily?

[Celerity]

69. 2 things come immediately to mind

1. She will struggle to win the general, more so than say Biden would, if not as hard a time as Sanders would have. She opens up the RW COMMIE! meme and scare tactics (falseas it is, but still so hard to fight, especially when we had foolish people like Hickenlooper himself compare our progressives to bloody Stalin and Marx, thus giving the Rethugs baked-into-the-cake soundbites of self-destruction.) that will also put the sword to the hopes for large coattails.

2. A trainwreck of legislative failure, as the way our Party is now constituted, her broad, sweeping progressive reforms will never pass Congress. This is partially due to a large amount of centre-left, outright centrists and even a small minority of slightly centre-right members (examples of that latter type, albeit both being in safe Blue districts, are people like Cuellar and Lipinski, who are anti-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant, pro-life, pro-deregulation, etc, and in Cuellar's case, openly fundraise and campaign for Rethugs) now making up a controlling/blocking part of our caucus due to the Rethug's multi-decade sliding of the entire electoral map artificially to the right via gerrymandering and systemic voter suppression. A POTUS whose major initiatives are blocked (especially if the failures come in part by their own party's actions) is assured of a failed presidency and makes reelection extremely tenuous (especially if we suffer a massive economic downturn come 20121 and/or 2022 and onward.)

Bottom line, the US is not, for instance, a progressive Nordic Model nation (of the type where Warren's vision would be considered completely mainstream), not culturally and certainly not at both underpinning AND overarching levels of governance. It will take decades of systemic structural re-arrangement to even get to within sniffing distance of that, and it will probably never happen, due to the very constitutional system we operate under. I especially posit the non-proportional representation part, which guarantees only slow, grinding movement at a grand structural level. These deep-level apparatuses has been almost utterly gamed now (starting in the 1970's) by the viscous amoral RW, as well as the large, extra-governmental systemically interlocked controlling forces. It is a brick wall that Warren will most assuredly run into at destructive impact speed.

[treestar]

71. Would not put it as dislike

I like her fine.

Concern: saying you have a plan - say what you will support. Politicians should not make promises, or at least, not promise the end result, but just promise what they would sign or support. This is a problem for every single one of them though, but claiming to have a plan has to include a plan for getting a Senate that will support it, which is not just a D Majority Senate either, but one where Ds are not Blue Dogs even. Even if there are 60, some of the Ds will not support her plans.

Concern there is still enough misogyny for her to lose, though this is probably less so than for Hillary as EW has not been demonized for so long and so intensely. I would love a female president, but the voters in general and the swing state voters I don't feel sure of yet.

[LanternWaste]

73. Nothing I dislike about Warren. Simply more I like about Biden.

Were Biden not in the race, I could see myself supporting Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg without reservation.

But Biden is running.

[Joe941]

75. I suspect she would not do well in a general election.

[PBC_Democrat]

86. Three Things

1. Her proposed wealth tax
It is unconstitutional and would be tied up in the courts for twenty years. It would penalize people who have worked hard and saved for their retirement.

2. Her proposal to forgive student loan debt.
I took out loans to finish my degree and go to grad school - then I paid them back. Her proposal makes me look like a chump. These folks signed on the dotted line, make a promise, and took the money. Now is the time to honor the commitment and repay the loans. I feel bad for you if you decided to study something that there is no demand for but, as a taxpayer, it's not my problem. What would you tell a student that decided to pass on loans in favor of living at home and commuting?

3. No executive experience.
I'm not a fan of senators or reps running for POTUS. It's fairly easy to be one a hundred or one of 435. I want someone that has had to make tough decisions, sign or veto bills, and take the heat when things don't get done. I'll take a CEO or Governor over a congressperson any day.