Elizabeth Warren Is Evolving -- You're Forgiven If You Didn't Notice

[BeyondGeography]

In late April, Elizabeth Warren embraced a new catch-phrase. Sidelining “nevertheless, she persisted” (co-opted from a Mitch McConnell insult), the campaign began describing the Massachusetts Senator as the candidate who’s “got a plan for that” (borrowed from the headline on a New Yorker online post). It was magnificent branding—not just the slogan, but leaning into her wonky reputation...Yet it was gone Thursday night, as the ten leading Democratic Presidential candidates debated on national network television. Warren never said “a plan for that” during the debate. In fact, over the course of nearly three hours, she didn’t once utter the word “plan” at all.

It didn’t seem like merely a rhetorical omission. Warren’s strategically chosen opening and final remarks pulled from her personal tale of overcoming odds to get educated and become successful. In between, she repeatedly elided opportunities to lay out policy details, opting instead for more emotional-level connections.

On health care reform, as Sanders and Joe Biden argued vociferously, Warren emphasized the image of families struggling with their budgets—even seeming to downplay differences in approach by saying that “the only question here in terms of difference is where to send the bill.”

To be sure, Warren’s campaign rhetoric all summer mixed the “plans for that” with personal history, emotional connection, wide-view assessments, and colloquial humor. This is probably more a shift in balance and emphasis than a total change. But, to the extent that it is the start of a somewhat different selling of the candidate, it might be a savvy, and well-timed shift..., voters ultimately tend to put faith in a candidate for more abstract, character-based reasons than their laundry list of specific policy points.

The branding campaign of the past five months has ensured that Democratic primary voters head to the polls next year confident in Warren’s stockpile of plans.

Now, she needs to work on convincing them of the rest of the Presidential package. Thursday’s debate performance was a solid preview of that effort; a new catch-phrase might not be far behind.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/commentary/2019/09/13/elizabeth-warren-is-evolving-youre-forgiven-if-you-didnt-notice

[LudwigPastorius]

1. She's smart.

Last edited Fri Sep 13, 2019, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)

"It's the economy, stupid" still holds sway.

And while, employment and the stock market are doing OK, wages, and the struggle to keep up with the massive increases in health care, are not.

[customerserviceguy]

5. She's lucky, too

Nobody has called her out on the debate stage for the Native American DNA thing fiasco. Yet.

[LudwigPastorius]

6. Probably because most voters don't care about it.

I mean...sure, Trump voters do. They love it when he calls her 'Pocahontas'.

[customerserviceguy]

7. You know it's going to be used

in a general election campaign should she become the nominee. Wouldn't it be better to have it over and done with during the primary season?

Sen. Warren has given apologies to Native American groups, but I don't think she's used a national stage to do this. It was what Barack Obama needed to do to defuse the "Reverend Wright" issue.

[LudwigPastorius]

8. "Wouldn't it be better to have it over and done with during the primary season?"

No, it would be better to address it when Donald Trump confronts her with it on national TV. (This is assuming he even has the balls to debate her if she's the nominee.)

[customerserviceguy]

9. He'll be all over it

even without debates. Every time he uses the word "Pocahontas", he's bringing it up.

The primary season can hone our eventual nominee to be a tough cookie in the general, but it does its best work when all of a candidate's vulnerabilities come out and are dealt with effectively.

[LudwigPastorius]

11. If you don't think she hasn't already dealt with it effectively with a private and public apology,..

I don't know what to tell you.

The rest of the Democratic candidates aren't bringing it up, so they apparently think she has.

Trump and his rabble never will, so there's no point in a mea culpa from her on the primary debate stage. I doubt most Trump supporters are even watching the Democratic debates.

[karynnj]

10. I think the reason is that it would kill the primary chances of anyone who did

First off, there is very little there there.

Like many people, she had over the years believed a family story that one of her ancestors had Native American heritage. In fact, the results verified just that. In addition, she has gone out of her way to reach out to Native Americans and to clarify that she fully understands the difference between being native american and having some native American DNA and possibly heritage. She also has developed a proposed agenda on native American issues.

While Warren's family stories are actually backed by the very small trace amounts of Native American DNA, as many people I personally know find when they research their heritage - either through DNA or records - family stories are not necessarily accurate. In some ways, it might have been easier for Warren had no DNA matching native Americans. She could then have simply said that her family stories were wrong.

The Scott Brown campaign had tried to confuse people into thinking she used "being native American" to "get into Harvard". I think they very intentionally conflated the idea of "getting into to Harvard as an undergrad " with being hired as a law professor. In fact, Harvard itself noted that nothing like that played a role in her being hired. What did was a reputation as a brilliant scholar and an excellent teacher -- two things that would have made any person a good candidate.

Second,

It would play LESS well than Castro's misguided attack on Biden. It would allow Warren to restate that she never claimed membership in any tribe and that she always had been proud of the connection her family spoke of. It would then allow her to speak about her parents and grandparents in a positive way.

As to those who think she should not have addressed this up front -- I point you to all of those people who were willing to bash John Kerry second guessing how he responded to the SBVT. In fact, he HAD already put out his Navy record on his web site -- and it was the Navy record itself that the liars questioned. Yet, in 2005, many politicians - including Bill Clinton, who in 2004 whined that Kerry spoke of Vietnam too much - argued he should have fought back more. Warren was being badgered by Republicans "to just take the DNA test".

Would you now be arguing the same if she hadn't done so?

[BlueMTexpat]

16. What "fiasco?"

She has NA DNA.

Perhaps not enough for tribal membership, but she has it. Hardly a fiasco.

One of my BILs is a member of the Eastern Shoshone tribe. His son, however, is not eligible for tribal membership. But he still has NA DNA.

This "fiasco" wrt Warren is a canard and should be treated as such.

[kennetha]

2. She should abandon her pie in the sky Medicare for All plan

And jump on the Public Option bandwagon. If she did that it would show that she differs from the rigid and doctrinaire Sanders.

Her plans need to be more of a mix of the pragmatic and the aspirational. And less “I have a radically transformational plan for EVERYTHING.” Some things need tinkering. Some need a reboot. She needs to differentiate more.

[LudwigPastorius]

3. What you start with, and campaign on, are very different from what you end up with.

Obama wanted a public option, but, due to the GOP in Congress (and Joe Lieberman) had to compromise down to subsidies and forcing insurance companies to accept patients with pre-existing conditions.

If the starting point is "Medicare for all", by the time it gets through Congress, we have a chance at getting a public option (expanded Medicare for any who want to opt in).

[karynnj]

13. You could add, that we are at a different point now than in 2009

Because Obama got the ACA passed, millions got health insurance that they otherwise wouldn't. With ACA came things like the inclusion of preexisting conditions and the provision that led to people under 26 being on their parents' insurance. (I KNOW that was important for many young people who graduated college in those years and had to patch together jobs - none of which gave health insurance. Those extra years were a Godsend.

In addition to that experience, we saw Republican try to break it starting almost at once -- with lawsuits that led to states having the ability to create an unintended hole by not expanding Medicaid. Over time, some very red states - Idaho being one I can think of - opting to expand it.

ANY of the Democrats running now may lead to the same place. All of them want MORE than the Congress - even if we win back the Senate and make gains in the House - will pass. ALL of them will push for as much as they can get passed and look for any way to make it better.

Remember 2008. The big argument between the candidates was whether there should be a mandate. Obama argued that a plan with a mandate would be DOA - and he was quoting Ted Kennedy, chair of HELP. After the election, a large group of CEOs representing large companies that had insurance plans advising Kennedy, for the first time, backed requiring a mandate, followed by insurance companies who would write the policies demanding it.

It did not matter that Obama had opposed mandates, when he believed that they were not possible. He dropped his alternative that there had to be a penalty when someone who had opted not to get insurance wanted to buy in later. It is very likely that the plan that emerged would have been almost the same - or the same - no matter which Democrat had won the nomination and was elected. The important similarity was that they ALL wanted health insurance for everyone and they all were willing to spend political capital to get it.

As it was, it provides the frame work that could and likely will be used by any Democrat. The first steps might be to fix anything Trump broke. I wonder if a public option might be more easily done now - after Trump - simply by expanding the Medicaid option further at the federal level with people having the ability to buy into those plans on the exchange at at cost using any subsidy they have or at a full cost.

[BlueMTexpat]

17. This. eom

[Hortensis]

4. Standing on Sanders' MfA, borrowed from that OP:

Link to tweet

Perhaps she believes she has a shot to become the nominee if she can somehow lead a crusade, i.e., attacking the ACA for the same reasons Sanders did. Wish she'd chosen climate, but that just doesn't push nearly as many buttons. Winning the presidency on taking away private insurance would be a worry for later.

Besides all the practical issues involved with starting all over, including enormous expenses when we're deep in debt and have even bigger priorities (climate crisis), Congress legislates, not presidents. And Democrats in congress aren't likely to open the door for Republican tanks to roll through by trashing the ACA for a program that would take several vulnerable, potentially risky years to fully implement.

Besides, Obamacare's the proudest achievement of the many Democrats who battled exhaustively to create and finally pass it after many months. Many of them risked their careers for it, and all know people who did end up sacrificing theirs for it.

[crazytown]

15. And until she has his delegates at the convention

Bernie's Bill will remain exactly her plan.

[bluewater]

12. Warren also did not mention other candidates by name in her responses...

So they did not get 45 seconds of "rebuttal", which were actually more like 45 seconds to say what ever a candidate wanted to at that time.

Smart move on her part.

[comradebillyboy]

14. I hope she evolves some more on MFA. Otherwise, yes she is the most

improved candidate in the group as evidenced by her steady climb in the polls.