2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

it already started

You rang?

thedailybeast.com
Bernie Sanders’ Key 2016 Endorser Explains Why He’s Backing Warren Now
Gideon ResnickPolitical ReporterUpdated 08.01.19 3:43PM ET / Published 08.01.19 3:30PM ET
3-4 minutes
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), who became the first member of Congress to endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) 2016 presidential campaign, announced this week that he will back Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) this time around.

“I think it's a very powerful combination that Elizabeth has,” Grijalva told The Daily Beast ahead of a Thursday event in Arizona where he will introduce the Massachusetts Democrat. “And that's that she's got the intellect and more importantly the heart for this job. And that I think she brings in a level of smarts and energy. I think that's what it's going to take to take Trump out. And philosophically, I agree with her.”

Grijalva stressed that his support for Warren was “not a repudiation of Bernie. This is not an abandonment of the reasons and positions of why I supported him.”

A member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Grijalva said that he was in fact enthused when Sanders and Warren vociferously defended their ideas against a large group of centrist Democrats during the first night of CNN’s 2020 primary debates this week in Detroit.

“There’s a shared constituency there and a constituency that is driven by ideas and their concern for the future,” Grijalva said. “I was very proud. I think it showed that night that there’s some serious leadership and serious gravitas on the part of those candidates.”

• 
  

Without naming any other candidates in the field, the Arizona Democrat stressed that he believes the way to defeat President Trump—both in Arizona and the rest of the country—is with bold policy ideas on climate change, the economy, education, and immigration.

“I don't think we're going to beat Trump by working around the edges,” he said. “I don't think we're going to beat Trump with nuance. You're going to beat Trump with ideas, strong ideas and somebody that can defend those ideas, communicate them succinctly to people without getting into some academic discussion about each subject.”

Endorsements from members of Congress have been much more diffuse this cycle than last. At this stage in the 2016 race, everyone who had already picked a side supported Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. Currently, former Vice President Joe Biden has 16 endorsements while Warren has eight, with the recent additions of Grijalva and Rep. Deb Haaland (D-NM).

While Grijalva likes both Warren and Sanders, he noted that another candidate captured his attention during the debates with his answers on immigration: former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro.

Asked by The Daily Beast, if Warren and Castro would be his perfect ticket, the congressman only let out a hearty guffaw.

:GoatHolcomb:



@GzUp @wire28 @Atlrocafella @ezrathegreat @Jello Biafra @humble forever @Darth Nubian @Dameon Farrow @General Bravo III @BigMoneyGrip @hashmander @Call Me James @dongameister @Soymuscle Mike @BaileyPark31 @Lucky_Lefty @johnedwarduado

 

[King Kreole]

Stroller jumped the shark. He admits he's a part of a small group then attempts to attribute that to the party/country as a whole.

He's an elitist in his own right, but his premise is flawed and self promoting and largely doesn't take into the accounts of actual governance.

Policy in a vacuum

I'm not sure if I understand your point. Stoller isn't claiming that his idea is broadly popular. In fact, his point is that the majority of Democrats still love Obama and that is causing issues when trying to create progressive change in people's lives. In what way is Stoller an elite, and what does it have to do with his argument?

 

[King Kreole]

it already started

please tell me this old story, which has already been considered and disregarded by the broader discourse, is the entirety of the anti-Liz argument.

I just want to make y'all don't try throwing out some other bullshyt sure before I properly respond.

 

[King Kreole]

Stoller is a piece of shyt racist leftist

Disagree.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[Pressure]

I'm not sure if I understand your point. Stoller isn't claiming that his idea is broadly popular. In fact, his point is that the majority of Democrats still love Obama and that is causing issues when trying to create progressive change in people's lives. In what way is Stoller an elite, and what does it have to do with his argument?

Stroller has an elitist ideology. He feels his views are better, more apt, or more appropriate than others that's the baseline for most of his commentary.

Elites have controlled this country since its inception. The idea that this type of influence is new (the past 40 years) is a faulty premise. Further he's attempting to make a nuanced both sides argument which is just absurd in 2019.



People appreciated Obama specifically for what they gained from it during a difficult time.

That leadership that he claims forever entrenched the power of the scholared elite is the same leadership that laid the foundation for modern American progressivism.

He intentionally points out one while ignoring the importance of the other.

He's jumped the shark.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Obama got dealt a shyt sandwich and beat the house odds and yall wanted him to cure cancer and ebola and aids

 

[Warren Moon]

As the one who has leveled the charge that Elizabeth Warren has deeply racist, sexist articles and statements hiding in her closet, it's incumbent on you to substantiate your claims. You must have evidence, so present them. Identify these "lies and skeletons I've heard whispers of". Identify these "decades of hardcore conservative writings and legal opinions". Identify the "wild shyt she was saying about women and the family structures in 1981". I googled, I found absolutely nothing.

I got u man no worries

Pre healthcare for everybody:

According to the facts laid out in the Globe and the Herald stories, the case involved LTV’s responsibilities under the 1992 Coal Act, which established a fund to pay for the health care of retired mine workers and their families. LTV Steel was coming out of bankruptcy when the law went into effect. An appellate court ruled that the company must pay $140 million for benefits to its former employees. Warren, a bankruptcy expert, was called in to represent the company on the question of whether LTV should be required to pay money into the fund upon coming out of bankruptcy. She argued that it should not be, and that any obligations to the fund should have been addressed by the bankruptcy court


Elizabeth Warren represented steel company in case over workers' benefits - masslive.com


All of her anti consumer cases she fought in court.

Legal Representation of Major Corporations - Elizabeth Warren Wiki

Pre democratic of course wrangling in those big businesses.


Firm supporter of reaganomics and Reagan-
I Can Think of a Few Swing States Where Elizabeth Warren Might Want to Mention That She Used to Be a Reaganomics-Believing Republican



Slate’s Use of Your Data


Nice write up of her republican history

Elizabeth Warren on Her Journey From Low-Information Voter

 

[King Kreole]

Stroller has an elitist ideology. He feels his views are better, more apt, or more appropriate than others that's the baseline for most of his commentary.

Bernie Sanders, AOC, Liz Warren, Trump, Obama, etc all feel like their views are better, more apt, or more appropriate than others, does that make him them ideologically elitist? I think that's an odd criterion for elitism because every ideology feels it is correct.

Elites have controlled this country since its inception. The idea that this type of influence is new (the past 40 years) is a faulty premise. Further he's attempting to make a nuanced both sides argument which is just absurd in 2019.

Stoller isn't talking to the concept of elitism in general, he's talking about the ruling Democratic establishment that is, by definition, the elite within the Democratic coalition. His frame of analysis is the movement and actions of the Democratic Party. Stoller absolutely is not in the Democratic establishment/elite. His belief that Obama did a poor job as President because of concrete actions and inactions his administration took with regards to market concentration, white-collar and financial crimes, housing foreclosure policy, neoliberal trade policies, etc that created the conditions that allow someone like Trump to rise to power isn't a "both sides" fallacy, it's just accurate historical analysis that we're now seeing progressives either attack head-on or step over.

People appreciated Obama specifically for what they gained from it during a difficult time.

That leadership that he claims forever entrenched the power of the scholared elite is the same leadership that laid the foundation for modern American progressivism.

He intentionally points out one while ignoring the importance of the other.

He's jumped the shark.

I'm really not seeing the neoliberal establishment leadership as willful partners in this new progressive movement. In fact, as we can see with the Democratic Party Civil War that the Squad are fighting, that establishment leadership class is desperately attempting to forestall and neuter the progressive wave. Obama only laid the foundation for Bernie/Liz by heightening the inherent contradictions of his neoliberalism with their progressivism.

 

[the next guy]

Stroller jumped the shark. He admits he's a part of a small group then attempts to attribute that to the party/country as a whole.

He's an elitist in his own right, but his premise is flawed and self promoting and largely doesn't take into the accounts of actual governance.

Policy in a vacuum

I strongly disagree with this. We saw on Wed that at least some people aligned with Obama didn’t agree with some of his policies.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

even Gab knows what schedule this chick is on

 

[King Kreole]

Obama got dealt a shyt sandwich and beat the house odds and yall wanted him to cure cancer and ebola and aids

Disagree.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[Pressure]

Bernie Sanders, AOC, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Trump, Obama, etc all feel like their views are better, more apt, or more appropriate than others, does that make him them ideologically elitist? I think that's an odd criterion for elitism because every ideology feels it is correct.

They're all politicians attempting to enact their views of government by taking part in government.

He's merely lobbying ideas. It's ironic to say the least.

Stoller isn't talking to the concept of elitism in general, he's talking about the ruling Democratic establishment that is, by definition, the elite within the Democratic coalition. His frame of analysis is the movement and actions of the Democratic Party. Stoller absolutely is not in the Democratic establishment/elite. His belief that Obama did a poor job as President because of concrete actions and inactions his administration took with regards to market concentration, white-collar and financial crimes, housing foreclosure policy, neoliberal trade policies, etc that created the conditions that allow someone like Trump to rise to power isn't a "both sides" fallacy, it's just accurate historical analysis that we're now seeing progressives either attack head-on or step over.

Trump campaigned on racism and nativism. He's ran on that while allowing the Republican establishment to continue to funnel more of the pie to the wealthy. Says only he can run the country because he has the best brain and went to the best schools.

He then went on to be elected by the same types of people suggest hold contempt for elites.

Again the irony.

I'm really not seeing the neoliberal establishment leadership as willful partners in this new progressive movement.

Here you go misusing the term neoliberal again.

Obama only laid the foundation for Bernie/Liz by heightening the inherent contradictions of his neoliberalism with their progressivism.

If Only Obama Had Done the Things Obama Actually Did

 

[King Kreole]

I got u man no worries

Pre healthcare for everybody:

According to the facts laid out in the Globe and the Herald stories, the case involved LTV’s responsibilities under the 1992 Coal Act, which established a fund to pay for the health care of retired mine workers and their families. LTV Steel was coming out of bankruptcy when the law went into effect. An appellate court ruled that the company must pay $140 million for benefits to its former employees. Warren, a bankruptcy expert, was called in to represent the company on the question of whether LTV should be required to pay money into the fund upon coming out of bankruptcy. She argued that it should not be, and that any obligations to the fund should have been addressed by the bankruptcy court


Elizabeth Warren represented steel company in case over workers' benefits - masslive.com


All of her anti consumer cases she fought in court.

Legal Representation of Major Corporations - Elizabeth Warren Wiki

Pre democratic of course wrangling in those big businesses.


Firm supporter of reaganomics and Reagan-
I Can Think of a Few Swing States Where Elizabeth Warren Might Want to Mention That She Used to Be a Reaganomics-Believing Republican



Slate’s Use of Your Data


Nice write up of her republican history

Elizabeth Warren on Her Journey From Low-Information Voter

OK so just for the record, nothing you have provided here is evidence supporting your allegations of deeply racist, sexist articles and statements hiding in her closet, decades of hardcore conservative writings and legal opinions, or wild shyt she was saying about women and the family structures in 1981. What you have provided is a very old and addressed Republican-originated smear that banks on people's legal illiteracy to ridiculously paint Elizabeth freaking Warren as some kind of crypto-corporatist.

In the LTV Steel case, the very article you cite says:

Warren’s campaign told those papers that Warren was paid around $10,000 to write a Supreme Court petition – and there was never any question regarding whether coal miners and their surviving spouses would receive their benefits under the Coal Act. The Supreme Court never took up the case.

Similar to its response in the Travelers case, Warren’s campaign said Warren was defending a legal principle that could help future victims. In this case, the principle was ensuring that similar claims in the future could be addressed through bankruptcy, not delayed until a company emerged from bankruptcy.

So the idea that she was advancing some nefarious corporate agenda instead of having a legitimate difference of legal opinion from the activists is spurious at best.

With regards to the Slate article, which is old news that everybody has already read by now, you call Warren a "firm supporter of...Reagan" yet the article states she never voted for the man and "It’s simply also true that she was never active in Republican electoral politics." The truth is more that growing up in Oklahoma, she was atmospherically conservative, and once she started to actively interrogate political thought, she became a Democrat. That's actually a good thing because it shows she has dynamic thinking and is open to ingesting new information to find the best, true option. That's a very critical skillset for a President, and gives her very strong credibility when it comes to bringing non-Democrats onto her side.

Again, these recycled, rehashed anti-Warren Republican attacks are preying on people who are low-info, so I hope this conversation has gone some way to dispelling your erroneous beliefs.