Elizabeth Warren HQ: She's Got A Plan!

[Wargames]

wrong thread

 

[Ya' Cousin Cleon]

Economic Nationalism

but for real tho, Bernie's crowd jumping on the bash Warren train is a sucker ass move. American Leftists (not including Progressives) do this silly shyt where they begrudge and grandstand for a politician for not being an Anarcho-Communists that wants to open up the commons, yet Bernie gets the kid gloves treatment.

When in reality, both bases should be using this point in time to strengthen their and improving their grassroots/community outreach and aid so that when SHTF come next recession/Trump getting reelected, the vision can continue on outside of electoral politics.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

A thug changes, and love changes
and best friends become strangers

Or "Y'all just piss on me, shyt on me, spit on my grave
Talk about me, laugh behind my back but in my face
Y'all some well wishers, friendly acting, envy hiding snakes
With your hands out for my money, man, how much can I take . . . "

 

[No1]

Economic Nationalism

but for real tho, Bernie's crowd jumping on the bash Warren train is a sucker ass move. American Leftists (not including Progressives) do this silly shyt where they begrudge and grandstand for a politician for not being an Anarcho-Communists that wants to open up the commons, yet Bernie gets the kid gloves treatment.

When in reality, both bases should be using this point in time to strengthen their and improving their grassroots/community outreach and aid so that when SHTF come next recession/Trump getting reelected, the vision can continue on outside of electoral politics.

The Bernie crowd isn’t bashing Warren. What’s happening is that those old I’mWithHer people are basically saying anyone who votes Sanders over Warren is a sexist. They are saying she has the “ideas” and he doesn’t so supporting him makes no sense unless you are an uneducated bro. Therefore, in response, now you are starting to see signs of the Bernie contingent busting back. This is exactly what I didn’t want.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

washingtonpost.com
Warren’s nonstop ideas reshape the Democratic presidential race — and give her new momentum
By Michael Scherer

10-12 minutes










Michael Scherer

National political reporter covering campaigns, Congress and the White House

June 9 at 3:36 PM

LANSING, Mich. — Midway through Elizabeth Warren’s stump speech these days, her fans start jumping from their seats like pistons, firing with cheers and applause each time she rattles off another new policy punchline.

“Here’s a good one,” the senator (D-Mass.) said last week at a community-college gym filled with about 1,700 people. It was a plan to impose new ethics rules on Supreme Court justices. “I really could do this all night long. But let me do — let me do just one more.”

She did a dozen more, each greeted with an ovation: A law to force the release of politicians’ tax returns. A wealth tax on those worth more than $50 million. New rules to limit company size. And on and on.

Six months after launching her candidacy amid blundering apologies for her longtime claims of Native American ancestry and nagging questions about whether she could compete on a national stage, Warren is experiencing something unusual in the crowded Democratic field: momentum.

It is not showing up in national polls, which have remained largely steady with Warren in the single digits, far behind former vice president Joe Biden.

But energized crowds have been flocking to her events in early-voting states. Her nonstop stream of policy positions, which add up to what would be a restructuring of American capitalism, has helped shape the broader debate.


Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, on June 5 said she would work to overturn the Hyde Amendment if elected president. (Reuters)

Some state-level surveys show Warren near Biden at the top of the field. A poll by the Des Moines Register, CNN and Mediacom, which published over the weekend, combined probable caucusgoers’ first choice, second choice and candidates they are “actively considering” to show that Biden and Warren are evenly matched by this measure with 61 percent each.

Biden has the edge in the “first choice” category, with 24 percent. But Warren’s performance on that front — 15 percent described Warren as their first choice, compared with 16 percent for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and 14 percent for South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg — reflected a stronger position for Warren than she held in previous Iowa polling.

Warren has captured the attention of many voters on the ground, both with her policy proposals and her willingness to make unequivocal statements that often seem to rise above the din of the campaign. It took only a few hours after the release of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, for instance, as other prominent Democrats hesitated, for Warren to issue a Twitter thread explaining why, after reading the document, she believed it was time for impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

Many voters have been skeptical of whether she has the “gumption” to take on Trump, said Craig Wellman, 71, of Clear Lake, Iowa, who attended an event over the weekend for former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper. But Wellman said he was now excited by Warren because of the way she has “fought her way back” and shown herself to be “undaunted” by the president’s attacks.

“She’s got chutzpah,” Wellman said, before stopping to choose a different word. “Forgive me, but she’s just got balls.”

Warren has presented her vision for taxing the super wealthy to shift money to programs aimed at boosting economically struggling and middle-class Americans as a path to make gains with some previously pro-Trump voters, and has traveled to conservative areas such as rural West Virginia to make her case.

[Warren’s ambitious agenda relies on a massive wealth tax that the rich may evade]

Even as she rejected a Fox News invitation for a town hall, calling the network a “hate-for-profit racket,” one of its pro-Trump hosts, Tucker Carlson, recently praised Warren’s notion of “economic patriotism,” saying, “She sounds like Donald Trump at his best.”

The blueprints have convinced voters such as Tina Pyzik, 60, a resident of Kalamazoo, Mich., who has two grown children. Pyzik walked into a recent Warren event having donated to six Democratic presidential candidates, and left with her mind made up.

“Most of the people that I love that are running have the same beliefs that I do, the same ideas that I do, the same changes that they want to see — but I haven’t heard clear-cut ideas,” she said. “This just solidified it for me today that I am going to work on her campaign in Michigan. I’m all in. She has clear ideas and she wants to put them into practice.”

[The Trailer: Elizabeth Warren has a theory on how to win, and lots of plans]

Warren’s apparent rise stands in contrast to some of her rivals, most notably former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke and Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), who have struggled to maintain early momentum and settle on a defining message.

At multicandidate forums — most recently, one by the California Democratic Party — Warren is regularly earning the loudest cheers. Her “I have a plan for that” slogan has become a recognizable meme, featured on the campaign’s popular T-shirt.

How high Warren can go remains an open question. She is splitting the party’s more liberal voters with Sanders, and many Democrats wonder whether she would be the strongest candidate to take on Trump, given her left-leaning ideas and the president’s seeming ability in the past to get under her skin. Recent surveys measuring potential head-to-head matchups against Trump show Biden with significant leads and Warren in a closer contest.

One early setback — when Warren faced backlash to her announcement that she’d taken a DNA test showing that she had slightly elevated markers for Native American ancestry — still hovers over her campaign.

[After new document is revealed, Warren struggles with questions of identity]

What had been intended as evidence of her heritage was criticized as a tone-deaf claim of cultural identity. The senator ultimately apologized for calling herself Native American over two decades, but the matter prompted concern among Democrats that she would struggle to defeat Trump, who has mocked her with the racially insensitive epithet “Pocahontas.”

On a recent appearance on “The Breakfast Club,” a popular morning radio show that draws a largely young, African American audience, Warren was repeatedly questioned about her past claims of Native American ethnicity, with one host comparing them to a white woman pretending to be black.

Warren said she had been told of this ostensible background by her relatives. “This is what I learned from my family,” she said.

Recent positive coverage of Warren’s campaign has especially rankled Sanders allies, according to a person familiar with the campaign’s inner workings who spoke on the condition of anonymity because that person was not authorized to speak publicly. Sanders’s team privately complains that Warren has gotten credit for ideas it says he pioneered years earlier, such as making it easier to join unions.

In other presidential campaign cycles, the “candidate of ideas” label has sometimes been a ticket to nowhere, as Democrat Bill Bradley found in 2000 and Republican Ron Paul in 2012. Democrats for the moment appear to want assurances that a candidate has plans for cementing liberal change and reversing Trump’s policies.

[Elizabeth Warren bets that slew of policy ideas will win over Trump-weary voters]

“Not all voters will be comfortable with her policy positions, but I think she earns respect from voters for being specific and continuing to grind out more and more solutions,” said Jennifer Palmieri, an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and John Edwards’s 2004 and 2008 efforts. “You win people over slowly. It’s more of a tortoise than a hare strategy.”

Warren’s slow-and-steady approach has been a mantra for her campaign, partly out of necessity. The senator passed on what could have been a sizzling fight in 2015 against Clinton, only to face the reality in 2019 of a more crowded field with contenders who may have a fresh-faced appeal.

Warren has been boosted by an extensive organization and a relentless schedule. She used more than $10 million from her Senate reelection fund for an early investment in Iowa, where she has the largest staff of any campaign.

She dismissed her high-dollar campaign fundraiser and decided not to hire a traditional pollster, instead embarking on a blistering campaign schedule. By her campaign’s count, she had held 95 town hall meetings in 20 states and Puerto Rico through Wednesday, taken more than 422 audience questions, held 65 media availabilities and posed for selfies with more than 28,000 voters.

In the mode of Howard Dean’s losing 2004 campaign and Barack Obama’s winning 2008 effort, Warren has focused heavily on grass-roots organizing, creating a social media network for supporters and hitting up everyone who emailed, texted or appeared at a campaign event.

[Elizabeth Warren reshaped our view of the middle class. But some see an angle.]

Two rudimentary policy calculators on her site, which let voters estimate how they would benefit under her student loan and child-care plans, have proven popular and serve as another recruiting tool.

To attend her events, which have grown larger in recent weeks, attendees must submit to placing colored stickers on their lapels, which mark them as a person for whom information has been gathered. Campaign aides ask attendees at every event to text their Zip code to a campaign database, capturing their phone numbers. The reward for giving up your data is a reply text with a photograph of Warren’s golden retriever, Bailey.

Campaign workers then reach out, often repeatedly, to recruit these people to volunteer.

Many of Warren’s backers cite her policy specifics and her ability to explain them. “She is better than most college professors,” said John Godfrey, an academic administrator in Ann Arbor, Mich. “She has managed to do it without being a wonk. She is able to craft a narrative.”

David Weigel and Holly Bailey in Iowa contributed to this report.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

theguardian.com
Elizabeth Warren’s economic nationalism vision shows there's a better way | Robert Reich
Robert Reich

7-9 minutes


As we’re now witnessing, Trumpian economic nationalism is a zero-sum game in which the industries of the future are dominated either by China or by the United States. We win or they win.

The loudest opposition to this view comes from multinational American corporations and their Republican shills in Congress, who don’t want tariffs stopping them from making bundles of money around the world.

So is this the only choice – zero-sum economic nationalism or unfettered free trade?

No. There’s a third alternative: “industrial policy” – which means putting national resources (government spending on research and development, along with tax subsidies and export incentives) behind emerging industries, while making sure the nation’s workers get the resulting experience and jobs.

Elizabeth Warren’s new Plan for Economic Patriotism, unveiled on Tuesday, marks a stunningly ambitious version of American industrial policy.

Industrial policy centers on a social contract between the public and business: corporations get extra resources to grow bigger and more innovative. In return, those corporations create high-paying jobs in the nation, and focus on sectors promising the greatest social returns.

This isn’t laissez-faire economics; nor is it zero-sum economic nationalism. America’s investments in its workers and leading-edge industries wouldn’t prevent other nations from making similar investments.

Such competition is positive-sum: if all nations’ workers became more productive, and all socially-beneficial industries grew, the world will be better for everyone.

Those of us who advocated for an industrial policy decades ago argued that America already had one, but it was hidden.

Our giant defense industry had turned America into the world’s leading maker of bombs, airplanes, satellite communications, cargo ships, and container ships, as well as the leader in computers, software and the internet. Our subsidies for pharmaceuticals under the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were central to our dominance over new drugs.

But America’s hidden industrial policy didn’t necessarily benefit America. Military spending was bloated and wasteful. The NIH didn’t require drug companies using its research to invest in good jobs in America, or to hold down drug prices.

In subsequent years, special tax breaks for oil and gas have hastened the climate crisis. The huge, no-strings-attached 2008 bailout of Wall Street allowed financial executives to prosper even as millions of Americans lost their homes and savings because of Wall Street’s gambling addiction.

State and local subsidies to lure companies their way (like the recent bidding war for Amazon’s new headquarters) have merely moved jobs from one place to another, and are ignored when a company decides it can do even better by moving elsewhere.

Other countries such as Germany and China have been far smarter and more open about their industrial policies.

Smartness and openness go together. An open, explicit industrial policy becomes a national competitive strategy. A hidden industrial policy becomes a haven for political payoffs – a form of corporate welfare.

Which may be why big business in America killed off industrial policy in the 1980s. Such talk threatened to expose how much public money big business was raking in without doing anything in return.

Warren berates American companies that “have no loyalty or allegiance” to the nation they were born in. “These ‘American’ companies show only one real loyalty: to the short-term interests of their shareholders, a third of whom are foreign investors,” she writes.

But Warren is no zero-sum economic nationalist. She understands globalization can be a positive force if focused on improving the conditions of a nation’s workforce rather than on maximizing returns to capital. “Globalization isn’t some mysterious force whose effects are inevitable and beyond our control. No – America chose to pursue a trade policy that prioritized the interests of capital over the interests of American workers.”

Warren proposes enlarging federal research and development, and targeting it on leading technologies. These R&D investments would be “spread across every region of the country, not focused on only a few coastal cities”. The products that emerge would be built by American workers.

Her Green Manufacturing Plan proposes allocating $150bn annually for the next decade to renewable, green, American-made energy products, along with a dramatic expansion of worker training to ensure Americans have the skills for the anticipated new jobs.

It’s a national investment in our future. “Over the next decade, the expected market for clean energy technology in emerging economies alone is $23tn,” she explains.

It would also be good for the world. She calls for a Green Marshall plan, “dedicated to selling American-made clean, renewable, and emission-free energy technology abroad and a $100bn commitment to assisting countries to purchase and deploy this technology.”

As Trump erects tariff walls and rolls back federal efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, Elizabeth Warren is promoting a positive economic nationalism designed both to advance America’s workers and respond to one of the most profound crises confronting the world.

She reasons that if China can commit its national resources to promoting its domestic industry through plans such as Made-in-China 2025, and Germany can undertake economic planning, there’s no reason America can’t plan a future of cutting edge industries and good jobs – while combating the climate emergency.

She’s right.

• Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. He is also a columnist for Guardian US

 

[King Kreole]

The Bernie crowd isn’t bashing Warren

What’s happening is that those old I’mWithHer people are basically saying anyone who votes Sanders over Warren is a sexist. They are saying she has the “ideas” and he doesn’t so supporting him makes no sense unless you are an uneducated bro. Therefore, in response, now you are starting to see signs of the Bernie contingent busting back. This is exactly what I didn’t want.

Some of the "I'm With Her" crowd have definitely glommed onto Liz's campaign recently, and the more aggressive ones are using it to continue their 2016 war against Bernie, but there were a lot of Bernie supporters who refused to consider anyone but him from the get-go, and continue to claim Liz is a neoliberal, imperialist shill being weaponized by the DNC to take down Bernie. It's pretty undeniable at this point that paranoia has become one of the defining characteristics of Bernie's online base of support. Look at the anti-Warren rhetoric coming out of the Jacobin wing of Bernie's support. There's no equivalent anti-Bernie rhetoric coming out of Liz's campaign. It's pretty obvious that because Liz is on the come-up and Bernie has stalled, we're seeing hit pieces start to come out from his side.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Some of the "I'm With Her" crowd have definitely glommed onto Liz's campaign recently, and the more aggressive ones are using it to continue their 2016 war against Bernie, but there were a lot of Bernie supporters who refused to consider anyone but him from the get-go, and continue to claim Liz is a neoliberal, imperialist shill being weaponized by the DNC to take down Bernie. It's pretty undeniable at this point that paranoia has become one of the defining characteristics of Bernie's online base of support. Look at the anti-Warren rhetoric coming out of the Jacobin wing of Bernie's support. There's no equivalent anti-Bernie rhetoric coming out of Liz's campaign. It's pretty obvious that because Liz is on the come-up and Bernie has stalled, we're seeing hit pieces start to come out from his side.

Do people really care what staffers/supporters say about opponents of the candidate they support? I don't. I'm voting for the candidate only. If Bernie says something about Warren or vice versa then I would care, otherwise, .

 

[saturn7]

No one gives a fukk about the DNA test debacle if people didn't give a damn about Trump U and "grab them by the P".

Dems need to sack up and stop with all this chicken little bullshyt.

 

[No1]

Some of the "I'm With Her" crowd have definitely glommed onto Liz's campaign recently, and the more aggressive ones are using it to continue their 2016 war against Bernie, but there were a lot of Bernie supporters who refused to consider anyone but him from the get-go, and continue to claim Liz is a neoliberal, imperialist shill being weaponized by the DNC to take down Bernie. It's pretty undeniable at this point that paranoia has become one of the defining characteristics of Bernie's online base of support. Look at the anti-Warren rhetoric coming out of the Jacobin wing of Bernie's support. There's no equivalent anti-Bernie rhetoric coming out of Liz's campaign. It's pretty obvious that because Liz is on the come-up and Bernie has stalled, we're seeing hit pieces start to come out from his side.

I can find a random person talking shyt about anyone. The best “berniebro” argument is that Joe Biden is the leading second choice for Bernie voters. I have no idea how.

 

[fckyoupayme]

I like Warren and her policies, but I have to give my vote to whoever can beat trump. I don't think she can pull it off and I can't do anything 4 years

 

[Jhoon]

I like Warren and her policies, but I have to give my vote to whoever can beat trump. I don't think she can pull it off and I can't do anything 4 years

Who are you voting in the primary to win the opportunity to run against the president?

How do you feel about down-ballot candidates?

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

Warren is incredible

 

[King Kreole]

Do people really care what staffers/supporters say about opponents of the candidate they support? I don't. I'm voting for the candidate only. If Bernie says something about Warren or vice versa then I would care, otherwise, .

I personally don't care that much, but obviously a ton of people do. It's what fuels the take machine, and it's the reason why we're still seeing the 2016 Democratic Primary being litigated 3 years on. I have my criticisms of Bernie, but I really like him and would gladly support him as he would be the most transformative Democratic general election candidate in modern history. That being said, we can't pretend as if politics is simply the dictates of the single candidate; the words and actions of a candidate's official and unofficial supporters speaks to the type of political coalition they're building. It's why hiring people like David Sirota or Briahna Joy Gray is a legitimate issue. Bernie campaigned hard for Hillary, but many of his surrogates/supporters didn't really follow his lead, because he captured revolutionary energy. There is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party right now, and different interests are battling it out. It's a good thing. My point was simply to clarify what I saw as an inaccuracy. Claiming that Bernie's crowd hasn't been ramping up their anti-Warren rhetoric, or that Warren('s camp) is indistinguishable from Hillary('s camp) seems like a smear to me.

 

[fckyoupayme]

Who are you voting in the primary to win the opportunity to run against the president?

How do you feel about down-ballot candidates?

Honestly, I'm going to pay attention to the polls and couple that with the person that is mainstream enough to not scare off the middle of the road voters. I've been very torn; usually I vote with my heart but this time I am voting with my mind. I'm rooting for a functional adult. Down-ballot candidates are just as important as who is going to be president, however I think most people just go with their party affiliation.