If I watched this debate and knew none of the candidates I'd think Biden knew every global leader and how to deal with them. I'd conclude that Bloomberg had seen it all and knew how to fix it.
Didn't say I was voting for them just saying they might be making a good debate impression for those who were just tuning in.
I remember Biden being a generally sunny guy as a debater — a bit folksy, a gaffe here and there, but overall pretty even-keeled. He’s pretty angry tonight, and not in a good way.
At this point I expect Elizabethwarren.com to be all about the different ways Bloomberg sucks. No issues. Just Bloomberg.
I give her credit for taking one for the team. This is likely not helping her, but she knows she's hurting the (by far) worst candidate on the stage (if you're a real Democrat). If we get to a brokered convention, these shots at Bloomberg are going to make the "super" delegates think twice. Or thrice. And that's a very good thing for the Democratic Party
Warren is in an interview with Chris Matthews defending her attack on Bloomberg. She says that we should "believe the woman".
Matthews asks why did you go after Bloomberg instead of Sanders. Her answer is that Bloomberg is the riskiest candidate.
As to Bernie she says that they both opposed the big banks but she was the one who actually accomplished something, the creation of the Consumer Finance Protection Agency.
Of the group last night, which one would you want as President today, assessing information and making decisions to deal with the looming pandemic and associated economic disruption?
I said memorable. What is your favorite policy that she mentioned tonight that was unique to her?
Asking for a unique policy is the wrong question to ask.
Better to ask who sounds like they can put forward a way to implement a policy, and deal with objections to it. Warren is miles ahead of Bernie on that, for one, and way ahead of the other candidates.
Sen. Warren has convinced me that Bernie isn't that worrisome. He'll never get anything done. SHE'S the freak who will show up with 17 idiotic plans every day and keep everyone up until it gets done.
Of the group last night, which one would you want as President today, assessing information and making decisions to deal with the looming pandemic and associated economic disruption?
Objectively, it's Warren.
it's not even close. But we shouldn't be surprised that in a country that elected Donald Trump president, she can't get any traction. If we collectively believed competence in government could accomplish anything Trump would not have gotten within a million light years of the presidency.
Just watched Warren on CNN. If there was any justice, and if voters were actually paying attention, she'd be ahead of the field by 20 points.
I can't help but believe misogyny is the only barrier between Warren and the White House.
Then why did Hillary Clinton have 50-55% support, 15-20 pts ahead of sanders, at the directly comparable point of time of Feb 2016? Was 4 yrs ago a less misogynistic time?
Of the group last night, which one would you want as President today, assessing information and making decisions to deal with the looming pandemic and associated economic disruption?
I hated the way Warren chose to bring Bloomberg down. Using the words "kill it" for shock value.
Did he tell a woman, who he may or may not have been involved in to have an abortion? Who knows. He denies it. Some woman told Warren who told the world. Very tabloid and far in the past. Perhaps if it were said with less emotion and then dropped but to me not what I'm voting on. And please no more personal stories. Once in a debate, maybe a heated personal attack. Two debates in a row, it sounds hysterical.
Her story that she lost her job because of her pregnancy, 50 years ago, not relevant. And who coached her to give Mike the talking point that this was not his policy in New York. Next we will start discussing who cheated on their spouse.
I was left uncomfortable and switched my focus to Amy Klobuchar. Just give me the facts. By the way Amy, thanks for bringing up guns and the boyfriend loophole. If she gets it through many lives will be saved.
Of the group last night, which one would you want as President today, assessing information and making decisions to deal with the looming pandemic and associated economic disruption?
Objectively, it's Warren.
Objectively. Bloomberg. I am over Warren. Too much drama. We need someone to get things done not throw tantrums every day.
... Some woman told Warren who told the world. ...
That's a very inaccurate way of framing it. The Bloomberg comment has been reported for years, and fits in quite well with his other, on the record, sexism.
It's odd that you're discounting the woman's story over Bloomberg, of all people.
Of the group last night, which one would you want as President today, assessing information and making decisions to deal with the looming pandemic and associated economic disruption?
Objectively, it's Warren.
Objectively. Bloomberg. I am over Warren. Too much drama. We need someone to get things done not throw tantrums every day.
You think Warren was throwing tantrums?
Warren thinks Bloomberg is a real danger. And he is. So she went after him. As she should have.
Unlike the other candidates who are blithely accepting his bought presence on the stage.
Getting rid of the filibuster, the intersection of race and housing, pointing out how Bloomberg funded some of the most awful Republican candidates especially against women. Those were all pretty good.
Oh, and believing a woman.
As for her personal motto, I think she should have gone with "Nevertheless she persisted", or the newly minted "Enough is never enough."
Then why did Hillary Clinton have 50-55% support, 15-20 pts ahead of sanders, at the directly comparable point of time of Feb 2016? Was 4 yrs ago a less misogynistic time?
she's not Elizabeth Warren. And she didn't run on the same ideas or present them in the same way. Do you think all women are the same and that reactions to them are all the same?
Then why did Hillary Clinton have 50-55% support, 15-20 pts ahead of sanders, at the directly comparable point of time of Feb 2016? Was 4 yrs ago a less misogynistic time?
she's not Elizabeth Warren. And she didn't run on the same ideas or present them in the same way. Do you think all women are the same and that reactions to them are all the same?
Misogyny is defined as "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women." If Warren isn't doing well in her campaign for president due to misogyny, as you assert, it stands to reason that other women who ran for president in recent times would also have fizzled out, for no apparent reason. But, Hillary Clinton, who is a woman, won the Democratic nomination 4 years ago, and while she fell just short of the presidency, she won the popular vote with 65.8 million votes in the general election.
Also, Warren had a pretty decent lead in the polls back in October. Presumably, voters knew it was a woman they were supporting, unless somehow they got her confused with Warren G. Harding. I don't think voters went from non-misogynistic to misogynistic in the span of 4 months.
Warren's still in with a fighting chance, but currently voters just aren't buying what Warren's selling, for whatever reason(s). I personally think it's primarily because she staked a claim to no man's land (or no woman's land) as far as who she appeals to -- she's progressive lite compared with Bernie, and moderates don't trust her. There's no real room there -- all that leaves her with is peel-offs from both progressive and moderates, rather than a decent bloc from either camp.
Misogyny is defined as "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women." If Warren isn't doing well in her campaign for president due to misogyny, as you assert, it stands to reason that other women who ran for president in recent times would also have fizzled out, for no apparent reason. But, Hillary Clinton, who is a woman, won the Democratic nomination 4 years ago, and while she fell just short of the presidency, she won the popular vote with 65.8 million votes in the general election.
Also, Warren had a pretty decent lead in the polls back in October. Presumably, voters knew it was a woman they were supporting, unless somehow they got her confused with Warren G. Harding. I don't think voters went from non-misogynistic to misogynistic in the span of 4 months.
Warren's still in with a fighting chance, but currently voters just aren't buying what Warren's selling, for whatever reason(s). I personally think it's primarily because she staked a claim to no man's land (or no woman's land) as far as who she appeals to -- she's progressive lite compared with Bernie, and moderates don't trust her. There's no real room there -- all that leaves her with is peel-offs from both progressive and moderates, rather than a decent bloc from either camp.
Pulling the misogyny card is a cop-out.
the first part of your argument doesn't logically hold. People tend to be prejudiced in particular ways against women that don't hold for each individual woman. Look a few comments above in which one person labeled Warren's debate performance last night a "tantrum." Nobody to my knowledge has thrown that accusation at either Biden or Buttigieg whose debate performance wasn't a whole lot different in tone than Warren's.
the second part, we don't know. We don't and can't possibly know why Warren didn't catch on. I could be right, and so could you. Or neither of us.
But to suggest that there isn't any prejudice holding Warren back as a candidate seems like a stretch, as well as a denial of the experiences of most women in business or politics.
Just watched Warren on CNN. If there was any justice, and if voters were actually paying attention, she'd be ahead of the field by 20 points.
I can't help but believe misogyny is the only barrier between Warren and the White House.
Then why did Hillary Clinton have 50-55% support, 15-20 pts ahead of sanders, at the directly comparable point of time of Feb 2016? Was 4 yrs ago a less misogynistic time?
She was a high profile member of the incumbent administration, with deep ties to the party establishment and so able to lock up support and resources early on -- incumbency and first-mover advantages.
In 2015/16 the path for Hilary Clinton was made straight and flat by most of the Democratic party. She faced one significant rival for pretty much the entire primary season.
Consider the situation if Joe Biden had decided to step in to the ring as a candidate for 2016.
Elizabeth Warren doesn't have Hilary Clinton's name recognition or public track record, and she's in a heated primary fight which includes much bigger names to her left and right. Not to mention multiple other candidates who are all carving out their own piece of the pie.
I think therefore that comparing Clinton in the 2016 primaries to Warren now is useless for weighing the effect of misogyny. But again I'll ask what do you think it would have looked like if Biden, fresh from eight years as VP, went toe-to-toe with Sanders? Would he have gotten more votes than Clinton?
There are too many variables to make the argument that misogyny is not a factor with the 2016 nomination as an example.
At this point I expect Elizabethwarren.com to be all about the different ways Bloomberg sucks. No issues. Just Bloomberg.