like what? honestly her response to the question was fine. how would you have answered it?Yeah I didn't like Warren's answer.
The thing is though, people in Iowa, NH, etc., actually take pride in being first. Especially Iowa, so I can see why Warren wouldn't want to go against that.
But there is a better way to handle that.
THANK YOU!And that my friends is why she lacks strong black support. Wasn't just a terrible answer but her whole demeanor was dismissive.
No one is asking her to solve the problem but she could have shown some level of empathy or even just awareness of the problem. But her answer literally was "hate the game, not the player". I thought the whole point of her campaign was that the game is fundamentally broken? But I guess that doesn't matter when it involves black people and you're trying to win votes from white people...
That's two big steps backward for me on Warren.
There is literal polling that taking away people's private health insurance and forcing them onto a government plan is not popular. it also doesn't have anywhere near close enough to 50 votes in the Senate, and I doubt you have enough in the House either. It's just not that popular with the electorate as a whole! Also, under Medicare as it exists now, you can still be denied medicines, treatments, etc that aren't deemed cost effective. That would also, by necessity no matter what Bernie's magical bill says, still be part of M4A. Why? Because it's literally the case with every nation in the world. Also, even with Medicare...you still have to argue with them now. I do it for my mom frequently. I've had to deal with prior auths from medicare and from my private insurance. Gimme the private insurance every day of the week. Also, you cannot guarantee you can see any doctor, because no doctor is required to take medicare/medicaid.I don't understand why some of y'all are so convinced M4A is a death knell in the general. Also, can we wait for Warren to put out her transition plan before shit talking it?
Our party can absolutely make the case for M4A. Everyone can relate to being overwhelmed by premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and other out of pocket costs. Everyone can relate to the pain in the ass it is to find the specialist care you need in network. Everyone can relate to insurance companies outright refusing to pay for the prescription drugs your doctor tells you you need, and instead forcing you to try 14 other "solutions" before they finally give in.
The current healthcare system fucking sucks! For profit insurance companies are inherently at odds with the idea of providing you the best care you need. M4A promises to completely eliminate out of pocket costs, allow you to see any doctor you want, and not have to worry about arguing with insurance companies to cover the things you need. And Warren's plan does it without raising a single penny in taxes on the middle class!
Not to mention the opposition party wants to completely strip away your coverage to give their rich buddies tax cuts. So we are inherently in a better position on healthcare than they are.
Some of y'all are way too eager to accept the GOP's framing and start from there. No plan is perfect, M4A certainly isn't. But I believe M4A is the most cost effective way to assure everyone has quality access to healthcare. And Warren specifically calls out some concerns people may have at the end of her proposal and says it will be addressed in the transition plan. So let's wait and see.
Also, the public option has serious pitfalls in of itself, but we automatically claim it's the "best" plan because it's more moderate.
It would exist in a situation where poor people get a shit plan that is gradually defunded and de-clawed as wealthy power-players treat it as an entitlement that can be used to balance the budget.The thing about the public option is that if is either good, and will very quickly become so large as to effectively be Shitty Single Payer, or it sucks and is pointless. The landing zone for coverage, cost, and benefits such that private insurance could effectively compete without it being too good or two bad is nearly impossible to pull off in legislation. All the while , leaving private insurers around also means you leave the door open for massive amounts of regulatory capture at the state level in the chaos that punishes consumers.
I like the idea of a robust public option but it is impossible to think that the entrenched players would not find a way to ruin Americans even more to compensate for the lower revenue that a public option would bring.
I think she was the only one asked that.What were the other candidate's comments on whether Iowa and New Hampshire should be the first primaries?
The argument is, supposedly, that spreading it out makes it so you can have lower name rec candidates make a push for it. So like, you can take momentum in Iowa and translate it nationally/regionally. I also think there is some benefit to it being a bit spread out. That way if you do have a situation where the frontrunner does something where he or she is not able to continue running, has a scandal, whatever, we delay having a nominee for as long as possible.having two states basically be the the ones that eliminate 90% of the pack regardless of the demos is dumb as fuck. I dont really get why there cant be a day 1 Super Tuesday scenario where tons of states vote and we go from there.
Yep. It's not like this is a new criticism of the Primary System. I think the thing which was most absurd was how flustered and pissed off she got at Amy Goodman walking off the stage after the question.LOL
I get the politics behind Warren's answer, but this is like the third time now she's used that "I'm just a player in the game" duck and that's just hilarious to me because it goes against her branding as the fighter candidate.
So, hypothetically, we're to believe that Warren's going to bravely take on Republicans, the health insurance industry, the military industrial complex, and big banks...but she cowers before an honest question about Iowa and NH (that anybody aware of the diversity of the US understands: it's complete bullshit that the presidential race is defined by two of the whitest states in the country)?
That she took it as a call for her to attack those two states, instead of an opportunity to display her wonkish chops and discuss a complex problem with nuance is...a shocking lack of creativity on her part.
Yep. It's not like this is a new criticism of the Primary System. I think the thing which was most absurd was how flustered and pissed off she got at Amy Goodman walking off the stage after the question.
I think there has to be a way to answer that question in a less brazen way even if she dodged it by not speaking directly to Iowa and New Hampshire.
She answered it like she was being attacked.
Like, she was incredibly snippy and dismissive of the question. Her answer was kinda crap as well. There was definitely a decent enough way to answer it, but her take surely wasn't it. She was trying to be cute at first, but it didn't work. She also didn't even get close to answering the question asked, and just went "Well I'm very, very happy to be here tonight.""Please criticize the early primary states you want to win or be mocked on the internet" is basically an attack. An attack nobody else had to deal with!
I am a strong advocate for changing the primary system so that we don't have to put corn in our gas tanks, ideally because we don't have gas tanks. But it's pretty dumb to think a candidate is going to take a stand on that BEFORE THE FIRST PRIMARIES.
Warren had the best answer on this question out of the primary field.
i guess she also had the worst answer out of the primary field of to this questionWarren had the best answer on this question out of the primary field.
i guess she also had the worst answer out of the primary field of to this question
Besides, the only person who framed it as attacking Iowa and NH...was Warren herself.Like, she was incredibly snippy and dismissive of the question. Her answer was kinda crap as well. There was definitely a decent enough way to answer it, but her take surely wasn't it. She was trying to be cute at first, but it didn't work. She also didn't even get close to answering the question asked, and just went "Well I'm very, very happy to be here tonight."
That's bad!
Ya, that's why I said she was trying to be cute with it, it didn't work, and then she realized "oh shit, I have to actually give an answer." There was a pretty simple, non controversial answer to this. Do your little joke, and then immediately transition into how important it is that the primary calendar reflect the great diversity in our party. That's literally it.Besides, the only person who framed it as attacking Iowa and NH...was Warren herself.
Although, to be fair to her, her tone to me sounded like she might have initially meant that as a joke, then got somewhat defensive when the joke didn't really land and Goodman continued to press her question.
Besides, the only person who framed it as attacking Iowa and NH...was Warren herself.
I don't even like Warren. I don't like Bernie either and I've said things like that are dumb in some cases for him. Not every case. Warrens been better at dodging questions like that in the past, sure, but that wasn't a question that deserved a straight answer until after the primary.Are we literally now at the point where a candidate we like being asked a question constitutes an attack!?
I think it was a sorta "Really, now?" joke.Besides, the only person who framed it as attacking Iowa and NH...was Warren herself.
Although, to be fair to her, her tone to me sounded like she might have initially meant that as a joke, then got somewhat defensive when the joke didn't really land and Goodman continued to press her question.
Just frame the question as it was presented. She was asked about state primary order and how it reflects the diversity of the Democratic primary.
I think we need to also understand just how answering that question in a way that could be possibly spun at all as anything other than a resounding NO would be spun by the local papers in said statesAre we literally now at the point where a candidate we like being asked a question constitutes an attack!?
Just frame the question as it was presented. She was asked about state primary order and how it reflects the diversity of the Democratic primary.
That's not an attack on Iowa and NH. That's just facts.
To me, this question only reads as an attack if you view primary order as some sort of declaration of the value of a state and its voters.
It's just facts that Iowa and NH have power because of the primary order. They would mean fuck-all if they weren't the first states up to bat. Which means, the voters in those states are very sensitive about their positions. And Warren needs to win at least one of those states.Just frame the question as it was presented. She was asked about state primary order and how it reflects the diversity of the Democratic primary.
That's not an attack on Iowa and NH. That's just facts.
Sure, but I genuinely think there was a decent answer you could give that wouldn't piss anyone off. Because, like, here, she didn't even give a no! I'd have respected a no more than.....that whole thing.I think we need to also understand just how answering that question in a way that could be possibly spun at all as anything other than a resounding NO would be spun by the local papers in said states
LOL. Gardner's already been semi-triaged.Outside groups in Arizona, Colorado, Maine and Iowa have already spent or booked over $1 million in each state — and in some cases much more, according to Advertising Analytics — on advertising criticizing the senators, more than doubling the spending from Republican-aligned groups trying to respond. And in one state, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) has faced the onslaught without any backup from Republican allies.
The GOP have begun panicking even before the DSCC and our PAC have started spending. Plus, our candidates themselves have beaucoup bucks.This year's early barrage is not coming from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee or the super PAC Senate Majority PAC, the main players in Democratic Senate campaigns. Instead, the top spenders are a band of nonprofit organizations that formed just this year, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money and do not have to disclose information about their donors.
She wants to do this the hard way. LOL at her having to unload $500,000 of her own money a year before the election.In Maine, Collins and her challenger, state House Speaker Sara Gideon, have spent more than $500,000 apiece on the airwaves already, more than almost any other campaign in the country on either side.
What a martyr. "Look at me I'm so moderate and enlightened because they all hate me.""The far left has been particularly active in pouring dark money ads into Maine against me," Collins said. "But I've taken my share of arrows from the far right too."
The thing is, that is pretty much just a long winded way of saying "You really want me to criticize Iowa and New Hampshire? Really?" Like, it might've come across a bit better but it's not like it's worlds apart and you would know exactly what she's thinking with that question in either case.Sure, but I genuinely think there was a decent answer you could give that wouldn't piss anyone off. Because, like, here, she didn't even give a no! I'd have respected a no more than.....that whole thing.
"Oh goodness you really want to get me in trouble with the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire! Well, I think scheduling the primaries is currently a little bit above my paygrade. But, what I will say, is that one of the best parts of being a Democrat is how diverse our party is. We're racially diverse. Ethnically diverse. We come from all walks of life. All genders, all sexualities. So, I definitely understand how vitally important it is that our primary system give all our voters, from Iowa to Washington DC, the chance to have their voices heard by the candidates running. That's why I'm in the race, and that's why I'm excited to be here in South Carolina."
Boom. Done.
But like six people on reset era saw it and arguing nonsense hypotheticals of how something that doesn't matter will potentially not effect something is Saturday night primetime materialGood thing like 4 people on Twitter saw this and it won't be on any news network. This clip doesn't matter.
You mean like the people who live in Iowa and New Hampshire do?
I just think that if her big thing is going to be she's going to be a fighter and take on the banks and the health care industry and the whatever...she shouldn't be scared of ticking off a handful of voters in Iowa and NH, when she really could have at the very least been SLIGHTLY less rude. You don't get to be both the "I will fight everyone" and "Except the people who scare me in Iowa" candidate at the same time.The thing is, that is pretty much just a long winded way of saying "You really want me to criticize Iowa and New Hampshire? Really?" Like, it might've come across a bit better but it's not like it's worlds apart and you would know exactly what she's thinking with that question in either case.
It honestly came off to me like " ok I'm not doing coke but I did a hit of whatever Trump takes that makes him snort during debates" vibeSure, but I genuinely think there was a decent answer you could give that wouldn't piss anyone off. Because, like, here, she didn't even give a no! I'd have respected a no more than.....that whole thing.
"Oh goodness you really want to get me in trouble with the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire! Well, I think scheduling the primaries is currently a little bit above my paygrade. But, what I will say, is that one of the best parts of being a Democrat is how diverse our party is. We're racially diverse. Ethnically diverse. We come from all walks of life. All genders, all sexualities. So, I definitely understand how vitally important it is that our primary system give all our voters, from Iowa to Washington DC, the chance to have their voices heard by the candidates running. That's why I'm in the race, and that's why I'm excited to be here in South Carolina."
Boom. Done.
Edit: I agree it's the cranky energy she was giving off that didn't do it for me. Klob would have just thrown something at the moderator.
Its all fun and games until Yang is polling at 4th placeYang got an Iowa crowd super hyped up by doing the math on just how many Californians each Iowa voter is worth
dont go after the ego, just stroke it
He'd be in first if anyone in his campaign was smart enough to make this his campaign song
It's the same with both answers. And it's all political bullshit theater anyway. Same reason she dodged the tax question. Same reason she's doing a head tax to pay for her M4A that won't actually be in a final plan, we all know the game. She has a record that shows exactly where she's lying, and her answer there was honest in the sense of saying "yeah, I'm gonna be honest about not being able to answer that, because I'm running in the fucking primary." With a subtext of, probably: "Yeah, I know Iowa and New Hampshire going first is fucked, but I can't say that without making my opponent's attack ads for them. Thanks for putting me on the spot."I just think that if her big thing is going to be she's going to be a fighter and take on the banks and the health care industry and the whatever...she shouldn't be scared of ticking off a handful of voters in Iowa and NH, when she really could have at the very least been SLIGHTLY less rude. You don't get to be both the "I will fight everyone" and "Except the people who scare me in Iowa" candidate at the same time.
It's the same with both answers. And it's all political bullshit theater anyway. Same reason she dodged the tax question. Same reason she's doing a head tax to pay for her M4A that won't actually be in a final plan, we all know the game.
That was kinda my point, actually. That, yeah, she was grouchy about it, and could've been slightly better, but she gave the same answer effectively, and this is such a fringe question that the only possible way for the media to pick up on it is if she actually gave an answer one way or the other.Democrats need to stop downplaying the importance of political theater. Political theater is exactly how Republicans have maintained power despite their atrocious political aims. Politics IS theater, and GOD I wish more Democrats knew that.
Besides, the thing that's so crazy about Warren in this moment is how otherwise amazing she and her campaign have been with the "bullshit" political theater! I know that's what got my attention.
He'd be in first if anyone in his campaign was smart enough to make this his campaign song
like Yang Gang, come on. Everyone would be singing this