I don't agree with Warren's policy proscriptions, but that's not why her primary candidacy is doomed voters are dumb and vote on personality traits, and Warren comes off as inauthentic and out of touch
I agree with you. I think she's an awful candidate. Her speech pattern, the native american stuff, her mannerisms, etc. I think she'll look weak in debates. I know she's NOT weak and she's obviously an intelligent person, but I have to admit that she drives me crazy when I watch her interviews. Her DNC speech a few years ago was a bomb. I just don't think she has the gravitas or excitement to get votes from people who aren't already in the bag.
Trump once claimed his family was from Sweden. I find Warren smart and likable, but not inspiring. She would not be my first, second or third choice. Warren is also not very good at politics, unfortunately like most Democrats. If Trump says "Pocahontas", Warren says "Sweden". Warren should have also opened a GoFundMe drive to support some Native American cause in conjunction with her DNA announcement.
I'd like to see her as the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Or Secretary of Treasury. I'd also see her as an interesting VP... she has the toughness and experience within congress.
It doesn't matter, the narrative is what it is. She can't shake it, she's only made it worse. As ridiculous as it is that issue will haunt her. Stupid silly stuff like that is easy for people to latch onto. She's smart, I don't know about likeable. I mean she's not NOT likeable I guess, but I think to like her you have to agree with her politically. Otherwise you either hate her because of politics or you are apathetic to her. I don't think she has the personality to move anyone off of one of those positions. That's just my take.
Why did you post this? For one, I had to spend my time trying to figure out if this was a Russian propaganda outfit or a genuine black propaganda outfit. For two, they have a tiny footprint, so their views don't really reflect what many people are thinking or reading. For three, I'm sure you yourself are not a regular reader of the black agenda report and I doubt you agree at all with their worldview so why share an article without comment that you'd axiomatically disagree with. How did you even find it? A friend at the Federalist sent it to you to show how crazy black and/or liberal people are? He talked a lot about his white privilege. But, I can see how people in other parts of the country who didn't pay any attention to the Texas race just stopped after seeing his name and figured he must be running as an hispanic. I think that would not be a good choice, especially Mattis. If you'll recall, picking Mattis for the cabinet was a legitimating choice for Trump. Conservatives would say while they had misgivings about Trump's personality, they felt reassured about his presidency because he made this very respectable choice for defense. So it stings when Mattis rebuked him and quit. I don't see any Trumpers abandoning ship or anything, but it's a proof-point that has come unmoored. But, if Mattis were to sign on with a Democrat (which seems unlikely anyway), it'd give a Trumper the ammunition he needs to paint Mattis as a traitor and completely rewrite the history of the choice of Mattis being a feather in Trump's cap in the first place. They can believe that Trump "essentially fired him" and that he was never any good for them anyway. For the Democrats, it's better that Mattis float out there as a conservative without reproach, maybe even signing on with a primary challenge as a Republican. Maybe bring him back as Sec of Defense after the race is won, but not until then.
I get that. I'm pretty sure he's not a Republican though, but I do get your point. McRaven is another possibility I mentioned. Any military leader of stature can substitute in, but again, has to be for one of the non hardcore left people.
I like Warren. But as a President I just don't see it. She is an authentic champion of the working class and qualified as hell, but as much as I hate to say it, the Presidency is as much a beauty contest as it is a job interview. To that end, she has the demeanor of a schoolmarm and all the panache of cabbage soup. That being said -- if the economy goes south(er) or there is a crisis of some sort -- she will start to look pretty damned good as a knowledgeable, steady, guiding force compared to the r****ded clown show that is Donald Trump. Edit: One tangible benefit to her running is that she will pull whatever Democrat does get the nod further to the populist left. Essentially, if you could take Warren's policies (extremely popular) and package them into Beto's charisma you would have a walk-off winner. This is a step toward making that happen.
It's so hilarious that "leftist economics" means trying to remove corporate influence away from DC. You would think that message would resonate with middle America. Unfortunately, rural America is consumed with identity politics and wedge issues currently. It's amazing how the common man in America is duped by corporate media to think someone like Warren is just some wacky leftist when she has done actual tangible action as a senator. It's a depressing state of affairs in America when the average American continues to shoot them selves in the foot because they want a "relate-able" president, whatever the **** that means.
Maybe in your little trump thumping world yes. The moderate voter in the middle class is not. A lot of people aren't. The moderate voters as of right now don't agree with you, and ultimately they will decide the next election.
Either to her or whatever swaths of the population they rarely interact with outside of March Madness or reality television.
Warren's war on drugs "not serious" https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/elizabeth-warren-generic-drugs-proposal-not-serious/ Elizabeth Warren on Drugs By JIBRAN KHAN January 4, 2019 1:51 PM Her proposal to lower the cost of generics is not serious. Elizabeth Warren is grasping. Having failed in her gambit to establish minority status, the 2020 presidential contender is now following the path of her competition. As Kamala Harris did with the housing crisis, Warren has picked a very real issue — the expense of generic drugs — and decided to address it with a bill that is unlikely to achieve much except gain her personal accolades for “doing something.” And should it pass, it could inhibit efforts to actually resolve the problem, because “something has been done.” Senator Warren debuted her plan before the holidays in the Washington Post, with the title “It’s time to let the government manufacture generic drugs.” Perhaps the senator thought this would generate buzz and capture attention before she officially launched her bid for the presidency on New Year’s Eve. Given that she followed this announcement with a botched attempt to out-Millennial Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in an online video, though, perhaps it isn’t going as she desired. Here’s the real problem Warren is trying to address: There were 356 drug shortages in 2012, up from 154 in 2007 — and strikingly, most of these drugs are no longer under patent. That tells us that the critical problem is not one of manufacturing capacity, for any medical company with the capability to produce these medicines could simply do so, using the relevant formulas. The normal behavior of the market, when there is a shortage of a product, is for a new entrepreneur to start providing that product. The fact that this is not happening suggests there must be some barrier in the way of it. For each new generic drug, the manufacturer must submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), whose very name reveals that it is itself an improvement on an older process. Before 1984’s Hatch-Waxman Act, new generics had to go through the full clinical trials required of a new medicine, even though they were simply a new source of the very drug that had already been chemically approved. The ANDA pathway is quicker and cheaper, requiring a manufacturer to show that the generic is “bioequivalent” to the brand-name product and that it meets manufacturing standards. Even so, the ANDA pathway is an expensive process, and its cost has increased from about $1–2 million in 2005 to $15 million in 2015. The process isn’t limited to new providers, either. Should an existing manufacturer want to supply more of its approved medicine, it must go through the approval process again for any new production lines or factories. As a result, it can be too costly to make up the shortfall in supply. The issues don’t end there. Sometimes, even if a generic manufacturer is willing and able to take on all the costs of this process, brand-name manufacturers can effectively put a stay on generics by preventing generic manufacturers from obtaining samples. In other cases, brand-name drug manufacturers will pay generic manufacturers to stay out of the market. The fact that some critical yet out-of-patent drugs have only a single generic manufacturer has created an opening for speculators who buy decades-old basic medicines and raise the prices dramatically — most infamously in the case of Turing Pharmaceuticals, which purchased the rights to a $13 pill and immediately raised its price to $750. This behavior is not the market in action; it is the manipulation of a regulatory regime for financial gain. Clearly, something is very wrong. A solution is necessary. But rather than tackle the dense and boring problems that are holding back access to essential drugs, which can’t really be boiled down to a stump-speech line, Warren proposes that the United States government start producing generic drugs under the auspices of a new “Office of Drug Manufacturing,” which would pass off its products to cooperating private companies. In effect, assuming that the office operates at least as well as the average private manufacturer (unlikely though that is), this would simply mean the creation of a new drug company, albeit one with a public imprimatur. This new company, however, would run into the same hurdles that are faced by private actors — the text of the bill does not lay out a regulatory exemption for this new state-run firm, after all. At most, the office might be willing to take the financial hit of approval costs where a private firm might not, meaning taxpayers would simply pick up the tab to overcome the problems the government created. What makes Warren’s plan especially insulting is that the senator seems to be aware of some real solutions. In her op-ed, after pitching her bill, she mentions in an aside that it’s necessary to “crack down on the rampant abuse of the patent and regulatory system” and advocates increased drug importation from countries with high safety standards. Both of these are critical areas of reform, but they do not have a place in Warren’s legislation. There are some clear steps forward for honest reformers. A particularly promising three-part solution is outlined in a Brookings paper by Thomas Bollyky and Aaron Kesselheim. First, they advocate the passage of the Generic Drug User Fee Act Reauthorization, which would help the FDA accelerate its review process for generics, particularly “complex” generics that “are more intricate in formulation or delivery than simple, small-molecule pills,” as well as a policy push to prioritize applications for drugs that currently have only one manufacturer. Second, they propose a “single window” pathway, by which manufacturers could apply for approval from multiple regulatory authorities simultaneously; these could include the United States, Canada, and the EU to begin with and then expand to include the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Each of these regulatory authorities is well respected, and furthermore they have already harmonized many of their best practices (though each regulator would still assess the applications independently). A single application would drastically reduce the costs for a new manufacturer to bring its drug to market without raising safety concerns. The third prong of Bollyky and Kesselheim’s plan involves importation. Currently, imported generics need to go through the FDA approval process even if they have already been approved by comparable bodies abroad. The effect of this hurdle is stark. Sixty-four percent of drugs with insufficient generic competition in the United States have manufacturers abroad that have been approved by the EU, Canada, and other regulators, yet are out of reach of American patients. They suggest that the pathway be limited to generic versions of drugs that are already approved in the United States but lack sufficient generic competition, and that reciprocal approval be limited to strict regulatory authorities such as those of the EU and Canada. With such a framework in place, quality generic-drug manufacturers abroad could expand their production to meet the demand in the United States, at considerably lower cost than it would take for “a new entrant to obtain an ANDA and build new manufacturing capabilities.” This framework tackles the factors that have been most critical in limiting competition and raising the costs of medication and keeping people from the care they need. If Senator Warren is serious about generic-drug prices, she ought to consider it. Increasing the FDA’s resources to tackle the backlog, streamlining regulatory practices and importation, and working with foreign partners would be a far more effective and prudent use of funds than an Office of Drug Production — even if it is less suited to the campaign trail. If Warren’s aim is to be seen as the “serious wonk” compared with figures such as Beto O’Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker, she needs to do better. Her vanity project is thoroughly unserious.
I stopped reading right there. The article starts off with a lie. She never attempted to establish minority status. Are you going to make a habit of posting stuff that is demonstrably false?
I think her legislative work and the time and effort she puts into what she cares about as a Senator should be enough for rational people to understand she fights for the "common people".
I’ve loved Warren ever since reading The Two Income Trap. This is someone who actually gets it. Who gets what is wrong with income inequality and why the middle class is suffering like it is. After the 08 meltdown and the blatantly obvious effects of corporate greed and deregulation and Warren leading the CFPB you would think she would someone people would rally around. Instead the idiots out there who used to be middle class and that Warren wants to help snicker and call her Pocahontas while voting for Trump who is trying to dismantle those consumer protections and just gave a massive tax cut to those same financial institutions. You need someone like Beto with Warren or Bernie as VP.
