The thing is that Trump doesn’t ever talk specifics at all— he never deals with facts

His strategy is 100% emotion

So how does someone running against this handle this? It’s hard to ignore because the media tries to be unbiased and treats trump’s absurd statements and allegations as fact. Trump could say warren was a lizard woman and CNN would hound her for a response until she gave one.

You’d need someone with wittiness to really be able to parry this. Can you imagine Warren giving a sarcastic response to brush this off? It would just come off as fake.

So if warren can’t be herself, and can’t fake banter, then she would have to resort to other emotional arguments which debase our entire process.

This is where Beto, Sanders, and Avenatti have an advantage over anyone else — they have established reputations and ability to effective use sarcasm to redirect trump’s senseless statements.

I’m happy to be wrong but I don’t think warren is strong enough to breakthrough the reality tc show framing of our politics

10/17/2018 1:41:24 AM

^ That post has some many WTF moments I don't even know where to start.

But why the fuck are you mentioning Avenatti in the same breath as Sanders?

10/17/2018 2:01:07 AM

They’re both talking about running

They’re both witty people

10/17/2018 2:04:58 AM

Quote :

"They’re both talking about running"

You got any #sources to back that up?

[Edited on October 17, 2018 at 2:50 AM. Reason : I realize Trump is POTUS, but that doesn't mean we need to treat porn star's lawyers as serious contenders]

[Edited on October 17, 2018 at 2:53 AM. Reason : Weird fucking place we're at where a TWW'r is equating those two dudes.]

10/17/2018 2:48:51 AM

2020 will come down to how effective oversight from congress is post- November. Trump will either be buried by his crimes, or people will get fatigued by the constant drip and stop caring.

Obvi, I hope it’s the former. This is why it’s important for Dem voters to be savvy and discerning in 2020. I hope that the environment is such that it’s a clear choice between corruption and good governance, and Dems will have a slam dunk no matter who it is.

10/17/2018 7:42:36 AM

I don't think there will be fatigue.

You have to realize that the average American isn't on message boards debating politics. These average Americans probably are barely even listening to the news. That is one reason that Trump won.

Most people that follow politics as closely as people on TSB will probably vote for the opposition regardless (with maybe eluesis) being the exception. But it is the millions of other voters they really need to reach, and whoever it is, Trump is going to out-loud them.

And moron, Trump is many things, but witty is not one of them. I can maybe think of two genuinely witty things he's said since elected. Loud, obnoxious, outlandish sure, but witty? I equate wittiness with intelligence. Trump doesn't exude an air of intelligence.

10/17/2018 8:03:39 AM

Quote :

"^ yes and no 2020 is a long time away, and while some people have really great memories, a lot of people don't. It was dumb to do it in the first place, especially given the timing of Kavanaugh, but in some ways it's better that she got it over with early, so now she can at least try to apologize to the Native Americans, or at least act like she wants to learn and work with them. Her biggest mistake, although she's made bunch, was thinking that a curated campaign-style TV ad would earn her brownie points. She could've just posted it on her website or something more low key. And I'd still vote for her."

i'm not saying this issue will cause problems for her in 2020, i'm saying that anyone who can voluntarily step in and bumble such a softball issue like this has absolutely no chance when real attacks start. warren is done, she has no chance in 2020 and this just makes that very clear.

[Edited on October 17, 2018 at 8:47 AM. Reason : .]

10/17/2018 8:47:12 AM

Elizabeth Warren Is Done
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/10/elizabeth-warren-is-done.html

Quote :

"Make no mistake: Republicans are gleeful that Warren was dumb enough to engage with them. She just ensured that a marginal story is going to dog her for every step of her national political life. You can’t inject reason into the collective cult brain. You can’t woo it with civility and desperate appeals to normalcy. They. Don’t. Care. You can only treat it like the enemy, and when the enemy targets you with bad faith, your job is to let everyone know who they are, and trust that they’ll understand who you are. Never, never explain yourself on their terms. And if you can’t do that? If you made a dicey move in your past, and you don’t have the political instincts or charisma to move beyond it? Even—no, especially—if it was a minor mistake? You’re going to lose. Elizabeth Warren should know all this by now. Her people should know this. The fact that she doesn’t is staggering, and there’s no way anyone should trust her to run a presidential campaign against Donald Trump. Swaggering meathead that he is, he knows weakness when he sees it, and he knows how to exploit it. This whole episode from Warren is disqualifying—she would get ground into political meat. Democrats should be terrified by the prospect of her carrying the banner. She’s done. Good politicians overcome huge mistakes. Bad politicians get tripped up by small ones. On Monday, we learned what kind of politician Elizabeth Warren is."

agree with everything in this piece

[Edited on October 17, 2018 at 9:44 AM. Reason : .]

10/17/2018 9:43:30 AM

^^^^^ I'm hoping that he doesn't run, but there's this:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/michael-avenatti-is-making-concrete-2020-moves-behind-the-scenes

10/17/2018 10:09:39 AM

Quote :

" i'm not saying this issue will cause problems for her in 2020, i'm saying that anyone who can voluntarily step in and bumble such a softball issue like this has absolutely no chance when real attacks start. warren is done, she has no chance in 2020 and this just makes that very clear. "

What “real” attacks are you insinuating? She’s done a lot in Washington to protect consumers and fight Wall Street abuses, and she was a well respected Harvard professor. Are you talking about the loans she made for family members? If the biggest “baggage” she has is being a white woman who defended herself, the Dems should just not bother running candidates, because Trump is some unbeatable dream candidate.

I totally get that this was a dumb move, but as far as progressive candidates go, what exactly is so bad about her? Trump will make vicious personal attacks on ANY person standing in his way, so how exactly a death blow to her entire political career, like that overly dramatic piece you posted is arguing?

Also, who do you think would be a better candidate than her? I don’t want Booker, Biden will 100% lose, and K Harris is too centrist and inexperienced up to this point.

I think it’s perfectly valid to criticize her for the way she’s handled this situation, but you sound a little dramatic.

10/17/2018 11:12:47 AM

^Listen to yourself. You list being a Harvard professor as a positive. This is why you people lost the election in 2016. Most voters aren't going to care about her being a Harvard professor. Is it a positive attribute? Sure. But who cares? Not enough voters, that's for sure.

What happens of Donald Trump goes to take the same DNA test? I guarantee you they find some Native American DNA there (well, I'm not sure when the Trumps actually arrived here, but assuming his ancestors came early). And God forbid he has just as much or almost as much Native American DNA in him as Warren. What argument does she have then?

10/17/2018 11:40:21 AM

Warren also played as Clinton's attack dog in 2016 and it fell painfully flat. She just isn't good at the garbage hellfire political landscape we're in. Maybe she can hire staffers that can point her in the right direction?

Anyways, Nina Turner could destroy Trump. Intelligent, excellent orator, fully understands the political climate, doesn't take bullshit, closely associated with the person who should be president right now. She'd wipe the floor.

[Edited on October 17, 2018 at 11:50 AM. Reason : .]

10/17/2018 11:44:29 AM

LMAO at Trump doing a DNA test.

The rest of your post doesn’t address a single VALID criticism of her.

Also worth noting: she doesn’t need to convert Trump supporter, she needs to get people off their asses out to vote for her, since a ton of them sat it out in 2016

Ps- how is it a bad thing for Warren to have taught at Harvard, but a good thing that Obama went to Harvard law? (It definitely contributed to his ethos when he ran in 2008)

10/17/2018 11:47:52 AM

Donald Trump is a second or third generation American (I forget which); so, unless his father or grandfather fucked a Native American, he's got none.

Given how many flaws Donald Trump has, if the Democratic candidate has any baggage, his or her spokespeople should just go onto the airwaves and say, "Mulligan!"

10/17/2018 11:49:15 AM

Did I say it was a bad thing? Do you even read my posts or just skim them because you know you won't agree with them? I said that it was a positive attribute. I'm just saying that the ordinary voter isn't going to be moved a bit by that.

10/17/2018 11:50:00 AM

ujustwait is stuck in the past when facts mattered

10/17/2018 12:14:12 PM

Quote :

"Also worth noting: she doesn’t need to convert Trump supporter, she needs to get people off their asses out to vote for her, since a ton of them sat it out in 2016"

Maybe, but she won't do that, either. Elizabeth Warren is not an exciting candidate. She may be competent, she may support good policies, but she is not going to energize Democratic or anti-Trump voters. I tell you this as a Democrat anti-Trump voter: going out to vote Warren is going to feel like a chore. Something that I have to do, not something I want to do.

Quote :

"Ps- how is it a bad thing for Warren to have taught at Harvard, but a good thing that Obama went to Harvard law?"

Barack Obama was young and cool when he got elected, and Elizabeth Warren is old and not cool. That's why.

Being old and uncool aren't necessarily killers; Bernie got along well enough in spite of having seen the world born. But it means she's got no cover for being a Harvard elitist in a country that apparently hates education now.

I can tell that Warren is the type that, some day soon, is going to try to look cool, and it's going to be humiliating for everybody, like all those cringeworthy times Hillary drank at a bar with all the ease and comfort of someone facing the firing squad.

10/17/2018 1:11:48 PM

If its a chore to vote for a candidate that's "not cool", enough so that you're not motivated enough to vote at all, then you're not really anti-Trump. Just voting against Trump should be motivation enough.


[Edited on October 17, 2018 at 1:29 PM. Reason : ,]

10/17/2018 1:26:23 PM

Quote :

"Maybe, but she won't do that, either. Elizabeth Warren is not an exciting candidate. She may be competent, she may support good policies, but she is not going to energize Democratic or anti-Trump voters. I tell you this as a Democrat anti-Trump voter: going out to vote Warren is going to feel like a chore. Something that I have to do, not something I want to do."

+1

10/17/2018 1:28:05 PM

^^ Democrats are fucked if they think "not trump" is enough to energize their base

10/17/2018 1:34:43 PM

I'd argue that anybody who says they are anti-Trump but isn't willing to vote against him regardless of the candidate isn't really anti-trump.

[Edited on October 17, 2018 at 2:01 PM. Reason : .]

10/17/2018 1:55:53 PM

all the people too apathetic to vote, but who democrats need to reach, don't care about your anti-trump purity test

10/17/2018 2:06:26 PM

OK, so the arguments y'all are making is that Warren isn't cool, and she shouldn't have been baited by Trump. Nothing else about her as a politician seems like unforgivable baggage to me, but I guess the Dems only options are to run a cool candidate?

Whelp, guess there's no use in fighting since none of you have any meaningful suggestions.

10/17/2018 2:28:11 PM

yes, a candidate has to be popular enough to energize people to vote if they want to win, this is especially true for democrats who can only win when they have higher than normal turnout

10/17/2018 2:29:41 PM

Yes, that's how elections work. The more popular candidate wins. Except in the US when it actually doesn't matter if you win more votes, because Electoral College.

Answer the question: who could the Dems run that could beat Trump?

10/17/2018 2:31:16 PM

Quote :

"Democrats are fucked if they think "not trump" is enough to energize their base"

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/the-democratic-party-just-admitted-it-doesnt-stand-for-anything


Being "not Trump" is literally their strategy, though. So yeah, we're fucked.


Elizabeth Warren was a rising star after 2008 when she came out hard against Wall Street, and she blew all of that political capital when she decided to wait her turn in the Democratic machine and back Hilary instead of coming out in front of her and being a champion for the little guy. It was a horrible political decision that she made, and it's going to cost her in the long run.

10/17/2018 2:39:47 PM

Quote :

"Answer the question: who could the Dems run that could beat Trump?"

sanders would have, probably still can, but ideally we go with a younger progressive candidate

10/17/2018 2:45:00 PM

nina

turner

10/17/2018 2:45:50 PM

i think she should run for a a house seat first

[Edited on October 17, 2018 at 2:49 PM. Reason : .]

10/17/2018 2:49:04 PM

I kinda hope Bernie runs, just so it would end the argument about if he could beat Trump or not. If he couldn't do it, the Bernie Babies would still find an excuse though, so that would be annoying.

Also, who's this mythical younger progressive candidate you're talking about? You seem to know every reason why someone like Warren has zero chance, but you're awfully reticent to offer any concrete suggestions.

[Edited on October 17, 2018 at 2:56 PM. Reason : .]

10/17/2018 2:55:34 PM

^^
I'd agree if we had literally any better option right now. There aren't any exciting progressive leaders who aren't a billion years old or too young to run.

Bernie is too old, his voice was giving out halfway through the primary in 2016.

[Edited on October 17, 2018 at 2:56 PM. Reason : .]

10/17/2018 2:55:51 PM

and LOL @ Bernie being too old now. It's been two years, and suddenly he's "too old" to run, but yet he'd somehow have the stamina and energy to be president TODAY?

10/17/2018 2:58:17 PM

wtf are you talking about? it's 4 years between presidencies and that's a long time for someone who is already nearing 80.

10/17/2018 2:59:34 PM

^^he was too old then, too, but so where clinton and trump so you might as well go with a good old candidate instead bad old candidates

[Edited on October 17, 2018 at 3:00 PM. Reason : ./]

10/17/2018 3:00:00 PM

yeah don't get me wrong, i'd obviously still vote for bernie if it were him vs. clinton/booker/harris/etc. i'm just hoping for someone younger.

10/17/2018 3:01:00 PM

He was too old then, and he'd be way too old now, let alone in 2 more years. I just wish the Bernie or Bust people could actually admit that he was too old when he ran, which was one of his greatest flaws, instead of moving the goal posts for him instead of admitting he wasn't the perfect candidate at the time, either.

The fact that NOBODY has an actual progressive to name is very, very bad.

10/17/2018 3:05:21 PM

Ro Khanna

10/17/2018 3:14:29 PM

Since there's not a clear-choice progressive candidate and President Trump's cronies have been busy deconstructing the administrative state, wouldn't it make sense to nominate a candidate who has worked in the White House before and could readily clean up all of Donald Trump's mess on day one?

10/17/2018 3:30:08 PM

Quote :

" I just wish the Bernie or Bust people could actually admit that he was too old when he ran, which was one of his greatest flaws, instead of moving the goal posts for him instead of admitting he wasn't the perfect candidate at the time, either."

literally the two posters above this are big bernie supporters saying he was too old



[Edited on October 17, 2018 at 3:50 PM. Reason : he still could have won and would have been a good president though]

10/17/2018 3:50:00 PM

Quote :

"Since there's not a clear-choice progressive candidate and President Trump's cronies have been busy deconstructing the administrative state, wouldn't it make sense to nominate a candidate who has worked in the White House before and could readily clean up all of Donald Trump's mess on day one?"

false dilemma

Quote :

"The fact that NOBODY has an actual progressive to name is very, very bad."

there are plenty of potential candidates, it's just too early to figure out which ones are serious

[Edited on October 17, 2018 at 3:54 PM. Reason : .]

10/17/2018 3:51:20 PM

Interesting that no one has mentioned Ocasio-Cortez. I thought she was the new progressive darling for everyone.

10/17/2018 3:52:49 PM

well that's because you don't understand politics

10/17/2018 3:54:39 PM

Quote :

" Nina Turner could destroy Trump. Intelligent, excellent orator, fully understands the political climate, doesn't take bullshit, closely associated with the person who should be president right now. She'd wipe the floor."

She has even less name recognition than Bernie did in 2014, I just don't see her even making it to Super Tuesday in what will be a crowded field. Bernie started winning once people knew who he was, too late to have any impact on Clinton's grasp on southern states. Maybe the African-American population shows up for her, but I don't think it will be anywhere near Obama's 2008 numbers (considering even he couldn't hold that high of a standard in 2012).

Quote :

"Elizabeth Warren is not an exciting candidate."

I disagree. I've heard her speak in person a few times and she knows how to work a room (the best teachers keep their students engaged). She's not going to yell or lob insults like Trump, and she's not going to put on a phony smile and chuckle during serious conversations to seem more likable (and fail) like Hillary did. But she has name recognition, a solid track record for fighting for liberal values, won't be seen as an extremist by anyone with half a brain, and could actually unite the Democratic platform between the centrists and the Berniecrats.

If the worst thing about her is that her mom incorporated Native American ancestry into her upbringing and she put it down on an application, then so what. I understand why tribal leaders are upset with her, their complaints are totally valid. But that has nothing to do with her ability to lead.

10/17/2018 4:02:10 PM

^^ there’s that and there’s also the fact that she’s 29 years old

[Edited on October 17, 2018 at 4:02 PM. Reason : .]

10/17/2018 4:02:29 PM

I didn't realize she was that young.

10/17/2018 4:08:17 PM

Quote :

"a solid track record for fighting for liberal values"

Is this even supposed to mean anything or is it just something moderates toss around to pad out their stats?


The "center" in American politics has completely collapsed, and the only people who don't seem to understand this are the milquetoast liberals who think they still wield power and influence in a decaying state that is morphing into a fascist nightmare before our eyes.

10/17/2018 4:19:15 PM

Just because Obama was elected during his first term in congress doesn't mean that needs to become the norm. Conversations about Harris, Beto, and AOC need to stop...especially since AOC hasn't even been elected to national office yet and Beto is not very likely to stay in DC after this year.

10/17/2018 4:22:32 PM

Donald Trump is president. No one gives a shit about experience in government.

10/17/2018 4:23:56 PM

^The people who will vote for him don't care. The people looking for someone else do.

10/17/2018 4:25:09 PM

Quote :

"The people who will vote for him don't care. The people looking for someone else do."

This is an empty phrase masquerading as wisdom.


John Madden, "the team that scores the most points usually wins" style prose.

10/17/2018 4:27:01 PM