I think Elizabeth Warren would solidify our Party more than anyone if she wins the nomination

[mtnsnake]

Whether it's Bernie's supporters or Biden's supporters or Mayor Pete's supporters or any other candidate's supporters, all Democrats seem to love Elizabeth Warren. You rarely hear any Democrat ever say a bad word about her. That alone suggests to me that she would not only solidify the Democratic Party better than anyone, but she would have just as good a chance as any other candidate to kick Trump's ass, maybe even more so, since she'd likely have every Democratic voter supporting her enthusiastically. And it isn't just Democrats who like Elizabeth. It appears that there are more than a few Independents and fence sitting Republicans across the country who seem to be attracted to her as well. Except for the 1%, I could easily see her becoming a president who would be greatly appreciated by just about the entire population.

[Grasswire2]

1. I have been thinking about Warren-Booker since I saw him yesterday w/Axelrod.

I was impressed with him. They might make a good team.

[BeyondGeography]

2. I like that ticket a lot

Not least because Booker gets replaced with a Dem if they win. Plus in my lifetime I don’t think I’ve seen a combination of passion and authenticity that that ticket would offer.

[mtnsnake]

3. Me too.

I think Cory Booker is going to impress a lot of folks once the debates begin.

[Clash City Rocker]

30. Cory is smart, charismatic, a fighter. He'd be a good fit.

The downside is that Warren and Booker are both East Coast liberals, and sometimes they look for diversity in the ticket when they make these decisions. For that reason, Beto might be an interesting choice for her.

[Grasswire2]

29. exactly! nt

[McKim]

4. She is a Natural Leader Who Will Appeal to All

She is a natural leader who will appeal to all Democrats. Her ideas are creative and she has the big picture to attract all those left out of stock market prosperity. She will be popular with working families, young progressive voters and older voters. She is the real deal with fresh modern ideas!

[appalachiablue]

5. Sen. Warren's major strengths, with the people and as a leader

are welcome in these raucous times. And very presidential she is, hands down.

'I Have A Plan For That' https://www.democraticunderground.com/1297107

[DoctorJoJo]

6. I Love Her As a Senator, But As a Candidate, She Comes Off As Your Least Favorite Schoolmarm

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. I tend to agree,

Terrific Senator, but as a presidential candidate, a bit too "preachy" for me.

[crazytown]

16. Elizabeth is no schoolmarm. She blew the competition off the stage in Vegas

SEUI:CAP Form, Las Vegas

By near the end of the event, many attendees seemed a bit disappointed. Speakers like O'Rourke sounded good but lacked specifics. Others like Klobuchar who gave detailed responses about how she'd help labor didn't seem to have the energy necessary to take on President Trump.

Then Warren closed the day out. Seats began filling back up. Members of the press took their headphones off. If you had never looked at the polls, the energy in the room made you think Warren was about to accept her party's nomination for president.

(snip) One woman, who voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary and works for the Service Employees Union in Minnesota (said) earlier in the day that she wasn't sure someone like Warren had the charisma to take back the White House. As she left the venue, she had done a 180.

"I still have goosebumps," she said, right before taking out a cigarette.

[spooky3]

19. I think this is an example many have cited of the sexism women face.

Did anyone call Professor Obama (yes, he was a professor before becoming President) "preachy"? I have one Republican friend who did, but I have reason to believe this was based on racism and political bias rather than anything that Pres. Obama did.

We all--Dems as well as non-Dems-- need to make sure we are not holding women to unrealistic standards not imposed on men.

[oldsoftie]

24. Its not sexism. Its just a type of personality. I dont see it with Kamala Harris & she's a woman.

Some men come off as arrogant, others as assertive. One trait is looked at more negatively than the other.
Its just a perception thing. Some will see it that way, others wont.

[spooky3]

32. We do not agree. And there is plenty of evidence supporting my view. You should check it out.

As a first step: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/us/politics/sexism-double-standard-2020.html

And there are hundreds of peer-reviewed publications you can also check out.

Anyone who is aware that, and concerned about sexism in our society, should not be quick to dismiss examples of sexism, especially when the US has a poor record, compared to others in the developed world, of electing women.

[oldsoftie]

40. Oh, i know sexism certainly exists, i'm just saying the poster's opinion of Warren is not sexism.

Sexists & racists are usually pretty obvious & dont care if you know it.
I'm not a sexist. And labeling an opinion as sexism is easy, but changes nothing. Like i said, there are different opinions of men as well. Some fair, some not so much.
If you're going to get into politics you'd better get used to different people having different opinions of you. Reaching for the racism or sexism label for ALL of them isnt gonna win any MORE votes for that particular candidate.

[Metalmom]

56. Do men get called school marms?

When men are called school marms as a type of personality then I'll believe it's not sexist.


What do you call a woman who has had 25 sexual partners? What do you call a man who has had 25 sexual partners?

Calling Elizabeth Warren a school marm is sexist and denigrating. Period.

[DoctorJoJo]

58. Some People Are Always Looking for Sexism. Do You Object to Calling Her a She?

I'm actually a strong Kamala supporter--she comes off as a strident prosecutor, to her credit. Would you rather I had called Warren a Schoolman? If I have that opinion of her, I guarantee you a shitload of others do, too! It isn't gender, it is mannerisms.

[Metalmom]

59. reread your words

School marm is a negative connotation of a woman. And it is gender. You would never call a man that if he used the very same mannerisms. Hell, a man could have the very same mannerisms yet not be seen in the same way, he'd be called wonkish.

[DoctorJoJo]

61. No--I'd Call Him a Prick!

[HopeAgain]

62. They will deny sexism to the end

Maybe if she came across more bikini model, they would like her.

[Drunken Irishman]

42. There have been plenty of white male candidates who were treated like shit by the MSM...

Remember how they vilified Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004? Bush was the down to earth jock you'd love to have a beer with. Gore? More like Bore! He was mocked for being a stiff and robotic in his tone. The media was ruthless going after his supposed lack of charisma.

With Obama, the press did try to paint him as aloof but he had the charisma to overcome it. Clinton, too, was able to overcome his supposed perception issues because he connected with a lot of people.

Maybe Warren is finally finding her voice. She's definitely got the substance but her own perception issues could still be a major issue.

[highplainsdem]

55. I have that reaction to her sometimes, too. Not all the time. I was wondering if anyone else

felt that way.

[BlueMTexpat]

63. WOW!

And I see by your continuing responses below that keep digging you in deeper, that you STILL do not "get" it.

[Celerity]

65. schoolmarm is a pejorative, gender-based insult when used in this context

It is a loaded term filled with long-held sexist stereotypes. It also belittles her vast academic credentials, reducing her to a woman teaching children in the proverbial one-room schoolhouse.

The first results for schoolmarm on Google images:




The Media Gaslighting of 2020’s Most Likable Candidate

Elizabeth Warren has proven over and over that she’s a charismatic figure. Why do we keep casting her as a nagging schoolmarm?

https://medium.com/s/story/the-media-gaslighting-of-2020s-most-likable-candidate-4c42baab641e

At CNN’s town hall event on Monday, the American people saw something we’d been told was impossible: Elizabeth Warren winning over a crowd.

The Massachusetts senator took aim at a variety of subjects: the Electoral College, Mississippi’s racist state flag, the rise of white nationalism. Always, she was met with thunderous applause. Even a simple Bible verse — from Matthew 25:35–40, about moral obligation to the poor and hungry — prompted cheers so loud and prolonged that Warren had to pause and repeat herself in order to make her voice heard over the noise. Yet this was the same woman the media routinely frames as too wonky, too nerdy, too socially stunted. But then, Warren has always been an exceptionally charismatic candidate. We just forget that fact when she’s campaigning — due, in large part, to our deep and lingering distrust for female intelligence.

Warren is bursting with what we might call “charisma” in male candidates: She has the folksy demeanor of Joe Biden, the ferocious conviction of Bernie Sanders, the deep intelligence of fellow law professor Barack Obama. But Warren is not a man, and so those traits are framed as liabilities, rather than strengths. According to the media, Warren is an uptight schoolmarm, a “wonky professor,” a scold, a wimpy Dukakis, a wooden John Kerry, or (worse) a nerdier Al Gore.

The criticism has hit her from the left and right. The far-right Daily Caller accused her of looking weird when she drank beer; on social media, conservatives spread vicious (and viciously ableist) rumors that Warren took antipsychotic drugs that treated “irritability caused by autism.” On the other end of the spectrum, Amber A’Lee Frost, the lone female co-host of the socialist podcast Chapo Trap House, wrote for The Baffler (and, when The Baffler retracted her article, for Jacobin) that Warren was “weak” and “not charismatic.” Frost deplored the “Type-A Tracy Flicks” who dared support “this Lisa Simpson of a dark-horse candidate.”

Casting Warren as a sheltered, Ivory Tower type is odd, given that her politics and diction are not exactly elitist. Yet none of this is new; the same stereotypes were levied against Warren in 2011, during her Senate campaign.

snip

[Hamlette]

7. I like her but I know many Dems who HATE her

They would vote for her over Trump but they think she is a kook.

These friends are old school liberals. Dems to the core, never voted for a Republican and never will. But they are also professionals (lawyers, judges, doctors) who think some of her ideas don't consider "the other side" which they think is a real concern. As for their specifics, I can't remember and please, don't make me ask again as my eyes glaze over when they get into the weeds about banking or whatever.

Just don't kid yourselves. My generation may be old, but we vote and I honestly don't know anyone who would vote for her.

[KPN]

9. What generation are you? I'm a baby boomer and know no Democrats in my age cohort who say they

wouldn't vote for her if nominated.

Are you actually saying these Democratic people you know would not vote for her if nominated? They'd sit it out or vote for tRump? Really?

[Ferrets are Cool]

13. Ditto that

[oldsoftie]

25. He said they would vote for her over TRUMP. Just not in the primary.

[KPN]

50. Duly noted. My bad. I obviously forgot that by the time I read the rest.

But then, what exactly was the point? Beats me.

[Indykatie]

14. Warren is Hard Working and Whip Smart But I Don't See Her Winning the Nomination.

Folks may like and respect her but it's not translating into support. She is also not the leading 2nd choice for people either. My circle which is mostly older professional White and Black Women are in the Biden camp at his point. Warren isn't even the 2nd choice for folks in our circle. It's Harris or Beto. The polling may not be exactly correct at this point but the trend is the same in all of them. Biden was leading before he declared and that lead continues to grow. He also leads in polls that ask about 2nd choice preferences. Would he not be the best choice to unify the party if he wins the nomination?

[crazytown]

17. If Joe asked Warren to run as his VP

she would say no.

[LakeArenal]

37. Hers and our bad luck then.

[oldsoftie]

44. Then shes not a team player. Beating trump requires a good TEAM.

Anyone running who doesnt get the nomination should be more than willing to take the VP slot if thats what it takes

[crazytown]

45. Joe didn't jump into accepting Barack's offer.

there was quite a lot of negotiation..

Perhaps, I should have added, that if Joe was not taking no for an answer and, was prepared to listen to a weekend’’s worth of Warren explaining why the relationship would not work

then ... Elizabeth is a patriotic American Her final answer would have to be yes.

Hillary stopped taking phone calls trying to avoid Barack asking her to be SoS.

[Irishxs]

52. +1

[highplainsdem]

54. I think there's very little chance Biden would ask another 70somethng white candidate from the East

Coast to be his running mate.

As I've said here before, I'm not concerned about Biden's age. But other people are, or profess to be, and for that reason I'd say there's close to zero chance either Warren or Sanders would be asked to be his running mate, if he gets the nomination.

[KPN]

10. If she were to be our nominee, I agree with your assessment. But she has toi win the nomionation

and that is probably the harder challenge ahead for her.

[Kurt V.]

11. K&R she, like all women running has to be a little better than the men. so it's uphill

and her legs are strong.

[not fooled]

23. Yes

Waiting for the debates--people will get to hear and see her without filters

[thesquanderer]

12. It is Trump who solidifies our party more than anyone else.

So all our candidates will be well supported by Dem voters. The question is about capturing the independents in MI/WI/PA, or OH/FL.

Most recent polls (Emerson, from March):

MICHIGAN
Biden v. Trump: 54%-46%
Klobuchar v. Trump: 53%-47%
Sanders v. Trump: 52%-47%
Harris v. Trump: 51%-49%
Warren v. Trump:51%-49%

PENNSYLVANIA
Biden 55%/ Trump 45%
Sanders 55%/ Trump 45%
Warren 52%/ Trump 48%
Harris 51%/ Trump 48%
O’Rourke 51%/ Trump 49%

WISCONSIN
Biden v. Trump: 54%-46%
Sanders v. Trump: 52%-48%
Warren v. Trump:52%-48%
O'Rourke v. Trump: 51%-49%
Harris v. Trump: 50%-50%
Klobuchar v. Trump: 50%-50%

[tinrobot]

15. I like her more every day.

I admit I was ambivalent when she announced, but she's been a tireless campaigner and is starting to win me over.

I'd happily support her.

[crazytown]

20. I didn't make her seriously as a candidate

until the SEIU:CAP forum. She of one of six to address the event along with Amy, Beto, Kamala, Julian Castro, and Hickenlooper.

And she killed it. This was a crowd of rank and file people and she rocked.

I keep cutting and pasting text because I can’t link under DU rules

By near the end of the event, many attendees seemed a bit disappointed. Speakers like O'Rourke sounded good but lacked specifics. Others like Klobuchar who gave detailed responses about how she'd help labor didn't seem to have the energy necessary to take on President Trump.

Then Warren closed the day out. Seats began filling back up. Members of the press took their headphones off. If you had never looked at the polls, the energy in the room made you think Warren was about to accept her party's nomination for president.

(snip) One woman, who voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary and works for the Service Employees Union in Minnesota (said) earlier in the day that she wasn't sure someone like Warren had the charisma to take back the White House. As she left the venue, she had done a 180.

"I still have goosebumps," she said, right before taking out a cigarette.

And from WaPo

it all felt scattershot until Warren, the final speaker of the day ... The crowd gave (her) the most passionate response, with more than one standing ovation and cheers from almost the beginning of her half-hour appearance. She received another enthusiastic recep

[BlueJac]

18. K&R

[appalachiablue]

21. Another asset is Warren's tremendous energy, also high motivation,

practicality and authenticity. SO many outstanding qualities to bring to the executive office, we're fortunate.

[Mosby]

22. she's too much of a populist

Harris and Booker both had to explain why they thought her idea about breaking up FB was not a good one, and Booker was attacked by the interviewer, claiming that he compared her to trump which was untrue. We don't need that.

[crazytown]

26. Breaking up Facebook is a good idea

Last edited Sun May 12, 2019, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Even Facebook’s co-founder thinks so.

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes: It's time to break up Facebook
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/09/tech/facebook-chris-hughes-break-up/index.html

This isn’t off the wall popularism, it’s a matter for serious discussion

[Mosby]

38. why not just do a better job regulating them?

And what do you break them up into, and how does that change anything anyway? Did something change when ma bell was broken up?

If your going to break up FB, what about twitter?

Since we all know how bad the media handled the 2016 election I think we need to break up CNN,MSNBC and Fox. Then we should break up clearchannel, timewarner, viacom and comcast.

Easy peasy.

[crazytown]

39. Breaking up Facebook mesns separating out

Instagram and Whatsapp from Facebook itself so that each can cleanly compete against each other. Twitter isn’t an apples for apple competitor for Facebook. Instagram certainly is

Facebook book has other ideas. Beginning with messaging services, it merge all into one.

FACEBOOK TO MERGE INSTAGRAM, WHATSAPP AND MESSENGER
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-instagram-whatsapp-messenger-app-merger-download-a8746376.html?amp

[Irishxs]

27. Agree +1000000

[shanny]

28. I agree.

It is partly why she is my candidate.

[wasupaloopa]

31. I would vote for her if she were the nominee but not

with enthusiasm.

For me Kamala Harris is the only one who unites.

[Still In Wisconsin]

33. She is one of several excellent options we have this time around.

I'd be very happy with Warren as our candidate!

[Irishxs]

53. Me, too!

[frogstar0]

34. Agree

She certainly has the most detailed and thought out proposal to address the issues we face. She also just talks normal. Like someone you know which is a great asset. the likability BS is just that BS.

[spooky3]

35. Welcome to DU! nt

[earthshine]

36. I'm a Bernie supporter, and Elizabeth is the reason I list my self as "undecided."

She'd be an awesome president.

Unlike some other candidates, I am not worried that she will be captured by corporate money.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

43. I kinda feel the same way, though I lean slightly towards the Bernie camp based on

his long history of progressivism and his leadership skills. Obviously, though, I'd love to see them BOTH on the same ticket... hell, I'd be so thrilled, I would take them in either order!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[earthshine]

46. I want them both on stage in the debates.

Liz might make the better actual president. I think she is less divisive than Bernie. He's got some baggage from the last election.

She's got a lot of plans!

It's been obvious from your avatar of several years that you want them both on the ticket. No one on DU carries the Bernie flame as good as you! Cheers to you.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

47. Same!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[earthshine]

48. I think you are brave and bold. You are far more willing to engage the opposition on DU than I am.

To you ...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

49. haha, thanks, but, I wouldn't call it brave or bold...I call it just tryin to be fair.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Lucky Luciano]

60. Same...and it's true that she is less divisive.

Even some DUers that absolutely despise Bernie like Warren or even have her as their first choice! Weird...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

41. You may have a point...under the right circumstances, I could see switchin to Elizabeth, even though

Bernie is more idealogically progressive than her, though not by much.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[delisen]

51. Often in the past elections were decided by personality but that seems to be changing

since Trump got into office.

So many people recently have mentioned to me Warren's actual positions and ideas for the country--pwople whom I know used to vote based upon whether they liked someone or whether someone "looked presidential."

There seems to be acknowledgment that we are going to have to do an enormous amount of thinking from here on out.

[honest.abe]

64. She would make a great President but I think a risky choice as our nominee.

A bit too far left for the mainstream voters. Also, she will have a hard time connecting with voters in certain parts of the country. Her appeal is somewhat narrow.. imo.