Warren Is Paying the Price for her Honesty. And Her Gender.

[BlueMTexpat]

Her willingness to provide the details of her plans should be a strength, not a drawback.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/02/15/warren-is-paying-the-price-for-her-honesty-and-her-gender/

Excellent article!

...
If Warren does end up falling short there will be numerous well-sourced accounts, but the trajectory from the outside is already clear enough. In a primary where voters have been obsessively seeking “electability,” and where other candidates have been willing to spin fables or dramatically change positions to secure votes, Warren’s basic decency and honesty have cost her. And the sexism undergirding much of the conversation around electability hasn’t helped.

Both Warren’s defenders and detractors on the left and right side of the Democratic field rightly point to the healthcare debate as the key turning point. As the primary hit the first series of debates, Warren remained ambiguous about the details of her healthcare plan, dodging questions about taxation and saying only that “costs will go down.” Both Sanders on her left and Buttigieg, Biden and Klobuchar on her right pilloried her for her lack of specificity on this front.

The Buttigieg/Biden/Klobuchar wing was content to diss Medicare for All entirely, hedging toward frankly unworkable “Medicare for All Who Want It” style plans. The challenge for the moderate approach to healthcare will be the same as that of the ACA: half-measures that will be immediately hobbled by the medical provider and insurance industries, and that will not provide the cost savings required for a universal plan to be effective. Politically, this was an attempt to undermine Warren whom they saw as the primary threat, and to solidify their own control of the “moderate” lane. None of them saw Sanders as a serious threat at the time, nor did they factor in the degree to which many of their own voters supposedly in the moderate lane had Sanders as their second choice. They also strongly underestimated the degree to which Democratic voters genuinely like and want Medicare for All.

The Sanders campaign, for their part, took advantage by playing a dangerous game. Sanders openly admitted to planning to raise taxes on more than just the top 1%, but correctly noted that it would be made up for by removing premiums. While this is correct on its own terms and is a smart play in a Democratic primary, it’s an extremely risky move for the general election where Republicans will take those “raise taxes” sound bites, scaring seniors into believing that Sanders will raise their taxes while destroying Medicare and handing their money to supposedly undeserving poor young people. There is a reason that no other candidate in the field was willing to deliver that sort of public sound bite–and it’s not due to dishonesty or corruption. Sanders’ strategy has been to simply win the Democratic primary and worry about the consequences for the general election later. ...
...

****************
LOTS more in the article.

And it's made me MORE determined than ever to KEEP ON supporting her!

[still_one]

1. I agree

[BlueMTexpat]

3. Thanks, still_one!

[still_one]

4. Out of all the Democratic candidates running , she is the smartest and most intelligent of the whole

bunch.

[SergeStorms]

8. Maybe you should rephrase that.

"She is the smartest and most intelligent of the whole bunch".

Buttigieg is a Rhodes Scholar. I didn't see that claim anywhere on Warren's bio. She may have more political savvy than a few of the candidates, but "smartest and most intelligent" is certainly false. Just sayin.

[still_one]

10. I'll stand by my assessment. David Vitter and Bobby Jindal are also Rhodes Scholars

[SergeStorms]

32. So is Rachel Maddow.

I think their political orientation was somewhat decided by their nurturing, not nature.

[still_one]

36. My opinion is based on several factors. She listens, and is flexible. If she realizes an incorrect

assessment, she will change course

Very important traits for a president in my view

[SergeStorms]

67. And each....

has reached a level of success - whether it's success we agree with or not - that 99.9% of the populace won't come close to. Let me make this perfectly clear, I'm not sticking up for or making excuses for Jindal or Vitter, merely pointing out that they've reached a level of success that the vast majority of people will never attain. That's what being selected as a Rhodes Scholar is all about. It's not an award for a particular political ideology.

Oh, and let's not forget the 300 lb. Gorilla in the room.......Bill Clinton was also a Rhodes Scholar.

[jaxexpat]

13. She understands math.

[SergeStorms]

34. That's debatable.

Apparently she didn't understand the odds of trying to out-Bernie, Bernie.

[lapucelle]

51. Why is the claim "certainly false"?

Just because you think it's open to debate based on an idiosyncratic criterion (that others might argue is irrelevant) doesn't make it "certainly false".

You might want to rephrase that.

[SergeStorms]

66. No thanks.

Being a Rhodes Scholar is not a "idiosyncratic criterion". It's one of the greatest educational awards one can achieve. Denigrating it shows a complete lack of understanding of that accomplishment.

"Rhodes Scholars are chosen not only for their outstanding scholarly achievements, but for their character, commitment to others and to the common good, and for their potential for leadership in whatever domains their careers may lead." http://www.rhodesscholar.org/

They're not awarded to just "smart" people. If that were the case they'd hand them out like McDonald's coupons, because there are a lot of "smart" people in the world. Saying Warren is the "most intelligent" person in the field is complete rubbish.

[Butterflylady]

24. I watched her presidential announcement

And was impressed by energy. She also shows how she is a real fighter.

[BlueMTexpat]

2. Here is a good discussion of this

article at Daily Kos.

The Unforgivable Sins of Elizabeth Warren https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/2/16/1919697/-The-Unforgivable-Sins-of-Elizabeth-Warren?detail=emaildkre

It deserves a thread by itself. But I'll leave that to others.

[NurseJackie]

5. True.

[Turin_C3PO]

9. Misogyny absolutely hurt Hillary.

Without it, she would have beat Trump in the Electoral College and garnered even more of the popular vote. She was regularly a victim of sexism, no question about it.

[2naSalit]

21. For over 30 years!!

[BlueMTexpat]

39. ...

And I am STILL devastated by that result.

[appalachiablue]

7. Best of the bunch still. Tx for posting. Go Elizabeth!

[gordianot]

11. Plans are great but my focus is to wake up in the morning without thought of Donald Trump.

That also means getting rid of the Republican Senate.

[JoeDuck]

18. And start getting rid of Republican Senate starting with

Mitch McConnell. I live in Kentucky. Unlike McConnell, I was born here.

[gordianot]

19. I am donating to Senate Candidates and am compiling a list.

[BlueMTexpat]

40. Elizabeth campaigned hard for Dem candidates

in 2018.

I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that she will do the same in 2020 - no matter what happens!

[dlk]

12. It would seem fair for the other candidates to release specific details of their healthcare plans

We don’t need more smoke & mirrors. Too much is at stake.

[Luciferous]

14. I wish she was doing better because she's my favorite

[ehrnst]

15. I agree.

[rickyhall]

16. Anyone who doesn't vote in the General because their candidate lost

is just as bad as those we need to get rid of. Their stupidity could cost us our democracy.

[Laelth]

17. Help me out, here.

How is Medicare-for-all-who-want-it “frankly unworkable” as the author of this article suggests.

Anybody understand this argument and care to explain?



-Laelth

[ancianita]

27. It's unworkable because when you give insurance companies pricing power, they will work hard against

gov support of health care, like they did with the ACA. Every single time they raised premiums they lied to the public and said "Obamacare did it!" which twisted the public's mind into thinking gov run health care CAN'T be as good as private. And yet, millions get gov run Social Security, VA disability and all other kinds of checks.

So it's insurance companies who say M4A is "unworkable." Because they work to make it a PR fail, when it's really workable.

Candidates say it's not workable because they don't know how the private system would roll over into the public. But it's doable. That's when gov people say it's unworkable when it really is.

[BlueMTexpat]

41. This. eom

[Bettie]

55. This

we have the best medical infrastructure in the world, unfortunately, it is currently being used not for care, but to convey cash from the bottom to the top of the economic scale.

[McKim]

31. Medicare for All Works Great in France

Medicare for All works great in France! I had some medical problems there while my husband was working in Neuroscience and it was all paid for. I had surgeries and went to the best doctors. To say it is unworkable is smoke and mirrors. It would take a lot of money, but we have that. Too bad our “leaders” prefer to spend the bulk of our taxes on military bases and wars of choice.

By the way, Elizabeth Warren is my first choice too. She has the plans, the details and she can fight too. There is substance and grit and knowledge that we need in the White House.

[Hoyt]

53. It works in France because physicians make a lot more in USA, nurses make less in France, France has

less than half the CT scanners of the USA per person, France has a total knee replacement rate less than half of USA, etc.


We should have gone to a single payer controlled system right after WWII like most countries. Then, we wouldn't have to cut out so much in "excess cost" to get to the cost per person in countries like France, Britain, Germany, etc.

When, our candidates come out and say -- Nurses will make less, your neighbors working in an imaging facility will be out of job, etc. -- then we'll be honest about it, and find out how many people really support MFA. And, they need to tell us what we'll pay in taxes. This junk about billionaires paying for it all is BS.

Then, people can make an informed decision. I'm hoping we choose to change the system toward MFA, but it ain't gonna be easy.

[Garrett78]

44. This is a great article explaining why the public option idea is problematic:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/07/why-a-public-option-isnt-enough

Maybe that's what we end up with in the short-term, but let's not start from a position of compromise. When we do, Republicans end up getting what they want.

Private health insurance is an unnecessary part of the healthcare system. Insurance companies are middlemen, and insurance just exists to make sure that providers get paid. It was our government’s own choice to encourage the proliferation of private insurance, through laws like the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. It was the federal government that subsidized private insurance companies and encouraged employers to use them. Other countries didn’t build this kind of healthcare system, for two reasons:

It doesn’t cover everyone.

It creates a bloated, inefficient insurance bureaucracy.

Our government has always been playing catch-up trying to get more people covered. It’s created employer subsidies, Medicaid, CHIP, and the Obamacare exchanges in a desperate bid to get this system to do its job, and despite decades of piecemeal healthcare reforms 13.7 percent of Americans remain without health insurance and millions more have inadequate coverage. Offering to let Americans “buy-in” to Medicare keeps Americans paying premiums, and as long as Americans must personally pay premiums to receive healthcare there are going to be some people who can’t or won’t pay those premiums and go without. It turns Medicare-For-All into a publicly run HMO. Maintaining an employer-sponsored health insurance system means remaining in a situation where large numbers of people go through a period of being uninsured each year, because when you lose your job you lose your insurance. (Currently 1 in 4 Americans go through an uninsured period each year.) Single payer advocates ask the question: “Why have a nightmarish tangle of public and private options, varying by state, with people moving on and off all the time? Why not just pay for healthcare with taxes, cover everyone, and make it free at the point of use?” 

Not only will a public option fail to cover everyone, it will do nothing to restrain the growth of healthcare costs. Single payer systems control costs by giving the health service a monopoly on access to patients, preventing providers from exploiting desperate patients for profit. If instead there are a large number of insurance companies, providers can play those insurance companies off each other. Right now, we have a two-tier system, in which the best doctors and hospitals refuse to provide coverage unless your insurer offers them exorbitantly high rents. To support that cost while still making a profit, your insurer has to subject you to higher premiums, higher co-pays, and higher deductibles. Poor Americans with poor-quality insurance are stuck with providers who don’t provide high enough quality care to make these demands. The best providers keep charging ever higher rents, and the gap between the care they offer and the care the poor receive just keeps growing. Poor Americans are now seeing a decline in life expectancy, in part because they cannot afford to buy insurance that would give them access to the best doctors and hospitals. Costs balloon for rich Americans while the quality of care stagnates for the poor.

[Squinch]

20. Exactly.

[2naSalit]

22. When the primary election comes to my state...

I sure as hell have NO desire to vote for some old white guy. I am sick to death of having no other option but some fucking white guy. I wanted to see Harris make it that far but I'd be glad to vote for either Warren or Klobuchar.

[YOHABLO]

33. Well perhaps you'll be getting an "old white guy'' named Trump for President

I would like to see Warren get the nomination, but I'll be voting for any Democrat. I don't care who it is. It's do or die time.

[2naSalit]

35. I get that.

My preference is the not white guy. I know, and have since 2016 that it's do or die with every attempt to control the asshole in the WH. He is a direct danger to my survival.

Don't underestimate my knowledge of the situation.

[brer cat]

23. I agree.

[abqtommy]

25. It's a sad thing to know that if Liz were a WOC/Woman Of Color she'd already be out of the

running. Hang in there Baby!

[Nikki28]

26. she should be

in the front runner because she is smart and I would have happily voted for her. I am not giving up on Liz just yet.

[BlueMTexpat]

42. That's nice to hear!

But why are you showing as a Bloomberg supporter?

[FM123]

28. My admiration for her is just beyond my words....

[Taraman]

29. I'll vote for her today

I've had my ballot for a week. I honestly think she's the President we need right now to heal economic inequity and re-establish the rule of law, but I've been doing head vs. heart this week.

I suck at strategery. I'll just vote for her. Who knows?

[Jarqui]

30. I think she made a poor political calculation / argument

I think most Democrats would agree Medicare for all or something like it makes the most sense in theory.

In practice, it exposes the candidate touting it to fear mongering with things like death panels or wild claims about it's costs or taxes going up or socialism.

The female candidates face misogyny. The gay candidates face homophobia. The non white candidates face racial discrimination from whites or other races. The non Christian candidates face religious discrimination from Christians or other religions. etc. That's not to say that white candidates won't suffer discrimination from some in the black population or that some women would not discriminate preferring women candidates over men on the basis of sex. The larger groups discriminating just pose the bigger problem.

So I do not place significantly more stock in misogyny than racial discrimination, homophobia, religious discrimination, etc though the numbers may well vary according to the demographic circumstances.

When Warren came out with Medicare for All, she was the leading candidate in a number of polls. She'd overcome misogyny. But Medicare for All and the way she defended it knocked her back to a place she's unlikely to recover from. That was a political misstep and she failed to sell America on her policy - period. Sanders has touted the same general position but has not allowed himself to get as bogged down with it ... yet. Sanders handled it better so far ... I think they'll hammer him on it in the days to come.

I really like Elizabeth. I love her fight for those who are not as fortunate. I'd have zero problem supporting her with great enthusiasm if she won. She had misogyny overwhelmed in the primary. But her handling of Medicare for All was not done well and is likely fatal for her chances to prevail in this contest.

[Pisces]

38. Everything you said.

[druidity33]

43. Oh please...

She's the only one who came out with a detailed plan (including transition period) for M4A. Whether you think her numbers are workable or not is a different argument. She put an actual plan on the table unlike any of the other candidates. That somehow "she failed to sell America her policy" is the kind of political statement that drives me crazy... Because Bernie came out with a vague M4A slogan and an even vaguer bill that "he wrote", somehow he did a better job managing the argument? Look to John Oliver's recent episode on M4A to see just how right Liz is.

[Jarqui]

45. Yes, she detailed a plan that a majority of folks did not like

This reporter did a fair job backing up his opinion with polls and facts - which will save me typing.

Why is Elizabeth Warren falling in the polls? Blame Medicare-for-all.
https://theweek.com/articles/881221/why-elizabeth-warren-falling-polls-blame-medicareforall

As Warren soared, Democrats who haggled with her over the price tag of "Medicare-for-all" and the feasibility of her progressive policy agenda — with the significant exception of former Vice President Joe Biden — appeared doomed to also-ran status. Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney lost his eligibility for the debate stage as Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar struggled to hang on. But by the end of November, Warren toppled by 14 points to a virtual tie for third place in Quinnipiac's national poll with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as Biden reclaimed the lead, with South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — newly re-tacking to the center — rounding into second. Warren has also tumbled to third place in the RealClearPolitics polling averages for Iowa and New Hampshire while trailing Biden in both Nevada and South Carolina.

At the same time, according to Quinnipiac, only 36 percent of voters deem Warren's version of Medicare-for-all a "good idea," and 52 percent think it is a "bad idea." As recently as August 2017, the split was 51-38 in Warren's favor.

[druidity33]

46. This reporter did a better job...

of analyzing Warren's plan:
https://prospect.org/health/warrens-medicare-for-all-plan-includes-no-new-taxes-on-the-middle-class/

As far as voters having a preference... when every station and newspaper blares out for all to hear how M4A will bankrupt the country and give substandard care, of course people will be against it.

As for your reply title "Yes, she detailed a plan that a majority of folks did not like"... if you replace "like" with "read", you'll have a more accurate statement.

[BlueMTexpat]

48. Good catch!

[Jarqui]

54. But writing up a 9,300 word plan is a little overwhelming for those working

three jobs or with busy lives to get by - which is most voters.

Again, she failed to sell it - brutally. And it has probably cost her her candidacy, taking her from one of the front runners to speculation on when she's going to drop out.

She could write a million word plan in gold ink. Only 36% of voters perceived her plan to be a good idea. She messed up getting the message out on why her plan is so great. She failed to sell America on her plan. Period. The analysis of that article is not the message most Americans got. And we already knew from death panels that people would face misinformation campaigns against it so the onus was on Warren to overcome that misinformation campaign before she started with more effective messaging. She failed. And if she wanted to find out who is to blame, tell her to go to the bathroom and look up when she's washing her hands.

Her plan exposed her to the criticism that 90% of the American would have to give up the plan they currently have. Which is exactly what Buttigieg and others warned about. Warren made a very poor political calculation on that, failed miserably to deliver the message and it has cost her.

[druidity33]

61. As opposed to Bernie...

who has offered up the same plan (better even because it includes dental) with no specific way to pay for it. Warren's problem was thinking the people who demanded to know how she would pay for it would accept an answer. Whether you think the poll that says (which one is that btw?) because 36% of voters think her plan is a good idea she "messed up" and "failed to sell it" is neither here nor there. You have been taken in by the Corporate line. Everyone I know would be happy to give up their plan for one where there are no deductibles and no copays. Next you'll believe that Unions don't want M4A because they negotiated such sweet deals in their contracts. Face it. Americans are lazy. They don't do their homework and they are willing to let other people dictate what they think is right. They're not even particularly willing to look at the source or the facts when forced to argue their point...

This "fail to sell it" canard is particularly irksome because you either believe Health Care is a right and you want someone who has a plan to get it done or you don't think Health Care is a Right. The entirety of the Mass Media complex is opposed to M4A. That's where I think the animosity towards Warren mostly comes from... and also it's not Pie in the Sky to her. It is an achievable goal.

[Jarqui]

60. I'd like to add to my comments

Of all the candidates that have ever run for the Oval office in my lifetime, I think Elizabeth Warren would be best steward of the economy for most Americans. She and Bernie may have some similarity in their policies but Elizabeth understands the issues as well as anyone and what is going on with big business/the wealthy along with the poor. And she really cares about making a difference for the less fortunate - this goes way deeper in her than her words or policies.

She's a past teacher. So this situation is very frustrating that she couldn't 'teach' America about why single payer would be so good for it. Her policy is generally "very correct" - I'm absolutely positive on that.

So the tragedy of her falling so short is not lost on me. It is not something I wanted to see happen.

Regardless, I continue to have the utmost respect for her intellect, compassion, integrity, etc. We're fortunate to have her on our side.

[druidity33]

62. America isn't paying attention...

and the media isn't helping her elaborate her position. She has had multiple campaign speeches on the subject. She has DETAILED plans on her website. Nobody has helped define the path toward M4A more than Sen Warren. But the issue is complex and there are plenty of people who like to obfuscate. There has been more talk by know nothing pundits based on know nothing lobbyists or "panelists" than there have been questions to Sen Warren about implementation or other logistical oriented issues.

The tragedy is that people on our side have fallen into the idea that Sen Warren has "fallen short" or "failed" in some way for having elaborated on a path forward where other candidates have offered little more than vague platitudes.

[Jarqui]

63. After all those detailed plans and speeches ... only 36% of Americans

liked what she was selling. More than 50% didn't like what she was selling.
That is on her.

Other candidates have offered much more than vague platitudes. They've proposed a public option. The public option:
- is way, way less risky
- allows those happy with their plan to keep it (big deal for many)
- eliminates socialism labeling from the other side
- eliminates staggering dollar claims and wild claims on increasing taxes to fear monger people away from supporting single payer.

Over time, the public option is the Trojan Horse that will lead to single payer. Like Obamacare, people will find out there are no death panels, etc and the public option will grow and erode the private insurers stupidly high margins.

Americans who like their plan get to keep it rather that be scared into thinking they'll lose it - like is happening with Elizabeth's plan because they're going to lose it.

Even Elizabeth acknowledges this because since plummeting in the polls, she's backed way off on Medicare for All and floated a public option like Biden & Buttigieg as a way to migrate. In other words, her own actions reveal she's smarting from the damaging position she took and her inability to sell it.

The public option Biden and Buttigieg advocate is the far safer route for this general election - while leading to effectively the same place ultimately because the public option will dramatically undermine the insurance companies ability to compete.

[druidity33]

64. please cite your source...

otherwise i will assume you made those numbers up. I'll also look carefully at the source you provide, if you choose to do so. No, i don't think "Even Elizabeth acknowledges this", maybe i'd also like to see where you get that information from.

The logic of this:

"The public option Biden and Buttigieg advocate is the far safer route for this general election - while leading to effectively the same place ultimately because the public option will dramatically undermine the insurance companies ability to compete."

is FAR from proven. How well did Obama's PO push work out? And M4A will never be at "effectively the same place ultimately" as a Public Option. They are really not the same thing at all. I think you have been given some bad information.

[Jarqui]

65. It was posted earlier in our discussion above

REPOST from above:

https://theweek.com/articles/881221/why-elizabeth-warren-falling-polls-blame-medicareforall

At the same time, according to Quinnipiac, only 36 percent of voters deem Warren's version of Medicare-for-all a "good idea," and 52 percent think it is a "bad idea." As recently as August 2017, the split was 51-38 in Warren's favor.

And that result was corroborated by Warren's 14 point tumble in the polls.

[Pisces]

37. If you want to be the first of anything you have to be phenomenal in all categories. She lacks in

Some. I think she would be great, but the people who look up in November and don’t follow politics would not. She has to be able to electrify the masses. And if people are placing electability at the top of their list it is for good reason. The majority agree that Trump has to to go!! Why do you think Bloomberg is surging. He took the fight straight to Trump and he personally knows him. The other candidates have offered weak platitudes about how they will defeat him, Bloomberg is directly engaging him and getting under his skin. As much as we want to believe that we should go high, we also believe you need to stand up to a bully and so far Bloomberg has demonstrated that he can and that Trump can’t ruffle him.

I am no Bloomberg fan, but I can see how he is winning over the masses. If he does well in the debates he will be the front runner.

[robbedvoter]

47. True. Also, MSM wants Burnie badly to lose to Trump. So they need to get Warren

out, so her followers align with him. They see it all in lanes progressives 🆚 moderates.

[jcmaine72]

49. I genuinely like Elizabeth Warren and think she'd make a fine President.n/t

[Hermit-The-Prog]

50. those "half measures" in health care can kill a lot of people

There will have to be a transition rather than a switch, but we have to start before the GOP manages to completely hamstring ACA for their greedy masters.

I think Elizabeth Warren can get us where we need to go.

[dem4decades]

56. Why did Warren refuse to go after Sanders, it probably cost her her shot.

[dalton99a]

57. They are friends. Besides, the bros would go after her with full fury

[BeyondGeography]

58. They did anyway

The Pact was a blunder. She should have positioned herself in between Bernie and the centrists as a progressive who gets things done, starting with health care. She spent three months selling his skeletal bill, it earned her nothing but grief, and she wound up right where she is naturally; slightly to the right of Bernie.

Didn't always feel that way but I can see clearly now. And, yes, Monday is my favorite morning to quarterback.

[dem4decades]

59. If she didn't want to run against her friend, why run?

Adams she should be afraid of Bernie supporters because they're vicious?

Good we're fucked.