Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
March 3, 2020
Earlier today, my colleague Nathaniel Rakich and I wrote about the final FiveThirtyEight forecast before Super Tuesday. There are basically two big themes there. First, yes, the model has shifted strongly to former Vice President Joe Biden in recent days because of his big win in South Carolina and a major bounce for him in polls of Super Tuesday states. But second, there’s a lot of uncertainty, both in terms of what happens tonight and for the rest of the race. The most likely outcome is still that there’s no pledged delegate majority on June 6, once all states and territories have finished voting.
I’m going to focus more on the uncertainty in this story. Let’s stress test the model and see how its Super Tuesday projections might change if various candidates perform better or worse than our projections expect. (If you want to do your own version of this, you can! Please see our Super Tuesday scenarios interactive here.)
Scenario 1: The model is all-knowing
First, let’s establish a baseline case. Here’s how delegates would be allocated tonight under the DNC’s rules if our forecast is exactly right in every state and Congressional district. If this happens (it will not), I’m going to buy myself a really nice steak dinner tomorrow night. (Also, it will probably mean we’re living in a simulation, so this is not necessarily something to root for.)
In the base case, we have Biden finishing just slightly ahead of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, with 461 delegates (34 percent of the total possible tonight) to Bernie’s 445 (33 percent). But our baseline projections also have Michael Bloomberg and Elizabeth Warren picking up decent numbers of delegates. Heck, they even have Amy Klobuchar staying just above 15 percent of the vote in Minnesota and thereby getting delegates there, even though she dropped out. So basically, the base case for tonight is that one-third of the delegates go to Biden, one-third go to Sanders and one-third go to “other,” which is why we could be headed to a no majority (and possibly contested convention) outcome.
Scenario 2: Biden overperforms
snip
538 : Five Scenarios For How Super Tuesday Could Go
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/five-scenarios-for-how-super-tuesday-could-go/Earlier today, my colleague Nathaniel Rakich and I wrote about the final FiveThirtyEight forecast before Super Tuesday. There are basically two big themes there. First, yes, the model has shifted strongly to former Vice President Joe Biden in recent days because of his big win in South Carolina and a major bounce for him in polls of Super Tuesday states. But second, there’s a lot of uncertainty, both in terms of what happens tonight and for the rest of the race. The most likely outcome is still that there’s no pledged delegate majority on June 6, once all states and territories have finished voting.
I’m going to focus more on the uncertainty in this story. Let’s stress test the model and see how its Super Tuesday projections might change if various candidates perform better or worse than our projections expect. (If you want to do your own version of this, you can! Please see our Super Tuesday scenarios interactive here.)
Scenario 1: The model is all-knowing
First, let’s establish a baseline case. Here’s how delegates would be allocated tonight under the DNC’s rules if our forecast is exactly right in every state and Congressional district. If this happens (it will not), I’m going to buy myself a really nice steak dinner tomorrow night. (Also, it will probably mean we’re living in a simulation, so this is not necessarily something to root for.)
In the base case, we have Biden finishing just slightly ahead of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, with 461 delegates (34 percent of the total possible tonight) to Bernie’s 445 (33 percent). But our baseline projections also have Michael Bloomberg and Elizabeth Warren picking up decent numbers of delegates. Heck, they even have Amy Klobuchar staying just above 15 percent of the vote in Minnesota and thereby getting delegates there, even though she dropped out. So basically, the base case for tonight is that one-third of the delegates go to Biden, one-third go to Sanders and one-third go to “other,” which is why we could be headed to a no majority (and possibly contested convention) outcome.
Scenario 2: Biden overperforms
snip
March 3, 2020
The Bernie slide continues, Sanders down to just 8% at 538 to outright win, and has crashed out
on his chances of winning a plurality as well, whilst Biden has surged to a 2 to 1 advantage (more than flipped from what it was just a short time ago)
March 3, 2020
it is looking like Biden has a fighting shot at hitting 1991
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/super-tuesday/
538's self select Super Tuesday overall impact shows Bliden with 1853 to Sanders 1439
1991 is the magic number to win on the first ballotit is looking like Biden has a fighting shot at hitting 1991
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/super-tuesday/
March 3, 2020
Particularly at risk of losing their vote are 18 to 24-year olds and LatinX voters, groups that strongly favor “Tio Bernie.” A quarter of independent voters are LatinX. Even if Sanders, as expected, wins the plurality of California’s votes, he could well be shorted out of hundreds of thousands of votes and scores of delegates. The other candidate at risk in California’s odd, troubled balloting: Michael Bloomberg. How did this happen? While Californians,including independent voters,vote overwhelmingly for Democrats in general elections, 5.3 million Golden State voters register “NPP,” that is, with No Party Preference. These five million NPP independents legally have the right to vote in the Democrat primary, but the Democratic Party has created an inscrutable obstacle course for them to do so, one that amounts to another type of voter suppression.
Disenfranchisement by Postcard
The problem begins with a postcard.
Last autumn, all five million NPP voters were mailed a postcard allowing them to request a ballot with the Democratic Party presidential choices. However, as many states have found out, postcards with voter information largely look like junk mail and get thrown out. If the independents don’t respond to the postcards, they get a ballot without presidential choices. But they have one more chance to vote for a candidate in the primaries: at the ballot box. At the polling station, though, things remain confusing. According to rules set by the Democratic National Party, the independent voters have to bring in their NPP ballot to the polling station and request to exchange it for a “Crossover Democratic” ballot which lists the candidates. However, if the voter fails to ask for the “Crossover” ballot by its specific name, the pollworker is barred from suggesting it and they won’t receive it. Pollworker Jen Abreu told me about the disaster this created in 2016. She said, “If this NPP voter did not specifically ask for a Democratic crossover ballot, they were given an official NPP ballot, which did not list presidential candidates.”
There’s another, new way NPP voters may obtain a presidential ballot: re-register from NPP to Democrat right at the polling station on Election Day, and thereby get a presidential ballot. However, this same day registration option is little known, not advertised by the state -- and I found not a single sign at the 4 voting centers I visited mentioned the new option. What’s the impact of this labyrinthine ballot dance? A lot, according to statistician Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc., a private firm employed by both Republican and Democratic parties. Mitchell recently completed a poll of 700 independent voters and found that while 61% wanted to vote in the Democratic primary, nearly half (45%) were clueless about how to get a Democratic ballot. Another third of NPP voters believe that they cannot exchange their no-candidate ballot—though the law says they may.
This year, hundreds of thousands of these voters have already mailed back the NPP ballot without presidential candidates because, according to Mitchell’s polling, they assumed they had no ability to exchange it. This past week, Mitchell’s pollsters also asked 300 NPP voters whom they’d vote for if they had obtained the correct ballot. About 26% preferred Sanders, which translates to 553,000 potential lost votes, by Mitchell’s estimates. Michael Bloomberg, meanwhile, could come up 383,000 votes short. The Democratic National Committee chiefs, who created and uphold the rules, show little sympathy for the millions of non-Democrats who want to exercise their right to vote in their primary but refuse to register as Democrats. And that could be because they will continue to back only establishment candidates. Notably, Joe Biden is endorsed by the California official who directs this tragi-comic voting process, Secretary of State Alex Padilla. By contrast, in Colorado, another vote-by-mail state, the Secretary of State simply ignores the DNC, sending every independent voter both a Republican and a Democratic Party primary ballot – providing an easy way to vote as they choose. Will California’s voters choose the Democratic candidate...or will the DNC obstacle course bend the outcome?
I am warning all now, my state of registration (CA) is going to turn into a pure shitshow tonight
and for days (weeks?) after
I have been trying to sound the alarm for days
NPP
No Party Preference
they got ballots with no POTUS choice
well over half a million
Sanders is going to go full stop bonkers over the ones who did not vote for whatever reason
here is
Greg Palast on this
he is normally loved here, in GD, as he has been an anti-voter suppression leader for ages
some will not like this
but I just want to show you what is coming like a train in a tunnel
Will California steal 553,000 votes from Bernie Sanders?
by Greg Palast
https://www.gregpalast.com/how-california-will-steal-votes-from-bernie/
[Los Angeles] In February, California mailed 3.7 million primary ballots that, to the astonishment of many who received them, excluded the presidential candidates. These ballots do have candidates for all other primary races, including for Congress, but not the race for president. Within this mountain of primary ballots, artifacts of California’s arcane and complex voting system, lies the potential to cripple Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign, the favored candidate among independent party voters.
Particularly at risk of losing their vote are 18 to 24-year olds and LatinX voters, groups that strongly favor “Tio Bernie.” A quarter of independent voters are LatinX. Even if Sanders, as expected, wins the plurality of California’s votes, he could well be shorted out of hundreds of thousands of votes and scores of delegates. The other candidate at risk in California’s odd, troubled balloting: Michael Bloomberg. How did this happen? While Californians,including independent voters,vote overwhelmingly for Democrats in general elections, 5.3 million Golden State voters register “NPP,” that is, with No Party Preference. These five million NPP independents legally have the right to vote in the Democrat primary, but the Democratic Party has created an inscrutable obstacle course for them to do so, one that amounts to another type of voter suppression.
Disenfranchisement by Postcard
The problem begins with a postcard.
Last autumn, all five million NPP voters were mailed a postcard allowing them to request a ballot with the Democratic Party presidential choices. However, as many states have found out, postcards with voter information largely look like junk mail and get thrown out. If the independents don’t respond to the postcards, they get a ballot without presidential choices. But they have one more chance to vote for a candidate in the primaries: at the ballot box. At the polling station, though, things remain confusing. According to rules set by the Democratic National Party, the independent voters have to bring in their NPP ballot to the polling station and request to exchange it for a “Crossover Democratic” ballot which lists the candidates. However, if the voter fails to ask for the “Crossover” ballot by its specific name, the pollworker is barred from suggesting it and they won’t receive it. Pollworker Jen Abreu told me about the disaster this created in 2016. She said, “If this NPP voter did not specifically ask for a Democratic crossover ballot, they were given an official NPP ballot, which did not list presidential candidates.”
There’s another, new way NPP voters may obtain a presidential ballot: re-register from NPP to Democrat right at the polling station on Election Day, and thereby get a presidential ballot. However, this same day registration option is little known, not advertised by the state -- and I found not a single sign at the 4 voting centers I visited mentioned the new option. What’s the impact of this labyrinthine ballot dance? A lot, according to statistician Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc., a private firm employed by both Republican and Democratic parties. Mitchell recently completed a poll of 700 independent voters and found that while 61% wanted to vote in the Democratic primary, nearly half (45%) were clueless about how to get a Democratic ballot. Another third of NPP voters believe that they cannot exchange their no-candidate ballot—though the law says they may.
This year, hundreds of thousands of these voters have already mailed back the NPP ballot without presidential candidates because, according to Mitchell’s polling, they assumed they had no ability to exchange it. This past week, Mitchell’s pollsters also asked 300 NPP voters whom they’d vote for if they had obtained the correct ballot. About 26% preferred Sanders, which translates to 553,000 potential lost votes, by Mitchell’s estimates. Michael Bloomberg, meanwhile, could come up 383,000 votes short. The Democratic National Committee chiefs, who created and uphold the rules, show little sympathy for the millions of non-Democrats who want to exercise their right to vote in their primary but refuse to register as Democrats. And that could be because they will continue to back only establishment candidates. Notably, Joe Biden is endorsed by the California official who directs this tragi-comic voting process, Secretary of State Alex Padilla. By contrast, in Colorado, another vote-by-mail state, the Secretary of State simply ignores the DNC, sending every independent voter both a Republican and a Democratic Party primary ballot – providing an easy way to vote as they choose. Will California’s voters choose the Democratic candidate...or will the DNC obstacle course bend the outcome?
March 3, 2020
Money can't buy love, but it improves your bargaining position.
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/duforjoe
March 2, 2020
Both of those candidates have built constituencies that also love Elizabeth Warren
Their decision to endorse could throw a lot of support Warren was angling for in the direction of Biden.
https://www.businessinsider.com/klobuchar-and-buttigieg-endorsing-biden-is-devastating-for-warren-2020-3?r=US&IR=T
Amy Klobuchar has ended her campaign, making her the third candidate in as many days to exit the 2020 Democratic primary after billionaire Tom Steyer and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg dropped following their disappointing results in the South Carolina primary.
Buttigieg and Steyer ended their campaigns ahead of Super Tuesday, the enormously consequential primary when approximately 35% of the entire national primary's delegates are awarded over the course of a single day. But they — at first — neglected to endorse, effectively allowing their backers to navigate the remainder of the primary without guidance from their preferred candidate. Klobuchar, however, decided to endorse former Vice President Joe Biden immediately after dropping out, and shortly after that announcement it was reported that Buttigieg too would be endorsing Biden.
For the past several months, Insider has been conducting a recurring SurveyMonkey Audience poll to track the state of the 2020 Democratic primary field. You can download every poll here, down to the individual respondent data. (Read more about how the Insider Democratic primary tracker works here).
We've been asking respondents to select from the list of contenders who they would be satisfied with as nominee, allowing them to select as many as possible. This lets us figure out what the overlapping coalitions of the Democratic electorate look like, to see who's competing for the same delegates.
snip
much more at the link
Amy Klobuchar & Pete Buttigieg endorsing Joe Biden: absolutely devastating news for Elizabeth Warren
Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg are endorsing Joe Biden the day before Super TuesdayBoth of those candidates have built constituencies that also love Elizabeth Warren
Their decision to endorse could throw a lot of support Warren was angling for in the direction of Biden.
https://www.businessinsider.com/klobuchar-and-buttigieg-endorsing-biden-is-devastating-for-warren-2020-3?r=US&IR=T
Amy Klobuchar has ended her campaign, making her the third candidate in as many days to exit the 2020 Democratic primary after billionaire Tom Steyer and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg dropped following their disappointing results in the South Carolina primary.
Buttigieg and Steyer ended their campaigns ahead of Super Tuesday, the enormously consequential primary when approximately 35% of the entire national primary's delegates are awarded over the course of a single day. But they — at first — neglected to endorse, effectively allowing their backers to navigate the remainder of the primary without guidance from their preferred candidate. Klobuchar, however, decided to endorse former Vice President Joe Biden immediately after dropping out, and shortly after that announcement it was reported that Buttigieg too would be endorsing Biden.
For the past several months, Insider has been conducting a recurring SurveyMonkey Audience poll to track the state of the 2020 Democratic primary field. You can download every poll here, down to the individual respondent data. (Read more about how the Insider Democratic primary tracker works here).
We've been asking respondents to select from the list of contenders who they would be satisfied with as nominee, allowing them to select as many as possible. This lets us figure out what the overlapping coalitions of the Democratic electorate look like, to see who's competing for the same delegates.
snip
much more at the link
March 2, 2020
This all means Bernie needs to gain 584 MORE delegates. All the pledged delegates are now unlocked and can switch, plus the SD's can vote for whomever they desire. I do not see him getting more than 150-200 MAX (if that) of the SD's. Most are vehemently against him.
So he needs around 400 to 450 or so MORE.
Even if ALL of Warren's delegates go to Bernie (that will never happen), she will more than likely have only around 150 to 200 total delegates.
So he will STILL be 200 to 300 SHORT of 2375.
I do not see many of the other candidates' delegates going to Bernie (other than Warren's and not all of hers will), and Bernie MAY lose a few himself. His campaign and social media and far left sites have savagely attacked Pete, Klobuchar, Biden, Warren, Bloomberg for ages. There is a LOT of animosity there.
In fact, Bernie could roll in with 47%, or even 48% and the breakdown still works. Biden was now said he will contest at the convention even if Bernie has a plurality, and IF Bernie does end up with 45%, it will be next to impossible for Biden to end up with more than 37%, 38% or so, MAX, due to the others running. He likely would be in the low 30's.
That said, IF they all rally around Biden on the 2nd ballot, you could have a 45% to 47, 48% Bernie (in terms of actual voted on pledged delegates, although as stated above this is extremely unlikely that he gets anywhere near that many at all) having the nomination ripped away from him. IF that happens, the party will rip itself apart and Trump will surely win. We are headed into dangerous, treacherous waters. I REALLY hope Biden can somehow pass up Sanders in terms of a plurality, and even better, somehow hit 1991 (probably impossible unless Sanders collapses and ALL but Joe drop out ASAP.)
The daily 538 cratering of Sanders continues unabated, on the verge of going sub 20% for 1991
He is on the verge of going sub 40% in terms of total pledged delegates as well, which is massive
as zero chance, even with a plurality (I do NOT think he will even have a plurality) he will get the nomination with 36%, 38% or less of the pledged delegates,
the maths (even if he rolls in with 45% ie, 1791) simply do not add up
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/
Here is a deep dive I did earlier:
Lets say Bernie has 1791 pledged delegates (45%) for the first ballot, where 1991 is needed.
It will then go to a second ballot, as there is zero chance that Biden can hit 1991 if Sanders has 1791, as that leaves only 197 delegates won by ALL the others, and there is no way a combined Pete (now out), Amy, Warren, and Bloomberg end up with a total of only 197, that will never happen. They will have hundred and hundreds more than that, but on the first ballot, they are locked in to vote for their candidate.
So, we move onto the 2nd ballot. At this point, the magic 1991 number now goes up to 2375, as now the Superdelegates can vote and are included.
If no one gets 1,991 votes on the first ballot, then things could get more complicated. This is the scenario people refer to when they use the phrase “contested convention” or “brokered convention.”
In this situation, there would be a second ballot. And on the second ballot, there are votes from two sets of delegates:
Votes from the 3,979 pledged delegates, who are allowed to support a different candidate on the second ballot if they so choose
An additional 771 votes from “automatic delegates,” commonly known as superdelegates
To win the nomination, a candidate still must earn a majority of the votes on a given ballot. In this case, that means she or he must amass more than 2,375 pledged and automatic delegates. (In the second and subsequent rounds, a few automatic delegates get only half votes; the D.N.C. says the magic number is 2,375.5, which this time is not rounded up.)
It is theoretically possible that the nomination process would extend through multiple ballots until one candidate hits the magic number (2,375.5) and prevails. One thing to keep in mind is that delegates do not need to stay with the candidate to whom they were originally allocated and can move around.
In this situation, there would be a second ballot. And on the second ballot, there are votes from two sets of delegates:
Votes from the 3,979 pledged delegates, who are allowed to support a different candidate on the second ballot if they so choose
An additional 771 votes from “automatic delegates,” commonly known as superdelegates
To win the nomination, a candidate still must earn a majority of the votes on a given ballot. In this case, that means she or he must amass more than 2,375 pledged and automatic delegates. (In the second and subsequent rounds, a few automatic delegates get only half votes; the D.N.C. says the magic number is 2,375.5, which this time is not rounded up.)
It is theoretically possible that the nomination process would extend through multiple ballots until one candidate hits the magic number (2,375.5) and prevails. One thing to keep in mind is that delegates do not need to stay with the candidate to whom they were originally allocated and can move around.
This all means Bernie needs to gain 584 MORE delegates. All the pledged delegates are now unlocked and can switch, plus the SD's can vote for whomever they desire. I do not see him getting more than 150-200 MAX (if that) of the SD's. Most are vehemently against him.
So he needs around 400 to 450 or so MORE.
Even if ALL of Warren's delegates go to Bernie (that will never happen), she will more than likely have only around 150 to 200 total delegates.
So he will STILL be 200 to 300 SHORT of 2375.
I do not see many of the other candidates' delegates going to Bernie (other than Warren's and not all of hers will), and Bernie MAY lose a few himself. His campaign and social media and far left sites have savagely attacked Pete, Klobuchar, Biden, Warren, Bloomberg for ages. There is a LOT of animosity there.
In fact, Bernie could roll in with 47%, or even 48% and the breakdown still works. Biden was now said he will contest at the convention even if Bernie has a plurality, and IF Bernie does end up with 45%, it will be next to impossible for Biden to end up with more than 37%, 38% or so, MAX, due to the others running. He likely would be in the low 30's.
That said, IF they all rally around Biden on the 2nd ballot, you could have a 45% to 47, 48% Bernie (in terms of actual voted on pledged delegates, although as stated above this is extremely unlikely that he gets anywhere near that many at all) having the nomination ripped away from him. IF that happens, the party will rip itself apart and Trump will surely win. We are headed into dangerous, treacherous waters. I REALLY hope Biden can somehow pass up Sanders in terms of a plurality, and even better, somehow hit 1991 (probably impossible unless Sanders collapses and ALL but Joe drop out ASAP.)
March 2, 2020
First
THEN
Bloomberg, the Eye of Sauron is on you, drop out now mate and endorse and indirectly fund Joe
First
THEN
March 2, 2020
This is the same Meagan Day who kicked off the whole Warren pregnancy smear job that the RW cesspools picked up on and ran with
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287303161#post18
here is the first RW source I could find, and ITS source is Bernie-bro-ette Meagan Day at Jacobin
This RW article came out October 2nd (and is cited on the same day by RW sites) and the Meagan Day tweet came out October 1, before the RW sites picked up on it.
https://jerylbier.blogspot.com/2019/10/elizabeth-warren-fired-from-teaching.html
Elizabeth Warren: Fired From Teaching Job For Being Pregnant, Or For Lacking Qualifications? Story Appears To Change
Editor's Note:
>Ed Morrissey of Hot Air found video of Warren's 2007 interview here. [added 10/7/19]
>Collin Anderson of the Washington Free Beacon found records of county records from the Riverdale Board of Education that directly contradict Warren's claims here. [added 10/7/19]
>Warren finally responded via CBS News on Monday, October 8, 5 days after this article was published. [added 10/8/19]
>Final note: Here's my editorial take on this issue.
---
Original article:
- October 02, 2019
During her presidential campaign, Elizabeth Warren often emphasizes education as well as equal opportunities for women in the workplace. Warren tells of her own experience as a young public school teacher, let go from a special needs teaching job by a male principal for being "visibly pregnant." This past May, Warren put it this way when discussing her early teaching career:
“I loved it, and I would probably still be doing it today but back in the day, before unions, the principal, by the time we got to the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant,” she said. “And the principal did what principals did in those days: they wished you luck, showed you the door, and hired someone else for the job. And there went my dream.”
In an interview twelve years ago, however, Warren told a markedly different version of the circumstances around her termination from her teaching job. (A writer for Jacobin Magazine, Meagan Day, first noted the interview on Tuesday on Twitter. Day is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and is a Bernie Sanders supporter.)
snip
https://twitter.com/meaganmday/status/1179094207740313600
SNIP
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287303161#post34
give it up, that 'blog post' is by a major RW writer and was used the SAME day by another major RW site, the odious Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire.
Bernie booster MEAGAN DAY SLUNG THE DIRT ON WARREN on October 1st, then the RW picked it up and was running with it the very next day, NOT, as you tried to falsely claim, starting on October 4th. The original source (until you show me an earlier one) WAS the Jacobin writer and also DSA member, Meagan Day.
The RW site says this tweet was the source in their article.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/warren-said-she-was-once-fired-for-being-pregnant-thats-not-what-she-said-before
The 'blogger' you are trying to dismiss is The Washington Examiner's Jeryl Bier
If you had followed my link you would have seen this already.
You are wrong, I am right. Until you show me a pre October 1st source for this RW-run-with smear, it is all on the Jacobin crowd via their writer Meagan Day, who kicked it all off.
Do you honestly think that the RW doesn't follow the extreme left's attack dogs?? The extreme left are a gold mine for smears and dirt on the other, non-Sanders Democratic candidates.
https://twitter.com/meaganmday/status/1179094207740313600
OCTOBER 1st
More divisive claptrap from Meagan Day of the socialist (actual real socialist) pro-Bernie Jacobin
https://twitter.com/meaganmday/status/1234265877802934272This is the same Meagan Day who kicked off the whole Warren pregnancy smear job that the RW cesspools picked up on and ran with
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287303161#post18
here is the first RW source I could find, and ITS source is Bernie-bro-ette Meagan Day at Jacobin
This RW article came out October 2nd (and is cited on the same day by RW sites) and the Meagan Day tweet came out October 1, before the RW sites picked up on it.
https://jerylbier.blogspot.com/2019/10/elizabeth-warren-fired-from-teaching.html
Elizabeth Warren: Fired From Teaching Job For Being Pregnant, Or For Lacking Qualifications? Story Appears To Change
Editor's Note:
>Ed Morrissey of Hot Air found video of Warren's 2007 interview here. [added 10/7/19]
>Collin Anderson of the Washington Free Beacon found records of county records from the Riverdale Board of Education that directly contradict Warren's claims here. [added 10/7/19]
>Warren finally responded via CBS News on Monday, October 8, 5 days after this article was published. [added 10/8/19]
>Final note: Here's my editorial take on this issue.
---
Original article:
- October 02, 2019
During her presidential campaign, Elizabeth Warren often emphasizes education as well as equal opportunities for women in the workplace. Warren tells of her own experience as a young public school teacher, let go from a special needs teaching job by a male principal for being "visibly pregnant." This past May, Warren put it this way when discussing her early teaching career:
“I loved it, and I would probably still be doing it today but back in the day, before unions, the principal, by the time we got to the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant,” she said. “And the principal did what principals did in those days: they wished you luck, showed you the door, and hired someone else for the job. And there went my dream.”
In an interview twelve years ago, however, Warren told a markedly different version of the circumstances around her termination from her teaching job. (A writer for Jacobin Magazine, Meagan Day, first noted the interview on Tuesday on Twitter. Day is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and is a Bernie Sanders supporter.)
snip
https://twitter.com/meaganmday/status/1179094207740313600
SNIP
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287303161#post34
give it up, that 'blog post' is by a major RW writer and was used the SAME day by another major RW site, the odious Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire.
Bernie booster MEAGAN DAY SLUNG THE DIRT ON WARREN on October 1st, then the RW picked it up and was running with it the very next day, NOT, as you tried to falsely claim, starting on October 4th. The original source (until you show me an earlier one) WAS the Jacobin writer and also DSA member, Meagan Day.
The RW site says this tweet was the source in their article.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/warren-said-she-was-once-fired-for-being-pregnant-thats-not-what-she-said-before
The 'blogger' you are trying to dismiss is The Washington Examiner's Jeryl Bier
If you had followed my link you would have seen this already.
You are wrong, I am right. Until you show me a pre October 1st source for this RW-run-with smear, it is all on the Jacobin crowd via their writer Meagan Day, who kicked it all off.
Do you honestly think that the RW doesn't follow the extreme left's attack dogs?? The extreme left are a gold mine for smears and dirt on the other, non-Sanders Democratic candidates.
https://twitter.com/meaganmday/status/1179094207740313600
OCTOBER 1st
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,302
