[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Democrats Attack Elizabeth Warren 16 Times in Democrat Debate
Democrat candidates for president overwhelmingly targeted Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday night during the fourth Democrat primary debate. Warren was attacked sixteen times during the debate, according to an NBC tracker, primarily on her proposals for universal health care and her proposed extreme wealth tax. Sen. Amy Klobuchar attacked Warren five different times, while former Vice President Joe Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg attacked her on three different occasions. Kamala Harris and Beto O’Rourke attacked Warren on two occasions each, and Andrew Yang attacked her one time. Klobuchar defended her attacks, saying that she wanted to be president of all of America, not just half of America. “If people are tired of the noise and nonsense and the extremes, they’ve got a home with me,” she said afterward to CNN. Klobuchar said that Warren’s Medicare-for-all was a “pipe dream” and she did “not even come close” to answering the question about how she planned to pay for her plan. “As I’ve said, Bernie [Sanders] has answered that question, he’s made that very clear, and I think that’s one of the things she needs to do,” she said afterward. Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who signaled his criticism of Warren’s plan in a campaign ad earlier Tuesday, immediately challenged Warren on her healthcare plan. Sen. Kamala Harris challenged Warren for failing to join her call to ban President Donald Trump from Twitter. Biden repeated that Warren was being “vague” on the cost of her healthcare plan. The attacks on Warren spoke volumes to the pundits, who described her as the clear frontrunner for the Democrat primary. Biden, who experienced the brunt of the attacks in the early debates, was only attacked twice. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: WWG1WWA, Vicomte13 (#0) The attacks on Warren spoke volumes to the pundits, who described her as the clear frontrunner for the Democrat primary. Yep. Warren is the one. Her rivals are done unless they can find something more damaging than her fake-Cherokee credentials at Hahvahd. Or unless she makes a Trumpian faux pas that her rivals can exploit. And she won't do that. As her polling and fundraising and organization rises, the other candidates will be under pressure not to damage her too badly for the 2020 general election. We see this pattern regularly with donors and key activists in primaries with both parties. It's all a part of "who is everyone's second choice?" and "who is the most acceptable to the most factions of the party once Frontrunner X implodes?". And that is how a primary usually turns into a coronation after IA/NH. Even NV and SC still generally only confirm the Big Two caucus/primary states, unrepresentative of the country as they are. The frontrunners almost always implode unless the party leaders and top donors have frontloaded the entire process in favor of a particular nominee in advance of the primary race. Candidates like that who became their party's nominees were Hitlery in 2016 and Bush Junior in 2000. Both had the full support of the party establishment and the major donor networks. The Dems tried to do that this year with Biden, largely because he had big support from black voters from his VP years with Obama. Once that demographic finishes fading away, Warren is about the last option that the most Dem party factions find acceptable. In running for a party nomination, it is almost always better to be everyone's second pick than it is to be the early runaway frontrunner. Those frontrunners nearly always fall from grace well before the first contests and people gravitate to their second choice. In the 2020 race, it's Warren. We've already reached the point where the Dem primary is mostly about who Warren might pick for her running mate. Buttigieg (gay but has a little actual political talent), Booker (black), Klobuchar (what would be considered a conservative white Dem female). I still think it's Warren-Booker 2020.
#2. To: Tooconservative (#1) Given that I want Medicare for all and a great wealth tax, Warren would be my choice among Democrats.
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2) Klobuchar is a more moderate choice and she rightly points out that Warren has no real plan to fund Medicare-for-all. Sanders at least has somewhat of a plan with something of a funding mechanism, disastrous as it is. It is possible that Klobuchar could lead the Xlinton wing of the party in a charge against Warren but it would take deep funding from someone like Bloomberg to make it happen. Bloomberg himself is still threatening to run even at this late date but most people think he's just attention-whoring again, like he's done even before he left the NYC mayor's job. But it would take deep pockets like Bloomberg and his Wall Street buddies to try to overcome Warren at this point. IMHO.
#4. To: Tooconservative (#3) Truth is, Trump's going to win re-election, so focusing on the Dems is mainly abou abou abou about discerning what the People want. What they want is for a reverse concentration of wealth at the very top. Wa Warren's wealth tax is THE best way to do that. And they want universal health in in in insurance. And they don't want tax hikes on the middle and working class. So, tax hikes on the very rich, to redistribute them down to size and reduce the wealth concentration and health care coverage are the popular issues along with keeping control of the Border (people still want that), and reign
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4) Truth is, Trump's going to win re-election, so focusing on the Dems is mainly abou abou abou about discerning what the People want. I think the smart money is already making those bets. Like Dems on Wall Street. Along with tycoons like Steyer (who is a candidate himself), they are the real donor base of the Dem party.
What they want is for a reverse concentration of wealth at the very top. Wa Warren's wealth tax is THE best way to do that. And they want universal health in in in insurance. And they don't want tax hikes on the middle and working class. Well, the party base wants that. And the party donors (Wall Street, tycoons) definitely oppose that (unless it is part of a tax code that promises all of that delicious socialism but which can in reality be gamed by firms and individuals like Steyer and Bloomberg who hire accountants and lawyers by the hundreds to exploit the fine print planted in the legislation by compliant Dem congresscritters).
So, tax hikes on the very rich, to redistribute them down to size and reduce the wealth concentration and health care coverage are the popular issues along with keeping control of the Border (people still want that), and reign You're still more likely to get more of that with Trump than with any Dem prez. So your man in the WH doesn't have to worry about losing that one reliable Connecticut voter he's still got. FWIW, I think Trump would be open to raising taxes on the rich but not raising the corporate rate. But if he hadn't ever become prez, I don't think he'd favor either one. He's made reference several times to things that have cost him money as president and I think those are actually his honest opinion. He really thinks he'd be richer if he hadn't become prez. And I think that's probably true. Becoming prez has made DJT a bit of a patriot, I think. LOL
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|