Elizabeth Warren

Can Elizabeth Warren Win Over Anyone Who Doesn't Already Agree With Her?

Tonight's Democratic debate is the Massachusetts senator's moment to shine, if she can withstand attacks from her rivals.

|

Tonight's Democratic debate features a dozen candidates, but all eyes will be on Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.). Over the past few weeks, she has almost caught up in many polls with former Vice President Joe Biden, who can't stop reminding people that he's older than Methuselah (whose eyes seemed less likely to fill with blood and whose dentures fitted more snugly), and shaken loose from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), whose heart attack underscored the Vermont socialist's age (it didn't help that his campaign prevaricated on what exactly happened). None of the lower-polling candidates on stage have anything resembling upward momentum.

This is Warren's night to shine and her entire run may well hinge on how well she does. From a libertarian perspective, there is virtually nothing appealing about a Warren presidency. For every feint toward something halfway decent (say, a vague "openness" to decriminalizing sex work), there's a half-dozen budget-busting policies and regulatory promises such as Medicare for All; free college; breaking up Facebook, Twitter, and other "tech giants" for the sin of being too big; reparations for married gay and lesbian couples who couldn't take tax breaks; and "economic patriotism" that is every bit as protectionist and overbearing as anything Donald "the Tariff Man" Trump has so far put into play.

Warren would pay for all this and more through an unworkable (and probably unconstitutional) "wealth tax" that has been tried and abandoned by virtually all other advanced economies. Even if implemented as promised, the revenue from Warren's tax won't begin to cover all the new and increased spending she's proposed. It doesn't help that she steadfastly refuses to admit the obvious: Massive increases in federal spending would obviously lead to tax hikes not just for "the ultra-rich" but the middle class as well.

As Reason's Peter Suderman has argued convincingly, Warren's entire worldview seems predicated on the idea that the federal government should in one way or another be involved in virtually every transaction any two people make in America. "Elizabeth Warren has a plan for you" isn't just a campaign slogan, it's a threat. All financial contracts, including mortgages, should be standardized and kept to a couple of pages. Health care should be regulated even more by the government than it already is and doled out accordingly. Child care will be universal and free, which is to say, even more expensive and shoddy.

Warren is selling more than a chicken in every pot; she's promising to give us all the pot and the stove on which to cook the bird. By studiously avoiding how to pay for such largess, she may well woo enough Democratic primary voters to take home the nomination from Joe Biden, whose body is breaking down like Ratso Rizzo's in Midnight Cowboy. In fact, she may even go pretty far in the general election. As Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown has noted, by at least some measures, enthusiasm for more and bigger government is at a record-high in the post-war era, with nearly 70 percent of voters indicating they're into the sorts of expansions of state power that Warren is promising.

During tonight's debate, Warren will be in the hot seat in a way she hasn't been yet. She will face tough questions and barbs from her fellow Democrats about the mystery financing and overreach of her neo-New Deal programs (expect Joe Biden especially to hammer this theme) and somebody will surely call her out on her sometimes-sketchy resume details (including her challenged claim that she lost a teaching job for being pregnant). How she handles intra-party attacks will be as important as the content of her rejoinders, especially since Warren has a bad habit of impugning the motives of anyone who disagrees with her. "There are no good-faith disagreements with Elizabeth Warren," according to Todd Zywicki, a George Mason Law professor and longtime critic of the senator. "Anybody who doesn't agree with her is a shill." That sort of counterattack can work well against Donald Trump or Republicans, but may well backfire against fellow Dems.

Warren's penchant for arch dismissiveness was evident in her response to a question about same-sex marriage at last week's CNN town hall on LGBTQ issues.

Warren's response was as caustic as it was funny, so it's no surprise it went viral. But beyond the perfect timing and delivery is a deeper question of speaking to people who are undecided or not already on board. The 2020 election will be won or lost on two fronts: First, which candidate turns out his or her base most fully (the reason Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump is that she failed to motivate traditional Democratic constituencies in big-enough numbers). Second, which candidate can speak to the plurality of voters (38 percent in the most recent Gallup survey) who identify as independent. Any Democratic or Republican candidate can bank on about 30 percent of the vote before the first general election speech is given.

The 2020 winner will be the person who appeals most to the less tribalistic voters among us. Warren's thorough roasting of (presumably) male Christian incels will fire up her base but it also may alienate independents who are looking for a more-inclusive alternative to Donald Trump, whose every utterance works to divide people into mutually exclusive camps. Warren's policy agenda is already extreme in its scope and cost; she may not be able to afford a temperament that's equally dismissive and harsh (if funny) toward her ideological opponents. After all, the country's already getting that from the incumbent.

So tonight's debate drama won't just involve the Democratic candidates on the stage. The really important participants are the folks out there in the dark, who have yet to figure out which option they can live with.

NEXT: Democrats Want to Make It a Federal Crime to Threaten Journalists

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Warren is a true authoritarian in the making. And she’s just not likeable in any way. And fake, does anyone really believe he keeps a six pack in the fridge in case she just happens to want a beer? She wants to wage a war on the economy and the bill of rights to squash her enemies. All she needs is a tooth brush mustache. Yeah, I went there.

    1. I had a dental hygienist who was ok for the job, I suppose, but had this habit of asking questions and expecting answers; she’d pause her work and wait and then finally realize I wasn’t going to answer. Had a kind of nanny attitude towards everything, and you just knew she was going to scold you about not flossing at work or brushing after every little snack.

      And when Lizzie popped on the scene, she looked exactly like the hygienist, right down to those damned granny hippie glasses! Made me believe in phrenology a few times, I swear.

    2. I’m gonna get me a beer, Kemosabe.

      1. Watch out for that fire water

  2. Lotta fraud with Liz.

    Her big bankruptcy study? Largely BS
    Claim to be Indian? Fake.
    Pregnancy discrimination? Nope.
    Viral town hall response? A planted question by a maxed-out donor.

    Plus, there’s just something odd about that bird. Maybe it’s the animatronics. Close to life-like, but not quite there yet.

    1. >>>Maybe it’s the animatronics.

      something in the snacks @the ERA Amendment meetings in the 70s. my mother (i love my mother) is like that too … Hillary … all my English teachers …

      1. “Can I speak to your manager?”

      2. She definitely wants to be in Disney’s Hall of Presidents

    2. Could you explain what about the bankruptcy report was not correct? The Indian ancestry was unfortunate. Pregnancy discrimination will win point with a lot of women. They have been there and felt that. Planted question, no she had that answer in her pocket and was just waiting for the right question.

      She is not my first choice but I have to admit she is damn good.

      1. “Could you explain what about the bankruptcy report was not correct?”

        Start with this. From every writer’s here dream job:

        https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/why-warrens-new-bankruptcy-study-is-so-bad/18834/

        “The Indian ancestry was unfortunate.”

        Nice way to describe a lie to improve her career.

        “Pregnancy discrimination will win point with a lot of women.”

        …in spite of being patently false?

        “Planted question, no she had that answer in her pocket and was just waiting for the right question.”

        Having a maxed-out donor ask it was just good fortune…

        1. Let get to the big issue.

          I read the Atlantic piece on Himmelstein, Thorne and Warren’s paper and was not over impressed. The authors main point seem to be that absolute numbers of bankruptcies were down. That still doesn’t address the issue of what percentage are affected by medical expenses. It worth noting that the Atlantic is not a peer reviewed journal while the American Journal of Medicine is peer reviewed and so the Himmelstein et. al paper was accepted based on reviews. I went to the original Himmelstein, Thorne and Warren paper and thought the authored did a good job of explaining their method and reasoning. I also looked for a peer reviewed paper refuting the Himmelstein et.al. paper and found one in Medical Bankruptcy: Myth Versus Fact by Dranoveand and Millenson in the journal Health Affairs. Dranoveand and Millenson also did a good job making their case. They made a good case that reviewing the Himmelstein data they would conclude that only 17% of bankruptcy could be attributed to medical expenses. Now while Himmelstein, Thorne and Warren are proponents of National Health Care, Dranoveand and Millenson’s paper was funded by a trade group of health insurance companies. I would conclude that medical bankruptcy is somewhere between the 17% and 62%.

          While you might disagree with Senator Warren I don’t think you can totally dismiss her findings.

          1. Care to tell us why it matters?
            I mean if your health isn’t important enough to end up in bankruptcy, WIH would be?
            Besides which, what alternative is preferable?

          2. So it doesn’t matter?
            Good to know…

          3. Still waiting, lefty shitbag.

      2. “…The Indian ancestry was unfortunate…”

        Doesn’t that spinning make you dizzy?
        “Unfortunate” my ass; a fucking lie to gain advantage for employment.

      3. My mother-in-law was fired for getting married, never mind pregnant. It happened. Women of a certain age will find the story believable.

        1. It happened. Women of a certain age will find the story believable.

          Yeah – 30 years ago my father was offering up “they might get pregnant and you’ll have to replace them” as a legitimate reason not to hire women in the first place.

        2. No women in her right mind would tell an prospective employer she is pregnant or thinking of getting pregnant. It would be the practical end of the interview.

          1. Moderation4ever
            October.15.2019 at 7:17 pm
            “No women in her right mind would tell an prospective employer she is pregnant or thinking of getting pregnant. It would be the practical end of the interview.”

            Let’s see…
            I’m interviewing a mid-20s married woman, and I have no idea if she might get pregnant, right?
            Got any other words of wisdom for employers?

        3. My wife got pregnant 30 years ago and her male boss backed her up throughout. Even gave her extra break time to pump breast milk. But employers in general have legitimate reasons to be wary of pregnant employees because their commitment to their career can be unpredictable. Warren is a perfect example. She got pregnant and then decided to take a few years off to be with her kids and good for her. But if she were an irreplaceable employee the company would be screwed.

  3. Yikes, that photo. What is she doing, demonstrating her Native American martial arts skills?

    1. It’s very Big Brother.

    2. That was when she was demonstrating how her people showed Columbus how to plant corn.

    3. It’s just what I was looking for to complete my Halloween display! I am going to print it as a banner to hang from my porch

  4. The really important participants are the folks out there in the dark, who have yet to figure out which option they can live with.

    I’m pretty certain that everyone – that means everyone – who has recently voted DeRp and who hasn’t had their Aha! moment has already figured out who they will be voting for if they vote in 2020.

    They will vote as long as their preferred side of DeRp is skilled at painting the other side of DeRp as the greatest evil since sliced bread or Genghis Khan.

    Everyone else will either be repelled by how that game unfolds and not vote – or they haven’t voted in awhile and won’t pay attention this time either. Which fortunately for the DeRps doesn’t matter since our elections don’t count the repelled, the nonvoter, the nonDeRp, etc.

    1. I’ll be voting either Vermin Supreme or Dave Barry. Although I might vote Tulsi in the primaries if she’s still around. Just to shake things up.

      1. Give some consideration to John McAfee, that would undoubtedly be the most entertaining presidency we’ll ever see.

        1. He would be the first fugitive-from-the-law serving in public office since Aaron Burr. Might be worth it for that distinction alone.

          1. Is he a fugitive from US law, though? And, related question, do we have an extradition treaty with Belize?

            I’m only half joking, really, I know he said he thought the IRS was after him but I can’t recall having seen anyone reliable confirm that.

            1. I know he said he thought the IRS was after him but I can’t recall having seen anyone reliable confirm that

              Yeah – I’m half joking as well. Last I heard he was hiding in Cuba because They are after him, but I’ve never looked into the veracity of his claims. Could be true, could be cocaine-induced paranoia. You just never know with him.

        2. I made a solemn vow never to vote for the batshit insane. Which is why I’m going with Vermin Supreme!

          1. Nobody cares, and it wasn’t even funny the first time you said it

      2. I live in New Hampshire, and they make it relatively easy to dip into a party to vote in their primary and then change your registration after. I might go throw a wrench in the blue team calculus by voting for Tulsi.

        In the LP primary, none of the registered candidates thus far really move me. I’d like to have someone that does, because just if I just vote party affiliation without any regard to the person I might as well be wearing a red or blue jersey.

  5. Classic Fascist.
    EVERY proposal includes a pretense of private ownership of the means of production, but total government control over who produces what, and where, and who buys what and where.
    A lot of Trumps facial expressions mirror Mussolini, but Warren is his reincarnation.

    1. Like Obamacare. Everyone was arguing about whether it was socialism. Nope. Pure fascism.

      1. Exactly!!!

        Most people don’t understand the difference among communism, socialism, and fascism. This includes podcaster historians Dan Carlin and Danielle Bolelli, who spent an hour disgracing themselves discussing it.

        1. Most people don’t understand that there is no real difference between communism, socialism, and fascism.

          There.

          Fixed that for you.

  6. “From a libertarian perspective, there is virtually nothing appealing about a Warren presidency.”

    On the contrary, a Warren Administration would be a massive improvement on the issue of immigration. You know all those highly skilled doctors and engineers trying to cross our border with Mexico? The ones Drumpf has locked in concentration camps? I promise Warren would let them enter our country and contribute to the economy.

    #OpenBorders
    #ImmigrationAboveAll

    1. Like Lizzie, Bernie, and all the other Dems, repetition has soured your schtick.

    2. Right you are, OBL.
      We must all ensure a Warren victory if we are to enjoy all the wonders of a socialist slave state that she has envisioned for us.
      Golly, I can hardly wait until the first gulag is built.

      1. Sounds like someone is volunteering to help Dear Leader get the first gulag up and running ASAP.

  7. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), whose heart attack

    Thank you for finally calling it what it was.

    1. “Thank you for finally calling it what it was.”

      As a vote for FDR was a vote for Truman, a vote for Bernie is a vote for the VP.

  8. Elizabeth Warren should adopt nixon-supporter James Brown’s This is a Man’s World as her campaign theme song.

  9. FYI kids, after 2020 there’ll be a new bar for politics:

    Literally Worse Than Trump.

    1. Ahem… you misspelled 2024

  10. Can we get another DNA test… you know… to be sure?

  11. i love the “No!” headlines. she’s the worst tyrant of all, in the form of grandma.

    1. Or Mom, from Futurama.

      1. Does that make Biden Igner?

  12. Warren’s response was as caustic as it was funny, so it’s no surprise it went viral. But beyond the perfect timing and delivery is a deeper question of speaking to people who are undecided or not already on board.

    It was a scripted moment. The questioner was a plant.

    1. You’re talking about the whole campaign, right?

    2. For the record, on a comedy scale, I’ll giver her a B+… maybe even an A-. Delivery was good, quip seemed natural. Had decent punch.

      On the truth-in-humor scale I’ll giver her a C-. It’s not really men who spend a lot of time wringing their hands over marriage prospects.

      1. But becoming a solo parent isn’t in most women’s game plan. According to a study by Copenhagen’s University hospital, 90% of women surveyed in the country’s nine public fertility clinics wanted to have a child with a male partner. “The majority say that becoming a solomor was Plan B,” says Lone Schmidt, associate professor at the University of Copenhagen Department of Public Health: “Two thirds had been in a relationship and wanted to become pregnant but their partners weren’t ready.” The average age of couples seeking help for fertility problems in Denmark is 33, and the average age of single women is 36. “In other words,” says Schmidt, “women are waiting it out, and when it becomes clear that there isn’t going to be a man in the picture, they’re taking action themselves.”

        Sorry, ladies, but we’re the ones checking out, not you.

        1. Because a Danish study matches which US demographic exactly?

          1. Southwest Wisconsinites over 50.

          2. Marriage knows no borders. Also, read the first link too!

    3. response was canned and paid for so no surprise went viral.

  13. “Elizabeth Nolan Brown has noted, by at least some measures, enthusiasm for more and bigger government is at a record-high in the post-war era, with nearly 70 percent of voters indicating they’re into the sorts of expansions of state power that Warren is promising.”

    It worth noting that conservatives brought much of this on themselves. The Affordable Care Act was developed in a conservative think tank and pioneered by a Republican governor. Once it was proposed by a Democratic President it was attacked a socialist. Noting that when they had power the Republicans could offer no better plan. Well if the ACA is bad and there no alternative why not go Medicare for All. Likewise Republicans gave the wealth a tax cut when the economy was in good shape and did not need the stimulus. Conservatives did not act like libertarians, they spend money on things they liked and said debt doesn’t matter. So now people are saying its my turn and I want the government to work for me. Its not good but it is understandable.

    1. I also believes a lot of it is a cultural ripple effect from the 2008 financial crisis.

    2. Romney Care is what we called it.

      1. And back then the Left thought it was Eeeevol.

    3. Paul Ryan did have a good vouchers plan.

      Also, you don’t seem to understand that Republicans are supposed to be the party of less government intervention. So expecting them to have federally-intrusive healthcare plans is like expecting them to have socialized food care – it’s just not what they’re supposed to do. Medicare for All is even more of that socialist stuff, so of course they won’t be for it – as they shouldn’t. And neither should they be for the ACA. Not everything has to be dealt with collectively, even more so at the federal level.

      And don’t forget, Romney did that thing in one of the richest states in the nation, emphasis on “STATE”. I – and right-wingers in general – am less bothered with some moderate aspects of socialism implemented in individual states, and even less when done locally. Because that kind of decentralization in itself is libertarian. So even though Romney Care was a little socialistic, it becomes even more socialistic when implemented across a nation of 320 million people with no where to run from it. That’s some Soviet stuff.

      Same for the tax cuts. It doesn’t matter if the economy was in good shape or not. Actually, it’s even harder to sell during a recession, because government needs more immediate revenue for welfare, so you can’t really cut taxes. But just like with healthcare, tax cuts are what Republicans are about. A good chunk of the population thinks taxes are too high, regulations too intrusive, and they’re representing those.

      1. “Also, you don’t seem to understand that Republicans are supposed to be the party of less government intervention.”

        The problem here is that there is a big gap between what the Republicans are supposed to be and what they really are. They promised a better health care plan and provided nothing when the time came. If Paul Ryan had a good plan why not push it. For god sake he was the Speaker of the House. As for taxes, yes the Republicans lower taxes by borrowing money. They did not cut spending because that is not popular.

        1. Trump’s last budget did include cuts but was refused by Democrat house. But yes, he didn’t fight further. It’s not popular because lots of people are dumbasses who want to have it both ways: lower taxes and less spending. But to be completely fair, Republicans aren’t banking all on borrowing, but also on economic growth gradually making up for the spending, so long as the latter is kept from increasing too fast.

    4. “The Affordable Care Act was developed in a conservative think tank …”

      Bull…
      Shit.
      “The ACA v. the Heritage Plan: A Comparison in Chart Form”
      […]
      ” Perhaps it would help to present the comparison in graph form. Here, first, is an exhaustive list of the similarities between the plans:”
      (check the link for the chart; the overlap is this:
      They both require insurance, and that’s all)
      http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/the-aca-v-the-heritage-plan-a-comparison-in-chart-form

      You shouldn’t bullshit so much.

  14. That’s a pretty scary photo of Fauxcahontas you got there. Some entrepreneur should put it on a Halloween card: “This is your future on statism–get the picture?” As Count Floyd used to say, “Oooh. that’s scary, boys and girls!”

    1. The scariest film Floyd ever showed was ‘Tip O’Neil’s 3-D House of Representatives’. After they showed a scene where Tip is asking someone to sign his bill, Floyd points out how scary that was. “Hey, that bill could become a law!”.

      Truly frightening.

  15. The yearning for more government is an illusion; it’s really a yearning for more of my kind of government. People would be satisfied with less government if the believed that everybody else also got less government.

    Government is like ICBMs and atomic bombs. Nobody’s giving theirs up unless everybody else gives them up too.

  16. > “I’m going to assume it’s a guy who said that…”

    It was probably a woman. Females got a lot more worked up over the marriage issue than males. Traditional males probably though guy marriage was icky, but traditional females thought of it as an attack on families.

    Yeah, there’s usually some male leading the bandwagon, because males like to get out in front, but the bandwagon is still mostly women and the husbands they dragged to the event.

    That Warren tried to turn this into an issue of gender parity shows how out of touch she is. She doesn’t think of women as individuals, she thinks of women as a monolithic voting bloc that follows the marching orders.

    1. It was probably a woman. Females got a lot more worked up over the marriage issue than males.

      See my links above. 100% this. As Chris Rock quipped, “men don’t want to get married, they surrender to marriage.”

    2. Does she not think conservative women exist, or what?

        1. Deplorable even.

      1. They don’t exist in the universe she would impose on us if she won. Because non-persons don’t have rights.

  17. We should all vote for Warren.
    She got into an Ivy League school all by herself.
    She’s prudent enough to know that promising a bunch of useful idiots a lot of free shit will get her elected.
    Then we’ll all be able to enjoy the fruits of a socialist slave state like those lucky bastards in Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea do every day.
    So let’s all get off our asses and get Lieawatha elected.
    Otherwise we will continue to oppressed with all this freedom, capitalism and opportunities this capitalist hell hole called America offers.

  18. Tulsi needs to bury this bitch like she did with Kamala.
    And then power-bomb her through a table just for fun.

  19. From a libertarian perspective, there is virtually nothing appealing about a Warren presidency.

    QFMFT.

    1. How many of the Reason staff will vote for Warren over Trump?

      1. Maybe that’ll be a debate question tonight.

      2. I’m sure my favorite writer Shikha Dalmia will.

      3. I’m assuming they’re either voting for the LP candidate, or in the extremely likely event the LP fails to find an actual libertarian, just staying home.

        1. Dogged, ideologically purist libertarians are why we’re having bigger and bigger government. Just imagine for a moment if those guys diverted their electoral participation and energy into electing less-socially-conservative, free-market Republicans in the various primaries at the various levels of government. If they did that, the Rs would not only win more and have more comfortable majorities in Congress, but the party itself would also be more libertarian and more to their liking.

          When the culture wars were (largely) over, I naively thought to myself, “Oh great. Now libertarians will stop throwing their votes away and just coalesce on the Republican Party and push it even further libertarian. After all, it’s now the party that cuts taxes, regulations, is pro-guns, and is distancing itself from the culture wars.” And that was the case for many of them (myself included), but boy was I wrong about the establishment-type libertarians who are just having a hard time moving on from an era where both sides were truly more-or-less split even on freedoms.

          I’ll give you immigration when it comes to the conservatives. But hey, maybe it’s not such a bad idea to slow the flow of people who vote 80% for socialism.

        2. I’m assuming they’re either voting for the LP candidate, or in the extremely likely event the LP fails to find an actual libertarian, just staying home.

          Don’t assume.

          The reason staff as pretty hardcore blue in the voting booth, with navy blue evident in their articles. A few like Shikha and Matt are in the deep blue-black zone and refer to themselves of LoC (liberaltarians of color)

          The official reason staff policy when actual libertarians are encountered is to hoot and shriek and pelt them with feces.

  20. “she has a plan” reminds me of the opening credits from the Battlestar Galactica reboot. So Lizzy is the scary old cylon…

  21. She’s a Hilary retread– an aging scold who just wants to micromanage her inferiors.

    1. The mother in law from hell.

    2. “She’s a Hilary retread…”

      Initially read that as “retard”. It still works.

    3. Frankly, I think she is several orders of magnitude worse than Hillary would have been. Hillary is basically a narcissist/corpratist like her husband. Sure, she would have probably done some really annoying things, but at the end of the day would keep the status quo. Warren is truly dangerous because she actually believes her own BS, and will likely have a full progtard congress backing her up.

  22. You know what? I WANT Warren to win. Either her or Sanders. Because come the general, the people of America will be faced with some douchebag on the one hand, who may be impulsive but at least doesn’t spend like a sailor at a whorehouse; and on the other you have a socialist who wants to radically change the face of America, tell you when to fart, and how much money you can have. Trump will have his fun warning the nation about hostile socialist takeover, and then the Stossel will come in and lay out those Free Stuff 2020 lists of his bare for the world to see. And once people see that, I’m sure most will get cold feet on voting day and vote for the familiar and the usual.

    And with guys like Biden or Klobuchar, you don’t have that. These guys don’t inspire any cold feet on Election Day, and that’s what makes them dangerous.

  23. “…her challenged claim…”

    LOL

    Pretty fucking rich coming from a guy who just posted an article on the media’s inability to speak clearly and honestly.

    Yeah Nick, we get it, you don’t want to risk giving Trump people ammunition, should Liawatha get her party’s nomination.

    You chicken shit.

  24. Will they ask her why she wears the same black blouse and pants all the time only changing the jacket? It’s super weird.

    1. Was given to her by her great chieftain ancestor, Montgomery Ward.

    2. Why does Trump always wear a suit with a red tie?

      1. I assume he’s cheap.

  25. Warren seems to be the candidate preferred by Bernie fans who kid themselves that she’s the outwardly sensible trojan horse they can use to sneak in their commie agenda. I suppose a few of them even kid themselves that she really is somehow a “centrist”-friendly Sanders.

    1. She may scoop up some Berni fans who think he’s likely to die in office if elected. She’s 8 years younger and rather healthier.

  26. You know, I’ve been thinking: most of politics come down to natural inclinations. There was that guy that wrote “Selfish Reasons to Have Kids” who analyzed the data and pretty much concluded so. People who score high on the Liberty/Coercion pillar of morality are libertarian pretty much by nature. Now, some can also score high on the In-Group pillar, or the Purity one, and they’ll be conservative as well.

    Like me, I score very high on the Liberty one (I took the test), and also moderately high on Authority/Subversion, and low on the Care, Purity, and In-Group. So I guess I’m a somewhat conservative libertarian. And it’s not like anyone taught me that or anything. The “get off my back” instinct has always been there.

    Which is why one of my goals in life is to sire a boatload of kids. But it requires money and planning ahead, which I’m working on as of now. And I’m just saying, if you’re also a “get off my back” kind of guy/gal, by temperament, and do well in life, then it may not be such a bad idea to consider popping out a few more of those like yourself. Even better if with a likeminded partner.

    1. And I’m just saying, if you’re also a “get off my back” kind of guy/gal, by temperament, and do well in life, then it may not be such a bad idea to consider popping out a few more of those like yourself.

      Kids tend to rebel. Better if the socialists have more kids.

      1. Meh, I think they’ll rebel either way. It’s just that the libertarians will rebel towards greater independence from you, whereas the socialist ones will rebel towards taking more of your stuff.

        If they’re authority-oriented conservatives, however, who accept the parent-child hierarchy, then you’re golden. If they’re that + seek independence and self-reliance, then you’ve hit the jackpot.

        Although, there’s more to influence such behaviors like IQ and testosterone. But even high IQ tends to be correlated with libertarianism.

        https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366

    2. They must be beating down your door, you sweet-talking so-and-so.

  27. I don’t think the comment hurt her too much. Maybe temporarily offended Trump voters. The male Christian incels were never going to vote for Warren. She’s female for one thing. She may have offended some evangelical women in addition, but they are unlikely to ever vote for her either.

    1. Nope-the group who most opposes gay marriage are African Americans, especially African American Women, so that is who she offended with her stupid joke.

  28. Ha! Senator Warren is ‘America’s Mother-in-Law’, pure and simple.
    She is just as likeable as Heels Up Harris. I just wish Marianne was back in the race. 🙂

  29. she surely wins and maybe we dont need to explain why lol..
    gmail login

  30. Sen. Warren’s weakness was exposed, she cannot gather new voters. Forget men voting for her, so how does she replace those independents, etc? Her insult to “No Men Here..” will never go away, do not care, ok, see how she does in the early primaries. Never vote for a gender feminist, gender bigot, misandrist. Never.

  31. “Warren’s entire worldview seems predicated on the idea that the federal government should in one way or another be involved in virtually every transaction any two people make in America.”

    Which is exactly why I’ll never vote for her. The only Dem candidate I’d even consider is Tulsi Gabbard.

Please to post comments