Onion

Warren is 100% running and 80+% not winning the Democratic nomination.

She's an idealist that has failed to organize and lead effective organizations whenever she's tried.

She's smart enough to identify problematic symptoms but not smart enough to realize some of her solutions are just stupid. This is probably an electoral asset though since, not unlike Trump actually, she'll fall for simplistic solutions (tariffs? break up banks?) that informed people will consider idiotic.

Do you think she's smarter than you?

"She won't win because she's stupid even though her stupid solutions will animate the stupid liberal base"

lmao thanks for dropping these informed takes on the D electorate, grizy

I'm also not sure if she'll win. It will depend on which other women are in the race.

20% is decent equity given the likely size of the field so yeah that's fair. Not sure how that assessment squares with the rest of your post but it was all wrong anyway so

If Avenatti is going to dunk on Tucker Carlson on the reg like this, I’m in.

Also Chris Coons wants to put the filibuster back in when Dems get the senate again loooool can’t make this **** up

One of the problems with Hilary was she was too smart to not understand the nuances of policy but not good enough at acting/public speaking to pretend nuances don't matter/gloss over the nuances (ala Obama, Bush, and Bill).

Even with that political handicap, Hilary established a track record of leadership and competence. She was easily one of the most qualified POTUS candidates in modern history.

Warrens and Bernies of the world apparently are incapable of understanding nuances and that incapability has led them to say stupid things. This is a political liability because I genuinely believe they care and will want to make things right if they are in a position to flesh out their policy positions. We saw this with Bernie's proposals to pay for "Medicare for All" not getting even close to the costs. We saw this with Warren saying break up the big banks when basically every respectable economist, Krugman types included, said that was a bad idea. Both care for the truth and want to have respectful discussions with people (at least those they perceive to be on their side).

Let me put it differently. Warren and Bernie are not Trump. They are not shameless enough to think anyone that disagrees with them is the enemy. That makes their inability to understand nuances a political liability.

Warren and Sanders both have a track record of not actually passing anything of consequence or lead effective organizations. What they, especially Warren, have a track record of is basically heckling people into doing things they otherwise would not do (SEC requiring banks to admit wrongdoing in settlements for example.) That has a lot of value but it is not sufficient for what I think most people want in the White House. We want a commander in chief, a leader, not a whiner/nagger.

So Harris then? Or is there another female contender?

Nagger is precious, btw. I mean I wouldn't mind if it wasn't always so shrill...

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...policy-regime/

Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker also in favor. Here's some loser with a Nobel prize.

But please tell me more about those loony progressives and their crazy fringe positons.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffr...b_1116135.html

Nutty Harvard/Colombia professor Jeffrey Sachs, special advisor to the UN, calling for return of glass-steagall among other reforms.

Whoa whoa whoa, time out. You're talking here about the plan that would save the country money on healthcare?

Also, holy **** at WaPo's "fact check" video on that. I had to double check to see if it was really posted by WaPo.



****ing appalling.

WaPo literally ran an editorial saying the Dems would be insane to nominate Bernie. They are headquarters of Hillary > Trump >>>>> Bernie.

Who fact checks the fact checkers?

None of them are experts on a wide array of policies. Not even Hillary. THE differences between Hillary and Bernie/Warren and Trump are their understanding of power. And Bernie/Warren are closer to the Hillary understanding than some of the young blood like AOC.

Their actual positions, which they have in writing in other places, are much more nuanced than those quotes seem. Krugman has explicitly said he doesn't think breaking up the banks works (although he'd like to see it happen, "if only for political reasons" apparently.)

Stiglitz's proposals are better characterized as a heavy regulatory scheme with 1. surcharges (implicitly insurance fees) on really big banks. 2. threat of breaking up those unable to demonstrate sufficient risk control measures. In other words, he's proposing the status quo and the devil is in the details of enforcement.

These are very different positions than Warren and Sanders' positions which are basically: big banks shouldn't exist because big businesses will always be evil. Stiglitz actually has that bias as well but even he acknowledges there are legitimate reasons for banks to get big.

Hillary, more than all of the other three combined (one of whom counts for basically zero), has shown an incredible ability to learn the nuances of highly complex issues.

I know I am splitting hairs but I am sure Hillary understands power. She is just too, to basically paraphrase the anonymous in the White House now, moored to first principles of American democracy to exercise power in the same way Trump does.

I think that makes her an American in the truest sense of the word.

Maybe you should consider that Sanders's and Warren's positions are more nuanced than your own interpretation of them.

Lol, you're great at nuance.

grizy,

Like your policy position is that we need an even bigger war budget. You really shouldn't be criticizing anyone's policies.

It's possible. But Warren's proposed reinstatement of Glass-Steagle and proposal to just cap the size of banks don't look like she intends any nuance on her position. Frankly, someone who understands the nuances of the industry wouldn't make those proposals, unless it's with the intent to just make noise.

Good, let's do it

Solid concern trolling grizy. Well done.