Bernie Supporters: Let's Help Professor Warren Be Student Of Her Own Mistakes
>
- A guest post by emorejahongkong
Core question for Berners to flesh out and spread to Warren-land: “Can Professor be Student of Her Own Mistakes?”
A. History: Warren was a newbie, in electoral politics, who allowed herself to be persuaded that:
Core question for Berners to flesh out and spread to Warren-land: “Can Professor be Student of Her Own Mistakes?”
A. History: Warren was a newbie, in electoral politics, who allowed herself to be persuaded that:
1- If Warren’s profile as a female Bernie-lite could peel off 1/3 of Bernie’s supporters,B. Now, Warren has personally experienced the shameless fraudulence of predicted establishment gratitude:
2- Then a grateful establishment would support Warren and her 1/4 loaf of Bernie-style reforms (mainly of abusive lending-cum-bankruptcy on which Warren is an expert).
1- Warren's MSM friends gave her no cover for her gymnastic avoidance of fully echoing Bernie’s honesty that “middle class taxes will rise BUT much less than premiums, co-pays and deductibles, etc. will fall”;C. Learn-able lessons (for Prof. Warren):
2- Warren received no endorsements from centrist candidates who have withdrawn or (notably Booker and Harris) are deferring their inevitable withdrawals largely in order to hedge bets on who inherits their endorsers;
3- Warren is now targeted by new establishment candidacies from Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick (Patrick’s single most predictable impact is undermining Warren in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and, perhaps unlike Bloomberg, could not possibly have entered the race if many establishment figures had told him “we must honor the deal we made with Warren for her to divide Bernie’s base”).
1- Establishment will never honor any deal that surrenders even 1/4 of its gravy trains.D. Choices: Stay Senator in Massachusetts vs. ride Bernie train to DC?
2- “Time for a Woman” rhetoric out of establishment is 100% fraudulent, unless a particular Woman is 100% loyal to establishment.
1- Statewide office elections in Massachusetts will get much uglier as Warren-endorsing Joe Kennedy pursues his 2020 challenge to Warren-endorsed incumbent U.S. Senator Ed Markey, and then Warren-endorsing Cong. Rep. Ayanna Pressley rushes to grab higher office before her weathervane core becomes more obvious to more voters.
2- On the ideological spectrum in Massachusetts, Warren will be squeezed in crossfire between Left (Markey and Berners), Right (Joe Kennedy and Seth Moulton) and Center (starting with weathervane Ayanna Pressley and Warren-sabotaging vulture-capitalist Deval Patrick).
3- Warren must be wondering how to escape this snake-pit-- not what she signed up for in her late-career first candidacy drafted by virtually all Democratic factions agreeing to leverage Warren’s name recognition to oust popular Republican incumbent Senator Scott Brown.
4- Warren's clearest escape path to DC would be as Secretary of the Treasury, an appointment she could only receive from President Bernie. (BTW, Warren is not an attractive VP running mate for Bernie under the key calculation of strengthening his general election ticket by delivering more states in the electoral college). Serving as Treasury Secretary, besides enabling Warren to refocus on her core competencies, would give her the last laugh against the Obama appointees such as Tim ("foam the runway") Geithner and Larry ("insiders don't criticize insiders") Summers, who have clearly played a role ensuring that no deal with candidate Warren would ever be honored by big money elites.
Labels: 2020 presidential nomination, Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts
7 Comments:
Superb analysis.
I've said before that Warren can best serve the nation in the Senate where her financial knowledge could be put to good use regulating Wall St. If she can't see that, then she is setting herself up for future defeat - and taking the nation with her.
For the good of the country, Elizabeth Warren should stay in the Senate. Her current term, like Bernie’s, runs until 2024.
If she leaves the Senate to become either VP or a cabinet officer, the Republican governor of Massachusetts, whose current term runs until 2022, will appoint a Republican as her replacement.
Vermont also has a Republican governor at the moment, but that’s not a problem for Bernie because Vermont governors are elected for two-year terms. Can you imagine a Republican being elected governor next year with Bernie at the top of the ticket? I can’t!
This kind of implies that Elizabeth is running solely to keep Bernie from winning. Can this be true? Does she think she has a deal with the party for some future payday?
Don't worry, Jack. The party's corporate donors cannot abide either a Bernie or Elizabeth nom, and the guys they're currently rigging the process for (biden and mckinsey pete) would never pick her for veep, so don't worry. She'll still be the senator from MA.
IMO, her recent waffling on a few issues might be her signaling the party's corporate base that she's willing to play ball. Not sure. But she's polling solidly in the top 3 or 4 and she's still raising money, so she'll be there for the duration skimming Bernie voters and doing the party's corporate base a solid. They'll owe her a quid pro quo. Don't know what that might be nor if they'll honor it... but whatever. nothing changes.
It is implied above that establishment dems wanted Warren to win her Senate race.
I can't square that circle.
After the trouble Warren caused them from a position on a powerless commitee, forcing them to constitute a whole new regulatory agency, aimed at their very best friends.
Offering her a Senate run as a consolation prize in lieu of leading CFPB (an agency with at least a limited mandate), from their view, had to be like taking away an arsonists matches, and giving them nuclear weapons instead.
Unless they were dead certain she was going to lose.
They offered Warren the Senate run because they thought she would lose, go back to her classroom and not bother them ever again.
Is it possible they thought she would feel in their debt? Dependent on them? That's a little bit naive for this crowd, especially since Warren knows them.
There’s a difference between the Dem donor class WANTING Elizabeth Warren and tolerating her, particularly when the alternative would be Sanders. Warren has been a weak and wavering progressive when it really mattered - notably when she refused to endorse Sanders in 2016. She has effectively caved on M4A after going for his support with the “I’m with Bernie” debate quote. She has no vision, no imagination and no movement to push fundamental change in a corrupt political system. I still think that Bernie supporters overlap more with Biden than Warren, but her support just went down with her way-too-clever finesse of the M4A “rollout” - an obvious legislative plan for landing on a public option and no more, with all the gaming of the system that makes possible. I would be delighted if her support continues to decline, she is so untrustworthy as a progressive leader. At this point, if Sanders got the nomination (and the DNC will move heaven and earth to see that he doesn’t), I doubt he will offer the SoT slot to Warren at this point. He’s got an impressive cadre of MMTs advising him on fiscal and monetary policy ready to go to war against neoliberalism, oligarchy and austerity. Great article.
There is much purposely negative fear based propaganda against Bernie and Socialism> read "communism" and with that, voters who can only digest red bait and jolly. These voters want the fun of the left, goodwill towards folks political Santa Clause of effective social programs as long as it doesn't interfere with the thrill of the busiest shopping nation on earth under the Xmas lights. That's what Liz is, a door buster offering some amazing deals to get you in the same store.
Post a Comment
<< Home