I mean percentage wise, because a landslide would probably be 55-45. I don’t think 60% is possible unless Trump is still in and severely damaged. And if it’s Bernie I don’t think he has a chance of getting to 60%.
- That didn’t go anywhere.
- Who was the author?
I think a “landslide” next year gives Dems the senate too no?
2022 might be too late as midterms tend to be bad for the party in the WH
Dude, this was an off-the-cuff remark on an internet forum. I am not going pull out the spreadsheets and crunch the numbers. My answer stands at: (what would generally be considered) a landslide
Link fixed. Author is this woman:
Annie Linskey
Washington, D.C.
National political reporter focused on the 2020 presidential campaign
Education: Wellesley College
Annie Linskey is a national political reporter focused on the 2020 presidential campaign for The Washington Post. Before coming to The Post, Linskey was the lead reporter on Democrats for the Boston Globe’s Washington bureau during the 2016 campaign. She reported on the Obama White House for Bloomberg News and BusinessWeek. She also spent a year in Boston covering New England politics for Bloomberg News. Linskey’s first nine years in journalism were spent at the Baltimore Sun, where she covered crime, City Hall and the Maryland State House. She also briefly wrote a sailing column for the paper.
I’m not attacking you, I actually don’t know what a landslide is in this polarized environment.
The Senate map is pretty bad for Dems in 2020. Even a huge win might not be enough to flip the Senate.
True. Sanders will have to convince the people to “elect him” again in 2022.
1 Like
Ya and I suppose we will still have the filler buster and also DINOs like Man Chin
In any event 2022 is too late which makes Liz’s (apparent) plan to implement in 2023 a risky move at best.
M4A polled poorly in the swing states, I think that’s why. She probably realized that was one of the reasons she was tanking hard lately.
I think I’m just gonna check out from the 2020 race until it’s time to go pull the (D) lever in a year. I have zero ability to influence anything and the whole thing is just too depressing.
I can’t find much about her political background, but I think it’s problematic that she worked for Bloomberg. That’s the type of place that would be supremely anti-Warren. There are a lot of ‘biased’ reporters who make it to the big time like the Washington Post, and a ton of Republicans cover Democrats as their main beat (it’s not an indicator of party is the point of that statement). I’m not saying this is what she is, but there’s a big reason why I want to look at journalistic backgrounds when it comes to campaign pieces.
Here was the first hit when I typed in Annie Linskey biased as a search:
On Feb. 2, The Boston Globe published an article written by Annie Linskey ’97 about the influence the Koch Foundation has on college campuses, offering Wellesley College as a case study. According to one of the co-student directors of the Freedom Project, Linskey skewed her words in the article. Linskey describes Wellesley College as “a lefty campus hostile to the conservative and libertarian ideas that the Kochs and their wealthy allies hold dear.” She then claims that the presence of the two students at the annual Koch retreat could be used to “galvanize donors to take matters into their own hands, and try to tilt the collegiate discourse to the right.” While many issues can be taken with this article—biased language, a reductionist narrative and selective reporting— Linskey’s article is simply another entry in the compendium of misogynistic and generalized media whose singular fascination with Wellesley, and other women’s colleges, results in a highly marketable women-against-women narrative to which audiences continue to flock.
I’ll let you decide whether what she wrote is problematic here, but I’m not getting my views on Warren from her.
This is dem 51-49 right?
well, Warren’s total fraud wrt M4A
good to know but you hate to fucking see it
Seems kind of irrelevant from an outcomes point of view, I think it’s been pretty clear for a while that Liz is, well, possibly lukewarm on M4A as an idea and certainly lukewarm about nailing her colors to the mast on it. It feels like weird politics though, just adding detail in where none was required. That said, we are still in the phase where nobody is paying attention. There’s not even any voting for nearly three more months.
That WaPo story isn’t much as far as I’m concerned, it’s very vague on what exactly Warren did for Dow, it cites one person by name criticizing her work, and the campaign called her seeking comment:
Shortly after The Post contacted Warren’s campaign for comment on this story, a lawyer from Warren’s campaign called Goldrich, the advocate for breast implant victims, to ask her to make a positive statement about the settlement.
“They asked, ‘Could I make a comment about whether the deal was fair? Would I say it was a fair deal? Was it fair?’ ” said Goldrich, recalling her conversation. “I wouldn’t say that.”
Which, fine, but the fact that the campaign called to ask if she would say that demonstrates that they did not know the answer. It seems like Warren’s work was confined to technical details of bankruptcy and that she wasn’t really concerned with the question of liability.
Bernie is certainly to be preferred at this point but Warren is still a pretty good candidate.
This has been fairly clear for a while.
I addressed this. You’re delusional if you think we’re going to have a huge fight over a public option and then turn around and immediately have another fight over single payer. It won’t happen and Warren knows it won’t happen.
2 Likes
It was not an opinion piece, the author could have a bias in how she organized the facts but at the end of the day the facts speak for themselves.
She is for M4A and her plan still abolishes private insurance in year 3. This isn’t going to stop attacks against her. It will increase them. Looking at it, I think she is telling people the truth about what would happen. This is how it would work under President Bernie too, btw. There is no chance he goes “welp Joe Manchin and Doug Jones would vote for a public option and not M4A. But I said M4A or nothing, so I guess nothing it is.”
1 Like
I took the default map and switched the tossup states (AZ,FL,NC,PA,WI) to Dem. If that is the expected result of a 51-49 popular vote then IA, OH, GA, or even TX would have to flip, too.
Those facts being that she provided technical assistance to Dow on the question of bankruptcy in unclear circumstances, that the deal Dow reached with affected women was disappointing to at least one advocate, and that the connection between these two things is unclear.