Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good attack line on Warren, maybe not so much Bernie. Why is a politician attacking an opponent so shocking to you?

Why is it a good attack on Warren but not Sanders?

Because she comes off as more "elitist" than Bernie does. It's reflected in their core voting bases; Sanders more working class, Warren DCUM college-educated wives lol.

Wut

Yeah Warren’s background is anything but elitist.

Let’s give the PP the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she or he genuinely doesn’t know?

I'm that PP. Nope she can come across as elitist and it can be effective to cast her as such. Harvard, professor/academia, "I have a plan", "I know better than you", schoolmarmy/didactic speaking tone, government bureaucrat is always the answer. It could be politically effective to cast her as such. It just needs to stick; doesn't need to tell the full story. Biden has trotted out the same attack.

Bernie just comes across as angry old man and I don't see charges of elitism sticking to him as much.

Careful. Words like didactic and bureaucratic make you sound elitist.

Who cares what I sound like? I'm not running for President.

Right, you're just telling everyone else who they should vote for.

We are responding to a troll who is interested in derailing the thread for some reason.

It's always a "troll" with you people

Pete attacked Warren on the grounds that she is elitist. Keep up.

He can attack on those grounds all he wants. His biography is much, much more elitist. Let’s be really honest: the only difference between him and many other ambitious white male politicians is that he’s gay - something he only revealed in his second mayoral campaign. Otherwise he’s a standard-issue white male politician from an elected background.

You must not follow him closely. No way is Pete Buttigieg a standard issue politician. For one thing, he is not a lawyer. Most pols are and ya know what? People hate lawyers for a reason. Second, he has incredible leadership skills. He is an amazing listener and the most inspiring candidate of my lifetime (tied with Obama). Third, he can run circles around all the other candidates. Pete will clean up the Trump mess and preserve our democracy, putting in measures to ensure the Constitution is not trampled over again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good attack line on Warren, maybe not so much Bernie. Why is a politician attacking an opponent so shocking to you?

Why is it a good attack on Warren but not Sanders?

Because she comes off as more "elitist" than Bernie does. It's reflected in their core voting bases; Sanders more working class, Warren DCUM college-educated wives lol.

Wut

Yeah Warren’s background is anything but elitist.

Let’s give the PP the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she or he genuinely doesn’t know?

I'm that PP. Nope she can come across as elitist and it can be effective to cast her as such. Harvard, professor/academia, "I have a plan", "I know better than you", schoolmarmy/didactic speaking tone, government bureaucrat is always the answer. It could be politically effective to cast her as such. It just needs to stick; doesn't need to tell the full story. Biden has trotted out the same attack.

Bernie just comes across as angry old man and I don't see charges of elitism sticking to him as much.

You are right.

It is super duper elitist to grow up basically working class in Oklahoma with a janitor dad and three brothers who served in the military, to marry and drop out of college at 19, to have a baby at 22 and return to a commuter college and almost drop out again due to a lack of affordable childcare, to go to a public law school, to divorce because your spouse doesn’t support your working, to work your way up through academia to teach at Harvard, to be the foremost advocate for bankruptcy reform, and to found the CFPB. You’re right. Very elitist. No ordinary person can relate to any of that.

Did you not read? It's about the efficacy of the attack line, not the reality. In politics, perception is reality. Don't be so sensitive.

I’m not sensitive, friend. I just like facts.

Politics may not be your game then, my friend.

It’s not my game. It’s my job.

Then you should know about how "facts" work in politics. Look at what happened to Kerry vs. Bush. Perception is reality, my dear friend.

Warren is perceived as a warm and smart person who can make arguments crystal clear. People agree with her when they hear her speak. You are just parroting right wing talking point.

Hopefully you realize that perceptions vary across people. I don’t perceive Warren as warm and relatable, at all. She is academically, lawyerly smart, which I find very off-putting (I have my alphabet soup including a Ph.D., I am not against education, I am against lording it over others in a didactic, arrogant way.) I am also amazed, given her supposed understanding of economics (by her own admission she started out as a conservative), did she just forget all of it, or just found that populism sells better in the current environment, so doubled down on it. Surely she understands that a ton of the Dodd Frank provisions, and the CFPB fines and findings only resulted in legitimate bank lending drying up for the people who needed it the most and were forced to resort in larger numbers to payday lending and other, unregulated forms. Those are the kinds of things I have a problem with - Elizabeth Warren preaching social justice and all kinds of freebies to majority of people who don’t have a fundamental understanding of economics and how someone always pays for the freebie, restrictions on the supply of a good in demand will always result in worse distortions if there is unmet demand, and you can’t practically tax wealth (though it would be nice.)

Yes women need to play dumb so they don’t threaten people with their smarts. We know that.

You sound like you’re showing off your knowledge by the way Name dropping Dodd Frank and all. You sound arrogant and slightly didactic in your syntax. Very off-putting.

1. I am a woman.

2. I am not running for office, neither do I aspire to be a politician at any level. And some of the posters here clearly respond to preaching, so why not try that (borrowing from EW’s playbook.)

3. I am not showing off anything. The Dodd Frank act established the CFPB (among a slew of other regulations), which is, to this day, Elizabeth Warren’s crowning achievement. It is quite relevant in a discussion of why I don’t support the candidate. Try to research and understand the candidate you so ardently defend, instead of just blindly lapping up her rhetoric, and attacking those who have bothered to think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked about Ph.D. in what subject and what the dissertation topic was. I didn't get the answer.

Economics.

As for dissertation topic, no go, as that will put you one Google search away from finding out my name. Would you also like my address and the combination to my safe?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Elitist” isn’t just someone with an elite education and/or association with elite institutions (arguably both Pete and Warren fall in this category.)

“Elitist” is someone who lords that over the rest of us, explicitly or usually less so, explaining how they know better than the people they are preaching to what those same people need/want, and how to get it for them. In Warren’s case, for free.

Elitist is largely a label of perception. Someone upthread mentioned GWB - the ultimate elitist - but no one would describe him as such based on what or how he spoke.

This is Warren’s problem, as well as the reason Pete is popular in the Midwest, as well as why Cory Booker is not doing better - Cory comes across as “I know better than you.” Perceptions are reality, in politics and often in life.

Well said, PP. Agree completely.

Every day of the week and on the eighth day too, Senator Amy Klobuchar speaks at listeners' level than the know it all Mayor Buttigieg.

I totally agree, Klobuchar does not come across as elitist, in neither message, nor delivery. However, she does lack charisma, and more so on stage than in personal contact. I watched her at her last debate, and she had strong moments, but also came across as nervous, wooden, and voice slightly faltering. I then watched her 1-on-1 with a (MSNBC?) moderator, and she was a hundred times more relaxed, relatable, and I really liked her. My husband who doesn’t follow the debates at any depth, was walking in and out of the room during the whole debate. He would occasionally stop and ask why her hair was shaking, or make some other “witty comments” (he doesn’t even know the names of anyone other than Biden/Warren/Sanders). The one time he stopped in his tracks was when he heard Pete speaking. He asked who that was, and said he reminded him of Kennedy. Then he termed him the “gay Kennedy” and walked out.... Why am I saying all this? I am sure some communication scholars some day will do analysis of voice timber, timing, volume, word choice, etc. to understand what is behind charisma. Seems Pete has it, for a portion of the electorate, which would explain his elevated polling relative to his experience and his initial name recognition. And why we aren’t falling over Amy, etc.