Warren Blinks on M4A: Did she make a fatal mistake?

[kennetha]

I think Elizabeth Warren may have just forfeited the nomination. By this maneuver, she gives Sanders an opening on her left to say he is the true, no holds barred defender of M4A. And he gives all of the advocates of a public option as much more realistic and affordable and achievable an opening to say, "see I told you so." It's hard to see what she says to such a pincer attack.

Warren has prided herself on being a fighter for the causes she believes in, and she and her campaign team have aggressively pushed her health-care plan, even at the doorstep with voters. One Democrat said that a Warren field organizer knocked on his door recently and during the conversation initiated a defense of her plan and explained why she could win a general election with that position.

All of which makes what Warren did on Friday potentially significant. In short, she said that in her first 100 days she would try to enact legislation that would allow, but not require, Americans to purchase a government health-care plan — in other words, a public option akin but not identical to those proposed by Biden; South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg; Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.); and others.

Warren also said that she would wait until the third year of her presidency to begin to enact a Medicare-for-all plan, a more gradual approach than she had seemingly described in the past and one would allow her to try to build public support before plunging into something as daunting as this would be.

Warren will try to argue that the changes she proposes during the transition period are more ambitious than those of her rivals, in keeping with her pledge to be the candidate of big structural change. But she already has come under criticism for a change in positions and will face many more in the weeks ahead as she tries to explain the evolution of her thinking.

[/div

[SterlingPound]

1. I think she has already seen what it is like for bernie and hillary to fight against

One and a half American political parties

And the Media

so it is only prudent to "go with the flow"

[LakeArenal]

4. Never not once ever did I think of Warren going with the flow.

I am not a fan in anyway so I must have missed that speech.

[SterlingPound]

6. did she just not change her stance on M4a this week or at least concied that some of the dems dont

have the stomach to leave that Big Insurance money alone.

[LakeArenal]

8. I bow to your knowledge.

You say evolved. I think differently.
Like I said I’m not a fan. I leave it at that.

[SterlingPound]

10. back at you

and i agree with you "not a fan"

but of biden in my case.

but the difference between us is

I will vote biden if he gets the Nom

just like i would vote bernie if he gets it


would you for warren or bernie?


#VoteBlueNoMatterWho? right?

[LakeArenal]

12. That's what the primary is about.

Never said I wouldn’t vote for the Dem candidate. Just not a fan of her or several others running.

It’s not a high bar but all of them will make a better President that currently.

[SterlingPound]

13. and the general election after that!

[DownriverDem]

26. Folks

need to focus on who can win enough states to beat trump.

[Thekaspervote]

33. This!!

[SterlingPound]

7. I absolutely agree

2 years also makes the party attack it's own just because of a slow news week


it servers no one but the Media pocketbooks.

[MaryMagdaline]

3. She had a real plan. In thinking that plan through she found

that gradual implementation was required. She decided to be honest with us before the voting takes place. I’ll accept that as qualified with respect to brains AND character.

[BlueMTexpat]

16. I respect the way that

you think.

[MaryMagdaline]

21. Thanks! I like honest people

[dansolo]

29. She didn't think her plan through

If she really thought things through, she wouldn't have been so rigid from the start.

[redstatebluegirl]

5. The country is not as far left as many people in our party believe.

You can't force people to follow you. We need to stay center left if we want to win.

[DownriverDem]

27. Too many folks

don't want to believe that, but I do.

[BlueWI]

46. The first part is true.

That's the rationale for hesitating to propose solutions that match the scale of the problem.

Republicans shoot for the moon and sometimes get it done despite public opinion.

Democrats are often too timid to talk straight about the scale of the problem. Instead, it's Obama, Buttigieg, and Biden lecturing at good Democrats for having the panache to offer structural solutions.

This is the dilemma of being on the left wing of the Democratic Party. There's no viable alternative to unhinged Republicans, but mainstream Democrats have no real interest or appreciation for left of center policy positions that are scaled up to actually address problems structurally.

So yes you're right, many Democrats are not firm in seeking or even oppose fundamental or systemic change. I deeply respect Sanders and Warren for at least broadening the debate over MFA, Wall Street regulation, college access, wealth inequality. The moderates are already trying to quash the debates and lower expectations for fundamental change.

STFU and vote for us is bad politics, but here we go again.

[redstateblues]

9. A while back there was speculation that she would back away from MFA

It would have been a smart move for the General. Not so much for the primary

[Blue_true]

43. Actually, the perfect time for the major tweak is now.

She can fine tune in a general.

[Jewls2]

11. She aligned herself too closely with Sanders and I hope she will be able to separate in the future.

Her strength and I think where she got her momentum was because she is a strong Democratic leaders running in this primary to the left of our other Democratic leaders. When she aligned or attached herself to Sanders, I think that did more damage then the M4A more than anything. Warren is smart and has run a strong campaign. This was a misstep I believe, and I also think that she can correct it. All our candidates have shifted, and I think Warren listening to the people and being fluid here can possibly serve her well.

We will see if she has the stuff to be leader of the pack.

[Thekaspervote]

34. I've been saying that as well!! She should have distanced herself from him long ago

[Jewls2]

35. She did. Warren clearly had put herself in her own space within the Democratic Party.

That allowed the solid Dem base to start looking at her. People who supported Hillary. Those of us that will never move toward Sanders. Then, a couple months ago or less after she started catching and going ahead of Biden, she bonded with Sanders. Was a slap to a lot of us and I get that she did it to gather votes from the Sanders people. She needs to stay squarely in the Democratic camp and totally away from buddy Sanders. Sanders votes aren't going to go to Warren any more than they will to any other Democrat. Warren needs to have faith in that.

This is what one does in a campaign to get votes. Warren is no different. Hillary did it and it did not always serve her well. Biden does. All politicians.

[Blue_true]

44. I agree with your synopsis.

I think that it was a dramatic mistake for her to attach herself so tightly to what Bernie was advocating vis a vis healthcare.

[crazytown]

14. "I think Elizabeth Warren may have just forfeited the nomination"

Really? What a surprise. When did you say she had a realistic chance? The pile-on continues. And all before the next debate.

[bluedovepdx]

15. 3rd year

It's not just that Warren waits until the third year to transition to M4A. She said in her Twitter feed that she would introduce legislation in the third year to make it happen. Therefore the year one public option legislation is not a complete package. It will require two difficult votes to get to M4A. A very risky strategy dependent on Dems having the majority after the midterms. This is all presuming part one would be successful. Seems best to get it all in one bill. The second vote might never happen. Lots to challenge Warren on with her new strategy. I think it's a poor strategy, doomed to fail.

[judeling]

18. The worst of both worlds

I'm not sure it is fatal but was a mistake.
In reality there were not going to be the votes for M4A in the next Senate, But this seems to much like a Harris split the difference back track.

She was going to have to pivot at some point. I just expected her to do it a bit later and more of as an alternative to show more flexibility.

more like: M4A is the best way and I'll continue to fight for it. But in a campaign that may not be enough to convince, so if not here is what I'll do while I continue to educate because health care in this country and needs to be addressed right away.

[floppyboo]

17. I love Warren! Her realism is shocking!

I love Bernie. 3 years. Either plan might take as long. But Elizabeth - your statement is making people feel weak. Not hopeful.

[The Valley Below]

19. I think she made a fatal error. She had a moment to embrace "multiple paths"...

which I expected she would do based on her past, but she blew it by doubling down on MFA.

Now, with her support tanking for that reason alone, she's "shifting?"

Too late. She's alienated too many people who know MFA is political suicide (and a bad next step) and now she will alienate the "true believers."

She loses on both ends.

This was a major blunder.

Too bad.

[Baked Potato]

20. We need to swing to the middle

And gain some equilibrium before moving left.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. I prefer the clarity of her progressive left positions, as opposed to the muddy middle

The Muddy Middle, where triangulation is king/queen, with vague, feel-good, sounds-reasonable platitudes that everyone can project their hopes and dreams upon, but have little chance of being pursued or enacted.

The Muddy Middle is the safe zone for less courageous candidates, who avoid the clarity of most progressive positions, and the risk of criticism that clarity provides.

[Baked Potato]

28. I think a swing too far left won't work at this time

The Middle is not only a safe zone, it is a winning zone. Elizabeth Warren’s clarity on her Signature issue was recently watered down and walked back by her. Was that courageous, or politically expedient?

[dansolo]

31. Feel-good, sounds-reasonable platitudes that everyone can project their hopes and dreams upon

But have little chance of being pursued or enacted.

Wow, this exactly how I would describe M4A.

[beastie boy]

22. I think she deserves praise for it, not criticism. It was a big step back to Earth for her.

Not only did she just adopt a long term moderate incrementalist (and pragmatic) path to achieving M4A, she just aligned herself closer to the mainstream of the Democratic Party and America at large. I don't see this hurting her position in the primaries. However long it might take to get to single payer, building a foundation for public option first makes perfect sense. I am still waiting for her to commit to building on Obamacare rather than repealing it. That would make even more sense.

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. I'm not seeing pragmatic incrementalism by Warren, just more details on implementation.

She's explained how relief will be achieved in her first hundred days, with a path to M4A in her first term. Warren never implied M4A would be implemented on January 20, 2021.

Aside from Sanders, I'm not aware of any healthcare policy timeline from the other candidates, and none of the rest of them are even considering M4A/universal single payer system as the final destination.

That's what you get from the Muddy Middle: vague, reasonable sounding proposals people can project their hopes and dreams on.

[beastie boy]

38. Moving from ACA to public option to M4A is the definition of moderate incrementalism.

And walking back from implementing M4A while skipping intermediary steps, which she advocated just a week ago, to a multi-step process is indeed pragmatic, and commendable. This increases her chances of being elected.

BTW, Sanders doesn't have a timeline either. He has a dream that looks like a timeline, with no chance of being able to stick to it. Timelines are irrelevant anyway when it comes to passing new laws in a bipartisan Congress. In this respect, Biden is the only one whose timeline is rock solid. ACA has already been passed, and he merely wants to build on the existing law. In many respects it will not require any additional legislation and the inevitable delays associated with it.

Oh, and have you heard of "Medicare for all who want it"? That describes a single payer system. And plenty of candidates are considering it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

39. Medicare for all who want it is definitely NOT single payer

As private insurance, and therefore, multiple payers, would still exist.

Single payer by definition means no other payers are allowed.

As far as I know, Biden has no timeline or even commitment to Create a single payer system - Warren does.

[Jewls2]

32. Exactly. I agree. The pragmatic is her strength and her smarts. This is how she gets things done.

Unlike other primary candidates. I can respect this.

[mike_c]

25. It does make me less supportive of her campaign.

It's not a deal breaker as long as she promises to make immediate reforms and to achieve Medicare for all during her first term, but it nonetheless lowers my enthusiasm for Senator Warren.

[dlk]

30. It's still early in the campaign

I wouldn’t write off Warren just yet.

[BeyondGeography]

36. The spin of the anti-Warren hopefuls on this is amusing

She has too much going for her as a candidate to be undone by any one issue, especially health care on which no Democrat in the race has a substantial claim to success. Unless you count Biden/ACA, which even he wants to move on from.

[still_one]

37. No she didn't. These are complicated issues, and those who like to push platitudes of

promises that cannot be kept amount to pandering

Being realistic about something, rather than ignoring reality, is a sign of strength and flexibility, as opposed to stubbornness, and unwillingness to recognize what currently can or cannot be done

[highplainsdem]

41. IMO Warren made a series of mistakes with MFA, as I pointed out in a reply in

another thread yesterday:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=347553

[Aaron Pereira]

42. Warren made her name fighting for principle.

I'm sticking with her but I think she made an error from which there is no return. With this change she's decided to fight other candidates who are better retail politicians on their own ground.

We'll have to see how it plays out now.

[boomer_wv]

45. I don't think she's going to win

There just doesn't seem to be anything pointing up for her at this point.