In a move that &#8220;could enhance her chances of becoming vice president but could also anger liberals in California,&#8221; as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/us/politics/kamala-harris-joe-biden-endorsement.html">The New York Times</a> puts it, former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris appears to be moving closer to making a public endorsement of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Citing &#8220;multiple Democratic officials familiar with her deliberations,&#8221; the Times reported Thursday that Harris is &#8220;weighing an endorsement&#8221; of the man she famously targeted in a racially charged exchange during the first Democratic primary debate.
&#8220;Such a move could lift Mr. Biden’s campaign and perhaps do even more to enhance Ms. Harris’s chances of becoming vice president, but it could also anger her liberal base in California,&#8221; the Times&#8217; Jonathan Martin notes.
The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Times that if she does end up endorsing Biden, or any candidate for that matter, she will likely hold off until the Senate impeachment trial is over.
&#8220;Yet she and Mr. Biden, the former vice president, have remained in contact since she exited the race and had a long conversation in the immediate aftermath of her departure,&#8221; Martin writes.
Democrats &#8220;close&#8221; to Harris told the Times that she is &#8220;mindful&#8221; that her endorsement would impact the remaining female senators in the race, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and is &#8220;uneasy about the prospect of backing a candidate only to see him or her lose California.&#8221;
A spokesman for Harris insisted that Harris has not decided yet about whether she will endorse a candidate. “Senator Harris remains focused on the ongoing impeachment trial of President Trump,” Harris spokesman Chris Harris told the Times. “No decisions have been made about whether she will endorse, which candidate, nor when an endorsement decision will be made.”
Harris&#8217;s consideration of throwing her support behind Biden follows some head-turning comments by the frontrunner a day after she announced that she was ending her campaign in early December. Asked if he would consider her on the ticket, Biden said, “Of course I would.&#8221;
&#8220;Look, Sen. Harris has the capacity to be anything she wants to be,&#8221; said Biden, who&#8217;s enjoyed a healthy lead in the national polls until recent weeks as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has closed the gap. &#8220;I mean it sincerely. I talked to her yesterday. She’s solid, she can be president someday herself, she can be vice president, she could go on to be a Supreme Court justice, she could be attorney general. I mean she has enormous capability.&#8221;
As The Daily Wire&#8217;s Emily Zanotti <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/joe-biden-says-hes-considering-kamala-harris-as-a-running-mate">noted</a> at the time, Biden particularly benefited from Harris’ departure. &#8220;With Harris gone, Biden can consolidate support among minority voters, increasing his margin of victory in places like South Carolina and Nevada, giving him a commanding lead in places he’s already expected to win,&#8221; Zanotti wrote.
While Biden and Sanders contend for the top spot, the woman with the best shot at the nomination, Warren, has steadily lost ground after a brief bump in the polls in early fall.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-father-asks-elizabeth-warren-if-hes-going-to-get-his-money-back-after-paying-for-daughters-education">WATCH: Father Asks Elizabeth Warren If He’s Going To Get His Money Back After Paying For Daughter’s Education</a>
&nbsp;

Kamala Harris

NYT: Kamala Harris Considers Major Move, Backing Biden; Follows Biden’s VP Comments

Bernie Sanders

Elizabeth Warren

Impeachment

Joe Biden

In a video that&#8217;s stirred up some attention online, a self-described father of a college graduate asks Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA), whose platform includes &#8220;a plan to cancel student loan debt,&#8221; if he can get his money back after &#8220;working a double shift&#8221; and dutifully saving so he could pay for his daughter&#8217;s college education. Her answer inspires an exasperated response from the man.
In a video highlighted over at <a href="https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/01/22/can-i-have-my-money-back-father-confronts-elizabeth-warren-over-student-loan-forgiveness/">Twitchy,</a> the father approaches Warren to ask her about her student loan cancellation plan.
&#8220;My daughter&#8217;s getting out of school, I saved all my money, so she doesn&#8217;t have any student debt,&#8221; the man says. &#8220;Am I going to get my money back?&#8221;
&#8220;Of course not,&#8221; the Massachusetts senator responds.
&#8220;So, we end up paying for people who didn&#8217;t save any money, then those who did the right thing get screwed,&#8221; the father says.
He goes on to describe the actions of his &#8220;buddy,&#8221; who he says makes more money than him but didn&#8217;t use his money responsibly. Meanwhile he worked a &#8220;double shift&#8221; and carefully put money away in order to make sure his daughter wasn&#8217;t burdened with debt.
&#8220;So, you&#8217;re laughing,&#8221; the man says in response to Warren&#8217;s reaction. &#8220;Yes, that&#8217;s exactly what you&#8217;re doing,&#8221; he says after the senator appears to protest. &#8220;We did the right thing — and we get screwed,&#8221; the frustrated father says before walking away.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
A Father confronts <a href="https://twitter.com/SenWarren?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenWarren</a>
Father : My daughter is in school, I saved all my money just to pay student loans Can I have my money back? 
Warren: of course not 
Father: so you want to help those who don&#39;t save any money and the ones that do the right thing get screwed? <a href="https://t.co/EY8M57tj9F">pic.twitter.com/EY8M57tj9F</a>
&mdash; JiveBunny (@JiveBunnyMuzik) <a href="https://twitter.com/JiveBunnyMuzik/status/1219698105622368257?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On her official campaign website, Warren details her &#8220;<a href="https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/student-loan-debt-day-one">plan to cancel student loan debt on day one of my presidency</a>&#8221; which includes giving debt relief to &#8220;42 million Americans&#8221;, addressing &#8220;racial disparities&#8221; in student debt, and &#8220;making public college and technical school tuition-free.&#8221; A few excerpts below (formatting adjusted):
<blockquote>
&#8230;I will start to use existing laws on day one of my presidency to implement my student loan debt cancellation plan that offers relief to 42 million Americans &#8212; in addition to using all available tools to address racial disparities in higher education, crack down on for-profit institutions, and eliminate predatory lending.  &#8230; Here’s how it will work:
<ul>
<li>
I’ll direct the Secretary of Education to use their authority to begin to compromise and modify federal student loans consistent with my plan to cancel up to $50,000 in debt for 95% of student loan borrowers (about 42 million people).
</li>
<li>
I’ll also direct the Secretary of Education to use every existing authority available to rein in the for-profit college industry, crack down on predatory student lending, and combat the racial disparities in our higher education system. &#8230;
</li>
</ul>
I’ll ensure that borrowers get the relief they deserve by simplifying the application processes, doing affirmative outreach to borrowers to encourage them to apply, clearing out backlogged applications, using available data to match borrowers with their discharge options, automatically cancelling debts, discharging loans for groups instead of requiring individuals applications, and fixing any adverse effects of the debt on borrowers’ credit history. These programs will allow for additional relief &#8212; beyond the broad debt cancellation available to 42 million borrowers &#8212; for as many as 1.75 million borrowers.
Further, my administration will roll back harmful changes by the Trump administration to the rules that govern these programs and implement new rules to ensure that borrowers get the greatest opportunity to cancel their debts allowable under the law. &#8230;
In addition to canceling existing student debt, we must take steps to improve college affordability and curb the growth of student loan debt in the future. I have already called for new laws making public college and technical school tuition-free, supporting HBCUs and Minority-Serving Institutions and working to close the racial gaps in access to higher education and college completion, and ending for-profit colleges’ access to federal student aid.
</blockquote>

WATCH: Father Asks Elizabeth Warren If He’s Going To Get His Money Back After Paying For Daughter’s Education

Education

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is a liar.
The Massachusetts Democrat lied about being an American Indian, lied when she promised to serve her full Senate term if reelected in 2018, lied when she said her children attended public schools, lied when she said her father worked as a janitor, lied when she said she was fired for being “visibly pregnant.”
But now Warren says she thinks it’s “disqualifying” if a presidential candidate doesn’t tell the truth.
On the campaign trail on Sunday, Warren was asked by CBS News reporter Zak Hudak: “Is it disqualifying for a presidential candidate to lie to the American public about anything?”
“Uh, I would think that it, you know, how could the American people want someone who lies to them?” Warren stuttered, sealing almost inaudibly. “Um, I think that, that we just do our best out there every day, and I hope that’s what happens with everyone.”
She then quickly turned away from Hudak and took a question from a friendlier reporter.
Warren, who has been endorsed by The New York Times as one of the two best candidates running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, has a very long history of telling flat-out, bald-faced lies.
Shortly before Warren entered the presidential race, she decided to get a DNA test to prove her longtime claim that she is American Indian. The test results were a disaster, showing she may have had an Indian ancestor — six to 10 generations ago. That means she’s anywhere from 1/64 to 1/1,024 American Indian.
To put those terms into percentages, that means she’s between 1.562% and .0924%. So that means she’s anywhere from 98.4% to 99.9% white. That’s white.
Warren benefited greatly from her longtime claim.
She listed herself as Native American in the Association of American Law School Directory, and according to The Boston Globe, she “had her ethnicity changed from white to Native American at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she taught from 1987 to 1995, and at Harvard University Law School, where she was a tenured faculty member starting in 1995.”
Some critics say she got her job at Harvard by claiming to be American Indian.
“Harvard Law School in the 1990s touted Warren, then a professor in Cambridge, as being Native American,’” CNN reported in November 2018. “They singled her out, Warren later acknowledged, because she had listed herself as a minority in an Association of American Law Schools directory.”
For the record, in just two years, 2010 and 2011, Warren — who taught one class at the prestigious Ivy League school — pulled in $429,981.
So much for her claim to American Indian heritage.
And Warren’s been caught in other lies as well. Last October, during a town hall in Nevada, she told the crowd she lost her teaching job in the early 1970s because she was “visibly pregnant.”
“By the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant, and the principal did what principals did in those days — wish me luck and hire someone else for the job,” she told a crowd in Carson City.
But a YouTube clip posted in January 2008 shows Warren giving a completely different reason for why she left that school. Jeryl Bier, who pointed out her conflicting comments in a post on The Script, noted that the interview was conducted in 2007 at the University of California, Berkeley as part of a series called “Conversations with History.”
“My first year post-graduation, I worked — it was in a public school system but I worked with the children with disabilities. And I did that for a year, and then that summer I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an ‘emergency certificate,’” Warren told interviewer Harry Kreisler.
So much for her #MeToo moment.
Warren was also outed lying about sending her children to public school. In November, she told a school-choice activist in Atlanta that her children didn’t go to private schools, but the next day her campaign told a different story.
That admission came after a yearbook obtained by The Washington Free Beacon showed that during the 1986-1987 school year, Warren’s son Alex attended Kirby Hall, which currently charges nearly $18,000 per year for tuition.
Trying to bolster her fake working-class bona fides in her phony populist campaign, the multi-millionaire who lives in a $2.5 million house claimed her father worked as a “janitor.” That made her brother “furious.” “My dad was never a janitor,” brother David Herring told The Boston Globe.
So Warren is a pathological — and prolific — liar. And she knows it.
*Joseph Curl ran the Drudge Report from 2010 to 2014 and covered the White House for a dozen years. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter at @JosephCurl. A version of this article appeared previously in The Washington Times.

Presidential Candidate Elizabeth Warren Holds Town Hall In Des Moines

CURL: Pathological Liar Elizabeth Warren Suddenly Thinks Presidential Candidates Should Tell The Truth

As President Trump recently pointed out, there&#8217;s a &#8220;feud brewing&#8221; between radical progressive Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — and members of the media don&#8217;t appear to be trying very hard to conceal their bias in the internecine quarrel.
&#8220;Bernie Sander’s volunteers are trashing Elizabeth &#8216;Pocahontas&#8217; Warren,&#8221; Trump tweeted last week. &#8220;Everybody knows her campaign is dead and want her potential voters. Mini Mike B is also trying, but getting tiny crowds which are all leaving fast. Elizabeth is very angry at Bernie. Do I see a feud brewing?&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Bernie Sander’s volunteers are trashing Elizabeth “Pocahontus” Warren. Everybody knows her campaign is dead and want her potential voters. Mini Mike B is also trying, but getting tiny crowds which are all leaving fast. Elizabeth is very angry at Bernie. Do I see a feud brewing?
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1216743062543663105?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 13, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
A feud is indeed &#8220;brewing&#8221; — and now boiling over — and many on the left, including CNN debate moderators and twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, are jumping in to take shots at Sanders.
Following a glaring example of CNN making painfully clear to its viewers during a primary debate that they believe Warren over Sanders regarding his alleged &#8220;sexist&#8221; comments about the 2020 election, NBC News&#8217; &#8220;THINK&#8221; section got in on the trashing Bernie action, publishing a piece that compares Sanders&#8217; supporters to the worst of the worst, at least according to mainstream media standards.
In the piece, published over the weekend, NBC News THINK contributor Kurt Bardella gave Warren an assist by taking full aim at &#8220;(some) supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders,&#8221; who, Bardella suggests, are racist, sexist bullies almost indistinguishable in their &#8220;tone and tactics&#8221; from the scum of the earth — that&#8217;s right, Trump supporters &#8230;
<blockquote>
On the morning after Tuesday’s Democratic presidential debate, the#NeverWarren hashtag starting trending as (some) supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders went on the attack (and the media amplified those attacks). The anti-Sen. Elizabeth Warren missives took many forms, including a small snake emojis mob. But the aggressive tenor was familiar. &#8230;
The attacks against Warren come from the same corners of social media that disparage Democrats (like myself) as being “puppets,” “centrist,” “anti-Semitic, and “ageist” for having the audacity to question or scrutinize their chosen leader. People of color and women who dare to disagree with Sanders’ political assertions have often borne the brunt of this abuse.
This hyper-vocal faction of Sanders supporters — colloquially known as “Bernie Bros” — never went away after the 2016 presidential election. In my personal experience, these bros are almost overwhelmingly white men. And they share, like Trump&#8217;s ardent supporters, a desire to “put me in my place.” Disturbingly, there are times where you really can’t distinguish between the tone and tactics of Trump’s #MAGA nation and Sanders’ “Bros.”
</blockquote>
Clinton heaped on more fuel to the already party unity-damaging fire in an interview with <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/hillary-clinton-full-a-fiery-new-documentary-trump-regrets-harsh-words-bernie-1271551">The Hollywood Reporter</a> published Tuesday. Asked if she stood by her statements trashing Sanders in the new Hulu docuseries &#8220;Hillary,&#8221; the former Secretary of State doubled down.
&#8220;In the doc, you’re brutally honest on Sanders: ‘He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it,’&#8221; THR <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hillary-attacks-bernie-no-one-likes-him-or-his-prominent-supporters-has-culture-problem">asked</a> Clinton. &#8220;That assessment still hold?&#8221;
&#8220;Yes, it does,&#8221; said Clinton.
Like Bardella, Clinton also took aim at Sanders&#8217; supporters. &#8220;[I]t’s not only him, it’s the culture around him,&#8221; she said. &#8220;It’s his leadership team. It’s his prominent supporters. It’s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women.&#8221;
&#8220;And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it,&#8221; Clinton added. &#8220;And I don&#8217;t think we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it, but you either don&#8217;t know what your campaign and supporters are doing or you&#8217;re just giving them a wink and you want them to go after Kamala [Harris] or after Elizabeth [Warren]. I think that that&#8217;s a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions.&#8221;
Sanders has since responded by taking the high road. “My focus today is on a monumental moment in American history: The impeachment trial of Donald Trump,” said Bernie in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bernie-sanders-responds-to-hillary-clintons-attack-while-his-supporters-trash-her">statement</a> Tuesday. “Together, we are going to go forward and defeat the most dangerous president in American history.”

NBC News ‘THINK’ Trashes Bernie Supporters: Just Like Trump Fans In This ‘Ugly Tactic’

Donald Trump

Media Bias

As we approach the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, former Vice President Joe Biden continues to hold a sizable lead over the rest of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary field in national polling. <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">Biden currently stands 8.0% above second-place Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)</a> in the average of recent national polling. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg round out the top five in most recent national polling. Sanders&#8217; lead over third-place Warren is now substantial: 5.6%.
Buttigieg and Sanders have both been surging in the crucial early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire over the past couple of months, although Buttigieg&#8217;s moment may have finally passed. Sanders can always reliably count on the fact that his supporters are the most enthusiastic and loyal of any candidate&#8217;s in this 2020 Democratic presidential primary field. The septuagenarian socialist Sanders is likely the candidate with the most momentum at the present moment, although Biden himself has slowly crept back up in both the Iowa and New Hampshire statewide polling averages. Alas, never count out Joe Biden.
Warren emerged over the latter parts of the summer as a national frontrunner, but her moment has passed — she will all but assuredly need a surprise victory in Iowa or New Hampshire to resuscitate her campaign&#8217;s fading hopes. Biden&#8217;s consistent polling has remained relatively unaffected by the onset of the Ukraine scandal and subsequent impeachment imbroglio — perhaps to the surprise of many pundits who thought he would ultimately have to be dumped by Democrats as a sacrificial lamb of sorts.
At this point, pundits should be hard-pressed to predict anyone other than Biden as the likely Democratic presidential nominee — at least until we get results from Iowa and New Hampshire. But Bernie Sanders, with his rabid base of Soviet Union-nostalgic radicals, has now positioned himself as a very serious contender. The uniquely wealthy Bloomberg is also a candidate to still keep a close eye upon, despite the Democratic National Committee&#8217;s recurring outside donation debate criterion that portends to box out the self-funding Bloomberg from the debate stage for the foreseeable future.
Electoral prediction market website <a href="https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination">PredictIt</a> now has Biden as its frontrunner, although Sanders is in second by a wide margin. After that large gap, Bloomberg, Warren, and Buttigieg then all distantly follow. The Warren campaign collapse from its erstwhile frontrunner perch, with now even Bloomberg leading her in the electoral betting market, is truly something to behold.
The <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics</a> polling average for 1/06/20 – 1/16/20 shows Biden with an average national polling lead of 8.0%.
A recent <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b4747822-277e-4d2c-b896-eb4e04672c09">SurveyUSA</a> national poll conducted from 1/14/20 – 1/16/20 showed Biden, at 32%, with an 11-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up seven points on Warren, and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ueji3eha6i/econTabReport.pdf">Economist/YouGov</a> national poll conducted from 1/11/20 – 1/14/20 showed Biden, at 27%, with a seven-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up one point on Warren, and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/478208-sanders-hits-highest-support-since-august">Hill/HarrisX</a> national poll conducted from 1/13/20 – 1/14/20 showed Biden, at 29%, with a 10-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up eight points on Warren, and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3653">Quinnipiac</a> national poll conducted from 1/08/20 – 1/12/20 showed Biden, at 25%, with a six-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up three points on Warren, and no one else polled in double digits.
A recent <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/">Morning Consult</a> national poll conducted from 1/06/20 – 1/12/20 showed Biden, at 29%, with a six-point lead over Sanders. Sanders was up nine points on Warren, and no one else polled in double digits.
Will Biden remain the frontrunner? Can Sanders sustain his early state surge? Stay tuned.
Latest Aggregate Early State-By-State Polling Data
Iowa: Biden 21.0%, Sanders 17.3%, Warren 16.7%, Buttigieg 16.3%, Klobuchar 8.3%
New Hampshire: Sanders 19.8%, Biden 18.5%, Buttigieg 14.3%, Warren 14.3%, Klobuchar 5.8%
Nevada: Biden 25.0%, Sanders 19.3%, Warren 14.7%, Buttigieg 7.7%, Steyer 7.3%
South Carolina: Biden 32.0%, Sanders 15.0%, Warren 14.0%, Steyer 8.3%, Buttigieg 6.3%
This article has been updated to reflect the most recent survey data.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate In Detroit Over Two Nights

Who Will Win The Democratic Primary? The Latest On 2020 Presidential Primary Polling.

2020 Election

Democratic Party

Pete Buttigieg

The following is satirical.
The New York Times, a former newspaper, has endorsed two female Democrats for president. In an endorsement entitled, “Deedlee-dee- dee-dee Two Ladies,” the Times endorsed both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, saying it was simply too much newspaper for one woman and didn’t want to restrict its passions to conform to outmoded ideas of fidelity.
The endorsement, written by Times Editor-in-Chief Blithering Prevarication the Third, says in part, “It’s not that we don’t love you, Amy, but a newspaper has needs, and there are times when it’s just natural for us to yearn for a certain amount of variety.  Sometimes, even when we’re with you, the thought of Elizabeth comes into our heads all unbidden and we ask ourselves: Why should we fight our desires like some uptight backwoods yokel when we’re all sophisticated adults who understand that these sorts of things happen even among the happiest couples?”
Mr. Third continued, “In the end, we found it impossible to decide between Amy’s Mean Mommy appeal that always makes us wish she would send us to our room, and Elizabeth’s Naughty Native American Librarian come-on that makes it hard to tell the difference between Cupid’s arrow and an Apache weapon of war.”
The Times conjectured that the two women probably had political differences as well. They called Klobuchar the realist model and Warren the radical model and wrote, “We just can’t decide whether we want to be seduced into socialist slavery like someone following the scent of an enticing perfume and the mesmerizing clockwork of a lady’s walk, or whether we want to be dragged off to pure Communism like that time we visited a dungeon and were hung upside down by leather straps and thrashed deliciously — but perhaps that’s too much information.”
Though some journalistic observers scorned the historic double endorsement, the Times editorial board defended their decision in a statement saying, “We’re dithering idiots who know even less about policy than we do about American history, so that explains it.”
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/warren-refuses-to-answer-any-more-questions-about-sanders-being-sexist-after-earlier-claim-backfires">Warren Refuses To Answer Any More Questions About Sanders Being Sexist After Earlier Claim Backfires</a>

Heart Shape

New York Times Says It’s Too Much Newspaper For Just One Woman [Satire]

Amy Klobuchar

New York Times

Satire

Late Sunday night, the New York Times editorial board <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/19/opinion/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-nytimes-endorsement.html">announced that they were endorsing both</a> Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination (and, by default, for president).
The split endorsement made sense to The New York Times, it seems. In these trying times, they claimed, solid leadership is necessary, even if neither endorsed candidate has a radical leadership vision or demonstrated leadership skills (Klobuchar does rule her staff with an iron fist, though &#8230; reportedly).
&#8220;On the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation,&#8221; the editorial board wrote. &#8220;Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible. Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced.&#8221;
&#8220;Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it,&#8221; they said. &#8220;That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.&#8221;
Klobuchar has only barely managed to clear 5% in enough polls to end up on the debate stage. Warren has been on a steady trajectory downward since November, after her &#8220;vision&#8221; for Medicare for All faltered because she was asked to provide details of the plan. Neither seem to fit into either the &#8220;radical&#8221; or &#8220;realist&#8221; models &#8212; Warren certainly isn&#8217;t dynamic and legitimately progressive like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and neither is considered a real threat to President Donald Trump in battleground states like former Vice President Joe Biden &#8212; but the Times seemed pleased, if only because they managed to endorse two women for the nation&#8217;s highest office.
&#8220;May the best woman win,&#8221; one member of the team wrote on Twitter.
If the Times was self-satisfied with their decision, though, they were the only ones. The decision was thrashed on social media by conservatives and stalwart leftists alike.
&#8220;What incredible cowardice,&#8221; wrote conservative commentator Noah Rothman.
&#8220;Gonna be hilarious when Warren leaks to CNN tomorrow that Amy Klobuchar told her a woman couldn’t beat Trump,&#8221; joked Stephen Miller.
Politico&#8217;s chief political correspondent, Tim Alberta, wasn&#8217;t as nice. &#8220;I mean, newspaper endorsements are silly and self-important to begin with,&#8221; he said. &#8220;But this Times bit&#8230; good grief. Have these people zero self-awareness?&#8221;
&#8220;So&#8230;the NY Times has endorsed Amy Klobuchar AND Elizabeth Warren for the Democratic presidential primary? They do know only one them can win, right?&#8221; noted NPR&#8217;s Eric Deddens.
Even progressives took issue with the endorsement, blaming the Times for stepping on its own foot.
&#8220;I had heard a rumor about three hours ago that NYT was planning to endorse both Warren and Klobuchar, and the agreement between my friend and me was: That sounds exactly on-brand for NYT. Not wanting to be offensive and yet likely offending everyone,&#8221; said Human Rights Coaliton communications director and trans-rights activist Charlotte Clymer &#8212; certainly not one known to have any conservative opinions.
Warren, at least was happy, tweeting that, &#8216;I guess <a class="PrettyLink profile customisable h-card" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/amyklobuchar" data-mentioned-user-id="33537967" data-scribe="element:mention">@AmyKlobuchar</a> and I are now both undefeated in elections and undefeated in New York Times endorsements!&#8221;
Not to be the bearer of bad news, but The New York Times routinely endorses Democrats for the presidential election. They don&#8217;t always win.
<div class="TweetInfo">
<div class="TweetInfo-like"></div>
</div>

Warren.

‘Incredible Cowardice:’ New York Times Thrashed For Endorsing Both Warren And Klobuchar For President

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) no longer wants to talk about her own allegations that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), her Democratic primary rival, is sexist after her claims last week backfired.
A reporter asked Warren in Iowa about Sanders’ recent comments to NHPR about whether gender is an obstacle for female politicians. Sanders said: “Look, I, th- the answer is yes. But I think everybody has their own sets of problems. I’m 78 years of age. That’s a problem.”
Warren refused to respond to Sanders statement, saying: “I have no further comment on this. I have no further comment on this. I have been friends with Bernie for a long time. We worked together on many, many issues and I’ve said all I’m going to say on this.”
Another reporter pointed out that Warren and Sanders’ camps have been talking about this issue for the past week, to which Warren responded again by saying she had nothing more to say on the issue.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Warren responds: “I have no further comment on this. I have no further comment on this&#8230;I have been friends with Bernie for a long time. <a href="https://t.co/LxrJPVaLXG">https://t.co/LxrJPVaLXG</a> <a href="https://t.co/9pKVV7M2s4">pic.twitter.com/9pKVV7M2s4</a>
&mdash; Alex Thompson (@AlxThomp) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1218971703470063617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2020</a></blockquote>
 <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
That’s a definite change from last week, when Warren accused Sanders of sexism after CNN reported Sanders told Warren during a meeting in December 2018 that a woman couldn’t be president. Political observers were quick to suggest Warren’s camps started the rumor themselves for political gain over Sanders, whose policies are similar to Warren’s.
Warren appears to be trying to fill some non-existent void between Sanders and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She has tacked on to numerous proposals from Sanders, but rarely comes up with her own that he then follows.
The problem for Warren’s claim last week about Sanders is that Sanders vehemently denied saying it and Warren has a history of lying and using her gender (and alleged heritage) for personal gain. Sanders does not. That’s not to say Sanders is always honest, but he does sincerely believe his claims about socialism and health care and college (even if he is wildly wrong).
Nothing about Sanders’ past suggest he’s so sexist as to suggest to Warren’s face that a woman couldn’t be president. Based on what he said to NHPR, it’s more likely he said something like gender might be an issue (making a comment that he believes America is sexist), that Warren turned around to use against him.
The issue came up during last week’s Democratic debate. After the debate, Warren went up to Sanders and told him, “I think you called me a liar on national TV,” as if she hadn’t done the same.
Sanders replied to her by saying, “What?”
Warren repeated her claim.
“No, let’s not do it right now,” Sanders responded. “You want to have that discussion, we’ll have that discussion.”
Warren concluded the conversation by saying, “Anytime.”
The comments <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-cnn-releases-audio-of-post-debate-confrontation-between-warren-sanders">were caught</a> by CNN audio and video, leading writer Aaron Mate to speculate that it was all coordinated by the Warren campaign.
“CNN just aired the post-debate Sanders-Warren exchange. Both accuse the other of calling the other a liar. Warren intitiated [sic]. The fact that this was done on stage w/ camera &amp; audio, and the fact that Warren’s camp started this whole thing, makes me wonder if they staged this too,” he tweeted.
Warren&#8217;s desire to avoid the conversation comes after former Obama official Stephen Cobb <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-official-warren-sanders-spat-didnt-play-out-well-for-either-of-them-biden-could-benefit">suggested</a> the spat didn&#8217;t play &#8220;out well for either of them&#8221; and only helped their rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

Warren Refuses To Answer Any More Questions About Sanders Being Sexist After Earlier Claim Backfires

Sexism

The New York Times editorial board announced on Sunday that it was endorsing two Democratic presidential candidates for the party&#8217;s nomination – Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) – a decision that was quickly mocked online by critics.
&#8220;In a break with convention, the editorial board has chosen to endorse two separate Democratic candidates for president,&#8221; the Times leftist editorial board wrote. &#8220;American voters must choose between three sharply divergent visions of the future.&#8221;
The Times immediately demonized everything that President Donald Trump has accomplished as racist and done out of &#8220;the veneration of a mythological past.&#8221;
The Times correctly noted that almost any one of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates would be &#8220;the most&#8221; far-left &#8220;president in decades on issues like health care, the economy, and government’s allocations of resources.&#8221;
The Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/19/opinion/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-nytimes-endorsement.html">wrote</a>:
<blockquote>There are legitimate questions about whether our democratic system is fundamentally broken. Our elections are getting less free and fair, Congress and the courts are increasingly partisan, foreign nations are flooding society with misinformation, a deluge of money flows through our politics. And the economic mobility that made the American dream possible is vanishing.
Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it.
That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.</blockquote>
The Times joined the rest of the media in trying to put an end to Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders&#8217; campaign, highlighting problems with his age, health, and style of politics. The Times wrote:
<blockquote>Mr. Sanders would be 79 when he assumed office, and after an October heart attack, his health is a serious concern. Then, there’s how Mr. Sanders approaches politics. He boasts that compromise is anathema to him. Only his prescriptions can be the right ones, even though most are overly rigid, untested and divisive. He promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda. Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.
Good news, then, that Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left.
Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller. &#8230;</blockquote>
The reaction to the Times endorsements appeared to be most negative, including from those on the political Left.
Varshini Prakash, executive director of the far-left Sunrise Movement, responded mockingly: &#8220;oh ya totally this makes sense&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
oh ya totally this makes sense <a href="https://t.co/HYGIk8TbRY">https://t.co/HYGIk8TbRY</a>
— Varshini Prakash (@VarshPrakash) <a href="https://twitter.com/VarshPrakash/status/1219110233303330817?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
Left-wing activist Cameron Kasky wrote: &#8220;Which demographic is smaller: The amount of people who care about the NYT editorial board’s endorsement or the amount of people who saw &#8216;Dolittle&#8217; this weekend?&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Which demographic is smaller:
The amount of people who care about the NYT editorial board’s endorsement or the amount of people who saw “Dolittle” this weekend? <a href="https://t.co/nP0cwEJnvi">https://t.co/nP0cwEJnvi</a>
&mdash; Cam Kasky (@cameron_kasky) <a href="https://twitter.com/cameron_kasky/status/1219109110504984577?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Commentary Editor Abe Greenwald wrote: &#8220;The fear of being definitive, of saying no to one thing and yes to another, is one of the defining pathologies of the age.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The fear of being definitive, of saying no to one thing and yes to another, is one of the defining pathologies of the age. <a href="https://t.co/nrpNZTPJWb">https://t.co/nrpNZTPJWb</a>
&mdash; Abe Greenwald (@AbeGreenwald) <a href="https://twitter.com/AbeGreenwald/status/1219112621565259776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Radio host John Batchelor wrote: &#8220;&#8216;Why, sometimes I&#8217;ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.&#8217; Lewis Carroll&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“Why, sometimes I&#39;ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” Lewis Carroll <a href="https://t.co/QHOAqJYQlV">https://t.co/QHOAqJYQlV</a>
&mdash; John Batchelor (@batchelorshow) <a href="https://twitter.com/batchelorshow/status/1219108412061077512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Chris Martin Palmer wrote: &#8220;Literally seconds from cancelling my subscription.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Literally seconds from cancelling my subscription. <a href="https://t.co/rgrEnruAFr">https://t.co/rgrEnruAFr</a>
&mdash; Chris Martin Palmer (@ChrisPalmerNBA) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChrisPalmerNBA/status/1219116155865948162?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Carol Roth wrote: &#8220;This is so patronizing and cringey&#8230; they can’t even pick one. &#8216;Oh, let’s be progressive and pick a woman! Well, we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. Let’s pick both, they won’t mind&#8230;'&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This is so patronizing and cringey&#8230; they can’t even pick one. “Oh, let’s be progressive and pick a woman! Well, we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. Let’s pick both, they won’t mind&#8230;” <a href="https://t.co/l6xxtPUCmD">https://t.co/l6xxtPUCmD</a>
&mdash; Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) <a href="https://twitter.com/caroljsroth/status/1219111096466001920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 20, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This is a breaking news story, refresh the page for updates.

Democrats

New York Times Makes Odd Endorsement In Democratic Presidential Primary, Gets Mocked

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders&#8217; (I-VT) campaign has reportedly been researching the possibility of offering fellow contender Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) two top Cabinet positions if Sanders wins the nomination and the general election against President Donald Trump.
Multiple sources within the Sanders campaign <a href="https://theintercept.com/2020/01/17/sanders-warren-vice-president-treasury-secretary/">told</a> The Intercept, a hard-left publication that is plugged in to the far-left of the Democratic Party, that Sanders&#8217; campaign has been researching if they legally can make Warren vice president and treasury secretary at the same time.
The Intercept reported:
<blockquote>The answer is yes: There is nothing in the Constitution that bars the vice president from also serving as treasury secretary. Sanders has made no final decisions on a potential running mate or cabinet officers, and did not direct the inquiry, nor was he involved in it, as he considers such questions premature and presumptuous. &#8230; The research into the question of Warren’s dual eligibility reflects the political affinity that has long existed between the two — an affinity that was dealt a setback over the past week, as the pair clashed over the contents of a year-old private conversation. The sources were not authorized to speak publicly about internal deliberations.</blockquote>
The report says that Sanders was a big supporter of Warren&#8217;s efforts in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been described as the most unaccountable governmental agency in the U.S. federal government.
The Daily Caller News Foundation <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/07/exclusive-gravy-train-flows-wide-and-deep-at-elizabeth-warrens-consumer-agency/">reported</a> in February 2017 that numerous government employees at the CFPB were making even more money than the top leaders in the U.S. Senate:
<ul>
<li>
<blockquote>The Senate majority and minority leaders are paid $193,000 annually. Two hundred and one CFPB employees outdo Sens. Mitch McConnell and Charles Schumer in pay.</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>Speaker of the House Paul Ryan of Wisconsin receives $223,000 per year, but that’s less than what 54 CFPB employees are paid.</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>Another 170 CFPB employees earn more than the secretaries of defense and state, the attorney general and the director of national intelligence. All cabinet salaries are capped at $199,700, but not at the bureau. Thirty-nine CFPB employees earn more than the $230,000 paid to Vice President Mike Pence.</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>A total of 198 CFPB employees also earn more than their ultimate boss, Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellin, who is paid $201,700.</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>Overall, 449 CFPB employees get at least $100,000 per year and 228 CFPB are paid more than $200,000, according to publicly available 2016 data.</blockquote>
</li>
</ul>
The Intercept further noted that the Sanders campaign’s interest in the dual position for Warren comes after their recent fight over an alleged conversation from December 2018 in which Warren claims that Sanders told her that a woman could not be elected president.
&#8220;Ideologically, Sanders and Warren are largely aligned when it comes to Wall Street, though Warren has concentrated more attention on bankers, meaning the two different skill sets could complement each other in the same administration,&#8221; The Intercept added. &#8220;Warren’s is the type of oversight and policymaking Sanders could envision leading from the perch at the Treasury Department, sources said, with the added power of being vice president, as well. Though no serious discussions have begun about a cabinet or running mate, the campaign wanted to know whether such a scenario was constitutionally permissible.&#8221;

Bernie Warren

Sanders’ Campaign Considering Warren For 2 Top Cabinet Positions If He Wins, Report Suggests

On Friday, <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b4747822-277e-4d2c-b896-eb4e04672c09">SurveyUSA</a> released a new national Democratic primary poll, which was conducted between January 14 &#8211; 16 on 5,000 adults, 4,069 of whom “are registered voters,” with “1,086 likely to vote in a Democratic Primary.”
The survey asked: “Where you live, if there were a Democratic primary today, which Democrat would you vote for to be the Democratic Party&#8217;s nominee for President of the United States?”
In first place is former Vice President Joe Biden with 32%. In a distant second place is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) with 21%, and in third place is Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) with 14%.
In fourth and fifth place are Mayor Pete Buttigieg and billionaire Michael Bloomberg, each with 9% support.
When broken down by age, Biden still leads in three of four groups. 27% of the 35-49 age group support Biden compared to 25% for Sanders, and 16% for Warren. 45% of the 50-64 age group support Biden compared to just 12% for Sanders and 13% for Warren. Biden’s support dips a bit to 37% among the 65+ group, but Sanders tanks with the elderly voters with just 8%. Warren nabs 13%.
However, among the 18-34 age group, Sanders explodes with 38% support compared to Biden’s 20% and Warren’s 16%.
Biden also dominates among African American voters, where he has 50% support compared to second-place Sanders’ 18%, and Warren’s 9%. Among Hispanic voters, Biden and Sanders are virtually tied with 31% and 30%, respectively. Warren sits in a distant third with 10% Hispanic support.
Another area where Biden triumphs over the rest of the field is among religious individuals who attend regular services.
46% of those who attend religious services “regularly” support Biden compared to 14% who support Sanders and 13% who support Warren.
Among those who “almost never” attend religious services, the field is much more open. 26% of those who “almost never” attend religious services support Biden compared to 22% who support Sanders, and 17% who support Warren.
“Strongly pro-life” respondents also side with Biden in a major way, giving him 44% support over second-place Sanders’ 16% and Warren’s 8%. The “strongly pro-choice” respondents are more spread out, with 27% supporting Biden, 24% supporting Sanders, and 17% supporting Warren.
According to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics</a> average of national polls, Biden remains in the lead with 28.4% to Sanders’ 20.4%, and Warren’s 14.8%.
In Iowa, Biden and Sanders are in a near tie with 20.7% and 20.3%, respectively. In New Hampshire, which votes second, Sanders actually leads Biden 22.5% to 21%. Warren sits in third place in the state with 16.3% support, with Buttigieg nipping at her heels with 14.5% support.
Biden’s largest advantage is still in South Carolina, where he leads Sanders by 17% (32% to 15%).
What this new SurveyUSA poll appears to indicate is that while Sen. Bernie Sanders is on the rise nationally, and Biden remains in a healthy first position, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who was once considered a potential threat to the former vice president, continues on her steep tumble.
With Iowa just 15 days away, the candidates are losing time to change the numbers before the caucus state sets the tone of what’s to come afterward.

Joe Biden.

Biden Flies High In Post-Debate Poll; Warren Continues Months-Long Tumble

Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) refused to answer a question from a CBS reporter on Sunday about whether it was acceptable for a presidential candidate to lie to the American public.
CBS News campaign reporter Zak Hudak asked Warren: &#8220;Is it disqualifying for a presidential candidate to lie to the American public about anything?&#8221;
“Uh, I would think that it, you know, how could the American people want someone who lies to them?” Warren responded. “Um, I think that, that we just do our best out there every day, and I hope that’s what happens with everyone.”
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“How could the American people want someone who lies to them?” <a href="https://twitter.com/ewarren?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ewarren</a> says after I asked if it’s disqualifying for a presidential candidate to lie to the American people about anything <a href="https://t.co/b4AxH5Bq1m">pic.twitter.com/b4AxH5Bq1m</a>
&mdash; Zak Hudak (@cbszak) <a href="https://twitter.com/cbszak/status/1218971964443893760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The question comes as Warren has had to deal with her biggest weakness as a candidate: her dishonesty and insincerity.
The biggest lie that Warren is notorious for is her false claim that she was Native American, a false claim that she has peddled for decades yet had always refused to provided evidence proving her claim.
In October 2018, Warren took a DNA test and released the results thinking that they proved that she was Native American — they did not.
The friendly <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/backfire-2nd-correction-made-elizabeth-warren-dna-ryan-saavedra">report</a> that Warren got from The Boston Globe contained math errors, which led to this correction:
<blockquote>Due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 6th to 10th generation relative. The generational range based on the ancestor that the report identified suggests she’s between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American.</blockquote>
That wasn&#8217;t the only major error in the report.
The test <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/elizabeth-warrens-dna-match-is-to-latin-americans-not-native-americans">found</a> that Warren was potentially 1/1,024th Mexican, Colombian, or Peruvian — not Native American.
Another lie that Warren has had to contend with surrounded how she was going to pay for her government-run healthcare plan as numerous publications have flat out called her a liar over her claims that only billionaires will pay more for healthcare under her plan.
The Washington Examiner <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/elizabeth-warren-keeps-lying-through-her-teeth-about-medicare-for-all">wrote</a>, &#8220;If the math doesn&#8217;t make it clear on its own, let me make Warren&#8217;s performance clear: she is lying to you and she thinks that you are stupid.&#8221;
&#8220;This claim is a straight-up lie,&#8221; Reason Magazine <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/elizabeth-warren-is-lying-about-her-own-medicare-plan/">wrote</a>.
Another lie that Warren has had to deal with on the campaign trail is her false claim that she was fired from an elementary school teaching job because she was “visibly pregnant.”
“Minutes of an April 21, 1971, Riverdale Board of Education meeting obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show that the board voted unanimously on a motion to extend Warren a ‘2nd year’ contract for a two-days-per-week teaching job,” the Free Beacon <a href="https://freebeacon.com/politics/county-records-contradict-warrens-claim-she-was-fired-over-pregnancy/">reported</a>. “That job is similar to the one she held the previous year, her first year of teaching. Minutes from a board meeting held two months later, on June 16, 1971, indicate that Warren’s resignation was ‘accepted with regret.&#8217;”
Comments Warren made in 2007 also contradicted the claims that she has made on the campaign trail:
<blockquote>I was married at nineteen and graduated from college after I’d married, and my first year post-graduation I worked in a public school system with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an “emergency certificate,” it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, “I don’t think this is going to work out for me.” I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, “What am I going to do?” My husband’s view of it was, “Stay home. We have children, we’ll have more children, you’ll love this.” And I was very restless about it.</blockquote>
Warren was also caught on camera <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elizabeth-warren-told-a-critic-that-her-son-went-to-public-school-thats-not-true">lying</a> to an African American woman, falsely claiming that she did not send her kids to private school.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Holy shit. I have Warren on video lying about where she sent her kids to school.
Sarah Carpenter: &quot;I read that your children went to private schools&quot;
Warren: &quot;No my children went to public schools&quot; <a href="https://t.co/PEHr3jNvjx">pic.twitter.com/PEHr3jNvjx</a>
&mdash; Corey A. DeAngelis (@DeAngelisCorey) <a href="https://twitter.com/DeAngelisCorey/status/1197972004412051457?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 22, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Warren has also been grilled over the last several days over her claim that Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders told her in a December 2018 meeting that a woman could never be elected president.
Warren&#8217;s claim, which was &#8220;anonymously&#8221; given to CNN to write a report on, was then brought up in CNN&#8217;s presidential debate immediately following CNN&#8217;s report.
The Federalist <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/19/reminder-elizabeth-warren-is-a-known-liar-who-will-lie-again-and-again-to-get-what-she-wants/">reported</a>:
<blockquote>Tuesday night’s CNN debate was a set-up. And that’s not some internet fever dream, it’s an observation shared by reporters from Rolling Stone and The Huffington Post to Fox News and The Daily Caller. Even late-night comedy picked up on the game.
The trap was set the day before, when the hosts of the debate published a story claiming that in 2018, during a private meeting between Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, Sanders told Warren a woman can not win the presidency. Reporters have grown even lazier and more comfortable thinking readers are stupid, so the initial report cited four anonymous sources for a story about a one-on-one meeting denied by the Sanders campaign. It also included the hysterical line that Warren’s campaign “declined to comment,” despite the story coming from the candidate and being filled with anonymous Warren campaign comments.
CNN moderator Abby Phillip continued the trend of treating this alleged incident as fact the next night, dismissing Sanders’ denials and opting to ask Warren how the horrible, sexist things Sanders had said made her feel.</blockquote>
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;You&#39;re saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman could not win the election?&quot;
Bernie: &quot;That is correct”
“What did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?&quot;
CNN basically called Bernie a liar.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CNNisGarbage?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CNNisGarbage</a> <a href="https://t.co/7t2cOLS3iW">pic.twitter.com/7t2cOLS3iW</a>
&mdash; Benny (@bennyjohnson) <a href="https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1217464151255191552?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 15, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This report has been updated to include additional information.

WATCH: Warren Confronted About Whether It’s Okay To Lie To The American Public

On Friday, The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh retweeted a post from NPR in which the news organization writes: “Elizabeth Warren has pledged to cancel up to $50,000 of debt for 95% of student loan borrowers if she&#8217;s elected president – and she says she could cancel those debts all on her own.”
Walsh wrote above the tweet:
<blockquote>No such thing as &#8220;canceling&#8221; debt. If we&#8217;re being honest, we&#8217;d call it what it is: debt transfer. We&#8217;d be transferring debt from the people who took out the loans to people who did not take out the loans. Of course it sounds utterly unjust and crazy when you put it like that.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
No such thing as &#8220;canceling&#8221; debt. If we&#8217;re being honest, we&#8217;d call it what it is: debt transfer. We&#8217;d be transferring debt from the people who took out the loans to people who did not take out the loans. Of course it sounds utterly unjust and crazy when you put it like that. <a href="https://t.co/evrD4phn2O">https://t.co/evrD4phn2O</a>
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1218162030236008454?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 17, 2020</a></blockquote>
The article linked in NPR’s <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/796329598/cancelling-student-debt-is-easier-than-it-sounds?utm_source=twitter.com&amp;utm_campaign=npr&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_term=nprnews">tweet</a> suggests that Warren could accomplish the alleged “cancellation” of student debt without Congress.
Here’s the <a href="https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/student-loan-debt-day-one?source=soc-WB-ew-tw-rollout-20200114">direct text</a> from Warren’s own website:
<blockquote>But the Department of Education already has broad legal authority to cancel student debt, and we can’t afford to wait for Congress to act. So I will start to use existing laws on day one of my presidency to implement my student loan debt cancellation plan that offers relief to 42 million Americans – in addition to using all available tools to address racial disparities in higher education, crack down on for-profit institutions, and eliminate predatory lending&#8230;
When I am president &#8230; I’ll direct the Secretary of Education to use their authority to begin to compromise and modify federal student loans consistent with my plan to cancel up to $50,000 in debt for 95% of student loan borrowers (about 42 million people).</blockquote>
While Walsh’s tweet has more than 13,400 “likes” as of publication, and approximately 3,700 retweets, some commenters don’t seem to understand the idea that the government cannot “cancel” debt.
User @EllenGirl71 wrote: “There *is* debt forgiveness. It means that no one will be paying it back. The US government federal student loan debt can be forgiven any time the US govt decides to forgive it.”
There were numerous commenters who tried to argue with @EllenGirl71, but the following two exchanges were some of the more illuminating ones.
@MarkFidelman wrote: “Sorry Ellen, the money came from tax dollars or private investors. Someone lost in that transaction. It also sends a chilling message to future taxpayers and investors that the government can’t be trusted.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sorry Ellen, the money came from tax dollars or private investors. Someone lost in that transaction. It also sends a chilling message to future taxpayers and investors that the government can’t be trusted.
— Mark Fidelman (@markfidelman) <a href="https://twitter.com/markfidelman/status/1218553641616867329?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2020</a></blockquote>
Ellen replied: “The borrowers are also taxpayers, and they and the country are losing in this transaction. I would prefer that they spend that $1 trillion in the economy. The status quo of high household debt is the one unacceptable choice.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">
The borrowers are also taxpayers, and they and the country are losing in this transaction. I would prefer that they spend that $1 trillion in the economy. The status quo of high household debt is the one unacceptable choice.
— Ellen (@EllenGirl71) <a href="https://twitter.com/EllenGirl71/status/1218608123830849536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2020</a></blockquote>
In another exchange, @TheProbableMatt wrote: “It is absolutely magic. Grants &amp; gifts also cost money. Where is that money coming from? It has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is almost always future taxation rather than budget cut somewhere else. even then the federal govt does not generate income. They take ours.”
Ellen replied: “Nothing magical about forgiving a loan. It does not get transferred to someone else. No one else owes that money now. If I forgive you the 500 I lent you, no one else has to pay me back. The money just stays in your pocket.”
Matt shot back: “And it still came out of your pocket. You are expecting the government to eat the $500. The govt doesn&#8217;t eat money. They tax. This is how economics work.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Nothing magical about forgiving a loan. It does not get transferred to someone else. No one else owes that money now. If I forgive you the 500 I lent you, no one else has to pay me back. The money just stays in your pocket.
— Ellen (@EllenGirl71) <a href="https://twitter.com/EllenGirl71/status/1218257303708880897?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 17, 2020</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">
And it still came out of your pocket. You are expecting the government to eat the $500. The govt doesn&#8217;t eat money. They tax. This is how economics work.
— Matt Meyer (@TheProbableMatt) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheProbableMatt/status/1218258168511434752?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 17, 2020</a></blockquote>
As Walsh and others stated, debt cannot simply vanish. It must be shifted.
Here’s an imperfect and very simplified, but apt analogy.
There are five siblings. Two of the five went to college, while the other three started their adult lives working in trades. All five siblings live at home with their parents in their large house, and pay rent.
The two who went to college each borrowed $50,000 from their parents in order to obtain their degrees. So, in addition to paying their parents $700/month for rent, they shell out an additional $300/month in loan payments. That’s $1,000/month, respectively.
The two college-educated siblings are struggling, so their parents decide to “cancel” their collective debt. At this point, the combined debt of the two siblings stands at $60,000.
In order to recoup their investment, the parents who have “cancelled” the debts of their college-educated children raise the rent on all five siblings to $820/month, thus equally distributing the collective debt. Now, the college-educated siblings only pay an additional $120/month, but the three siblings who never borrowed any money in the first place have the $120/month burden as well.
This is a stripped down version of how such debt “cancellation” would work in a system in which individuals borrow money from the government.
Debt does not disappear, but is simply redistributed.

Cash.

CAMP: Student Debt Cannot Be ‘Cancelled,’ Just Redistributed

Debt Forgiveness

Matt Walsh

On January 11, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-quietly-goes-negative-on-warren-097594">Politico</a> reported that the campaign for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was allegedly instructing its people to attack rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) by implying she is a candidate who cannot expand beyond the “highly educated” and “more affluent.”
Following the report, Warren <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/claws-out-elizabeth-warren-accuses-bernie-sanders-of-playing-dirty-trashing-her-in-iowa">said</a> she was “disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me.”
CNN then dropped a bombshell <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-meeting/index.html">report</a>, claiming that in 2018, Sanders told Warren that he didn’t believe a woman could win in 2020.
In response to CNN’s report, Warren said: 
<blockquote>Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed. I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry.</blockquote>
During Tuesday’s Democratic <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-warren-refuses-to-shake-sanders-hand-after-debate-fellow-candidate-weighs-in-on-kerfuffle">presidential debate</a>, the fissure was brought to the fore. Moderator Abby Phillip of CNN asked Sanders about the alleged exchange, and Sanders denied he ever said that a woman couldn’t win.
“As a matter of fact, I didn’t say that. And I don’t want to waste a lot of time on this because this is what Donald Trump, maybe some of the media would want,” Sanders <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-warren-refuses-to-shake-sanders-hand-after-debate-fellow-candidate-weighs-in-on-kerfuffle">replied</a>. “Anybody who knows me knows it is incomprehensible that I would think that a woman could not be president of the United States.”
Sanders went on to talk about Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote, and that he would back any woman on the stage with him if they were to become the nominee.
Phillip then asked Warren: “What did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” Sanders looked incredulous that such a presumptuous question would be asked, and the audience laughed.
Warren responded: “I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie. But, look, this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, and it’s time for us to attack it head-on.”
Following the debate, Warren <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-debate-audio/index.html">approached</a> Sanders while still on camera and with mics still recording, and accused him of calling her “a liar on national TV.” Sanders rebuffed Warren, first claiming that she was the one calling him “a liar,” then stating that if they wanted to talk about it, they should do so later.
CNN was widely trashed on social media, and by political commentators, for the way in which the exchange was handled.
Speaking with <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/478722-ex-obama-official-on-sanders-warren-feud-i-dont-think-it-played-out-well-for-either-of-them">The Hill</a> on Thursday, former Obama official and former Virginia Deputy Attorney General Stephen Cobb said that the internecine fight between Warren and Sanders didn’t play “out well for either of them,” and if any candidate were to benefit from the kerfuffle, it would be former Vice President Joe Biden.
“If you are arguably the front-runner or a front-runner and you go into a debate where everyone is taking potshots at each other and you can kind of rise above the fray, you get to come out the winner,” Cobb said.
However, one new poll conducted entirely after the debate has Sanders in the lead.
According to the latest <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-poll/sanders-climbs-now-tied-with-biden-among-registered-voters-reuters-poll-idUSKBN1ZG00D">Reuters/Ipsos</a> national poll, which was conducted between January 15 &#8211; 16 (the two days following the debate) on “681 Democrats and independents, including 552 who were registered to vote,” Sen. Sanders takes the lead with 20% support. In second place is Biden with 19%. In third is Warren with 12%.
Reuters notes that this poll showed “an increase of 2 percentage points [for Sanders] from a similar poll that ran last week.”
That said, according to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics</a> national average of polls, Biden still leads Sanders by a healthy 8% (28.4% to 20.4%). Biden also leads Sanders in Iowa by 0.4%, but in New Hampshire, Sanders leads Biden by 1.5%. Warren sits in third place nationally, fourth place in Iowa, and third place in New Hampshire, per RealClearPolitics polling avareges.

Dem debate.

Obama Official: Warren/Sanders Spat Didn’t Play ‘Out Well For Either Of Them,’ Biden Could Benefit

I&#8217;m almost as upset that Democratic presidential candidates are squabbling as I am that Prince Harry and the former Meghan Markle apparently don&#8217;t want to live in Los Angeles until President Donald Trump leaves office. Double bummer.
Speaking of doubles, did you know that Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have accused each other of lying? How can this be? Progressives don&#8217;t lie. With that in mind, one of them must be lying.
After Tuesday night&#8217;s Democratic presidential debate, Warren and Sanders were noticed in an apparently heated exchange, and CNN later released the audio of the intra-socialist spat.
Word on the street, and on the ubiquitous mainstream media outlets that regularly present old stories as breaking news, is that in a December 2018 meeting, Sanders told Warren he didn&#8217;t believe a woman could win a presidential election. How can this be? Progressives can&#8217;t be sexist.
CNN&#8217;s nonbiased, objective, fact-hunting, truth-seeking professional journalist Abby Phillip pseudo innocently asked sexist Sanders during the debate: &#8220;So, Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here: You&#8217;re saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman could not win the election.&#8221; Sanders was probably thinking, &#8220;Where did that come from?&#8221; — especially if he never said it, which we have to assume, since progressives cannot lie.
Sanders predictably replied, &#8220;That is correct,&#8221; at which point Warren must have been furious because she knew he was lying — except she also must have been conflicted knowing that progressives don&#8217;t lie.
Then Phillip turned to Warren and asked, &#8220;Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?&#8221;
You might be thinking, &#8220;Wait, how can Phillip assume a fact not in evidence — that Warren&#8217;s version of the 2018 meeting is presumptively true and Sanders&#8217; isn&#8217;t?&#8221; But if you are the least bit enlightened, you would then have to catch yourself and broom such a wicked thought from your mind because you know CNN doesn&#8217;t employ biased and palpably unfair reporters.
Characteristically mild-mannered law professor Jonathan Turley was uncharacteristically outraged by CNN&#8217;s taking sides. He tweeted: &#8220;CNN has long been viewed as anti-Sanders, but this is incredible. After asking Sanders to repeat his denial, Abby Phillips asserted that Sanders was lying: &#8216;Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?'&#8221;
Now fast-forward to the post-debate stage when Warren and Sanders stood before each other like passive progressive warriors, ready to accuse each other of dissembling.
Warren drew first blood, saying to Sanders, &#8220;I think you called me a liar on national TV.&#8221;
The ordinarily garrulous Sanders laconically replied, &#8220;What?&#8221; Warren then repeated the accusation verbatim, which is pretty impressive considering the emotion that must have been coursing through her blue-state veins. The sometimes-truculent Sanders, showed unusual restraint and said, &#8220;You know, let&#8217;s not do it right now&#8221; — which would be disturbing if we didn&#8217;t understand the context.
Admittedly, I&#8217;m a little disappointed in Bernie, who should have said, &#8220;Yes, it was either call you a liar or call myself one, and I&#8217;m going to have to go with me. I hope you understand.&#8221; But he didn&#8217;t, which makes me think I should find myself another favorite socialist.
So, what are we to make of all this? Who do you think might be fibbing?
I&#8217;m going to have to go with Fauxcahontas, because she has built her career on prevarication, and because her allegation doesn&#8217;t ring true. I acknowledge the possibility that Sanders could be slipping, but he surely remembers that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote against Donald Trump — and in the Electoral College-hating progressive world, this means she won the election. Plus, I just think Sanders is more authentic than Warren. After all, he proudly wears his socialism, and Warren denies hers in the same breath she unveils her blatantly socialistic programs.
This car wreck of a Democratic primary campaign just keeps getting messier. The Democratic base desperately wants one of its own, but supposedly centrist (which is laughable, by the way) former Vice President Joe Biden still looks strong, as does supposedly centrist (even more laughable) Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Meanwhile, Democratic congressional newcomers are turning away from the leftist Squad. The Squad leader, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is losing her mojo, and some believe House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slow-walked the impeachment articles to ensure that Biden would have an advantage on the campaign trail while some of his main rivals sit as unbiased progressive jurors in the Senate impeachment trial.
I would end this column with a suggestion that we get some popcorn and watch this play out, but since I did that in a previous column, how about some nachos instead?
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is &#8220;Guilty by Reason of Insanity: Why the Democrats Must Not Win.&#8221; Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Warren and Sanders.

LIMBAUGH: Democratic Presidential Disarray

Eighteen progressive groups are begging Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to put aside the differences and make up after a contentious week on the trail that culminated in an agressive confrontation during (and after) Tuesday night&#8217;s Democratic presidential debate.
If Warren and Sanders can&#8217;t declare a truce, they say, it&#8217;ll cost progressives in the presidential election and, perhaps, across the board, as the &#8220;united&#8221; progressive front fractures into warring factions.
The problems began late last week, after Warren&#8217;s campaign discovered a Sanders call script, provided to volunteers making campaign and &#8220;get out the vote&#8221; calls to identified Iowa Democrats, that referred to Warren as a &#8220;candidate of the elite,&#8221; and suggested that Warren couldn&#8217;t pull from the working class and &#8220;red state&#8221; demographics the Democratic presidential nominee will need to defeat President Donald Trump in 2020.
Warren fired back, accusing Sanders of deplying his volunteers to &#8220;trash&#8221; her in Iowa. Sanders tried to apologize but it was too late: a coincidentally timed allegation hit CNN, and in it, a source claimed that, in a 2018 meeting, Sanders told Warren that a woman could never be president.
Sanders confirmed that the pair had met, but denied saying that a woman couldn&#8217;t be president. Warren seemed to confirm the CNN story, saying only that Sanders said a woman couldn&#8217;t win a contest against Trump, not that a woman couldn&#8217;t be president altogether. Sanders and his supporters called Warren&#8217;s subsequent statement an unfair attack, and blamed her for looking to boost her flagging poll numbers by manufacturing outrage among potential progressive voters who might be favoring Sanders.
The two duked it out again during Tuesday night&#8217;s debate and, it now appears, afterwards. Following the closing statements, as candiates were shaking hands and leaving the debate stage, Warren confronted Sanders, accusing him of &#8220;lying&#8221; about her on &#8220;national television.&#8221; Sanders, taken aback, cautioned Warren to continue the discussion in private.
Their respective supporters, taking cues from the candidates, pushed contrasting hashtags on Twitter and shouted insults across social media. <a href="https://www.salon.com/2020/01/13/dont-believe-the-sanders-slams-warren-hype-fear-and-outrage-wont-help-any-democrat-win/">Left-leaning media</a> argued that Warren was stoking unwarranted dischord. Warren&#8217;s supporters &#8212; many of them female &#8212; accused Sanders of being a career misogynist.
The feud, which once looked speculative, has now, progressive groups say, boiled over, and its threatening to sideline Democratic socialists and far-left voters altogether, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/politics/progressive-groups-unity-pledge-sanders-warren/index.html">according to CNN</a>, and they want Sanders and Warren to knock it off before someone really gets hurt.
&#8220;Eighteen days out from the Iowa caucuses, 18 influential organizations with ties to both candidates &#8212; and strong stakes in the wider movement &#8212; are launching a campaign to unite the Democratic left and push voters to act strategically on caucus night by not leaving their sites &#8216;without casting their final vote for one of the top two progressives in the race,'&#8221; the outlet reports.
&#8220;As part of a new &#8216;Progressives Unite 2020 Pledge,'&#8221; CNN adds, &#8220;the groups are vowing to direct their fire on President Donald Trump and against &#8216;candidates supported by the corporate wing&#8217; of the Democratic Party. They are also asking progressive voters to &#8216;come together in state caucuses, primaries and conventions from the first vote in Iowa to the last vote at the DNC Convention in Wisconsin.'&#8221;
&#8220;When progressives fight each other, the establishment wins,&#8221; the group&#8217;s chair said in a statement to media. &#8220;We saw it in 2004 when progressives took each other out and John Kerry slipped through to win Iowa and then went on to lose in November to a very unpopular Republican incumbent.&#8221;
That may be easier said that done. Sanders supporters seem increasingly convinced that Bernie is being deliberately sidelined by the Democratic party &#8212; yet again &#8212; and that progressives are being written out of the 2020 election in favor of &#8220;electability.&#8221;
They may not be wrong. Then-prospective nominee Hillary Clinton wielded plenty of influence within the Democratic National Committee in 2016, accumulating superdelegates so as to block Sanders from the nomination before the first ballot was cast in New Hampshire. This time around, insiders say former Vice President Joe Biden is the party&#8217;s best shot, and the polls seem to back them up.

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders

Progressive Groups Beg Warren, Sanders To Get Along Before Fracture Throws Nomination To Joe Biden

As 2020 kicks into gear, a series of focus groups involving &#8220;low-information voters&#8221; conducted by Barack Obama&#8217;s former speechwriter offer some deeply troubling — if at times hilarious — takeaways for Democrats.
The study, which involved focus groups in four different cities, was conducted late last year by Obama&#8217;s former speechwriter, Jon Favreau, for the second season of his Crooked Media-produced podcast &#8220;<a href="https://crooked.com/podcast-series/the-wilderness/">The Wilderness</a>.&#8221; Each focus group consisted of 10 voters with specific voting records: Philadelphia&#8217;s group of ten all voted for Hillary in 2016; Milwaukee&#8217;s group voted for Obama in 2012, flipped to Trump in 2016, then voted Democrat again in 2018;  the group in Miami was mostly black and Hispanic voters who voted for Obama in 2012, but either stayed home in 2016 or voted third party; and the Phoenix participants all flipped from Romney in 2012 to Clinton in 2016. All but the Phoenix group consisted of what politicos generally call &#8220;low-information voters.&#8221;
Vanity Fair&#8217;s <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/why-trump-has-huge-advantage-over-democrats-low-information-voters">Peter Hamby</a>, who spoke with Favreau about the focus groups, offers a rather devastating summary of what the podcaster leaned from the three &#8220;low-information&#8221; voters.
“I came away thinking that Trump may not be as big of a challenge as the cynicism and distrust that a lot of these voters have towards the entire political system and the media,” Favreau told Hamby. “Most of them don’t like Trump at all, but since politics hasn’t delivered for them in a tangible way, they’re starting to ignore the circus altogether, which makes them very hard to reach.”
Hamby points out that among the Democrats the low-information crowd named when asked about who they associate with the &#8220;Democratic Party,&#8221; only two of the current Democratic presidential candidates&#8217; names came up frequently: Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren was named by just three people, while Pete Buttigieg&#8217;s name was cited by only one. Though respondents said they largely aligned with the Democratic Party on key issues, they also associated it with &#8220;infighting, taxes, socialism, ineptitude, and &#8216;too many candidates,'&#8221; Hamby notes.
Though most of the Democratic candidates appeared to be off most of their radars, Trump was &#8220;everywhere,&#8221; said Favreau. &#8220;I purposely waited to bring up Trump because I wanted to ask them about their thoughts on issues important to them and why they vote and what they think about government first,&#8221; he told Hamby. &#8220;But in almost every focus group, someone just brought up Trump almost immediately. He is everywhere, like a national psychic wound.&#8221;
While Favreau characterized Trump as inflicting trauma on everyone, he also admitted that while &#8220;none of them&#8221; liked him, they also weren&#8217;t thrilled about or committed to any of the Democrats and exhibited a deep distrust in the media. Hamby reports:
<blockquote>But even as they universally expressed displeasure with Trump, including the people who voted for him in Milwaukee but flipped in 2018, almost every participant told Favreau they wouldn’t yet commit to voting for the Democratic nominee in 2020. Some said it depends on who the nominee is. Others were open to voting for a third-party candidate instead of the Democrat. “None of them really like Trump, but they don’t have much love for Democratic politicians, Republican politicians, and especially the media, which they don’t trust at all,” Favreau said. “They really do see Trump as part of a broader political media culture that’s just out of control, silly, nasty, and not focused on what they care about.” A theme that surfaced again and again, not just about Democrats but about politics generally, was that the whole process is confusing, tedious, and off-putting—and that news organizations and social media do little to make sense of it.</blockquote>
Hamby also offers some rather humorous highlights of words and phrases the focus group participants associated with the top Democratic candidates:
<blockquote>In Milwaukee words that came to mind for Biden included “hugger,” “oil tycoon,” “cops,” and “old white money.” Six of the voters—all of whom had voted in the past two election cycles—responded with some variation of “nothing” or “I have nothing” when Biden was named. In Philadelphia the voters associated Biden with “crime bill,” “too old,” and “not fired up.” A grandmother and self-described “cat lady” named Jean said, “I heard he said a bad thing, I didn’t like it.” Biden elicited better reactions in Miami, where attendees said “Obama,” “experience,” and “well dressed” when the former vice president’s name was mentioned.
Sanders, too, was described as “too old” in all three cities, though many of the responses were, if not on message, at least message-adjacent. The Miami group associated Sanders with “crazy hair,” “grinny,” “free college,” and “wants to give away too many things for free.” The Philadelphia group said “your crazy uncle,” “health care,” “questionable health,” and “passionate hand talker.” In Milwaukee the Obama–Trump voters described Sanders as “for the people,” “crazy but in a good way,” “boisterous,” and “bold”—while three of the voters had no response to his name.</blockquote>
Warren inspired a few positive responses from people, including the words &#8220;energy&#8221; and &#8220;progressive,&#8221; but Favreau also noted that the participants &#8220;knew almost nothing about her,&#8221; Hamby notes. Buttigieg was almost totally unknown by any of the participants, one responding when asked about him, “Who dat?” (<a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/why-trump-has-huge-advantage-over-democrats-low-information-voters">Read Hamby&#8217;s full piece for Vanity Fair here</a>.)
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/economists-have-bad-news-for-democrats-hoping-for-2020-recession-to-topple-trump">Experts Have Bad News For Democrats Hoping For 2020 Recession To Topple Trump</a>

Donald Trump Melania Trump

‘Low-Information Voters’ Study Offers Some Very Troubling, And Sometimes Hilarious, Results For Democrats

Vanity Fair

&#8220;Morning Joe&#8221; co-host Mika Brzezinski did not mince words in her frustration and confusion over CNN&#8217;s bias in favor of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) during the Democratic Party&#8217;s presidential debate on Tuesday night.
&#8220;I&#8217;m completely confused  as to why it turned from Bernie Sanders saying, &#8216;I didn&#8217;t say it,&#8217; to Elizabeth Warren being asked, &#8216;what did you think when he said it?&#8217; He says he didn&#8217;t say it. So you turn to Elizabeth Warren and say, &#8216;did he say it?&#8217; That&#8217;s the issue. I mean, it&#8217;s bizarre,&#8221; Brzezinski told the panel.
&#8220;It was,&#8221; responded a fellow panelist.
Brzezinski was referring to the moment when CNN’s Abby Phillips asked Bernie Sanders to clarify the veracity of the bombshell report this week alleging that he told Warren in 2018 a woman could not win the presidency against Donald Trump.
“So, Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?” Phillips asked the Vermont senator.
“That is correct,” Sanders replied.
Phillips then proceeded to ask Warren how she felt during her conversation with Bernie as if the story were clearly true.
“Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” asked Phillips, tacitly painting Sanders as a liar.
“I disagreed,” Warren replied. “Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie. But, look, this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, and it’s time for us to attack it head-on.”
Brzezinski could not believe CNN framed the question that way and got away with it.
&#8220;What the heck happened there? Are they listening?&#8221; Brzezinski asked out loud. &#8220;Because you&#8217;ve got to listen when you do a debate and then take the question to the next candidate.&#8221;
&#8220;It was a miss,&#8221; said another panelist.
Mika Brzezinski went on to say that the conversation between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren could easily have been manipulated in her benefit, arguing that it deserved some level of scrutiny by CNN.
&#8220;By the way, I&#8217;ve had conversations, private conversations taken to the press and totally manipulated for the benefit of the person that was sharing the story,&#8221; said Brzezinski. &#8220;This happens all the time. It&#8217;s clear there is a misunderstanding and Elizabeth Warren is focused on something that was said in Bernie Sanders is not going to be someone that says I don&#8217;t think a woman can win. That&#8217;s just stupid.&#8221;
&#8220;Right. It would not be smart,&#8221; responded a panelist.
&#8220;Also, Bernie went to her in 2015 and said I think you can win. I think you should run for president. This is such a small ball,&#8221; added Joe Scarborough.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Mika gets it. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CNNisTrash?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CNNisTrash</a> <a href="https://t.co/M3SlVFzwOI">pic.twitter.com/M3SlVFzwOI</a>
&mdash; Ԍεοϝϝ 🌹 (@SpittingBack) <a href="https://twitter.com/SpittingBack/status/1217422280134840321?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 15, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As reported by The Daily Wire&#8217;s James Barrett, the hashtag #NeverWarren has since been trending in response to CNN&#8217;s blatant media malpractice, with some Bernie fans alleging that another fix is in.
“Lie or mischaracterize your ‘friend’s’ comments, double down, refuse to shake his hand,” <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/1217301852389367808" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">tweeted Kyle Kulinski,</a> a prominent liberal and YouTube host.
“Are you watching America?” <a href="https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/1217279450116775937" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">tweeted</a> liberal activist and Sanders supporter Shaun King. “When [Bernie Sanders] beat a Republican to win his congressional seat 29 years ago, Elizabeth Warren was still a Republican. One reason she never lost to a Republican is that she was a Republican for the first 47 years of her life.”

2018 Matrix Awards

WATCH: MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski Trashes CNN For Biased Question Against Bernie During The Debate: ‘What The Heck Happened?’

Mika Brzezinski

Morning Joe

MSNBC

The trouble with Elizabeth Warren’s claims about Bernie Sanders telling her privately that a woman can’t win the presidency is that Elizabeth Warren is a known liar. And it doesn’t help that Bernie Sanders is just about the last person you’d expect to make that comment. Never mind the fact that the alleged comment — even if he did make it — is perfectly innocuous and not remotely sexist, if properly interpreted. “A woman can’t be president” is an insult to the electorate, not to women.
At any rate, Warren does have a couple of factors working in her favor. For one thing, she has CNN openly campaigning on her behalf. At the debate on Tuesday night, the CNN moderator flatly dismissed Sanders’ version of events and proceeded to question Warren on the assumption that the comment was in fact made. She wasn’t asked to justify, prove, explain, or even reiterate her accusations. Instead she was asked how she reacted “when Senator Sanders told [her] that a woman can’t win the election.” It was one of the worst examples of naked partisanship that we’ve seen in a political debate in recent memory, and that’s saying something.
And Warren has another advantage: She’s a woman. According to some of Warren&#8217;s supporters, her gender alone is enough to vindicate her. As the observant among us expected, and the obtuse are no doubt surprised by, the “Believe Women” slogan from the MeToo movement has now been broadened into a universal dictum. Don&#8217;t just believe women when they accuse a man of rape; believe women when they accuse a man of anything at all.
<iframe title="It&#039;s Sexist Not To Believe Warren, According To Her Supporters | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 405" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/p0yFm1fBOK8?start=242&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
A number of Warren&#8217;s fans in media and politics have spoken up over the last few days to declare that disbelieving women — in any circumstance, not just with sexual assault allegations — is automatically sexist. Julia Loffe, a correspondent for GQ, <a href="https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1217188806723502080">explained</a>: &#8220;Still thinking about the Warren-Bernie squabble and I have a question to people who have accused Warren of lying: Isn’t the lesson of #MeToo and the last few years that we believe women and don’t call them liars?&#8221;
This sentiment was echoed by <a href="https://twitter.com/neeratanden/status/1216832259841495044">Neera Tanden</a>, president of Center For American Progress: &#8220;Believe women — unless it doesn’t work for your ambition, apparently.&#8221;
And the reliably nutty Amanda Marcotte: &#8220;I think that Warren got the better of Sanders in that exchange, but who knows how it will play out. I also thought that [eight] women accusing Al Franken of groping was rock solid evidence that he’s a groper, but apparently a lot of people prefer to believe women love lying.&#8221;
And <a href="https://twitter.com/baddestmamajama/status/1216881594352328705">Jessica Ellis</a>: &#8220;Just FYI I double checked and there is no &#8216;except Elizabeth Warren&#8217; clause in that whole BELIEVE WOMEN deal.&#8221;
And former Obama staffer <a href="https://twitter.com/natimontelongo/status/1217277551778959360">Natalie Montelongo</a>: &#8220;Elizabeth Warren is fire right now. Quickly confirming what was said in the private conversation, then pivoting to pointing out that only the women on the stage have won all of their races. But all I gotta say is — Believe Women.&#8221;
These people are making exactly the argument they appear to be making. We must believe women, period, in all situations. We must not &#8220;call them liars.&#8221; Because, in Julia Loffe&#8217;s fantasy world, women never tell lies. We went from the absurd insinuation that women never lie about sexual assault to the patently psychotic claim that women never lie about anything.
But back on planet Earth, of course, individual human beings are not cumulative representatives of their gender. When you call a lying woman like Elizabeth Warren a liar, you aren&#8217;t calling all women liars. You aren&#8217;t saying anything about women. Rather, you&#8217;re saying something about that particular woman, and the thing you&#8217;re saying — that she&#8217;s a liar — has nothing to do with her being a woman and everything to do with her being a person who seems to lack integrity. Reasonable people don&#8217;t believe women or disbelieve women wholesale. We believe people who give us good reason to believe them. Their reproductive organs do not count as evidence, for or against.
Hopefully it is now apparent why the MeToo movement <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/10/31/662178315/on-metoo-americans-more-divided-by-party-than-gender">fell out of favor</a> with many Americans. He said/she said controversies are difficult enough to sort through. Our only hope of ascertaining the truth, or something close to it, is to judge each case individually, weighing the evidence presented by both sides and the track record of both people involved. Hysteria and pitch fork mobs do not make this job any easier. And emotional slogans like &#8220;Believe Women&#8221; make it impossible. Which, in the end, was always the point.

WALSH: Elizabeth Warren’s Supporters Declare That We Must Believe Everything She Says Because She’s A Woman

Feminism

Leftism

MeToo

Progressivism

Recent comments by progressive Michael Moore suggest he might be among those sympathetic with the growing <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/neverwarren-trending-after-debate-meltdown-with-bernie-biased-cnn-question">#NeverWarren</a> movement. Following the seventh Democratic presidential primary debate, the left-wing documentary director slashed back at Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren after she decided to &#8220;stick a knife&#8221; in her fellow radical Democratic candidate&#8217;s back.
&#8220;Elizabeth &amp; Bernie have appeared in my films. I love them both,&#8221; Moore tweeted early Wednesday following the CNN-hosted debate in Des Moines, Iowa the night before. &#8220;Why Elizabeth chose to stick a knife in Bernie’s back is beyond me.&#8221;
&#8220;At a time when job #1 is to remove Trump, how did this help?&#8221; Moore asked before directing followers to his latest &#8220;Rumble with Michael Moore&#8221; podcast episode titled, “The Sad Downfall of Elizabeth Warren.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Elizabeth &amp; Bernie have appeared in my films. I love them both. Why Elizabeth chose to stick a knife in Bernie’s back is beyond me. At a time when job #1 is to remove Trump, how did this help? My new RUMBLE podcast “The Sad Downfall of Elizabeth Warren.” <a href="https://t.co/uFwOFNka9U">https://t.co/uFwOFNka9U</a>
&mdash; Michael Moore (@MMFlint) <a href="https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/1217446338784309249?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 15, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Warren&#8217;s war with Sanders escalated sharply this week following a CNN <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-meeting/index.html">report</a> claiming that Sanders told Warren a couple of years ago that a woman couldn&#8217;t win the 2020 election, a claim the self-styled democratic socialist adamantly denies.
The controversy was highlighted during the debate Tuesday night, when the issue came up and a CNN moderator made clear who she (and presumably the network) believes.
&#8220;As a matter of fact, I didn’t say that,&#8221; Sanders insisted. &#8220;And I don’t want to waste a lot of time on this because this is what Donald Trump, maybe some of the media would want. Anybody who knows me knows it is incomprehensible that I would think that a woman could not be president of the United States. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes. How could anybody in a million years think a woman couldn’t become president of the United States? And let me be very clear, if any of the women on this stage, or any of the men on this stage, win the nomination — I hope that’s not the case, I hope it’s me — but if they do, I will do everything in my power to ensure they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country.&#8221;
CNN White House correspondent Abby Phillips pressed Sanders on the issue. &#8220;So, Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?&#8221; she asked.
“That is correct,” Sanders replied.
Phillips responded by turning to Warren and asking a loaded question that earned <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/media-malpractice-cnn-blasted-for-question-siding-with-warren-over-bernie">strong rebuke online</a>. “Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” Phillips asked, drawing some laughs from the audience.
“I disagreed,” Warren replied. “Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie. But, look, this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, and it’s time for us to attack it head-on.”
After claiming she was not there to take down &#8220;friends,&#8221; Warren then engaged in some deliberate friendly fire aimed at all the males sharing the stage with her.
&#8220;The best way to talk about who can win is by looking at people’s winning record,&#8221; said Warren. &#8220;So, can a woman beat Donald Trump? Look at the men on this stage. Collectively, they have lost 10 elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women. Amy and me. And the only person on this stage who has beaten an incumbent Republican anytime in the past 30 years is me. And here’s what I know. The real danger that we face as Democrats is picking a candidate who can’t pull our party together or someone who takes for granted big parts of the democratic constituency. We need a candidate who will excite all parts of the Democratic Party, bring everyone in, and give everyone a Democrat to believe in. That’s my plan and that is why I’m going to win.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-trolls-democrats-over-dismal-debate-highlights-space-alien-tweet">Trump Trolls Democrats Over Dismal Debate, Highlights ‘Space Alien’ Comment</a>

Menu