Elizabeth Warren is leading with voters in the pack of Democrats quietly running for 2020.
This piece sets Biden as the moderate & Warren as the firebrand. Harris,53, Booker, 49 & Gillibrand, 50, are also noted as the new younger fresh voices of change. nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/…
The main thrust of this piece, which quotes people you've never heard of as "stratesgists," is to get a jump on who @nytimes phalanx that hammered on #HillaryClinton while giving Sanders and Trump a pass will attack first.
SPOILER ALERT: It's progressive women.
Inexplicably given the authors, there is no situating of Sanders failures in 2016 nor the @nytimes failure to vet him.
Also missing is any reference to Biden's failure to make it out of Iowa in his previous two runs.
Nor is there constructive commentary on @SenWarren's strengths in the Senate. She has been reduced to a "populist firebrand." And while her age is noted (she's 6mos younger than Hillary), there is no commentary on the fact Sanders would be 80 and Biden 79 at Inauguration.
While I have previously expressed concerns about Warren's ability to energize voters in the way younger candidates might, her level of competence, expertise and actualized progressivism--Warren doesn't "borrow" others' work--certainly put her far ahead of Sanders and Biden.
While I think we should NOT be talking 2020 until January 2019, if MSM is going to push narratives, then push this: white men are no one's choice for 2020.
This is NOT your time. You've had 242yrs. Sit this one out. You are not "owed" another presidency. You cost us 2016.
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.