Thread by @VABVOX

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.