Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020? No, it's 2020!

[Eel Snave]

If Tammy Duckworth was more charismatic, I could see that working. Kamala Harris looks like she wants to run.

Elizabeth Warren's window has closed. Same with Bernie. I could see Biden/Harris.

[Holman]

On Biden, though, he's 100% going to run, so you'll very likely have the opportunity to vote for him. His age concerns me, but...as long as he picks a reasonably young competent VP (Booker seems young-ish), I think that's fine.

There will almost certainly be a woman on the Dem ticket in 2020. Absolutely so if Biden (whose baggage from the Anita Hill hearings has returned this year) is the nominee.

Biden/Harris? Harris is only 53.

[Eel Snave]

On Biden, though, he's 100% going to run, so you'll very likely have the opportunity to vote for him. His age concerns me, but...as long as he picks a reasonably young competent VP (Booker seems young-ish), I think that's fine.

There will almost certainly be a woman on the Dem ticket in 2020. Absolutely so if Biden (whose baggage from the Anita Hill hearings has returned this year) is the nominee.

Biden/Harris? Harris is only 53.

TWINSIES

[Captain Caveman]

Eww. Not at all creepy there, Donald.

Does he think DNA testing is a gynecology exam or something?

[El Guapo]

I still think Bernie would've beaten Trump in 2016, but that's spilt milk not worth rehashing. He is not the right man for '20. Sanders is a pedantic progressive. Warren is a pragmatic progressive who doesn't have the old-man-yelling-at-cloud thing going against her. Warren's politics align closely with mine (she's a little too conservative, but one must adapt) and I hope she goes all the way.

That said, she's the presumptive front-runner before campaigning even begins, and having that target on one's back is not an enviable position. There's only one way she can go from there, and she's got to spend two years preventing it. I hope she spends a year just building her organization and sniping from the sidelines. Let someone else be the lightning rod for awhile.

She's not the presumptive front-runner.



Though her (nascent) campaign has done a good job over the past month or two to give that impression.

[El Guapo]

Eww. Not at all creepy there, Donald.

Does he think DNA testing is a gynecology exam or something?

It's utterly impossible for him to talk about female opponents without criticizing their appearance.

[ImLawBoy]

I still think Bernie would've beaten Trump in 2016, but that's spilt milk not worth rehashing. He is not the right man for '20. Sanders is a pedantic progressive. Warren is a pragmatic progressive who doesn't have the old-man-yelling-at-cloud thing going against her. Warren's politics align closely with mine (she's a little too conservative, but one must adapt) and I hope she goes all the way.

That said, she's the presumptive front-runner before campaigning even begins, and having that target on one's back is not an enviable position. There's only one way she can go from there, and she's got to spend two years preventing it. I hope she spends a year just building her organization and sniping from the sidelines. Let someone else be the lightning rod for awhile.

She's not the presumptive front-runner.



Though her (nascent) campaign has done a good job over the past month or two to give that impression.

You're talking to the guy who thinks that Bernie would have won in 2016. That looks like a front runner to him.

[Defiant]

Kerry?

Is there another Kerry I'm overlooking?

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Eww. Not at all creepy there, Donald.

Does he think DNA testing is a gynecology exam or something?

By "test her personally", I assume Trump means he wants to do the DNA extraction, PCR, and genetic analyses himself. No one has ever used a pipette better than him.

[Kraken]

I still think Bernie would've beaten Trump in 2016, but that's spilt milk not worth rehashing. He is not the right man for '20. Sanders is a pedantic progressive. Warren is a pragmatic progressive who doesn't have the old-man-yelling-at-cloud thing going against her. Warren's politics align closely with mine (she's a little too conservative, but one must adapt) and I hope she goes all the way.

That said, she's the presumptive front-runner before campaigning even begins, and having that target on one's back is not an enviable position. There's only one way she can go from there, and she's got to spend two years preventing it. I hope she spends a year just building her organization and sniping from the sidelines. Let someone else be the lightning rod for awhile.

She's not the presumptive front-runner.

Though her (nascent) campaign has done a good job over the past month or two to give that impression.

That's good news, then. I'm unapologetically on Team Warren, but I could get behind Biden if that's how the cards fall.

[hepcat]

The pool boy at Mar-a-Lago is praying Trump has no clue how to perform a DNA test.

[Rip]

Christ half the people in America have as much native american blood as she does, what a joke.

[Zarathud]

Good to know Rip can still find the Republican talking points.

[Alefroth]

Christ half the people in America have as much native american blood as she does, what a joke.

Cite?

[Rip]

Christ half the people in America have as much native american blood as she does, what a joke.

Cite?

[hepcat]

She should have just let it go. Stooping to Trump’s level is a dangerous tactic. Especially when you can’t really back up your claims with real proof. Only Trump can openly lie because his worshippers are too stupid to use google.

[YellowKing]

BUTTER DNA!

[Paingod]

From NPR this morning...

Trump has already stockpiled around $100,000,000 for his 2020 campaign. His relentless campaigning, which began pretty much as soon as he was in office, looks like it's paying off. I wish he dedicated the kind of time to running the country as he does raising money to stoke his ego. I'm conflicted. I want him out on the road more so he can do less damage, but I don't want him getting a leg up on the competition at our expense. What's it costing taxpayers for him to travel like this?

[GreenGoo]

It has been my experience that even when I want to give the benefit of the doubt to Rip, he almost always posts untruths, or his posts are dishonest in some other way.

I don't understand what the problem is or why her DNA is important, but I'd be very careful about taking rip's post at face value. There is almost always a misrepresentation of the facts.

I learned this the hard way, as I used to support him when I thought facts still mattered to him.

If he just posted "hi, my name is rip" I'd be suspicious that it was untrue in some way.

Most of the time he's just repeating spin that someone else came up with, but he's not opposed to making up shit if he's in the throes of trolling.

As to this particular case? No idea, don't care. Look for the falsehoods in everything rip posts. You'll usually find it.

[El Guapo]

Kerry?

Is there another Kerry I'm overlooking?

Just the one. They're basically asking about everyone who might plausibly run for President at this point. I think it's very unlikely that Kerry will run, but he'd be a plausible candidate if he decided to.

It's funny that they're asking about O'Rourke, though. Even if he pulls out the upset against Cruz, there's no way that he's running in 2020. I was going to say that he'd be a plausible VP pick, but it'd be insane to give up a D senator in Texas.

[GreenGoo]

Texas needs the D.

[LordMortis]

I Warren is publishing her claims, I care but not enough to go poking for myself. It's just not that big of a deal to me.

But more importantly what is flat out weird to me that random Internet sources the NY Times for general findings about DNA to compare Warrens specific claims but doesn't source Warren's actual claims. I don't know what she claims but his method calls my attention to it and screams shell game at me.

Or is it generally accepted that the claim is "Warren is *possibly* 1/1024 (0.09%) Native American"? where possibly is even emphasized for some reason? Again, it means too little for me get Izzy with it, but now whomever Mr Ahern is, I don't trust him. *shrug* That's my bias, I guess.

Edit, I lied

https://mk0elizabethwarh5ore.kinstacdn. ... t_2018.pdf

The actual finding is

Conclusion
. While the vast majority of the individual’s ancestry is European, the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual’s pedigree, likely in the range of 6- 10 generations ago.

Which says to me emphasizing possibly is baiting to mean the opposite of what it is meant to mean by ignoring the qualifier and 1/1024 that is being thrown around is arbitrary. The suggestion to me is that there was pureblood Native American between 1/64 and 1/2048, not that there is a total mix of 1024.

So yeah, whatever.

[El Guapo]

I Warren is publishing her claims, I care but not enough to go poking for myself. It's just not that big of a deal to me.

But more importantly what is flat out weird to me that random Internet sources the NY Times for general findings about DNA to compare Warrens specific claims but doesn't source Warren's actual claims. I don't know what she claims but his method calls my attention to it and screams shell game at me.

Or is it generally accepted that the claim is "Warren is *possibly* 1/1024 (0.09%) Native American"? where possibly is even emphasized for some reason? Again, it means too little for me get Izzy with it, but now whomever Mr Ahern is, I don't trust him. *shrug* That's my bias, I guess.

My understanding is that the DNA results indicate that she is somewhere between 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American. (Obviously the conservative media sources are only using the latter number).

I have no idea how reliable and accurate the science of DNA tests is, though.

[Paingod]

Or is it generally accepted that the claim is "Warren is *possibly* 1/1024 (0.09%) Native American"? where possibly is even emphasized for some reason? Again, it means too little for me get Izzy with it, but now whomever Mr Ahern is, I don't trust him. *shrug* That's my bias, I guess.

CNN is saying she may have American Indian mixed in 6 to 10 generations prior. Her claims have always been based on family recollections, which can be dubious. So she thinks she's telling the truth by her own family's word, a test shows she's right - but it goes way back - and Trump is flatly refusing to pay up the $1m charitable donation he wagered on this.

[LordMortis]

Or is it generally accepted that the claim is "Warren is *possibly* 1/1024 (0.09%) Native American"? where possibly is even emphasized for some reason? Again, it means too little for me get Izzy with it, but now whomever Mr Ahern is, I don't trust him. *shrug* That's my bias, I guess.

CNN is saying she may have American Indian mixed in 6 to 10 generations prior. Her claims have always been based on family recollections, which can be dubious. So she thinks she's telling the truth by her own family's word, a test shows she's right - but it goes way back - and Trump is flatly refusing to pay up the $1m charitable donation he wagered on this.

Six generation, at the generous side isn't way back. I sat amazed and talked to family three generations back in the 70s, when I was young and was totally fascinated how they were an actual living gateway to "the old west". Some of the claims were easily sourced and you can see the familial resemblances to whom they talk about. Others felt like tall tales, for which my mother has been scap booking and searching archives to learn fact from fiction for years.

[El Guapo]

Or is it generally accepted that the claim is "Warren is *possibly* 1/1024 (0.09%) Native American"? where possibly is even emphasized for some reason? Again, it means too little for me get Izzy with it, but now whomever Mr Ahern is, I don't trust him. *shrug* That's my bias, I guess.

CNN is saying she may have American Indian mixed in 6 to 10 generations prior. Her claims have always been based on family recollections, which can be dubious. So she thinks she's telling the truth by her own family's word, a test shows she's right - but it goes way back - and Trump is flatly refusing to pay up the $1m charitable donation he wagered on this.

One thing I'm curious about is that apparently Warren has said that her parents eloped because her father's parents said that he couldn't marry Warren's mother, because the mother's family was part-Cherokee and part-Dakota. Is this substantiated? It seems like something that should be reasonably provable (that her parents eloped for that reason, even if the families' beliefs about her heritage were at least partially off).

[Holman]

Leaving aside the relevance of this whole question to anything other than Trump's attacks...

How far back do Warren's European ancestors go in America?

Even if she were merely 1/1024 Native American, and you say that every single mother in her lineage gave birth at 20 (a very conservative estimate unless every ancestor was a first-born child), that's 10 generations or 200 years. Were Warren's Europeans already here in 1749?

Even if they were, the incidence of actual intermarriage between Natives and settlers was very very low. Those rates picked up only during the early nineteenth century as native groups adopted Euro-American customs and religion.

(The conservative claim that "most Americans are more Native American than Elizabeth Warren" is ridiculous unless you believe DNA is somehow transmitted through the air.)

[Defiant]

(The conservative claim that "most Americans are more Native American than Elizabeth Warren" is ridiculous unless you believe DNA is somehow transmitted through the air.)

Umm, actually....

[hepcat]

Even if they were, the incidence of actual intermarriage between Natives and settlers was very very low.

Unless you were Cherokee. The Cherokee apparently married into 95 percent of the population if we are to believe everyone who collects paintings and figurines of eagles, wolves and horses in this country.

[Kurth]

This Warren DNA test should absolutely preclude her from running. Not because the results are, at best, tenuous in their support of her claims, but because of the sheer stupidity of the exercise.

What did she think she was going to accomplish? This issue wasn’t even in the news cycle and hadn’t been for ages. Did she think this was going to inoculate her from further attacks by Trump and the Trumpsters? Are you kidding me? The results could have been ironclad, and we all know it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. She’d still be Pocahontas. You can’t make a bully shut up by proving his taunts and teasing are merit less. He (and his followers) don’t give a shit. Has no one on Warren’s campaign ever been at or watched an elementary school recess?

[pr0ner]

This Warren DNA test should absolutely preclude her from running. Not because the results are, at best, tenuous in their support of her claims, but because of the sheer stupidity of the exercise.

What did she think she was going to accomplish? This issue wasn’t even in the news cycle and hadn’t been for ages. Did she think this was going to inoculate her from further attacks by Trump and the Trumpsters? Are you kidding me? The results could have been ironclad, and we all know it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. She’d still be Pocahontas. You can’t make a bully shut up by proving his taunts and teasing are merit less. He (and his followers) don’t give a shit. Has no one on Warren’s campaign ever been at or watched an elementary school recess?

Trump is already on the warpath against her on Twitter (amongst other women Trump has attacked today), so yeah, I think Warren self sabotaged any real hope she has of winning in 2020.

[El Guapo]

This Warren DNA test should absolutely preclude her from running. Not because the results are, at best, tenuous in their support of her claims, but because of the sheer stupidity of the exercise.

What did she think she was going to accomplish? This issue wasn’t even in the news cycle and hadn’t been for ages. Did she think this was going to inoculate her from further attacks by Trump and the Trumpsters? Are you kidding me? The results could have been ironclad, and we all know it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. She’d still be Pocahontas. You can’t make a bully shut up by proving his taunts and teasing are merit less. He (and his followers) don’t give a shit. Has no one on Warren’s campaign ever been at or watched an elementary school recess?

I am inclined to agree that doing the test is silly. At the same time, though, I can see some logic to doing this now. Warren doesn't give a shit about headlines about this now, she only cares about headlines about this in 2020 (and somewhat in 2019). So get this out now, let Twitter burn through this, and move on. Not that anything she can do will ever get rid of this, but to make as much of this an "old issue" as possible going into the campaign.

[El Guapo]

This Warren DNA test should absolutely preclude her from running. Not because the results are, at best, tenuous in their support of her claims, but because of the sheer stupidity of the exercise.

What did she think she was going to accomplish? This issue wasn’t even in the news cycle and hadn’t been for ages. Did she think this was going to inoculate her from further attacks by Trump and the Trumpsters? Are you kidding me? The results could have been ironclad, and we all know it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. She’d still be Pocahontas. You can’t make a bully shut up by proving his taunts and teasing are merit less. He (and his followers) don’t give a shit. Has no one on Warren’s campaign ever been at or watched an elementary school recess?

Trump is already on the warpath against her on Twitter (amongst other women Trump has attacked today), so yeah, I think Warren self sabotaged any real hope she has of winning in 2020.

Trump attacking her personally probably raises her chances of winning the Democratic primary.

[Jaymann]

I still think Bernie would've beaten Trump in 2016, but that's spilt milk not worth rehashing. He is not the right man for '20. Sanders is a pedantic progressive. Warren is a pragmatic progressive who doesn't have the old-man-yelling-at-cloud thing going against her. Warren's politics align closely with mine (she's a little too conservative, but one must adapt) and I hope she goes all the way.

That said, she's the presumptive front-runner before campaigning even begins, and having that target on one's back is not an enviable position. There's only one way she can go from there, and she's got to spend two years preventing it. I hope she spends a year just building her organization and sniping from the sidelines. Let someone else be the lightning rod for awhile.

She's not the presumptive front-runner.

Is that their percentage of Native American DNA?

[LordMortis]

I hear she was born in Kenya and has yet to produce a birth certificate. Lock her up!

My instincts say she shouldn't have ever engaged him on something so meaningless but my political instincts have been shown to be lacking for what appears to be the better part of a decade.

[hepcat]

I still think Bernie would've beaten Trump in 2016, but that's spilt milk not worth rehashing. He is not the right man for '20. Sanders is a pedantic progressive. Warren is a pragmatic progressive who doesn't have the old-man-yelling-at-cloud thing going against her. Warren's politics align closely with mine (she's a little too conservative, but one must adapt) and I hope she goes all the way.

That said, she's the presumptive front-runner before campaigning even begins, and having that target on one's back is not an enviable position. There's only one way she can go from there, and she's got to spend two years preventing it. I hope she spends a year just building her organization and sniping from the sidelines. Let someone else be the lightning rod for awhile.

She's not the presumptive front-runner.

Is that their percentage of Native American DNA?

[Alefroth]

Christ half the people in America have as much native american blood as she does, what a joke.

Cite?

Clearly you and Ahrens have a desired conclusion, so you're ignoring that Warren is also 'possibly' 1/64th, which is 1.5%, much higher than the average the survey of merely 160,000 people found. The one where one of the co-authors said there was likely survey bias.

[El Guapo]

Also:

[hepcat]

Zimmer weighs in.

Right or wrong, she engaged with Trump at his level. That never ends well for anyone but Trump because her audience expects more as they're hoping for someone to counter Trump, not mimic him. She should be studying Beto O'Rourke, not Trump.

[Paingod]

When they go low, we kick them. Even if it means we have to break our legs getting down there.