Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[Ilhan Apologist]

Would a Warren/Sanders ticket actually work? I was dismissive of that idea at first (since they're both old progressive senators from New England), but they seem to have distinct bases of support.

[Xing]

I have to wonder how many conservatives who bash higher education are basing their opinions on what a couple of overly sensitive students have said. No college professor I had ever stated a political opinion in class. Not a single one. In many classes where political topics came up, they made a conscious effort not to voice an opinion, or demonstrate agreement with the majority of the class. Maybe a few select private colleges are different, but I think the majority of this ¨liberal indoctrination¨crap exists within the troubled minds of conservatives. Sure, the majority of professors probably happen to be somewhat left-leaning, but that´s what happens when a party makes education out to be the enemy.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Can we make this about Elizabeth Warren's campaign again and take the pissing and moaning about college to general discussion?

She just got a great new poll result showing her in second place and close to 20%.

NBC/WSJ poll: Biden, Warren top 2020 Democratic field\

Biden - 26%
Warren - 19%
Harris - 13%
Sanders - 13%

I suspect a time is going to come when Sen. Sanders is going to need to decide if he wants to move the Democratic party a big, solid step to the left with Sen Warren, or keep running to validate his own ego.

[GP270watch]

Can we make this about Elizabeth Warren's campaign again and take the pissing and moaning about college to general discussion?

She just got a great new poll result showing her in second place and close to 20%.

NBC/WSJ poll: Biden, Warren top 2020 Democratic field\

Biden - 26%
Warren - 19%
Harris - 13%
Sanders - 13%

I suspect a time is going to come when Sen. Sanders is going to need to decide if he wants to move the Democratic party a big, solid step to the left with Sen Warren, or keep running to validate his own ego.

 From everything I've seen of Sanders I think he'll go with his ego. I think if Warren can make inroads with more black voters and Latinos where she's only getting around 5% to Biden's 25-35% of Latino voters, she has a path towards the nomination.

 Harris also has a path towards the nomination if she can solidify black women's vote and she's already doing better than Warren but not Biden with Latinos.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Can we make this about Elizabeth Warren's campaign again and take the pissing and moaning about college to general discussion?

She just got a great new poll result showing her in second place and close to 20%.

NBC/WSJ poll: Biden, Warren top 2020 Democratic field\

Biden - 26%
Warren - 19%
Harris - 13%
Sanders - 13%

I suspect a time is going to come when Sen. Sanders is going to need to decide if he wants to move the Democratic party a big, solid step to the left with Sen Warren, or keep running to validate his own ego.

 From everything I've seen of Sanders I think he'll go with his ego. I think if Warren can make inroads with more black voters and Latinos where she's only getting around 5% to Biden's 25-35% of Latino voters, she has a path towards the nomination.

 Harris also has a path towards the nomination if she can solidify black women's vote and she's already doing better than Warren but not Biden with Latinos.

I think that for Warren to win, Harris has to maintain at least her current levels of support with the black community, Buttigieg's voters have to abandon him and flock to Warren's camp, and some significant portion of Sanders's support has to switch over to Warren as well.  Like you, I fear that Sanders's ego will never let him make way for another progressive leader.  I think he'd rather see Biden win than give up the crown of the far left. 

[GP270watch]

 Like you, I fear that Sanders's ego will never let him make way for another progressive leader.  I think he'd rather see Biden win than give up the crown of the far left. 

 Maybe it bothers him that Warren doesn't want to touch the word socialism or be labeled a socilist even if she favors a robust social safety net and government intervention in finance.

 When you get beyond labels they have a lot of shared policy goals. Medicare for all, allowing the USPS to provide basic banking services so poor and rural communities are not exploited by payday loans and check cashing businesses, green energy, tuition free education and student loan forgivneess, etc...

[RI]

As an academic who holds an econ PhD, I'd like to chime in here on a few items:

1) First, regarding economics as a discipline, the field is indeed somewhat more conservative than most other social sciences (more than poli sci and sociology, for example), but not by that much, and this is rapidly changing. I've noticed a marked leftward shift in the types of journal articles which get published in economics just in the time since I started grad school.

This has come through a slightly complicated mechanism: the field of economics is extremely hierarchical by school, field, and journal to the point where only five journals really matter (AER, QJE, JPE, Econometrica, REStud) for tenure cases at noteworthy schools, and many tenure cases can be summed up by counting your publications in these journals. This movement has been caused by increasing ease of quantifying journal articles through Google Scholar and more robust impact factor measures. Your incentive as an econ professor is to pump out as many of these Top 5 articles as possible, and, as it turns out, the easiest route to doing so is publishing empirical papers over theoretical papers. Empirical papers follow where data, "relevance", and econometric "identification" are most available. This emphasis has meant that empirical econometric papers have become more and more trendy (e.g. income inequality, diversity, discrimination, etc.), latching on to flashy results with less and less anchoring in economic theory. As such, the type of professors who are being churned out by top PhD programs and hired by top schools tend to have good statistical skills, an eye for trendy topics, and diminishing skill in economic theory.

At the same time, econ has seen a number of #metoo scandals among the top schools (who have the worst gender norms) which has lurched sentiment toward increasing emphasis on diversity and representation (which ironically does not punish the top, but the lower schools who do not have as bad of gender norms). The end result is that the post-recession "baby Ph.D. boom" has seen a huge rise in the number of left-wing econ professors getting academic positions (especially women and minorities) while more traditionally conservative econ PhDs tend to get pushed into industry/consulting/think tanks. This has moved the point of emphasis in standard Econ 101 classes leftward as well: we're seeing textbooks with increased focus on trendy left-wing topics and emphasis on caveats to right-wing theories whereas caveats to left-wing theories are downplayed (all econ theory has a myriad of caveats, of course).

2) Regarding "liberal indoctrination" at colleges, I think it does exist to an extent, and professors do play a role, but it is an exaggerated one outside a couple fields. The primary cause of liberal lurches by college students are A) lack of rule enforcement away for parental supervision which allows for previously taboo behavior and B) a social environment where "involvement" and "difference-making" is incentivized-- campus activities tend to exhibit network externalities and increasing returns to scale as larger and louder groups see higher returns both during your time on campus and beyond through alumni networking. Thus, if you want to both belong and maximize your future gains, you are incentivized to join groups which reinforce the dominant campus mores and norms, including lax personal morality but a globalizing left-wing social morality through which your "impact on the world" can manifest. Because, after all, virtually all of the notable causes you'll encounter which are endorsed by the in-crowd are of a left-wing bent; while other worthy causes may occasionally find representation in on-campus groups, these groups often receive less funding, less administrative support, are less likely to find a faculty advisor (as most profs are left-leaning), and lower priority in event planning, etc.

And really, more so than faculty political views (which tend to manifest in subtle ways such as topic or example choice outside of the most politicized fields like sociology or gender studies), this feedback loop all goes back to administrator politics. Campus administration has ballooned since the recession, and its mainly ballooned thanks to Obama-era reforms such as expansive Title IX changes. This has meant a boatload of new left-wing administrators who literally have jobs to pander to every possible group except white men (who are ironically far more underrepresented in college student bodies than basically any other group) and Asians, plus loads of new financial resources for every "diverse" group under the sun. College presidents have heard this sea change and have caved to every demand of these new admins who now possess far more power than ever before in on-campus internal politics.

This massive influx of admins due to Obama-era governmental mandates and changing academic social norms has created a ton of new outlays for the college budget, necessitating large tuition hikes (which are inelastically absorbed thanks to student loans) and an ever-increasing focus on bringing in more and more international students who can be charged higher rates than domestic students. This has increased the on-campus advocacy of lax immigration and visa laws, both my administrative fiat and by a larger number of students to advocate for these causes. The timing of this with Trump's more strict immigration advocacy has sharpened the already anti-Republican attitudes nascent on college campuses across students, faculty, and admins.

At the end of the day, if you want to belong and succeed on campus, you follow the trends-- that rule applies to students, faculty, and administration alike-- which is ironic given that many idealize college as a time of free-thinking and self-discovery.

[GP270watch]

This has meant a boatload of new left-wing administrators who literally have jobs to pander to every possible group except white men (who are ironically far more underrepresented in college student bodies than basically any other group)

 African American men born in America are the most underrepresented group in higher education. Many of the black students you find in college at "elite" institutions tend to be of African or Caribbean heritage. Even at the top public colleges black students are underrepresented, with the numbers being worse for black men than black women.

[Wiz in Wis]

As an academic who holds an econ PhD, I'd like to chime in here on a few items:

1) First, regarding economics as a discipline, the field is indeed somewhat more conservative than most other social sciences (more than poli sci and sociology, for example), but not by that much, and this is rapidly changing. I've noticed a marked leftward shift in the types of journal articles which get published in economics just in the time since I started grad school.

This has come through a slightly complicated mechanism: the field of economics is extremely hierarchical by school, field, and journal to the point where only five journals really matter (AER, QJE, JPE, Econometrica, REStud) for tenure cases at noteworthy schools, and many tenure cases can be summed up by counting your publications in these journals. This movement has been caused by increasing ease of quantifying journal articles through Google Scholar and more robust impact factor measures. Your incentive as an econ professor is to pump out as many of these Top 5 articles as possible, and, as it turns out, the easiest route to doing so is publishing empirical papers over theoretical papers. Empirical papers follow where data, "relevance", and econometric "identification" are most available. This emphasis has meant that empirical econometric papers have become more and more trendy (e.g. income inequality, diversity, discrimination, etc.), latching on to flashy results with less and less anchoring in economic theory. As such, the type of professors who are being churned out by top PhD programs and hired by top schools tend to have good statistical skills, an eye for trendy topics, and diminishing skill in economic theory.

At the same time, econ has seen a number of #metoo scandals among the top schools (who have the worst gender norms) which has lurched sentiment toward increasing emphasis on diversity and representation (which ironically does not punish the top, but the lower schools who do not have as bad of gender norms). The end result is that the post-recession "baby Ph.D. boom" has seen a huge rise in the number of left-wing econ professors getting academic positions (especially women and minorities) while more traditionally conservative econ PhDs tend to get pushed into industry/consulting/think tanks. This has moved the point of emphasis in standard Econ 101 classes leftward as well: we're seeing textbooks with increased focus on trendy left-wing topics and emphasis on caveats to right-wing theories whereas caveats to left-wing theories are downplayed (all econ theory has a myriad of caveats, of course).

2) Regarding "liberal indoctrination" at colleges, I think it does exist to an extent, and professors do play a role, but it is an exaggerated one outside a couple fields. The primary cause of liberal lurches by college students are A) lack of rule enforcement away for parental supervision which allows for previously taboo behavior and B) a social environment where "involvement" and "difference-making" is incentivized-- campus activities tend to exhibit network externalities and increasing returns to scale as larger and louder groups see higher returns both during your time on campus and beyond through alumni networking. Thus, if you want to both belong and maximize your future gains, you are incentivized to join groups which reinforce the dominant campus mores and norms, including lax personal morality but a globalizing left-wing social morality through which your "impact on the world" can manifest. Because, after all, virtually all of the notable causes you'll encounter which are endorsed by the in-crowd are of a left-wing bent; while other worthy causes may occasionally find representation in on-campus groups, these groups often receive less funding, less administrative support, are less likely to find a faculty advisor (as most profs are left-leaning), and lower priority in event planning, etc.

And really, more so than faculty political views (which tend to manifest in subtle ways such as topic or example choice outside of the most politicized fields like sociology or gender studies), this feedback loop all goes back to administrator politics. Campus administration has ballooned since the recession, and its mainly ballooned thanks to Obama-era reforms such as expansive Title IX changes. This has meant a boatload of new left-wing administrators who literally have jobs to pander to every possible group except white men (who are ironically far more underrepresented in college student bodies than basically any other group) and Asians, plus loads of new financial resources for every "diverse" group under the sun. College presidents have heard this sea change and have caved to every demand of these new admins who now possess far more power than ever before in on-campus internal politics.

This massive influx of admins due to Obama-era governmental mandates and changing academic social norms has created a ton of new outlays for the college budget, necessitating large tuition hikes (which are inelastically absorbed thanks to student loans) and an ever-increasing focus on bringing in more and more international students who can be charged higher rates than domestic students. This has increased the on-campus advocacy of lax immigration and visa laws, both my administrative fiat and by a larger number of students to advocate for these causes. The timing of this with Trump's more strict immigration advocacy has sharpened the already anti-Republican attitudes nascent on college campuses across students, faculty, and admins.

At the end of the day, if you want to belong and succeed on campus, you follow the trends-- that rule applies to students, faculty, and administration alike-- which is ironic given that many idealize college as a time of free-thinking and self-discovery.

How do you write that much in the "Elizabeth Warren campaign megathread" and not mention Liz Warren ONCE. Seriously, we have a general discussion board, start a topic there.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

This has meant a boatload of new left-wing administrators who literally have jobs to pander to every possible group except white men (who are ironically far more underrepresented in college student bodies than basically any other group)

 African American men born in America are the most underrepresented group in higher education. Many of the black students you find in college at "elite" institutions tend to be of African or Caribbean heritage. Even at the top public colleges black students are underrepresented, with the numbers being worse for black men than black women.

Yeah, the only group that are way overrepresented in colleges is white women.

I really don't see many programs aimed towards black students either. Most programs are for women.

[coloradocowboi]

As an academic who holds an econ PhD, I'd like to chime in here on a few items:

1) First, regarding economics as a discipline, the field is indeed somewhat more conservative than most other social sciences (more than poli sci and sociology, for example), but not by that much, and this is rapidly changing. I've noticed a marked leftward shift in the types of journal articles which get published in economics just in the time since I started grad school.

This has come through a slightly complicated mechanism: the field of economics is extremely hierarchical by school, field, and journal to the point where only five journals really matter (AER, QJE, JPE, Econometrica, REStud) for tenure cases at noteworthy schools, and many tenure cases can be summed up by counting your publications in these journals. This movement has been caused by increasing ease of quantifying journal articles through Google Scholar and more robust impact factor measures. Your incentive as an econ professor is to pump out as many of these Top 5 articles as possible, and, as it turns out, the easiest route to doing so is publishing empirical papers over theoretical papers. Empirical papers follow where data, "relevance", and econometric "identification" are most available. This emphasis has meant that empirical econometric papers have become more and more trendy (e.g. income inequality, diversity, discrimination, etc.), latching on to flashy results with less and less anchoring in economic theory. As such, the type of professors who are being churned out by top PhD programs and hired by top schools tend to have good statistical skills, an eye for trendy topics, and diminishing skill in economic theory.

At the same time, econ has seen a number of #metoo scandals among the top schools (who have the worst gender norms) which has lurched sentiment toward increasing emphasis on diversity and representation (which ironically does not punish the top, but the lower schools who do not have as bad of gender norms). The end result is that the post-recession "baby Ph.D. boom" has seen a huge rise in the number of left-wing econ professors getting academic positions (especially women and minorities) while more traditionally conservative econ PhDs tend to get pushed into industry/consulting/think tanks. This has moved the point of emphasis in standard Econ 101 classes leftward as well: we're seeing textbooks with increased focus on trendy left-wing topics and emphasis on caveats to right-wing theories whereas caveats to left-wing theories are downplayed (all econ theory has a myriad of caveats, of course).

2) Regarding "liberal indoctrination" at colleges, I think it does exist to an extent, and professors do play a role, but it is an exaggerated one outside a couple fields. The primary cause of liberal lurches by college students are A) lack of rule enforcement away for parental supervision which allows for previously taboo behavior and B) a social environment where "involvement" and "difference-making" is incentivized-- campus activities tend to exhibit network externalities and increasing returns to scale as larger and louder groups see higher returns both during your time on campus and beyond through alumni networking. Thus, if you want to both belong and maximize your future gains, you are incentivized to join groups which reinforce the dominant campus mores and norms, including lax personal morality but a globalizing left-wing social morality through which your "impact on the world" can manifest. Because, after all, virtually all of the notable causes you'll encounter which are endorsed by the in-crowd are of a left-wing bent; while other worthy causes may occasionally find representation in on-campus groups, these groups often receive less funding, less administrative support, are less likely to find a faculty advisor (as most profs are left-leaning), and lower priority in event planning, etc.

And really, more so than faculty political views (which tend to manifest in subtle ways such as topic or example choice outside of the most politicized fields like sociology or gender studies), this feedback loop all goes back to administrator politics. Campus administration has ballooned since the recession, and its mainly ballooned thanks to Obama-era reforms such as expansive Title IX changes. This has meant a boatload of new left-wing administrators who literally have jobs to pander to every possible group except white men (who are ironically far more underrepresented in college student bodies than basically any other group) and Asians, plus loads of new financial resources for every "diverse" group under the sun. College presidents have heard this sea change and have caved to every demand of these new admins who now possess far more power than ever before in on-campus internal politics.

This massive influx of admins due to Obama-era governmental mandates and changing academic social norms has created a ton of new outlays for the college budget, necessitating large tuition hikes (which are inelastically absorbed thanks to student loans) and an ever-increasing focus on bringing in more and more international students who can be charged higher rates than domestic students. This has increased the on-campus advocacy of lax immigration and visa laws, both my administrative fiat and by a larger number of students to advocate for these causes. The timing of this with Trump's more strict immigration advocacy has sharpened the already anti-Republican attitudes nascent on college campuses across students, faculty, and admins.

At the end of the day, if you want to belong and succeed on campus, you follow the trends-- that rule applies to students, faculty, and administration alike-- which is ironic given that many idealize college as a time of free-thinking and self-discovery.

How do you write that much in the "Elizabeth Warren campaign megathread" and not mention Liz Warren ONCE. Seriously, we have a general discussion board, start a topic there.

Okay, I am also an academic (an anthropologist) and once again we have an example of economics applying its limited world view to problems that have nothing to do with that.

First of all, you notice the leftward shift in economics because unlike my field, yours stifled intellectual diversity in the Cold War. People like Samuel Bowles were denied tenure for no reason other than their Marxist analyses and that no longer is acceptable in economics departments. The censorship limited your field, and is only now being addressed as its increasingly obvious that the hegemonic laissez-faire economics that I bet you like has absolutely no answers for things like climate change. That so many have been pushed out because of their utter contempt for women in the field just further demonstrates that economics as a discipline had ossified into something corrupt and useless.

I won't even touch on the "intellectual diversity" whining. We no longer entertain Young Earth creationist's beliefs as serious strains of geology or biology. We don't in my field entertain scientific racism as having any basis in fact because it is culturally, genetically, phenotypically, and wholly scientifically unsound. I suspect the same is happening with classic liberalism, and instead of addressing the concerns of its critics and at least trying to communicate within the discursive parameters of this zeitgeist, all classical economists do is whine about "intellectual diversity" (even though they don't seem to care that much about the more pressing problems of economic and racial diversity on campus). That strategy won't work and they won't get why. Pull yourself by your own bootstraps indeed...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It is interesting to hear you observe that organized university groups are feeding people’s tendencies toward “lax personal morality.” If that were really the case, we would be seeing much more conservatism on campus.

[jacobmeteorite]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1151651371302694916?s=21

He’s using the Pocahontas thing again.
What do you guys think? How do you interpret the audience reaction?
Is the DNA thing still effective and resonating? Or is it old?

[Dr. Arch]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1151651371302694916?s=21

He’s using the Pocahontas thing again.
What do you guys think? How do you interpret the audience reaction?
Is the DNA thing still effective and resonating? Or is it old?

Boring as hell at this point.

[Gustaf]

As an academic who holds an econ PhD, I'd like to chime in here on a few items:

1) First, regarding economics as a discipline, the field is indeed somewhat more conservative than most other social sciences (more than poli sci and sociology, for example), but not by that much, and this is rapidly changing. I've noticed a marked leftward shift in the types of journal articles which get published in economics just in the time since I started grad school.

This has come through a slightly complicated mechanism: the field of economics is extremely hierarchical by school, field, and journal to the point where only five journals really matter (AER, QJE, JPE, Econometrica, REStud) for tenure cases at noteworthy schools, and many tenure cases can be summed up by counting your publications in these journals. This movement has been caused by increasing ease of quantifying journal articles through Google Scholar and more robust impact factor measures. Your incentive as an econ professor is to pump out as many of these Top 5 articles as possible, and, as it turns out, the easiest route to doing so is publishing empirical papers over theoretical papers. Empirical papers follow where data, "relevance", and econometric "identification" are most available. This emphasis has meant that empirical econometric papers have become more and more trendy (e.g. income inequality, diversity, discrimination, etc.), latching on to flashy results with less and less anchoring in economic theory. As such, the type of professors who are being churned out by top PhD programs and hired by top schools tend to have good statistical skills, an eye for trendy topics, and diminishing skill in economic theory.

At the same time, econ has seen a number of #metoo scandals among the top schools (who have the worst gender norms) which has lurched sentiment toward increasing emphasis on diversity and representation (which ironically does not punish the top, but the lower schools who do not have as bad of gender norms). The end result is that the post-recession "baby Ph.D. boom" has seen a huge rise in the number of left-wing econ professors getting academic positions (especially women and minorities) while more traditionally conservative econ PhDs tend to get pushed into industry/consulting/think tanks. This has moved the point of emphasis in standard Econ 101 classes leftward as well: we're seeing textbooks with increased focus on trendy left-wing topics and emphasis on caveats to right-wing theories whereas caveats to left-wing theories are downplayed (all econ theory has a myriad of caveats, of course).

2) Regarding "liberal indoctrination" at colleges, I think it does exist to an extent, and professors do play a role, but it is an exaggerated one outside a couple fields. The primary cause of liberal lurches by college students are A) lack of rule enforcement away for parental supervision which allows for previously taboo behavior and B) a social environment where "involvement" and "difference-making" is incentivized-- campus activities tend to exhibit network externalities and increasing returns to scale as larger and louder groups see higher returns both during your time on campus and beyond through alumni networking. Thus, if you want to both belong and maximize your future gains, you are incentivized to join groups which reinforce the dominant campus mores and norms, including lax personal morality but a globalizing left-wing social morality through which your "impact on the world" can manifest. Because, after all, virtually all of the notable causes you'll encounter which are endorsed by the in-crowd are of a left-wing bent; while other worthy causes may occasionally find representation in on-campus groups, these groups often receive less funding, less administrative support, are less likely to find a faculty advisor (as most profs are left-leaning), and lower priority in event planning, etc.

And really, more so than faculty political views (which tend to manifest in subtle ways such as topic or example choice outside of the most politicized fields like sociology or gender studies), this feedback loop all goes back to administrator politics. Campus administration has ballooned since the recession, and its mainly ballooned thanks to Obama-era reforms such as expansive Title IX changes. This has meant a boatload of new left-wing administrators who literally have jobs to pander to every possible group except white men (who are ironically far more underrepresented in college student bodies than basically any other group) and Asians, plus loads of new financial resources for every "diverse" group under the sun. College presidents have heard this sea change and have caved to every demand of these new admins who now possess far more power than ever before in on-campus internal politics.

This massive influx of admins due to Obama-era governmental mandates and changing academic social norms has created a ton of new outlays for the college budget, necessitating large tuition hikes (which are inelastically absorbed thanks to student loans) and an ever-increasing focus on bringing in more and more international students who can be charged higher rates than domestic students. This has increased the on-campus advocacy of lax immigration and visa laws, both my administrative fiat and by a larger number of students to advocate for these causes. The timing of this with Trump's more strict immigration advocacy has sharpened the already anti-Republican attitudes nascent on college campuses across students, faculty, and admins.

At the end of the day, if you want to belong and succeed on campus, you follow the trends-- that rule applies to students, faculty, and administration alike-- which is ironic given that many idealize college as a time of free-thinking and self-discovery.

How do you write that much in the "Elizabeth Warren campaign megathread" and not mention Liz Warren ONCE. Seriously, we have a general discussion board, start a topic there.

Okay, I am also an academic (an anthropologist) and once again we have an example of economics applying its limited world view to problems that have nothing to do with that.

First of all, you notice the leftward shift in economics because unlike my field, yours stifled intellectual diversity in the Cold War. People like Samuel Bowles were denied tenure for no reason other than their Marxist analyses and that no longer is acceptable in economics departments. The censorship limited your field, and is only now being addressed as its increasingly obvious that the hegemonic laissez-faire economics that I bet you like has absolutely no answers for things like climate change. That so many have been pushed out because of their utter contempt for women in the field just further demonstrates that economics as a discipline had ossified into something corrupt and useless.

I won't even touch on the "intellectual diversity" whining. We no longer entertain Young Earth creationist's beliefs as serious strains of geology or biology. We don't in my field entertain scientific racism as having any basis in fact because it is culturally, genetically, phenotypically, and wholly scientifically unsound. I suspect the same is happening with classic liberalism, and instead of addressing the concerns of its critics and at least trying to communicate within the discursive parameters of this zeitgeist, all classical economists do is whine about "intellectual diversity" (even though they don't seem to care that much about the more pressing problems of economic and racial diversity on campus). That strategy won't work and they won't get why. Pull yourself by your own bootstraps indeed...

lol

It's endlessly fascinating to see people with zero knowledge about economics make grand pronouncements that demonstrate their ignorance.

[GP270watch]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1151651371302694916?s=21


Boring as hell at this point.

Elizabeth Warren is about 42 Native Americans in one body according to "stable genius".

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1151651371302694916?s=21
He’s using the Pocahontas thing again.
What do you guys think? How do you interpret the audience reaction?
Is the DNA thing still effective and resonating? Or is it old?

The audience is eating it up.

I disagree with attacking Warren for this, but he makes it entertaining.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1151993453682651136

I really hope Bernie and Pete don't do this, I'd hate to have to support Biden or Harris.

[Kleine Scheiße]

Do you have any hobbies, BRTD?

[Wells]

I should've known better than to expect a serious reason from this thread.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Do you have any hobbies, BRTD?

Ingress haven't you heard? And going to my music scene's shows.

[7,052,770]

Will you still vote for her if she's the nominee? That's all that really matters.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Will you still vote for her if she's the nominee? That's all that really matters.

Dude, I voted for Ilhan Omar.

[I Can Now Die Happy]

BRTD do you ever get accused of being transphobic, sexist, racist, etc?

[Skunk]

ENDORSED!!!!!