Her campaign was terrible and ridiculous. She ended with 1/1024 of the support she started with. She’ll take her teepee and go back to her home state that rejected her presidential big. But the media is as hagiographic of Warren now as when she started.
Consider the New York Times’ write up. Just look at this one paragraph:
Though her support had eroded by Super Tuesday, in her final weeks as a candidate she effectively drove the centrist billionaire, former New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, out of the race with debate performances that flashed her evident skills and political potential.
To be clear: Warren won exactly zero primaries and caucuses. She had no evidence skills or political potential. Her signature issue was doubling down on Medicare for All and it destroyed her campaign. Her campaign was overly focused on what progressives on Twitter thought and shifted and flailed accordingly.
But the media spent years trying to make her happen and they’ll continue to treat her as a progressive saint on the way out of her embarrassing run for President.
Good riddance.
As an aside — she came in third in her home state. What the hell sort of “evident skills and political potential” is that you media suck-ups who tried for years to make her happen? The only thing more pathetic than Warren’s campaign was the media suck up tour that has followed her for years trying to make her happen.
Again, good riddance.
I’m subscribing, and while I have yet to google the meaning of hagiographic, I would appreciate a quick proofreading to avoid things like “ presidential big “ wasn’t yesterday National Grammar Day?