Elizabeth Warren and Sophistry

When Elizabeth Warren launched her prepared slam in the Democratic debate, that the males on the stage had lost a total of 10 elections, whereas she and Amy Klobuchar had lost none, Mad Dog groaned.

Of course, Warren got a laugh and multiple pundits declared she won the debate with that (excuse the expression) trump line. People Mad Dog respects, were, inexplicably delighted with this crack.

But Mad Dog was confused, perplexed, astonished:  Elizabeth Warren has run only twice.  She won a grand total of two elections.

How many times have Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg stood before the public and run?

What Warren was doing was dealing in percentages rather than absolute numbers.

This is like the baseball rookie who gets two base hits his first two times at bat and is batting 1.000 and claims he's a better, more successful hitter than Ted Williams who only bats 0.400.

Hampshire College issued a bumper sticker which said: "Hampshire College Football: Undefeated Since 1969." Of course, Hampshire College has no football team.

Or, as Cederic Daniels' wife told him in "The Wire":  "You cannot lose if you do not play."

But of course, that wasn't the worst moment for Senator Warren that night: She refused to take Senator Sanders' prof-erred hand at the end of the debate.

As many ways as Mad Dog has  tried to assess this the only conceivable interpretation is that Senator Warren knew/believed Bernie Sanders had said a woman could not/would not be able to win a Presidential election in the current climate of 2018 when he was speaking. 

Mad Dog would like to know
1/ Were Warren and Sanders the only people present for this exchange?
2/ Did Sanders set up any ground rules on which he relied before speaking, such as: "This is not for public consumption," or "I'll deny this if you ever said I said it, but the truth is..." ?
3/ Why Warren would bring up a two year old comment as if it represented Sanders thinking today?

The same argument applied, in my mind, to the attack on Brett Kavanaugh for being a dissolute, depraved 17 year old, as if once you are a drunken frat boy, you can never change your life, behavior, attitudes once you pass through your 30's and 40's and "mature."

Mad Dog may  not vote for Mr. Sanders in the primary because:
1/ He is too old
2/ Everything emanating from Washington DC about Sanders suggests his office was so disorganized as to be dysfunctional; he never listens, only speechifies at his colleagues and so is ineffective 

But Mad Dog, who once was enamored of Ms. Warren finds he cannot vote for her either, because: 
1. She has shown herself to be too rigid and unwilling to answer the basic question: Why not agree to Medicare for All Who Want It if that is all the Congress will give you?
Why not say, "Look, I'd like MFA but I'd accept, a first step in that direction, if people are not yet convinced they'd be better off with the government than with their current union negotiated deals?
2. She has appeared sanctimonious over Mr. Sanders impolitic remark about the challenge of electing a woman President.  Or, worse yet, she may have violated a confidence and then been unwilling to forgive a lie.

Either way, Mad Dog has scratched Warren, Sanders off his list.
Pete is off because he cannot win as a gay, and has not won as a gay in Indiana.
There, I said it, and I will not disavow it. He'd be my choice, but as far as I can tell, he'd lose the majority of Black voters and likely a good part of the Rust Belt.
Biden is off because, even if his stammer is the explanation, he appears too infirm and mentally dull.
Styer is a non entity rich guy who hasn't paid his dues and we already have one of those in the White House.

Which leaves Amy Klobuchar, who may be a little too Bella Abzug, may not be a winning personality, but she might be tough enough to face down Mafia Don.