ELIZABETH WARREN IS BEGINNING TO WIN THE ELECTABILITY ARGUMENT

[BlueMTexpat]

Note: The headline is in all caps. I merely copied it. Please don't react negatively simply due to that.

****
Warren is single-handedly shifting the conversation among Democrats about whether a woman can win. New research finds voters are still spooked by the ultimate glass ceiling—but they also think that Warren might be the one to break through.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/elizabeth-warren-winning-the-electability-argument

The emergence of Elizabeth Warren as a frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination has been the story of the 2020 primary. Warren has steadily climbed in the polls, the only Democrat who is assembling a broad coalition voters and growing her support, an obvious indicator of future success. She has parried attacks from her rivals and largely avoided tough questions from the press. Her golden retriever has more Twitter followers than Joe Sestak, who is an actual presidential candidate. Since the beginning of the cycle, Warren has been rewarded for her bold positions and the simple fact that she has a clear point of view that allows her to be on offense every day. No other Democratic campaign can say the same.

But what’s remarkable about Warren’s rise, and her durability, is that it’s coming in the face of considerable headwinds blowing within the Democratic electorate. According to new findings from the progressive research firm Avalanche on the subject of “electability,” Democrats are haunted by the state of the country under Donald Trump and deeply worried about their ability to beat him next year with a woman on top of the ticket. Avalanche found that 53% of likely Democratic primary voters say it is “Harder” or “Much Harder” for a female candidate to defeat Trump. But in spite of those worries, Warren is also now perceived as more electable than she was in June, when Avalanche last conducted a survey on electability.

“There is persistent belief that gender is a barrier to electability, even though people are choosing Warren,” said Michiah Prull, the CEO of Avalanche. “Gender being a barrier is a view held as much by Warren supporters as anyone else. But what we are really seeing in Warren’s rise is that people recognize that gender is a challenge, but people also think she is up for it, and that she can overcome this barrier. Democrats are worried about winning. And at the same time you have a bunch of people saying, ‘Let’s support a bold female candidate with bold progressive ideas, someone who presents optimistic views in the face of a dark view of the country.’”
...
Warren’s ascent is coming despite nagging worries among Democrats about electability and gender. In the survey, among the segment of respondents who selected a man for the horse race, but shifted to a female candidate when given a magic wand, 78% reported believing it is “Harder” or “Much Harder” for a female candidate to defeat Trump. Predictably, among these Democrats, almost no respondents cited any kind of personal bias or sexism. Instead, 62% reported believing that others are much less or less likely to vote for a female candidate. “Above all, the belief that women are hard to elect is most closely tied to how voters perceive their fellow citizens,” Avalanche wrote in a memo about their findings. As in June, when Avalanche first conducted an electability survey, women were more likely than men to cite gender as a concern in the general election.

**********

MUCH more at the link. This is a very interesting article.

[Yoopy]

1. This is all before Trump smears her

Trump will come up with some made up Scandal that the media will hype and Americans will buy because Americans are stupid.

[durablend]

3. That's going to happen no matter who the candidate is

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

9. BINGO!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[we can do it]

36. Because this would never happen to a man.

Like Biden, for instance.

[Yoopy]

43. You're implying that she will stay just as electable as she is today

And you falsely implied that I think a man wouldn't be smeared.

[TidalWave46]

2. It took more time to type the "note"

Than it would have to rewrite the headline. 😁

Warren can win.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. Almost anyone can win, but especially Elizabeth... and Bernie. Together, they're unstoppable.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[TidalWave46]

11. Hard to take you seriously with that Bernie comment.

Last edited Tue Oct 15, 2019, 11:35 AM - Edit history (1)

He couldn’t win before. Add serious health concerns on top of that and he is a non-starter. The recent polls we’ve seen back that up. I understand cult of personality but even this one is a bit too far.

Warren would never pick Sanders as her running mate. She is much smarter than that. He brings nothing to the table of a Warren ticket except a bad heart and a lightening rod.

[bearsfootball516]

34. For real.

There is nothing showing Bernie has much of a chance to win the nomination right now. And if Warren wins it, there’s no indication she would want him as VP, or that he would even accept a VP nomination.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

39. By your strange logic, all the Biden supporters should give up on their candidate...

since Joe "couldn't win before" (twice!!!)


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[TidalWave46]

41. That doesn't make any sense.

Even using this logic you bring forward, how many elections has Sanders won as a Democrat?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

47. LMAO! You obviously didn't read, or ignored, what I said in response to your post...good try though!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[TidalWave46]

49. I would say the same if I had nothing to back up my point.

The thought that Warren would even entertain Sanders as a VP choice is laughable. The thought alone is based in cult of personality.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

50. Rinse... repeat. Too funny!! I agree with you though, as it applies to Joe.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Thekaspervote]

56. This! EW if and I say it's still a big if wins the nomination she will need a younger VP

She is not young either. Would not be reassuring to the American people to have that combination

[TidalWave46]

58. You don't think she would pick a 79 yo who just had a heart attack?

[CTyankee]

42. You are spot on! IMO, of course.

Warren has to pick from the current candidates the one that can help her ticket and have proved that they could. The obvious choice, to me, is Cory Booker. He's younger, has great organizing ability in communities of color, and would work with her and her goals and put them into action whenever he could. He would, of course, have his eye on succession of her after 8 great years.
That's what I conjure up in my mind at least...

[get the red out]

53. I think that would be great

I like Corey Booker a lot! And Warren is my pick for the Dem nomination.

[BlueMTexpat]

13. Ah well,

you can't please all of the people all of the time, LOL.

[TidalWave46]

20. I read the headline just like I would any other.

I don't automatically start yelling inside of my head as I read headlines in all caps.

When my wife sends me a text in all caps I read it as yelling. It's important to know who is delivering the content.

“Concerns around electability for Warren have really shifted in the last few months,” Prull said. “It doesn’t appear that ideas about gender have declined in the abstract. What does appear to be accepted more now that people believe that one can overcome that…Democrats feel that America is tipping toward a place that doesn’t reflect the values they thought it did. A big question for any candidate is how do you overcome this cynicism about America, and present something that people can believe in and get behind.” For now, if this research is correct, it appears Warren is doing just that.

From the article in your op.

I like how that is worded. Until education and upbringing change the dynamics of how we see gender we will overcome the stigma in politics by simply showing up in greater numbers than our opponents to support strong women for office.

[BlueMTexpat]

23. Good for you

for not taking offense!

But there are some here who do focus on such a thing first. I actually should have done as you suggested and re-typed the headline.

I like that para too. Thanks for posting it here.

[Hortensis]

4. For the moment. As Yoopy says, but I believe she'll plateau

well before the convention.

The Republicans/Russia are of course currently holding off most attacks on her and actually promoting her. They're just issuing little reminders that Repubs should fear her as an extremist threat to Christianity, democracy, and "the American way."

Meanwhile, the RW swiftboating machine is busy designing and refining scandals to roll out if she becomes the nominee. Also Biden. Whoever we nominate will be presented to the nation as just as untrustworthy as Trump and as the culminating threat to America's survival that all this political chaos has been bringing us to.

The most electable candidate will be the one fewer millions will be suckered into turning against.

And, of course, she's a woman. There's that. America's great, long-time familiarity with Hillary was her biggest asset against the blizzard of lies, but her great liability was her gender.

And there's history. We've been here before. Back in the 1930s many anxious people looked to the extremes, socialism, fascism, dictatorship, for rescue, all considered respectable, valid options by their factions. But Democrats, and then America, elected "establishment" Democrat FDR to restore stability.

In this time of great trouble, the RW fascistic-leaning extremism that's taking over the Republican Party is doing scary well. The LW extremism is pretty mild and limited. Sanders can't give socialism away and is reduced to promising monetary giveaways in return for electing him. But I believe, in spite of the support the positivity of her messages of change generates, at base Warren is today's LW version of looking around anxiously for rescue.

[cannabis_flower]

5. I don't know..

but I think a lot of people are thinking about the old saying "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."

[Hortensis]

6. Yes. The midterms showed that happening. :)

But my best guess is that once again Democrats, and then the nation, will respond to the great anxiety-inducing changes we're in the middle of by choosing to address our problems from a position of stability, a restoration of values and systems in place just a couple of years ago that they know worked. The midterms clearly showed a preference for that as well.

[Boomer]

7. If that's true...

Then Elizabeth Warren will win by a landslide. She radiates integrity and midwestern values. She's a capitalist who wants to reform the system to be fair and just.

[Hortensis]

12. She is conforming somewhat to FDR's "from within the establishment,"

big-change, improved-capitalism formula. But that reality could support your belief or my best guess.

Remember that in the 1930s a solid majority of Democrats (progressive liberals ruled the party then also) voted for progressive liberal FDR, an ex-military member of the old-money establishment, NOT for his farther-left opponents with their promises to undo the corruption they insisted he represented and replace them with the universal, one-answer-for-all solutions they promised.

The Republicans and Russians would cast Warren as dangerously extreme. She's setting herself up for major controversy by promising to use government power to impose one universal solution. That's, of course, permanently stripping the right to choose workplace insurance from 250 million working adults. Even I think that's unnecessarily extreme and an attack on personal freedoms. Then there's all the rest they have to work with.

Speaking of Sanders, , the kind of Sanders supporters who refused to vote for Clinton in 2016 passionately despised and opposed FDR in the 1930s and 1940s. (Interestingly, a lot of analysts see Sanders as ideologically a 1930s-type socialist.) Another guess is that if Warren did become a serious contender, Sanders and his zealous supporters would turn on her as they did Hillary.

[Boomer]

40. It's funny how Warren gets cast as the bogeyman

Many of the left-wing progressives I discuss politics with distrust Warren because she's too conservative and they are adamantly opposed to any compromise on Medicare 4 All. If she changes her stance for the one-solution, they will consider it a betrayal.

Then I turn around and other people won't vote for Warren until she drops her support for the one-solution plan and they consider her an extreme leftist.

For myself, Warren is a bit on the conservative side, but overall I trust her character and her motives. I recognize that her plans will have to shift and change, because there's no path for purity in a pluralistic democracy. Ultimately, what I'm voting for is a person of good heart and sound values, and I've found that in Elizabeth Warren.

[Hortensis]

45. I wanted her to run in 2016. She was no bogeyman at all,

and most Dems still like her. I felt she had "sound" values, i.e., ones I share, until she adopted Sanders' unnecessarily extreme universal solution scheme. That alarmed me in him (confirmed my belief in his extremism), and now I have to wonder just how weak her commitment to the rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness might be. Freedom requires elbow room. One hole for all pegs is incompatible with individual liberties. What else?

But back to politics, running on limiting freedoms is just not a good tack for candidates trying to appeal to a majority of voters.

It may be that she initially ran to promote her ideology within the party (and perhaps as one of her goals to help defang Sanders and Russia?) and is doing better than she expected. I've also wondered if she adopted Sanders' healthcare proposal, instead of putting one forward a real plan of her own, so that she could dump it more easily if desirable.

[Thekaspervote]

59. Agree but don't think the nation sees her as the "stability candidate" offering a return to

More Stable middle of the road American values.

[Hortensis]

61. :) Only compared perhaps to Sanders, and I expect that's

why she's doing so much better than him. But agree.

[BlueMTexpat]

15. Perhaps.

But most likely not. But we'll certainly see one way or the other soon.

Yes, Trump and the GOP will throw smears at her. But Trump's not on his "A game" these days, in large part due to his failed attempts to smear Biden, and also because of his own "hubris." He's fighting on a lot of fronts right now.

Elizabeth can withstand smears from the right; she knows well how they think.

There are some "Dems" I'm actually more worried about. Sad to say.

[Hortensis]

17. Everyone knows how the right thinks. It's no protection.

Electability will be drawing more voters to the polls than anyone else can, in spite of what our enemies will do.

[BlueMTexpat]

18. You're right.

But I sincerely believe that Elizabeth can draw more voters to the polls. Polls have shown that she is - so far - generating the most enthusiasm of all the candidates. That is saying something because we have a lot of good candidates.

The polls also show that she has lots of room to grow support, being most often selected as the second choice of those who are currently supporting other candidates.

It will be an interesting few months as we see how things play out. We can definitely agree on that.

[Hortensis]

31. True enough, and we definitely agree it will be very interesting.

Inspiring and terrifying.

Note, though, that enthusiasm equates a lot more reliably to hopping in the car with friends and driving over to see a rally than to votes. Most liberal voters are quieter and have decades of experience. She does generate overall good, positive enthusiasm, though, and that's critically important. And that Biden is the biggest second choice for her voters. A nice situation, actually.

As opposed to Sanders. His rallies are notorious for drawing a lot of people who haven't bothered to register, and too much of the kind of "enthusiasm" he tends to generate prefers to attack every Democrat who's not with them rather than enlarge his following to achieve the claimed goals. His keeping those toxic elements drawn off is instrumental in the broadening of her appeal, even if they do end up turning on/being turned heavily against her. All part of running these days.

[CTyankee]

44. Here's my hope: that Sanders realizes he cannot reverse the effects of age on his condition and

drops out, throwing his support to Warren. I say this as an old person myself.

I would like to see him go to her rallies when she is our Dem candidate and rallying those supporters of his who are not registered to vote to get registered and to vote. Maybe they have to hear it from him.

Am I dreaming or do you think it is "possible" for him to come to this realization?

[Hortensis]

46. :) I think he hasn't changed his rigid self in

a half century and was reminded today that the first time he voted was for himself when he finally ran for office. That was a race he was guaranteed to lose, but after all those years there was finally a candidate on the ballot he found worth voting for.

I think that he finds himself the only worthwhile candidate is not the sole insight into his character from his history. He claims to have ideals and espouses progressive and civil rights goals but also didn't bother to vote for or against any issue in all those years. Neither to create nor protect from destruction.

His passion for class-based revolution is a lifetime pattern, but at base it's always been about him. There are so many other indications to what goes on in his head that suggest the same thing.

So my best guess is that Warren would get his genuine support, not merely a tepid, empty statement, ONLY if she somehow made her campaign about promoting him, herself a surrogate for him, not that that could happen of course. He'll go after her as he always has everyone else on the left who threatens to surpass him. 2016 was not the first time he ran a splinter candidacy that threw power to the Republicans, and of course there's that ruthlessly nasty crew he's again hired to go after his Democratic competition.

In fact, when I think of his bizarre antipathy to the Democratic Party's (not his) creation of a national healthcare program, to the point of trying to destroy it, I suspect he might have the same attitude toward anything Warren might threaten to achieve.

Btw, she refused to endorse him in 2016 although he wooed her for months. He won't have forgotten.

[CTyankee]

51. Geez, what a self centered old coot he is!

I am so done with him, it's not funny. And I voted for him in the CT primary in 2016 to "send a message" to the Dem party to move further left. This makes me feel like crap.

[Hortensis]

55. :) Message taken, candidate discarded. It worked out.

I was just also remembering that he's famous in Vermont for refusing to support progressive candidates in his state, even back when some were running specifically to carry his banner forward there. Local press who'd covered him for years could find no logical reason for his refusal and ended up wondering if maybe he just didn't want anyone taking his place.

[Thekaspervote]

57. Thank you.. very good break down of the facts

[BlueMTexpat]

16. She's pretty much avoided being

sucked into anyone's games so far. I believe that she'll continue avoiding such pitfalls.

What else can Trump do to her now with the "Pocahontas" smear? There's no teeth in it ... she has NA DNA, although not as much as she thought because of what her family had always told her. She's called his bluff and the more he uses that slur, the more some will see evidence of what a racist and misogynistic dick he is. It's a losing strategy.

Those who will hold that particular episode against her are lost causes, IMO. Nothing that she does will ever please them. So be it.

[pecosbob]

32. As to that point I physically got a twinge when I read this line in the original article

She has parried attacks from her rivals and LARGELY AVOIDED TOUGH QUESTIONS FROM THE PRESS.

(my capitalization)

This a misrepresentation the pundits keep repeating insinuating that for some reason they have been taking it easy on her, when in fact what she does is stop the interviewer and reframe gotcha questions.

She refuses to bite on wrong-wing talking points from reporters and they're miffed about it.

Just like a professor would do when presented with sophomoric effort.

[BlueMTexpat]

66. It is difficult for

any in the press to admit that they've been owned by Elizabeth.

[get the red out]

54. Of course

But "Pocahontas" had been beat to death by the likes of Limbaugh before Trump adopted it as a rallying cry. There will always be some over-blown crap these assholes come up with to attack people's character with. And it doesn't matter which Dem gets the nomination.

One of the reason I despise Rs, their minds work in memes and name-calling, and consider anything else "weak".

[ananda]

14. She'll have my vote!

nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

48. Mine too!! Either Elizabeth or Bernie (or both) works for me!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Otto Lidenbrock]

19. For me the question is not electability, it's RE-ELECTABILITY !!!

We must have a Democrat president elected in 2020 who will be able to be a strong incumbent for 2024.

For me a strong incumbent who is one of the older candidates has to be someone who is not going to spend four years in a battle with the GOP and their own party.

That's my worry about Biden. The party at least on an optical point of view is moving more left and the younger freshmen are becoming the party's spokespeople.

They might be too much style and not enough substance for some people but they have influence and I don't think they'll be enamoured with President Biden. I could see a situation where he is primaried from his left and sitting presidents not in control of their party never bodes well for re-election.

[BlueMTexpat]

21. One step at a time.

The bar keeps getting raised for Elizabeth, methinks.

But why on earth do you believe that Elizabeth Warren would be in a battle with her own party?

She is currently the Vice-Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus. You aren't in such a position unless you are a strong team player.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

22. I was talking about Joe Biden

My post was a + for Warren's case and a - for Biden.

[BlueMTexpat]

24. Sorry for my confusion!

[Otto Lidenbrock]

29. No problem

That's how I see things:

Joe Biden is our most electable candidate for 2020 because his pathway to 270 is more obvious given his appeal reaches the places we need to win back.

I just don't think President Joe Biden would be our best re-electable candidate if you want to look further ahead. Age, platform (if he's too conservative for younger voters now there will be more of them in five years) and as I said the Democratic caucus is being mapped by freshmen who may not represent the actual democratic base but they are a powerful media voice.

Truth be told in an ideal world for me we nominate someone who would have to live the consequences of their presidency 20-40 years after the event as Jimmy has, as Bill is and as Barack will. But I'm cool with any of the top three's policy platforms for 2020 even if all three would be the oldest democratic presidents in our history.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

62. More like A++ for Elizabeth & C for Joe seems fair.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[FloridaBlues]

25. Her plans haven't really been vetted as yet. It will start to happen

She has skated on many plans some of which won't get passed esp the ultra tax plan which pays for many of her plans.
We will just have to see how this plays out.

[BlueMTexpat]

26. Yes, we will. eom

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

63. The vetting you mention will only increase Elizabeth's support and decrease Joe's... just watch.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[lapfog_1]

27. We should start gaming out the election

as if Romney or Nikki Haley are the nominees of the Repuke party.

I doubt Trump will last another year.

[empedocles]

28. EW among Dems is not the issue. The problems now and in the past,

is electing a Dem with broad political spectrum support.

And, very importantly, ability to get a lot done if elected. [This is where we Dems foul up].

[BlueMTexpat]

30. She IS already seen favorably

by many Independents, according to some polls and articles that cite them.

A reminder that I have posted several times: for a Senator STILL in her very first term of office, she has been remarkably effective both in working with her own party AND in working across the aisle. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/elizabeth_warren/412542/report-card/2018

I am not sure why some choose either to ignore or discount this. It is important.

[empedocles]

35. These are the same arguments made for Sanders, Hillary, Obama -

- all the way back to 2008.

trump may foul up so wildly, that any Dem could get elected. That may somewhat explain why so many candidates are still in the race, and 24 declared themselves in the race, and a number of them and others, are very available in the wings.

A huge issue is having the big, broad, deep consensus, and support in Congress and the States, - to actually get a lot of things done.

[TreasonousBastard]

33. What electability argument? It was less than four years ago we elected a woman...

She just got lost in the pit of the EC.

My problem with Warren isn't that she's a woman, but that she has too many "plans". I'm really not sure how that will fly in the Great Middle. There's a reason why successful politicians usually waffle and talk feelgood talk.

Anyway, I don't know whether it will fly or not, and there was enough "what other guy will do" in that article.

[Thekaspervote]

60. +1000

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

64. Shouldn't the Democratic Party's strategy be to win the EC? I mean, that's how you win after all...

Advocating "waffle and talk feel good talk" won't cut it... we need bold progressive plans, like the ones Elizabeth and Bernie are laying out.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[TreasonousBastard]

68. It's been everybody's strategy for over 200 years...

The problem is how to do it. Some guy figured out that Joe Kennedy only bought a dozen or so districts to get JFK elected. There's a reason candidates don't spend much time in Wyoming or Rhode Island.

It ain't so easy now. You can't promise the same stuff to Nevada that you promised Connecticut, and when you promise them different stuff, 24 hour news has it out in minutes. So you fudge it and just try to get them worked up about something. Anything.

And you might try to find the name of any Progressive who won the Presidency. Bryan blew it three times, taking the Populist Party with him. Teddy Roosevelt did win re-election, but things happened, and the Bull Moose Party became another third party spoiler. FDR did NOT run as a serious progressive, but as a middle of the road fixer. He became more progressive from necessity.

All that is up for argument, but it still remains that a candidate's primary point is to gain the trust of the people, with exactly how things will be fixed up in the air.

And if you think you have the two best candidates, why put one of them in the powerless job of VP? Why not stay in the Senate or take a cabinet position where they can do some good.

[Gothmog]

38. If Warren is the nominee, then Texas will not be a battleground state

I and a number of real hardcore Democrats have been working hard to turn Texas blue. Right now, Texas will be a battleground state for the Presidential race if we nominate Biden or another moderate. In 2018, we flipped two Congressional seats from red to blue (Lizzie Fletcher and Colin Allred). Colin and Lizzie are being targeted by the GOP and we will have to work hard to defend these seats. I have already donated to Colin and will be donating to Lizzie

In addition the DCCC and the Texas state party have identified 6 additional congressional seats that could be flipped. I have donated to Sri Preston Kulkarni, Kim Olson and Wendy Davis. In addition, Texas Democrats picked up 12 seats in the Texas state house in 2018 and we need to flip 9 seats in the Texas state house to control the Texas house and the 2021 redistricting session.

If Warren is the nominee, I am convinced that Texas will not be a battleground state and it is clear that we will have trouble flipping any seats and may lose Lizzie's and Colin's seats. I doubt that we will be able to flip the Texas state house and will see some horrible redistricting.

[Thekaspervote]

65. Thx for all your hard work

Yes, we must keep in mind down ballot races. We need as big a cushion as we can get.

I recall just days b4 the ‘16 election, Hillary had an 84% chance of being the next president, looked very safe. Because the MOE is less with EW it seems really risky. So no, for me she does not win the electability argument, there’s way too much at stake.

If battle ground states such as TX can further cement our chances to win the presidency, and keep the house then this should be our priority. Biden does better in the EC, the AA voting block and is a much more sure thing in the MW.

Hoping that voters will see this clearly and not risk it on EW

[polichick]

52. After that "he should only marry one woman" quip...

I wonder what Warren would say to Trump if he stalked her onstage.

[BlueMTexpat]

67. ...