I like Warren a lot, but she is not a viable candidate. She barely won Massachusetts. We need somebody who can win Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. That's not her. A primary vote for Elizabeth Warren is a vote for a Republican President.
That is atrocious reasoning.
I don't know if it's too bad of reasoning. Warren isn't Obama and she's not able to compete at the national level yet. Other than Cruz or Bachmann I can't see her beating anyone.
I'm not at all a fan of the idea of Elizabeth Warren ever running for President (I love her as a Senator though), but I agree with Maxwell that memphis's reasoning is *somewhat* atrocious. I think Warren would be at least COMPETITIVE (not saying she'd win) against any frequently-mentioned 2016 Republican other than Christie, Bush, Portman, Rice, and Huntsman. She'd likely also lose to Rubio, Walker, and Martinez. The rest she'd be at least a slight favorite.
That thought just brought me to another one though. As big as the Republican field for 2016 is, I don't think it's nearly as strong as some like to think. The smartest move for Republicans would be to nominate Christie in 2016, hope he is elected and reelected, and essentially start fresh with a brand new crop in 2024 of candidates who do not yet have national profiles. Under *most* circumstances, I don't think Rubio, Walker, Paul, Ayotte, Cruz, Jindal, Haley, or Ryan could actually win a presidential election in 2016, despite how hyped up most of these are. Bush, Portman, Rice, Huntsman, and Martinez are all capable of winning in many circumstances, but most of these candidates either almost certainly won't run or almost certainly couldn't be nominated, leaving Christie. And who knows if he'll make it out of a Republican Primary (knowing how much Republicans tend to screw things up, my gut guess is that he can't, but I'm not ready to bet my life on that and I think there's still hope).
