Why Warren could be a serious candidate.

[memphis]

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.

[Link]

I think a Clinton/Warren ticket might be damn near unbeatable.  It might pull 60% of women, and there is no defense for that. 

Yeah, there is. It's called pulling 65% of men. Unlikely, but an all-woman ticket with a far leftist on the ticket, potentially up against a candidate with huge "Good ol' boy" appeal like Christie...it would definitely be the most divided election ever, gender-wise.

But Clinton/Warren will never happen. They don't like each other. Clinton/Klobuchar or Warren/Baldwin -Warren/Gillibrand are far more likely.

I am so disappointed.  I was happy for days that there was a thread filled with blue avatars that didn't drag out the debunked Warren is a "far leftist" meme.  The woman is from Oklahoma, got her primary degree in Houston, and was a Republican for decades.  Keep in mind that when she was going to college in Texas is was totally normal for the average Texan to have a healthy distrust of big out of state banks.

[Bull Moose Base]

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.

She barely won in Massachusetts against a really popular guy who had a lot of success convincing people he was not a Republican but an independent:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/ex-sen-scott-brown-working-with-gun-company-tied-to-brutal-regime


Christie will maybe end up the GOP nominee and attempt a similar move but then again, what you're saying is also what people were saying about Obama ahead of 2008. Because of his perceived liberalism, his middle name, doubts about his religion, his race and history with Reverend Wright, many believed (and Hillary strenuously argued) that he'd struggle badly to win a general election he ultimately won big against a moderate Republican with an independent streak and personality not so unlike Christie's. I don't see any reason why any Republican besides Christie would be a favorite in a general election against Warren, and I think even beating Christie in a general election would be much easier for Warren than beating Hillary in a primary would be.

[Brewer]

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.

She barely won in Massachusetts against a really popular guy who had a lot of success convincing people he was not a Republican but an independent:

Christie will maybe end up the GOP nominee and attempt a similar move but then again, what you're saying is also what people were saying about Obama ahead of 2008. Because of his perceived liberalism, his middle name, doubts about his religion, his race and history with Reverend Wright, many believed (and Hillary strenuously argued) that he'd struggle badly to win a general election he ultimately won big against a moderate Republican with an independent streak and personality not so unlike Christie's. I don't see any reason why any Republican besides Christie would be a favorite in a general election against Warren, and I think even beating Christie in a general election would be much easier for Warren than beating Hillary in a primary would be.

Er...what? Not sure that's the case. In many polls, Christie is one of the only GOP candidates who is actually nudging at Clinton in the general, probably because, well, let's see here...former first lady, Senator, strongest female presidential candidate ever, SoS...she's got a bit more going for her than Warren does.

[Maxwell]

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.

[barfbag]

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.

[PolitiJunkie]

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).

[barfbag]

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.

Agreed and I think Rubio and Bush could also win besides Christie.

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).

[Marnetmar]

I think Warren could be a viable candidate. Unlike a lot of other self-declared "progressives" she comes from a sane and rational perspective rather than spouting talking points. If she was the dems' nominee I would have no problem voting for her.

[Flake]

I think Warren could be a viable candidate. Unlike a lot of other self-declared "progressives" she comes from a sane and rational perspective rather than spouting talking points. If she was the dems' nominee I would have no problem voting for her.

[Mister Mets]

I'm stealing an argument from one of the numerous Hillary 2016 articles, but Warren does have one more strength. There is likely to be a backlash against Wall Street in 2016. If she wants to run, Warren can be a candidate of that crowd much better than Hillary Clinton, who has a lot of friends among the wealthy establishment.

[barfbag]

I'm stealing an argument from one of the numerous Hillary 2016 articles, but Warren does have one more strength. There is likely to be a backlash against Wall Street in 2016. If she wants to run, Warren can be a candidate of that crowd much better than Hillary Clinton, who has a lot of friends among the wealthy establishment.

I almost hope the backlash happens to see another dog fight in the primaries.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

Look, we can discuss how blue Massachusetts is all you want, but Brown still was a very popular, strong incumbent. Granted, he was elected by a very special set of circumstances and him surviving a regular election, with full presidential turnout, was always problematic, but it was not an easy race and not because Warren was a "weak" candidate. I mean, we always knew this is going to be a close race.

Does the election in 2010 make her a strong presidential candidate per se? No. But she's definitively not a lightweight.