Elizabeth Warren for Senate(?)

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/why-national-dems-want-elizabeth-warren-to-run-for-senate/2011/03/03/gIQAFhEyLI_blog.html

Now that Obama has passed over Elizabeth Warren for the post of heading the consumer protection bureau she created, national and Massachusetts Dems are really hoping she will run for Senate against Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
The DSCC is not commenting on whether its operatives are actively trying to recruit Warren for the race. But there are three clear reasons national and Massachusetts Dems want her to do it, according to a national Democratic operative involved in plotting 2012 strategy and a Massachusetts Dem familiar with the party’s thinking.

(1) Dems think Warren is well suited to draw a very clear contrast with Brown on the economy and Wall Street. Warren, of course, is the force behind the centerpiece of Wall Street reform, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. While Brown did ultimately vote for the Wall Street reform bill, he only did so after successfully watering down key reforms in the legislation that were opposed by the banking industry. Brown did this while simultaneously taking in big bucks from Wall Street firms — a concurrence that would figure heavily in a Warren-Brown matchup.

“There’s such a clear contrast on issues relating to the economy, and more specifically, Wall Street and consumer protection issues,” the top national strategist tells me, previewing attacks to come. “He has a record of doing the personal bidding of Wall Street lobbyists.”

...

(2) Dems think Warren could rapidly wipe out Brown’s financial advantage. Warren’s work on consumer protection and her aggressive stance towards big banks has turned her into a populist champion of sorts among national liberals at a time when they are hungry for a more confrontational approach from Dem leaders. That, plus the fact that this would be a rematch for Ted Kennedy’s seat, would ensure that huge sums of national liberal cash would flow into the contest. “She immediately eliminates the financial discrepancy,” the national strategist says.

(3) Warren has experience facing withering GOP attacks. Dems really like the fact that as the architect of the consumer protection bureau, Warren has already proven herself capable of fending off the most aggressive and determined of GOP assaults. Warren’s bureau was a high profile target of the right for months and months, giving her invaluable experience in rebutting GOP arguments in Capitol Hill hearings and in the media.

[Keystone Phil]

Coakley 2.0?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Coakley 2.0?

I think her name was Jane Corwin.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Coakley 2.0?

I realize that it's popular nowadays to paint politicians as "the next Martha Coakley" but could you at least put five seconds of thought into it before you drop the C-bomb? Warren has little in common with Coakley, given that she would not start out as the prohibitive favorite to win.

[Keystone Phil]

Coakley 2.0?

I realize that it's popular nowadays to paint politicians as "the next Martha Coakley" but could you at least put five seconds of thought into it before you drop the C-bomb? Warren has little in common with Coakley, given that she would not start out as the prohibitive favorite to win.

I know you are bent on attacking me because I disagree with you but can you put five seconds of thought into your post before you tell me that I didn't think before posting?

She's a hyped up candidate that comes across as overly wonkish. It seems like she's being portrayed as some type of savior for the Dems up there. I'd be very wary of her ability to connect with voters.

[DrScholl]

I am so tired of hearing about Martha Coakley, that election was over a year ago and no one wants to stop talking about it, let it go. Anyway, come 2012, the Republican who assume Scott Brown is safe and some sort of unbeatable super candidate will be very surprised. Warren has as good as chance as anyone, seeing as Brown hasn't even been called out on some of his votes.

[DS0816]

I'd prefer that Elizabeth Warren decline a run or the U.S. Senate, for the simple reason that the U.S. Senate is not worthy of Elizabeth Warren.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'm not exactly sold on why Elizabeth Warren is a good candidate. Massachusetts has no idea who she is.

[Joe Republic]

I'm not exactly sold on why Elizabeth Warren is a good candidate. Massachusetts has no idea who she is.

Ah, but her election-winning record is still unbroken.

[King]

She has more charisma than Coakley and she could frame herself as knowledgeable on the economy.  I can't picture someone who is in so many crappy documentaries in an actual position of power.

[Keystone Phil]

the Republican who assume Scott Brown is safe and some sort of unbeatable super candidate will be very surprised.

I think you'd be very hard pressed to find a Republican that thinks that way.

[Ogre Mage]

Interesting, if there is any truth to this rumor.  The risk is she has no electoral experience at all, so one cannot be sure how she would handle herself on the campaign trail.  I could see her being successful if she can take her formidable knowledge of economics and boil it down to the bottom line in a way which is understandable to the average voter.  Hillary Clinton was very good at that sort of thing -- the President unfortunately isn't. 

Jumping to the conclusion that she is Coakley 2.0 seems based on little more than knee-jerk partisanship.

[Dgov]

Yeah, Warren seems more likely to become the female version of Alan Grayson than be a Coakley-esque gaffe-prone psuedo-invisible Democrat.

However, that's not exactly an electoral improvement for the Democrats.   Brown is a senator today because he won over the MA moderate middle, which is usually reliably Democratic in New England, and i don't really see why people think Warren can win them back.  They're not particularly Liberal (as they have more partisan than ideological loyalty to the Democratic party), and running someone like Warren just seems like it has too much potential to backfire.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yeah, Warren seems more likely to become the female version of Alan Grayson than be a Coakley-esque gaffe-prone psuedo-invisible Democrat.

WTF? Are you inhaling dude or is it just that you have absolutely no clue who Elizabeth Warren is?

Next thing you know we'll hear how Michelle Bachmann is the female version of Howard Baker.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I'd prefer that Elizabeth Warren decline a run or the U.S. Senate, for the simple reason that the U.S. Senate is not worthy of Elizabeth Warren.

^This^

[krazen1211]

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/07/scott-brown-lea.php

Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., leads Democrat Elizabeth Warren by a 53-28 percent margin among likely 2012 voters, according to a poll conducted for the senator and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.



Lol!

[Kaine for Senate '18]

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/07/scott-brown-lea.php

Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., leads Democrat Elizabeth Warren by a 53-28 percent margin among likely 2012 voters, according to a poll conducted for the senator and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.


Lol!

Yes, LOL indeed

I have no doubt that Brown leads, but 53-28 seems a bit absurd, and possibly based on name recognition more than anything else.

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/07/scott-brown-lea.php

Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., leads Democrat Elizabeth Warren by a 53-28 percent margin among likely 2012 voters, according to a poll conducted for the senator and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.


Lol!

Yes, LOL indeed

I have no doubt that Brown leads, but 53-28 seems a bit absurd, and possibly based on name recognition more than anything else.

The fact that the Brown campaign had a poll ready to trot out just because a couple of articles suggested that Warren might run, shows me that they are more afraid of her than they are willing to admit.

[CultureKing]

So what makes Warren so incredible? I have to admit that I don't know that much about her..

Or a better question: as a liberal should I currently be worshiping her?

[DrScholl]

She's never run for office, so, that's a good angle for her right away. I also think that's she's very intelligent and level headed, but that doesn't always give candidates a boost.

[mondale84]

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/07/scott-brown-lea.php

Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., leads Democrat Elizabeth Warren by a 53-28 percent margin among likely 2012 voters, according to a poll conducted for the senator and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.



Lol!

This is an internal poll conducted for the campaign so let's keep that in mind. It's just as much to solicit big money donations as it is to make any potential challengers think twice before running. We all remember the Anzalone Dem poll showing Melancon trailing Vitter by only 3 points.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

In June, PPP had Brown ahead of Warren 47 to 32.

[Landslide Lyndon]

In June, PPP had Brown ahead of Warren 47 to 32.

krazey's answer:

PPP is Democrat hack firm. They are paid by dirty union money of SEIU and Daily Kos hippies.

lololololololololol!!!

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

In June, PPP had Brown ahead of Warren 47 to 32.

krazey's answer:

PPP is Democrat hack firm. They are paid by dirty union money of SEIU and Daily Kos hippies.

lololololololololol!!!

Huh?

[Landslide Lyndon]

In June, PPP had Brown ahead of Warren 47 to 32.

krazey's answer:

PPP is Democrat hack firm. They are paid by dirty union money of SEIU and Daily Kos hippies.

lololololololololol!!!

Huh?

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=6521