Why Warren could be a serious candidate.

[Miles]

The Fix points out that her speech to the AFL-CIO was really good.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mister Mets]

There are numerous reasons she can be a serious candidate.

She has high name recognition.
She has a base of supoort.
She has a regional advantage in a key primary.
She represents something the party clearly wants.
She can make a primary against Hillary Clinton a choice between two candidates rather than a referendum on identity politics.

The main problem is that it's rare for an older candidate to suddenly run for President. When elderly candidates run for President, it's usually the case that they've either run before (Romney in 2012, possibly Hillary in 2016), or that they've been waiting for a particular opening (Gingrich in 2012). Five years ago, Warren did not seem to have a plausible path to the nomination.

When first term Senators run for President (Al Gore in 1988, John Edwards in 2004, Barack Obama in 2008) it might be earlier than anyone expected, but they probably saw themselves at potential Presidents at some point in the future.

[NHI]

There are numerous reasons she can be a serious candidate.

She has high name recognition.
She has a base of supoort.
She has a regional advantage in a key primary.
She represents something the party clearly wants.
She can make a primary against Hillary Clinton a choice between two candidates rather than a referendum on identity politics.

The main problem is that it's rare for an older candidate to suddenly run for President. When elderly candidates run for President, it's usually the case that they've either run before (Romney in 2012, possibly Hillary in 2016), or that they've been waiting for a particular opening (Gingrich in 2012). Five years ago, Warren did not seem to have a plausible path to the nomination.

When first term Senators run for President (Al Gore in 1988, John Edwards in 2004, Barack Obama in 2008) it might be earlier than anyone expected, but they probably saw themselves at potential Presidents at some point in the future.

[Supersonic]

I think the key word here is could.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

If Hillary chooses to run, I think she's the odds-on favorite to be the nominee. As we're seeing in New York, there's a hunger in the party right now to see how progressive is electable.

[Mister Mets]

If Hillary chooses to run, I think she's the odds-on favorite to be the nominee. As we're seeing in New York, there's a hunger in the party right now to see how progressive is electable.

Which "she" would be the odds on favorite with Hillary in the race?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

If Hillary chooses to run, I think she's the odds-on favorite to be the nominee. As we're seeing in New York, there's a hunger in the party right now to see how progressive is electable.

Which "she" would be the odds on favorite with Hillary in the race?

Should have been "chooses not to run". If Hillary runs, there won't be a serious primary. But if she sits out, Warren is the likely nominee if she jumps in.

[Mister Mets]

Copying and pasting something I wrote elsewhere.

There are striking similarities between Elizabeth Warren and her party's previous nominees. She will be a freshman senator with a book tour before the Midterm elections and an academic record that impresses intellectual activists — two things that worked well for the current President. She also comes from the big state next to New Hampshire that produced three of the party’s last five winners in that state’s presidential primary (Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas and John Kerry.) Some believe that, after the losses in 1988 and 2004, the party will be unlikely to nominate a Bay Stater, but in general, if there’s a marked tendency for something to happen, it is more likely to happen again. Voters in the Democratic party generally believe it’s time that a woman was nominated on the top of the ticket, especially since the election of the first African-American President makes this the most significant glass ceiling for a presidential candidate to shatter.

Of course, one particular woman is seen as the favorite for the nomination. If Hillary Clinton runs for President again, the field will be defined by her decision. Many other Democrats will avoid that fight. Warren is one of the few unlikely to be apprehensive about Hillary’s decisions.

Due to her age, she is unlikely to have another opportunity to run for President. So she has no incentive to wait. Hillary Clinton would be unlikely to pick another woman — especially one from the bluest state in the Northeast — as a running mate, and Warren doesn’t seem interested in any cabinet post, so it would be difficult for the Clintons to reward her for staying out of the race. She has also been willing to criticize Hillary Clinton in the past, so she would be unlikely to believe that Clinton is the best possible choice to be the next President.

Warren may be the strongest of the potential primary challengers to Hillary Clinton. She could fire up the activists, be competitive in New Hampshire and block any claims to the White House based on identity politics. A choice for Elizabeth Warren as President would not delay the breaking of that glass ceiling, and Warren may be more of a feminist choice because she isn’t following in the footsteps of a famous husband. She’s also roughly the same age (born in June 1949 rather than October 1947), so the Clintons can’t claim that their rival benefits from ageism. Clinton’s probably more electable, but that may not be an issue if Republicans nominate a Rick Santorum and a Democratic victory looks certain or if polls show Chris Christie getting sixty percent of the vote and Republicans look like they’ll win regardless of who the nominee is.

I just read David Foster Wallace‘s account of John McCain‘s 2000 presidential bid, and it does reveal one potential opening against Hillary Clinton. One reason McCain came so close to winning the Republican primary then and that Obama won in 2008 was that they were effective at convincing younger voters that they weren’t typical politicians. Hillary Clinton would never be able to say “You may disagree with me, but I will never lie to you.” Bill Clinton’s wife would still start out as a strong front-runner, but there would still be an opening for Elizabeth Warren.

If Hillary opts not to run, Warren would start in an open primary as one of the most high-profile Democrats. This assumes she wants to be President.

Last year, I would have dismissed Warren because of her difficulties running for election in a very blue state. However, her win against Scott Brown was credible enough that she can’t be completely ignored as a presidential candidate. She’s yet to demonstrate an interest in the office, but she has enough advantages that she could enter the nomination quite late and still win. There’s just no indication that she wants to do that. Meanwhile, there are many other Democrats who have been looking in the mirror for years and seen future Presidents looking back.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Lol Republicans thinking that we would actually nominate Elizabeth Warren to run is wishful thinking in the same regards that we as Democrats hope you nominate Sarah Palin.

[barfbag]

No one is a serious candidate if Hillary Clinton is in the race.

[bballrox4717]

I doubt Warren gets in against, but she is the only candidate that I think would stand a chance against Hillary in the primary.

Warren would probably win against Biden and Cuomo. I'm uncertain how she would do in the general though. Her populist economic message could really resonate to allow her to win, but it's just as likely she gets cast as an ultra liberal and loses decisively.

[barfbag]

I doubt Warren gets in against, but she is the only candidate that I think would stand a chance against Hillary in the primary.

Warren would probably win against Biden and Cuomo. I'm uncertain how she would do in the general though. Her populist economic message could really resonate to allow her to win, but it's just as likely she gets cast as an ultra liberal and loses decisively.

I'm predicting Cuomo finishes second if he runs, but he'll wait until 2020 or 2024.

[badgate]

Copying and pasting something I wrote elsewhere.

There are striking similarities between Elizabeth Warren and her party's previous nominees. She will be a freshman senator with a book tour before the Midterm elections and an academic record that impresses intellectual activists — two things that worked well for the current President. She also comes from the big state next to New Hampshire that produced three of the party’s last five winners in that state’s presidential primary (Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas and John Kerry.)

Huh?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

She's the best we can get, which is why she won't be allowed to win. Hillary has already been selected.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

She's the best we can get, which is why she won't be allowed to win. Hillary has already been selected.

>implying hillary announced
>implying the last time hillary was expected to breezed against a challenge from her left she breezed
>implying the crowners aren't our equivalent of the paulbots

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

She's the best we can get, which is why she won't be allowed to win. Hillary has already been selected.

>implying hillary announced
>implying the last time hillary was expected to breezed against a challenge from her left she breezed
>implying the crowners aren't our equivalent of the paulbots

Obama had the backing of Wall Street. Warren obviously won't.

[barfbag]

She doesn't have much experience and isn't well known. Obama at least knew how to raise money.

[Mister Mets]

Copying and pasting something I wrote elsewhere.

There are striking similarities between Elizabeth Warren and her party's previous nominees. She will be a freshman senator with a book tour before the Midterm elections and an academic record that impresses intellectual activists — two things that worked well for the current President. She also comes from the big state next to New Hampshire that produced three of the party’s last five winners in that state’s presidential primary (Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas and John Kerry.)

Huh?

Paul Tsongas won the 1992 New Hampshire presidential primary.

[Mister Mets]

She's the best we can get, which is why she won't be allowed to win. Hillary has already been selected.

>implying hillary announced
>implying the last time hillary was expected to breezed against a challenge from her left she breezed
>implying the crowners aren't our equivalent of the paulbots

The last comparison doesn't quite work, since Ron Paul was never seen as the frontrunner. He also didn't come as close as Hillary did

[Orser67]

I just think she's too old and the left isn't pissed off enough at Hillary. If Hillary doesn't run, Warren is a solid candidate, but I don't think her support is wide enough (even among liberals) that she'd be the frontrunner if she ran. And let's not forget she's run exactly one campaign in her life.

The one way I could see Warren being the frontrunner is if no other female candidates ran/gained traction.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

She's the best we can get, which is why she won't be allowed to win. Hillary has already been selected.

>implying hillary announced
>implying the last time hillary was expected to breezed against a challenge from her left she breezed
>implying the crowners aren't our equivalent of the paulbots

The last comparison doesn't quite work, since Ron Paul was never seen as the frontrunner. He also didn't come as close as Hillary did

In regard of a mindless hackery they are pretty much the same.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

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.

[Mister Mets]

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

I doubt there are many voters who would go for Clinton/ Warren, but not Clinton/ Kaine.

However, there are probably more voters who would back Clinton/ Kaine, but have second thoughts with Clinton/ Warren.

[barfbag]

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

I don't think they'll do so well among women just because they are women. They'll do very well, but not 60% unless they win in a landslide. It's not as simple as women voting for women and men voting for men. Two women on the same ticket may not win the first time.