If Warren ran instead of Sanders

[tpfkaw]

Make your choose.

[Blue3]

She's be doing worse than Sanders. Bernie is a much better messenger.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Both Bernie and Warren are too liberal for mainstream Democrats....so no.

[eric82oslo]

Maybe. She probably would've been much stronger on foreign policy and guns than Bernie (that's just a guess as I can't really remember her talking about either issue much lol, at least not foreign policy), yet I feel that she doesn't quite exude the same amount as authenticity (and anger) as Bernie. Now I don't really know whether Bernie's anger is a net positive for him or not. Perhaps Warren's somewhat more subdued level of anger is more appreciated among Democratic voters? I happen to think that she would've done a little bit better than Bernie in the polls, but probably not a lot better. I think she would've done a bit better in Iowa, worse in New Hampshire (though who knows, it's her neighbouring state too lol) and perhaps a bit better nationally. At least going into 2016, she was a much bigger star than Sanders. From that alone she would've gotten a huge boost at her campaign launch.

[Ebsy]

I honestly think Sanders has been a much better candidate than Warren would have been.

[Lyin' Steve]

Warren has been in the Senate for less than three years and all her prior experience was in domestic policy.  She'd probably be doing a little worse than Sanders because at least Sanders appeals to the Reddit teenagers and the underwear blogger crowd who think this country needs a Socialist revolution.  Clinton would nail her on foreign policy and run circles around her in debates and media spin.

I also personally find Warren very condescending and annoying and fake, even moreso than Clinton.  The media might as well.

[Eraserhead]

I could never get behind Warren because she's basically just as hawkish as Hillary is.

[IceSpear]

I'm not sure she'd be doing as well as he is, which is surprising. I think the fact that Bernie openly identifies as a socialist and doesn't run away from it pours gasoline on the fire of his base, the highly educated white progressives that have a major online presence. However, Bernie also appeals to the rebellious Ron Paul crowd (notice that whatever excitement/online following/comment spam crew Rand Paul had has fizzled out since Sanders has gained momentum.) Warren would be "just another liberal" to this crowd.

[DS0816]

I don't think Elizabeth Warren wants to be president of the United States.

It may be that she absolutely dismisses the notion of being president of the United States.

The desire for a President Elizabeth Warren appears to be one from those who admire her. That the reality of what it is to be president does not actually appeal to the Massachusetts United States senator. And when people have discussed it … there are some who don't tend to consider that Warren, while perhaps feeling flattered by people's enthusiasm, may consider being president of the United States a rather sh**tty "honor."

[Hydera]

I'm not sure she'd be doing as well as he is, which is surprising. I think the fact that Bernie openly identifies as a socialist and doesn't run away from it pours gasoline on the fire of his base, the highly educated white progressives that have a major online presence. However, Bernie also appeals to the rebellious Ron Paul crowd (notice that whatever excitement/online following/comment spam crew Rand Paul had has fizzled out since Sanders has gained momentum.) Warren would be "just another liberal" to this crowd.

Worst meme.

The idea of Ron Paul supporters who were a mix of Paleoconservatives and Libertarians. liking bernie sanders is mainly based on a misunderstanding that they were attracted to Ron Paul only mainly because of non-interventionism when Ron Paul had a strong pull from ultra-free market believers. Of which i doubt bernie is getting support from.

[ScottieF]

I think the idea that she wouldn't be at least doing better than Sanders is pretty ridiculous. I, for one, would be enthusiastically supporting her; I haven't yet made up my mind between Hillary and Bernie. She has a lot of electoral advantages that Bernie doesn't: not a socialist, neutralizes Hillary's "first female president" advantage, not in her '70s, not Jewish. She simply comes across as an "acceptable" presidential candidate in a way that the more unconventional Bernie does not, which I imagine would offer her a somewhat broader base of support. Hillary's had an unbelievably great week so I don't think Warren would be leading, but I think it would be a pretty close race and that Warren might have been leading at some point or another.

[Mister Mets]

She'd have a shot. She'd have Sanders's appeal, and her election to the White House wouldn't delay the nomination of the first female President.

[Figueira]

It's hard to really say. She'd probably be doing better among women.

But I have to give OP credit for realizing that Sanders wouldn't have run if Warren had; a lot of people don't get that.

[exopolitician]

No, but it would be more competitive.

[IceSpear]

I think the idea that she wouldn't be at least doing better than Sanders is pretty ridiculous. I, for one, would be enthusiastically supporting her; I haven't yet made up my mind between Hillary and Bernie. She has a lot of electoral advantages that Bernie doesn't: not a socialist, neutralizes Hillary's "first female president" advantage, not in her '70s, not Jewish. She simply comes across as an "acceptable" presidential candidate in a way that the more unconventional Bernie does not, which I imagine would offer her a somewhat broader base of support. Hillary's had an unbelievably great week so I don't think Warren would be leading, but I think it would be a pretty close race and that Warren might have been leading at some point or another.

Well, like I said in my post, I'm starting to think identifying as a socialist is actually a net positive in the Democratic primary. Obviously the GE is a different story. You make some good points though.

[Miles]

Sanders appeals to the group that Ron appealed to in 2012. Thus, Sanders is a much better candidate.

Odd because I'd vote for Paul if I were a Republican, but like Warren more than Sanders.

[Miles]

Sanders appeals to the group that Ron appealed to in 2012. Thus, Sanders is a much better candidate.

Odd because I'd vote for Paul if I were a Republican, but like Warren more than Sanders.

Is there any particular reason why you like Warren more than Sanders?

I've met Warren and think she's really genuine, though Sanders is too. I think with me its a matter of style more than anything else.

[I support Sanders]

I could never get behind Warren because she's basically just as hawkish as Hillary is.

This is a good point that is often overlooked. Elizabeth Warren is a war hawk.

[I support Sanders]

I'm not sure she'd be doing as well as he is, which is surprising. I think the fact that Bernie openly identifies as a socialist and doesn't run away from it pours gasoline on the fire of his base, the highly educated white progressives that have a major online presence. However, Bernie also appeals to the rebellious Ron Paul crowd (notice that whatever excitement/online following/comment spam crew Rand Paul had has fizzled out since Sanders has gained momentum.) Warren would be "just another liberal" to this crowd.

Worst meme.

The idea of Ron Paul supporters who were a mix of Paleoconservatives and Libertarians. liking bernie sanders is mainly based on a misunderstanding that they were attracted to Ron Paul only mainly because of non-interventionism when Ron Paul had a strong pull from ultra-free market believers. Of which i doubt bernie is getting support from.

Ron Paul received a great deal of support from Libertarians, but I can attest being a socialist who changed my registration to Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, because Ron Paul (a much better person and campaigner than his son, by the way) was the only mainstream candidate who was speaking out against policing the world. Ultimately, I ended up voting for Romney because I liked the man, and also as a protest vote against Obama.

[I support Sanders]

I don't see her giving Hillary a run for her money. Hillary is incredibly popular among Democratic voters, especially females and ethnic minorities, and Warren would probably play the role of Sanders, but I think to a lesser extent. Warren doesn't have the decades of political experience that Bernie has (especially on foreign policy and veterans' affairs), and she is also no a loyal progressive. Elizabeth Warren was a conservative Republican until 20 years ago. It is incredibly likely that Sanders wouldn't have run if Warren had entered the race, and if they both were running, the progressive vote would certainly be split, giving Hillary an easy path to victory. I have never understood why the Warren-bots kept demanding that Warren enter the race a year after she had consistently been refusing to do so, and even for a few months after Bernie entered the race. The main organization encouraging Warren to run only disbanded in June: http://time.com/3904651/elizabeth-warren-disbanding/

All that said, if Warren was the progressive alternative to Hillary, I would be behind her. If neither Warren nor Sanders had entered the race, I would likely be supporting Martin O'Malley or Lincoln Chafee as the progressive alternative to Hillary.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes Hydera, you fail to remember that most voters are heterodox creatures, and a certain proportion will always vote for the "anti-establishment option" to stick it to Washington.

[Figueira]

I think the idea that she wouldn't be at least doing better than Sanders is pretty ridiculous. I, for one, would be enthusiastically supporting her; I haven't yet made up my mind between Hillary and Bernie. She has a lot of electoral advantages that Bernie doesn't: not a socialist, neutralizes Hillary's "first female president" advantage, not in her '70s, not Jewish. She simply comes across as an "acceptable" presidential candidate in a way that the more unconventional Bernie does not, which I imagine would offer her a somewhat broader base of support. Hillary's had an unbelievably great week so I don't think Warren would be leading, but I think it would be a pretty close race and that Warren might have been leading at some point or another.

Well, like I said in my post, I'm starting to think identifying as a socialist is actually a net positive in the Democratic primary. Obviously the GE is a different story. You make some good points though.

I think it's a net positive for doing really well as a left-wing candidate in second place, but not that great for actually winning the nomination.

[Mr. Morden]

I think some of you are underestimating the extent to which the "first woman president" thing helps Clinton.  Warren would neutralize that, and still be able to draw support from the party's left that Sanders is currently getting.  Not saying she'd win, but do better than Sanders?  Yes, absolutely.

[henster]

Hillary has been playing the first female President card constantly throughout the campaign and we saw her use that repeatedly in the debates as well. Warren energizes a lot more people than Hillary, she's more authentic, personable, and compared to Hillary more charismatic. Warren would have all of Sanders base plus a significant chunk of woman who are supporting Hillary right now.

[henster]

With the way things were going with the email thing over the summer and how Team Hillary was handling, I definitely think Warren would be well ahead in a couple of states. When the FBI announced their inquiry, if Warren were running then I'd think she'd start to get serious support in the invisible primary.