How much of a traumatizing and damaging effect would a Warren nomination have

[Medal506]

Just how horrible would it be for Democrats if they nominated Elizabeth Warren for the Democrat nomination for president in 2020? Could they even recover from it?

[Hindsight was 2020]

Weak trolling 2/10

[Chief Justice Keef]

Just how horrible would it be for Democrats if they nominated Elizabeth Warren for the Democrat nomination for president in 2020? Could they even recover from it?

If by "horrible" you mean "cool and awesome"...

[Medal506]

Just how horrible would it be for Democrats if they nominated Elizabeth Warren for the Democrat nomination for president in 2020? Could they even recover from it?

If by "horrible" you mean "cool and awesome"...

To me it would be pretty cool and awesome for me because I would love to see Trump win a 50 state landslide and have the Republicans sweep all the senate and congressional seats and have complete republican control for centuries

[Blackacre]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that your characterisation of Warren as a god-awful nominee who would drive the Dems into massive defeat in 2020 is true. (I don't particularly agree with it, because while she isn't the BEST candidate Dems have, she isn't awful; she can excite the base well enough and seems to be good at getting under Trump's skin, plus she doesn't have any manor scandals. But whatever)

Assuming that, the answer is "not that bad" and "they can recover." Assuming you're right about her, (and again, I don't think you are) the worst thing that would happen would be a bad night on Nov 3rd, 2020. Warren's detrimental effect on the party after that would be nil, save maybe for the last weeks of that calendar year. The truth is, bad losing Presidential nominees don't destroy political parties. Bad presidents do.

It was the disasters of the Pierce, Buchanan, and Johnson administrations that sent the Democrats into a downward spiral in the 1860s that they didn't really get out of fully until 1932. (even then, there were other factors at work) Carter and Bush 43's Presidencies hurt their parties more than, say, Mondale's failed candidacy or Romney's. The electorate is very willing to forget about a bad nominee 4 years prior, but a bad presidency is harder to forgive.

Take this example. The 1928 Presidential election. Al Smith was a terrible nominee for the Democrats, and the GOP won in an indisputable landslide. After that election, one party would be locked out of the Presidency for the next 5 Presidential elections in a row and be shut out of any semblance of power in congress and the states for almost as long. And it wasn't Al Smith's party that suffered that fate, but Hoover's.

Edit: Yes I know you were trolling. I do not care; there was an opportunity for something interesting to come from this and I took it

[The Other Castro]

"Just how horrible would it be for Republicans if they nominated Donald Trump for the Republic nomination for president in 2016? Could they even recover from it?"

Yes.

[Virginiá]

The constant jabbering from the right about how Warren would be so bad for Democrats I think fundamentally ignores the direction this country is headed in. This isn't the 80s or 90s anymore, and a clean, honest liberal politician like Warren I think would be well-received in 2020.

[krazen1211]

Trump is trying to get the left into making Pocohontas his roadkill in 2020.

[The Other Castro]

Some people truly learned nothing from 2016.

[krazen1211]

"Just how horrible would it be for Republicans if they nominated Donald Trump for the Republic nomination for president in 2016? Could they even recover from it?"

Yes.

This is strange. A tactic didn't work for the party of stupid, so it can't work for much better and smarter individuals?

[The Other Castro]

"Just how horrible would it be for Republicans if they nominated Donald Trump for the Republic nomination for president in 2016? Could they even recover from it?"

Yes.

This is strange. A tactic didn't work for the party of stupid, so it can't work for much better and smarter individuals?

The point being that perceptions of candidates as bad for general elections are worthless. Many people thought Trump would be a horrible candidate for a general election and he won, so there's no sense counting anyone out this early on as a general rule.

[C r a b c a k e]

I don't see why Warren would do especially bad tbh. Trump especially is incapable of making salient points against her because of his weird obsession with the Pocahontas story. Which, let's face it, is a pretty lousy method of attack, especially compared to the label of 'crooked Hillary' which really managed to control the narrative about HTC (fairly or not). The "fake Indian" stuff is pretty dumb by contrast - basically on the same level of Romney sticking a dog on his roof.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Warren would easily beat Trump.  She talks like a real person unlike Clinton who was as fake as it gets.

[RINO Tom]

Just how horrible would it be for Democrats if they nominated Elizabeth Warren for the Democrat nomination for president in 2020? Could they even recover from it?

If by "horrible" you mean "cool and awesome"...

GOT HEEM.

[DPKdebator]

Nominating Warren would be suicide for the Democrats. She's uncharismatic, people can't stand listening to her, would be seen as a Massachusetts elitist [worse margins in 'flyover country'] and Trump would rip her apart on her faking Native American heritage (something that'd kill her in the first place). Not even Massachusetts would be a safe Democratic state (I could see a margin of roughly 55D-45R, since we're too liberal to vote for Trump overall).

[Fuzzy Bear Stands With S019 And Israel]

Nominating Warren would be suicide for the Democrats. She's uncharismatic, people can't stand listening to her, would be seen as a Massachusetts elitist [worse margins in 'flyover country'] and Trump would rip her apart on her faking Native American heritage (something that'd kill her in the first place). Not even Massachusetts would be a safe Democratic state (I could see a margin of roughly 55D-45R, since we're too liberal to vote for Trump overall).

I agree with this wholeheartedly.  Progressives and liberals who are ga-ga about Warren don't realize some basics about politics:

1.  People don't like a phony and she was caught being a phony.

2.  People don't like being lectured to.  Hillary found this out the hard way.

3.  People don't like folks acting better than them unless they can convince others that they really are that good.  That's not Elizabeth Warren.

[RaphaelDLG]

Nominating a Massachusetts liberal who happens to be a professor seems like a bad idea, but in Frank Luntz's focus groups, at least, Warren provoked strongly positive reactions.

FWIW, she has one of the highest approval ratings of any Senator (though Massachusetts is a D+12 state, so that is partially to be expected).

Also, I think the main reason why she didn't totally crush Scott Brown in 2012 was because... he was the incumbent.

[Blackacre]

Warren can also fire up a base a hell of a lot better than HRC ever could.

What it may come down to, is this: if Trump's approvals are low 40s and his disapprovals are low 50s, like they are now, are there any Democratic candidates that would lose against such a disliked incumbent? Probably, but Warren is not one of them. She can fire up people who really hate Trump and get them to the polls. If Trump's approvals are break-even in 2020, however, she's probably an underdog.

[Fuzzy Bear Stands With S019 And Israel]

I don't see her as someone folks could view as a President.  A Senator, yes.  Indeed, Warren could be the next Senate Democratic Leader after Schumer. 

[C r a b c a k e]

I don't see her as someone folks could view as a President. 

That phrase has no meaning in the age of Trump.

[krazen1211]

I don't see her as someone folks could view as a President.  A Senator, yes.  Indeed, Warren could be the next Senate Democratic Leader after Schumer. 

It would be funny to see Trump rip apart someone as stupid as Pocahontas.

Previews!

Link

Link

Who wants to have a beer with that nasty woman? You can see why candidates that Pocahontas campaigns for keep losing.

And that doesn't even start into the money problems....

[AGA]

What exactly makes you think that she is such a terrible candidate? I acknowledge that she isn't the best, but she can definitely excite the base.

[Hammy]

I think her vote for Carson as well as vote against Canadian drug imports will come back to haunt her, and while people are saying she'll fire up the base, you can't win with just the base as we saw last year with progressives staying home. She certainly lost any chance I'd support her with the above votes.

[JA]

I don't see her as someone folks could view as a President.  A Senator, yes.  Indeed, Warren could be the next Senate Democratic Leader after Schumer. 

It would be funny to see Trump rip apart someone as stupid as Pocahontas.

Previews!

Link

Link

Who wants to have a beer with that nasty woman? You can see why candidates that Pocahontas campaigns for keep losing.

And that doesn't even start into the money problems....

Do people of your political persuasion have anything better to add than insults and baseless bold assertions? Your President, and future candidate, believes there are "alternative facts," never shuts up about his election performance, and presumably acquires his news from fringe conspiracy theory websites as he surrounds himself with editors of extraordinarily bigoted news publications, potentially treasonous collaborators with a hostile foreign power, and uses his position of power to shame companies that drop his "piece of ass" daughter's clothing line. I think you should focus on your own issues instead of worrying about someone like Sen. Warren.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I think her vote for Carson as well as vote against Canadian drug imports will come back to haunt her, and while people are saying she'll fire up the base, you can't win with just the base as we saw last year with progressives staying home. She certainly lost any chance I'd support her with the above votes.

Except she didn't.

She lost any chance you'd support her because of a vote she never cast?