Who do you want to vote for in 2016?

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Has there really been talk about Elizabeth Warren running for president?

She hasn't even taken the oath of office for the Senate seat she just won, but I guess that makes little difference in the New Now.

I no longer have any confidence in my ability to predict what the American people are capable of when it comes to elections, but if I have to say that I would be quite pleased to see her run as the Democrat candidate in 2016.

One of the rare instances in which you're right - any talk of Warren running for prez is ridiculous, to say the least, and her candidacy would likely end in a loss for the Dems.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

One of the rare instances in which you're right..

Like the two times we bet?

You had more than one chance this last time around but were too timid. Time to dial down your hubris.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

(Do you remember our bet?)

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

One of the rare instances in which you're right - any talk of Warren running for prez is ridiculous, to say the least, and her candidacy would likely end in a loss for the Dems.

Then again, the title of this thread is "who do you want to vote for in 2016?" It isn't "Who do you think will be electable for president in 2016?". I, for one, want to vote for Elizabeth Warren, or someone like her, for president. (After all, Warren is a fine second choice after Jill Stein, and a clear improvement over Obama.) Wonkish hand-wringing about electability has its place. But Obama hasn't even been inaugurated for his second term yet. This is the wrong place, or rather the wrong time, to worry about electability.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

I see what you're saying but electability is certainly a component for me. In terms of who I want to support -- personally -- I want to support someone who I think can actually become president.

That was a big part of the premise of my initial "Obama '08" post -- "would Obama work, after all?" I'd always liked him (well, since 2002) but it wasn't until around when I started the thread that I began to believe that he had a real chance of winning the nomination and then the presidency.

However, that also confirms your point about timing. I was far more optimistic in March of 2006 (~2.5 years before the election) than in December 2004 (the equivalent to now in terms of the 2016 election).

I just can't think of anyone I like as much now as I liked Obama in December of 2004, though, even taking that into account. Not Elizabeth Warren for sure. Not Hillary Clinton. Not even Russ Feingold. Will keep an eye out....

3 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

I see what you're saying but electability is certainly a component for me. In terms of who I want to support -- personally -- I want to support someone who I think can actually become president.

That's a fair point, and a meaningful distinction between the two of us. I am content to support a candidate who stands for what I consider the right policies. If that candidate moves the next Obama towards these policies during primary season, but doesn't end up getting nominated, that's good enough for me.

1 Reply

2016 is too far down the road too worry about.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

There are actually a few different layers to this I guess.

Baseline is that I won't support someone whose policies I disagree with. Of the people whose policies I most agree with, however -- and since virtually nobody hits 100% agreement (though Obama was/is closer than most), there is always some compromise in one direction or another -- I tend to support the one who is most viable.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

That was a big part of the premise of my initial "Obama '08" post -- "would Obama work, after all?" I'd always liked him (well, since 2002) but it wasn't until around when I started the thread that I began to believe that he had a real chance of winning the nomination and then the presidency.

And why do you think that changed? Because enough people, unlike you, decided to support Obama regardless of electability, merely on the basis of liking him. Sure, you can cherry-pick among candidates based on electability. But don't forget it's those other people who grew those cherries for you in the first place. Obama couldn't have become electable if not for them.

Independent of that, I just don't believe I'm any good at judging electability. I can assess which policy portfolio would benefit myself. I'm somewhat less confident, but still pretty confident, in assessing which policy portfolio would benefit the general welfare of my country. Those two criteria together give me enough information to take my pick. But to gauge electability, I have to think of what Democrats think Republican-leaning swing voters think they will let Democrats get away with, and stuff like that. To do this right, I have to juggle with levels of meta-ness that my pretty little physicist brain isn't smart enough to handle. And with all due respect, neither is yours or Cycloptichorn's.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Hey, I was pretty correct back in March of 2006!

At that point (and for quite a while after) he was not widely considered to be electable, at all. If I waited until he was widely considered to be electable to support him I would have been waiting until January of 2008 (after Iowa). I actively supported his candidacy (and grew those cherries with petitions and whatnot) because I liked his policies AND I thought that he would eventually be electable.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Hey, I was pretty correct back in March of 2006!

That's fair. Smile

2 Replies

@Thomas,

So the good news is that I think I was able to figure out how that would work back then; the bad news (for Democrat/ liberal types anyway) is that nobody seems comparable, now.

But yeah, still a lot of time.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

So let's revisit Elizabeth Warren in 2014, see how electable she looks by then.

The year 2012 is to Elizabeth Warren what 2004 was to Obama---a time when you did not actively support him yet with those petitions, but when other Democrats already supported him enough to make him keynote speaker at the Democratic convention.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

But there's this (from up a bit):

sozobe wrote:

I just can't think of anyone I like as much now as I liked Obama in December of 2004, though, even taking that into account.

And there are other things I don't like about Elizabeth Warren, not just her relative electability. I definitely don't like her as much now as I liked Obama in December 2004. By a lot.

2 Replies

@sozobe,

That, too, is fair. Welcome to the Jill Stein camp!

0 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

But there's this (from up a bit):

sozobe wrote:
I just can't think of anyone I like as much now as I liked Obama in December of 2004, though, even taking that into account.

And there are other things I don't like about Elizabeth Warren, not just her relative electability. I definitely don't like her as much now as I liked Obama in December 2004. By a lot.

I was more enthusiastic about Warren and her senate win far more then I was for Obama back when he gave his 2004 speech. That said, Obama being a male held/hold a far greater electability beyond his state borders then Warren. She's far too liberal to make a legitimate national run. I can see her in the VP slot at best.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
One of the rare instances in which you're right - any talk of Warren running for prez is ridiculous, to say the least, and her candidacy would likely end in a loss for the Dems.

Then again, the title of this thread is "who do you want to vote for in 2016?" It isn't "Who do you think will be electable for president in 2016?". I, for one, want to vote for Elizabeth Warren, or someone like her, for president. (After all, Warren is a fine second choice after Jill Stein, and a clear improvement over Obama.) Wonkish hand-wringing about electability has its place. But Obama hasn't even been inaugurated for his second term yet. This is the wrong place, or rather the wrong time, to worry about electability.

Fair enough. But 'can this person win?' is a critical part of whether or not I want to vote for someone in 2016. If someone has no shot of winning, I don't WANT to vote for them - it will mean my team had nominated a loser and my vote will ultimately be wasted.

Which is probably exactly how most conservatives felt this year.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If someone has no shot of winning, I don't WANT to vote for them - it will mean my team had nominated a loser and my vote will ultimately be wasted.

Which is probably exactly how most conservatives felt this year.

I doubt that. As I heard them on A2K and elsewhere, American conservatives wanted Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul, or anybody else whose name wasn't Romney. Eventually they did settle for Romney, the electable guy; he lost the election anyway. If I was a conservative, I would have hated that. At least, Santorum or Gingrich or Paul would have lost the election while taking a stand on principle. I certainly would have preferred that over the etch-a-sketch, moderate loser. (That's if I was a conservative, which I'm not; perhaps we should ask OmSigDavid or georgeob1 for a third opinion.)

For every electable Obama who wins, there's an electable Romney who loses. We don't know beforehand which kind your electable candidate will turn out to be. So while electability counts for something, it isn't as strong an argument as it seems on its face. That's another reason why I ignore putative electability and just go with the candidate whose policies I like best.

Who do you want to vote for in 2016?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know