I think Elizabeth Warren can win.

Forums: Elizabeth Warren
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Elizabeth Warren is now clearly ramping up for a presidential run in 2020. She is doing the circuit, preparing her case and cleaning up old messes. She is doing everything she needs to do. I used to think the Senator Warren should stay in the Senate. She is a damn good senator and she represents my state well. My old line was that she would fill the role of Ted Kennedy.

I am changing my mind for a few reasons.

- She is liberal, but she isn't divisive. Conservatives may disagree with this... but compare her with any other Democratic nominee. She is not going to refer to voters as "deplorables", and she isn't going to make her gender the center of her campaign.

- She is as intelligent as hell, and she can put forward an solid argument as a professor.

- Her message is about economics and it has been consistently about economics. She will rise above the culture wars to talk authentically about the needs of middle America. With this message, she can reach people that Hillary could never reach.

- Trump wins a mud slinging contest every time. Trump loses a fair debate. Elizabeth Warren is smart enough to understand this.

We will see what happens, but if Elizabeth Warren can rise above the mud and focus us on economic issues she can beat Trump.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 7 • Views: 2,440 • Replies: 46

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

She is not going to refer to voters as "deplorables", and she isn't going to make her gender the center of her campaign.

So why is her DNA-ethnicity results headline news if not to promote the idea that she's a minority woman?

Quote:

- She is as intelligent as hell, and she can put forward an solid argument as a professor.

Is she independent of the academic social-intellectual control network, though? Realize that academia is filled with people who have established themselves in positions where they can use their status to push paradigms that promote socialism or whatever other particular political interests they seek to push.

Quote:

- Her message is about economics and it has been consistently about economics. She will rise above the culture wars to talk authentically about the needs of middle America. With this message, she can reach people that Hillary could never reach.

Will she engage in actual critical dialogue with different POVs, or will she be yet another spinjitzu master of propagating her preferred ideology by deriding, dismissing, and marginalizing competing views?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

1. The DNA headline is to neuter the attacks that Trump will launch at her. It is an obvious thing to do before she runs. She isn't looking to be a minority woman, she is looking to counter an existing weakness in her backstory.

2. I am pretty sure you will not vote for her no matter what. She needs to capture that part of middle American that can be reached through a progressive economic message... you aren't that (although I am sure she will take your vote gratefully if you decide that way).

3. Your view on academia is irrelevant (and nonsense).

4. She will engage the way that Obama did, I think intellectually she has a lot in common with Obama. However you feel about Obama's ability to engage, you will likely feel the same about Warren.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. The DNA headline is to neuter the attacks that Trump will launch at her. It is an obvious thing to do before she runs. She isn't looking to be a minority woman, she is looking to counter an existing weakness in her backstory.

This is how the Democrats spin things to look like they're doing something for one reason when the real reason is another.

This is a strawman geared toward reproducing dead racist discourses while simultaneously pinning them on the GOP so that the Dixiecrats can win-win (i.e. promote their traditionally racist narratives and also win over voters who believe the GOP is the party of the KKK and not vice versa).

Quote:

2. I am pretty sure you will not vote for her no matter what. She needs to capture that part of middle American that can be reached through a progressive economic message... you aren't that (although I am sure she will take your vote gratefully if you decide that way).

Keynesian inflation-socialism isn't progressive. It's a 1930s and before ideology that forces people to work forever by inflating any money they save. It's socially and environmentally irresponsible and the Democrats need to come up with something better.

Quote:

3. Your view on academia is irrelevant (and nonsense).

Not true. It is a think tank for socialist paradigms.

Quote:

4. She will engage the way that Obama did, I think intellectually she has a lot in common with Obama. However you feel about Obama's ability to engage, you will likely feel the same about Warren.

Obama is smart and good but the only reason he is supported by the establishment is because he promotes corporate growthism. If his progressive message in any way disciplined the economy and suppressed consumerism and thus waste spending at the level of the people, he would be marginalized and ignored.

As long as you bribe everyone by supporting growth and redistribution, they'll listen to your environmentalism and treat you like a hero. The moment you blame the economy and middle-class consumer behavior for the environmental problems, they just ignore you and hate you because their real concern has nothing to do with the environment or improving conditions for the poor, etc. It is all about using greed and envy to garner support for the power club who feed that greed and envy at the expense of the planet and saved money.

0 Replies

If Elizabeth Warren is the Democratic nominee, Trump could have Hitler as vice President and still win. I don't understand how you can consider her to be anything resembling a moderate or not divisive.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Did you feel the same way about Obama (in 2008)?

There are going to be voters that no Democrat can reach. The people on the right end of the spectrum hated Obama at the time (although I feel Obama wanted to reach out even to those people).

Obama won twice because he was able to reach out to people in the middle; pushing the center line (people who would vote for the Democrat) to the right. Hillary lost because she called people in the middle "deplorables". This greatly decreased the number of people who would even consider voting for her.

I think Warren can repeat what Obama did. Her economic message can reach a lot of the middle voters, and she isn't stupid enough to alienate them. The voters who are solidly to the right of center hate her, but no Democrat is doing to get their votes anyway.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

- She is liberal, but she isn't divisive. Conservatives may disagree with this... but compare her with any other Democratic nominee. She is not going to refer to voters as "deplorables", and she isn't going to make her gender the center of her campaign.

I expect she'll be every bit as divisive as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Divisiveness is far less a reflection of the candidate's individual character than it is on America's overall political climate in general. On the flip side, though, the good news is that divisiveness need not be a show-stopper. We know that because Donald Trump was the most divisive Republican in the primaries and the most divisive candidate in the presidential election. And yet, he won in spite of being utterly unqualified for the job. I'm fine with a divisive candidate who's competent.

maxdancona wrote:

- She is as intelligent as hell, and she can put forward an solid argument as a professor.

I agree, and that is the reason I'm inclined to support her, too. "Inclined", because there's no reason to commit to any candidate just now and I first want to see who else is running.

Maxdancona wrote:

- Her message is about economics and it has been consistently about economics. She will rise above the culture wars

Do you still believe this after she falsely represented herself as Native American so Harvard could advertise her as a diversity hire? Do you still believe it after seeing the way she handled that DNA test? I agree with you that identity politics is bullshit. It shouldn't influence voters. But it does. And so far, Warren's approach to handling it does not fill me with confidence.

maxdancona wrote:

- Trump wins a mud slinging contest every time. Trump loses a fair debate. Elizabeth Warren is smart enough to understand this.

You appear to be implying that Hillary Clinton wasn't fair in the her 2016 campaign against Trump. That's not how I remember her campaign. I remember Clinton running a fair campaign against Trump and, to my surprise, losing. I won't be surprised by that again.

1 Reply

Her Okie roots might help her in Iowa and her Massachusetts connection might give her a good showing in New Hampshire. Plus, the activist wing of the party will likely support her and they tend to vote heavily in the primaries. Sanders did particularly well in open primaries but I'm not so sure that the general public is a receptive to the idea of a woman president; that will depend on who the other contestants are.

Personally I'd rather see her in the Senate than lose the election to Trump. And the damn Native American story can't sink fast enough. Although it's pretty incredible that Trump can get away with spouting dozens of lies every week while people still focus on one dumb mistake she made years ago.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

You appear to be implying that Hillary Clinton wasn't fair in the her 2016 campaign against Trump. That's not how I remember her campaign. I remember Clinton running a fair campaign against Trump and, to my surprise, losing. I won't be surprised by that again.

My point has nothing to do with being fair to Trump. It has everything to do alienating voters. Hillary Clinton lost the election in large part because she called voters "deplorables". This became a rallying call for the right, and a great message toward the middle voters that were key to the election. There were other things she did to upset and alienate key voters.

Trump pissed off a lot of people, but the people he really angered and insulted were liberals... most of the people who have a visceral hatred of hatred were never going to vote for him anyway.

Hillary pissed of the "deplorables"... middle American working class people many of whom voted for Obama. The people that Hillary alienated were the very people who would decide the election.

Trump was a horrible candidate, offensive, attacking, angry and divisive. Hillary lost because she was a worse candidate.

I think, as a general principle, divisiveness favors the conservative candidate. This is certainly true with Trump, when America is broken apart, the natural fracture lines favor him. This is why what works for Trump isn't a viable strategy for the Democratic candidate.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I disagree with some of what you consider strengths and think there are some you haven't captured.

Quote:

- She is liberal, but she isn't divisive... She will rise above the culture wars to talk authentically about the needs of middle America.

Warren is very divisive. Her treatment of the Native American population shows a tremendous tone deafness towards minorities and you can see it in her invisibility on BLM and other civil rights issues. Yes, she will talk to middle Americans but will ignore those on the bottom. Ceding that ground to Trump is not a win.

Quote:

- She is as intelligent as hell, and she can put forward an solid argument as a professor.

This is a weakness. Clinton had intelligence, experience and rock solid plans and tried to explain them to the people, but the people don't have the time or inclination to listen to a professor explain plans. She will be three sentences in and Trump will yell "Pocahontas" and she will be done. Like Clinton, she is tactical, not strategic.

Quote:

- Trump wins a mud slinging contest every time. Trump loses a fair debate. Elizabeth Warren is smart enough to understand this.

I would have thought so, but clearly that is not the case with this DNA stuff.

On the plus side, Warren has put together a significant organization and is supporting something like 150 candidates across the country, so she has fingers in a lot of different communities. She also has very little history as a politician for her opponents to latch on to. Finally, there is a lot of anger on the Democratic side and while some groups might be really turned off by her, I doubt they will sit on the sidelines in 2020 like some liberal groups did to Clinton.

I think Warren is a decent candidate, I likely won't vote for her in a primary (got to see who else is running), but she'd certainly get my vote over Trump in the general.

1 Reply

My argument in favor of Elizabeth Warren is that she can be the economics president. She energizes the liberal base, but she doesn't depend on identity politics.

I expect (and hope) that she builds a strong economic platform talking about economic fairness, prosperity and the wage gap. She can put forward a plan for health care and support for labor. A message focused on economic populism can reach a large part of the American electorate.

When I talk about her not being divisive, I am suggesting that she can promote a broad, responsible vision of economic fairness that will resonate with a large part of the electorate.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Hillary Clinton lost the election in large part because she called voters "deplorables".

I don't believe that Clinton lost a single vote because of the deplorable comment. It certainly is not the huge crime you make it out to be. Like many "undecided" voters, those who said "I was on the fence but then she said that" were going to fall on the Trump side anyway, they were just looking for a reason to justify voting for someone they liked but didn't look good on paper. "Hmm, Trump is lying constantly and making racist comments but Clinton called his supporters deplorable, so I'm going to join them." Right.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

My argument in favor of Elizabeth Warren is that she can be the economics president.

IMO, the President is strategic, the Congress is tactical. Warren (like Clinton) is very tactical so I think she will be a stronger asset in Congress, and actually, more in the House (think Ryan on the Republican side) than the Senate. Sanders is strategic, Trump is strategic, Obama was in the middle and that was a weakness IMO. Sure, Warren is solid on economics, but the President has to be solid on economics and defense and foreign policy and civil rights, etc. Warren has no vision other than economics.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

My argument in favor of Elizabeth Warren is that she can be the economics president. She energizes the liberal base, but she doesn't depend on identity politics.

The lame DNA-test reveal was a thinly-veiled attempt to allow her to be considered as a minority woman instead of a white woman. The identity politics of that was probably based on some Democrat strategists who decided that Hillary's whiteness cost her some votes, so they are trying to sell Warren as a minority woman in hopes of securing all the people who will factor identity in a reason to support a candidate.

In other words, they're banking on the swing voters who will swing toward Warren because they want to establish a precedent for electing minorities and women. I.e. they want to break glass ceilings so the Democrats exploit that desire by giving them candidates who fulfill that dream while towing the line of supporting the global socialist empire.

0 Replies

@engineer,

You and I have very different opinions about Hillary Clinton. It is a fact that there were a great number of Americans who thought that both Hillary and Trump were horrible choices. I was one of those people (although I held my nose and voted for Hillary).

If you listen to what people said about Hillary, they felt that Hillary disparaged Americans. The Deplorables comment (along with the coal country comments and other thing) told many Americans that Hillary didn't respect them.

I think that the deplorables comment did lose voters, and it supported a greater impression that Hillary gave to many voters that she didn't respect them.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

Sure, Warren is solid on economics, but the President has to be solid on economics and defense and foreign policy and civil rights, etc. Warren has no vision other than economics.

You and I will disagree about this as well...

In my opinion, identity politics are ruining the Democratic party (and hurting the country). If this campaign gets dominated by #MeToo, or political correctness, the Democrats will lose. You can alienate people on message boards... but when you are trying to win elections, you need to get votes of people like me.

I want a candidate who will focus on key issues, economics and foreign policy among them, and avoid the culture wars.

I fear that Gillebrand or Harris might be nominated. These two candidates are far more divisive and will run on liberal anger that alienates the rest of the country. I would have to hold my nose to vote for either of them... and I voted for Hillary last time.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

In my opinion, identity politics are ruining the Democratic party (and hurting the country).

So, how satisfied are you with Elizabeth Warren's job at transcending the politics of the Cherokee identity she assumed, off and on, from 1986 to 2004? How satisfied are you with her job at keeping the Democratic party on message as the party of economic justice, two weeks and a half before the midterms? Are you happy with her taking that genetic test? Are you happy with the timing of her press release that she is, in fact, 1/1024th to 1/64th Cherokee? Way to focus on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare!

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I want a candidate who will focus on key issues, economics and foreign policy among them, and avoid the culture wars.

Trump has been very successful running on identity politics so you want a candidate that will appease the white nationalist crowd and not talk about civil rights or BLM or immigration. That is very 1940's Democratic of you, just ignore the wrongs being done to minorities and focus on economics. Just like Trump saying "hey, we have big defense deals with Saudi Arabia, so I take them at their word when they say they didn't kill that journalist." If you think that Warren is that kind of candidate, I sincerely hope you are wrong. I don't think any candidate that wants to back burner civil rights is going to win the Democratic nomination. Those who want to beat the crap out of minorities already have their guy.

2 Replies

@engineer,

Just because Trump benefits from identity politics (and he does) doesn't mean that the Democrats can benefit from from them. You are making a logical mistake, assuming that the game is symmetrical. It is not.

If Trump and the Democratic candidate both run on identity politics, the countries fractures in a way that benefits Trump. It is a stupid strategy to insist on playing on terrain that favors your adversary.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

Trump has been very successful running on identity politics so you want a candidate that will appease the white nationalist crowd and not talk about civil rights or BLM or immigration.

This is exactly the problem. There are people didn't like Hillary or her views and and weren't White Nationalists.

If the democrats start saying that everyone who disagrees about "civil rights" or "BLM" or "immigration" is a White Nationalist (or a Deplorable) they lose key voters. And that is what it feels like the left is doing.

The Democratic nominee can take rational measured policy positions on civil rights and immigration, and they should. But they also have to allow people to disagree with them on any of these issues... without calling them a White Nationalist, because they can win some of these people's votes. Once you call someone a Nazi, you can pretty much give up on their vote.

I want Elizabeth Warren (or whoever the Democratic nominee is) to say, I have this policy on civil rights, and immigration, and economics... but if you disagree with me on one of these issues, that is OK. I want to work with you, I want to work for you, and I want your vote.

There is no Democratic nominee who is going to out-Trump Trump... but do you really want that anyway?

2 Replies

I think Elizabeth Warren can win.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know