Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-08-2018, 07:14 PM
not what you'd expect not what you'd expect is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,487
Elizabeth Warren 2020. How do you feel about it?

Maybe it's just me, but I'm seeing signs that she may run.

I don't think this would be a good idea. I just don't think she could win.

What do you guys think?


p.s. I found a Michelle 2020 pin the other day. I'm wearing it.
  #2  
Old 09-08-2018, 07:16 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,505
I have no problem with her running, and would consider voting for her (as I would many other Democrats). I think it's fine if lots of Democrats run and we have a robust primary campaign.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 09-08-2018 at 07:17 PM.
  #3  
Old 09-08-2018, 07:27 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,449
It would be just fine with me if she ran, and I'd be glad to vote for her. Boy, a Democratic woman running again, Republicans sure won't be happy about that. They might even try to normalize a racist nickname for her, and she's white! I know, I know, Republicans are loony like never before!
  #4  
Old 09-08-2018, 07:38 PM
Gatopescado's Avatar
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 19,855
Anybody but Trump*!

*Unless it's Hillary.
  #5  
Old 09-08-2018, 08:04 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,228
I'll vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election, but as of now, Warren isn't my #1 choice. I've heard a few of her interviews and she doesn't quite strike me as presidential. She either hopelessly panders or else comes off as a professor.
  #6  
Old 09-08-2018, 08:44 PM
j666 j666 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Away for a while
Posts: 7,106
No, she'd get hillaried.

She would make a nice foil, though.
  #7  
Old 09-08-2018, 08:52 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,586
I think the unfortunate consequence of the radicalization of the republican party is that it's going to compel the radicalization of the democratic party.
  #8  
Old 09-08-2018, 09:00 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,103
She would make a fine president, but I've heard she doesn't have the stomach for the job.

Either way, what the democrats really need is a tough senate leader. We have Pelosi who is a competent house leader, but w/o a tough senate leader nothing will get done no matter who is president.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #9  
Old 09-08-2018, 09:00 PM
Sefton Sefton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Stalag 17
Posts: 1,493
I'd vote for her without a moment's hesitation.
  #10  
Old 09-08-2018, 09:21 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,586
I fear the democrats are going to put a bunch of clown candidates out there who know nothing about governance or economics.
  #11  
Old 09-08-2018, 10:41 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,621
I'm on record in at least a couple of threads stating I find it highly likely Trump will be reelected in 2020. If the Democrats nominate Warren I would restate that as being a certainty.

I happen to have a great deal of respect for Warren but she is far to much of a scold to ever win a national election. We would all be better off and she would be much more effective staying in the Senate.
  #12  
Old 09-08-2018, 10:50 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,165
I'd vote for her. But I'll admit I would vote for pretty much anyone who's running against Trump.

But I feel the main goal should be to get Trump out of office. So Democrats should pick the safest candidate rather than the ideal one.
  #13  
Old 09-08-2018, 10:51 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
I'm on record in at least a couple of threads stating I find it highly likely Trump will be reelected in 2020. If the Democrats nominate Warren I would restate that as being a certainty.

I happen to have a great deal of respect for Warren but she is far to much of a scold to ever win a national election. We would all be better off and she would be much more effective staying in the Senate.
Oh, I dunno. Maybe the 3rd time is a charm for nominating a MA liberal. Of course she can claim she's teally a Southerner from Oklahoma. But I'm not sure that " Southerner who became a Yankee" is a plus but you never know!

To pataphrase a certain Democratic strategist: It's the Electotal College, amigo".
  #14  
Old 09-08-2018, 10:57 PM
EddyTeddyFreddy's Avatar
EddyTeddyFreddy EddyTeddyFreddy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Exurbia, No'thuh Bawst'n
Posts: 13,050
Warren's my senator, I like her very much as my senator, I want her to go on being my senator, and if she were the Democratic candidate in 2020 she'd lose. I don't want her to run.
  #15  
Old 09-08-2018, 10:58 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I fear the democrats are going to put a bunch of clown candidates out there who know nothing about governance or economics.
If knowledge of governance or economics was important for a candidate, Donald Trump would be a historical footnote. Sure, a President needs to know these things to do the job but a candidate can get elected without them - and we're living through what happens after such a person gets elected.

So we need to focus on electability this time. Pander to the idiots and tell them whatever they want to here. Promise them abortions and miniature American flags. Then after the election, we can tell them they won and the grown-ups can go back to running the country.
  #16  
Old 09-08-2018, 11:52 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,324
She was born in 1949 which will make her 71. I don't mean to be ageist, but holy shit, can't we find someone with only 4 or 5 decades under their belt to run the country? Ronald Reagan was 69 years old when he was elected President and turned 70 after he took office.

I mean, I would vote for a peanut before voting for Trump v2, but still sheeple...
  #17  
Old 09-09-2018, 12:33 AM
Mr. Bill Mr. Bill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 212
I like and respect Warren, and I'm glad she is my Senator. That said, I don't think she would be a good candidate for President, for the following reasons:

1) As China Guy stated, she is old. President of these United States is a highly demanding, stressful job. It ages people fast. We really need to be electing people who don't have a better than average chance of dying in office. Or going senile, like Reagan.

2) I don't know exactly why this is, other than what seems to be a generic right-wing aversion to powerful women; but, like Hillary, Warren is polarizing. People either really like her or they think she is the Anti-Christ. This is true to a somewhat lesser extent than it is for Hillary, but it is there. The Democrats need a candidate that a reasonable-minded right wing voter (yes, they do exist, I hope) can look at in comparison with an idiot like Trump and say to himself "I can live with him/her". The best Warren can hope for from those folks is that they'll stay home on election day.

3) In terms of policies, she seems more focused on things like protecting consumers from predatory companies, student debt and the such-like. That's a good thing, but I don't believe she spends a lot of time thinking about foreign policy, international trade or whether or not to kill a Taliban leader with a drone strike. A President needs to be focused on those things.

4) I actually think she is more suited to the Senate and she can do more good there, than she would in the White House.
  #18  
Old 09-09-2018, 12:55 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
If knowledge of governance or economics was important for a candidate, Donald Trump would be a historical footnote. Sure, a President needs to know these things to do the job but a candidate can get elected without them - and we're living through what happens after such a person gets elected.

So we need to focus on electability this time. Pander to the idiots and tell them whatever they want to here. Promise them abortions and miniature American flags. Then after the election, we can tell them they won and the grown-ups can go back to running the country.
It sucks, but we may need to nominate someone who doesn't alienate high school educated whites who dislike multiculturalism (aka not nominate a woman, a non white or A liberal). They've been leaving the democrats in droves, and taking the Midwest with them. We don't have to win these people over, just not alienate them until they are energized to vote to defend patriarchal white nationalism.

Biden may not alienate them as much. He isn't sexy the way sanders is, but he'd sign good legislation and he'd be more electable. We'd be less likely to lose the Midwest with someone like Biden as the candidate.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 09-09-2018 at 12:56 AM.
  #19  
Old 09-09-2018, 01:57 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Bill View Post
I like and respect Warren, and I'm glad she is my Senator. That said, I don't think she would be a good candidate for President, for the following reasons:

1) As China Guy stated, she is old. President of these United States is a highly demanding, stressful job. It ages people fast. We really need to be electing people who don't have a better than average chance of dying in office. Or going senile, like Reagan.

2) I don't know exactly why this is, other than what seems to be a generic right-wing aversion to powerful women; but, like Hillary, Warren is polarizing. People either really like her or they think she is the Anti-Christ. This is true to a somewhat lesser extent than it is for Hillary, but it is there. The Democrats need a candidate that a reasonable-minded right wing voter (yes, they do exist, I hope) can look at in comparison with an idiot like Trump and say to himself "I can live with him/her". The best Warren can hope for from those folks is that they'll stay home on election day.

3) In terms of policies, she seems more focused on things like protecting consumers from predatory companies, student debt and the such-like. That's a good thing, but I don't believe she spends a lot of time thinking about foreign policy, international trade or whether or not to kill a Taliban leader with a drone strike. A President needs to be focused on those things.

4) I actually think she is more suited to the Senate and she can do more good there, than she would in the White House.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
It sucks, but we may need to nominate someone who doesn't alienate high school educated whites who dislike multiculturalism (aka not nominate a woman, a non white or A liberal). They've been leaving the democrats in droves, and taking the Midwest with them. We don't have to win these people over, just not alienate them until they are energized to vote to defend patriarchal white nationalism.

Biden may not alienate them as much. He isn't sexy the way sanders is, but he'd sign good legislation and he'd be more electable. We'd be less likely to lose the Midwest with someone like Biden as the candidate.
I agree with both y'all. I think we need a white dude at the top of the ticket, and most-likely a woman and/or PoC as the running mate.

For a long time, I've been thinking a midwesterner or red-stater is a must as the Dem candidate, but honestly, an inspiring message, even if it comes from an east- or west-coaster, is the most important thing. If a Seth Moulton or Joe Kennedy or Jay Inslee or Eric Garcetti is able to inspire folks in Iowa and Michigan and Wisconsin and Missouri and South Carolina and Florida, et al, then hell yeah.

But I just don't think Warren is the right one for the job, even with an amazing message. I really think (hope?) that the big-name Senators that are capturing attention right now (Booker, Warren, Sanders, Harris) will be knocked out early on because they've attached lightning rods to their foreheads for so long.

The next Obama or (Bill) Clinton is out there, and we'll likely be introduced to them sometime between Thanksgiving 2018 and Valentine's Day 2019.

Biden is the only big name we have floating around right now that I could see getting the nomination. I love him, and would work my ass off to get him elected, but I would still rather see a young mayor, Congressperson, retired military or governor come out of nowhere, have that message that inspires the shit out of Americans, capture that spark, and win the nom.

Here's a look at the primary season:
IA and NH are becoming road apples, and I don't see anyone dropping out after either of these primaries, regardless of how badly they do. If we have 20 candidates going into these two states, we'll have 20 coming out of them. They're simply not representative of the electorate, and that's becoming more evident to the candidates.

The strongest nominees will show themselves in SC in late Feb. But I don't see Warren doing well there. So strike one.

Then the next week, on March 3, we've got: AL (no for Warren), CA (maybe), MA (she would most-likely win this, unless someone like Kennedy or Moulton captures some media attention with their message), NC (nope), OK (nope), TN (nopers), TX (hells no), VT (maybe), VA (slight chance, but probably nope). Strike two.

Then on Mar 7: LA (nope).

And Mar 10: HI (possibly), ID (nope), MI (probably not, unless the field is narrowed), MS (nope), MO (nope), OH (same as Michigan).

After that, I don't see her having a good shot of winning a state until late April, if she's still around. Strike three.

I mean, it'll all come down to who ultimately runs, how the DNC structures the debates, and which candidate(s) can capture everyone's attention with a good message. Those that have allowed the right/Trump to build up ammo against them are gonna be hurt (Warren, Sanders, Harris, Biden, Booker). So-called no-names like Eric Garcetti, Mitch Landrieu, Joe Kennedy, Seth Moulton, Steve Bullock, Jay Inslee, Bill McRaven, should they choose to run, could sneak in and capture that special moment like Barack and Bill did.

But I don't see how Warren does any of that.
  #20  
Old 09-09-2018, 03:54 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
I'll vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election, but as of now, Warren isn't my #1 choice. I've heard a few of her interviews and she doesn't quite strike me as presidential. She either hopelessly panders or else comes off as a professor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
I'm on record in at least a couple of threads stating I find it highly likely Trump will be reelected in 2020. If the Democrats nominate Warren I would restate that as being a certainty.

I happen to have a great deal of respect for Warren but she is far to much of a scold to ever win a national election. We would all be better off and she would be much more effective staying in the Senate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Bill View Post
I like and respect Warren, and I'm glad she is my Senator. That said, I don't think she would be a good candidate for President, for the following reasons:

1) As China Guy stated, she is old....

2) I don't know exactly why this is, other than what seems to be a generic right-wing aversion to powerful women; but, like Hillary, Warren is polarizing. People either really like her or they think she is the Anti-Christ....

3) In terms of policies, she seems more focused on things like protecting consumers from predatory companies, student debt and the such-like. That's a good thing, but I don't believe she spends a lot of time thinking about foreign policy, international trade or whether or not to kill a Taliban leader with a drone strike. A President needs to be focused on those things.

4) I actually think she is more suited to the Senate and she can do more good there, than she would in the White House.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I agree with both y'all. I think we need a white dude at the top of the ticket, and most-likely a woman and/or PoC as the running mate.
...
Biden is the only big name we have floating around right now that I could see getting the nomination. I love him, and would work my ass off to get him elected, but I would still rather see a young mayor, Congressperson, retired military or governor come out of nowhere, have that message that inspires the shit out of Americans, capture that spark, and win the nom....
I agree with all these posts. I love Senator Warren, but am very doubtful she has the right qualities for President. But that's almost irrelevant: Electability is all that matters. Among the four front-runners touted now, Warren is the least electable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
The next Obama or (Bill) Clinton is out there, and we'll likely be introduced to them sometime between Thanksgiving 2018 and Valentine's Day 2019.
Obama wasn't unknown; he was the DNC keynote speaker in 2004. Clinton wasn't unknown: he was the DNC keynote speaker in 1988. Who keynoted in 2016? (Spoiler: Sen. Warren )

Biden and Sanders are too old. Kamala Harris is fine but is she a great speaker? Is she electable?

Think carefully, Democrats. The 2020 election is yours to lose ... and I'm afraid that, with no strong candidate in view, lose it you will.
__________________
andros had more faith in an American jury than I had; and he was right. I'm happy to lose a bet and hope this trend continues.
  #21  
Old 09-09-2018, 04:23 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
It sucks, but we may need to nominate someone who doesn't alienate high school educated whites who dislike multiculturalism (aka not nominate a woman, a non white or A liberal).
A different theory I've heard is that what alienates those voters is candidates who talk about race too much, and a non-white candidate in the modern Democratic Party is going to be able to wink and nod through the primary in ways that a white candidate won't.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 09-09-2018 at 04:26 AM.
  #22  
Old 09-09-2018, 08:27 AM
j666 j666 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Away for a while
Posts: 7,106
I have no doubt Warren has the right qualities, she just doesn't have the right image. I agree completely that she will be most effective in the senate.
  #23  
Old 09-09-2018, 08:35 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,833
I remember when the common wisdom was that Democrats would never ever win again unless they nominated Evan Bayh *yawn*.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 09-09-2018 at 08:37 AM.
  #24  
Old 09-09-2018, 09:13 AM
chaika's Avatar
chaika chaika is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 436
I would vote for Warren in a heartbeat. The Democratic Party establishment still doesn't seem to understand that the progressive wing of the party represents its future. Moving to the right is a huge mistake IMO; trying to beat Republicans at their own game will never be a winning strategy. The Democrats have to offer a real alternative, not just Republican lite.

Having said that, I do agree with the reservations WRT Warren's age. It's about time for some Gen X-ers to flex a bit of political muscle in the Democratic Party.
  #25  
Old 09-09-2018, 09:14 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
A different theory I've heard is that what alienates those voters is candidates who talk about race too much, and a non-white candidate in the modern Democratic Party is going to be able to wink and nod through the primary in ways that a white candidate won't.
Obama lost high school educated whites by 14 points in 2008 and about 27 points in 2012. Hillary lost them by 39 points in 2016.

So even if the democrats lose that demographic by 30 points, they will still win the midwest. However losing them by 40 points means the midwest becomes red.

They voted for Obama twice in large enough numbers that Obama was able to win the electoral college. And Obama rarely talked about race.

You may be right. I honestly don't know. I just want to make sure the democrats keep their losses among high school educated whites down to ~30 points or so, so that the midwest is blue in 2020.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 09-09-2018 at 09:15 AM.
  #26  
Old 09-09-2018, 09:17 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,455
Warren is not a good choice. The Dems need to find a solid, moderate candidate or out of almost nowhere find a highly charismatic candidate like Obama was. Better yet, the Dems should find a Non-Trump Republican to run as a third candidate which will great assist whatever Dem wins the primary to victory.

Trump shouldn't be that hard to beat, but then again Bush the Lesser should have been easy to beat and the Dems came up with the Kerry/Edwards ticket. Ugh!
  #27  
Old 09-09-2018, 09:25 AM
kayT kayT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
It sucks, but we may need to nominate someone who doesn't alienate high school educated whites who dislike multiculturalism (aka not nominate a woman, a non white or A liberal). They've been leaving the democrats in droves, and taking the Midwest with them. We don't have to win these people over, just not alienate them until they are energized to vote to defend patriarchal white nationalism.

Biden may not alienate them as much. He isn't sexy the way sanders is, but he'd sign good legislation and he'd be more electable. We'd be less likely to lose the Midwest with someone like Biden as the candidate.
I totally agree with your first paragraph. Not so much the second. And since the notion of age has come up, Biden is too old. (I say this as a 71-year-old.)

I hope the Powers that run the Dems are listening to remarks like the ones in this thread, because if not we're going to get four more years of Trump.
  #28  
Old 09-09-2018, 10:17 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
It sucks, but we may need to nominate someone who doesn't alienate high school educated whites who dislike multiculturalism (aka not nominate a woman, a non white or A liberal). They've been leaving the democrats in droves, and taking the Midwest with them. ...
The issue was not being against multiculturalism. The issue was a group feeling that their very real problems and challenges were being ignored and dismissed.

The simplest demonstration of that is to point out that the many of those High School educated whites who did not vote for HRC did vote for Obama.

Trump got more voter share of whites without a college degrees against Clinton (63%) than Romney (59%) or McCain (61%) did against Obama or Bush had against Kerry (61%) ... but it wasn't much more, and a line of 61 - 61 - 59 - 63 aint much of a "leaving the party in droves" trend. You could even more (and just as wrongly) claim that Blacks left the party in droves since lower than Obama turnout for Clinton swung key states more than increased white non-college educated white share for Trump did.

Compared to Clinton more whites without college degrees felt that Obama understood and cared about their problems more than McCain did and more than Romney did so they voted for him. It was not a vote about multiculturalism. They did not feel that Clinton understood or cared about their problems more than Trump did.

Being a woman, a non-white, or a liberal, is not the key factor for doing better with the group. Being someone who is able to connect and able to convince the demographic that they understand and even more care about their problems more than Trump does, is.

That said I am so far not convinced that Warren is a candidate who can do that broadly across the country.
  #29  
Old 09-09-2018, 10:23 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Obama wasn't unknown; he was the DNC keynote speaker in 2004. Clinton wasn't unknown: he was the DNC keynote speaker in 1988. Who keynoted in 2016? (Spoiler: Sen. Warren )
When I say "introduced," I don't mean a political nobody will come from out of nowhere and introduce themselves to the nation when they announce their candidacy this fall or winter. I mean, a person that is currently not on the national A-list of candidates will announce their candidacy. There are already a half-dozen to a dozen politicians, who don't have that national celebrity status, that are quietly laying the groundwork in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Those are the ones who will be most effective, I suspect, while the celebrity candidates like Harris, Booker, Sanders and Warren draw all of the oppo attention and ultimately get Hillaried.

There are a lot of charismatic potential candidates out there who aren't absolute nobodies, but also don't have the word "Senator" in front of their name and make the national headlines on a daily basis. That next Obama or Bill will likely announce their candidacy between Thanksgiving and Valentine's Day and begin their rise to the top, one primary state at a time.
  #30  
Old 09-09-2018, 10:59 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The issue was not being against multiculturalism. The issue was a group feeling that their very real problems and challenges were being ignored and dismissed.

The simplest demonstration of that is to point out that the many of those High School educated whites who did not vote for HRC did vote for Obama.

Trump got more voter share of whites without a college degrees against Clinton (63%) than Romney (59%) or McCain (61%) did against Obama or Bush had against Kerry (61%) ... but it wasn't much more, and a line of 61 - 61 - 59 - 63 aint much of a "leaving the party in droves" trend. You could even more (and just as wrongly) claim that Blacks left the party in droves since lower than Obama turnout for Clinton swung key states more than increased white non-college educated white share for Trump did.

Compared to Clinton more whites without college degrees felt that Obama understood and cared about their problems more than McCain did and more than Romney did so they voted for him. It was not a vote about multiculturalism. They did not feel that Clinton understood or cared about their problems more than Trump did.

Being a woman, a non-white, or a liberal, is not the key factor for doing better with the group. Being someone who is able to connect and able to convince the demographic that they understand and even more care about their problems more than Trump does, is.

That said I am so far not convinced that Warren is a candidate who can do that broadly across the country.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/res...s/#val=USP00p1

2008 - whites no college. 58% Mccain, 40% Obama.

2012 data is harder to find. But from what I recall, the gap is about ~25 points.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-con..._education.png


https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

2016 - whites no college. 66% Trump, 29% Clinton.

The gap keeps growing among whites w/o a college education. In the 90s, the gap didn't exist. By 2016 it was almost 40 points.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #31  
Old 09-09-2018, 11:58 AM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaika View Post
The Democratic Party establishment still doesn't seem to understand that the progressive wing of the party represents its future.
It does not. And I say that as a progressive.

Unless we get rid of first-past-the-post and go to a viable multi-party system, we will be stuck in "big tent" 2-party mode forever. Progressives are no more likely to dominate the Democratic Party than the libertarians are to dominate the Republicans.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 09-09-2018 at 11:58 AM.
  #32  
Old 09-09-2018, 12:24 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,897
The data is not so hard to find as I linked to it, unless you think the NYT is fake news.

And yes, the CNN link confirms that Obama (a Black man) did better with whites/no college than Clinton (a white woman) did. Obama also did as well with the demographic as Kerry did against Bush.

These are not facts that are consistent with white/no college education voters voting against anyone who is non-white or not male or liberal. They are not voting against multiculturalism. Oh some are, but not the group overall.

As for your Pew graph... Hmm in the '80 White/no college R+20 was a good D year. Bill Clinton got it up to even but it that group dropped back down after he was off the ballot. In 2008 White/no college? Let's look at your graph. Huh. About the same R+20. The change has been the D's relatively winning the White with college voters with Bill Clinton and keeping them since. That is the cause of the gap.

So why did Bill Clinton do so much better with that group (per your link) than did Carter, Mondale, Gore, Dukakis, Kerry, or Obama (let alone than HR Clinton)? Was he whiter and more male than all of them? And what does the fact that the GOP has persistently lost share of white/college educated voters ever since Bill Clinton mean?


Would Warren be perceived as really understanding and caring about the real problems the demographic has? Can she express that AND still connect with the other demographics who are needed with high turnout for a D win?

That is not a function of her gender, or color. It is a function of how she campaigns, how she speaks and what she says. How she orates and how she interviews off the cuff.

Does she have those goods, like Obama did (and Bill Clinton too), or would she whiff it like HRC did, and be perceived as not understanding or caring about them?
  #33  
Old 09-09-2018, 12:30 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by not what you'd expect View Post
Maybe it's just me, but I'm seeing signs that she may run.

I don't think this would be a good idea. I just don't think she could win.

What do you guys think?


p.s. I found a Michelle 2020 pin the other day. I'm wearing it.
I think it would be fantastic. I urge you all to vote for her.
  #34  
Old 09-09-2018, 12:34 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,533
I would vote for nearly anyone over Trump. And Warren is a good example of what I want from a President. But I don't yet know whether I would vote for her in a primary, for two reasons: First, she's not the only example of what I would want from a President, and I'd have to see who the other candidates are. And second, I don't know about her electability. And I mean that literally: I don't know. Once poll results start coming in about hypothetical matchups, we'll know more, and I still think it was a tactical blunder for Democrats to ignore those polls concerning Sanders.

I agree that she's older than ideal, but I don't see that as a terribly big problem, as long as she chooses a good (and younger) running mate.
  #35  
Old 09-09-2018, 01:20 PM
Lantern Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,834
I think 2016 was Warren's year. I am still baffled why she didn't run. I thought perhaps she wasn't interested in running for President but apparently that's not it. If she was scared away by the Hillary hype, that shows a serious lack of political judgement. Hillary was always a mediocre candidate and if Bernie could give her a scare, I think Warren could have gone all the way, including the general.

In 2020, she will be on the wrong side of 70 and will face a crowded field. Still she is a talented politician with a knack for explaining economic issues in a way ordinary people understand. I think her big worker co-determination idea is highly dubious but many of her smaller ideas for regulating the financial sector and stronger antitrust make sense. Overall, she is not the worst the Dems can do and in particular I think she is a better candidate than Bernie.

Last edited by Lantern; 09-09-2018 at 01:21 PM.
  #36  
Old 09-09-2018, 03:45 PM
Chad Sudan Chad Sudan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 28
She's the kind of person I'd want as president - extremely educated, a crusader for ordinary Americans, and with a strong track record. And importantly, she could unite progressives and centrists.

As for whether she could win...

Well, after 2016 I no longer presume to understand the way the American electorate thinks.
  #37  
Old 09-09-2018, 04:26 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,103
The Pew study found that the partisan gap among whites w/o a college degree went from about 0 points in 1992, up to about 39 points in 2016.

The education gap among whites barely existed 20 years ago. In fact in 1996, college educated whites preferred the GOP. Now there is a 35 point gap between college educated and high school educated whites. The gap in 2012 was only 11 points, in 2016 it was 35 points.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #38  
Old 09-09-2018, 04:39 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,533
Warren and Sanders are similar enough, ideologically, that I think that she probably decided against running against him and splitting the economic-progressive vote and diluting the message.
  #39  
Old 09-09-2018, 06:43 PM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 19,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sefton View Post
I'd vote for her without a moment's hesitation.
I ratify that sentiment.

Although once again I think everyone is designating a potential Democratic candidate as way-progressive radical-left when she isn't. Although she's a lot more of it than Barack Obama was. He was a true moderate. I'd characterize Elizabeth Warren as a true liberal but not a far-left radical by any means. She's pragmatic and doesn't regard Republican (classical, not current edition) perspectives as batshit-insane thinking. She's been known to vote Republican, albeit not recently. Personally I don't find any of this worrisome, but reassuring.

I think she'd restore some financial equity after a long trajectory towards severe polarization. I dont think she'd be terribly different from a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration internationally.

She's got my vote if she gets the nomination, for sure. I'm in no position to donate to her campaign these days.
  #40  
Old 09-09-2018, 06:51 PM
j666 j666 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Away for a while
Posts: 7,106
Given that she regularly voted Republican, no, I don't think Warren did regard the thinking as bat-shit insane.
  #41  
Old 09-09-2018, 07:11 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
The Pew study found that the partisan gap among whites w/o a college degree went from about 0 points in 1992, up to about 39 points in 2016.

The education gap among whites barely existed 20 years ago. In fact in 1996, college educated whites preferred the GOP. Now there is a 35 point gap between college educated and high school educated whites. The gap in 2012 was only 11 points, in 2016 it was 35 points.
Yes, established that 1992 and 1996, the Bill Clinton elections, were very special years, unlike what came before and what came after. Before ('80', '84, and '88) white voters all leaned R by 20 plus points pretty much the same no matter what their education level. '92 and '96 saw that lean virtually disappear for both. And after the college educated white voters stayed without much R lean but the non-college educated ones went back to having the same lean. And it stayed that way from then and through both Obama elections with a pretty stable gap and with no further polarization during the elections of a Black man.

Clinton v Trump saw a change with fairly strong college educated white D support and a loss of D support from non-college educated whites.

We can agree on those facts I hope, as they are a direct read from your cite. Also from Pew is that "Trump won whites by virtually same margin as Romney in 2012" (And of course that in 1972 there was virtually gender gap between the parties but a 24 point one in 2016 ...)

So I ask again before giving up on you, what was so special about Bill Clinton that he did so much better with white voters than the candidates in every other presidential election from 1980 to 2016? What kept college educated white voters from reverting to their pre-Clinton behavior of heavy GOP lean like non-college educated white voters did?
  #42  
Old 09-09-2018, 07:14 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 13,521
I wouldn't vote for her unless someone truly incompetent was her opponent. Even then, I might just not vote in that contest. She's a prime example of someone who simply trades on angry rhetoric to attempt to gain political power, in my opinion. And her policies are much too "liberal" for my tastes.
  #43  
Old 09-09-2018, 07:28 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 1,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaika View Post
The Democratic Party establishment still doesn't seem to understand that the progressive wing of the party represents its future. Moving to the right is a huge mistake IMO; trying to beat Republicans at their own game will never be a winning strategy. The Democrats have to offer a real alternative, not just Republican lite.
Disagree totally. What they need is to win the Rust Belt back from Trump, and the way to do that is by running a candidate who those voters feel they can relate to, and who can make an emotional connection to them. That candidate could be more progressive or more centrist, the candidate's personal charisma and message matter more than the actual policies. I could see Biden, possibly, getting it done.

Nominating Warren would be the political equivalent of Budd Dwyer's "nice shot."

I'd be happy to eat my words in 2020 if she somehow makes it happen, but I really, really doubt it.
__________________
Meet me at Jacquernagy Park.
  #44  
Old 09-09-2018, 07:46 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I fear the democrats are going to put a bunch of clown candidates out there who know nothing about governance or economics.
And how does this relate back to Warren?
  #45  
Old 09-09-2018, 07:54 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
So I ask again before giving up on you, what was so special about Bill Clinton that he did so much better with white voters than the candidates in every other presidential election from 1980 to 2016? What kept college educated white voters from reverting to their pre-Clinton behavior of heavy GOP lean like non-college educated white voters did?
H. Ross Perot. Perot's base was largely working-class & white, right? With working-class swingable voters heading toward Ross Perot in great numbers, the total number voting for Democrats and Republicans went down. Apparently this hit the GOP harder in that demographic? Maybe since labor unions could still mobilize them to vote Democratic.

And it's notable that Perot was making a national-interest appeal. Since that time, the GOP have acted more nationalistic in order to get the Perot voters in the fold (if more crudely than did a nice guy like Perot). That's probably why we now see a movement of Chinese-Americans, and other minorities that are further away from the "native-born Western Christian" stereotype, away from the GOP.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 09-09-2018 at 07:55 PM.
  #46  
Old 09-09-2018, 08:57 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 10,701
She doesn't want to be president. That alone is enough reason for her not to do it, or even take a job where succession is a real possibility.
  #47  
Old 09-09-2018, 09:27 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,897
Except that one, there is no reason to think it would hit the GOP harder in way that would impact the gap and two, Perot was not anywhere near as much of a factor in '96 as in '92 yet the numbers for non-college educated voters showed the same lack of GOP lean (a lean that there had been before and was after those two elections). Nah. It wasn't that Perot took white non-college educated white voters away from the GOP but left them alone on the D side.

Anyway, I'm not expecting Warren, or any other next Democratic nominee, to do as well with non-college educated whites as Bill Clinton did in '92 and '96. Whatever was special then was then. And while in net Clinton ended up with the same margin among whites against Trump as Obama did against Romney, I'd really like to a candidate does as well with non-college educated whites as Obama did, as well as Kerry and Gore had done. (Keeping the college educated white numbers as high or higher.)

That does not mean being Republican lite and it does mean more than just being charismatic. It means making sure that the candidate is able to communicate believably that they, the non-college educate whites, and their problems matter (too) ... and to do that in a way that does not somehow communicate that the problems of others (whose turnout needs to be up there) matter any less.
  #48  
Old 09-10-2018, 08:31 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Bill View Post
1) As China Guy stated, she is old. President of these United States is a highly demanding, stressful job. It ages people fast. We really need to be electing people who don't have a better than average chance of dying in office. Or going senile, like Reagan.
As I understand it, the duties consist of watching cable news and tweeting from the toilet. Most anyone can handle that.

Much as I love Warren, her place is in the Senate. I don't want the only issue of the 2020 campaign to be her Native American heritage or lack thereof. Give me someone who can win in the red states. Give me Beto.
  #49  
Old 09-10-2018, 08:45 AM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 1,989
Beto will come up against the "greenhorn" aspect and Trump will turn THAT into the primary issue of his campaign. If you thought he hit "little Marco" hard, wait until "Little Beto."
  #50  
Old 09-10-2018, 11:03 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
It sucks, but we may need to nominate someone who doesn't alienate high school educated whites who dislike multiculturalism (aka not nominate a woman, a non white or A liberal).
It's terrible, the way you have to keep taking the voters into account, amirite?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017