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. :slight_smile:

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.

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!

Anybody but Trump*!

*Unless it’s Hillary.

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.

No, she’d get hillaried.

She would make a nice foil, though.

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.

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.

I’d vote for her without a moment’s hesitation.

I fear the democrats are going to put a bunch of clown candidates out there who know nothing about governance or economics.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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 :smack: )

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.