Senate The US Politics discussion

Anything is better than Trump. Problem is she is he perfect opponent for him to vilify. He has the nickname already and Fox will just recycle the Hillary and Pelosi attacks and replace the name.

But, if Elizabeth Warren can learn from Hillary's mistakes and appeal to both Bernie's base and Hillary's, and most important: bring back Obama's, then she could be a true threat to Trump. A strategic VP choice from the Midwest or South would also help. The name of the game is showing that she is a fighter, that she can inspire and that she can deprive Trump of the electoral votes he needs to win. It is an incredibly tall order for any candidate and sadly she shot herself in the foot on the way out of the starting gate with the DNA test. Hillary was hit by the emails and never recovered. Trump will use the DNA test as an albatross hung around the neck of Warren's campaign. And for her, it's not enough to call Trump a liar- so what? It's not enough that he is woefully unqualified in his job- so what?

What she needs sadly, is for the economy to tank. That is her best path to the nomination and to the presidency.

 

@Yodaminch is Fox such a terrible threat?

 

Zero chance. But I don't think anyone can beat Trump. I also think we completely deserve him.

 

It's a way to continue to spread hatred and false information so yes, it very much is a threat. Here's an example: in New England, America really does run on Dunkin. And in every Dunkin I have been to, the tvs in there are tuned to Fox News. So, for those workers who come in every morning for a coffee, as they are sitting waiting for that coffee to be ready, they are treated to their daily dose of Fox subliminal messaging. The narrative that Hillary was the most corrupt politician ever and that Nancy Pelosi was equally corrupt came from somewhere- and it was Fox. Now one doesn't have to look far to see how they can villify Elizabeth Warren. There are a variety of ways to attack: she's a women, she's a liberal and progressive, she's a minority (or not. They can play that both ways), she's an opportunist, etc. etc.

Fox is simply the medium through which the message will be broadcast, but it will be broadcast 7 days a week every day until November 2020 (or until she drops out).

True, Fox is weaker than it has been in the past, but it is still very much a factor in 2020 elections. The only thing I can see making Fox go towards a less biased slant is if Trump goes further off the rails and no Republican primaries him - and Flake has already said if no one else will, he will. And Kasich is pretty much ready to launch his own exploratory commiteee so small chance of Fox being nice to Warren.

 

Elections have always been about psychology, but now they're even more so. People will always remember things that are damaging, funny or embarrassing about a political candidate before they put that aside and consider their actual positions (assuming that they even get there).

On that front, Warren is probably the easiest candidate at the moment for Trump to beat. He's already gotten a proven line of attack against her, which she inadvertently fed with 'DNA-gate'. Sadly, she also looks and sounds a bit like HRC, which will allow Trump to define her as 'Hillary 2.0'. It sucks that I have to write this (or even think it), but there you go. Happy New Year!

 

Elizabeth Warren is one of my favorite politicians in the country. I have volunteered and almost got to intern for her and I'm not even from Massachusetts.

I think her path to the nomination isn't great, to be honest. I am skeptical about her having any chance in Iowa and while I think she could probably win New Hampshire, no Democrat has lost Iowa, won New Hampshire and gone on to win the nomination since Bill Clinton in 1992. It can be done, but it's been a while. After that, it's not good. Even in a 1v1 race with Biden (which she isn't going to have...) Biden would win every former Confederate state, with Warren maybe having a shot in Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina. After that, Warren would have to run the board and especially win the entire Northeast, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and probably California to pull it off. Hillary's votes in the South are what really sealed the deal against Bernie. Warren has to do better down there.

And I hate saying this, but Warren is very far from being the most popular progressive in the country. If I was her, I'd sit it out. The age-old idea of picking a VP candidate from a swing state is mostly dead at this point (Biden having been from Delaware, Pence from Indiana) so I think she probably has a great chance at being the VP, especially during a Bernie Sanders presidency.

 

One major attack against Hillary was about her donors, but it cannot be used against Warren.
And I'm not sure anymore that being a woman is a negative thing for consensus. It seems it is rather used as a weapon: Bernie was blamed of sexism out of nowhere several times during the primary, and I'm ready to bet that people who vote "the woman" whoever she is are a non negligible group.

 

I'm talking more about former Obama/now Trump voters, specifically in the Midwest. Warren wears the label of 'East Coast liberal' proudly, and will likely have trouble carrying those states. The Democrat's best path back to the White House still runs through the Midwest and not anywhere else. They would be smart to look to the heartland for a Presidential or VP candidate. This doesn't mean they have to abandon progressive ideals like Medicare-for-All, but they need a messenger who won't be scary to more rural folks. The popular vote may be on their side, but you need the Electoral College to win, and right now, I don't see Warren getting Ohio, Wisconsin, or Florida. Even Minnesota and Michigan may be hard for her, if she allows Trump to define her early (which in many ways he already has).

The biggest problem with Warren right now is that she's known. Somebody with a lower profile has a better chance of capturing the energy and not flaming out too soon, which Warren may have already done. First impressions are nearly impossible to change, and hers are pretty well baked in.

 

What are the other big names? As a non American the only potential candidates I've heard so far are Harris and Biden. Who else?

 

The Rock!

 

Most of the people touting Harris don't really know anything about her except that she's a Strong Woman of Color. Similarly people touting Beto as some sort of progressive don't know much about him except that he reminds us of when everyone was being desperately naive about Obama in 2008.

I don't know why the **** anyone finds Biden appealing. He's a Third Way dinosaur and is terrible at running a presidential campaign.

 

Not only that, once she's the candidate, they'll attack her and do Trump's job for him like they did with Hillary.

 

Is "beto" Beto O'Rourke?
First time I hear this name. I had to google it. What should I know about him?

 

You know nothing about him, so you're already the same as many of his 2020 presidential supporters.

 

Beto O'Rourke would be fine if he was running as the centrist... the problem is that he's claiming to be the progressive.

 

@Darth Guy hahah ok.
What's the issue with Kamala Harris instead?

 

She rings alarm bells of corruption based on her inability to prosecute "foreclosure king" Steve Mnunchin when she was California AG, despite the fact her whole California Justice Department said it was a must-do. Also, her voting record leaves much to be desired.

 

In what fields did she prove to vote in a disappointing way? Just roughly speaking, I'm not asking for the precise legislations.

 

Bernie has no chance. If he was 65, he might. But he's way too old.

I think Sherrod Brown might have a chance. Or maybe Klobuchar.

 

Fox and Trump will vilify the Democratic nominee no matter who they are. They will find something or make it up if they have to. They will be just as relentless and cruel no matter who it is. Just support who you actually think represents you best. The whole second-guessing "electability" thing is futile.

 

I am loath to declare any single path for Warren in order for her to win the White House in 2020. It all depends on too many elusive factors that are not yet clearly discernible. A part of me just wants to believe those that abstained from voting for Clinton, for either lack of enthusiasm or distrust of her politically corrupt nature, will come out to vote for a more solid candidate which Warren certainly is. I don't rightly see how Trump gains voters in this upcoming election after witnessing the past few years of his administration. Frankly I am tired of the constant barrage of mind numbing news content created by the White House's antics, and then the subsequent reverberation castigating or supporting those antics. A return to normalcy sounds like a nice slogan for me, and I have to imagine more voters than not feel that way too, at least enough to swing those voters in the midwest towards Warren.

But that is all so positive and biased. I don't know how much an affect Clinton being a woman had on her elective hopes getting squashed by the most outwardly misogynist presidential candidate in recent memory. I think it had to have played, to some affect, a part. Will that also translate to Warren who does not have the political baggage Hillary did? How will Warren react to the President's taunts and insults? So far the optics of this battle already favor Trump and that could continue into the campaign unless Warren finds a way to counter. That does not mean lowering herself to his level, but she needs to figure out something; any democrat chosen will need to address this.

One thing I am willing to admit: If a legitimate independent candidacy is mounted against Trump from within the right, a sort of protest vote for those Republicans still not on the Trump train (yes they do exist they are just frightened and powerless right now), then the democratic candidate would be able to be more to the left (which is where I think they will ultimately end up). That is assuming that this independent candidate (Kasich, Flake, Bloomberg, Corker) can take just enough of those disaffected Republican voters away from Trump to effectively leave him with only his most fervent supporters-not enough of a margin for him to win. At some point Republicans are going to have to ask what happens after Trump? Once they begin to contemplate their political lives when the pendulum swings the other way they might become concerned and take steps to distance themselves from Trump in some fashion. Or, more likely, they will act like it was a mirage, an aberration that nonetheless would have been "better than Hillary." Personal responsibility does not seem to be in most Republicans repertoire these days. Though I have hope, just a fools hope.

This situation is not inconceivable.

 

This is one of the best pieces of stealth wisdom I've read here today. Unfortunately, the Democrats are already falling into the trap of identity politics and idealogical purity. It's viscerally satisfying in primaries, but it loses general elections.

Trump won in part because he promised to cut through the bull****. He's a con man, but people gave him a chance based on his promise to tell it straight. People are desperate for that. The last thing the country needs in 2020 from the Democrats is someone inauthentic. If you're playing to identity politics, ie the nominee can't be anything other than a non-white-male-under-age-sixty-pro-everything-the-GOP-is-against, then we've already lost. People want to hear three things:

They're going to have jobs that will pay the bills and allow them to save for the future
They're going to have access to healthcare that doesn't suck and won't bankrupt them when they get sick (because everybody does, let's not pretend otherwise like Trump and the GOP are doing)
They're going to live in communities that aren't overrun by violence and crime (this one carries strong racial overtones, but that doesn't make it any less of a true statement. The opportunity here is for Democrats to refocus the discussion away from skin color/country-of-origin to economic opportunity and fixing income inequality)

The only candidates I've seen who even come close to fitting this bill are in fact Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar. Brown's "respecting the dignity of work" comment is a gong-strike that resonates perfectly in rural America. It's not that people in red states hate universal health care, or a social safety net in general, they just hate the idea that it's a hand-out. The answer here is not to change the message, but to find the correct messenger. Warren had that with the consumer financial protection bureau, but that's not an issue that will fire up the country writ large. And social issues, while motivating, are inherently divisive and more likely to sink a positive message. Being a fire-breathing dragon about pushing back on restrictions to abortion is great for the base, but income inequality and the cost of affordable health care are a hell of a lot better.

The 2020 Democratic nominee needs a positive message that is non-partisan. Beto has nailed the 'positive' part, but as has been pointed out here, may not be the bit fit on substance. The question is, do the Democrats want to fall in love, fall in line, neither, or both? The answer will go a long way towards telling us who the 2020 nominee is going to be.

 

All these terrible Democrats sound not only better, but FAR SUPERIOR to Trump.

 

Brown had a fairly ugly divorce, so Trump would jump on that. Klobuchar doesn't have anything like that.

One person that seems to scare Trump is Tammy Duckworth.

 

Trump is hardly in a position to bring up divorce. He does that at his own peril.

Also, haven’t heard much from Duckworth lately. What’s she up to these days?