Rolling Stone: The Very Real Possibility of President Elizabeth Warren

[TomCADem]

It is great to have a candidate whose campaign is built on policy and positivity, rather than generating Trump like feuds with the media, conspiracy theories, and resentment of immigrants.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/president-elizabeth-warren-possibility-875817/

Not too many campaign websites first ask visitors if they are unsure about the candidate in question. But if you click the “I’m not sure yet” button on the ElizabethWarren.com launch page, you can enter your email before answering the question “What’s holding you back?” one of three ways. Two replies are typical for 160-some days before the Iowa caucuses: “I’m not ready to make a decision” and “I have questions about Elizabeth’s policy positions.”

It’s the one between those, though, that most captures the zeitgeist of the still-young primary contest for the Democratic presidential nomination: “I’m not sure Elizabeth can win.”

A few thousand people who disagreed with that sentiment piled into the Shrine Expo Hall on the University of Southern California’s campus early Wednesday evening. A good hour before Warren’s town hall began with a raffle to determine who would get to ask her questions later that night, the faint odor of spilt, fermented beer wafted through the lower level, stage left — likely some resilient residue from an earlier event. The smell itself didn’t fit the early-evening, family vibe of the Massachusetts Senator’s supporters, and frankly, they hadn’t been there long enough for it to smell like a post-victory celebration locker room. But the spirit it conveyed was a perfect match: Most everyone there to see Elizabeth Warren was as giddy as if the title were in sight.

There was, however, that damned specter of “electability” also was wafting through the room. It was much less odorous but no less repugnant. This phantom is conjured in virtually all discussions about the Democratic primary contest, derived largely from archetypes of older white men whom Americans are more accustomed to seeing run for office and therefore electing. It smothers critical thinking about the presidential race so much that it appears that many are convinced that “electability” is indeed a living, breathing thing when it is in fact an apparition, a hasty creation of the party elites and pundit classes that serves as a convenient substitute for the vetting that desperately needs to occur before a nominee goes up against President Trump next fall. Even though more than 160 days remain between now and the first Iowa caucus, this unanswerable question lingers more prominently than do major quandaries about candidate qualifications.

[jcgoldie]

1. the possibility seems more real to me everyday

I don't see how a campaign is sustainable based solely on the premise of electability. Biden leads in the polls because everyone is so deathly afraid of Trump. But Trump is imploding. Meanwhile Elizabeth seems a bottomless supply of plans and energy. Ironically, while Trump's unfathomable ignorance and malevolence is Joe's best argument for taking the safe path, its Warren whose energy and authenticity contrast the most brightly.

[Baclava]

10. 6 months away before an actual vote is cast, polls are worthless, she has as good a chance as any

Ya gotta believe

[Garrett78]

2. I don't think Warren can win with Sanders in the race.

And she'd have to do surprisingly well among POC even if Sanders wasn't in the race. One will not be the nominee without doing at least fairly well among POC.

[JI7]

3. she has a better chance of winning over POC than Sanders

[Garrett78]

4. Agreed, but that's not saying much.

Warren could do extremely well in both Iowa and New Hampshire and possibly convince enough folks in South Carolina that she's the right choice, but I wouldn't bet on it.

And Sanders being in the race hurts her chances in those first 2 contests.

[Vogon_Glory]

5. I think Elizabeth Warren could do well if she tells her story

She’s the daughter of a struggling middle-class family who grew up in the Oklahoma City area. No fairy castles, no political dynasties, no big daddy financial backer (Like no.45). Her childhood and adolescence is one that is very, very typical of ordinary women growing up in the Heartland.

I dearly hope that our party starts talking about Red Earth Daughter’s (My nickname for Senator Warren) background and remind some of the people who got conned by the Republicans in 2016 that she’s WAY MORE like them than Donnie.

[karynnj]

7. Her BACKGROUND is more like theirs, at some point, I hope the whole "like me" is reconsidered

Assuming you have no medical education, would you chose to get medical advise from someone with your own education or someone who became a doctor? Would you trust someone who never went through the process to become a plumber or electrician to do serious work on your house?

For the Presidency, there is no obvious educational path, but there should be signs that the person can select a good team of people to advice him or her, has the ability to LISTEN and desire to listen to the opinions of a range of experts and lead them as a group to define policies and make decisions. You could cite examples from the careers of all the top Democrats where they have - at a level different than President - thrived in places where doing that was the norm. In addition, it is important that they can communicate complicated decisions to people why she/he is proposing the step being recommended. (This is also against a bad CW accepted for decades, the world can not be defined by soundbites or tweet length statements. It belittles "people" to suggest that that is all they can handle. )

Beyond education, there are important person qualities that we look for in most people we voluntarily hire or select. Things like integrity, honesty, ability to be compassionate, thoughtful, fairness and kindness. You would not want a teenage babysitter to watch your child for a few hours if any of these things were obviously missing. Think about why most of us trusted Obama. Why do people accept a President who has NONE of these qualities.My answer is fear.

In 2016, many voted their fear that there narrow - white, Christian (even if Jesus would not recognize it), conservative was losing the culture war. They found their "savior" in a gross amoral man, who knew how to lead them in affirming things in themselves that most had hidden because the message from society was that white nationalism, racism, bigotry etc were unacceptable. Trump opened this Pandora's box. Our hope has to be that the majority now sees the snakes that came from it are creating a dystopia.

This was not the first time Republicans used fear, a study after 2004 that looked at Ohio, found that the GOP national security message worked on one level - people suggested that they knew that Bush and especially Cheney would ignore international rules in going after "our enemies" and that John Kerry's conscience would rule that out. Now, I agree with that assessment. The shock was they thought it necessary and a good thing! Like 2016, enough people consciously chose a small angry vision of America over a hopeful vision led by one of the most honorable people to run for President.

After a less evil President (something I never thought I would call Nixon), the unlikely winner of the Democratic nomination and the Presidency was a man, who was clearly the polar opposite - Jimmy Carter. The country wanted a complete change. I think it very likely that that desire will be stronger now - even as we know the Republicans will attempt to "tar" any Democrat.

In both 1976 and 2008, America voted for the image of America that inspired hope over the image created by fear mongering. (Note - both Ford and McCain themselves were the GOP moving back from the edge, but even with both not inviting their predecessor to their convention, they were not in the position to be seen as the alternative to the time of fear.) This time, it is Trump himself running. I think the consequences of choosing Trump are what will make 2020 very different from 2016 - just as by 2008, unlike in 2004, the true damage of Bush was seen and a change was demanded.

I think our leading candidates have a good shot as defining themselves like Carter did as a clean honest break from the cesspool that Trump has created.

[abqtommy]

6. I wouldn't consider Elizabeth Warren winning the candidacy to be a negative in any way.

She'd sure get my vote!

[cwydro]

8. Rec.

[Amimnoch]

9. She's one of my 2x "magic wand" candidates.

Ones where if I could unilaterally wave a magic wand and make the next POTUS, I’d have a hard choice between her and Buttigieg.

I don’t think 2020 is going to be as much of a slam dunk as many here seem to thing.. that said, if Cheetolini keeps on sabotaging the economy the way he is now.. that may very well change.

All of my primary support is centered around those match-up polls of our candidates vs Trump in swing states, and ones that could well place other states into “battleground” territory to get those 270 to win electoral votes.

Winning the General with any Democratic Party candidate that I can count on to sign off on any legislation that the Democratic Party members of congress manages to get to the presidents desk.. those are my 2 focus areas.

If the economy does turn south as we get closer, I’ll be more open to expanding how I look at the candidates for my own primary support.