Who would be a better General Election Candidate?

[Beet]

discuss.

[Beet]

I guess the case for Warren is that polls today are soft; in 2006 McCain was winning in a landslide over Obama. Hillary is cruising but Warren is more inspiring. Look at Warren's bio- a Oklahoma born, single mother who put herself through school, a law professor who studied bankruptcy and knows her sh_t, an economic "populist" who comes up with genuinely popular bills like reducing student loan interest rates to the same rate banks get. The argument is that in a GE campaign, these attributes would bring out numerous independents who have written off party politics, hence making her a stronger candidate than she appears.

In any case that's the argument.

[Beet]

True but Scott Brown was a moderate, incumbent Senator with a 58% approval rating; Warren had never held elected office. (On the other hand it was Massachusetts in a presidential election year.)

So I don't know; but just putting it out there. I am of the school that politics is dynamic and you never really know what to expect. Conventional wisdom today is not necessarily a good barometer of anything years from now.

[Beet]

The other side of the question, remember, is that Hillary is not as strong as she appears. Politics has changed since she was last active, and in the approximately 17 months since she's left State, she hasn't shown much indication that she's in tune with current trends. Americans are becoming more isolationist; Hillary's internationalist leanings have merely been confirmed. Americans are feeling economically less secure; Hillary seems less sensitive to this than Warren. Hillary also seems to inspire a lot of resentment that Warren doesn't, most likely owing to the length of her tenure in the public eye.