Who would be a better General Election Candidate?

[Beet]

discuss.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Obviously Hillary.

[Fritz]

Is this a serious  question?

[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.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I'm sorry, but Warren is facing problems of perception. How easy would it be for the right to paint her as a liberal, northeastern elitist?

[IceSpear]

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.

Well, it seems that Warren's best case scenario would be performing similarly to how Hillary currently does in the polls. Since I highly doubt any Democrat could carry states like Oklahoma (despite her "home state" status ).

On the other hand, her worst case scenario is getting completely skewered by the media as the "Democratic Ted Cruz" and a "far left socialist", in which case she would probably end up losing by Dukakis margins, assuming she was facing a competent Republican (which to be fair, is not a safe assumption).

Warren is probably my favorite senator, and I'd almost certainly support her if Hillary didn't run and she did, but...she did underperform Obama by a lot in Massachusetts. I think if America really was ready for her brand of populism it would've manifested itself in Massachusetts of all places with a landslide win over the clown Scott Brown. She won by a healthy, but not blowout margin.

[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.

[Bull Moose Base]

People exaggerate Warren's weakness in a general election. If Feingold can win in Wisconsin and Brown in Ohio, Warren can win nationally. Not to mention Obama in 2008. Warren would probably hold up well in a campaign; the American electorate is more liberal than they realize.

Also, Clinton will have a slew of problems in a general election that Warren would not. That said, Clinton is the best positioned non-incumbent 2 and a half years out we've ever seen.

[SWE]

Warren is probably my favorite senator, and I'd almost certainly support her if Hillary didn't run and she did, but...she did underperform Obama by a lot in Massachusetts. I think if America really was ready for her brand of populism it would've manifested itself in Massachusetts of all places with a landslide win over the clown Scott Brown. She won by a healthy, but not blowout margin.

How does knocking out one of the most popular senators in the country make her look unelectable?

[Rockefeller GOP]

I'm sorry, but Warren is facing problems of perception. How easy would it be for the right to paint her as a liberal, northeastern elitist?

How's she an elitist?  The right would, rightfully, paint her as a modern day Robin Hood.

[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.

[BaconBacon96]

What? Why is this even a thread?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I'm sorry, but Warren is facing problems of perception. How easy would it be for the right to paint her as a liberal, northeastern elitist?

How's she an elitist?  The right would, rightfully, paint her as a modern day Robin Hood.

I'm not saying she is an elitist, but she could be portrayed that way. See Kerry, Dukakis, Gore, etc.

[Maxwell]

I'm sorry, but Warren is facing problems of perception. How easy would it be for the right to paint her as a liberal, northeastern elitist?

How's she an elitist?  The right would, rightfully, paint her as a modern day Robin Hood.

I'm not saying she is an elitist, but she could be portrayed that way. See Kerry, Dukakis, Gore, etc.

But she's not dull. Kerry, Dukakis, and Gore were clearly dull. A certain dullness points to being out of touch, out of touch is elitist.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I'm sorry, but Warren is facing problems of perception. How easy would it be for the right to paint her as a liberal, northeastern elitist?

How's she an elitist?  The right would, rightfully, paint her as a modern day Robin Hood.

I'm not saying she is an elitist, but she could be portrayed that way. See Kerry, Dukakis, Gore, etc.

But she's not dull. Kerry, Dukakis, and Gore were clearly dull. A certain dullness points to being out of touch, out of touch is elitist.

Well Obama isn't "dull", but has still been referred to as a bit elitist.

[International Brotherhood of Bernard]

I'm sorry, but Warren is facing problems of perception. How easy would it be for the right to paint her as a liberal, northeastern elitist?

How's she an elitist?  The right would, rightfully, paint her as a modern day Robin Hood.

I'm not saying she is an elitist, but she could be portrayed that way. See Kerry, Dukakis, Gore, etc.

But she's not dull. Kerry, Dukakis, and Gore were clearly dull. A certain dullness points to being out of touch, out of touch is elitist.

Well Obama isn't "dull", but has still been referred to as a bit elitist.

I'd say that's more due to the fact that he was a community organizer and constitutional law professor more than that he's "dull" (which he certainly is not).

[IceSpear]

Warren is probably my favorite senator, and I'd almost certainly support her if Hillary didn't run and she did, but...she did underperform Obama by a lot in Massachusetts. I think if America really was ready for her brand of populism it would've manifested itself in Massachusetts of all places with a landslide win over the clown Scott Brown. She won by a healthy, but not blowout margin.

How does knocking out one of the most popular senators in the country make her look unelectable?

Considering what a joke he's become, it's hard to remember that Scott Brown was ever popular.

But at the end of the day, I do think Warren would be destroyed by the media. Perhaps she could overcome it and perhaps not. I'd be willing to take that risk if the only alternatives were a conservative (Cuomo), a bland nonentity (O'Malley), a VP that fairs particularly poorly in the polls (Biden)...etc. etc. But when there's a safe bet like Hillary around, I don't think it is worth the risk.

[Mr. Illini]

Clinton clearly even though I am closer to Warren in terms of views.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

People made such a big deal of Obama's "you didn't build that" remark, I'd doubt they'd react well to her rant on the subject.

[henster]

Warren has only ran one election campaign in her lifetime while Hillary has run several national/local campaigns over her life.

[Bull Moose Base]

Warren has only ran one election campaign in her lifetime while Hillary has run several national/local campaigns over her life.

That's actually the main reason Warren would be a stronger general election candidate than Hillary.

[TDAS04]

Clinton obviously, but people shouldn't assume that Warren would be defeated by a Scott Walker or a Mike Pence.  Such a general election matchup would likely be very close and hard fought, with energized bases for both parties.

[Bull Moose Base]

People exaggerate Warren's weakness in a general election. If Feingold can win in Wisconsin and Brown in Ohio, Warren can win nationally. Not to mention Obama in 2008. Warren would probably hold up well in a campaign; the American electorate is more liberal than they realize.

Also, Clinton will have a slew of problems in a general election that Warren would not. That said, Clinton is the best positioned non-incumbent 2 and a half years out we've ever seen.

And  I thought that before Mosul fell, rape tape and dead broke. I still think it's more likely Warren passes than runs, and she'd be a big underdog to Hillary (even if the only one who could make the primary competitive). But I still reject the Atlas Wisdom that Hillary is a stronger general election candidate than Warren.