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.
Poll
