The Warren vs. Obama Spin

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I've taken a look at this Salon interview from Elizabeth Warren and I've noticed the spin her comments are getting on almost all political media -- Warren says Obama is for Wall Street and not average Americans. It seems she's distancing herself from Obama specifically -- which specifically looks to me like she's prepping for a run for sure. What do y'all think?

[New_Conservative]

I've taken a look at this Salon interview from Elizabeth Warren and I've noticed the spin her comments are getting on almost all political media -- Warren says Obama is for Wall Street and not average Americans. It seems she's distancing herself from Obama specifically -- which specifically looks to me like she's prepping for a run for sure. What do y'all think?

I have been saying this for the past few months.

[IceSpear]

Warren isn't going to run no matter how much the media and the GOP desires it. This is just another "Warren breathes oxygen, she must be running, why even bother otherwise??!?!?!!!111!?!?!?" story.

[Beet]

Wow every Democrat seems to be ragging on Obama these days. He's not done that bad.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I'm glad that the OP called it a "spin", because her comments are more balanced and nuanced than the "Obama is only for Wall Street banksters!" crowd gives her credit for.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I'm glad that the OP called it a "spin", because her comments are more balanced and nuanced than the "Obama is only for Wall Street banksters!" crowd gives her credit for.

My main question is whether or not the spin is intentional or if its just the media trying to build a narrative.

[KCDem]

If Warren runs, she'll get crushed. But she won't run.

[BlueSwan]

She won't run. I'd give it less than 10% chance she will. Having said that, I can definitely see why liberals desperately want her to run. But they shouldn't. A Clinton presidency is much to be preferred to a Paul/Bush/Christie/whatever presidency, which WILL happen if Warren is nominated. Someone speaking the truth like her cannot win the presidency, unfortunately. At least not yet.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She won't run. I'd give it less than 10% chance she will. Having said that, I can definitely see why liberals desperately want her to run. But they shouldn't. A Clinton presidency is much to be preferred to a Paul/Bush/Christie/whatever presidency, which WILL happen if Warren is nominated. Someone speaking the truth like her cannot win the presidency, unfortunately. At least not yet.

Why not? Is she any more liberal than Gary Hart? He was leading in the polls before the affair.

[BlueSwan]

She won't run. I'd give it less than 10% chance she will. Having said that, I can definitely see why liberals desperately want her to run. But they shouldn't. A Clinton presidency is much to be preferred to a Paul/Bush/Christie/whatever presidency, which WILL happen if Warren is nominated. Someone speaking the truth like her cannot win the presidency, unfortunately. At least not yet.

Why not? Is she any more liberal than Gary Hart? He was leading in the polls before the affair.

Oh, I'm not saying that she can't beat Clinton. Infact, I think she is the only one who has a legitimate shot at beating Clinton. I'm saying that she can't beat the republican nominee, as long as the GOP nominates someone electable (i.e. not Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She won't run. I'd give it less than 10% chance she will. Having said that, I can definitely see why liberals desperately want her to run. But they shouldn't. A Clinton presidency is much to be preferred to a Paul/Bush/Christie/whatever presidency, which WILL happen if Warren is nominated. Someone speaking the truth like her cannot win the presidency, unfortunately. At least not yet.

Why not? Is she any more liberal than Gary Hart? He was leading in the polls before the affair.

Oh, I'm not saying that she can't beat Clinton. Infact, I think she is the only one who has a legitimate shot at beating Clinton. I'm saying that she can't beat the republican nominee, as long as the GOP nominates someone electable (i.e. not Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum).

I'm talking about the general. The idea that a liberal can't win a general election is nonsense. Gary Hart was doing quite well until that picture came out. But I guess that one picture counts more than competence. We got 12 years of President Bushes. Gary Hart repeatedly warned about terrorism, including one speech on September 4th, 2001. Too bad the Bush administration didn't listen to Gary Hart.

[BlueSwan]

She won't run. I'd give it less than 10% chance she will. Having said that, I can definitely see why liberals desperately want her to run. But they shouldn't. A Clinton presidency is much to be preferred to a Paul/Bush/Christie/whatever presidency, which WILL happen if Warren is nominated. Someone speaking the truth like her cannot win the presidency, unfortunately. At least not yet.

Why not? Is she any more liberal than Gary Hart? He was leading in the polls before the affair.

Oh, I'm not saying that she can't beat Clinton. Infact, I think she is the only one who has a legitimate shot at beating Clinton. I'm saying that she can't beat the republican nominee, as long as the GOP nominates someone electable (i.e. not Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum).

I'm talking about the general. The idea that a liberal can't win a general election is nonsense. Gary Hart was doing quite well until that picture came out. But I guess that one picture counts more than competence. We got 12 years of President Bushes. Gary Hart repeatedly warned about terrorism, including one speech on September 4th, 2001. Too bad the Bush administration didn't listen to Gary Hart.

Well, I certainly hope that you are right and I am wrong. I do believe that a "true" liberal can win the presidency, but not at this point in time.

[Kraxner]

Warren is not going to run, especially since unlike Obama in 2008. She respects Hillary.

She might run if Hillary decides to quit politics by 2016, but she'll loose massively to a moderate republican if she manages to win the democratic candidacy.

Alsowasn't Obama supposed to be the far-left's Elizabeth Warren back in 2008?


If Warren even somehow manages to get elected, just like Obama. In many years down the road they'll just be complaining about how "Warren is a secret conservative/center-right" Like the far-left/radical base of thedemocratic party are calling Obama today.

President's always change their policies when they have to experience more of the political issues from the broader range and not the ideological bubble they had when they got elected.

Thats why Obama went from cap and trade, closing gitmo, wanting to revoke the Patriot act, leaving Iraq, more gun control. To reversing those positions slowly up to today.

Bill Clinton campaigned on cutting taxes and establishing a universal single payer healthcare system. To doing neither of that because cutting taxes would of not allowed the budget surplus in his second term. And the healthcare debacle became a mess that he led the democrats to lose the house of representatives in 40 years.

Reagan also had to raise some taxes back when the deficit grew.

And HW bush did it also despite promising "No new taxes"


In thr article she wants Obama to "argue for the positions" she wants. Even though he has already done so and many democrats were misguided about how much power a President really has. And no attempt at persuasion can change members of the other party to vote for what you want. And they don't have to because they were voted specifically to oppose the policies of the opposite party. Otherwise the voters would of voted for the party of the president. Let's remember that Bush campaigned after the 2004 election for an amendment to ban gay marriage and it dropped when not even his own party liked the idea. You can not force congress to vote to approve your idea just by talking about it.


Besides, Warren has little clue about Wall street besides left wing jargon. Its a bid disheartening when i hear people still to this day believe that the 2008 crisis had "one single cause and had it bwen stopped the crash wouldn't of happened"

[Maistre]

No Democrat is going to be able to primary Hillary from the left by beating up on Obama. The progressives LOVE Obama and like Hillary. They will have to appeal to the same groups that were gung ho for him in 2008 and still are.

[SWE]

Alsowasn't Obama supposed to be the far-left's Elizabeth Warren back in 2008?

lol

[IceSpear]

No Democrat is going to be able to primary Hillary from the left by beating up on Obama. The progressives LOVE Obama and like Hillary. They will have to appeal to the same groups that were gung ho for him in 2008 and still are.

Of course, that's not a concern for Warren since she isn't running.

[IceSpear]

Ted Cruz could legitimately eradicate Warren by 15 percent. I hope she runs.

I assume you mean in Texas?

[New_Conservative]

Ted Cruz could legitimately eradicate Warren by 15 percent. I hope she runs.

That would be a depressing race.

[SWE]

Ted Cruz could legitimately eradicate Warren by 15 percent. I hope she runs.

I assume you mean in Texas?

I'm talking about the popular vote.

The way you talk about her, you'd think she'd have some views outside of the mainstream

[The Other Castro]

Ted Cruz could legitimately eradicate Warren by 15 percent. I hope she runs.

I assume you mean in Texas?

I'm talking about the popular vote.

The way you talk about her, you'd think she'd have some views outside of the mainstream

The way he talks about her, you'd think she killed a guy

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Eh, sadly America is backwards and reactionary enough that a right wing nut like Ted Cruz will always beat an actual Liberal even a sensible one like Warren.

[Kraxner]

Ted Cruz could legitimately eradicate Warren by 15 percent. I hope she runs.

I assume you mean in Texas?

I'm talking about the popular vote.

The way you talk about her, you'd think she'd have some views outside of the mainstream

Some people don't seem to get the writing on the wall that she'll be the equivalent of Mondale, McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry.

All of which were weak opponents and weak campaigners. Who gave up on winning and instead tried to retain the left wing base.

Cruz might win by 3-6% If he faces her. And if she even tries to put sanders on the VP. It's going to be a blowout victory for Cruz, despite cruz's radical conservatism.

[Mehmentum]

Ted Cruz could legitimately eradicate Warren by 15 percent. I hope she runs.

I assume you mean in Texas?

I'm talking about the popular vote.

The way you talk about her, you'd think she'd have some views outside of the mainstream

Some people don't seem to get the writing on the wall that she'll be the equivalent of Mondale, McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry.

All of which were weak opponents and weak campaigners. Who gave up on winning and instead tried to retain the left wing base.

Cruz might win by 3-6% If he faces her. And if she even tries to put sanders on the VP. It's going to be a blowout victory for Cruz, despite cruz's radical conservatism.

If she's the equivalent of Kerry, how does she lose by far more than he did against a far worse candidate?

[RINO Tom]

I really feel that the Democratic "divide" is vastly overrated.  It's an incredibly united party right now, especially considering the state of the GOP, and their only disagreements are on how far to go or how to proceed with the same fiscally liberal/populist/anti-Wall Street agenda.  For example, Obama wants to go less far than Warren.  However, it's a unanimous voice coming from the Democrats denouncing deregulation, calling for a minimum wage increase, taking corporate donations out of campaigns, etc.

[Kraxner]

I really feel that the Democratic "divide" is vastly overrated.  It's an incredibly united party right now, especially considering the state of the GOP, and their only disagreements are on how far to go or how to proceed with the same fiscally liberal/populist/anti-Wall Street agenda.  For example, Obama wants to go less far than Warren.  However, it's a unanimous voice coming from the Democrats denouncing deregulation, calling for a minimum wage increase, taking corporate donations out of campaigns, etc.

It seems united, but there has been a growing rift between moderates and the more radical left wing base since OWS.

I forsee a 2000 like situation in 2016, where a green party candidate manages to sweep up votes from dissatisfied democrats from the radicals who feel that the democrats have been too moderate.

Go to left wing blogs and forums and they have became absolutely hateful of moderates, calling them "turd way", centre-right, secret conservatives. And what else.


Ane its getting worse if to consider the idea of the filter bubble, which has created an echo chamber among the left, ans causing moderate democrats like me to drop out from the democratic party all together due to the hostility I and many received for " Not being left enough"


If Warren or sanders even manage to get the democratic nomination, a 2000 like split with the far left might be prevented. But a savy moderate republican could be very instrumental in getting moderate democrats to swing for them in 2016 if a moderate democrat doesn't get the nomination.


Lets not forget that McCain was actually surging on Obama due to Hillary voters in 2008, dropping out. And that only changed and they decided to vote for Obama because of the financial crash in September of 2008 and the subsequent rise in unemployment..


Edit: Also to add, for some reason the fact that Southern democrats and many democrats facing tough re-election are running blue dog campaigns which are centre-left in economic policy but centre-right on social issues like guns, seems to piss off the left wing blogs who think that every democrat should be forced to run a generic progressive/leftwing campaign regardless of local circumstances.