How would a Hillary Clinton vs. Elizabeth Warren primary play out?

[ShadowRocket]

Assume that Warren begins to reconsider and jumps in. She proves to be a formidable challenger unlike the others and the race becomes pretty much a one-on-one battle between the two. I would expect that Hillary still wins, but how long would it take her to clinch the nomination and what would the map look like in this scenrio?

[Joe Biden 2020]

I believe Hillary would mop the floor with Lizzy.  Hillary may be liberal, but she's nowhere near as bad as Warren.  This country has one extremely liberal president in office right now.  We don't need another.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I believe Hillary would mop the floor with Lizzy.  Hillary may be liberal, but she's nowhere near as bad as Warren.  This country has one extremely liberal president in office right now.  We don't need another.

Obama /=/ Kucinich. Enough said.

[Supersonic]

Iowa and New Hampshire are faux competitive due to the media - Clinton breaks 50 in both. Takes every state.

Probably.

[Vega]

Not well for Warren.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

Don't be so quick to write Warren off, she has a huge grassroots following and would appeal to working class voters. Also Hillary is a horrible debater and comes off as smarmy on the stump. I think that there might be an upset.

[Beet]

Warren would be a middle class insurgent candidate similar to Eugene McCarthy, Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, Bill Bradley, and Howard Dean. Such candidates have a virtually uniformly losing primary record. None had won in decades until Barack Obama, and that was only because Obama was able to rack up 80 point margins among a group of blue collar voters that usually break heavily toward the establishment candidate. And even then he was only able to barely squeak through. There is little doubt in my mind that blue collar white, Hispanic and black multiracial coalition would break heavily towards Clinton and shut out the latte liberal crowd.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

Umm the "Latte Liberal" crowd is more likely to be for Hillary. Warren appeals to blue collar voters by speaking about income inequity and wall street. Hillary is the candidate of the socially liberal/fiscally conservative yuppies.

[Beet]

Umm the "Latte Liberal" crowd is more likely to be for Hillary. Warren appeals to blue collar voters by speaking about income inequity and wall street. Hillary is the candidate of the socially liberal/fiscally conservative yuppies.

Yes, in the mind of the middle class radical ever since Marx, the working class is more invested in their ideals than the radical himself, for he is "for their interests." Except it usually isn't true. If it was, Warren would be landsliding in poor ass areas of eastern Kentucky. Instead, the radical castigates the working class as ignorant hicks, inbredgap toothed racists and so on. Too the barricades!

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

^^^I never said anything like that. Please don't put words in my mouth. I just think that when Warren actually gets on the stump in places like Iowa she would have a lot of appeal to working class voters.

[Beet]

I'm not saying I would be unhappy to be wrong, but if history is any guide I'm not wrong.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

If history is any guide there are plenty of examples of the front runner getting trounced. I think that once a candidate like Warren decides to get in (and I don't think she wants to) it'd be a 50/50 proposition, especially since she has a lot of grassroots support and a devoted liberal following.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Warren has a chance of winning, though the odds are not in her favor.

[Beet]

Getting off topic for a moment- consider this, what was Warren's from Cromnibus speech, in the end, really about? On the surface it was about banks, regulations and bailouts sure, but really it was about corruption, wasn't it? Warren's main beef is that a private group could unethically influence government, of policy bought and sold.

Which class, throughout history, has been most opposed to corruption? The middle class, no? Warren would have fit in well with the Mugwumps. The middle class opposes corruption because corruption is an abrogation of the formal rules and ideals of society, rules and ideals which were created by, and benefit, themselves. Which class have historically benefitted from corruption? Both the upper and the working classes, for precisely the same reasons.* Certainly working class voters do find the idea that Citigroup can buy the government disgusting, but neither they nor the middle class really see any tangible difference in their livelihoods whether the bank takes $50 billion from Treasury or not; the difference is, the middle class, because of their greater levels of education, idealism, and sense of self-efficacy (belief in right and ability to effect the political system) are more motivated to crusade over such causes.

* One might ask why corruption no longer benefits the working class today; that seems to be because it's mechanisms, such as patronage, vote buying, political machines, gangs, and unions were all eviscerated, one by one, by idealistic middle class reformers.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

I've often had the same thought re: political machines. It used to be that people could benefit directly from government in the form of patronage jobs. And these same reformer types complain about low voter turnout...

[IceSpear]

I'd give Hillary 90/10 odds in this scenario. Still, that's fairly meaningful since I see Warren as the only candidate that could take her odds below ~99.9%.

[IceSpear]

If history is any guide there are plenty of examples of the front runner getting trounced. I think that once a candidate like Warren decides to get in (and I don't think she wants to) it'd be a 50/50 proposition, especially since she has a lot of grassroots support and a devoted liberal following.

Calling Hillary a "frontrunner" is kind of an understatement. In 2008 she was a frontrunner. In 2016 she's completely dominant. The two are definitely not equivalent.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

I believe Hillary would mop the floor with Lizzy.  Hillary may be liberal, but she's nowhere near as bad as Warren.  This country has one extremely liberal president in office right now.  We don't need another.

Obama like Bill Clinton and Hillary is a centrist New Democrat. The Republicans are the party of ideological extremism and insanity.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Warren would be a middle class insurgent candidate similar to Eugene McCarthy, Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, Bill Bradley, and Howard Dean. Such candidates have a virtually uniformly losing primary record. None had won in decades until Barack Obama, and that was only because Obama was able to rack up 80 point margins among a group of blue collar voters that usually break heavily toward the establishment candidate. And even then he was only able to barely squeak through. There is little doubt in my mind that blue collar white, Hispanic and black multiracial coalition would break heavily towards Clinton and shut out the latte liberal crowd.

Hillary supporters are calling people who stand up for the middle class over Wall Street latte liberals? OK.

[RTX]

I believe Hillary would mop the floor with Lizzy.  Hillary may be liberal, but she's nowhere near as bad as Warren.  This country has one extremely liberal president in office right now.  We don't need another.

Obama like Bill Clinton and Hillary is a centrist New Democrat. The Republicans are the party of ideological extremism and insanity.

Obama is absolutely not like Bill Clinton. Clinton put ideology/pride/ego/pandering aside somewhat after the 1994 election and worked with a Republican congress. The budget got balanced. Welfare got reformed. Obama is just a failure.

[Mr. Smith]

Obama is a failure alright, for being too conservative.

Don't call him Clinton, Clinton stood up to Congress and didn't scrap single-payer healthcare, Clinon was a Centrist....Obama isn't left enough to even be that.

He only seems that way because Republicans, every last  one of them are beyond conservative. . Dubya, was the farthest right confines of conservative, and that's where Obama is. This makes the GOP regressive.

Obviously progressives and actual centrists want the window back, and if Warren looks better for it, why not?

[Progressive]

I think that Warren could do well in some caucus states like Colorado, and also maybe like Vermont, Maine, etc.

[SWE]

This would be the closest primary with Hillary, but she'd still win easily

[NewYorkExpress]

Warren loses Iowa, wins New Hampshire and South Carolina, loses Nevada and gets blown out the door on Super Tuesday.

[IceSpear]

Warren loses Iowa, wins New Hampshire and South Carolina, loses Nevada and gets blown out the door on Super Tuesday.

Uh, did you reverse the names or something? If Warren is going to win any early state it would be Iowa.