Can Elizabeth Warren's message resonate in the Midwest?

[Suburbia]

If Elizabeth Warren runs for president and wins the Democratic nomination, can her message play well in the Rust Belt states, or will the Republicans counteract her message with her being too progressive for the region?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

In a year like 2008 with the financial crisis going on she would have been great. In a year like 2016 with a (most likely) unpopular Democratic President and the Midwest trending R, she's got no chance.

[Kevin]

Liz Warren is def an underrated candidate so I would have to say yes.

[justfollowingtheelections]

In a year like 2008 with the financial crisis going on she would have been great. In a year like 2016 with a (most likely) unpopular Democratic President and the Midwest trending R, she's got no chance.

I am confused.  Are you saying that her message was relevant in the Midwest in 2008 but now all of the Midwestern states' problems have been solved and they have no need for Warren's message?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

In a year like 2008 with the financial crisis going on she would have been great. In a year like 2016 with a (most likely) unpopular Democratic President and the Midwest trending R, she's got no chance.

I don't think people in the Midwest have forgotten about the financial crisis and have since warmed up to Wall Street. Warren has no connections to Obama like Hilllary does, and there is still plenty of anger over our unfair rigged economic system all across the country, including the Midwest.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

If Elizabeth Warren runs for president and wins the Democratic nomination, can her message play well in the Rust Belt states

Yes. The industrial workers around here love Warren.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

In a year like 2008 with the financial crisis going on she would have been great. In a year like 2016 with a (most likely) unpopular Democratic President and the Midwest trending R, she's got no chance.

I am confused.  Are you saying that her message was relevant in the Midwest in 2008 but now all of the Midwestern states' problems have been solved and they have no need for Warren's message?

No, of course all their problems haven't been solved. But Warren's message would have resonated the most in late 2008 with the financial crisis going on. Since then, the region has become more Republican and there is an unpopular liberal in the White House.

[IceSpear]

In a year like 2008 with the financial crisis going on she would have been great. In a year like 2016 with a (most likely) unpopular Democratic President and the Midwest trending R, she's got no chance.

This is true. Warren's views actually would've been perfect for a post financial crisis 2008.

[IceSpear]

In a year like 2008 with the financial crisis going on she would have been great. In a year like 2016 with a (most likely) unpopular Democratic President and the Midwest trending R, she's got no chance.

I don't think people in the Midwest have forgotten about the financial crisis and have since warmed up to Wall Street. Warren has no connections to Obama like Hilllary does, and there is still plenty of anger over our unfair rigged economic system all across the country, including the Midwest.

They haven't "warmed up" to Wall Street, but the anger is nowhere near as potent as it was, from say, 2008-2011.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

In a year like 2008 with the financial crisis going on she would have been great. In a year like 2016 with a (most likely) unpopular Democratic President and the Midwest trending R, she's got no chance.

I don't think people in the Midwest have forgotten about the financial crisis and have since warmed up to Wall Street. Warren has no connections to Obama like Hilllary does, and there is still plenty of anger over our unfair rigged economic system all across the country, including the Midwest.

They haven't "warmed up" to Wall Street, but the anger is nowhere near as potent as it was, from say, 2008-2011.

It is still a message that will resonate with all the but the most ardent of Teabaggers.

Our economic system is fundamentally rigged. Elizabeth Warren knows this and a strong Warren campaign can get the message out about just how rigged our system is in favor of big banks while screwing over ordinary Americans.

Elizabeth Warren has a message. A winning message. And her message doesn't just include identifying the problems but proposing solutions. It's about time we had a president with real ideas and a vision for improving what many people across the United States- including Midwesterners- still view as a fragile and weak economy where it is tough for ordinary Americans to find jobs and the jobs they do find often don't pay enough to support themselves or their families, regardless of what the economists' numbers on paper say. Meanwhile the banksters are reaping record profits and the recent budget further loosened restrictions on banks indicating that the mainstream establishment of the Democratic Party hasn't learned from the crisis either- or they are in the pockets of the banks themselves, like President Obama.

Hillary Clinton has no message. She has no ideas. Her platform on her website will consist of generic Democratic platitudes that some staffer will write up that she won't even read. The same will go for her speeches. She will expect to win the presidency just because she is Hillary Clinton. Wall Street will support her enthusiastically. She will do nothing to reform our economic system but will continue the status quo policies of Obama. Hillary really is the Tom Dewey of 2016.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Excellent answer senator Libertas.

[IceSpear]

In a year like 2008 with the financial crisis going on she would have been great. In a year like 2016 with a (most likely) unpopular Democratic President and the Midwest trending R, she's got no chance.

I don't think people in the Midwest have forgotten about the financial crisis and have since warmed up to Wall Street. Warren has no connections to Obama like Hilllary does, and there is still plenty of anger over our unfair rigged economic system all across the country, including the Midwest.

They haven't "warmed up" to Wall Street, but the anger is nowhere near as potent as it was, from say, 2008-2011.

It is still a message that will resonate with all the but the most ardent of Teabaggers.

Our economic system is fundamentally rigged. Elizabeth Warren knows this and a strong Warren campaign can get the message out about just how rigged our system is in favor of big banks while screwing over ordinary Americans.

Elizabeth Warren has a message. A winning message. And her message doesn't just include identifying the problems but proposing solutions. It's about time we had a president with real ideas and a vision for improving what many people across the United States- including Midwesterners- still view as a fragile and weak economy where it is tough for ordinary Americans to find jobs and the jobs they do find often don't pay enough to support themselves or their families, regardless of what the economists' numbers on paper say. Meanwhile the banksters are reaping record profits and the recent budget further loosened restrictions on banks indicating that the mainstream establishment of the Democratic Party hasn't learned from the crisis either- or they are in the pockets of the banks themselves, like President Obama.

Hillary Clinton has no message. She has no ideas. Her platform on her website will consist of generic Democratic platitudes that some staffer will write up that she won't even read. The same will go for her speeches. She will expect to win the presidency just because she is Hillary Clinton. Wall Street will support her enthusiastically. She will do nothing to reform our economic system but will continue the status quo policies of Obama. Hillary really is the Tom Dewey of 2016.

If it resonates with everyone besides ardent teabaggers, then why did Warren underperform Obama by 15 points in 2012 in a state where teabaggers are basically irrelevant? Yes, Scott Brown was popular, but if Warren's message is apparently so powerful that it's going to completely upend trends and modern political coalitions and bring millions of Republican voters on the Democratic train, you think we would've seen some evidence of that, rather than the exact opposite occuring.

And lol at that last paragraph. This forum is like a magnet for anti-Hillary hacks.

[IceSpear]

But... but... she is INEVITABLE

What? If you're referring to Hillary, she is inevitable. Warren isn't running and she's the only one that would have a prayer against her.

[henster]

She's not running so why does it matter? And really her message is not that different from Obama's in both of his runs and he did pretty well in Midwest.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

She's not running so why does it matter? And really her message is not that different from Obama's in both of his runs and he did pretty well in Midwest.

Um, Warren is completely different from Barack Obama, she doesn't come from a politician background and actually means what she says when she wants to change our rigged system to help poor and middle class Americans rather than have a system that serves only the rich and Wall Street. Obama, on the other hand, was a Wall Street pawn from the start, and received more Wall Street money than John McCain, the first time a Democrat had received more money than the Republican candidate in a presidential race. Obama was all talk, Warren is the real deal.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

She's not running so why does it matter? And really her message is not that different from Obama's in both of his runs and he did pretty well in Midwest.

This.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

In a year like 2008 with the financial crisis going on she would have been great. In a year like 2016 with a (most likely) unpopular Democratic President and the Midwest trending R, she's got no chance.

I don't think people in the Midwest have forgotten about the financial crisis and have since warmed up to Wall Street. Warren has no connections to Obama like Hilllary does, and there is still plenty of anger over our unfair rigged economic system all across the country, including the Midwest.

They haven't "warmed up" to Wall Street, but the anger is nowhere near as potent as it was, from say, 2008-2011.

Elizabeth Warren has a message. A winning message. And her message doesn't just include identifying the problems but proposing solutions. It's about time we had a president with real ideas and a vision for improving what many people across the United States- including Midwesterners- still view as a fragile and weak economy where it is tough for ordinary Americans to find jobs and the jobs they do find often don't pay enough to support themselves or their families, regardless of what the economists' numbers on paper say.

Are you applying for a job as her speech writer?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

In a year like 2008 with the financial crisis going on she would have been great. In a year like 2016 with a (most likely) unpopular Democratic President and the Midwest trending R, she's got no chance.

I don't think people in the Midwest have forgotten about the financial crisis and have since warmed up to Wall Street. Warren has no connections to Obama like Hilllary does, and there is still plenty of anger over our unfair rigged economic system all across the country, including the Midwest.

They haven't "warmed up" to Wall Street, but the anger is nowhere near as potent as it was, from say, 2008-2011.

Elizabeth Warren has a message. A winning message. And her message doesn't just include identifying the problems but proposing solutions. It's about time we had a president with real ideas and a vision for improving what many people across the United States- including Midwesterners- still view as a fragile and weak economy where it is tough for ordinary Americans to find jobs and the jobs they do find often don't pay enough to support themselves or their families, regardless of what the economists' numbers on paper say.

Are you applying for a job as her speech writer?

I would be honored to be Elizabeth Warren's speechwriter and to enter the White House together after helping to get her elected the 45th President of the United States.

[pbrower2a]

Until the Republicans run an honest-to-Eisenhower moderate they are going to lose Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota... and Ohio will be no sure thing for the Republican especially if the Republicans push an anti-labor agenda and appeal to the ignoramus vote that sees nothing wrong with American life that can't be solved by putting prayer back in the schools and replacing evolution with young-earth creationism.

Considering states outside the Midwest, they would still lose Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and probably Virginia as well. 

[Rockefeller GOP]

Until the Republicans run an honest-to-Eisenhower moderate they are going to lose Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota... and Ohio will be no sure thing for the Republican especially if the Republicans push an anti-labor agenda and appeal to the ignoramus vote that sees nothing wrong with American life that can't be solved by putting prayer back in the schools and replacing evolution with young-earth creationism.

Considering states outside the Midwest, they would still lose Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and probably Virginia as well. 

Neither McCain or Romney said any of the ridiculous things in your last post...  Democrats simply made them look like they were radical in their ads.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

I can't see her winning Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, or Iowa. Michigan would be a toss-up. Illinois would be lean Democrat. Minnesota would be safe Dem. It wouldn't be pretty.

Why do you assume she would do so badly? Warren is critical of Wall Street and we all know that Wall Street is sooooo popular in middle america.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I can't see her winning Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, or Iowa. Michigan would be a toss-up. Illinois would be lean Democrat. Minnesota would be safe Dem. It wouldn't be pretty.

Why do you assume she would do so badly? Warren is critical of Wall Street and we all know that Wall Street is sooooo popular in middle america.

She's a far left politician and Obama is soooooo unpopular in middle America right now.

[SWE]

I can't see her winning Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, or Iowa. Michigan would be a toss-up. Illinois would be lean Democrat. Minnesota would be safe Dem. It wouldn't be pretty.

Why do you assume she would do so badly? Warren is critical of Wall Street and we all know that Wall Street is sooooo popular in middle america.

She's a far left politician and Obama is soooooo unpopular in middle America right now.

no

[Mehmentum]

In a year like 2008 with the financial crisis going on she would have been great. In a year like 2016 with a (most likely) unpopular Democratic President and the Midwest trending R, she's got no chance.

The evidence that the midwest is trending R is tenuous at best.  I posted a thread relevant to this on the Presidential Election Trends board (here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=204608.0)

Most midwestern states have either been stationary or slightly trended D with respect to the popular vote since 2000.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I can't see her winning Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, or Iowa. Michigan would be a toss-up. Illinois would be lean Democrat. Minnesota would be safe Dem. It wouldn't be pretty.

Why do you assume she would do so badly? Warren is critical of Wall Street and we all know that Wall Street is sooooo popular in middle america.

She's a far left politician and Obama is soooooo unpopular in middle America right now.

no

Who is one then?