Was Warren the strongest potential Democrat on par with Biden this year?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:30:13 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Was Warren the strongest potential Democrat on par with Biden this year?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Was Warren the strongest potential Democrat on par with Biden this year?  (Read 593 times)
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 22, 2016, 06:40:36 PM »

I don't think Biden would run for re-election, so in that context, in terms of a democrat getting 2 terms, Warren as the first woman president would be the ideal candidate, would she not?

Back in 2006-2007, the earlier posts here on atlas had this forum laughing at obama, calling him 'too far left', and projecting maps showing mccain winning 350 EVs against him. Obama was able to win due to his center-left coalition, would Warren be able to form something similar against any republican? I.E, look at the strongest republican this cycle, Kasich, Warren would be positioned to go after him with 'Lehman Brothers' and take even the strongest republican out like that.

Demographically, the obama coalition is larger than the republicans, so someone who can put that coalition together without leaking leftists Gore-style a la Hillary should be ideal.

The polling for Bernie had him pretty competitive as it was against the Republican candidates, even nationally against Kasich (those numbers would go down in a GE due to Bernie's baggage, but it shows that there can be genuine appeal for a left-wing candidate), and Warren would be a lot more toned down next to Bernie.
Logged
evergreenarbor
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 864


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2016, 07:04:35 PM »

Warren would have been a stronger candidate than Bernie or Hillary, but I'm not sure she would have done better than Biden.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2016, 07:27:12 PM »

Nah, Hillary was always the strongest candidate, and all the others knew it. I mean, she came within a hair of beating Obama himself eight years ago.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2016, 07:33:32 PM »

No. I doubt anyone but a hypothetical third Obama run could have prevented her nomination this year.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2016, 07:45:34 PM »

No. I doubt anyone but a hypothetical third Obama run could have prevented her nomination this year.

I thought we were talking about who would be strongest in the general election, not the primary?  Clinton may well have been a lock over any rival for the nomination.  But I'd say it's an open question as to whether, should she have declined to run and someone else been nominated, that other nominee would have a better chance against Trump than she does IRL.
Logged
Bismarck
Chancellor
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,343


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2016, 07:48:58 PM »

No. You want to make middle class moderates turn to the right, let the alternative be somebody who wants to redistribute the wealth. All those "educated suburban whites" we keep hearing about who are turning away from Trump would not have voted for Bernie or Elizabeth Warren no matter how much atlas loves them.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,697
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2016, 07:54:39 PM »

No. I doubt anyone but a hypothetical third Obama run could have prevented her nomination this year.

I thought we were talking about who would be strongest in the general election, not the primary?  Clinton may well have been a lock over any rival for the nomination.  But I'd say it's an open question as to whether, should she have declined to run and someone else been nominated, that other nominee would have a better chance against Trump than she does IRL.


Oh, I see. In that case, yeah Warren would be cleaning Trump's clocks.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2016, 08:24:47 PM »

I think Warren would have been a terrible candidate.

The Democrats' problem is that they have a thin bench, so as bad as Warren is, she actually may have been the best.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2016, 08:44:47 PM »

In the primary? Absolutely. She would have carried virtually every Sanders supporter (minus the handful of Paultards that fetishize the "honest angry grandpa" shtick) and she would have pulled the necessary 5-10% of primary voters who are female and who voted for Clinton over Sanders literally only because they wanted to see a woman in the White House. The difference between Clinton winning and losing the primary was in fact just that.

In the general? Who's to say. Warren has this odd appeal among people who usually despise Generic Democrat. She's folksy. She emphasizes working-class economics. In focus groups among independents and Republicans in the run-up to the primaries, she performed better than anybody else tested (Democrat or Republican). Against a scam artist like Trump, I think she would have picked up at least one person from this kind of category for every one person she'd lose out of the "Coalition of the Ascendant" suburban upper-middle class white college graduate who's expecting a tax cut from Clinton crowd.
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,976


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2016, 09:20:37 PM »

What does Trump/RNC have against Warren besides the Indian stuff, she is obviously a far less polarizing person with less baggage than Hillary. That alone makes her lightyears ahead better candidate than Hillary.
Logged
Jesus save us
NJR
Rookie
**
Posts: 94
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2016, 10:32:35 PM »

The polling says that Bernie was the strongest candidate against Trump. But know where stuck with Hillary.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2016, 10:34:14 PM »

No. You want to make middle class moderates turn to the right, let the alternative be somebody who wants to redistribute the wealth. All those "educated suburban whites" we keep hearing about who are turning away from Trump would not have voted for Bernie or Elizabeth Warren no matter how much atlas loves them.

It's not about Trump, it's Warren vs. an average republican, even the strongest one like Kasich. Back in 2008 Fox and the Right were calling Obama every name under the son, socialist, communist, etc. and he ran as a full-progressive, single-payer and all.

Whereas Hillary is weak with the left wing of the dem base (people who didn't frequently vote for Dems before '08 or voted for Nader, etc.), Warren would've consolidated it a la Obama, and wouldn't have needed any Romney people, since the dem base is demographically larger than the republicans.

Hillary's current strategy is closer to Gore, dismal leftist turnout, focusing on the center (to be fair, that strategy works o.k. for an INCUMBENT as long you give some red meat now and then to the base, Obama's turnout was reduced for '12, but not enough to matter). Warren's would be closer to Obama's original '08 strategy, focusing on the left, while holding the traditional Gore/Kerry-base. Bernie eventually would've had problems even with the traditional Gore/Kerry-base due to his personal baggage (hence polls showing bernie competitive against all the republicans), but Warren would've been able to hold it while reaching out to the left a la Obama.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2016, 10:53:46 PM »

The polling says that Bernie was the strongest candidate against Trump. But know where stuck with Hillary.

The same polls also showed Bernie beating Cruz by double digits, but Republicans will try to deny it, while cherrypicking polls of other candidates beating Hillary as valid. The fact is that there is something to reaching out to progressives, and the Obama '08 strategy.

Hillary should be lucky that Bernie was able to influence her platform a bit and make her more left, that should be something which helps her out not only this year, but also in the future.

If Republican 'base theory', 'reaching out to the right' is supposedly valid, why not Democratic 'base theory', 'reaching out to the left'. Obama won his reelection because his coalition was larger, even with a handicap of lower turnout vs. '08.
Logged
Jesus save us
NJR
Rookie
**
Posts: 94
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2016, 11:00:04 PM »

The polling says that Bernie was the strongest candidate against Trump. But know where stuck with Hillary.

The same polls also showed Bernie beating Cruz by double digits, but Republicans will try to deny it, while cherrypicking polls of other candidates beating Hillary as valid. The fact is that there is something to reaching out to progressives, and the Obama '08 strategy.

Hillary should be lucky that Bernie was able to influence her platform a bit and make her more left, that should be something which helps her out not only this year, but also in the future.

If Republican 'base theory', 'reaching out to the right' is supposedly valid, why not Democratic 'base theory', 'reaching out to the left'. Obama won his reelection because his coalition was larger, even with a handicap of lower turnout vs. '08.
Yes. This ^
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2016, 11:05:50 PM »

If Republican 'base theory', 'reaching out to the right' is supposedly valid, why not Democratic 'base theory', 'reaching out to the left'. Obama won his reelection because his coalition was larger, even with a handicap of lower turnout vs. '08.

Turnout wasn't actually lower than 2008 where it mattered. With the exception of OH/PA, every swing state had more voters cast ballots in 2012 than in 2008.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2016, 11:09:56 PM »

I love Warren, but I doubt she'd be the strongest candidate. She's got her share of faux scandals as well, and I think the far right would warm up to Trump more easily against someone as liberal as her.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2016, 11:35:59 PM »

If Republican 'base theory', 'reaching out to the right' is supposedly valid, why not Democratic 'base theory', 'reaching out to the left'. Obama won his reelection because his coalition was larger, even with a handicap of lower turnout vs. '08.

Turnout wasn't actually lower than 2008 where it mattered. With the exception of OH/PA, every swing state had more voters cast ballots in 2012 than in 2008.

Well, also NH, but Republicans can't win without BOTH OH and FL, take out OH, and they've already lost. Look at Karl Rove's meltdown over OH in 2012, he was expecting lower turnout, yet Obama was able to hold his coalition together for the most part.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2016, 11:43:10 PM »

I love Warren, but I doubt she'd be the strongest candidate. She's got her share of faux scandals as well, and I think the far right would warm up to Trump more easily against someone as liberal as her.

You don't need center-right  or even most independent voters if you can keep your progressive numbers up (Romney won independents), Hillary lost a significant amount of progressives a la Gore. Besides, those center-right voters who will actually vote for a dem are negligible (could imagine cruz's religious fanatic voters who think homosexuality should be banned voting for a liberal dem?), hence Hillary's polling issues, someone who can focus on progressives, and the obama coalition would be in the majority % regardless of what happens on the R side since demographically obama's coalition is larger than the republicans.
Logged
Warren 4 Secretary of Everything
Clinton1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,203
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2016, 02:26:00 AM »

Biden still would've been stronger. The left loves him and he has literally all of Trumps "straight-talking" strengths and none of his problems.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 23, 2016, 05:55:14 AM »

I think Franken, Wyden, Webb, O'Malley, and Biden all would have been stronger than Warren. Warren would be a terrible fit for young independents and moderate Democrats, as despite being loved by the young base, her professor-like tone would probably not give her much appeal there. Xavier Becerra and Julian Castro would probably both be stronger nominees than her.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 13 queries.