Could Warren crash, like Christie did after 2012?

[Blue3]

Remember when everyone wanted Christie to run in 2012, he decided to wait and be more prepared in 2016, and he crashed and burned?

Everyone wanted Warren to run in 2016, she decided to wait and it seems like she'll be in a better position in 2020. But she's also been in national news for the last 6 years, and by then it will be for the last 10 years. Other Democrats will be rising. She could be old news, or she could really crash and burn (like if she picks a wrong fight with Trump).

How likely is it that Warren crashes before 2020?

[Pandaguineapig]

A reasonable chance, she'll be 71 in 2020 and has many of the personality flaws that plagued Clinton. Since democrats usually require a charismatic leader for "inspiration" meaning they will likely go in a younger direction. She also has the problem of having no accomplishment or mark on the Senate despite being in front of every camera she can find (The John Edwards/ Marco Rubio problem)

[houseonaboat]

Bridgegate began (or at least accelerated) Christie's demise. Hard to see Warren coming up with anything close to that.

But if the economy does well then Warren can't run on the message of a rigged system, and she loses any ability to win crossover votes (though that would be a Democrat problem as much as it would be a Warren problem).

[Hindsight was 2020]

Possible she is a good fire up the base type but not a good debater which will hurt her plus as Pandaguineapig pointed out she doesn't have a record to run on heck Julian Castro who is hated on her by some fore lack of experience has more bragging rights with the work done when he was mayor of San Antonio and HUD than Warren

[coloradocowboi]

I don't think Liz Warren is going to commit any crimes between now an 2020 though...

[BlueSwan]

I have never seen Warren as a top-of-the-ticket choice. She is too polarizing. I did see her as a great VP choice for Clinton and still think that Clinton should have picked her instead of the snooze-fest that was Tim Kaine.

[Devils30]

I think she could not run herself or crash but the Bernie/Warren wing will grab the 2020 nomination. Without a clear frontrunner the debates will matter a ton.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Christie got caught in Bridgegate and now looks like a sleazebag.

Warren won't do that.  She's rather sanctimonious, though, and I can see her peaking early and folks getting tired of that.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I don't think Liz Warren is going to commit any crimes between now an 2020 though...

doesn't mean a trump-controlled justice system couldn't go after her anyway ㄟ(ツ)ㄏ

[Xing]

If she closes a bridge in Massachusetts to help with her re-election in 2018, then maybe.

[Wiz in Wis]

She. Doesn't. Want. The. Job.

[Figueira]

I don't really get how Warren is remotely similar to Christie. But sure, politicians crash all the time. Anything's possible.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She. Doesn't. Want. The. Job.

That's a good point, has she given the slightest signal she's actually interested in being President?

[LLR]

Rudy Giuliani might be a more apt comparison

[Mr. Morden]

She. Doesn't. Want. The. Job.

That's a good point, has she given the slightest signal she's actually interested in being President?

Well, during the lead up to the 2016 election, she consistently denied any interest in running for president that year, with the exception of this one episode from 2014:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=164982.msg4348232#msg4348232

In the past month+ since the election though, she’s been asked about 2020 at least twice, and declined to rule it out both times, simply saying that it wasn’t on her radar, or it was too early to think about.

Additionally….

In the fall, she did multiple campaign events for Clinton and other Democratic candidates, including campaigning for Clinton and Hassan in New Hampshire.

She has a leadership PAC, which gave money to many different Democratic candidates this year, including Hassan in NH and Patty Judge in Iowa.  (Even Booker and Gillibrand didn’t bother donating to Judge, but Warren did.)

She just got herself on the Armed Services Committee, which is a common step for those looking to run for national office.

Then there’s the fact that she came out with a book in 2014, and she’s been actively promoting herself as a progressive leader in the Senate, especially in the past month+ since the election.

Now, maybe her high profile status is something that she cultivated just so she could get things done in the Senate, and she has no presidential ambitions.

But that’s not usually how it works.  The people who make a big name for themselves in the Senate are mostly people who end up running for president.  Those who aren’t interested in running for president become random backbenchers who we never hear from.  Eventual presidential candidates are far more likely to write books about themselves and/or their platform, set up leadership PACs, etc.

[RaphaelDLG]

What everyone else has said, mostly.

1) It's totally possible that she peaked in terms of Presidential chances in 2016

2) At the same time, Christie cratered because of
A) criminal activity, something we assume Warren won't be caught in and
B) terrible mismanagement of NJ, something that's not possible for someone in a legislative, non-executive position

[JoshPA]

yes with biden and all.

[Blair]

I saw her referred to as the RFK of the Democratic party, in that she's the only one who at this point could bring together the two wings of the party; I'd wager there's a high proportion of bernie backers who'd support her over someone like Ellison/or some other 'true progressive' and an equally high proportion of Clinton backers who'd support her over Booker/Newsom/generic D

The parallel with Christie doesn't really fit; his aborted 2012 run was very much about finding an anti-Romney (of which they approached dozens; Bush/Ryan/Barbour/Daniels) and Christie backed out because he knew he had a better shot at 2016.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

If she runs, she'll probably win, but that's just because Bernie wouldn't run against her.

[TomC]

No, she's more likely to crash like Howard Dean.

[Blue3]

*ahem*

[Fargobison]

Dukakis, is more of Warren's kind of crash.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I saw her referred to as the RFK of the Democratic party, in that she's the only one who at this point could bring together the two wings of the party; I'd wager there's a high proportion of bernie backers who'd support her over someone like Ellison/or some other 'true progressive' and an equally high proportion of Clinton backers who'd support her over Booker/Newsom/generic D

The parallel with Christie doesn't really fit; his aborted 2012 run was very much about finding an anti-Romney (of which they approached dozens; Bush/Ryan/Barbour/Daniels) and Christie backed out because he knew he had a better shot at 2016.  

Look, I'll vote for her over one of the sh**tty more establishment candidates, but she did nothing for Bernie when he ran, while in 2014 she said he hoped Hillary would run, and "Hillary is terrific". I'd only vote for her because most of the other options suck even worse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b1f5145e7e77

[Lechasseur]

No, she's more likely to crash like Howard Dean.

[Zaybay]

I mean, shes only at around 5% right now. Crashing isnt the word I would use, more "fade away".