Trump: Elizabeth Warren as my opponent “would be a dream come true”

[Mr. Morden]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/324663-trump-elizabeth-warren-running-against-me-would-be-a-dream

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here’s the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1fNj21mkZs&t=2m26s

[Hindsight was 2020]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/324663-trump-elizabeth-warren-running-against-me-would-be-a-dream

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here’s the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1fNj21mkZs&t=2m26s

The man just lacks self awareness doesn't he?

[moderatevoter]

I can buy this. She'd be one of the weaker opponents for Trump.

[houseonaboat]

I'll say that I think Trump appears to be candid in that video and not just grandstanding (though it's hard to tell). I don't necessarily agree but I've also been wrong about everything the past year so it's quite possible that he's right.

[krazen1211]

Well, yes! Bring on a degenerate like Liz Warren.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I think Trump is right on this one.

Warren has a good message, but ultimately people don't usually think about politics; they feel politics. And she just doesn't quite have the ability to sway people the way Trump does.

[Ronnie]

Warren is a really polarizing political figure, but so is Don.  I imagine a race between the two would be quite the barn-burner, and I would look forward to it.  I don't think Warren would turn off too many people who voted for Clinton, and may also bring in a few millennials who were disillusioned with the previous nominee.  She isn't the strongest candidate by any stretch, but I wouldn't count her out.  The left just might need a bit of a street-fighter to take on the current brawler of a president.

[Suburbia]

I think Trump is right on this one.

Warren has a good message, but ultimately people don't usually think about politics; they feel politics. And she just doesn't quite have the ability to sway people the way Trump does.

[Pericles]

That is possible. However, Hillary Clinton also thought Trump would be her weakest possible opponent.

[moderatevoter]

Warren is a really polarizing political figure, but so is Don.  I imagine a race between the two would be quite the barn-burner, and I would look forward to it.  I don't think Warren would turn off too many people who voted for Clinton, and may also bring in a few millennials who were disillusioned with the previous nominee.  She isn't the strongest candidate by any stretch, but I wouldn't count her out.  The left just might need a bit of a street-fighter to take on the current brawler of a president.

I could see her losing some ground off Clinton's numbers in the suburbs.

[user12345]

God, just reading the horrible grammar and lack of sentence structure in his quotes makes me squirmy.

[Xing]

Yep, just like Trump was a dream come true for the Democrats... wait.

I do think Warren would have some issues as the Democratic candidate, but she'd be far from the worst candidate Democrats could put up.

[Ronnie]

Yep, just like Trump was a dream come true for the Democrats... wait.

I do think Warren would have some issues as the Democratic candidate, but she'd be far from the worst candidate Democrats could put up.

Yeah, that would probably be Booker, Cuomo, or McAuliffe, out of the plausible contenders.  One thing Warren does have going for her is that I don't see the kind of intra-party strife that manifested itself during the last cycle happening again under her watch; she can reasonably appeal to both the Sanders and the Clinton wings.  But someone like Booker as the nominee would intensely exacerbate the divisions within the Party.

[JA]

The supposed "anger" and "hatred" she expresses is simply populist rhetoric; this may confuse Trump since he seems incapable of comprehending that being directed at anyone but minorities. It's not Warren's populism that'll potentially harm her chances, it's her association with the "Ivory Tower" and the "cultural elite" in the public psyche. Sanders can rail against the same things as Warren without that association because they're quite different people - and Trump would exploit that.

[Mr. Smith]

Reagan was supposed to be that against Jimmy Carter too. We see where that went.

Bush was supposed to be this for Gore. We see where that went.

Trump was this explicitly this last year....

Now we just need a Dick Morris prediction spelling doom for Warren and the cycle is complete.

[Shadows]

Warren would be a pretty decent candidate but she has a couple of problems - That whole Liberal elite Coastal vibe which Republicans will harp on. And the notorious habit of being media shy- She is as bad as Hillary in that regard & takes weird steps to keep shut the media out. She also doesn't engage directly with people as much as Bernie does cutting across ideological divides.

I think she should re-orient herself - Do more interviews & especially Late Night appearances & Townhalls etc & lighten things up - She is someone who you can see doesn't enjoy those as much & that has to change if she wants to win. She needs to have that earthly lighter connect. She is a much better candidate that Booker or Gillibrand & I don't think she should be ruled out !

Give her time - With Bernie being too old & there being big questions over Brown, Warren, Merkley, maybe Franken or some Gov etc are big hopes for progressive vs the Booker/Gillibrand/Harris faction !

[McGovernForPrez]

I love Warren but I really don't want her to run. She's just not the right person to reach the oval office. She's my Senator and I'd vote for her in a heartbeat in the general election, but that coastal elite persona is a really tough one to shake. Most of that is because she's following up the actual coastal elite Hillary Clinton. If she lost the general my heart would be broken, because she'd be cast in the same lot as Hillary's dumpster fire of a campaign. Democrats need a progressive with some sort of down to earth charm. Bernie had it, but will probably be too old to run in 2020 (but he hasn't ruled it out). Maybe Sherrod Brown, but I don't know if he has quite enough personal charisma to pull it off. I think really think Steve Bullock could easily set himself up to be that person in 2020. He's a relatively unknown governor from a small landlocked state, he's very charismatic (watch his debate vs Gianforte), and he has some liberal street cred from when he fought against the Citizens United ruling as attorney general. He'll have the freedom to position himself however he wants on national issues since he's never had to deal with them as a governor. Senators make for bad presidential candidates in general. Only three have ever been elected straight from office. Anyways point is that Lizzie is better off being a progressive leader in the Senate than as Presidential nominee.

[MM876]

I think Trump is right on this one.

Warren has a good message, but ultimately people don't usually think about politics; they feel politics. And she just doesn't quite have the ability to sway people the way Trump does.

Exactly this, I like Liz Warren and I think she could be a phenomenal president, but to be president you first have to get elected, and the last thing Democrats want to do is risk Trump's reelection. Warren does good work in the Senate and really unless Charlie Baker gets unseated in 2018--which isn't likely at this point--there's no reason to give up her Senate seat like that when there are better options.

Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, some random dark horse, are all safer bets anyway. Though to be fair, Warren still absolutely has the potential to win and she's miles better than Cuomo or Booker.

[McGovernForPrez]

Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, some random dark horse, are all safer bets anyway. Though to be fair, Warren still absolutely has the potential to win and she's miles better than Cuomo or Booker.

Yeah Warren is definitely better than Booker. Class based politics are definitely in vogue right now. The last thing we'd want is a wealthy tech entrepreneur trying to court working class whites in Wisconsin. He'll just look like a third rate Obama.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I love Warren but I really don't want her to run. She's just not the right person to reach the oval office. She's my Senator and I'd vote for her in a heartbeat in the general election, but that coastal elite persona is a really tough one to shake. Most of that is because she's following up the actual coastal elite Hillary Clinton. If she lost the general my heart would be broken, because she'd be cast in the same lot as Hillary's dumpster fire of a campaign. Democrats need a progressive with some sort of down to earth charm. Bernie had it, but will probably be too old to run in 2020 (but he hasn't ruled it out). Maybe Sherrod Brown, but I don't know if he has quite enough personal charisma to pull it off. I think really think Steve Bullock could easily set himself up to be that person in 2020. He's a relatively unknown governor from a small landlocked state, he's very charismatic (watch his debate vs Gianforte), and he has some liberal street cred from when he fought against the Citizens United ruling as attorney general. He'll have the freedom to position himself however he wants on national issues since he's never had to deal with them as a governor. Senators make for bad presidential candidates in general. Only three have ever been elected straight from office. Anyways point is that Lizzie is better off being a progressive leader in the Senate than as Presidential nominee.

Ya someone else has joined by Bullock bandwagon

[McGovernForPrez]

Ya someone else has joined by Bullock bandwagon

I been on the Bullock bandwagon. He's easily one of the strongest candidates Democrats could run in 2020.

[Kingpoleon]

God, just reading the horrible grammar and lack of sentence structure in his quotes makes me squirmy.

Very few people in America have correct grammar while speaking unless they speak from a TelePrompTer.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, that's because she's a woman and a lot of voters (particularly working class voters) don't look at female politicians the same way they look at male ones.

But we're not allowed to say this.

[DrScholl]

It won't take a white man to defeat Trump, so let's just stop pushing the notion that gender or race should factor in who is the nominee. Warren could easily defeat Trump, because she is progressive, but still pragmatic enough to win over swing voters. Besides that, Trump won by about 70k votes across three states to secure 270 and lost the popular vote by millions, so he's far from being in a position of being that secure against credible candidates.

[Ronnie]

It won't take a white man to defeat Trump, so let's just stop pushing the notion that gender or race should factor in who is the nominee. Warren could easily defeat Trump, because she is progressive, but still pragmatic enough to win over swing voters. Besides that, Trump won by about 70k votes across three states to secure 270 and lost the popular vote by millions, so he's far from being in a position of being that secure against credible candidates.

Aren't you contradicting yourself in that sentence?