Warren compared with Sanders and Clinton

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

What are the similarities and differences between Warren's political views and Sander's and Clinton's views, respectively?

[Strudelcutie4427]

Warren-Sanders: both are very clearly socialists

Warren-Clinton: probably rabid feminism

[Coraxion]

Warren-Sanders: both are very clearly socialists

No.

[Beet]

Warren-Clinton: probably rabid feminism

Warren wrote a book on how the rise of two-income families was an economic disaster. Her thesis was that the single-income family was a form of welfare: a rich dude would marry a poor woman, thus the net impact was more equality. Now you have rich dudes marrying rich women, and poor dudes marrying poor women, so that wealth transfer from rich to poor doesn't occur.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Warren-Sanders: both are very clearly socialists

Warren-Clinton: probably rabid feminism

Lol


Warren is probably slightly to the right of Bernie on economics. Pretty similar across the board, though.

The only thing Warren and Clinton have in common is that they're both Democratic women. Policy-wise, they're pretty far apart.

[The Govanah Jake]

Warren-Sanders: both are very clearly socialists

Please refer to me when either of them called for the Abolition of Capitalism or State control of the means of Production. I must of Forgotten.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Can we agree on the assumption that Warren could unify the Clintoncrats and the Bernicrats into one single wing?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Can we agree on the assumption that Warren could unify the Clintoncrats and the Bernicrats into one single wing?

It's foolish to assume that every Berniecrat will be on board with Elizabeth Warren. Some of them are truly Bernie or bust.

[maga2020]

Can we agree on the assumption that Warren could unify the Clintoncrats and the Bernicrats into one single wing?

Lol, lots of Berniecrats will only vote for Bernie, they don't follow traditional political arrangements and they will never forget Warren for not endorsing him in the primary.

The Berniecrats are actually the best thing to happen to America since they will put the democrats into a permanent minority status by taking a large enough piece of their coalition, putting them short of winning any race outside the uber-liberal states.

[DPKdebator]

Can we agree on the assumption that Warren could unify the Clintoncrats and the Bernicrats into one single wing?

Lol, lots of Berniecrats will only vote for Bernie, they don't follow traditional political arrangements and they will never forget Warren for not endorsing him in the primary.

The Berniecrats are actually the best thing to happen to America since they will put the democrats into a permanent minority status by taking a large enough piece of their coalition, putting them short of winning any race outside the uber-liberal states.

Warren also comes across as "coastal elite" (worked at Harvard and lived in eastern MA), something that I don't think applies to Bernie. I don't know how much feminism appeals to Bernie voters as well, and it would probably be a polarizing issue (lower-income Berniecrats vs latte liberal Berniecrats).

[foxh8er]

I don't know if I'm crazy when I say this, but I think Warren has considerably more ideological flexibility than either Bernie or Hillary - by nature of her background I think she very easily could appeal to more people, including fiscal moderates, than Bernie.

If she runs and makes her campaign thesis against rent-seeking, cronyism and corruption - I think that's a pretty broad and appealing economic message.

I'm always confused why the center, center-left seems to despise her to the degree that they do.

[Mister Mets]

She would be similar to Sanders in that she has been to the left of the Democratic party, has a regional advantage in the New Hampshire primary, was elected to the Senate at a relatively late age, would make a first presidential bid in her seventies, and has a fan-base among progressive activists.

She would be similar to Hillary Clinton in that she would start as an overwhelming frontrunner, would have the opportunity to be the first female President, and would have a similar demographic (elderly white lady) as well as eight years as a Senator who came in to the office with a high profile.

[Coraxion]

Warren-Sanders: both are very clearly socialists

Please refer to me when either of them called for the Abolition of Capitalism or State control of the means of Production. I must of Forgotten.

[GoTfan]

Can we agree on the assumption that Warren could unify the Clintoncrats and the Bernicrats into one single wing?

Lol, lots of Berniecrats will only vote for Bernie, they don't follow traditional political arrangements and they will never forget Warren for not endorsing him in the primary.

The Berniecrats are actually the best thing to happen to America since they will put the democrats into a permanent minority status by taking a large enough piece of their coalition, putting them short of winning any race outside the uber-liberal states.

Warren also comes across as "coastal elite" (worked at Harvard and lived in eastern MA), something that I don't think applies to Bernie. I don't know how much feminism appeals to Bernie voters as well, and it would probably be a polarizing issue (lower-income Berniecrats vs latte liberal Berniecrats).

Bernie also came from a working class household. That sorta stuff plays well with voters.

[Virginiá]

Warren also comes across as "coastal elite" (worked at Harvard and lived in eastern MA), something that I don't think applies to Bernie. I don't know how much feminism appeals to Bernie voters as well, and it would probably be a polarizing issue (lower-income Berniecrats vs latte liberal Berniecrats).

For people actually caring about some sort of "coastal elite status," I doubt the difference between Vermont and Massachusetts's geographical locations will matter much. Vermont fits the mold just the same even if not in the literal sense, although I might add that it is just as close to the ocean as someone from eastern Oregon/Washington/California.

In the end, if she has the right kind of appeal (which I personally think she does), the specifics of her professional career won't really matter anyway. Just like Trump being a New York City billionaire literally living in a gilded tower didn't matter to the legions of working class whites that supported him. If they believe the candidate has their back, they will look past all sorts of things.

[This is Eharding, guys]

All of Sanders's weaknesses with only some of Clinton's strengths. Too far left, not enough experience. Will appeal to some of the Bernie wing, but a lot of the Bernie wing were Sargon of Akkad types and jfern types. The latter won't vote for someone who didn't at least back Bernie in the primary, the former have little taste for the kind of feminist message Warren offers. However, her greater loyalty to the party will give her some liberal Clinton primary voters. I don't expect Warren to do well with African American voters. Basically limited to roughly 27% of the Democratic primary vote, at the very most.

[Technocracy Timmy]

She definitely has the populist ire to defeat Trump (who's approval rating is right there with George Bush November 2006) so that wouldn't be the big question mark.

Her problem is that she'll struggle trying to be an effective progressive champion while in office. Her political background is VERY different than that of Reagan, Roosevelt, Lincoln, or Jefferson. She didn't get into politics until 2012/2013 and hails from a deep blue state. She also never lost a race and won't be facing tough competition in 2018. She doesn't have the political chops that Reagan and Roosevelt had to bring a large ideologically diverse coalition behind a progressive agenda.

I wouldn't worry about her electoral ability. I'd worry about her ability to cut deals and get a mandate for a progressive agenda through. For those looking for a Rooseveltian style progressive realignment, I highly doubt you'll find it in Warren.

[Kingpoleon]

Warren is barely to the right of Sanders. She's a good deal more hawkish, but she isn't nearly as pro-gun as Sanders. Besides that, I can't think of any policy differences. She might be a free trader.

[Chief Justice Keef]

The Berniecrats are actually the best thing to happen to America since they will put the democrats into a permanent minority status by taking a large enough piece of their coalition, putting them short of winning any race outside the uber-liberal states.

Lol sure, MAGA chud

[Mr. Morden]

Warren is barely to the right of Sanders. She's a good deal more hawkish.

I wouldn't say that.  I'd say that both Sanders and Warren barely spend any time talking about foreign policy.  To the extent they do talk about it though, sure, Sanders is to the left of Warren, but they're both to the left of both Obama and the median Democratic Senator.  E.g., Warren voted against arming Syrian rebels a few years ago, and voted against selling arms to the Saudis last year, both votes which got the support of about half the Dems in the Senate.  And both Sanders and Warren support the US attacking IS in Iraq and Syria (as does the entire DC establishment, of course), so it's not like either is any kind of uber-peacenik.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

All of Sanders's weaknesses with only some of Clinton's strengths. Too far left, not enough experience. Will appeal to some of the Bernie wing, but a lot of the Bernie wing were Sargon of Akkad types and jfern types. The latter won't vote for someone who didn't at least back Bernie in the primary, the former have little taste for the kind of feminist message Warren offers. However, her greater loyalty to the party will give her some liberal Clinton primary voters. I don't expect Warren to do well with African American voters. Basically limited to roughly 27% of the Democratic primary vote, at the very most.

I'm not the purity troll I'm straw manned to be. I'd probably hold my nose and vote Warren if there was no better option. But many have been unimpressed at her actions as Senator versus how much more freely she criticized Hillary when she wasn't a politician yet.

Warren is barely to the right of Sanders. She's a good deal more hawkish.

I wouldn't say that.  I'd say that both Sanders and Warren barely spend any time talking about foreign policy.  To the extent they do talk about it though, sure, Sanders is to the left of Warren, but they're both to the left of both Obama and the median Democratic Senator.  E.g., Warren voted against arming Syrian rebels a few years ago, and voted against selling arms to the Saudis last year, both votes which got the support of about half the Dems in the Senate.  And both Sanders and Warren support the US attacking IS in Iraq and Syria (as does the entire DC establishment, of course), so it's not like either is any kind of uber-peacenik.

She is more hawkish. She voted for the recent sanctions bill. She voted for this increase in military spending.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00301

[Mr. Morden]

She is more hawkish. She voted for the recent sanctions bill. She voted for this increase in military spending.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00301

I agree that she's more hawkish than Sanders, but don't think it makes sense to characterize the difference as being that enormous, unless the idea that every single Democratic Senator is "a good deal more hawkish" than Sanders.  Or, to put it another way, what Democratic Senators besides Sanders are meaningfully to the left of Warren on foreign policy?  All of them favor the US attacking IS in Iraq and Syria.  All of them favor drone strikes against terrorist targets.  None of them really criticized Trump's attack on a Syrian air base as something that was inherently problematic.  That is, they complained about the process, and some said that doing it without consulting Congress made it illegal, but none of them actually said that the underlying action was morally problematic in the way that Tulsi Gabbard did.

[TheLeftwardTide]

I agree with the general idea of most posters here, though a few people are just comically wrong (maga2020, ossoff2028).

One thing I would like to mention is that Warren grew up in a poor family in Oklahoma City, going (almost literally) from rags to riches to become a Massachusetts university professor. This background contrasts very well with Trump, who was more or less born and raised with a silver spoon in his mouth, doing terribly in school but always having his family wealth to fall back on, acting like sort of impenetrable social safety net. If this difference is highlighted enough, then Warren could really tap into the working class demographics of all races.

At this stage, I would enthusiastically vote for Warren in a primary.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

One thing I would like to mention is that Warren grew up in a poor family in Oklahoma City, going (almost literally) from rags to riches to become a Massachusetts university professor.

Wait ... she was born in Oklahoma? Didn't know that. Do you think she could win the primary in that state? And do you think she has a "birth state" advantage and therefore a realistic chance of winning a county there in the general?

[Tintrlvr]

Warren is barely to the right of Sanders. She's a good deal more hawkish.

I wouldn't say that.  I'd say that both Sanders and Warren barely spend any time talking about foreign policy.  To the extent they do talk about it though, sure, Sanders is to the left of Warren, but they're both to the left of both Obama and the median Democratic Senator.  E.g., Warren voted against arming Syrian rebels a few years ago, and voted against selling arms to the Saudis last year, both votes which got the support of about half the Dems in the Senate.  And both Sanders and Warren support the US attacking IS in Iraq and Syria (as does the entire DC establishment, of course), so it's not like either is any kind of uber-peacenik.

Warren definitely isn't "to the left" of Obama on foreign policy (assuming "left" vs. "right" on foreign policy is isolationist vs. interventionist). For example, she often criticized the Obama administration for not being pro-Israel enough and was probably the biggest Israel booster in the Democratic Senate caucus after Schumer. She definitely doesn't prioritize foreign affairs the way some Democrats do (it's not her area of expertise), but she is undoubtedly a hawk within the bounds of the Democratic field and quite far from Sanders on the topic. Does that matter? Maybe not.

She is different from Sanders in other key ways also, including key ways that Sanders used as wedges against Clinton. She's a free trader rather than a protectionist, and she's strongly in favor of gun control when Sanders was opposed. Those were both issues where Sanders endeared himself to lower-middle class white people in the Midwest, Plains and Appalachia but where Warren would struggle to maintain the same message.

Maybe most importantly, Warren is a professor and intellectual and not very good at bringing her arguments down to voters' levels, something Sanders excelled at. If the 2020 primaries are all about "kill the banks," she'd be fine as that's her specialty, but otherwise she is much more Clinton than Sanders in terms of wonkishness vs. ability to connect to voters.