Warren compared with Sanders and Clinton

[Mr. Morden]

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.

Huh?  What are you talking about here?  Warren was one of only 8 Senators to boycott Netanyahu's speech before Congress in 2015.  Unlike quite a few Democratic Senators (including other 2020 hopefuls like Booker and Gillibrand) she did not attack the UN for its anti-Israeli settlement resolution last year.  And for that matter, Rubio's resolution attacking the UN for said resolution has 78 co-sponsors, including Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, and Klobuchar, but *not* including Sanders and Warren:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-resolution/6/cosponsors

There was also this letter from a few years ago threatening the Palestinian Authority over its participation in the ICC, signed by 75 Senators (including Booker, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar), but not signed by Warren:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/1/30/1361281/-75-Senators-Sign-Letter-to-Kerry-Defending-Israeli-War-Crimes-Demanding-More-Palestinian-Suffering

So I am unclear on what makes Warren more hawkish on Israel than Obama, or what makes her "probably the biggest Israel booster in the Democratic Senate caucus after Schumer".  How in the world does one reach that conclusion?  She seems to be about the same on Israel as Obama is, and, as I mentioned in my earlier comment, she's to his left on some other foreign policy issues, like arming the Saudis and Syrian rebels.  I see no plausible rationale for saying that she's one of the more hawkish entrants in the 2020 Democratic field.

[Shadows]

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.

Elizabeth Warren is not a free trader. She was strongly opposed to TPP & was one of the leading voices trying to kill the deal. She has also been critical of NAFTA. Warren used to be the primary opponent for Obama in his free trade quest.

This isn't to say Warren would not have problems in the rust belt, I think she will. Besides Morden already mentioned how Warren is well to the left of the party when it comes to Israel especially compared to people like Schumer or Gillibrand or Booker !

[choclatechip45]

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.

I like Warren, but the average voter has no idea about her roots all they know is that she is rich and use to be a professor at Harvard Law pretty much the stereotypical liberal elite.  Everyone knew about Obama's background because of his infamous DNC speech. I don't remember a single thing about Warren's DNC speech and I watched the whole thing. . Clearly people don't care Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth since he won over WWC. Hillary spent more time attacking trump than focusing on the issues. I hope whoever is the 2020 nominee does not focus on attacking Trump like Hillary and the republicans in primary did since it failed.

[TheLeftwardTide]

Clearly people don't care Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth since he won over WWC.

Plenty can change in four years, especially after being directly impacted by Trump's incompetence.

Hillary spent more time attacking trump than focusing on the issues. I hope whoever is the 2020 nominee does not focus on attacking Trump like Hillary and the republicans in primary did since it failed.

This is a mixed bag. Hillary's big mistake was attacking Trump over the wrong things, mainly being unprofessional. Oh no, Trump said something controversial about a model! How devastating! I think most of the WWC just don't care about that type of thing. Instead, Hillary should have attacked Trump over his business ties with the Saudis, or his own outsourcing of jobs, or his own political donors. To her credit, she did a little bit, but it was on the side, when it should have been the focus of her attacks.

Another thing, too; why is it that over half of your posts (9/17) are replies to something I have said? I find that interesting.

[choclatechip45]

Clearly people don't care Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth since he won over WWC.

Plenty can change in four years, especially after being directly impacted by Trump's incompetence.

Hillary spent more time attacking trump than focusing on the issues. I hope whoever is the 2020 nominee does not focus on attacking Trump like Hillary and the republicans in primary did since it failed.

This is a mixed bag. Hillary's big mistake was attacking Trump over the wrong things, mainly being unprofessional. Oh no, Trump said something controversial about a model! How devastating! I think most of the WWC just don't care about that type of thing. Instead, Hillary should have attacked Trump over his business ties with the Saudis, or his own outsourcing of jobs, or his own political donors. To her credit, she did a little bit, but it was on the side, when it should have been the focus of her attacks.

Another thing, too; why is it that over half of your posts (9/17) are replies to something I have said? I find that interesting.

No idea. I'll make sure I don't reply to you anymore.  The Warren thing I replied to because I find it interesting in my daily life how many people say they love Warren and than say for someone who has been rich her life I love how she fights for me. They are surprised when I tell them about her background. Yeah I agree Hillary should have attacked him over his sketchy business ties.

[TheLeftwardTide]

No idea. I'll make sure I don't reply to you anymore.

I didn't mean it like that. I actually find discussing such subjects with you quite interesting, since you usually bring up good points. It trains my debating and reasoning skills. I was wondering out of curiosity.

Other than that, I suppose you do give a good point. So then it's Warren's job to highlight her background if she decides to run in 2020. Trump didn't seem at all like the type of guy who would run a protectionist/faux-populist campaign back in 2013, but he did anyway.

[choclatechip45]

No idea. I'll make sure I don't reply to you anymore.

I didn't mean it like that. I actually find discussing such subjects with you quite interesting, since you usually bring up good points. It trains my debating and reasoning skills. I was wondering out of curiosity.

Other than that, I suppose you do give a good point. So then it's Warren's job to highlight her background if she decides to run in 2020. Trump didn't seem at all like the type of guy who would run a protectionist/faux-populist campaign back in 2013, but he did anyway.

I find it interesting discussing politics with you too. You view things differently than I do which is a good thing. We both want the Democratic Party to succeed. Yeah who knows why Warren doesn't bring it up maybe she doesn't feel comfortable. If she runs she needs to change that. People know Trumps background even though his views have changed a million times. Granted I think NAFTA is one of the few things he's been consistent on. Also Trump is very charasmatic which is why I'm worried about 2020. Besides maybe Franken none of the current democratic lawmakers can come close to Trump's charisma. Besides LBJ/Goldwater since Kennedy the candidate who had the most charisma has won. Obviously that is my opinion.