A Chain of Logic: If Warren *could* Win the Nomination, then

[cthulu2016]

someone who is a better politician could also win the nomination with Warren's issues/stance/ideology.

The alternative to that statement is that only Warren could win with Warren's issues.

That would suggest that Warren is somehow unique.

If Warren is unique then she isn't going to win the nomination of a Party in which she is unique. If she is so rare within the party then it would be remarkable for her to be representative of a majority of Party voters. (Possible, but incredibly unlikely.)

It becomes a question that sort of answers itself... IF Warren could win THEN somebody else would be Warren-esque to take advantage of the fact (stipulated in this hypothetical) that the majority of the party wants what Warren represents.

I am more a big-historical-forces guy than a unique-personalities guy. If the votes are there for a progressive candidate then a progressive candidate will emerge.

Because people *want* to win the Democratic nommination... for real.

IF that is where the majority of the votes in the Party are THEN people will chase those votes.

Because TV is about heroes and stories, we are conditioned to think of candidates leading the voters. But the real transaction is largely voters choosing individuals to follow.

FDR was a great guy but he probably wouldn't have won in 1928, and wouldn't have been the same candidate in 1928, with the stock market in an endless parabolic rise. Whoever we nominated in 1932 was going to be far left of where we were in 1928 because the depression had been going on for years in 1932.

Riffing on Lincoln's, "I do not pray that God is on our side. I pray that we are on God's side,"...I do not hope Warren will run. I hope that it would make sense for her to run.

She is like the car that runs on water. Eliminating the invention in 1955 wouldn't do anything because if it was possible then somebody else would invent it in 1956... and 1957... and today.


It isn't about her, it is about the voters. I hope that the voters will be such that candidates gravitate to economic populism the same way politicians were magically against the Iraq War in 2006.

[DJ13]

2. Unlike her positions, her uniqueness is not something another candidate can copy

She comes across as a real person, not someone putting on a stage persona to attract votes.

[winter is coming]

3. There's a difference between Warren and a candidate who gravitates to economic populism

because it's the political message du jour: Warren actually believes what she's saying and is far more likely to actually do something about it. I don't think Warren is "unique" in that, but she's pretty rare.

It's not enough to talk the talk. Voters need to believe you mean it.

[Laelth]

4. Hmm ...

Demographics say the Democratic nominee for President will win in 2016 no matter whom we run (absent the emergence of a new "Reagan-like" champion on the right). If that assumption is correct, the question is not who has the "votes" to win the Democratic Primary. I wish I could say that "votes" are all that matter in the primary (as if issues and ideas actually guided the process). The truth is that money is the primary requirement to compete for the nomination. As such, the "money people" in the Democratic Party make the decision for us voters--not entirely, of course, but they have enormous and unfortunate influence over our selection.

While I am also a "historical forces" kind of person, I must acknowledge that uniqueness plays a significant role in our nominating process. Each politician's list of connections, friends, bundlers, and rich patrons is unique to that politician. As such, we must consider each candidate's ability to fundraise when speculating over whether said person is likely to win a Democratic nomination. In fact, and this is the core of my argument here, each politicians' ability to fundraise is vastly more important than his or her stand on various issues when we are trying to judge a given candidate's chances of winning a Democratic nomination.

Along those lines, here are the top three fundraisers in the Democratic Party, in order:

1) Barack Obama
2) Hillary Clinton
3) Elizabeth Warren

If Hillary chooses not to run, Elizabeth Warren is the Democrat who is most likely to win the nomination (unless Barack Obama hands off his money-generating machine to someone else--note that he inherited John Kerry's machine from 2004). For this very reason, it is, in fact, Barack Obama who gets to choose our next nominee. Whomever inherits his money-making machine is likely to win the nomination.

I hope he chooses wisely.

-Laelth

[brooklynite]

5. Your logic fails in the first line...

The hypothetical that if Warren could win the nomination, anyone campaigning on the same issues could as well is false. People vote for many reasons including experience, issues, "gravitas", age, race, gender, voice, ability to give a compelling speech, personality, etc. Personally, If Dennis Kucinich agreed on everything with Barack Obama, he still would have been a non-contender.

[madokie]

6. I like the way you think cthulu2016

Peace

[reformist2]

7. The presidency is and always has been highly personal.

Dems would be crazy to not try to draft her. I'm telling you, Elizabeth Warren has got the "X" factor that not only appeals to liberal Dems in New York and LA, but to right-leaning moderates in Middle America as well.

If she were to get the nomination, she could win 40 states.

[Laelth]

8. I agree, but can she win the nomination?

That is the question, and, as I argued in post #4, above, her ability to raise money is the first and foremost indicator of her chances of success.

Honestly, though, I think it's all up to President Obama. He gets to choose whom he wants to inherit his money-making machine. Whomever he chooses is likely to win the nomination.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

9. Hit-and-run OPs bug me a bit.

This appears to be one of those, and I suspect it's agenda-driven. Too bad. The OP is fertile ground for a good discussion.

-Laelth

[oneofthe99]

10. Warren would destroy Clinton during the debates

I have listened to blue collar republicans say they like what she stands for.
She really is genuine unlike Clinton .

Clinton changes with the wind depending on which crowd is in front of her.

That's the biggest thing I dislike about Clinton

[McCamy Taylor]

12. Big Dog says Al Gore and Hillary are two of the most idealistic people he has ever met.

Turns out he was right about Big Al. I think he was right about Hillary. I think Hillary scares the GOP, because they see her as Bobby Kennedy, waiting to get into power to do a whole lot of things that she has been waiting to do that they will not like. The right was way more scare of Bobby than Jack.

[JackRiddler]

13. I always form my opinion of HRC based on...

what her husband thinks of her. How else?

And if she's Bobby Kennedy reincarnated, why didn't this become evident during the two dozen 2008 debates?

[Laelth]

14. I hope she is like Bobby Kennedy.

My suspicion, however, is that she goes whichever way the wind is blowing. If the wind is blowing left in 2016, she could be a great President. If it is not, well ...

-Laelth

[McCamy Taylor]

11. POTUS has to have Big Balls. Hillary has Big Balls. Balls of steel. Warren doesn't. Simple as that.

I don't care if Warren bench presses 500 lbs and eats live rats. To the public she will be a woman and therefore, she will be labeled as "soft" unless she proves otherwise.

All those years the GOP spent calling Hillary a B--- word have worked in her favor for the job of President. The NASCAR dads may not like her personally, but they all know that she has their back. She is Superwoman. Put her and Putin in a cage fight and they know who will walk out----Hillary.

[Laelth]

15. Hmm ...

I'd like to see some evidence supporting the position that Elizabeth Warren lacks the "balls" that Hillary Clinton allegedly has. So far, it appears to me that Elizabeth Warren is made of very sturdy stuff.



-Laelth

[CK_John]

16. I disagree completely, voting has nothing to do with policy, it is all about gut reaction and

peer pressure. IMO

[sabrina 1]

17. If the Corporate entities that run our government would allow a true Progressive Candidate to get

anywhere near the WH, you might have a point.

But they will not. Eg, in order to assure the donors, (a Presidential candidate needs a billion dollars now to run for the WH) that she will be a 'good' candidate, she would have to prove to them that she will push policies that benefit them and should their needs clash with the needs of the working class, she will choose THEM.

It isn't about the voters at all. The voters have been told in no uncertain terms to shut up and sit down and since they have 'nowhere else to go', no one has to work to earn those votes. 'Just vote for our candidate because 'the other guy is much worse' is what voters have been told for a long time now.

Do you think that Wall St is going fund a Warren election IF she informs them she will not appoint eg, their choices of Cabinet members, no Corporate CEOs with conflcits of interests, see Wheeler eg?

If we were living in a democracy the voters would choose who wins, but the fact is we don't.

[Laelth]

18. Good post. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth