2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf Warren ran for president she probably would have won the primary
And that's with Bernie in the field.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:50 PM - Edit history (1)
I was unimpressed with Bernie's temperament. I've been proven right on that.
liberal from boston
(856 posts)If Elizabeth Warren ran Bernie would not have run --both are working to end Citizens United, increase minimum wage, take on the banks, Wall Street, etc. I believe Bernie would have been thrilled @Warren Presidential Campaign & happily support her. Bernie ran because Hillary is for the status quo. Remember Elizabeth released a statement cheering Bernie on & urging him to stay in the race.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)I think that Warren is a much stronger choice.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Otherwise please do educate us.
athena
(4,187 posts)She would have been deemed "too ambitious".
Women are loved as long as they accept their place as second-class citizens.
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I still think Hillary would have won.
strategery blunder
(4,225 posts)Either would have carried forward the progressive economic proposals that were the hallmark of Bernie's campaign.
Before Bernie announced, there was a significant Draft Warren movement, but she made clear she wasn't interested.
Bernie gave voice to those of us who would have had no voice if Hillary had not had to face a contested primary (an opportunity for Hillary that I believe the DNC, in no way believing a self-described socialist could get so far, tried its hardest to provide). If Warren had run and Bernie saw the economic issues of our time being addressed by Warren in the primary, I do not believe he would have run.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)He seemed only to step up because she made it clear she wasn't going to.
And gotta say, if they were both in the race, I would have favored Warren. She suits my ideals, and would have clearly had a better chance at it than Sanders (wh also fits my ideals, but was always a long shot)
The fact that Bernie did as well as he did is still a shot in the arm for me, and hopefully for the rest of the left. No matter how much these Woodchucks want to "purge" us.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Sparkly
(24,149 posts)I like it!
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)And she'd have beaten Hillary early on.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)and went for Sanders when she didn't run. No, he wouldn't have run.
Also, the Hillary people wouldn't have been able to pull all their sexist crap. I believe Warren would have beaten Clinton handily.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)andym
(5,444 posts)They would have split the progressive vote. Otherwise she would have had a fighter's chance.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)No one but Hillary was going to win this primary.
texstad79
(115 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)She's a rich northeastern white woman who gets hundreds of thousands of dollars for teaching a class at Harvard while complaining about college tuition. She's a white woman who called herself native American to increase her professional opportunities (if you think that would be glossed over in West Garbut I strongly disagree). Her national favorables are in the red even without her launching a Presidential campaign. She gets plaudits from places like DU because she wants to "break up the banks" (whatever that means; FWIW she's said she loves Clinton's Wall Street plan) but as hard as it is to accept, that one issue doesn't particularly move the needle nationally.
Basically, she'd have been a Bernie Sanders who didn't appeal as much to working class white men.