Elizabeth Warren is the star who may eclipse Bernie Sanders

[Bradshaw3]

From Democratic operative and CNN contributor Jess McIntosh:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/23/opinions/sanders-warren-mcintosh/index.html

[Bradshaw3]

1. Meant to include this snip

" ... Warren has been plagued by breathless opinion pieces wondering whether she was likable enough, lamenting her lack of charisma, or clucking over whether her obvious intellectual heft would be off-putting to alienated voters.
But to watch Warren take the stage is to wonder what candidate these concerns apply to, because it most certainly isn't this one. She was excited, bounding onto the stage, asking to get closer to the students and joking about keeping an eye on the ones in the back. Her energy was brimming over, she bounced on the balls of her feet, moved throughout the space and passionately explained that she would not "get Hillary'd."

Think it says a lot about the "coverage" of her so far.

[flyingfysh]

6. She is used to engaging with groups of people

She used to teach classes at Harvard Law School, and she was very popular there. I heard that students said good things about how she handled her class in bankruptcy law.

[PatSeg]

17. I just can't imagine anyone

not finding Warren likable. She is just as engaging, as she is smart, which is saying a lot. Now people have to get used to seeing her as presidential and authoritative, which I honestly think she can pull off. Mostly they need to see and hear more of her.

[mountain grammy]

20. Exactly!

She speaks for working people. She understands the inequality in America and can explain it like no one else.

[PatSeg]

22. A lot of people only know

a perception of her, one that is often based on republican talking points and the media dwelling on Trump's attacks. She is a remarkable communicator and brings her "teacher's" skills to the campaign trail. She knows how to explain things in ways that anyone can comprehend. The first time I saw her was on Bill Maher's show (way before she entered politics) and I learned so much about economics in a very short period of time.

I have a feeling she will blew people away during the debates! Anyone who listens to her and doesn't like her, probably just doesn't like smart, competent women.

[Bradshaw3]

25. Well said n/t

[PatSeg]

23. True

But she also makes policy interesting to the average person. She has the ability to be brilliant, but down to earth as well.

[nolabear]

3. She was a standout at the CNN Town Halls last night.

Lots of buzz. I was surprised how much I liked her too. I always have pretty well but this was impressive.

[Bradshaw3]

5. I've been impressed by her energy and enthusiasm

Also she gives understandable, concise answers that the average voter can follow. Which negates the too wonky punditry take on her.

[Kurt V.]

4. K&R

[FBaggins]

7. Eclipse is an interesting word

She's polling around 1/4th to 1/3rd of his numbers at this point.

I can't fault a former EMILY's List director and Clinton advisor for wanting to boost the chances of the best female candidate... and can't be surprised that she opposes Sanders... but this is long-form wishful thinking.

[BeyondGeography]

8. It's very early and Bernie is living off of 2016

She's playing catch-up, but the point of the article I think is that Bernie might very well lose support as time goes on to a better version, both in terms of content and presentation, of what's he's selling.

[FBaggins]

9. Clinton "lived off of" 2012 all the way to the nomination

Name recognition is not an insignificant factor. If there were only three Democrats in the race, we could expect Warren to overcome the deficit once things started to ramp up... but with two dozen candidates vying for attention?

[BeyondGeography]

11. If she doesn't make it name recognition won't be the issue

Electability will be. How many of those 22 candidates would love to have Warren’s “problems” right now?

Hillary 2012? Did I miss something?

[FBaggins]

13. Sorry... 2008 of course

The point is that she was "next in line" not just because someone in the DNC decided it was so or her husband was a former president... she was next in line because she had significant support in the last competitive primary.

I doubt the average Democrat considers her to be any more electable than he is.

[pnwmom]

28. She had much higher polling numbers than he's ever had -- if you're going to point to

name recognition.

There's no reason to think, with all the exposure he's had, he's ever going to draw millions of Hillary voters to his side, instead of one of the other candidates. And he lost to Hillary by 4 million votes last time, so he would need at least some of them. You can't win the nomination without a majority of delegates.

[FBaggins]

32. The vote was only split 2-3 ways at that point

This time around there are a couple dozen names in the hat.

There's no reason to think, with all the exposure he's had, he's ever going to draw millions of Hillary voters to his side,

I feel like we've had this conversation before. He doesn't need to draw millions of Hillary voters to his side as long as there are 15-20 other democrats splitting the rest of the pot. Trump only received about 1/3rd of the vote in the first two dozen primaries. He jumped up to 70-80% in the final states because it was already over... those were never "trump voters" - they were "supporting the obvious nominee" voters. The same can be said of millions of so-called "Hillary voters". They were Democrats and she was the only "real Democrat" (tm) in the race. There isn't any reason to believe that NONE of them would vote for Sanders if he stays in the top two as the all those candidates who never crack 1-2% drop out.

[pnwmom]

34. 15-20 candidates won't stay in the race. Most will drop out, and they're not going

to be endorsing Bernie Sanders.

Bernie hasn't done anything to reach out to other Dems. He has a long history as an iconoclast, tilting at the wind. That's why Warren didn't endorse him last time, even though some of her positions might have been technically closer to hers than Hillary's were. She was looking at the whole person, not a handful of Democratic socialist policy positions.

[Demit]

12. Plus he continues to speak in generalities, whereas Warren is presenting plans.

Sanders' ideals are admirable of course, but as the author says, "Compared with Warren's detailed agenda to partly reorder the economy to correct the imbalance against women, workers, and racial minorities, Sanders risks sounding like he's providing a recitation of idealistic generalities."

[Bradshaw3]

10. You missed the word may, apparently, in the headline

And maybe the debate where she outshined Bernie, who is giving the same talking points in the same manner he always has. The wishful thinking here could be that Bernie will repeat 2016 where he lost the popular vote to HRC in a two-person race. We'll see what happens when the field narrows but to think she has no chance because of polling nine months away from actual voting doesn't make sense.

[FBaggins]

31. Not at all

"May" is entirely consistent with "wishful thinking".

who is giving the same talking points in the same manner he always has.

You mean... the talking points that garnered him so much support last time around and that so many others have been parroting to woo that branch of the party?

Yeah... I'm not seeing that as a bad thing... except to the extent that the progressive vote gets split a bit.

[Bradshaw3]

36. Nope

Not what the auhor intended and you know that. It's putting a perjorative meaning on something that was intended to say would happen, not what she "wished for" as your negative spin puts on it.

Warren isn't parroting anything. The biggest difference between her and Bernie is she has actually made positive change happen in the arena of economic inequality and makes concrete proposals that are backed up by the numbers, while he has talked a lot about it as a vision.

And Bernie has a problem Warren doesn't have when it comes to winning the nomination. He and his surrogates and supporters have so pissed off so many people that pulling them back together for the general is going to be tough. I will definitely vote for him but if the same kind of vitriol happens this time around, he will lose to rump.

[FBaggins]

38. Oh please... you're the one spinning here

I get it... she's your pick (as well as the author's) - so you would both very much like to see her get the nomination. Most capable of the female candidates, solid track record supporting consumers, well to the left of Biden. She makes sense.

That title says "may"... but it also says "is". It's entirely appropriate to question how the candidate polling in 5th place (6th in the most recent RCP average) "is" a star in the race.

Maybe let her crack double digits in a couple polls before we say she IS a star?

[dragonlady]

27. I was a dedicated supporter of Bernie last time

but now he is #2 for me because of all the reasons explained in this thread about Elizabeth Warren.

[FBaggins]

30. I was too

And I also prefer Warren (and a number of others) to him this time around... but I'm not sticking my head in the sand

[Bradshaw3]

37. And just who is sticking their head in the sand?

Care to enlighten us?

[FBaggins]

39. Anyone who thinks that he isn't going to cause problems this time around

I see a not-insignificant chance of a brokered convention and continued strife within the party between those who refuse to vote for him and those who won't vote for anyone else.

[NewJeffCT]

33. Posted this elsewhere today

but, I saw a May 2011 poll from Republican pollster Zogby for Republican candidates to run against Obama in 2012

Chris Christie was in first place
Herman Cain was in second place
Ron Paul was in third
Mitt Romney was in fourth and was the eventual winner.


(I tried to copy the link, but it just gave me zogby.com and not a direct link to the poll)

[FBaggins]

35. Lots of errors there - the largest being that you presume that depicts the race at the time

First of all... Zogby was never a republican pollster. He's a Democrat and even ran for office as a Democrat. Some posters here started thinking of him as a republican because his results in one or two cycles were slightly more favorable to republicans.

Second... he ceased to be a trusted polling source prior to 2011.

The most important point though is that if you actually saw a poll with those numbers, it's clearly an outlier. Here's a link to review.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html#polls

Note that the story here is clear. As the only 2004 runner-up (second place that year was effectively a tie) expected to run, he was the clear frontrunner from the start and led virtually every poll.

Then Perry, Cain and Gingrich each got into the race one at a time. In each case the new name would lead for about 4-6 weeks and then fall back into the pack. In virtually every case, Romney fell only to second. I can't find a single poll where he was ever 4th. For May 2011, I see five polls (two from PPP, one Gallup, one CNN, and one Quinnipiac). Romney was in first place in every one of them.

[peggysue2]

14. Did not watch the town halls last night but read several critiques

The consensus was that Liz Warren blew away the other contenders with a very strong performance, clear answers and her comfort level within the venue.

I suspect her numbers are going to move up significantly.

[appalachiablue]

15. Warren has it all, and it showed last night. She's also naturally

presidential and quite easy to see in that role.

[vsrazdem]

16. I would have no problem with that.

[Politicub]

18. She sure did last night. Dare I say she outshone everyone?

Elizabeth Warren

I have a new dream ticket: Warren/Stacey Abrams

[pdsimdars]

19. There are so many great candidates it will take me a long time I think . . .

[BlueFlorida]

21. May? She already has

However, Sen. Warren runs a positive and logical campaign and will never garner interest of those addicted to anger-driven politics.

[safeinOhio]

24. Yes.

Number one on my most trusted list.

[Crowman2009]

26. I would much prefer that Bernie Sanders be the VP or in a cabinet position.

Not sure if I want him as president.

[Hortensis]

43. :) Perhaps, but zero chance. Sanders has self-isolated

himself from his congressional colleagues for going on 30 years now. His fellow senators learned long ago to pass on discussions that typically devolved into his insistence that every way their thinking departs from his is wrong. Could he have controlled his behavior to develop good working relationships? Whatever that answer is, too late now.

[corbettkroehler]

29. A High-Class Problem For Progressives

This Sanders supporter would be thrilled to vote for Warren in the general.

Let's remember a vital point: In the 2016 cycle, Progressive Democrats Of America (PDA) worked very hard and generated a significant amount of enthusiastic momentum for a Draft Warren effort. She ultimately declined and Bernie was an easy second choice.

PDA is active in supporting Sanders this cycle. However, if Warren won the nomination, most, if not all, of the PDA membership would slide into Warren's camp without a second thought.

I long have believed that the ideal ticket would be Sanders/Warren. They are two sides of the same coin.

I also admit that Warren tends to give more concise answers to questions than Sanders (her success as a college professor shines there) while Sanders has decades more experience in Congress. During Q&A with voters, Sanders tends to see past the campaign and answer the way he saw Obama answer once he became PBO.

[Hortensis]

44. I remember Draft Warren. I was very disappointed when

she didn't run and am very glad she's in now. Btw, a Sanders/Warren ticket will never happen, and just wish I could bet money on it. Remember, she refused repeatedly to endorse or otherwise support him in 2016 and had to have what she felt was very good reason considering her passionate commitment to her issues.

[Nanjeanne]

40. Love them both. Democracy For America recent poll has them 1 and 2 from members. Thats

how I feel as well.

[Hortensis]

45. :) Hope Elizabeth was #1.

Link to tweet

[Nanjeanne]

46. She is my #2. The two together would be my dream!

[Hortensis]

47. :) Interestingly, on quick google I don't find any speculation

specifically about who Warren might choose to be her VP running mate. Probably that woman-candidate thing.

There is a very little speculation about all the candidates on 435, but nothing that sounds at all likely and no consensus for either.

A The Medium article for Sanders suggests Nina Turner, Tulsi Gabbard, Warren, or Justice Democrats' Paula Swearingen, a "coal miner's daughter" who hopes to primary Joe Manchin.

Oh-kaay. Frankly, I don't see either Sanders or Warren as VP to the other, and not just temperamentally or ideologically. It'd be a losing ticket, both white NE, and without ideological balance it'd be too far left.

But this is a time for dreaming while we wait to learn which choices will remain after the winnowing out.

[Nanjeanne]

48. Forge logic for now. Besides after 2016 there is no logic left. A gal has got to dream!

[Gothmog]

41. I could easily support Senator Warren

[Cha]

42. She would be an exponentially

better POTUS.