I’m beginning to feel that people are writing about Elizabeth Warren’s presidential prospects for no other reason than that y’all keep clicking on the articles. And I’m not going to say that I disagree with the overall thrust of Nate Cohn’s analysis that Warren couldn’t have beaten Hillary in 2008 and cannot beat her in 2016.
I do think, however, that Mr. Cohn has missed Warren’s opening with black voters. And I think it’s for the same reason that so many white progressives miss Obama’s appeal to black voters.
When Cohn tries to imagine an issue that Warren could use to distinguish herself from Clinton and bring black voters into her camp, he talks about prison and sentencing reforms. Those are not bad issues. But Elizabeth Warren’s bread and butter is consumer protection. It’s not a sexy issue for intellectuals, but walk into any ghetto in America and you’ll immediately see how important it is to protect people from payday loans and check cashing joints, predatory mortgage companies, income tax filing operations, credit card companies, and all manner of rip-off artists. The legal scam industry is enormous in this country, and no one has done more to crack down on it than Elizabeth Warren and (through her) President Barack Obama.
These economic concerns form the bulk of what’s on the minds of black folks living in our poorer communities, along with anger about drugs, crime, bad schools and out of control policing. Elizabeth Warren has credibility on these issues and what’s significant about that is that these are issues that festered and were ignored for years and years until Warren came along and got in the president’s ear about them. Clinton can try to co-opt them now, but not very convincingly.
It’s kind of insulting to think that black folks will only respond to black candidates. As Mr. Cohn notes, they supported Clinton over Obama until Obama proved he could win white votes in Iowa. They would respond to Warren because Warren is, more than anyone else, the person responsible for the president’s effective progressive focus on urban issues related to consumer protection.
People talk about black folks getting taking for granted by Democratic politicians. Elizabeth Warren built her whole career on making their concerns front and center for a change. People of all races are impacted by predatory lending and other scams, but no one is more impacted than the urban poor.
So, no, Warren isn’t running. But, if she did, she has the credibility to take the black vote from Clinton precisely because she isn’t an Ivory Tower academic white progressive. She would not be the latest iteration of Gary Hart or Paul Tsongas.
If you don’t get that about Senator Warren, then you don’t understand her at all. And you probably don’t give credit to the president for being a progressive champion because he doesn’t champion your progressive agenda.
I’m beginning to feel that people are writing about Elizabeth Warren’s presidential prospects for no other reason than that y’all keep clicking on the articles. And I’m not going to say that I disagree with the overall thrust of Nate Cohn’s analysis that Warren couldn’t have beaten Hillary in 2008 and cannot beat her in 2016.
What ever their worth, I haven’t seen the “Ready For Warren” groups folding up their tent yet. But you just hit on an example of why the data nerds aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. They miss simple analysis like you just did. For what ever reason, they forget that non-whites didn’t start moving towards Obama until polling showed him doing very well in Iowa. Are Hillary’s over all numbers better this time? Yes. Still, there are no announced candidates. Webb hasn’t actually gotten in the race yet, has he? Has he held any events in Iowa yet? Very few Democrats get fluffed by the corporate media. Cory Booker is one of the few I see. The GOP? They get fluffed all the time. Just look at McCain and his sidekick Graham(aka Mini-me). Back to the point though. No one has any idea who, if anyone, will run against Hillary for the Democratic nomination. Has Biden held any events in Iowa yet? As a result, people are just going with what they know, which is Hillary.
“People talk about black folks getting taking for granted by Democratic politicians. Elizabeth Warren built her whole career on making their concerns front and center for a change. “
I don’t really see that to be honest. She has opposed the banks, but she has only been a public figure for about four years. Her ID isn’t very high in the polling I have seen in the African American Community.
Doesn’t mean she can’t win African American votes, but right now Warren does worse with them then among other parts of the base.
Elizabeth Warren knows how toxic Obama’s trade proposals will be for economic sovereignty and consumer protection.
I’m an EW fan, but don’t think she could win a presidential race and therefore don’t want her to run. However, I’m happy to keep clicking on articles if it makes the D establishment move to the left of center. Certainly the clintons won’t be moving out of their comfort zone so Warren might be most useful at the state level. Start the change there and the establishment will have to follow…eventually.
In March 2011, how many people thought that Warren could win the MA DEM Senate nomination and beat the incumbent Brown in the November 2012 general election? How many voters in MA had even heard her name by 3/11? Terri Gross had been giving her a national radio platform since 2007 and in 2008 Harry Reid appointed her to chair the TARP oversight committee. She received some national attention for proposing the CFPB — but more attention in 2010 after the CFPB was authorized and GOP opponents made sure that she would not be its director.
Warren wasn’t an experience or skilled campaigner in 2011 — to be honest, she wasn’t very good but she learned quickly.
How often at this stage in a presidential election cycle has an improbable seeming candidate emerged later to win a political party nomination and general election?
Not arguing that I’m supportive of Warren getting into the race, I remain undecided on that, only that I wouldn’t foreclose the possibility that she could win if she were a candidate.
Not arguing that I’m supportive of Warren getting into the race, I remain undecided on that, only that I wouldn’t foreclose the possibility that she could win if she were a candidate.
Don’t forget that Baker would get to pick her replacement, for a few months, if Warren ran and won. I’d prefer Warren stayed in the Senate, as we have too few good Senators. But if she did run, why couldn’t Warren win? She’d be able to raise plenty of money. She’d get better at campaigning as time went on. She’d come off way better than Hillary. Meaning more likeable. More authentic. What ever. The reason she won’t run though is because she has little interest in foreign policy. So the only way she does run is if Hillary doesn’t run at all.
MA requires a special election within 145-160 days to fill an open US Senate seat. So, it’s not as if a Baker appointee will have time do more than figure out how to find his/her office.
Should this even be a consideration in selecting a nominee? From a projective analytical perspective, does nominating a sitting Senator for President get much better than what existed in 2008 for Obama? And look at the subsequent clusterfuck over filling his newly empty seat? At least MA was only stuck with Brown for two years. Kirk is in until at least 2016.
“How often at this stage in a presidential election cycle has an improbable seeming candidate emerged later to win a political party nomination and general election? “
I recall that in ’90 or ’91 the pundits laughed at Bill Clinton. They said his only claim to fame was being Governor of the poorest state in the Union. They said his boring nomination speech at the ’88(?) Convention showed how lousy a campaigner he would be. There were about nine candidates evaluated by some major news magazine and Clinton was at the bottom. Many thought GHWB was a shoo-in for re-election.
Disclaimer: Not claiming he was a great President, just giving an example to support your thesis.
My memory is much too fuzzy to offer examples on this point without researching which I’m not inclined to do. However, there was some general consensus for a few years that we “wouldn’t have Nixon to kick around again.” Then like a zombie, he suddenly returned. Until the 1976 Iowa caucus (which never before had had any relevance, the race for the WH began with NH primary which was considered a joke), Jimmy Carter didn’t exist on the national stage.
Wasn’t there a year when Jesse Jackson and Pat Robertson were the early DEM and GOP leaders?
For a while there seemed as if Jackson Stephens was selecting the POTUS. Or maybe he was just one of the early moneybags and got lucky with GHWB, Clinton, and GWB and it was merely coincidental that GWB chose Arkansas for his final 2000 campaign stop.
Another thing that the nerds miss is Warren herself. Why SHOULD she run at this time? Simply to assuage progressive angst about the Evil Empire?
I’ve seen no policy differences that the both of them can’t live with (McCarthy vs Johnson). I’ve seen no personal animosity that would cause full on umbrage over bullshit (Sestak vs Dem Establishment). I’ve seen no social issues to cause a break (Wallace vs Brown [’68]). I’ve seen no fiscal issues that cause both to get ready to rumble (Welch vs Begich).
It going to take more than that to get Warren to step in front of the Clinton Steamroller … and that assumes that this consummate politician even thinks she CAN defeat Hilary.
Dick Morris says she can. By itself, that is enough to make me doubt it.
You are right. Dick Morris settles it for me, too. I think she is fine where she is. I just wish she were recruiting candidates for the party. Senate and House.
Why SHOULD she run at this time? Simply to assuage progressive angst about the Evil Empire?
Why SHOULD anyone run for President? Some do so exclusively out of unbridled ambition to BE POTUS. Have any of those candidates even won the GOP or DEM nomination in over a hundred years? Or ever? How many candidates have there been that didn’t run to “assuage angst” among one or more groups? Of course their personal ambition to BE POTUS was rarely less than those that had no other reason to run.
It would be novel for “the people” to recruit a well qualified candidate for POTUS that had no burning desire to BE POTUS and on his/her own wouldn’t consider running for the office. Harding and IKE were possibly the most reluctant draftees by elites.
ummmmmm….I don’t think I’d use Harding (worst president ever).
As far as Ike, his greatness was that he wasn’t great. He didn’t try to force himself on history. That’s pretty good but I doubt that it would go far in DC today…
Harding (worst president ever).
As Harding did start any wars and promote wretched legislation that led to a great recession/depression, he hardly warrants being labeled the “worst president ever.” The “do nothing President,” sure. Didn’t want to be President, absolutely.
On issues of race, he was better than Wilson. And let’s not forget that Wilson had Eugene Debs — a union leader and former Presidential candidate — arrested, convicted and locked up. (A conviction upheld by SCOTUS and the revered Oliver Wendell Holmes.) In his first year in office Harding commuted Debs’ sentence to time served and later said, “I have heard so damned much about you, Mr Debs, that I am very glad to meet you personally” Harding remarked at their meeting.
Doesn’t get my vote for worst President.
That first sentence should read: As Harding didn’t start any wars and promote wretched legislation that led to a great recession/depression, he hardly warrants being labeled the “worst president ever.”
No way is Harding the worst. That title belongs to James Buchanan…
Andrew Johnson can also have a run at that, but fucking up Reconstruction (even if on purpose) might be less of a fuck up than leading the nation to civil war.
However, I think you let Harding off much too easy. First, his Treasury Secretary, after all, was Andrew Mellon. Second, he cut taxes on the rich to an extreme degree; 73% top rate in 1921 to 25% in 1925. Even Reagan would blush, and he did (Harding was his favorite president). That is equal to supporting legislation that leads to depressions, in my mind.
Ah dammit, I’m thinking of Coolidge and Reagan, my bad. Time for bed 🙂
W
From what I’ve seen, no Americans are more politically pragmatic than African Americans.
This makes them utterly unreliable members of any truly progressive movement. They’ll go all squish and insist on winning elections.
are synonymous: see today’s press conference. Leadership is about judgement!
○ Clinton regrets using personal email for work
Josh TPM has a perfect article on this. As usual, he’s too greedy or cowardly to permit comments on it.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-joy-and-the-drama
I guess it’s the greed why he has all those autoplay ads? they’re a curse
The greed is best evidenced by the sponsored content ads IMO.
I see what you mean. I was surprised when he started those.
Not just consumer protections.
Her standing up about student loans. Which community believes most in Education as ‘ the way’ to make it out, and have been burdened with Student loans?
Which community has been more victimized by those for-profit schools?
Not only can Warren talk about these issues, but she can break it down in plain English
Unfortunately I have government student loans so while I support this stuff it doesn’t help. This isn’t really here or there about Elizabeth Warren but it’s basically destroying my quality of life in slow motion.
isn’t this what she’s trying to fix? but I guess none of the fixes are retroactive?
If she ran there would most likely be retroactive fixes and/or an easier road ahead.
retroactive fixes would be great; hope she gets that one going.
student loans are also a consumer product.
The question needs to be asked: why are college educations not free as they are in some countries and supported by taxes. Perhaps it could start small with two year schools. Warren is a more likely advocate for that than Hillary. Add that to her other credentials, as you noted, and she starts to look interesting.
This is about as purposeful a discussion as one about which color BMW my wife isn’t getting for her birthday next week.
I vote for Candy Apple Red!!!!
that’s strange. I was thinking beige or maybe a light lemon yellow
Mary Kay Pink
“Elizabeth Warren’s bread and butter is consumer protection.”
Isn’t this a basic Liberal tenet of helping those who Don’t have a powerful voice”.
Elizabeth Warren is this old Jew’s IDEAL of what a true Liberal is!
And before Obama, when was the last president who listened to liberals on issues like these?
And before Obama, when was the last president who listened to liberals on issues like these?
LBJ? Kennedy?
that make me take a second look at boomantribune. Not that I believe EW has a snowball’s chance, just that you are vocal on the potential. For that, I congratulate you.
CF