The fact that 40% of poll respondents tell CNN pollsters that they’ve either never heard of Elizabeth Warren or have no opinion of her is pretty sobering to this political animal. Maybe that’s why Donald Trump is calling her “Pocahontas” every two seconds. He wants to shape a negative image of the Massachusetts senator in case Clinton taps Warren as her running mate.
If it’s true that four of out ten voters don’t know anything about Elizabeth Warren, it makes me wonder what they do know about and whether their opinion is worth anything this far out from the election. I assume they’re clearer on some other questions, like whether they’d be comfortable with a ticket featuring two women. Roughly 90% of voters says that either candidate choosing a female running mate would not influence their choice, but 10% of Clinton supporters say it would make them less inclined to vote for her compared to just 4% who say it would make them more likely to vote for her. With undecided voters, the results are similar (9% less likely, 3% more likely).
So, it seems that with the voters who matter to Clinton, at least, people are very modestly of the opinion that a male running mate would be preferable.
These numbers seem insignificant to me, which may be the most meaningful thing you can take away from them. It’s vastly more important that 40% of the people have yet to form a strong opinion of Warren than it is that there is some minuscule generic preference for a gender-balanced ticket. If people wind up liking Warren, she’ll be an asset on the ticket, and if they don’t like her, then she’ll be a drag.
The results don’t tell Clinton what to do in terms of choosing a running mate, but they do warn her that Warren still needs to be introduced to a lot of people, and that how successfully that is done is going to matter a lot if she’s going to run with Hillary.
I’ve mixed feelings about Warren on the ticket. I’m concerned that taking her from the Senate might cause the loss of a seat. It’s easy to say that shouldn’t happen but we all know too well how easy it is to lose a seat, even in a state that’s predominantly liberal.
Second, we need Warren in the Senate. She’s likely to be far less effective in the VP slot (unless something happens to Hillary and she takes over as president).
I love the way she gets under Trump’s skin. I also love the way she excites progressives. Having her on the ticket would inject some real enthusiasm. I’ll campaign for Hills either way but it would be more fun with Liz in the two slot.
I’m not particularly worried about her upsetting moderate Republicans and Wall Street types. If they’ve any brains at all, they’ll still cross over.
that article didn’t mention polling on any of the other discussed VP possibilities. Would Tim Kaine or Julian Castro be better known nationwide than Warren? highly questionable IMO.
I very strongly prefer Warren to stay in the Senate.
>>Maybe that’s why Donald Trump is calling her “Pocahontas” every two seconds.
Trump is doing that because he’s a racist asshole and he really thinks it’s funny, and so do his racist asshole fans.
Well that and Warren doesn’t actually have enough blood to be considered eligable for tribal membership. I had a friend who was basically the same. His family knew there was American Indian blood some generations back but for all intents and purposes he was white. Hell, he had a stereotypical Anglo-Danish surname.
Its an interesting ancestry number of Americans have.
Today DNA tests can answer the question — and dispel family lies passed down through generations.
If you do a little research, you will soon discover that this whole bullshit issue has nothing to do with tribal membership. Warren never considered seeking tribal membership, nor is there any reason why she ever should have.
Blood quantum has nothing to do with it, because if she were an enrolled Cherokee there is no issue of blood quantum, but since she isn’t, it’s irrelevant.
It is very hard to fins an account that’s both unbiased and well informed, but this one at least somewhat approximates that:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-elizabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/2574
15/
The attack on Warren for “claiming” to be an Indian (as opposed to believing she is of Indian descent) is one of the most successful disinformation campaigns I’ve ever come across.
Who can care if one of her ancestors was a Native American or note. Maybe that branch was full of despicable bastards. She is still Elisabeth Warren, take her or leave her. BooMan describes her as ‘undefined’, which I find amusing. Now she seems to be as, maybe more, undefined as her new sidekick, Hillary Clinton.
#JudasWarren
Trump is doing that because he’s a racist asshole and he really thinks it’s funny, and so do his racist asshole fans.
He’s also stealing Scott Brown’s schtick. Yeah, Trump is plagiarizing that clown that was a Senator from Massachusetts for a short time.
He is definitely a racist asshole. But if 40% of the electorate either doesn’t know who she is or has no opinion about her, they probably have a positive view of Pocahontas, in the Disney sense, and think it is a compliment.
Rule number 1 VP’s: Don’t fuck up
Rule number 2: Don’t name too far in advance of the convention – the data is very clear – it destroys any drama related to the convention and diminishes the resulting bounce.
Rule number 3:Know what problem you are trying to solve.
Rule number 4: See rule number 1
Warren is 51-11 among Democrats and 57-17 among liberals.
For Clinton the goal is close the deal with young liberal leaning independents. If introduced properly Warren might help – but you have to say at this point she is nowhere nearly as well known and liked as Sanders is among the group Clinton needs.
If I were Clinton I would go with boring, steady, and with no connections to wall street. Don’t know who that is – but another candidate on the ticket with connections to Wall Street is not a good idea.
Doesn’t exist. Not so boring without WS connections would make the ticket look like two left feet.
O’Malley has said that he’s not interested, but for public consumption that may be the best she can do. Otherwise, she’ll go with a like minded politician, preferably one that’s also a sycophant like McAuliffe.
She could name your favorite. Bernie Corbun.
Your fatuousness was old about six months ago.
With all respect, Marie. Clinton/McAuliffe is a God-awful ticket. I think even Clinton could see that.
If she couldn’t that would be a disqualification for me, sorta like when McCain chose Palin, nothing he could say after that could rectify his disastrous choice.
Mark Dayton, Gov of MN.
Help for the upper mid-west (WS, IA, possibly the Dakotas for down ticket).
No major experience downside. He was a senator before he became Governor.
Major main line liberal. Raised Taxes. Strong abortion rights, strong LGBT supporter.
No known overarching desires to be King of the Universe.
Long enough in Politics to not screw the pooch … all else being equal.
60% have some familiarity with EW. That seems phenomenal to me. (What was Palin’s and Ryan’s national name ID at this point in 2008 and 2012?)
Hope EW is smart and savvy enough to decline the VP slot should it be offered. If not — another sad day for the people.
I struggle to understand what being the VicePresident would do to advance Warren’s agenda. I can see why Clinton would want her out front during the campaign but under wraps and out of the way once the governing starts but being #2 to Clinton — what does that gain Warren?
A slot to be President after Clinton.
Short answer nothing, and that’s the optimistic viewpoint. The pessimistic one is that Warren would be tasked to get liberal Dem votes in Congress for the next “rob the poor to make the wealthy wealthier” POS legislation that Pete Peterson and his cronies have sold to HRC. The sale (with no quid pro quo involved) has probably already been made.
It would be like FDR’s master stroke of choosing Garner for VP. Could be fitting that such a ploy inaugurated the New Deal and a reverse ends it.
I’d rather keep Warren in the Senate and have Clinton appease the Sanders faction in the platform. Currently, her reps are keeping the platform very conservative, even where she has supposedly changed her mind. Supposedly both candidates oppose TPP, but the platform committee won’t. Perhaps this is a bargaining position. Sanders hasn’t dropped out yet, so both are playing hardball. And I think the platform overrated anyway. Yes, Presidents do normally start off mostly attempting to implement them, but I don’t think that would apply to a platform imposed by an upstart campaign against the candidate’s wishes. But putting it in the platform at least keeps it in the conversation.
As I said before, what Sanders really needs to do is morph his campaign into a movement to take back Congress and state houses.
also remember the platform negotiation include the President who is in favor of TPP so that may have something to do with it
Yeah, but it’s almost down the line: fracking, carbon tax, single payer etc. It is not compromise. It’s a bunch of 7-6 votes against a progressive platform.
progressives got plenty of what they wanted, it’s a big tent sometimes we have to compromise
Depressed that I’m not surprised.
Thing about Warren to remember is that just because she has shown superb qualities to attack Trump doesn’t translate those qualities across the board on what a VP needs to fulfill.
Hillary in many peoples’ minds has been reduced to a politician who is ‘untrustworthy’. Trump is now trying to reduce Warren to Pochahontas, whatever he thinks that means. Frankly I’m betting she turns the tables on him and thanks him for the compliment…go Native Americans.
It’s summertime, kids out of school, long weekend coming up, if it ain’t a hot dog, a beer or a river raft America simply doesn’t care.
You forgot “bikini”.
Lots of health care workers are working three to four ten-hour shifts a week. And working this for two institutions or working another part-time job for the three or four other days that remain. Similar work patterns are prevalent in other jobs in this new normal. That in itself could count for 40% of people.
If Warren is a problematic VP choice for the reasons you outline, any Democratic nominee would be a problematic choice for VP. Democratic politicians in the age of Obama have not in general gone out of their way to become more publicly known; in fact, too many have scurried for cover or just quietly performed what they do. And the Democrats elected since 2006 are not widely known at all. Or are conflated with the consultants and pundits, also labeled Democrat, who appear on TV talk shows.
The Democratic Party is going to have to reintroduce itself to the American people after lying low for a generation. Whatever Trump puts out there, the answer is absolutely not going to be to triangulate or spin a conflicting “Me too” answer. Nor will it be to get into a personality conflict over temperament to govern. The campaign must to a great extent have the look and feel of the the Presidency once in power. A good Vice-Presidential candidate allows one to do that. I’m not sure that either Clinton or Gore met that 60% recognition test at this point in 1992. But they campaigned as they later worked. Obama and Biden campaigned as they worked.
In 1960, LBJ campaigned for President, at least in the South from my own observation, and there was a hint of the two Presidents in one administration under the surface of the short Presidency that erupted into hypotheses of LBJ’s involvement in the assassination. The most notable of these was the drama MacBird.
The entire rollout of the campaign value proposition before, during, and after the convention has to be clearly done but not take away from the drama of integrating the two major factions of the convention.
In one sense, for a lot of the country that dotes on local identity, both Clinton and Warren are nebulous figures geographically. Clinton can legitimately lay claim to Illinois, Arkansas, and New York. And Warren can legitimately can lay claim to Oklahoma and Massachusetts. Which values do they reflect is a huge issue with some cross-over voters. Typically, the convention bio is a narrative that nails down how it is actually all of the above but in a way that transcends the geographical parochialism. The other introductory issue is where is your political passion. For Clinton it has long been children’s issues and lately foreign policy. For Warren, it’s been the regulation of the financial sector of the economy.
For Trump? He is the stereotypical New Yorker (as viewed from the South). Once a reviled as an outsider, he flips the animosity by using racism to ingratiate himself and by pushing the bravado style of the Cotton Ed Smiths, Jesse Helms, and other outspoken Southern politicians. His passion is for single-mindedly delivering a return to himself on the 1 million dollars his dad gave him. He doesn’t want the government to get in the way of his business dealings and he doesn’t want to be told about deportment. That appeals to most good ole boys. But his single point of identity is that “he made a billion dollars” and can say things to people that I’d never dare say. And now he’s “telling it like it is.” Because how he’s telling it is how the radio shock jocks say it is.
If the Democrats has the chutzpah of conservative Republicans, they would already have a strategy for how to win Texas for Clinton. I bet that Oklahoma-born and raised Elizabeth Warren could kick some butt in north and west Texas if given the chance. Get some folks woke to what she’s been seeing going on in the financial world that they have zero idea of.
Hell, she could do that as a Senator doing national surrogate stops.
It doesn’t matter for the campaign. What matter is the content of the VP offer with regards to portfolios, latitude, and relationship with the President. Or positioning in the Senate with regard to the Senate leadership.
Might have been a hint of two presidents during that brief fall campaign, but not once in office, as Lyndon was increasingly marginalized once JFK got a really up close look at him and his difficult, deceptive ways. VP Johnson later became the butt of jokes in the media about “VP Who?” and “Whatever Happened to Lyndon?”
Unlike Lyndon to JFK, Elizabeth Warren would offer Hillary good assassination insurance. (and, yes, I have long suspected Lyndon had at least foreknowledge of Dallas, though he was not the mastermind.)
Well, when you consider near half of USians don’t bother to vote, how significant is that finding?
Don’t bother? Or don’t see any difference between the lying corrupt candidates?
They don’t answer polls either. How can you tell the difference?
Don’t answer polls are excluded from polling reports? No such exclusion of people polled on general opinion issues and not familiar with pollsters claiming that over forty percent of those contacted refused to answer.
The effect’s the same both ways, Voice. That’s one of the big problems with not voting, nobody can read a non-message.
Yes. That’s why I advocate “none of the above” on all ballots.
If you can’t see a difference between the Republican party and Democratic party, it’s because you can’t see, or refuse to do so.
And I’m not going to feel bad about someone like that not voting.
IMHO, at least 50% of voters vote strictly on party preference. An additional 30-40% vote based on the imprint that 30 second ads made on their tiny minds,
yes call the people you are trying to persuade stupid, that’ll get them every time
That’s what the Hilbots do.
and when I see it I call that out too
the “they started it” defense stopped working for me in grade school
I’d rather see Warren stay in the Senate, where she could continue being more publically useful. The Veep slot has its benefits, but would be a waste of Warren’s talents and capabilities.
I dunno who would be good as HRC’s VP. As others have posited, someone not in bed with Wall St would be nice, but is that possible in this day & age?
The fact that 40% polled aren’t that familiar with Warren or never heard of her is not surprising to me. I’m surprised that around 60% do know her or know of her. That’s pretty good in this day and age.
someone not in bed with Wall St would be nice, but is that possible in this day & age?
Warren is in bed with Wall Street?????
Not surprising since many couldn’t tell you who their Senators are in their home states. When it comes to politics, Americans are some of the dumbest people on the planet.
You are absolutely correct on this. And if you find one who does know, ask them who their congressman is. If you get a correct answer, ask a real hard one State Representative. In my experience, only political junkies know that one.
I know who Warren is and prefer that she stay in the Senate. I also know who my state Senators are. They are Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and, are very productive members of the Senate as is Elizabeth Warren.
I agree with you on Warren — I prefer her in the Senate. As V.P. she would have influence over nothing, while in the Senate she can at least attempt to move the needle on progressive issues.
Warren as V.P. only makes sense if you truly believe that the only way to beat Trump is to try to get every last Sanders supporter to get on the Hillary bandwagon.
I think a well-run Hillary campaign will pick up as many Sanders supporters as she is ever going to get, regardless of who is in the V.P slot.
About half of the U.S. adult population doesn’t know who Elizabeth Warren is? I’m surprised that the percntage is so low. Add in the people who don’t speak much English and the people who are too stupid to even be found by pollsters and it’s probably more like 70%.
America The Stupid.
Bet on it.
Just like the rest of the world.
So nu?
Human beings are by far the most intelligent creatures on this planet…if you don’t count the possibility of higher IQ aliens and/or so-called “Artificial Intelligences,” which might well be two terms for the same thing.
Deal wid it.
The Controllers do.
Bet on it.
AG
“Human beings are by far the most intelligent creatures on this planet.”
Did you ever try to foil a squirrel?
Just a guess on my part but I’m guessing that of the 40% who don;t know who Elizabeth Warren is , about um…. 100% choose Faux Noise as their primary news source.
Senator Warren would make an excellent choice for keynote speaker at the convention, in my opinion.
Aside from the fact that there was a Disney movie about her and she was an Indian.
I’m still very intrigued by the EW possibility, and those stupid Don’t Know Her numbers will disappear once she’s selected and the media saturation coverage begins. She’s likable too, as her personality reflects intelligence and forcefulness without being threatening or off-putting.
One thing though in my own Don’t Know category is her views on FP generally, and whether she holds any strong views, say, on the US badly deteriorated relations with Russia and China. I’m inclined to believe, more out of pure hope than any actual evidence, that she’s not nearly the neocon advocate for a muscular and aggressive US stance in the world as Hillary is.
So there’s hope, slender though it might be, that with her persuasive nature as VP she could possibly nudge Hillary away from any reckless, dangerous attempts at sending in troops to Syria once elected, as some Hillary skeptics on the left have predicted. I doubt if any of the various soft centrists like Walter O’Malley, Tim Kaine or nice-guy Julian Castro would have half her persuasive power, if they were also inclined to offer a dissenting view.