Skip to main content

elizabeth-warren
Elizabeth Warren (D)
The Massachusetts Senate race is, and will continue to be, the most closely watched Senate race in the country, pitting a Republican hero against a rising Democratic star. It will also easily be the most expensive race in the country. Scott Brown is raising money like a Wall Street-backed incumbent Republican. Elizabeth Warren is raising double that. Whoever emerges as the winner will be the recipient of great national attention and will have an almost limitless political future within the party.

The candidates are doing so well, in fact, that the future is nearly as bright even for the loser. In fact, it's not impossible that the two will be serving in the Senate together in a year or so.

2016

If you've kicked around the idea of a Sen. Elizabeth Warren making a presidential bid in 2016, you wouldn't be the first: the Grey Lady herself floated the idea as early as February, and progressive activists have dreamed about it for far longer.

She could conceivably win the Democratic nomination, too. The base loves her, her fundraising is eye-popping, and her messaging is very good—she catapulted into a tie with a popular incumbent almost instantly after entering the Senate race, after Scott Brown had been crushing all comers for months. She will be 67 years old in 2016, which is not young, but older folks have won the nomination before (Reagan 1980, Dole 1996, McCain 2008).

What happens to Scott Brown if he wins? Well, the Republican is at least nominally pro-choice. So if he has any designs on national office, he'll have to take a page from the book of his longtime Massachusetts political ally and mentor, Mitt Romney (he's got a leg up on rolling back women's health already, with his cosponsorship of the Blunt Amendment). Still, he's likely to be insufficiently pure for the tea-flavored set in 2016.

Second, he lacks substance. It's going to be impossible for him to win a presidential nomination just going on friendly conservative talk radio and praising the Celtics. At some point, he has to start talking about real issues, and Jared Sullinger's back doesn't count. It works well in Massachusetts and may win him reelection, but the nation expects a little more out of the president.

Whoever does win the nomination in 2016, however, will do so by out-crazying the rest of a rabidly right-wing field, and will have to Etch A Sketch their way back to somewhere resembling the political center. Enter Scott Brown as a possible vice-presidential nominee on the Santorum '16 ticket.

Governor

What about the person who loses the 2012 race? He or she will be out of the running for the presidency ... but will still have a large base of support in Massachusetts and a donor list as long as both arms.

What do you do with those things? Well, one of the options for Brown or Warren would be to seek the governorship of Massachusetts in 2014.

Brown, a former state legislator, might be the more likely to seek this office. As a Republican governor in a Democratic-dominated state that likes its Republican governors, he wouldn't have to do very much; he could let the Legislature run the state while he arranges secret meetings with kings and queens. He seems to like being the center of attention more than governing, and the great thing about being governor is that you're always the center of attention.

If he ran, with his name recognition, positive favorability, and profound fundraising potential, he would be the prohibitive favorite to win at least one term as governor. As far as 2014 is concerned, it's difficult to think of anyone in Massachusetts who might even throw a scare into Brown; the presumptive frontrunner for the governor's office right now is the woman Brown beat in 2010, Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Would Warren, if she loses, have any interest in being governor? She has based her campaign more on national issues than state issues (Wall Street accountability, for example). She'd have a tremendous fundraising advantage over all other candidates, an advantage so profound that it might scare off most other Democrats. Of course, if she loses the high-profile 2010 race, she will break a lot of hearts and crush a lot of dreams in Massachusetts, and some might not forgive so easily.

Return to the Senate?

It's not impossible that Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren will be serving alongside each other in the Senate in 2013.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has indicated in the past that she's unlikely to stay through a second Obama administration. Massachusetts' senior senator, John Kerry, is rumored to covet the job.

If John Kerry is the next Secretary of State in 2013, Massachusetts will have a special election in 2012, as we did when Ted Kennedy died. Whoever loses the 2012 race, Warren or Brown, would presumably be in the ideal position to put a statewide campaign together in a few months and win the seat. No Democrat in the state has shown the ability to compete with either Warren's money or Brown's ...

The Dark Horse

... save for one youthful red-headed congressional candidate, former prosecutor, Peace Corps volunteer, Harvard Law graduate and scion of the Kennedy family.

The Kennedys still poll well in Massachusetts, and the newest star on the horizon, Joe Kennedy III, has proven to be quite the political dynamo so far, having raised a staggering $1.3 million in his first quarter as a House candidate.

Born in 1980, Kennedy might be considered too young and too green to mount a serious bid for the Senate in 2013 or 2014. But then, Ted Kennedy was 30 when he first ran for the Senate, and Joe III has already established a pretty notable record of public service.

If Scott Brown returns to the Senate either in 2012 or shortly after, or if he's elected governor, Kennedy will be one of the few people left in Massachusetts who could beat him. And if Elizabeth Warren loses in 2012, her former student at Harvard Law School might be the only person in the state who could threaten to beat her in a primary for another office. It's hard to imagine anyone in the state beating her if she wins ... but if she loses this time, a well-funded challenger might credibly make the case that Warren had her shot and missed it.  

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 02:59 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (25+ / 0-)

    Contributing editor at Daily Kos and Daily Kos Elections, member of three-time NN pub quiz champion Sea Org.

    by Arjun Jaikumar on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 02:59:25 PM PDT

  •  Joe Kennedy III Dynasty (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder

    Family dynasties are the ultimate racism.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 03:03:43 PM PDT

    •  your comment erodes the meaning of the word racism (8+ / 0-)

      Lewis & Clark Law class of 2015

      by James Allen on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:39:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your Meaning (0+ / 0-)

        No, your response fails to understand either racism or dynasties.

        Family dynasties, especially elected ones, are judgement of value of a person by the family they're born to. Racism is judgement of a value of a person by the extended family they're born to. Family dynasties are the ultimate racism.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:23:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  thanks for assuming that I'm unable to understand (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          ideas produced by your obviously superior intellect.

          Lewis & Clark Law class of 2015

          by James Allen on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 01:06:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Understanding (0+ / 0-)

            You posted disagreement that merely asserted contradiction. I explained my brief assertion to you. Even though the relationship between dynasties and racism is implicit in their definitions, valuation and descent, I made clear how my point is essential.

            You replied with no substance. You just complained about my charitable approach that assumed only that you didn't understand. Now it's clear that you merely refuse to agree with logic.

            Thanks for bragging about your status as a beginner law student. It helps me understand how much you have yet to learn.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 04:35:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Understanding (0+ / 0-)

            You posted disagreement that merely asserted contradiction. I explained my brief assertion to you. Even though the relationship between dynasties and racism is implicit in their definitions, valuation and descent, I made clear how my point is essential.

            You replied with no substance. You just complained about my charitable approach that assumed only that you didn't understand. Now it's clear that you merely refuse to agree with logic.

            Thanks for bragging about your status as a beginner law student. It helps me understand how much you have yet to learn.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 04:35:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Oh for Santorum '16 ... (5+ / 0-)

    Please let it happen.  It might be the only way we retain the White House absent a Hillary run.  And I like the fact that even if Warren loses this time, she can be in the Senate if Kerry becomes SoS, and be positioned for a run.  While I do believe the GOP will fulminate and insist 'Romney lost because he was impure,' would they really double down with Rick the Ick?  

    •  Hilary Clinton in 2016? (5+ / 0-)

      That window of opportunity has closed. If the Democratic Party has to reach back 20 years for a candidate Lord help us.

      •  Don't be ridiculous. (12+ / 0-)

        If Clinton wants the nomination, she will get it. She's by far our strongest possible candidate.

        20, Dude, Chairman DKE Gay Caucus! (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09) Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren for Senate!

        by ndrwmls10 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 03:24:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hillary (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z, Quicklund, LtNOWIS

        Will be 69 in 2016.  Nah...she's rich, has lived a wonderful, successful and fruitful life.  Prez?  Can't see it.

        The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

        by commonsensically on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 03:34:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You should keep this post bookmarked (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund, PALiberal1, MichaelNY

        somewhere and maybe have a laugh about it with family and friends the day after Hillary ( 2 l's by the way) Clinton is elected President in 2016.

        Remember to kick it over.

        by sprogga on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 03:48:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Reaching back? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        foucaultspendulum, bfen, MichaelNY

        Hillary has been a US Senator for 8 years and US Secretary of State for 4 years, in addition to being our First Lady for 8 years and being involved in 3 national campaigns, 2 for her husband and one for her.  We need more experienced people running our government.  Being the President of the US is not a place to go for on the job training, you need to hit the ground running.  I am glad Hillary will be almost 70 years old.  I don't want a 50 year old running the country.  (I am 48, btw).  The women mentioned on the GOP side are very inexperienced.  If they were men, they probably wouldn't even be mentioned.  The GOP has some more experienced women, but they wouldn't appeal to the base of the party, such as Senators Snowe, Collins, and Hutchison, because they are considered to be too moderate.  Moderation is what occurs when reality sets in over a period of time.  

        •  Yes, reaching back (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          There are 100 Senators but I am willing to guess you will not say all 100 of them have an easy walk to their party's POTUS nomination. So why do you conclude Ms Clinton has such an easy path? Because she is Hillary Clinton. Hence yes you are reaching back.

          Twenty years separate 2016 from Mr Clinton's last election. Tens of millions of 2016 voters will see the Clinton name as just something quaint from the far past. Tens of milloins of 1996 voters will have passed on to the Big Electoral College In The Sky.

          The only thing that does not change is that things always change.

          •  "The far past" - her husband, yes (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            v2aggie2, MichaelNY, jncca

            Bill Clinton has not held political office since he left the White House.  Hillary Clinton, however, became a New York Senator, and is currently the sitting Secretary of State.  A sitting Secretary of State with high popularity ratings cannot be termed "something quaint from the far past."

            A far more better case to make would be that, assuming Clinton goes through with her plan not to be SoS in Obama's second term, she will not be relevant when it comes time for Democratic voters to select their 2016 candidate because she will have been out of office for several years.  That's a very valid argument.  But it's myopic at best to view a possible presidential run by Hillary Clinton only in terms of when her husband was last elected.  Now that Clinton's holding a Cabinet position in her own right, she's moved past being Bill Clinton's wife.  Bill Clinton is not relevant anymore.  Hillary Clinton is still relevant.

            (A simple test:  Just use the name Clinton in a sentence, one that makes no hint to which one is being referenced.  At this point, at least half the people you ask will think you mean Hillary Clinton, because she's the one with the higher public profile.  That's especially true for the younger voters you're referencing, who may have only vague memories or no memories at all of Bill Clinton's presidency, and as such are the likeliest of all to associate the Clinton name with the sitting Secretary of State.)

            •  How many Secs of State make the step to POTUS? (0+ / 0-)

              Not talking about the Founding Father days, when they all took a turn in most every major office. Let's see #44, no ..43, no.. 42, no ... 41, 40, 38, ... off the top of my head all the way back to FDR no POTUS was ever a SoS.  I can't swear about Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, or Wilson but I am pretty sure they weren't ever SoS eitehr. Taft, Teddy R.. pretty sure no.

              So it would seem that American do not look upon their Sec os State and exclaim, "By gum! THERE'S our next President!"

              So let's get serious: Hillary Clinton is no Condi Rice or Madeline Albight: Those other two Secs of State were never married to a POTUS and were never considered POTUS material. Hillary Clinton is (here in this thread) not because she has SoS on her resume, but because she spent the 1990s and the 20-naughts preparing to then running for POTUS.

              Hillary Clinton is the past. We are a nation of 300 millions. If we can find no better candidate than a 20-year reach to the past, God help us.

        •  The reality of the past 15 years (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund, MichaelNY

          has made me not at all moderate but much much more radical.  But then I'm not a member of the ruling elite where they all benefit by going along to get along, so it's like being part of an entirely separate nation.

          The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges. ~ Anatole France

          by ActivistGuy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 04:31:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I like youth and think we need youth. I hate (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund, askew, MichaelNY

          the idea that someone has to have half a century in politics to be considered. Progressive people are very often our young.  That young fire and spirit is just what this country needs to bring new ideas to the table. We need to tap into young talent.

           Look at Obama, he is doing just fine and he was only had one term under his belt.

          •  I don't care whether a candidate is young or old (5+ / 0-)

            All I care about is how good a candidate they are. Are they sufficiently healthy and mentally competent. Are they intelligent, wise, and judicious? Are they likely to take actions that benefit or injure the people, environment, etc.?

            All the rest is the stuff of campaigns - how to sell the candidate - which is our bread and butter at Daily Kos Elections.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 01:03:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  We need youth in the Senate and the House (0+ / 0-)

            I think I prefer a little gray hair when it comes to the President.

            24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Gregg/Simpson for Governor! Donnelly for Senate! Mullen for Congress!

            by HoosierD42 on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 02:12:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Just what Republican "powerhouse" is such a (0+ / 0-)

      sure-fire winner in your mind? Jindal? Pawlenty? Christie? All they've got is losers. Assuming that Obama wins (which is the basis for this discussion) we can also assume that the economy will be close to normal, we won't be at war, and there won't be a big oval Office sex scandal between now and 2016.

      Hillary does have a lot of star power, but she'll be too old. Biden would do just fine.

      Two hundred million Americans, and there ain't two good catchers among 'em. --Casey Stengel

      by LongTom on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 08:46:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        v2aggie2

        If Hillary is too old, why would Biden be young enough?

        And I actually think we are going to need to get used to older, healthy people running more things. The Baby Boom generation is very large and has plenty of accomplished people in it who are now in their 60s and 70s. They are not going to get shunted aside so fast.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 01:05:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Jesus, you're right, Joe's 5 years older! OK, (0+ / 0-)

          forget Biden. But both are too old. It's not the job that's hard, it's the campaigning. 69 is too damn old. Even Jack LaLanne at 69 would have been too old. And please don't mention Reagan, the man with the 20 hour "work week."

          Two hundred million Americans, and there ain't two good catchers among 'em. --Casey Stengel

          by LongTom on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 09:44:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Reagan had alzheimer's (0+ / 0-)

            Age is not the issue; competence is. Let's not be ageist. Somehow, now that racism, sexism, and homophobia is unacceptable in polite society, ageism is still OK. Not with me.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 12:05:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's not ageist to say that a campaign for the (0+ / 0-)

              presidency is too physically and mentally grueling for someone, anyone, nearing 70. And even if that septuagenarian exists who could handle it as well as a 45 year-old, the ageism of the voters would make their nomination a doubtful proposition. Look at the shit McCain took last time!

              Two hundred million Americans, and there ain't two good catchers among 'em. --Casey Stengel

              by LongTom on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 05:05:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  If we didn't learn from Reagan, (0+ / 0-)

          Then I don't know what to say.  That is just too old to take on a 4 year commitment to an entire nation.  

  •  Warren is one of the two non-Californians... (10+ / 0-)

    ...on my list of candidates to contribute campaign money to. I'd like to give more, but my situation is much tighter financially than it was previously. It would be an excellent world indeed if millions of dollars didn't have to be raised to make our best Senate candidates viable at the polls. But until that halcyon day, we stuck. And since billionaires don't have our back, we're all those good candidates have going for them.

    So, please, if you have the money to spare, contribute a few (or a lot!) of dollars to Warren at our Orange2Blue ActBlue site here.

    You can also find my second non-California candidate there, Darcy Burner, and the other Orange2Blue candidates.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 03:13:22 PM PDT

    •  Warren will win (7+ / 0-)

      If Obama wins in a big way.  Otherwise, she's in danger of losing out on a "tight one".  

      It's a guess, of course, but I don't see this race as something either Warren or Brown runs away with.

      The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

      by commonsensically on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 03:31:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which is ridiculous (5+ / 0-)

        Scott Brown: The new Arlen Specter. He's always there for us...when we DON'T need him. Can't believe MA will fall for it.

        •  Brown's a savvy, likeable guy. The more (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          LIKEABLE CANDIDATE USUALLY WINS. His ads are excellent. MA is the most Democratic state because (I think) it's got the right combination of recent and multi-generational immigrant families, union members, and has a higher-than average education level among voters. All of which makes them just slightly, very slightly, above the normal idiot level of the average US voter..

          Two hundred million Americans, and there ain't two good catchers among 'em. --Casey Stengel

          by LongTom on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 09:06:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Does she need your money? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JohnnyBoston, jncca

      Don't you think there are other candidates who aren't fundraising like gangbusters and merit your contributions more? The way I see it, if she loses, it won't be for lack of funding. Meanwhile, McCaskill is in trouble, Baldwin is in trouble, especially if Thompson wins the Republican nomination, and Heitkamp is on the cusp of a victory in North Dakota. I think any of those three candidates could use your money more than Warren, much as I like her and hope she is the next Senator from Massachusetts.

      As for Burner, what do you have against Suzan DelBene, who would seem more likely to win the general election?

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 01:12:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A Santorum/Brown ticket in 2016? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    Really? That seems beyond fanciful.

    This essay assumes the GOP will continue to drift forever right and the Tea Party still gaining in power. Neither development seems likely. The more likely situation is that the Tea Party peaked in 2010. Their electoral victory that year translated directly into a lot of chaos and failed governance. While that might escape the low-information voter, the Grim Reaper does not. Simple demographic trends scream out for an ever-weaker Tea Party.

    John Huntsman seems to think this way. He ran a sane fact-based campaign in 2012. He is banking on a less radical GOP in 2016. I find that scenario much more likely than a Santorum/Anyone ticket, in 2016 or in any year.

  •  Think about verbs (0+ / 0-)

    "Lets show the rascals what Citizens United really means."

    by smiley7 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 03:24:17 PM PDT

  •  Joe Kennedy right now is a prosecutor (8+ / 0-)

    and though he is a damn good candidate -- I've met him twice at campaign events, and he remembered me the second time he met me -- he still hasn't won anything.

    I'd like to see him serve in Congress for at least a term, preferably two or three, before he tries to jump to higher office.

    Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
    ¡Boycott Arizona!

    by litho on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 03:24:48 PM PDT

    •  Also (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      foucaultspendulum

      the mighty Kennedy organization essentially is no more.  They aged out.  The local organizers that were happy young smiling faces in 1960, dead or in dotage.  No new generation of organization moved into fill the void, and something like the Kennedy organization, which took generations to build in the first place, cannot be rebuilt overnight.

      The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges. ~ Anatole France

      by ActivistGuy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 04:35:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

      Plus, from a person who has a great deal of admiration for the Kennedys, I would want JPK3 to run for and hold the seat once held by his great uncles.

      24, Practical Progressive Democrat (-4.75, -4.51), DKE Gay Caucus Majority Leader, IN-02; Swingnut. Gregg/Simpson for Governor! Donnelly for Senate! Mullen for Congress!

      by HoosierD42 on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 02:16:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Prognostication is a lot of fun to read (4+ / 0-)

    Especially done as well as this is. Thanks.

  •  Clinton / Warren 2016 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sprogga, divineorder

    Why not?

  •  Arjun, that dude Jindal (LA) has less chance of (0+ / 0-)

    upward, political mobility than Joe Kennedy.  Let's not buy into the meme of "he who has lost an election will never win".  (see PBS documentary on Pat, and his son Jerry, Brown)

    Let's concentrate on the election at hand.  Do the voters of Massachusetts want a Koch hired hand, or someone willing to fight for their best interests?

    (If I have given Ms. Warren to much credit, please tell me why.)

  •  Warren as a presidential candidate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, jncca

    I too love Liz Warren.  I hope she's just one more democratic addition in the U.S. Senate.  But a presidential candidate?  

    Don't think so.  I like one of my county commissioners big time and help him every time he's up for re-election.  But, although he's a wonderful county commissioner, he'd not be a wonderful state senator.  

    This same kind of thing applies to Warren.  Nothing negative intended.  But, we all have our place...and hers in in the U.S. Senate, not in the presidency.

    The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

    by commonsensically on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 03:49:35 PM PDT

    •  Look, what our leaders have been taking us (0+ / 0-)

      down the road to destruction.  We need a new type of leader in the Whitehouse.  Elizabeth Warren would be great.

    •  I'm so sick of this presidential fetish (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      v2aggie2

      that I've grown to simply hate it when kossacks pump someone for president before they've even done something that could remotely catapault them into the presidency even with all the assistance of heaven.  And it's not just Liz Warren.  It comes down to this, folks:  

      1) If you're so stoked on Liz Warren (and she will make a great Senator):  why the hell do you want to kick her upstairs, where her influence would be curtailed as badly as President Obama's has been to date for lack of a party presence in Congress?

      2) Senators are horrible bets for the presidency.  Obama is an absolute outlier on this point.  

      3) The only worse possible bet for the presidency is a politician from Massachusetts, which has proudly marched out of step with the rest of the nation for 250 years.  

      4) "The Kennedy Legacy" as we know it, is first and foremost a legislative achievement.  From his seat in the Senate, Ted Kennedy wielded more power and exercised more influence over a 40-year period than any president of the last 50 years save Lyndon Johnson.  That's what happens when you're dogged and persistent in your political goals and commit to playing the "long game".  

      5) That we are now promoting as a presidential candidate 4 years out someone who's never won a statewide election is indicative of how far the Democratic Party's long-term prospects have fallen, and how dire its predicament post-Obama.  

      If Liz Warren is not interested in hanging around awhile and actually trying to become one of the 4-5 "key Senators" who actually control the body, I'm not interested in promoting her, or anyone else.  We need good people in Congress more than we need good presidents.  

      (commonsensically, I know this is an answer to your comment but I'm not directing it at you.)

      Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

      by Big River Bandido on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:48:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How's Come A Lunatic Rightwinger Like Scott (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PALiberal1

    Brown can win in a supposed liberal bastion like Massachusetts but liberals seldom dares mention that they are liberals (though the press is not so inhibited and even calls wingers liberals)?

    Brown does  make a rare bow to common decency, like his imaginary pro-choice claim to appeal to the majority of  the electorate, but even a Warren would let you know she is fighting hard for the elite middle class and the hell with the working class.  [That may be a canard by me on Elizabeth Warren, who I  think is a super candidate and would dearly love to see run for president, but I am only seeing the DLC middle class theme in advertising.]

    FWIW Elizabeth Warren could call herself a Republican, a Libertarian, a Vegetarian, a Junk Yard Dog and she would have my vote were I able.  

    I know what she is - a liberal.  

    Don't tell anybody.

    Best,  Terry

    •  Because Democrats are stupid (3+ / 0-)

      Positions on issues obviously matter much less than personality. That's why the GOP gets away with running wingnuts in every district. Eventually, some are going to end up winning in swing and Dem districts. Yet Democrats run DINOs in everywhere but the most Democratic districts in a misguided attempt to "appeal to that district".

      •  Frightened Hinnies May Be More Appropriate (0+ / 0-)

        Hinnies are quite intelligent, maybe more so than mules because their mothers are donkeys but their fathers are stallions.  Their counterpart mules have horses for mothers and are generally somewhat larger.

        Either way we are in complete agreement.

        Best,  Terry

    •  Brown downplays his party, plays up his "bi- (0+ / 0-)

      partisan" votes and positions. To call him right wing is a stretch, given the bizarros who typically have that term applied to them. He believes in evolution. My point is that he's just as demure as a Republican in MA as are some Dems in midwestern states.

      Two hundred million Americans, and there ain't two good catchers among 'em. --Casey Stengel

      by LongTom on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 09:15:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Republicans are leftwing you think? (0+ / 0-)
        To call him right wing is a stretch, given the bizarros who typically have that term applied to them.
        Most people apply it to Republicans I would guess.

        I am  not troubled by calling them universally bizarro today.  Perhaps you are.

        New Study: ProgressMass Analysis of Scott Brown's Voting Record Reveals Highly Partisan Record, Overwhelming Support for Republican Obstruction in U.S. Senate

        BOSTON - A new study of Republican Scott Brown's voting record in the U.S. Senate by ProgressMass reveals that, when Brown had the opportunity to oppose Republican obstruction in the U.S. Senate and demonstrate bipartisan leadership, he voted overwhelmingly with his Republican colleagues.  This finding runs directly counter to Republican Scott Brown's recent claims of bipartisanship.

        Undoubtedly this is a partisan group but if you care to point out their errors in analysis, I would listen to anything you care to share.

        Best,  Terry

      •  "He believes in evolution." (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dufffbeer

        Frankly I give no one much credit for accepting settled scientific thought.

        On the other hand, I am likely to give anyone disputing science a big fat black mark unless he/she can give a substantial argument for some particular opposition.

        Scientific truth is undoubtedly ephemeral.  In the future, if humans somehow manage a future, many of our ideas will be thought laughable.  I accept that rebellion against establishment is part and parcel of scientific progress but denial based on theology is not one of those any thinking persons with a decent education should accept IMO.

        Best,  Terry

  •  If Romney loses, there will be no appetite (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    for another GOP nominee for Massachussetts

    Barack Obama for President '08

    by v2aggie2 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 04:22:38 PM PDT

    •  V2, please change your sig line. We are in the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      v2aggie2

      2012 election cycle, not 2008.   For what is worth, or if it is worthless, we must look to the future, with knowledge of the past.  

      I plan to live 100 years, in good health.  That means planning a few decades of challenges, and opportunities.

      •  OK (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        foucaultspendulum

        for the record, I am working diligently on the 2012 election as we speak.

        The honest truth is that I haven't given any thought to my signature in awhile and comment relatively infrequently (though I do read a lot of stuff here).

        I will change it right now

        Barack Obama for President '08

        by v2aggie2 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 06:24:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I wonder though . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    If Warren can't seem to garner much more than 50% in MA of all places . . . how would that look nationally?

    Don't get me wrong, I think she's great, she's literally the ONLY person in politics today who seems to be able to go toe to toe with Wall Street on their own turf.  I'm just very disheartened by the fact that one of the bluest states in the nation can't seem to fully get behind her :-/

    •  That's the voters fault, not Warren (0+ / 0-)

      They're stupid enough to think the Wall Street lackey, Blunt amendment supporting, Ryan budget loving Scott Brown is a "moderate".

      Then again, they fell for Romney's act as well, so this shouldn't be unexpected.

      •  Well, whose ever fault that is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        it does factor into the 2016 campaign for President in some form or fashion if she is thinking about running

        Barack Obama for President '08

        by v2aggie2 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 05:27:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good point . . (0+ / 0-)

        . . . of course we elected The Governator here in CA :-/

      •  I lived in MA in the 1990s (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, JohnnyBoston

        and it seemed to me that in statewide races Republicans ran at the Democrats from the left.  Convincingly.  In the case of the 1990 governor's race, the Republican candidate was certainly the more enlightened, and probably also more "liberal".  

        Probably not working so well for them any more, though the myth of the Peabody Republican dies hard in Massachusetts.

        Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

        by Big River Bandido on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:55:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Blaming the voters is the refuge of losers. If (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        v2aggie2, MichaelNY, jofr, jncca

        the voters of MA don't know Brown is a Wall Street lackey, it's Warren's fault. That's what campaigns are for--telling people why your opponent sucks and you don't. When you blame the voters, you're just saying you don't believe in democracy. If Warren isn't good enough to send Brown packing, then she's no good at all.

        Two hundred million Americans, and there ain't two good catchers among 'em. --Casey Stengel

        by LongTom on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 09:21:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

          Voters in LA knew that Diaper Dave was a useless prostitute loving hypocrite. They elected him anyway. They knew Bush was a bumbling idiot, but they wanted to "have a beer" with him, so they elected him anyway. Wisconsin knew Scott Walker was a union busting Koch loving extremist, but elected him anyway. PA knew Pat Toomey was the president of far right Club for Growth and elected him anyway.

          Blaming the candidate every time ignores the stupid choices voters knowingly make.

          •  Yes, voters make stupid choices (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dufffbeer

            the point is to steer people away from stupid choices if you can

            Barack Obama for President '12

            by v2aggie2 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 11:36:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Are you really just discovering that voters are (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            irrational and stupid? Maybe most voters in LA wanted someone who would oppose abortion, or bring more government contracts to the state. Maybe they, didn't care about his moral foibles, just like I didn't care about Clinton's.

            Voters are ALWAYS going to be irrational and stupid. They always have been, and they always will be. The stupid voter is the field on which the game of politics is played. If you can't get dumb, uninvolved, unthinking people to vote for you, you'll never win an election and shouldn't be in electoral politics.

            Two hundred million Americans, and there ain't two good catchers among 'em. --Casey Stengel

            by LongTom on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 09:58:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  To be honest (0+ / 0-)

      Listening to Warren, like a candidate she sounds whose message is even better suited for say, and upper Midwest state, than even MA.  Maybe it's just a stereotype I have about New England, but I'd think she'd probably be doing better if she ran a more imperious campaign.  As I see it, both she and Brown are trying to stake out populist ground, and I'd imagine in that case, the guy with the pick-up is going to pick up votes where he otherwise wouldn't.  I could be totally off base not knowing MA, it just seems like she may be better off trying to run-up the score in the traditionally liberal areas of the state.

      BTW, I haven't like Brown ever, and I've always been a bit surprised he was able to win and remains so popular.  He may be a likeable guy, but hearing the dude speak, he sounds as dumb as a box of rocks, bless his heart.  Certainly not someone who should have been elevated as high as being the junior senator from the state of Massachusetts.  I understand that he was lifed by the rising Red Wave that crashed over the nation in 2010, and he didn't exactly when by a whole lot, but it was a surprise nonetheless coming from one of the most liberal states in the nation, a state, too, that regardless of party usually seemed to elevate candidates of higher quality to senate seats.

  •  Instead of this sort of speculation (0+ / 0-)

    Massachusetts Democrats would be wise to look at their bench.  Who is likely to run if Warren wins and Kerry retires next round?

    If Warren runs for President in 2016, she will have had exactly the same experience in the US Senate that Obama had when he ran for President.  She will also like face Martin O'Malley in the primaries---and possibly some other ambitious folks?

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 04:36:13 PM PDT

    •  Deval Patrick maybe? (0+ / 0-)

      If Kerry resigns to become SoS, he could pull a Joe Manchin and appoint a placeholder, then run for the seat himself.

      His LG, Tim Murray, might be a good candidate too.

      •  Did you see the latest poll? (0+ / 0-)

        Tim Murray is doing so hot.

        20, Dude, Chairman DKE Gay Caucus! (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09) Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren for Senate!

        by ndrwmls10 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:43:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it is interesting to see the polls for MA-Sen 2012 (0+ / 0-)

          While Murray appear very weak always, D Patrick appear as one of the firsts in the line.

          The average of all the polls of this cycle against S Brown for MA-Sen 2012, and including the Kerry-Brown comparation of this PPP poll, we would have:

          J Kerry: +4.00%
          J Kennedy II: +1.50%
          E Warren: -2.61% (-0.25% for the 4 most recent polls)
          D Patrick: - 5.00%
          M Coakley: -5.00%
          V Kennedy: -14.50%
          A Khazei: - 15.25%
          E Markey: - 15.67%
          M Capuano: -16.25%
          T Murray: -28.00%

          That is also consistent with the PPP poll for MA-Gov 2014 against C Baker.

          And looking to that we can have a good idea of who want the people in Massachusetts for their highest level offices.

          I think S Brown will lose vs E Warren.

  •  Already speculation as to who might run for WI-Gov (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    ...on the Democratic side.

    Lori Compas, the organizer of and Democratic candidate in an unsuccessful recall election against Republican Wisconsin State Senator Scott Fitzgerald, may be seriously considering a run for Governor of Wisconsin, as she recently stated on her Twitter account a few days ago that the Recall Fitz petition drive was "easy" compared to what she plans on doing in the future.

    Kathleen Vinehout, Kathleen Falk, Tom Barrett, Doug LaFollette, Dale Schultz (switching from R to D to run for governor), Mahlon Mitchell, Chris Larson, John Lehman, Peter Barca, Kelda Roys, Mark Pocan, Tammy Baldwin, Ron Kind, Steve Kagen, Bob Jauch, Dave Obey, Barbara Lorman (switching from R to D to run for governor), Lena Taylor, Rob Zerban, Dave Hansen, Jessica King, Jennifer Shilling, Jon Erpenbach, and Mark Miller could also run for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Wisconsin.

    In Illinois, there has been speculation for some time that Danville Mayor Scott Eisenhauer is considering a run for the Republican nomination for Governor of Illinois. I live several miles south of Danville, Illinois, and have met Scott Eisenhauer, and he comes across as a patronizing tool and a blowhard. I don't think Quinn will run for a second full term, so wide-open primaries on both the Democratic and Republican sides can be expected in the IL-Gov race in 2014. I've also heard several rumors regarding potential primary challengers to U.S. Senator Dick Durbin and Secretary of State of Illinois Jesse White. I don't think White will run for another term as SoS, though, so wide-open primaries on both sides can be expected in the IL-SoS race as well.

    We're already talking about 2014 and 2016...campaign season never stops these days.

    "We don't have government anymore, we have an auction." -Lori Compas

    by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 04:39:45 PM PDT

    •  I'd love to see a Compas run (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DownstateDemocrat, MichaelNY

      She'd definitely be a dark-horse candidate, though.  Peter Barca is probably a more realistic choice.

      Tom Barrett is a great guy, but I really don't want him trying to take on Walker a third time.

      •  I wouldn't call Compas a dark horse by any means (0+ / 0-)

        41% of the vote in SD-13 in that scenario (R+7 state senate district, considerable anti-recall sentiment) is a ceiling for anyone with a D beside their name. I don't think the anti-recall sentiment that was present on June 5 of this year is going to be lingering around come November of 2014.

        Compas brings two important qualities to the table: she is a naturally-gifted campaigner who can run a grassroots campaign with limited resources. If Compas can build up a solid statewide organization, any Democrat who runs against her in the primary is a fool for doing so, and Walker, Kleefisch, or anyone else the Republicans put up against her doesn't stand a chance of winning.

        "We don't have government anymore, we have an auction." -Lori Compas

        by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:38:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Santorum '16? Keep dreaming (4+ / 0-)

    About as much of a pipe dream as Palin '12. The ONLY reason he was competitive at all in the weak field of 2012 was because Romney didn't have enough time to end his last minute surge. In 2016, the GOP big guns will be out (Christie, Daniels, Jindal, Thune, Jeb, Rubio, etc.). Santorum will be too scared to even enter. If he does, he'll never get any support.

    •  If Newt Gingrich would have ended his (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      flhiii88, MichaelNY

      vanity book tour--err, presidential campaign--quicker, Santorum just might have toppled Mitt.

      No biggie, though.  The Ken Doll from Massachusetts is still an eminently defeatable candidate.

      •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

        It was already too late for Santorum, in terms of delegate allocation and his ballot issues, by the time he had his surge. The only time I could've seen Romney being upended was if Santorum dropped out and endorsed Newt after SC, and Newt ended up squeaking out a victory in Florida. But even then, the chances of Newt winning FL still would've been very slim.

  •  Can somebody... (7+ / 0-)

    ...from Massachusetts please fill us in on how a worthless jackass like Scott Brown is even within 15 points of Warren?

    Scott Brown strikes me as one of the most egregious politicians in America.

    I could see Brown's clown act playing in the Deep South red states, but Massachusetts?  WTF?

    I don't get this race being close.

    And I don't want to hear about the Koch bros backing & the Wall Street money bombs.

    Scott Brown is one of those rare turds that is impossible to polish.  No matter how much money you thrust towards the turd-polishing endeavor.

     

    Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate. ~ Proverbs 22:22

    by wyvern on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 04:55:52 PM PDT

    •  MA thought Romney was a "sensible moderate" (0+ / 0-)

      Clearly, they're not hard to fool.

      •  If only we could be as smart as those folks in PA (0+ / 0-)

        Look at Romney's record - he was an outsider running as a moderate - and there was nothing to suggest the contrary for the average voter.  He even teamed up with Ted Kennedy to get healthcare reform passed.

        I am convinced that, had Mitt called it a day after one term and left politics, he would be one of the more popular elder statesmen in MA...

        But, he went and swapped all his positions, bashed his "home state", and now just looks like a desperate Tea Party fool.

        •  No argument here (0+ / 0-)

          I expect most states (including PA) to be stupid though. I expect more from solid blue states though since their voting record makes it seem as though they have their heads on straight.

        •  Also, there are 3 theories about Romney (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dufffbeer, jncca

          1) He was always a moderate and is just lying now to get the nomination.
          2) He was always a conservative and was just lying then to get elected in a blue state.
          3) He doesn't really give a shit about politics and just says whatever he needs to to win.

          I'm heavily leaning towards #3.

    •  I hate to say it (6+ / 0-)

      But her campaign is disorganized in very basic areas - they haven't leveraged the excitement of last fall when tons of people were signing up to volunteer.   She should have fired a few folks months ago, and hasn't done it.  She's late for events, phone banks and canvassing have not been well organized, there's little visibility  - the basics of a campaign aren't in place.      

      Her greatest strengths are also weaknesses.  Activists are frustrated, made calls to express their concern.   They take no feedback whatsoever.  I finally decided to put my energy into other campaigns.  I hope she wins, but I do understand why it's close.      

      •  Sadly, I have to echo this. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, JohnnyBoston

        I marched in the Boston Gay Pride parade with the Warren campaign.  Elizabeth was there, did a great job, and was very well received by the crowd.  On the other hand, we volunteers were given a terrible piece of lit to hand out--it contained info on upcoming phone banks and NOTHING ELSE--not even a "I need your help" statement by the candidate nor a single line about her pro-equality stance.

        Meanwhile, we were given so little lit & stickers, that every last paper and sticker had been handed out by the time we were 20% of the way along the parade route.  Nor did the campaign have a table at the festival at the end of the route, which is pretty standard for major campaigns.

        The candidate is working hard, but at minimum her field organization needs to be shaken up...badly.

        •  This isn't Illinois... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KingofSpades, MichaelNY

          ...where campaign volunteers are practically non-existent in most political campaigns. I've never known Dick Durbin to use campaign volunteers or run an organized get-out-the-vote effort, for example.

          I've been a registered voter in Illinois since 2008, and only once (by a Democratic candidate for county clerk who won by ONE VOTE in 2010) have I been contacted by a volunteer of an official campaign for public office.

          "We don't have government anymore, we have an auction." -Lori Compas

          by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 06:36:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Which county was this clerk elected to? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, DownstateDemocrat

            "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Theodore Seuss Geisel

            by KingofSpades on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 02:46:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Vermilion, in the east central part of Illinois (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, KingofSpades

              Her name is Lynn Foster.

              Don't let the fact that Obama won Vermilion County, IL with a plurality of the vote (49.4% Obama - 48.8% McCain) in 2008 fool you, Vermilion County is a rabidly right-wing county. The most prominent local politician besides Foster, who is a moderate Democrat, in Vermilion County is Danville's Tea Party-backed Republican mayor, Scott Eisenhauer.

              "We don't have government anymore, we have an auction." -Lori Compas

              by DownstateDemocrat on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 08:31:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Map of 2008 IL-VERM-Pres results (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KingofSpades

              Here is a precinct map of the 2008 IL-Pres results in Vermilion County, courtesy of DRA.


              Uploaded with ImageShack.us

              The main areas of ethnic minorities in Vermilion County are the east side of the City of Danville (African-American), the northwestern corner of the City of Georgetown (African-American) and rural areas north and east of Hoopeston (Hispanic). Tilton, Westville, and Georgetown have strong pro-Union sentiment, in Tilton, there was a GM foundry that closed not long after NAFTA was ratified, whereas Westville (my hometown) and Georgetown were coal mining boomtowns in the early 20th century. The vote in the Ridge Farm area tends to be roughly proportional to that of the county as a whole, despite that area of the county not having any sort of liberal base to speak of.

              "We don't have government anymore, we have an auction." -Lori Compas

              by DownstateDemocrat on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 08:48:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for volunteering (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY
      •  In other words... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DownstateDemocrat, MichaelNY

        ..forget Warren running for president in 2016.

        If she can not mount a viable, responsive organization in a state as small & blue as Massachusetts, what you describe would translate into a disaster on the nation level.

        Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate. ~ Proverbs 22:22

        by wyvern on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 06:38:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Lisa Madigan 2016? (0+ / 0-)

    I'm thinking the DNC wants Obama to be the first of a long line of Democratic presidents from Illinois.

    "We don't have government anymore, we have an auction." -Lori Compas

    by DownstateDemocrat on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 06:11:11 PM PDT

    •  2016? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DownstateDemocrat, jncca

      If she had run for and taken the Senate seat in 2010, maybe, but now she's nobody nationally. She would have to run and win in 2014 for governor (maybe by challenging Pat Quinn) but still, trying to run for governor and then immediately announcing she's running for president, I doubt she'd get anywhere.

      Assuming we don't keep the White House in 2016, she could probably run in 2020 (how sad is that, we're still four months from a presidential election this year and we can already talk about who might run in 2016 and 2020!)

      Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 25 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

      by NMLib on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 06:20:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'll say this much... (0+ / 0-)

    If Scott Brown loses in 2012, he's done as far as the Senate is concerned. A lot of people are forgetting that there's a lot of politicians who are waiting now because they think there's going to be another seat open for 2014 (or really, if Kerry gets state, another special election in 2013, which is a free shot for any House Democrats, such as Capuano).

    Governor is certainly a realistic goal for him, but any national ambition requires him to become something that would make him unelectable in Massachusetts. This would be a classic case of you can't have your pie and eat it too.

    Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 25 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

    by NMLib on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 06:11:55 PM PDT

    •  Whoever loses is done for politically (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Padeco, JohnnyBoston

      In my opinion.  We have a lot of good people who could run for either the Senate or governor.  They're not known outside of the state, but I see some folks who appear to be  lining up their ducks.  

      •  I clicked like, but I only "half" like (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        I think this is Warren's one shot.  I don't think she'll inspire the same level of excitement if she fails and runs for a second office.

        That being said, Brown is definitely going to overperform Romney, but if it is by such a respectable amount then I can't see why he doesn't try for another office.  Heck, even if he doesn't overperform Romney, there isn't a deep enough GOP bench to stop Brown from pursuing any office he damn near wants.

        •  Because he says and does stupid things (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          If he loses, it will be because he is not smart, and that wasn't as evident in 2010.  With the Blunt Amendment, the "kings and queens" kind of comments, the Bin Laden gaffe, people are seeing him in a different light.   If he loses, my bet is that after the election, there'll be much more focus on the all the ways he's shown that he's not the brightest individual.   Mass will put up with a moderate Republican, but expects it's leaders to be smart.    

    •  Brown would have his campaign in place... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      Will probably save a couple million in his war chest if polls are bad for him in the last month and would not have a primary to have to worry about or spend in.  I suspect every Dem House Rep would have interest in running in the special election given they don't have to give up their house seat which could make for an expensive and messy primary with a quick turn around to the general that could leave bitter feelings between the Dem supporter camps.  

      Brown would have strong state wide name value, and has good favorables.  

      •  But no incumbency (0+ / 0-)

        And a loser already, trying to win a position that he would, quite literally, had just been thrown out of office for by the voters.

        Incidentally, saving money for another run from this campaign would be stupid, no matter how one looks at it, think of these scenarios:

        1. Brown barely loses to Warren (margin of fewer than 5 points). He looks like an idiot, he loses a lot of goodwill among Republicans (which will matter for his donors, who will think that he's not really serious). Plus, maybe another Republican smells blood in the water and tries to go after him from the right. It's hard to do when he's an incumbent senator, but as a loser who couldn't even spend all of his money, maybe he gets some support and Brown is forced to move to the right.

        2. Brown barely wins against Warren. The money's irrelevant, so who cares.

        3. Brown loses badly to Warren (over 7 point loss). All the money in the world doesn't help Brown again, he's a loser, and, like I mentioned above, would be trying to run for an office that the voters very clearly just threw him out of.

        And honestly, Scott Brown won in 2010 with an absolute perfect storm of events; an opponent who ran a really bad campaign, a special election, a really bad environment for Democrats, and a really strong campaign by Scott Brown. Any special election would be held relatively early on, the Democrats would not be in the same weak position that they were in 2010.

        Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 25 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

        by NMLib on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:25:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That "perfect storm" is why I believe (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, JohnnyBoston

          that Elizabeth Warren will win.  While there will certainly be Obama-Brown ticket splitters, I find it difficult to believe they will do so in large enough numbers to get Scott over 50%.

          That said, I'll admit I'm becoming concerned with the anecdotes I keep reading and hearing about Elizabeth's ground game (though I've also seen and heard people praising it).  We NEED her voice in the Senate.

  •  Remember Nadia Comeneci? (0+ / 0-)

    Big 10!

    "Absolutely, unfathomable elemental combination on the parallel bars?"

    Bread or circus?

    I want a living planet, not just a living room.

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 09:28:31 PM PDT

  •  slightly off topic but didn't Massachusetts have (0+ / 0-)

    a republican senator 40 years ago? IIRC, Brooke's ACU ratings weren't markedly different from Kennedys.

    also known as "AquarianLeft" on RedRacingHorses

    by demographicarmageddon on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 09:42:25 PM PDT

  •  This is weird (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    The Other day I was reading the Irish Times. Not that I'm Irish, but with the intertube thingy  I can read papers from all over the world. I read the BBC, Al Jazeera , The Gardian, an Iranian paper and a few others. Where was I, oh yeah, Elizabeth  Warren. I was in the sports section of the Times reading an  article about Gaelic football(awesome game) when what popped up was an ad to donate to Liz. My question is how many Gaelic Football fans does she think will donate.Who knows, maybe quite a few. Mass. does have a large Irish population.

    "When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat."-George Carlin

  •  No, I don't see POTUS Warren (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, JohnnyBoston, SLDemocrat, jncca

    There are a number of reasons.  First and foremost, she has absolutely no credentials in foreign policy, and unlike BHO, I don't see her gaining much in only 4 years.  Second, unlike BHO's appeal to "purple", Warren is a fire-breathing progressive.  And even if these weren't concerns, there are very few folks who have the charisma to pull off such a quick rise to the top - JFK, BHO & TR (Teddy) are the only ones that could do it.

    Let's just let her be the strong progressive voice & vote in the Senate.

  •  I hate to do this but Warren is not viable (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JohnnyBoston, Jeremimi

    For one thing she will be 67 in 2012, two years younger than Hillary but without her experience.

    Beyond that, as much as people condemn the overblown native American issue, its important. Not important enough to destroy her in Massachusetts, where 27% of voters have postgrad degrees, but it will play massively different nationally. Affirmative Action is an issue that is viewed by "winners" - the people who got into top schools despite it, very differently than it is by the "losers" - those who didn't. and the losers start very quickly.

    Warren as someone who did it not as an African American, but as someone who 75%-80% of Americans will view as white, whether rightly or wrongly, and most people other than the State of South Carolina circa 1930 view 31/32nds as making you someone, will see her as symbolic of the absurdity and hypocrisy of the system, as opposed to someone who say grew up in a difficult neighborhood under jim crow who can make the sale. This problem is going to extend not just to whites but to other minority voters as well.

    None of this matters here, and it may not defeat her in Massachusetts, but it is an enormous albatross across her neck, far worse than anything John Kerry ever had. I have leftwing friends who suggested she would have been better off politically having attended a Klan-themed sorority party than what she did.

    Again this is not passing judgement morally - but in a political sense, Elizabeth Warren has all the weakness of Obama without the strength among minority voters, in fact reason to believe she would be far weaker than generic D among them. Maybe not with African Americans, but with someone like Susan Martinez who does have a personal story to tell, Warren would be in real trouble.

    •  You're right. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      Some of the people on here are completely delusional. They argue Hillary's too old and that Warren would be better, but like you said shes only two years younger. I love Warren and everything she stands for, but shes having a hard enough time securing a lead over Brown in one of the most liberal states in the country.

      •  The post that started this thread is itself odd (0+ / 0-)

        If Brown loses, especially by a relatively narrow margin, he definitely can still run for Governor of Massachusetts or John Kerry's Senate seat, if Kerry gives it up, but it's unclear to me that a Kennedy would be the only one who could beat him. If Warren loses, with Massachusetts' huge Democratic lean, she is politically finished, end of story. And talk of her for President is entirely ridiculous, for reasons various sober people have stated.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 03:57:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site