Skip to main content

It is my firm belief that, if Republicans run a centrist Republican such a Jeb Bush in 2016, we as Democrats should prefer an Elizabeth Warren vs. Jeb general election battle, and not Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb. If the Republicans do run Jeb, and as I explain below that is pretty likely, then I fear there will not be a strong enough contrast in voters' eyes to make this an easy election for Hillary.

In contrast, I think a Warren vs. Bush electoral battle would mean a much clearer victory for the Democrats by a more significant margin. This is an increasingly progressive and populist electorate, and the perception (right or not) is that Hillary isn't either of these things. I personally believe Hillary is progressive on more issues than not, but in terms of public opinion, she rarely is associated with the progressive wing of the party- and, like it or not, this is the only thing that matters. In the case of the majority of the public thinking she's not a strong enough progressive, policy positions don't really matter all that much.

In an anti-Wall Street climate, I don't think Hillary’s less than candid stance on deregulation or her reassurance to donors that that she thinks such anti-Wall Street sentiment is foolish will garner enough enthusiasm among the Democratic base to the extent that Elizabeth Warren would be able to. Considering how Warren's recent book tour has also meant a significant increase in national visibility in national media and a friendly reception among an exorbitantly wider audience, there is plenty of time for her to become a viable candidate well before 2016. With Warren’s new book, A Fighting Chance, being number two on Amazon’s best-seller list for 10 days straight, I’d say Warren will only be more and more recognizable with every month that goes by.

Like it or not, Elizabeth Warren would provide Hillary an unimaginably tough primary battle should Warren choose to run. And it is this that would make Warren stronger against any Republican come election day 2016. This is compounded by the fact that 59% of Democrats view socialism more favorably than capitalism, with 43% of lower-income voters agreeing. And with Pew finding that 62% of Americans prefer to self-identify as conservative and 47% of Democrats having a positive reaction to libertarianism- I’d be scared for Hillary going up against a centrist libertarian or a progressive libertarian, both labels describing Jeb Bush.

The overall electorate reacts to the word Progressive more positively than to the word liberal- 66% to 50%, and surprisingly 55% of conservatives have a positive reaction to the label Progressive. This hardly indicates that Hillary would be a clear preference to Elizabeth Warren in 2016.

I believe the people who believe that Hillary is the most pragmatic choice are ignoring several key factors- the first of which consists of a few different layers. As I alluded to above, the national electorate is increasingly divided between economic populists among self-identified Democrats, and economic left-libertarians and libertarian populists among self-identified Republicans. It doesn't matter if the latter two labels don't make much sense- it just matters that smart Republican strategists know how to exploit this cognitive dissonance.

If the kingmakers of the Democratic Party still cling to to the outmoded belief that the shadows of the DLC's legacy can still win in general elections based on wasteful battles over pragmatism, the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters will sit out of future general elections. These voters will concede the elections due to the lack of enthusiasm in the absence of any meaningful contrast (again, in perception) for as long as they put up a Centrist Democrat against a Centrist Republican. Or, even worse, some Democratic voters clinging to the notion that the GOP can be mainstreamed or even moved to the left- which they are already doing- may choose to be in a base that is listening to them (aka not Democrats), be it self-described Independents or the Republican "left".

The traditional conservative principles of cutting taxes and cutting the deficit are becoming vastly unpopular with most of the electorate- Democrats, Independents, and swing voters. The only ones holding onto these principles are Centrist Democrats and Republicans.  
Ironically, the more the Democratic establishment ignores the progressive shift in their base, the more Democratic voters withdraw their support. The more voters withdraw support, the Democratic Party establishment relies more on corporate donations to offset the disappearance of progressive grassroots support. As we've seen all too often, this leads to pro-business, anti-progressive policy platforms.

This clearly shows the danger of the Democratic establishment and the Progressives working independently of one another. Regardless of them knowing it or not, Third Way's founding in 2005 was precipitated not by progressive or liberal Democrats, but because the Democratic establishment itself- removed from its voters- was already steering to the center-right.

I'm not saying Third Way or other Centrist Democratic groups did not start out with good intentions. I'm merely saying that as the decoupling of the establishment from the progressive movement became more pronounced, the louder and heavier the establishment fell to its knees in front of Wall Street.
A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows liberals overwhelmingly identify Wall Street and "Big Business" as institutions that personally harm them. This suggests a candidate who is willing to go up against Wall Street will be a formidable candidate against a less vocal candidate in the primary.
As the graph above shows, the electorate is not particularly fond of Wall Street or "Big Business- to say the very least. And the view that Wall Street and "Big Business" personally harms them has broadened over constituencies of both major parties, in addition to Independents.This broadening and growth of public opinion has boosted calls for campaign finance reform.

As we have seen, Jeb Bush is being courted by wealthy donors voters associated with Wall Street and "Big Business". This would suggest that voters will be suspicious of Bush relative to a more vocal opponent of Wall Street or "Big Business" buying our elections. Unfortunately for Hillary, she is not such a candidate. Hillary has always had a tepid response to Wall Street and Big Business pumping in exorbitant sums of money into campaign coffers- and one large reason is that she has always depended on Wall Street and wealthy donors pumping in those exorbitant sums into her campaigns.

In addition to invitations to speak in front of gatherings of Wall Street executives for which she is paid large sums of money and at which she calls anti-Wall Street sentiment foolish, Hillary will not necessarily pick up the voters suspicious of Jeb's ties to Wall Street and wealthy donors. And for those who point to Hillary's tepid and sporadic support for campaign fiance reform as reason enough for voters to distinguish Wall Street money behind Hillary and behind Jeb, voters would simply not see a difference come the 2016 campaign ads denigrating both candidates' ties to Wall Street. This is compounded by the fact, as mentioned above, that Hillary's stance on deregulation is viewed through the lens of her centrism and that of her husband's.

This leaves an open space for a more vocal proponent of regulatory enforcement of large Wall Street financial institutions, a more outspoken advocate of campaign finance reform, and someone that is seen as generally more populist. A candidate like this is more likely to pick up votes of those suspicious of Jeb's ties to Wall Street, and this points to the one other name that is becoming more and more popular in 2016 speculation: Elizabeth Warren. Considering that Warren has also quite visibly been calling on Hillary to get tough on too-big-to-fail banks to largely no avail, Hillary has a lot more to go to gain the trust of a growing segment of Democrats, Independents, and the fast-expanding 'Republican Left'. The onus is not on Warren to win support among these constituencies or campaign for their votes if she decides to run. She would immediately shore up the votes of the constituencies tired of Wall Street-funded candidates, particularly Jeb. The onus is on Hillary. And unfortunately for her 2016 prospects, she is trailing far behind in that regard.

The graph below highlights the aforementioned growing constituency supporting measures to push Wall Street out of our elections. Naturally, there is support among Democrats for getting rid of big donations to candidates, marked by a growing base of Independents and Republicans who agree. Surprisingly, more Republicans than not are willing to forego their party's support of tax cuts if this means that tax revenues match small donations to campaigns. This suggests that if Elizabeth runs in 2016, voters will overwhelmingly associate their evolving views of Wall Street, regulation, and campaign finance reform with her, and not nearly as much with Hillary or Jeb. If the Democrats want to capitalize on this and make sure Jeb doesn't split the Democratic or Independent ticket and even score some crossovers from Centrist Republicans- or at least depress their vote- the Democrats will have to realize Elizabeth would be better suited for the race than Hillary.

A more vocal proponent of campaign finance reform, such as Elizabeth Warren, would have an easier victory over Jeb Bush than Hillary could.
Either way, the Democratic Party will ignore the chance to capitalize on the much-needed leftward shift of the Republican base and the appeal this has for a sizable chunk of Democratic voters. They did this when Ross Perot ran against Bill Clinton and needlessly gave Perot the share of the vote that could have been his, especially when Clinton refused to take a strong stance against deregulation while Perot did. To reiterate, Perot voters were going to vote for Clinton anyway, had Clinton not gravely miscalculated by driving right past them towards the Party they were defecting from. Clinton dragged Perot's legacy right on through his dropout in 1992- and if it weren't for Clinton's first few years of his presidency, I contend that there would be absolutely no mention of former Perot voters cropping up here and there in today's climate- and certainly no angst for third parties every other election cycle.
If it weren't for centrist Democrats, Republicans would not even be able to dream of mobilizing modern-day versions of Perot voters- and Ralph Nader would certainly not have siphoned votes from Al Gore in 2000, the implications of which we are still feeling now. To be sure, I certainly don't endorse the centrism Gore ran on, as much of this analysis shows- I am simply saying Gore wouldn't have even contemplated running as a 'southern centrist' had the Democrats not hallucinate phantoms telling them to turn right. Nader wouldn't have even been a blip on the national radar.
The 1994 Republican landslide in Congress would not have been possible without Perot's surprising electoral performance in 1992- Bill Clinton needlessly gave Perot a share of the vote that belonged to the Democrats. The 1994 "Republican Revolution" would have never happened if Clinton hadn't governed to the center-right.
Contrary to many pundits among the party establishment (I’m talking about Third Way, PPI, et al), Democratic voters have increasingly become less patient with their own party's capitulation to a shrinking base of fiscal conservatives, who have given in to the liberal base plenty more times than the establishment realizes
As Pew pointed out in their 8/20/13 poll, 50% of Republicans as a whole support raising the minimum wage, while only 47% oppose it.
Lower-income Republicans who have not completed college favor a raise by 58%. On top of this, a growing base of younger Republican voters are shifting their views to the left and adopting traditionally progressive social issues much faster than even the economic ones- 56% of Republicans under 45 support same-sex marriage, 50% are for legalization of marijuana. According to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight, 37% of Republicans support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants without requirements, while 72% would support a pathway if it included paying back-taxes and a criminal background check- and that total is a 35% increase from most earlier polls. This is contrary to Republican members of Congress emphasizing border security- and this will likely cost them at least significant losses in primaries if pro-immigration Republicans appear on campaign trails in future elections. Establishment Republicans and their messiahs- such as Jeb Bush and Steve LaTourette- are growing keenly aware of this, and mobilizing as such. Beltway Democrats seem to be the only ones who are not aware of this.

Inexplicably, the Democratic party establishment has been far removed from many of these overall trends. Which leaves a crucial gap that grassroots activist groups are filling at an exorbitantly fast rate- such as Adam Green’s Progressive Change Campaign Committee and the nationally-expanding Working Families Party. Sadly, Democrats cannot win by simply relying on such groups without establishment support, which is slowly dawning on a precious few Democratic politicians. Instead of diminishing insurgent progressives such as Elizabeth Warren and seeing her as a threat, the Democratic establishment should recognize that this insurgency reflects a genuine shift in public opinion and work with her in a more coordinated fashion than they are doing now.

Particularly if the GOP is disciplined and runs a centrist candidate such as Jeb Bush these and other factors suggest that Hillary would have at the very least a tough battle ahead of her. Perception has it that Hillary isn't far enough to the left of Jeb to strike a winnable contrast. And it is this perception that will put Jeb in striking distance of Hillary. If anyone doubts that the Republican establishment or Republican voters are seriously considering Bush, read this and this.

The longer a political party doesn't win The White House, the more likely they are to nominate centrist candidates. Based on this and the fact that the GOP is faced with the prospect of 12 to 16 years locked out of the Presidency, it is more likely they will support a centrist Republican such as Jeb Bush over a more conservative candidate.
Polls show that the majority of self-identified conservatives, even strongly conservative ones, would not mind seeing Jeb Bush as President , as Nate Silver pointed out in assessing how Jeb's stance on education and Common Core
and immigration wouldn't be a notable negative in the primaries, which would embolden Republican donors and the party establishment  to push him to run even more than they have been.

Here are a few facts to make you pause if you believe Hillary would easily trounce Bush without a progressive shift in her own positions:

Jeb Bush is behind Hillary by only three points nationally- Hillary's 47 to Jeb's 44-  and not even 5 percent nationally in many other polls

He is behind only by one or two points alternatively in North Carolina, according to Public Policy Polling.

Alternatively two points and 5 points behind Clinton in Florida according to polls done by Quinnipiac.

He's four points behind in Iowa according to Huffington Posts Pollster.

 only 11 points in Michigan, also according to Huffington Post’s Pollster.

All of which have been swing states/purple states. And there is plenty of time to close those distances.

On top of:

Jeb Bush having an average approval rating of 56 percent throughout his 2nd term as Florida governor. This while many other governors' ratings gradually fizzle out in their 2nd term.

Bush obviously was able to escape the 2nd term gubernatorial fizzle, and it is at their own peril if Democrats allow themselves to forget this. Another lesson to the "voters will see just another Bush" crowd is that Jeb's approval and favorability ratings often- and notably- escaped the downturns of his brother's.  

Jeb won his 2nd term as Florida governor 56% to 43%, simultaneously managing to expand his voting margins by 3 points, being the only Republican governor to win 2 terms in Florida's history, and beating back a very formidable nationwide effort by the Democrats (including The Great Bill Clinton) to stop him.

For those who doubt that narrow margins make a difference, consider that the majority of our Presidents from 1900 to 1999 won by narrow margins- some narrower than Jeb’s 3 points- and President Obama was re-elected by even smaller margins than in 2008, notably among the under 30 crowd- the vote that delivered Obama to victory both times.

And unfortunately, a lot of those Obama primary voters in 2008, who I think probably voted for him based out of a cynicism of politics as usual, might not vote for Hillary based off of the very same cynicism they based their vote for Obama in 2008. He was perceived as an outsider who genuinely was going to fight for them, and this appealed to the voter who was previously disengaged from politics out of a learned helplessness. And Hillary, I believe, is seen as yet another personification of an an establishment insider.

And to those who count on the fear of dynasties stopping Bush: we elected two Roosevelts, two Kennedys were in one White House without much of a fuss- and for 64 years the Kennedy name has been on the door of elective office up until 2011, including the indomitable late Ted Kennedy. We've already had two Bushes in the White House- both of them alienating the voters who elected them. And now we're considering a third President Bush- despite the previous alienating their own base- and a second President Clinton, and we're considering a Kennedy for another elective office. We're clearly not all that ruffled when it comes to political dynasties.

If Democrats don't listen to their own base, nor to the shifts among Republicans, they will continue to win by fiat, and even this default position will continue to disappear in between presidential elections- and probably between at least a few more midterms. Democrats should not point to the inevitability of the Tea Party's demise as justification of their centrism- that was always a matter of natural demographic shifts in this country and cyclical historical dynamics.

"We need to be very clear that progressives who are asking for purity on an eighty-percent popular issue is not the same thing as the Tea Party asking for purity on a twelve-percent popular issue... or one percent popular issue, which might be tax breaks for billionaires. That's crazy, right? All pledges are not created equal." ~ Adam Green, founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee

If Democrats don't internalize this and continue to encourage their presidential nominees to run and govern as centrists, they will continue to trail far behind the national electorate. This electoral strategy will no longer provide the ideological contrast needed to deliver Democrats a clear, unmistakable mandate. This is simply because, to the voters of today, there is not enough difference between a centrist Democrat and a centrist Republican- or at least Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. And considering that Bush is publicly embracing many more electorally-contentious progressive platforms than Clinton is, centrist Democrats have a lot more to worry about.

Democrats cannot and should not hedge on the idea that the GOP will run poor candidates who alienate their all-important moderate base. They have done this too often, and electoral history has been surprisingly kind to them for this. The ideological contrasts in the electorate are polarizing at a faster rate now than previously while the entire match itself is shifting to the left- a Left which does not necessarily find its home in the Democratic Party. Without the Democratic Party throwing more solid support behind candidates such as Elizabeth Warren or at least use her to accentuate the contrast between their own ticket and the Republicans', 2016 will be Jeb Bush's to lose.

Tue Jun 24, 2014 at  7:17 PM PT: Part 2 of this blog series was published June 9th, and can be found on my diary page. It is entitled, "Think Hillary Would Crush Rand? Think Again."


What Should Democrats Want: Hillary vs. Jeb or Elizabeth Warren vs. Jeb?

12%22 votes
13%24 votes
6%12 votes
0%0 votes
2%5 votes
1%3 votes
5%10 votes
8%15 votes
1%2 votes
0%1 votes
16%29 votes
3%6 votes
3%6 votes
4%8 votes
16%29 votes

| 172 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  I thought Senator Warren said she would not ... (11+ / 0-) With Republican fraud and Koch Brothers money I will be  "concerned" no matter who the Democratic candidate is.

  •  She has said she will not run (12+ / 0-)

    It is not an ambivalent statement.  She said she will not run.  Period.  I tend to believe her.  Not that this is what I want to believe, but she is pretty darned convincing.

    •  Obama said the same thing (8+ / 0-)

      Granted, it was much earlier, but it was just as full of certainty:

      "I am not running for president. I am not running for president in four years. I am not running for president in 2008."...--Barack Obama, Nov. 3, 2004
      With Climate Change and inequality bearing down like a ton of bricks, Clinton's Business as Usual approach is not going to be what the country needs.

      I'm hoping that Bernie and Liz put IMMENSE amounts of pressure on Hillary.

      •  Warren was registered Republican from 91-96. (6+ / 0-)

        Elizabeth Warren voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.

        This was disclosed on "This Week" with George Stephanapolous today.

        So lets drop this notion that Elizabeth Warren is perfect, great Democrat from the left wing of the party. She is as perfect as Hillary Clinton. At least Hillary never voted for Ronald Reagan.

        I like her a lot and support everything she is doing for middle class. But Hillary Clinton is hands down more qualified and more prepared to be President than Elizabeth Warren.

        Elizabeth Warren would be perfect as a VP.

        Clinton/Warren...Beat that GOP!!

        •  I guess we'll have to disagree (10+ / 0-)

          I don't really care who Warren voted for a quarter century ago. And nobody said she was perfect - just FAR better than Clinton on issues that affect the poor and middle class.

          President Walmart simply isn't going to get my vote. Period.

          •  Really, are you serious?? (4+ / 0-)

            Voting for the man who did as much as he could to destroy the American middle class does not bother you?

            Voting for the man who demonized government, demonized every every government assistance programs, started the myth of cadillac driving welfare queens, left thousands of mental patients on the streets with his cuts does not bother you?

            What good is whatever little that Elizabeth Warren is doing for the middle class when Ronald Reagan already destroyed so much?

            •  Again (11+ / 0-)

              You are talking about a single vote from a single person, 30 years ago, and making it sound like she is personally responsible for everything that happened under Reagan.


              Hillary is a corporate tool, and always has been.

              No vote for YOU. /soup nazi

              •  When you run for President, everything is under (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Catte Nappe

                scrutiny. Everything. Including vote for Ronald Reagan and being a registered Republican as late as 1996.

                The broader point is: Nobody is perfect.

                Elizabeth Warren is a one trick pony with her focus on bankruptcy and financial institutions. She lacks sufficient depth on other issues including healthcare, foreign policy etc.  Hillary Clinton will smoke her in the debates.

                Hillary has done many things for women and progressive causes while being a corporate tool. Even Barack Obama would not have won in 2008 without the Wall Street money. and he raised much more from Wall Street than small donors. You have to play within the system. And this is the system we have right now. Incremental change.

                Elizabeth Warren voted to remove the medical devices tax under ACA to help out corporate interests in MA.
                Elizabeth Warren is a good Corporate tool.

                U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren is a superstar within the Democratic Party and a lightning rod for Republican outrage over the issue of tax fairness.  But there is one tax that Warren doesn’t like and it’s part of Obamacare.
                The 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices is a little-known provision in the law that is estimated to raise $20 billion in revenue over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
                But some Democrats, including Warren, a Democratic National Convention speaker, represent states that employ medical device workers and are concerned that the tax with hamper job growth in industry valued at over $100 billion in 2010, according to the Department of Commerce.

                Bottomline, you have to play within the sytem.

            •  We voted for a guy (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              IT Professional

              who greatly admired Reagan.  Who continued repub policies.

              And you think you're gonna scare us with 'boo!!' EW voted for repub?

              She clearly re-evaluated her stance after her experiences.

              The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

              by dfarrah on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:30:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Indeed! (0+ / 0-)
              What good is whatever little that Elizabeth Warren is doing for the middle class when Ronald Reagan already destroyed so much?
              What good can Warren possibly do now in 2014 - cause Reagan in the 80's did so much bad?
          •  There are many issues a President must face (5+ / 0-)

            Warren is outstanding on those affecting families and their finances. She does not have much (or any) experience on other issues such as education, health care, international diplomacy, etc. But it's kind of a fruitless debate to have, since she has been about as clear and emphatic as anybody could be that she does. not. intend. to. run.

            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

            by Catte Nappe on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:22:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  At this po in 2006, BHO was leaning towards a run. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dfarrah, deepeco

              In early 2007, he announced. I have accepted that Warren isn't running. The longer the anti HRC'ers hold on to Warren, the more bitter they are going to be.

              She is not running. Focus on Bernie or O'Malley.

              New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

              by AlexDrew on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 05:14:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  And what was BO's experience (0+ / 0-)

              in these areas?

              Oh, he was on some congressional committees, right?  

              The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

              by dfarrah on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:33:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  HRC was also (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IT Professional, Hannibal

          a republican.  A goldwater girl, if I recall correctly.

          The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

          by dfarrah on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:27:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl" in 1964 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IT Professional, Hannibal, aimeehs

          but by 1968 had become a Democrat.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:26:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The only thing I have heard her say, repeatedly, (6+ / 0-)

      is "I am not running for President."

      That does not rule out anything, other than the fact that right now, today, April 2014, as she is asked the question, she is not currently running for President.

      Her repetition, careful phrasing and refusal to say that she will not run in 2015 or 2016, but only that she is not running now, tells me she is leaving the door open.

  •  Something else (5+ / 0-)

    Jeb is not going to be the GOP candidate for a lot of reasons. Pull your head out of the mainstream media bubble and take a GOOD look at the GOP primary voters. Jeb is a media fantasy.

    It will be whoever we nominate (hopefully NOT Hillary) against Someone Else.

    Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

    by anastasia p on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:57:50 PM PDT

  •  Horse........................ (11+ / 0-)

    dead........................ but......................... must.................... continue............. beating................. because.................. that............ is............. what.................

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation--HDT

    by cazcee on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 02:58:11 PM PDT

  •  Nice typing. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terrybuck, cazcee, elwior

    Rivers are horses and kayaks are their saddles

    by River Rover on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 03:00:54 PM PDT

  •  I think you've spelled your name wrong (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Leftleaner, bakeneko, skohayes, AlexDrew

    It should be "DemProgFantasist".  Now, if your purpose is actually to invite participation in a political sort of fantasy football, then ther are no doubt a number of match-ups people might propose.  I'm thinking FDR vs Regan might be interesting to watch.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 03:02:13 PM PDT

  •  If Hillary doesn't run, Howard Dean will (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DemProgStrategist, Lepanto, buffie

    And Howard Dean will win.

    I agree with much of your assessment, but not all.  If it's Hillary VS Jeb, by the time the right wing propaganda machine gets done with Hillary, some in the Democratic base will say Tweedledee VS Tweedledum and they'll stay home in 2016.

    Hillary has Wall St. skeletons in the closet, and they will come out, and it will turn the base off.  Look at the number 1 diary on the rec list now, Obama throwing teachers under the train.  We Dems always lose elections because of turnout, not because of issues.  The right will turn out no matter which clown is driving the clown car, Dems will turn on their own.

  •  I think we should run Bruce Springsteen (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cazcee, Catte Nappe

    He's a great populist liberal, he would bring out all the 30-somethings, and he could sing his inaugural speech.  

    Another great possibility is Jon Stewart.  He has a broad set of connections with all the people he's interviewed, he would be our first Jewish president.  And he has read so many books before he interviewed the authors that he is really knowledgeable.  And popular.

    Unfortunately, we don't get to decide who runs.  We get to choose among those who want to run and who have the ability to raise monstrous amounts of money.  That limits our choices.  At this point for the Dems it's Hillary, Joe  and a few other unknowns (yeah, some people know them, but I don't, and I'm pretty plugged in, so they are not going anywhere.)  And it's a year and a half till they have to be out there in full force. Warren isn't going to run.

    Hillary obviously is going to run, and she is going to get the nomination and is going to win the election.  Get used to it.

    Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you. Gabby Giffords.

    by Leftleaner on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 03:15:02 PM PDT

  •  ...I love Elizabeth Warren... (8+ / 0-) her new book on audio right now. The one thing that is obvious, however, is she's a teacher and an activist. She isn't truly a politician. It's not in her DNA. I seriously doubt she'd run for President at this time if ever...

    Welcome to Daily Kos. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Community Guidelines, the Knowledge Base, and the Site Resource Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

    ~~ from the DK Partners & Mentors Team.

    Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences. -7.38; -3.44

    by paradise50 on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 03:22:56 PM PDT

  •  a HRC versus Jeb Bush contest could prove quite (5+ / 0-)

    entertaining - who would succeed in painting the other as the worse warmonger?

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 03:31:17 PM PDT

    •  Who's actually voted for wars, at the fdl level? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, elwior

      It would be impossible for Dems to tie Jeb to Iraq, without compromising our own nominee in the process.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project.

      by PatriciaVa on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:59:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I would be very excited if Elizabeth Warren ran (14+ / 0-)

    while Hillary brings a feeling almost of dread.  How can the Democratic Left survive an HRC administration, marginalized and impotent?

    An illusion can never be destroyed directly... SK.

    by Thomas Twinnings on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 03:40:46 PM PDT

  •  Are you for real? (6+ / 0-)

    You say Jeb is behind Hillary by 3 nationally.

    When in fact, Jeb performs worse against Hillary than practically any of the other possible R contenders, including Rand Paul.

    Here's the scoop from conservative polling aggregator RCP: Jeb is now behind, on average, by over 10 points (including 9 points in the most recent Fox News poll).

    Try harder next time.

  •  Warren vs Bush = A right wing SCOTUS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cazcee, JamieG from Md

    The fact is that as much as I totally love and admire Elizabeth Warren, at this point in her career she would not win. The moneyed middle is just too afraid of her.

    The Kochs and their Ilk are not logical in any way. But there is a middle layer of citizens who are not terrified of a Clinton economy. Hillary will win. That is all that matters, since the Supreme Court is what is destroying our country right now.

    Please don't take this as any diminishment of Warren's genius. But we have to be realistic. She has no foreign policy experience and Bush is going to wow lots of Catholics.

    PS Hillary MUST have a Hispanic running mate to counter Jebby's lovely wife.

  •  What is with the E Warren love? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cazcee, Jeremimi

    What about Patty Murray or Debbie Wasserman Schultz or any of a number of progressive members of Congress?

    You sound like the Village. You know two names.  Neither of whom has even declared.

    GOTV for 2014!

    Mrs. Clinton for President!

    There was no reason to fear abuse of such mildness, because it sprang not from weakness, but from a higher clarity.

    by Sally Foster on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:17:48 PM PDT

    •  Murray and Wasserman Schultz (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Choco8, elwior, flowerfarmer

      Neither of those are progressive...Murray was the one who gave right-wing extremist Paul Ryan political cover to take money out of federal pensions, and Wasserman Schultz is probably the single most loyal Hillary backer in the entire country.

    •  Wasserman? Are you kidding? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, allenjo, flowerfarmer

      Possibly one of the most clueless people we have.

      Just marvel at this stunning, completely inexcusable two-minute display of wholesale ignorance by this elected official and DNC chair. Here she is after the second presidential debate being asked by Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change about the "kill list" and whether Romney should be trusted with this power. She doesn't defend the "kill list". She doesn't criticize it. She makes clear that she has never heard of it and then contemptuously treats Rudkowski like he is some sort of frivolous joke for thinking that it is real
  •  Hillary v. Jeb matchup (6+ / 0-)

    That would depress BOTH Democratic and Republican turnout.

    Hillary is a war hawk and a Wall Street crony, both of which will piss off our side's base, and Jeb's support for Common Core education standards and immigration reform will piss off the Tea Party in no time.

    As much as CNN wants a Hillary v. Jeb matchup, at least one of them won't be in the general election, if not both of them.

  •  Yes, Massachusetts has a fantastic record (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, virginislandsguy

    when it comes to electing presidents.

  •  How much wealthier would HRC be than Jeb? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Do Dems do well when our nominee is much wealthier than the GOP counterpart?

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project.

    by PatriciaVa on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 04:55:24 PM PDT

  •  Damn people (0+ / 0-)

    Sen. Warren has already said she wasn't running so until she says differently, give it up. Besides 2014 is where it's at-so fuck 2016 because it won't mean shit if the racist assholes of the GOP take over ALL of Congress.

  •  Both parties are to the right of the electorate. (6+ / 0-)

    Bush vs Clinton would be very telling from a global perspective.

    It would foretell the ongoing paralysis of the Federal government and the desperation of a declining power that has run out of ideas and options.

    Just sayin.

  •  Not a word about issues, which is what Perot (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    provided. There still hasn't been the reform the Reform Party wanted since Bush's Supreme Court took over. HRC is feminist, may also run on reform and tie the Bush brand to Katrina-like memories. Her VP pick could be decisive as Palin almost was, someone like Christ of Florida, then her husband is a third member of the ticket.  Jeb defuses Bill as an issue. Post-McCutcheon both parties are vetted by billionaires, vulnerable to a Perotist third party, but she could create a new deal for national recovery. Her husband was better economically than Obama, even with NAFTA and Wall Street deregulation. This could be a Camelot if they are forced within the party to use their political capital to address inequality and back away from neocon adventures.

  •  ok. ill bite. show me how she wins. (5+ / 0-)

    Im really curious about how those of you Warren for President folks have thought through the primary and general election campaigns.

    1. To begin, show me where the room is on Hillary's left that forms a natural constituency. You got black voters, latino voters, women, and young people. Show me how you get through the first four states.

    2. Second, show me how she deals with a GOP 'change' campaign.  In other words, show me how she separates from Obama and still maintains a united party.

    3. Finally, show me how she grows into a presidential caliber candidate (meaning the campaign leadership and stump abilities) with only a single election under her belt?

    •  You forgot the most important question. (0+ / 0-)

      How will she get big money Democratic donors on her side while Hillary Clinton waits to make her decision?

      Barack Obama raised more than $100 million in 2007 before the Iowa caucuses. He did so by winning over several prominent Clinton donors.

      How will Elizabeth Warren do this? The reality of American presidential politics is that you need to raise millions and millions of dollars to stand a chance.

    •  Well, why don't you (0+ / 0-)

      do the same for HRC?

      Especially #2.

      As for #1, hey, BO had the numbers tied up within the early part of the primary.  It's all about the delegates.

      As for #3, who cares.  Nobody is perfect [isn't that what all the centrists say], and EW has demonstrated almost impeccable judgment.  I have no doubt she would have no problem 'mastering' a wide variety of subjects just as other presidents have.

      The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

      by dfarrah on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 07:47:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gladly... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JamieG from Md, doroma, aimeehs

        1. Hillary Clinton has a natural constituency among women, having been an established national figure for over 20 years. She will have no problem with black and latino voters by having the implicit endorsement of the President. Perhaps her only weakness will be young people, but that is hardly large enough a vote to stop her in a contested primary. Check.

        2. Hillary Clinton is so huge a national figure in her own right, she is the only Democrat who can separate from Obama on the economy and yet stand with him on healthcare and remain intact. Any criticisms she has of him, he will declare fair. Nobody else is big enough to do that without finding themselves in opposition to him and his large coalition. In other words, she doesn't need Obama to make a name for herself. She already has her own name.

        3. Clearly, having already run a historic national campaign, she is ready for that job. Obviously she is experienced on the stump. Obama's top campaign cheiftains have already lined up with her as they have every interest in keeping the White House in Democratic hands to cement in place Obama's legacy, Obamacare.

        So, as to your counters, you fail to note candidate Obama had been involved in national campaigns since 1992 when he ran Project Vote...where he learned politics at the granular organizing level. This is why his campaigns, and he had been in 6 of them before he ran for president, are so good at ground game. By the time he ran for president, a seasoned campaigner was in the game. Same cant be said for Warren, who has one campaign and academia. Lets not forget her only campaign wasnt built by her at a granular level, but by Obama and the Democratic establishment. They cleared the field for her. Thats not gonna happen if she runs for President.

        Second, I have no doubt she can gain mastery of policy. But policy wont win you a national campaign. She needs to master electoral politics, and that means recruiting the right operatives, luring fundraisers away from Clinton, plotting tactics and strategy, handling a hostile media, and then executing with skill on the hustings. Everybody thinks its easy until the grind starts.

        Running for president aint beanbag. It tests and tests hard. You need Personal stamina, the ability to inspire loyalty,  and most importantly,  the innate 6th sense of timing that only presidential caliber politicians have.

        Warren isnt ready. And if shes smart, she will make an even greater impact on the Senate by recruiting allies to the chamber like Jim DeMint did.

        •  Hillary could not risk the humiliation (0+ / 0-)

          of possibly losing again. The same reason Al Gore did not go for the re-match in 2004.

          She remembers having to beg for money to retire her debt long after losing a "can't lose" campaign against a black man.

          She will not go there again.  Better to have people saying "she could have won" rather than "damn, she lost to ???"

  •  Please. John Ellis will be easy pickings. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the woman who is easily irritated

    by chicago minx on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 08:11:25 PM PDT

  •  This is all fundamentally wrong (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As has been pointed out in another diary the assumption that elections are won by moderate voters is a fallacy - elections are won by turnout of "extremists".
    Each party has its "moderates", but actually they are stalwarts - people who will hold their noses and turn out no matter what, who will accept their candidate even if he is just the lesser of two evils. It is they who will vote reliably no matter what - but they are not enough. To win a party must convince "extremists" that the candidate is worth turning out for.
    Look at the 2008 election. McCain lost not because Palin was a wacko, but because she was such a wacko that she scared away the republican stalwarts? Not so. This only appears to disprove my thesis, because Obama won by offering hope, not to moderate Democrats, but to disaffected Democrats, and Sarah Palin compounded that. Had he not, and had she not scared more disaffected Democrats than she energized the loonie Republicans, Sarah Palin would have gone down in history as another Agnew - an embarrassing Vice President.
    What does this mean for a potential HRC/Bush or an HRC/Warren or Sanders matchup? Personally, I don't see Bush. He appears to be a centrist, and as such could not win either in the primaries or in the general - unless he runs against a Democratic centrist. (such as HRC) But I doubt that the Republican base is willing to be fooled again. If Jeb tries to do what his brother did, pretend to be a moderate but whisper to the base that he's really a wingnut, he will not be believed.
    A Warren or a Sanders is more interesting. Warren has actually remarkable persuasive skills, compounded by the fact that she is right. Frankly, if she wanted to - and that is an all-important if - she would mop the floor with Hillary. Bernie Sanders is even more underestimated. On top of that, if he won in Iowa (and he would have to have a reasonable chance or he would not enter the race) he would win Vermont, and Hillary would be buried.
    Hillary also has better political skills than we give her credit for, but, as Barack Obama proved in 2008, she also has a weakness, and that is that she cannot excite her left flank. Even if we say we will not we will abandon her. This means that either she must run against a sufficiently frightening Republican or she will "surprisingly" lose.
    If you ask me I still think that the only way the Republicans can win in 2016 is by running someone we haven't heard of yet, who will therefore not scare enough Democratic voters so that they won't turn out for Hillary. Note that this also assumes that any candidate with sufficient skill to defeat Hillary would wipe out any Republican.

    •  While I like both Warren and Sanders (0+ / 0-)

      they are both far too intellectual to win. Hillary and Jeb are both politicians. But I think that this election would be driven by the positive "Bill" factor and the negative "Shrub" factor.

      When the F**K are we going to wake up and do something about this mess?

      by keyscritter on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 07:38:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are assuming that Bill is a positive (0+ / 0-)

        Actually he is just less of a negative than W.
        In a Jeb v. Hillary contest my money is on Hillary, but because W scares more Democrats than Bill scares Republicans. (Actually, the Republican base is fully mobilized already, that is how they win at all) This does not apply to a stealth Republican v. Hillary. To be brutally honest anyone who says that he would vote for Hillary because of her positives would vote anyway, and without a scary Republican (Palin in 08 for example) that may not be enough.

  •  Hillary can be just as "Left" as Eiizabeth Warren (0+ / 0-)

    Since Elizabeth Warren is not that "Left."   In 2008 she was out organized not out "Lefted."

  •  Two things: (0+ / 0-)

    First, your portrayal of Michigan at the presidential level is completely wrong.  Firstly, Michigan hasn't been a "swing state" at the presidential level for 20 years.  In fact, we've voted Democratic at that level since 1992.  Secondly, 11 points down is a pretty significant margin, and very different from 3-4 points.

    Second, while we know where Warren stands on economic issues, on other issues, has she really been in the senate long enough for us to know that she's really all that different from Hillary?  I don't think we do.  There's all this clamor among progressives for Warren to run.  Well, what if she runs, and ends up not being as progressive as people thought?

  •  Hillary Clinton will win in a landslide, get used (0+ / 0-)

    to it. Her landslide election will get the Senate back to 60 Democrats and regain the majority in the House, get used to it. Jeb Bush will NOT be the GOP nominee. The GOP conservative base swallowed their pride and put up with Romney because they thought he was a 'sure bet' to defeat Obama. They aren't going to repeat that, they'll insist on a fire breathing conservative for 2016. The GOP primaries will be a bloody mess with Ted Cruz giving Rand Paul a run for his money and John Ellis Bush left in the dust, get used to it.

    We need Elizabeth Warren fighting for us in the Senate.

    HRC will be a one term President - she will have earned her place in history as the first woman President and at age 73 in 2020 she'll be happy to pass the torch. But the torch will not pass to Elizabeth Warren, who will be 71 in 2020.

    Patience, my fellow Progressives - 2020 will be our year to elect a true Progressive. In the meantime Hillary will be a great President. Get used to it.

    David Koch, a teacher and a Tea Partier sit down a table with a plate of a dozen cookies. Koch quickly stuffs 11 cookies in his pockets, leans to the bagger and says "watch out, the union thug will try to steal your cookie".

    by Dave in AZ on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 07:21:56 AM PDT

  •  Bush has a problem daughter (0+ / 0-)

    I doubt he could run with a daughter in and out of drug rehab and mental hospitals.

    These nattering nabobs of negativism must stop blocking every single thing we try to do! ~ Rep. Alan Grayson 9/30/09

    by Lipstick Liberal on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 07:24:13 AM PDT

  •  Warren has tacitly endorsed Hillary Clinton (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in AZ, aimeehs

    I can't wait until she doesn't run and gives a high profile speech lauding Hillary's candidacy.  Also, if Sanders runs against Hillary, Warren will endorse Hillary.

    I'm really getting fed up with the liberal Tea Party who will stop at nothing to demonize Hillary Clinton.  She was on the Wal-Mart Board back in the day!  Warren voted for Reagan twice!  Hillary is a corporate sell-out!  Warren was a registered Republican until 1996!  It's all a wash, all so far in the past as to be irrelevant, and irrelevant anyway since Warren isn't running!!!

    I disagree with some here in that I do think Warren would stand a chance in the general election, but that's because she's a Democrat in a country that is increasingly trending towards our party, not because she's a progressive hero.

    There is not some non-voting liberal majority out there waiting for a true progressive to run for President.  It's a liberal myth.  Yes, it's true that most non-voters would vote for a Democrat if they voted, but nominating Warren is not going to bring these people out.  They don't vote because they don't care and are skeptical of politicians, and I guarantee you that they'd be skeptical and dismissive of Warren too.

  •  I think more and more I am agreeing with (0+ / 0-)

    that tenet. That said it is our case to make in an infrastructure that has reason to believe Hillary cannot be defeated. We are all on the same team and I think we must go through the process to validate whichever candidate we will finally put out whether it be Clinton, Warren, or other.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site