Posted on 02/09/2017 2:41:24 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Via the Right Scoop, I don’t know that I’d go that far. But I’m also not sure, as I said yesterday, that Warren will be as useful a hate object to the GOP as it hopes and expects. Tucker’s not sure either:
“I don’t know, though. I mean, I see your point, I think it’s a smart point, but I also think — in fact, I’d bet money — that if Elizabeth Warren had received the Democratic nomination, she’d be the president right now, because she is in line with what Democratic voters think. She has a worldview, she can articulate it. I don’t agree with it, but it’s — she’s not just an identity-politics person, she’s got a consistent left-wing economic view that has a lot of support in the country.”
Warren doesn’t have Clinton’s ethical baggage, she wouldn’t have had an eleventh-hour Comey letter scrambling voters’ calculations, and she very probably wouldn’t have neglected making her populist pitch to voters in places like, oh, say, Wisconsin. Liberals turned off by Hillary’s coziness with Wall Street would have loved her; working-class whites might not have loved her, but they surely would have respected her as a more authentic populist than Clinton was. Would that have been enough to keep Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin blue? Maybe not. But it’s hard to see how Warren as nominee would have made it worse.
David Harsanyi agrees with Hugh Hewitt in the clip in thinking that Warren as the face of the Democratic Party would be a gift to the GOP — she’s ideologically radical, she lacks Obama’s charisma, etc — but he admits that it’s no longer so easy to tell what voters might or might not find acceptable in a president after the Trump revolution:
The real question is would Warren’s left-populism play on the electoral map Trump has rejiggered? Is her protectionist trade rhetoric enough to win over white-working class voters in Pennsylvania coal country even though she rails against fossil fuels and cheap energy? Would a lawyer who built a political career growing bureaucracies and pushing regulatory burdens on Americans be popular with rural workers in Ohio? Is it possible that someone who believes Obamacare didn’t exert enough government control over the health-care system going to run strong in a general election campaign in suburban Indiana? Moreover, can a Northeasterner with extreme social views bring working-class Missourians home to Democrats? Liberals from Massachusetts, after all, are still 0-3 (here, here, here) over the past 50 years. And Warren is farther Left than any of them, by a mile.
I use a lot of question marks in the above paragraph because 2016 taught me that the American electorate is volatile and angry, and coastal elites should never make assumptions about its temperament. Still, it’s fair to say at this point — and a lot can change under Trump’s leadership — the answer to most of these questions seems to be “Unlikely.”
Unlikely, but then maybe not as unlikely as “President Donald Trump.” What’s striking about the exchange between Carlson and Hewitt is Hugh analyzing Warren’s chances through a very traditional, even arguably outdated, prism of America being a “center-right country” that would never tolerate a censorious left-wing law professor as president. (Or rather, not another one so soon after Obama.) She’s too radical, she’s too far-left, she’s a new McGovern, etc. Carlson is entirely right to be skeptical of that frame, I think. The point has been made endlessly in political commentary since the election, with some merit, that “left” and “right” may not be as useful in deciphering American politics as they used to be. The “right-wing” president favors protectionism, warm relations with Russia, massive infrastructure spending, and health care for everyone. His political brand is populism and nationalism far more than it is conservatism or “center-right.” If in four years blue-collar voters haven’t seen the sort of economic gains under Trump that they were expecting, why wouldn’t they give a hard look to an authentic left-wing populist like Warren? Plenty of blue-collar whites voted for Obama in 2012 despite his liberal cultural affinities because they were convinced that he was more in tune with their problems than Romney was. They weren’t a majority, to be sure, but they were enough to hand Obama a second term in office. If Warren can claw back some of those voters by preaching single-payer health care and more aggressive redistribution, why wouldn’t she stand a chance against Trump if his first term is disappointing? And even if you think she’d be a weak nominee, why would she be any weaker than Cory Booker, say, or Kirsten Gillibrand or Kamala Harris? The Democratic bench is thin right now. Warren may be their heaviest hitter even if she’s not a heavy hitter per se.
The great question mark with Warren is how she’d play nationally as a retail politician, especially pitted against an ostentatious alpha male like Trump. Yesterday I said that she comes across as an angry librarian (whereas Trump usually comes across as a blowhard uncle who got rich selling cars). Will Rust Belt voters accept someone like her in the role of commander-in-chief, even if they prefer her brand of populism on the merits? For that matter, did Hillary’s gender lead any voters to hesitate last year in putting her in charge of the military, knowing that Trump, whatever his other faults might be, would at least be eager not to let America lose face vis-a-vis enemy states? You can dismiss all of that as sexist and improper and irrelevant in a better world if you like, but rest assured that Democrats will be thinking about it after the midterms. American voters like “strength” in their president, and Trump spends a lot of energy trying to project it. Maybe Warren’s ideological fervor will be received the same way, but if it isn’t, all the share-the-wealth rhetoric in the world might not be able to save her.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Your first paragraph is right on.
Back in Nov-Dec 2014 after Conservatives swept Congress, people started to focus on President in 2016. Go back to both Left and Right, R and D web sites.
No more Clinton! No more Bush!
That was the #1 comment on all chat rooms, including FR.
Neither Clinton or Bush ever figured out how to overcome that. A good 3%+ of Clinton vote was people who would have voted for Rubio but were anti-Trump.
And a good 5%+ of the Trump vote was voters who saw Trump as EVIL...but as the lesser evil. They would have voted for a Mark Cuban-Bill Gates type of Democrat.
Warren? She is a light weight in politics. Imagine if she ran against Niki Haley, a real Indian. :)
:)
I know what you mean.
And also, he never held a tenure-track position. He was an adjunct instructor-he may have been hired to teach a course or two for a couple of ten week quarters.
Brooks.
How was she elected then?
Academic in their own mind. Both are not that smart.
It’s simple, He wants the Squaw on his show.
What a horrid thought.
Truthfully, Tucker has been going a little soft lately. Doing a lot of fence riding the past week or so..........
LOL
The U of C site has a page addressing that matter:
Statement Regarding Barack ObamaThe Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
I agree.
I can see your point. So far tucker is kicking liberal butts.
“It’s simple, He wants the Squaw on his show”.
That would be very, very fun to watch.
Yes, she is unpopular in Massachusetts, my home state. I consider her home state, Oklahoma and I wish she would move back there.
Of course Rightscoop jumped on this story because it makes the argument that Trump just sort of lucked into the presidency. This worthless blog and its guest blogger Soopermexican have been wrong about almost everything in the last year and a half.
A few years ago I enjoyed visiting them multiple times a day, but no more. They were NeverTrump throughout the primaries and trashed Trump throughout the general election, and beyond. Just to give you an idea, they`re very fond of Mark Levin, and visa versa. Need I say more?
My husband and I have liked Tucker Carlson for years, and I was glad to see him replace egomaniac MEgyn Kelly. (Yeah, I know - he's not quite as conservative as us FReepers.)
However... we're getting kind of tired of the nightly parade of lefties that Tucker 'takes on' every night. Lefties who get waaaay too much air time. Sometimes these sessions result in more of a draw than a 'win' for Tucker. Anyone else feel the same, or is it just me?
Thought it was just me. Shall we tell him ?
That was my point in another post on this thread. I'm getting really tired of Tucker vs. Weirdo Professors and other assorted Leftists night after night... :(
I was hoping his show would be so much better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.