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)
I agree.
I miss the format of MEgyn Kelly's show, but definitely do NOT miss MEgyn...
Tucker's show is getting really stale, IMO.
Search Tucker at FOX NEWS.com
Tucker Carlson: Hit on me in a men's room and I'll smash your head against the stall
;-)
Thanks for the link, but not sure what you mean. Black box?
hahaha. You have a sweet way with words my FRiend
hahaha. You have a sweet way with words my FRiend
Not sure what you have. It may be a keyboard for email
Tucker is married with several children
His stepmother (who raised him) was a Swenson Food heiress
I read his claims of fags hitting on him in men’s rooms. I say BS. I have never seen fags in any men’s room as I do not frequent those places.
Your post is confusing. You don’t think gay guys use men’s rooms or you don’t use men’s room? Or you’re a woman?
I am right there with you. VERY frustrating when the lefties (keep) getting away with ‘waaaaay too much’.
Hopefully, he’ll get some pushback on FB and Twitter....and take the hint.
Lou is great. I NEVER tire of watching his show. He gives it to left, with BOTH barrels, consistently.
Side note...I also am happy to see Michelle Malkin back on Lou’s show (and other Fox shows). She had a long absence. I missed her direct take on things.
He had a two hour show last night! He blasted away for two whole hours.
Bret Baier’s show is unwatchable. Absolutely unwatchable. They didn’t even show the swearing in of Jeff Sessions which should have led the news.
I have become accustomed to be disappointed, or let down, by media personalities that seemed to be more in line with conservative goals but sooner rather than later, these days, veer towards accommodating the liberal left. Tucker Carlson has his better days and time will tell if the FOX management will let him be right or left. Media personalities are not free agents. Their pay check comes from the owners of their venue. I think that Trump supporters are just tired of BS from any source. Elizabeth Warren will be in her seventies in eight years and no threat to anybody aspiring to the presidency. As to beating Trump, would she have gone for over a year drawing the crowds he had which led to his solid support base? Warren is another Hillary. Shrill and unpleasant to watch or listen to.
You're NOT the only one, Nutmeg.
Exactly one week ago (2/3/2017, 10:30 AM Eastern) I posted the following....
"Tucker Carlson has GOT to stop the enemies of America he books for his shows from DOMINATING his program's air time.
"He allows his Never-Trump, socialist and commie guests to go on and on, filling the ether and my front room with leftist propaganda...segment after segment.
"At too-long intervals, he tries to get back control of what SHOULD be back-and-forth debate (without over-talking) but he fails almost every time......and I'm getting sick of it.
"His show is getting unwatchable as these enemies of our Republic use the platform Tucker affords them to skillfully filibuster, to over-talk and to interrupt him....and to orate endlessly in a dominating fashion.
"Tucker's little squeaky attempts to get a word in edgewise here and there are mostly colossal failures.
"We love ya, Tuck.....and we want you to book and expose these crafty operators in your skillful way, but whose show is it anyhow, yours or theirs ???
"GET BACK IN CHARGE OF YOUR SHOW !!! "
Though I'm probably the only one here to do so, I sent a link to that pertinent FR thread about his show to him via Fox with a polite note....plus I sent a duplicate copy to him at Fox via U.S. mail...each with a request for an answer or an acknowledgment....so far no soap.
Leni
Other time's the interviews work as a warning of what we're up against. That's important.
Last night's interview with the ‘liberal’ college student who believed in ‘free speech for all Americans’ was wonderful. He supported Milo being allowed to speak... It hearkened back to a time when democrats were ‘the other team’ - - not the ‘mortal enemy’ of all that is good.
But a little goes a long way when it's die hard apologist for evil... those interviews could be scaled back. It's not like we're not exposed to liberal thought - it's the sea we swim in. Maybe Tucker should start the show with the stuff we enjoy and move the ‘liberal showcase’ segment to a place 15 minutes AFTER the show starts. That said, I trust Tucker Carlson's instincts. He's still new to this - he'll be tweaking the show for the next year or two...
I think what all these hypothetical FORGET, is that Trump custom-tailored his strategy for Hillary.
If he had faced Pocahontas, or anyone else for that matter, he would have used a different strategy to WIN.
I think EVERYONE OVERRATES the significance of Hillary’s NEGATIVES, and UNDERRATES that Trump is just a freakin’ genius at communications and strategy.
He is our newest Great Communicator.
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.