Dems mull whether Warren is the one to take on Trump

The Hill ^ | May 10, 2018 | Amie Parnes

[EdnaMode]

Can Elizabeth Warren win back blue-collar Democrats from President Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania?

It’s a question many Democrats are pondering as Warren — one of the leading contenders for her party’s presidential nomination, if she chooses to run in 2020 — goes back and forth with the president over immigration and other issues.

Warren (D-Mass.) has shown an ability to rally and excite progressives, she’s a proven fundraiser and she has policy bona fides from her work in the Senate. Yet there are creeping doubts among some Democrats that she’s the best candidate to take on Trump.

Some worry the former Harvard professor will have a tough time winning back the Rust Belt centrists and independents who abandoned Hillary Clinton and Democrats for Trump.

“I just can’t see a blue-collar, Rust Belt guy voting for her,” said one Democratic strategist who has worked on presidential campaigns. “I think the party needs to be realistic about that.”

Some Democrats almost certainly remain shellshocked from the last election after Trump’s surprise win. He became the first Republican to win the states of Pennsylvania and Michigan in a presidential election since 1988 and the first Republican to win Wisconsin since President Reagan in 1984.

If Democrats don’t retake those states in 2020, their chances of winning the Electoral College will fall.

Teeth-gnashing over who is best-positioned to take on Trump, as a result, is already taking place ahead of the midterm elections.

Warren’s gender and her political identity as a voice on the left are both likely to be issues for primary voters sizing up Democratic candidates in potential head-to-head matchups with Trump. Would she be stronger than former Vice President Joe Biden? What about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)? Does the party need the face of a new political generation, such as Sens. Kamala Harris (Calif.), Cory Booker (N.J.) or Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.)?

Warren has her advocates, who say the senator’s anti-corporate economic message will resonate with the types of voters who left the party for Trump.

Jesse Ferguson, who served as a spokesman for Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, said Warren “has a powerful economic message that resonates everywhere.”

Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said Warren is the perfect candidate to oppose Trump because she “has the ability to go straight at him on his economic policies.”

She also argued that Trump’s repeated attacks on Warren suggest the White House sees her as a threat.

“I think this man understands his brand very well and understands his populist appeal very, very well, and he realizes how threatening to him she is on his brand,” Lake said.

Warren’s office declined to comment for this story.

[catnipman]

Hillary would be my own personal first choice, but i suspect i’m not gonna have much say so about it ...

[FLT-bird]

Go ahead. Nominate Squaw Grey Beaver. That would be awesome.

[Trumpisourlastchance]

Harris, Pokhahontas or the Hildabeast would all be great.

[4Liberty]

[catnipman]

“Whistling past the graveyard. If Kamala runs, she’ll win the black vote and steamroll Warren. 2nd coming of Obama and all that.’

yeah, that’s my preliminary thought as well ... i sorta doubt the Dems will ever run a white person again for Prez ...

[pepsi_junkie]

She also argued that Trump’s repeated attacks on Warren suggest the White House sees her as a threat.

She's an easy target that always gets a laugh. Nobody takes her seriously.

[Ron H.]

Lizzie or Killary? What’s the difference. Maximum toxicity for the DemoCommies.

[Vendome]

[I want the USA back]

I’d like to see a debate Trump/pokahontas. She’ll come across as an angry biytch.

[Zhang Fei]

[Third, she doesn’t quicken the pulses of African-American women like Obama did: he was a (half) Black guy who married a Black woman from the ‘hood, and Kamala is a (half) Black woman who married a well-off White guy. That doesn’t go over well with the sisters.]

---

Blacks don’t really care about gradations of skin color. Clarence Thomas not only married a white woman - he’s probably more right wing than anyone else on the Supreme Court. And yet they backed him through the Anita Hill #metoo campaign.

[x]

Clarence Thomas not only married a white woman - he’s probably more right wing than anyone else on the Supreme Court. And yet they backed him through the Anita Hill #metoo campaign.

Not the way I remember it.

[Zhang Fei]

[Also, her anchor baby status won’t play.]

---

She’s not running in the GOP primary. And she’s way blacker than Warren.

[Zhang Fei]

[Michigan has many college towns and depressed areas they want Jobs not Hope head fakes. Trump has put a spotlight on Obama’s incompetence.]

---

Michigan wasn’t where Obama won the nomination.

[Berosus]

Back when Anita Hill made her sexual harassment claims, we did not call it PoundMeToo.

[Zhang Fei]

[Not the way I remember it.]

---

That’s exactly the way it happened. Black fury at Thomas’s “high-tech lynching” at the hands of Anita Hill’s Democratic backers was precisely why 11 Dems ended up flipping and voting for his confirmation. Yes - the Democrats had a 57-vote majority in the Senate. They could have filibustered, blue-slipped, etc. They did not, thanks in large part to Thomas’s political skill, and a black solidarity that crossed party and ideological lines. Some of Thomas’s outrage was real, but a good part of it was probably a pose, given his ideological inclinations. The most important part is that it worked, and it got us the most right wing SCOTUS judge in the face of a 57-vote liberal Democratic majority at the ripe young age of 43.

[MrEdd]

Obfuscation about natural born citizenship will come into play.
And unless you have missed all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, there will be an originalist supreme court this time around.

Elections have consequences, even for aging California whores.

[Zhang Fei]

[Back when Anita Hill made her sexual harassment claims, we did not call it PoundMeToo.]

---

I know. I’m a dinosaur from the punch card era of computing. I typed it because because it’s shorter, and to show that I’m old but hip.

[Zhang Fei]

[Obfuscation about natural born citizenship will come into play.]

---

Obama crushed Romney by 5m votes. Even Trump lost by 3m votes. Harris isn’t just black - she’s also a woman. Regardless of how the general works out, she’ll crush Warren in the primaries. In time, the Democratic party will visibly become the black party. Let’s hope the GOP figures out how to take advantage of this change.

[EdnaMode]

Definitely.

[MrEdd]

A comparison irrelevant in its entirety.
Romney was an open socialist running on the Republican ticket.
Millions on the right myself invcluded realized that securing the border was the most critical issue period, and without shalting the infoux of third world dreck supporters of the constitution would be out voted.

I, and other nationalist like me didn’t vote for him, nor for McCain who helped create the genocide of the Yazidi Christians.

Even with traditional Democrat vote fraud (which will be very difficult to replicate by 2020 Kamala just won’t carry the midwest nor the mining regions.

Warren would be more fun to watch, and (since pictures of her participation in orgies during her Willie Brown era are beginning to surface) Kamala is unlikely to run.