Should Hillary Fear Elizabeth?

Norm Scheiber has a fantastic article in the New Republic about the potential threat to Hillary’s 2016 run for president from Elizabeth Warren.

He argues that Warren could take the Democratic nomination away from Hillary, because the party has grown more populist. She’ll be strong in the early primary state of New Hampshire. There are many party elites who feel frozen out by the Clinton campaign.

Warren has a strong, consistent message – protect the middle class. She’ll be a tough opponent.

14 thoughts on “Should Hillary Fear Elizabeth?

  1. I don’t think Warren is a real threat to Hillary, but she may pull Hillary into a more leftist/populist campaign. I love Warren, and I also love Hillary. Warren is my president, but Hillary may be more everyone’s president (unless you’re a RWNJ).

    Like

  2. Obama, Cruz, Warren – I personally have had a snoot full of people getting to the Senate, never having run anything, and thinking the thing to do is run for President. Then we get a President who is learning on the job. Governor is a far better prep for being President. Or general.

    Like

  3. Far left candidates from the Northeast have not historically been able to win the nomination, much less the election, and I doubt Warren would fare any better. It is true, though, that the Democrats have not historically nominated the heir apparent/early frontrunner the way the Republicans usually do, so Hillary should be worried about that problem.

    I expect that both parties will deploy a lot more populist rhetoric in the near term, but that doesn’t mean that they will govern differently, for two reasons. First, elite interests usually manage to get the system to respond to what they want. (Consider Elizabeth Warren and the medical equipment manufacturers.) Second, there are populists on both sides: there are plenty of “populists” who don’t want to be ruled by Harvard law professors or federal bureaucrats any more than they want to be ruled by Wall Street bankers. There really isn’t a coherent “populist” agenda.

    Like

  4. Does Warren have a different political base than Hillary, that is, in terms of people who would work for her campaign at the wonk level, grassroots support, money? They’re both in the NE corridor (and in DC), and are both white women. I don’t see how two different support groups could arise for the two.

    Obama battled the Clinton by having several bases of support outside of the Clinton sphere: African-Americans, mid westerners (including Midwestern “community” organizations), progressives — though I don’t know how progressive Obama actually is, and Californians (including the associated tech industry), some of whom were personal friends in various ways.

    I suspect that except for the progressives (and, I’m using that loosely to mean urban whites believe in a bigger safety net and more income re-distribution), I don’t see who would support Warren over Clinton.

    I don’t actually see any other candidates in the wings, either. I think the conversation on Warren is naive progressive wonk talk among those who don’t love Hillary, and who are ignoring political realities.

    Like

    1. “I don’t see who would support Warren over Clinton.” Agreed, and your last paragraph is also totally spot on.

      Elizabeth Warren is both white and American Indian, though not an enrolled member of any federally-recognized tribe.

      Like

      1. As near as I could tell reading about the controversy during her Senate race, Princess Fauxcahontas has no, no, none evidence of Native ancestry, made it up while seeking the law school jobs for which she was marginally qualified. This is likely to bite her both in the course of a nasty primary against Hillary and again in a general election.

        Like

  5. Warren could damage Hillary, by splitting off those willing to vote for white, female senators. I don’t think Warren could win in any state more conservative than Massachusetts.

    Like

  6. But Warren’s not going to run as an independent, so it wouldn’t particularly damage Hillary if Warren ran against her in the primary — unless there’s a viable opposition candidate to Hillary who is not a white woman.

    Like

    1. If the candidates in a primary election were Clinton, Warren, and Cuomo, what do you think will happen? Cuomo, O’Malley, Schweitzer are all significantly younger than Clinton and Warren. They have all been governors.

      Primary voters do consider who’s more “electable” in the general election.

      For what it’s worth (not much), I’d bet on a new face for the Democrats in 2016.

      Like

  7. Clinton is so obviously going to be the next president that the media is doing anything they can to make a story out of this.

    Like

Comments are closed.