Elizabeth Warren

Will Elizabeth Warren Heed Destiny's Call?

Run, Liz, Run. From your current positions.

|

Elizabeth Warren
Tim Pierce / Flickr

With liberal dissatisfaction over the inevitability* of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton reaching an all-time high, many are clamoring for tough-talking populist darling Elizabeth Warren to get in the race. POLITICO reports:

Three prominent liberal activists — including the president of a large union — are calling for Elizabeth Warren to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, insisting that the Massachusetts senator's participation in a competitive primary process would benefit the party. …

"We agree with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, the Boston Globe, and many others that Sen. Elizabeth Warren would be a strong candidate, and that if Hillary Clinton also declares, the debate between the two of them would be critical for our nation," write Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America, and Annie Leonard, executive director of Greenpeace USA — the environmental group — in a new letter published by Run Warren Run, a campaign organized by liberal political organizations.

The letter's authors argue that Democrats deserve a lively debate over issues, including the role of money in politics, voting rights, global trade, global warming and worker's rights, and that the "country needs new ideas and new leaders."

A Warren candidacy holds a certain appeal, even for libertarians. She would certainly present a much clearer ideological contrast to whatever name the Republicans put forth than Clinton would.

That said, liberals might be disappointed to learn that although Warren talks a good game about crushing big business with the awesome power of government, her economic ideas leave much to be desired—even from an anti-corporations standpoint. She supports the Export-Import Bank and won't endorse Sen. Rand Paul's bill to Audit the Fed, for example.

And while she's never said much about foreign policy, many believe that she's not dramatically less hawkish than Clinton, anyway.

*We're not supposed to use that word, but whatever.

NEXT: So Arab Countries Can Clean Up Their Own Messes Without (Crazy) Uncle Sugar!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “A Warren candidacy holds a certain appeal, even for libertarians.”

    Team Red is probably praying that Team Blue nominates Warren.

    1. No, Hillary would be better for team Red.

      Warren would be slightly problematic for team Red because she would at least invigorate the blue base which in turn would force team Red to pick someone popular with the base as opposed to just going with the establishment candidate like they always do.

      1. If the Dems nominated Warren, only a GOP Santorum or Huckabee nomination could possibly lose. I’m not sure even that would do the trick.

        Warren vs Cruz, Jindal, Christie, Bush or Perry would produce the biggest GOP landslide since 1984.

        Warren vs Paul might even cause the Dems to lose Massachusetts.

    2. Given the ability of team Red to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory they should be careful what they wish for.

      1. Congenital Idiots versus Massive Brain Injury Survivors. Somebody wins, but its never the public.

        1. So they’re running Giffords?

        2. Oddly, both Hillary and Joe have suffered brain injuries.

          Not, as far as I know, Lizzie.

    3. Umm, no it doesn’t hold any appeal for libertarians.

    4. Other than polarizing the two major parties to such a degree that it opens up real room for a third party, I don’t see any appeal for libertarians to electing a lefty/proggy/crony from academia with absolutely no administrative or executive experience.

      Well, other than the potential lulz, of course.

      1. Along with the lulz, I think the libertarian appeal he threw in is the hope that a Warren nomination would make clear to LIVs how nuts the Blue team can get, which might be a forlorn hope at this point.

      2. You mean an opportunity to blame us for “spoiling” the election by voting our consciences?

      3. a lefty/proggy/crony from academia with absolutely no administrative or executive experience

        Hey there. It worked in the last two elections.

  2. I don’t think she will. She has real baggage. In addition to the fake Indian thing, she is also a slum lord and did legal work for all kinds of people she now claims are evil. The media of course doesn’t report any of that. If she challenges the Hildebeast, that will change. Warren wants no part of the kind of negative campaign Hillary would run against her and will not run.

    1. The think is, John, the MA progs really are so tonedeaf that they believe the bullshit they are slinging.

      I think Warren is vain and narcissistic enough to ignore her baggage and shoot for the moon.

      1. I am not so sure. She didn’t win by that much. And it is possible for a Dem to lose in MA. Go ask Martha Coakley if you don’t believe it. Most MA Dems have no idea how corrupt Warren actually is. Hillary and her allies in the media would make sure they did.

        Wouldn’t it end her career? Probably not. But it wouldn’t do her any good. I think Hillary already had the Godfather meeting with her and promised her a good pay off in return for not running and forcing Hillary to blow her brains out.

        1. She conducted her campaign against Scott Brown, in a particularly tone-deaf and undisciplined manner. She thought she had it in the bag and kept walking into shit.

          Only a flying wedge created by sycophantic media and the machine’s determination not to lose embarrassingly again protected her long enough to cross the goal line.

          She didn’t run because she calculated the odds and decided she had a shot. She ran because she wanted the glory and didn’t believe the rules should apply to her. I don’t think it’s a question of smarts. With narcissists it’s never about intelligence. They have to run, because not being the center of attention is a fate worse than death for them.

          1. Warren sure seems like the type who starts believing her own bullshit. Man I hope she does run and it’s an absolute shitstorm. In fact, let’s hope that for every single candidate whatsoever.

          2. If she runs against Hillary, Hillary and her media allies will destroy her. She won’t have a sycophantic media protecting her. Hillary has a lot of allies and friends in the media. Warren wants no part of any actual scrutiny of her past and of her record. Maybe she is dumb enough to try it, but she is very dumb if she does.

            1. Hilary and her media allies couldn’t even destroy Obama. Besides, Hilary will die sooner than Warren so the media slurpers need to come up with a succession plan.

              1. They didn’t try to destroy Obama. They couldn’t. Obama was black. They couldn’t touch him. Warren won’t have that benefit.

            2. More importantly, her media and allies have too much sunk cost in their last 20 years of sycophancy.

        2. Warren as Sec Tres would be even better than as President.

          1. The system can cope with incompetent cabinet officers. An incompetent president, on the other hand…. /grins evilly Look at the disaster Obama has been for the statists. I think we are in the early days of a revolt against the failed system that is currently ‘running the show’. And I think the younger generations are far more receptive to the principles of freedom than people credit them.

            1. Conversation is often derailed by allegations against teh JEWZZZZZ, but both the MRA/MGTOW folken and the Gamergate sites are suddenly very receptive to certain libertarian principles. “Get the state out of marriage” is an idea that appeals to at least a few. It’s interesting.

          2. She’d probably let herself be bought off with Treasury. Pray that she doesn’t get greedy and hold out for SCOTUS; she could wreak havoc for decades.

    2. It’s cute that you think blatant hypocrisy disqualifies a politician.

      1. It only disqualifies you if the media bothers to report it. Warren gets a free pass right now. She won’t if she challenges Hillary.

        1. Hilary was too incompetent in State to survive, those fuck ups are way worse than any baggage Warren has.

          Millennials support Warren over Hilary. The media will drop Hilary in an instant as soon as Warren runs. Warren won’t run until the Pritzkers promise her some major support. But they probably will.

          1. The media won’t drop Hillary. The Clinton favor machine is too important to too many people. And Hillary won’t stand around and wait to attack Warren the way she did Obama.

          2. No, the media and establishment progressives have too much emotional investment in the Hillary-as-first-woman-president theme to abandon her in favor of the upstart. Maybe some of them are hoping and praying for Hillary to self-destruct so they can shift to the New Improved Woman President, but they don’t want to get their hands dirty, and they don’t want to tarnish the generic-first-woman-president debate by tarnishing Hillary.

            1. What Saarecrow said. Some in the media will drop her but a lot won’t. That is why a Warren Hillary fight would be so brutal and ultimately devastating to the party.

            2. Hilary proved in ’08 that she scores pretty low on the charisma scale. The media will not support an old hag for POTUS, they’re only supporting her now because Warren isn’t officially running. I also don’t see the party supporting two consecutive Chicago Machine POTUS candidates.

    3. The only scenario I see where Shrillary does not in fact get the nomination is if she decides not to run. None of the above mentioned alternatives will last through a full press of the Clinton machine the way that Obama did, and I’m still impressed that he was able to pull that off.

      However, if things with Hillary get that bad (and they still might, considering she has possible felonies lingering over the email debacle) and she does drop out then Warren will have a much easier time getting the nod.

      Then things get REALLY interesting. And by interesting I mean terrible.

      1. Aren’t they only felonies if they are prosecuted?

        *Begins holding breath*

      2. People said the same thing about Obama back in 2008.

        1. Warren is not Obama. She is not black. And being a woman doesn’t elicit the kind of emotional bullshit that being black does among voters.

          1. Being a woman would have had as much emotional baggage IFFF she had one the nomination. But Warren is second in line; Hillary was the real first woman president, even if she never actually held office, and Warren is just an upstart second chance.

      3. I don’t think there’s any “possible” to the felonies, at least not since we learned she wiped a server with the knowledge that it was actually the subject of federal investigations.

        1. But she’ll be Gregoryed. “It’s not in the interest of justice to prosecute.”

    4. Thing is, the Tea Party strikes a chord with a lot of working-class Americans. That’s why they’ve remained so influential and popular electorally.

      The progressive wing of the Democratic Party appeals to no one outside of a few Northeast states and urban enclaves. Nominating Warren would be stupider than sticking with Hillary, not that it has any chance of happening.

      1. That is true. But Progs are delusional. They honestly think that running Warren is the way to return to a 2009 majority. They think that they only lost the Congress because of Fox News and Obama not being liberal enough.

    5. She’s no different than the hildebeast or any other crooked democrat candidate. The core base will vote for them. White Squaw will draw more of the far left vote, Hillary gets more of the old school, my family’s been voting democrat for 100 years, voters. Either way, neither of them are exciting candidates and are not going to attract the cult like following that Obama did.

      For the dems, they need to face the harsh reality. For now, they are all out of Obamas, and they are really getting their asses handed to them all over the place in elections, because of their insane views on the economy.

  3. Oh God, I’d pay to see Hillary, Crazy Uncle Joe and Sitting Bullshit on the same stage debating.

    1. See POTUS debate from season 3 of House of Cards with Frank Underwood vs. two women. Given the rapidity with which any conversation between two women competing for the same prize turns into a catty bitchfest, it will be a sight to behold.

    2. Seconded.

    3. It will put you right to sleep. Nothing but softball questions and all three of them saying insane things about businesses not creating jobs. Zzzzzzzzzz…

  4. I really hope she runs. I do.

    If she wins, her utter incompetence and moral bankruptcy will kill her political career deader than a clump of glioblastoma.

    1. That is what I thought about Obumbles. It is hard to see how anyone could top his mendacity, incompetence, and corruption and yet he was elected twice. I wonder if the same boobs would elect him a third time given the chance.

      1. Well, I think Obama marked the official change of Dem strategy regarding presidential (and potentially other) candidates: run someone who is a “first”. It worked really well with Obama being the “first black president”, and they have to be thinking that “first woman president” would have a similar power. Will it? I can’t answer that. But everything seems to be indicating that this is the new direction of Dem strategy.

        1. It is all they have left. They have basically walked away from all but the upper middle and upper class white vote. Their only route to a national coalition is by getting massive turnout among minorities while providing just enough white people a reason to vote for them. And the only reason they have left for the white vote is “vote for the first whatever President and prove you are not a bigot”. That is it.

      2. I doubt it, Suthen.

        The scary thing is, if not for term limits, we’d probably be living in the sixth Clinton term right now. I don’t see anyone in either party with the mad skillz to actually beat him in an election.

        1. No. He would have lost in 2000. People were tired of him. Al Gore should have won in 2000 yet didn’t because he couldn’t get rid of the Clinton stink.

          1. Or carry his home state.

          2. He would have lost in 2000.

            To W? I doubt it. We’ll never know, of course, but Bill’s approval ratings were always high.

            1. Al Gore hadn’t gone crazy yet. He should have won easily. Yet, he didn’t.

              Remember, Bill Clinton never won 50% of the vote and never won a two way race. IN both elections he had Ross Perot taking the votes of gullible independents and Republicans. People always say “the polls say he would have won in a two way race”, but there is no way to ever know. What we do know is that his VP couldn’t win in a two way race. I don’t think Bill would have done any better and might have done worse. He was pretty badly wounded by the Monica thing. The American public doesn’t like be lied to like that. Just because they didn’t want him impeached, doesn’t mean they would have wanted him re-elected.

      3. Obama won because he wasn’t Hillary, he wasn’t Bush on steroids, and he said so many right things. People were tired of insiders. His non-existent track record actually came off as a benefit, compared to Hillary, McCain, and all the other tired old tropes, especially when he promised so many right things. I sure didn’t expect him to actually follow through on many of his promises, but I was surprised that he head-for-tails reversed course on practically every single one of them. I suppose it was a new kind of Big Lie. It makes me wonder if Bush the First could have won if he’d liked more, instead of just making the one big lie about reading his lips, no new taxes.

  5. That’s what the Blue Team needs – a fresh young face.

    Millennials love those

    … and beards.

    1. ISWYDT

  6. God, she’s going to be the worst candidate. So out of her depth. The only way we’d elect her President is if the entire electorate had a brain cloud on election day.

    1. So you’re saying about 50-50 then.

    2. I thought that about Obama, too. But it does seem bonkers that after eight years of Obama, independents would want someone that left-wing or worse.

      1. I think Warren is a viable candidate only because few of her supporters have ever seen a property tax bill that had their name on it, or have tried to start and run a business. She’s the candidate of the co-op.

        1. I think she would energize the Dem base better than Hillary as well as not being a target of the Hillary hate vote that is a holdover from Bill’s years. I actually think she’s more electable than Hillary is, particularly with a media to run interference for her. If Hillary self-destructs (which I think is possible) I’d bet Warren’s their gal.

    3. Have you not paid attention to American politics lately?

      If you can check off one of the approved victim greivance boxes, all you need do is parrot trite populist canards about how billionaire Koch brothers are attempting to steal all the oxygen in the atmosphere and force your grandmama to eat Alpo while they fill their waterbeds with smelted Nazi Jew-gold and you will automatically receive at least 45% of the votes in a presidential contest.

      1. Sudden,

        if that shit worked, the Democrats wouldn’t have fewer elected officials today than at any time since Reconstruction. You read too much into the re-election of Obama. Remember, Obama’s real fuck ups didn’t become apparent until after he was re-elected. In 2012 the media was able to lie and convince the country he was competent and was a moderate. That is all that election was about.

        1. There are 50 million people who never vote in any election other than POTUS elections.

  7. Time to repost this:

    Top Ten Elizabeth Warren Indian Names

    10. Little Pantsonfire

    9. Woman Who Loves Eater of Dogs

    8. Lie-a-watha

    7. Hoarder of Feathers Who Hates Feather Hoarders

    6. Sitting Bullsh*t

    5. Hunts at Whole Foods

    4. Running Joke

    3. Taxagawea

    2. Dances With Occupiers

    And the number one Elizabeth Warren Indian name:

    1. Fauxcahontas

    Late additions:

    Stands-With-A-Writ
    Sackatheeconomy
    Hiataxa

    1. Crazy Hoe.

    2. White Squaw

  8. A Warren candidacy holds a certain appeal, even for libertarians.

    Wat?

    Dude, I know we’re all for open pot use and shit, but not at work all right?

    1. A Warren nomination holds appeal for one libertarian in specifically who has staked his entire reputation, and his ass, on her securing her party’s nomination.

      1. Was that the bet you made with Jesse?

    2. The only appeal to me is that she would ensure a defeat for thee progressives. Of course, I have been wrong before.

      1. All other things being equal, yes. But when you factor in gender politics she could win.

  9. All the attention paid to the Clinton Email Scandal by the NYT and WashPost is specifically for this reason – they want Warren to run so badly they can taste it…Some perhaps because they want to cover a horse race and others because they want her to run because she is their ideal candidate.

    1. Best case scenario:

      The Legacy Media divides on who they want to drag over the finish line this time, and begins attacking the other candidate. That way, somebody is fronting anti-Hillary and anti-Lizzie stories.

      And Crazy Uncle Joe slips by on the rail for the nom!

      Please, please, please, please, please.

      1. Beetle——–baum!

  10. *We’re not supposed to use that word, but whatever.

    I’ll stop using “inevitable” if they’ll give me back “bossy.” Deal?

  11. Whatever happened to that fresh-faced Latino in San Antonio Democrats were fawning over?

    He checks all the right boxes, doesn’t he?

  12. Previously I was salivating at the thought of Warren winning the Team Blue nomination, figuring it would be a perfect storm for progressives to overreach, and be defeated. Upon reconsideration I think that the women’s vote would push candidate Warren to a win in the general. She would then claim that it was a mandate for her policies, not mere gender politics. Better strategy is to make sure she doesn’t get anywhere near the nomination even if that means Clinton.

    1. Warren isn’t as popular with women as you think.

      Here in MA, I’ve heard a bunch of women bitch about her vanity with the disdain of men calling a male candidate a wus.

      I think her mannerisms and airs will turn off a lot of women who are not in proggie enclaves.

      1. I know at least two women who are hard left and fit the Warren/Hillary demographic perfectly. Yet, both of these women hate Warren and Hillary. I don’t think the “vote for a woman this time” is going to work the way voting for a black guy did. People don’t feel the kind of guilt and desire not to be seen as sexist the way they feel the desire not to be seen as racists.

        1. I suspect you are right John. Many, many solid Obumbles voters were liberals who have no real contact with blacks on a day to day basis and that was a way for them to assuage their guilt. This is not true for women. Most people interact on a daily basis with women and have ample non-voting opportunities to not be sexist.

          1. This is not true for women. Most people interact on a daily basis with women and have ample non-voting opportunities to not be sexist

            Most people maybe. But not everyone. So does this mean that Elizabeth Warren will sweep into office riding a wave of libertarian votes?

            1. “So does this mean that Elizabeth Warren will sweep into office riding a wave of libertarian votes?”

              Barkeep?
              I’ll have what he’s drinking, please.

      2. I don’t think she’s popular personally, I just think that identity politics will earn her a lot of votes even from women who don’t personally like her.

      3. She’ll be popular with the ones who like strapons, though.

        1. Only if they like receiving, which, if she is elected is what we all will get.

  13. A Warren versus Hillary nomination fight would be brutal. It would tear the party apart like nothing since the 1968 Convention in Chicago. Hillary has a lot of money and a lot of backers. She is clearly wounded but she is not dead. And running for President is all and Bill have left. She is not going quietly. At the same time, the left wing of the party hate the Clintons with the passion of a thousand suns. Warren would rally them like no one else. The resulting campaign would be the Democratic apocalypse.

    1. See above:

      And Crazy Uncle Joe slips by on the rail for the nom!

      Please, please, please, please, please.

      1. There is no one left in the Democratic Party to vote for someone like Joe. Its minorities and full retard white progs or nothing now.

        1. …” full retard white progs”…
          So, Biden?

    2. There won’t be a brutal D primary race. It won’t happen. The media will not let it happen. It will be all softballs being lobbed around, everything merry and happy, businesses don’t create jobs, Obamacare is working, Arab Summer, Summer of recovery, summer of love. It will make you sick to watch.

      Then they will anoint Hillary if she still wants it, and then the Stupid Party will nominate the worst possible candidate ever imagined and the same will continue throughout a boring general election.

      If the GOP nominates Rand Paul, Hillary will suddenly be stricken by a grave medical condition and they’ll have to get a quick substitute.

      1. If the GOP were smart they’d cut off the identity politics at the knees.

        1. Stupid.Party. That is all.

  14. Considering their leftist view of the economy, a stagnant, competition-free “primary” cycle would be apropos for the dems.

    1. That’s exactly what you’ll see. The dems are in extreme damage control mode. They and their lap dog media will not allow for any slug fests.

  15. I read the piece three times, trying to see why Warren would have a “certain appeal” to libertarians. The admittedly few policy positions listed would suggest the exact opposite.

  16. “She supports the Export-Import Bank and won’t endorse Sen. Rand Paul’s bill to Audit the Fed, for example.”

    Of course she does. She then goes on to speak about how compassionate her and her fellow liberals are, while they and central bank supporters, support systemic currency devauchery which robs all individuals that hold the media of exchange. Of course, there are legal tender laws that are also enforced through violence.

    But so long as they “feel” like they’re compassionate, it’s ok to screw folks over, and enslave them because the’re felling like they are doing good while ignoring the theft, and violence that must occur in order for their feelings, wants, and desires to be carried out.

  17. But so long as they “feel” like they’re compassionate, it’s ok to screw folks over, and enslave them because the’re felling like they are doing good

    What does Ron Paul have to do with it?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.