And IIRC, third-party candidates took in a larger number of votes in those states than the spread between Clinton and Trump (seriously, if you voted for Jill Stein, go *#&% yourself). Warren, I think, alleviates the Nader/Stein/[insert far-left darling here that'll never win but will screw over Dems] just the way Obama did but that Gore and Clinton couldn't.
But I think Mawnck's point is well taken. Warren is a darling of the left, but check out her polling. She's extremely divisive. I'm a big fan (duh) but it's worth keeping this stuff in mind. We are all so insulated now that Democrats seem to think everyone loves Warren because we all hear from our friends and the people we follow on social media about how great she is. But Trump's whole "Pocahontas" crap? The right LOVES it. She's popular in Massachusetts, but not that popular. Polls show she could be in trouble in 2018. (I read those with a big grain of salt; people always love the unnamed candidates who aren't running for office. As soon as there's a name and a face, their polling plummets and the incumbent usually does well.) One thing I love about Warren is how much she gets under Trump's skin. She hits him back in ways most Democrats don't seem to be able to. There was a great line I read the other day (heck, it might've been on here; apologies if I'm borrowing from an LP poster): it's as if Democrats and Republicans are playing a board game and because the Democrats started winning, Republicans flipped the board over and set the house on fire, and Democrats are still reading through the rules trying to keep playing the game.
Yep. One thing that keeps running through my mind is the Garland fiasco. I keep wondering if there was some way the Democrats could've slapped them down and seated their rightful pick. It seems to me that Obama could've gone nuclear, taken to the bully pulpit and shamed them on a daily basis, gone to their districts and shamed them there, sent his party forth to do their worst, and perhaps even order his Democratic colleagues (and his own administration) to govern no more until the GOP did their jobs. But he couldn't do that, right? Because that might have hurt their chances in the election. Well, they lost anyway. The Republicans got away with murder, and are now being rewarded for it with cookies and milk from Trump. There's gotta be a better way to fight back here. I do *not* believe that the majority of Americans are okay with GOP tactics and governing, I just think they've thrown up their hands and think nothing can be done. I'm struggling to figure out how to be productive and civic-minded in this environment.
See here is my underlying point...now you are all talking about a possible Warren Presidency and NOT the qualifications, and conflict of interests of THIS administration. The GOP can shift, quite easily the narrative away from their multitude of issues and onto one theoretical Democratic one and you all are eager to jump to it.
Yes, I'm VERY focused on making sure the Dems don't run any more unelectable candidates for, like, the next 40 years or so. For the reasons you mention.
I'm not entirely sure Warren WANTS to run for president, but I certainly don't see her as unelectable. First of all, how many people said that for how many months about Trump? That he alienated too many people, that he was easy to caricature, that he was too fringe-y. And all that was true, actually, and he still won. Second, Trump just barely squeaked by in 2016. Of course Warren would be despised by the GOP base, but they will despise ANY 2020 Dem. nominee Trump tells them to despise, and they despised Obama too and he won twice easily. The difference was that Democrats showed up for him in a way they didn't for Hillary. That, plus centrists who voted for Obama and then switched to Trump because a). he seemed to represent "change" (which he wouldn't in 2020), and b). he conned them into thinking he cared about the working class, which he never has, but they bought it. They almost certainly won't buy it in 2020, while Warren has legitimately been working for the working class her entire career. She's legit on that, he's not. At least some of the people Trump conned into voting for him will see that. And it wouldn't take that many. Yes, yes, yes, they would paint her as an "elitist" (like Trump isn't). Yes, yes, yes, she's female and there are definitely x-number of people who won't vote for a woman for president, even if consciously they tell themselves that's not true. But considering how narrow Trump's victory was, it's not hard to imagine someone beating him next time, and I can certainly imagine Warren doing so. That's if she even runs, which I put at less than 50% (but what do I know?) I could see Sherrod Brown running, who is kind of Warren with a penis, if that makes anyone feel better. But the Democrats seem to go back and forth between nominating the most obvious choice (Hillary, Gore, Mondale) and nominating someone that (4 years out) is thought unlikely, or at least unlikely so soon (Obama, Dukakis, Carter, Bill Clinton - who no one was talking about in 1989). They just had their "let's nominate the most obvious choice" year, so that says that next time they choose someone few people are thinking of now. And they seem to do better with them.
