Ezra Klein: Could Elizabeth Warren beat Hillary Clinton?

[gollygee]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/11/could-elizabeth-warren-beat-hillary-clinton/


An issue-based challenger needs two things to pose a serious threat to a front-runner. One is an issue that differentiates them from the front-runner. The other is for that issue to be foremost in the minds of voters.

In 2008, Barack Obama's challenge to Hillary Clinton was based on Iraq. That worked both because he'd had a different position than Clinton on Iraq, but also because Iraq was a dominant issue in the 2008 election. As such, Obama's insurgent campaign, which focused tightly on Iraq, had a shot.

(snip)

The danger for Clinton is if Warren is able to persuade Democrats that cracking down on Wall Street reform is the key to helping the middle class or -- perhaps more plausibly -- opposing inequality. On a policy level, that's a harder case to make. But on an emotional, who's-on-your-side level, it might work.

[ananda]

1. I would vote for Warren over Clinton any day.

But I'd also vote for Clinton over any Reep.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. I could vote for Warren. Hillary....I think not.

[warrior1]

3. she's not running

[karynnj]

16. Do you remember the 2005 talk shows where Obama said he was not running?

I don't know if Warren will even consider a run. I don't think she was the typical Senate candidate either as she had never run for office. Her run was not perfect, but there were pieces of it that were exceptional. I think some of what she learned as an educator over the years ultimately became a major asset.

The fact that she does not have decades in the Senate where she would likely make votes to benefit MA that might not be what she really wanted to do can if this shapes up to be an "I hate what everything about the government" election.

The fact is that the issue of inequality increasing is NOT out of the mainstream. I can point - if anyone wants me to - to speeches by people like John Kerry and Dick Durbin which addressed it well when arguing (unsuccessfully) in 2010 for ending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy.

Here one liability that Hillary could have is that the 2 major trade treaties with Asia and Europe were written under her guidance - and which she has advocated strongly for. While they will likely come to the Senate when Obama is President, Kerry is SOS, and Lew (a former deputy to HRC) is Treasury Secretary.

At this point, the details are not known. They likely have tried to add language that addresses worker rights and the environment, but EVERY trade treaty I can think of has been seen as hurting workers. For good reason, there is undeniable proof that NAFTA increased hardships among the poor in the US and in Mexico.

This - and her vote for the bankruptcy bill in 2000 (or 2001) are real issues that could be used by someone running from the center/left. (Note - I said center/left on purpose. The MAJORITY of the Democrats did not vote for any of that series of awful bankruptcy bills. Hillary was against the 2005 bill that actually passed, but the earlier bill was fundamentally as bad.

If the mood of the country improves - the economy improves more for most people, the ACA becomes accepted by all but the Republican extreme, and the world becomes more peaceful, then a Hillary Clinton run will be unbeatable. If people are angry, it will be a change election. It is always tough for the President's party to launch a change election. (Think of McCain 2008 who tried) If the country really wants change (and that is the case now if you look at the direction of the country polls), it might be our best shot - and I don't see how HRC could be sold as "change".

One question is whether Elizabeth Warren could be seen as not a liberal partisan.

[Whisp]

4. Yes, she could. That is why that nonsense 'letter' was signed by Warren

supporting Hillary for President.

If Warren wasn't a threat to Hilliary, there would be no such letter (cuz there isn't). This is the work of the Clinton Team of tricks.

[HappyMe]

8. Oh wow!

I hadn't thought of that. Makes sense to me.

[Whisp]

17. Trickteam works:

''And those are only the aboveground assaults. As in 2008, Greater Hillaryland, if not the Clinton campaign itself, would quietly work to disqualify Warren as a crazed, countercultural liberal. A former Obama campaign aide recalls Clintonites planting stories in foreign newspapers, then watching them enter the domestic bloodstream through outlets like The Drudge Report. This appears to be how Obama’s dubious connection to former Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers first gained widespread attention. “They were the kings of bank-shot press attention,” says the aide. “They were pitching stories domestic outlets would not cover . . . because the information they were peddling was so toxic.”

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

[joeybee12]

18. Wow, slamming Hilary with Obama sources...

Great article...if you like shit.

[Aerows]

22. If there is going to be a woman in the White House

and I think there will be, let it be Elizabeth Warren. She's tough, smart and doesn't pull punches.

[HappyMe]

19. Yikes.

[magical thyme]

10. Aha! now I get it...

good thinking!

Yes, I too would prefer Warren over Clinton. I prefer any number of democrats and independents (Sanders) over Clinton.

But yes, I will vote for Clinton over any GOP nominees.

[Aerows]

21. My sig says who I'd back

and I think you are absolutely right, Whisp, it's a team of tricks.

[HappyMe]

5. I would vote for Warren over Clinton.

[TwilightGardener]

6. Hillary Clinton to me is like a Kardashian of politics. Famous for being famous.

Her tenure as Senator was helpful. Her tenure as SoS has pretty much proven to be either ineffective or downright misguided. I still have no idea, after decades, of what she stands for, besides herself and Bill's legacy. I know what E. Warren stands for.

[closeupready]

12. Right there - you summed it up perfectly for me, too.

[AngryAmish]

7. OK, this is my annual anti-Ezra Klein ad hominum

I do not understand why anyone listens to him about anything. He is a nothing. He has never done anything with his life. Never run for office. Never led soldiers in battle. Never ran a business or nonprofit. He just spews shit about politics. He is the personification why Nate Silver left the NYT and hates political "journalism": say some shit that confirms someone's prejudices and make them happy and conflict with what someone else thinks is true and make them mad.

As for the substance of the article, I have no opinion. I did not read it.

[magical thyme]

9. he lost me with this statement:

"So come 2016, is it Wall Street reform, Iraq, or social conservatism? Or somewhere in-between?"

Social conservatism is a GOP issue, not a Dem issue. Why did he drag the issue that Mittens beat Guliani and whoever against in the GOP primary into the Dem primary? It makes no sense.

Once somebody makes a mistake like that in their writing, they lose me.

He is right, however, that Clinton is in bed with Wall Street and Warren is not.

[pscot]

11. Warren

Hillary is part of the problem.

[CountAllVotes]

14. +1

No truer words have been written! Needless to say, I agree!!

& recommend! ...

[woo me with science]

20. +1

[Aerows]

23. +1000 Squared

Sim-ocrats like Hillary are the problem.

[nyquil_man]

13. Could anybody beat Hillary Clinton? Of course.

Will anybody beat Hillary Clinton? No friggin' clue.

I wasn't sure Obama could beat her until after the Potomac primary.

[frazzled]

15. Why are we even discussing this 3 years before an election

And more than a year in advance of candidates officially touching off campaigns? (At least I hope so, because if anyone starts campaigning before, say, January 2015, I will kill myself.)

Are we all getting in a dither because of CC? If so, all I can say is "squaaaawwwwwk."

And yeah, EK is wrong about 3/4 of the time. He's just drumming up controversy here to get page views. I'm not for anyone yet.

[hfojvt]

24. Iraq was not the only thing Obama had

He also had blackness, although I, like Gerry Ferraro, will probably get slammed for saying it.

But he also had, the same thing any challenger would have - a huge anti-Hillary, anti-Clinton bloc. But that bloc is probably a long way from being a majority of primary voters. Still, it is a base somebody can build upon.

The other thing he had, was an effective ground game, election team.

But the other factor for Hillary is the women vote. At my local caucus, I estimate that over 90% of Hillary supporters were female. A Warren candidacy might take a bite out of that female vote, thus allowing an O'Malley or Dayton to eke out a win.

Kinda tough though, since Hillary has the personal fortune to stay in the race all the way to the bitter end, like she did in 2008, and a spoiler usually drops out, or is discarded, pretty quickly. Edwards, if he had stayed in until Super-duper Tuesday, probably would have given the nomination to Hillary.