Warren's Message Popular On Campaign Trail Across Country

[DonViejo]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

STEVE LEBLANC – JULY 13, 2014, 7:59 AM EDT

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — Sen. Elizabeth Warren is quickly becoming a top Democratic fundraising and campaigning powerhouse, hitting the road on behalf of candidates in key races the party will need to win to retain control of the U.S. Senate in November.

Since March, the Massachusetts Democrat has stumped for candidates in Ohio, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington and Kentucky and has trips planned this week for West Virginia and Michigan. It's a hefty schedule for a freshman senator who not long ago was teaching law at Harvard.

Along the way, Warren has found her brand of economic populism resonating far from her home in the liberal enclave of Cambridge, Mass.

Part of Warren's economic pitch is legislation she sponsored that would let college graduates refinance their student loans at lower interest rates, an effort blocked by Senate Republicans.

-snip-

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/warren-campaign-powerhouse

[Scuba]

1. She's the star of the Party, despite the best efforts of the Third Way.

[newfie11]

2. I so wish she would change her mind about running

She is what this country sooo needs.
Hopefully some of what she is saying is trickling down the MSM.

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. Why she is already doing EXACTLY what we need....and what SHE wants?

[Baitball Blogger]

15. Couldn't agree more.

[CTyankee]

3. ONe of the bellwethers on how well Warren is doing will be Joe Scarborough...

I am warily watching his show for what he has to say about her. MIka loves her but he doesn't say all that much about Warren. Sooner or later I think he and other self styled "reasonable" conservatives (HA!) have to say something to damage her populist image. If she gains traction for Dems on the campaign trail the GOP will have to decide on a strategy to "contain" her. Usually, Joe's show is the one where the GOP plants their flag in the MSM early on.

Betcha any amount of money that we'll be hearing from Joe fairly soon. I know, I know. Ya'll can't stand to watch him (I don't blame you). But I watch so you don't have to...LOL

[Baitball Blogger]

17. She was a Republican once, so I bet he understands the message.

What I get from Warren is that fiscal responsibility translates to regulation, not just legislation.

[newmexicodem]

4. Warren has limits

Ethically and from a Dem Party standpoint......Ms Warren Can't run for President until 2024 since promises have already be given to Hillary Clinton to clear the field for 2016 and 2020. These promises were made in exchange for Hillary ended her campaign in 2008 and not fighting the Obama nomination at the 08 convention. Hillary also agreed not to run in 2012 so that Obama could run un-opposed during his re-election.

That being said I think Elizabeth Warren would be a great candidate for a cabinet position as her reward. She could be our version of Sarah Palin in terms of uniting the base and doing stump speeches.

[DonViejo]

5. Oh, really?...

Ms Warren Can't run for President until 2024 since promises have already be given to Hillary Clinton to clear the field for 2016 and 2020. These promises were made in exchange for Hillary ended her campaign in 2008 and not fighting the Obama nomination at the 08 convention. Hillary also agreed not to run in 2012 so that Obama could run un-opposed during his re-election.

Do you have links to articles substantiating those claims or, is what you've written just reflective of your own gut feeling(s)?

[davidpdx]

7. Of course not

There are none. He/she has a great imagination.

[DonViejo]

21. For some reason....

that analysis reeks of GOP conspiracy thinking. The author's low post count added to the lack of any response from her/him to questions from DU'ers kind of reinforces my "GOP conspiracy thinking" (or lack thereof), about the comment

[davidpdx]

23. I saw the low post count

But I certainly wouldn't put beneath some of those who were banned after the 2008 primary to come back and cause trouble. I think you know what I'm talking about without me saying the word.

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. Yes because EW is known for being not honest and not knowing her own mind...

"I am not running for President...I am not running for President...I am NOT running for President"

[davidpdx]

6. Really promises were made for Hillary Clinton to concede in 2008?

You really must be on something strong. The nomination was over at the beginning of June.

As for a "promise" made to her, I don't ever remember getting the memo that we as a party have to have her forced down our throats as our nominee.

Warren is free to run IF she chooses to. It is her decision alone.

[magical thyme]

8. "promises have been made?"

I see you were careful not to state that "Warren promised Clinton..."

So what if the "party bosses" promised Clinton the nomination was hers? Assuming, of course, that such "promises have been made."

[IDemo]

9. "our version of Sarah Palin"

Yes, I can hardly tell the two apart. It's uncanny, really...

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. I think you've misinterpreted ...

the "sarah palin" comment.

The poster wasn't saying Warren was anything like palin, in terms of policy or nuttiness; but rather, recognizing that Warren speaks the language that the Democratic base understands and wants to hear, just like palin does with the gop.

[Voice for Peace]

24. I think she speaks the language that many Republicans want to hear as well.

Not the ones in office, or on the fringe, but the good old-
fashioned republicans. The ones who haven't followed
politics very closely for a long time and are now considering
leaving the party or not voting at all.

I think there are many.

[IDemo]

27. No misinterpretation here

The level of communication abilities between ms. Warren versus Palin's Mobius strip verbiage is entirely unsuited for comparison.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. I still think you're missing the point ...

the thing Warren and palin have in common is their ability to communicate to/with and move their respective party's base.

[IDemo]

37. I gathered that intent

But it is still a wildly unsuitable comparison.

[freshwest]

49. So Warren is our party's wackjob like Palin is to the GOP? Agree, inappropriate comparision.

Warren is not radical, nor is she an extremist. Does not fit at all.

[PSPS]

11. LOL. I must have let that subscription lapse!

[heaven05]

12. I understand what you're

saying about uniting our base, ect;, but please, please don't use s. palin's name in the same explanation of effectiveness as Dr. Warren. Dr. Warren is a new sun, destined to burn HOT and VIBRANT for hundreds of billions of years. s.palin is streaking across our sky like an asteroid BURNING UP in our atmosphere soon to be reduced to nothing.

[olegramps]

30. Really, is that a fact or the product of your FOX inspired Repukian imagination

[mountain grammy]

35. Sounds like Fox Noise to me especially the Palin comparison.

Really way far off base. Remember to check out everything you see/hear on fox since it's almost always misinformation or outright lies. Critical thinking is pretty much required here but not allowed on fox.

[pscot]

36. This is a really silly comment

[Veilex]

41. assuming you're correct...

and promises were made...

The nomination is NOT theirs to promise or give.

[Fla Dem]

45. Really? Hard to believe promises were made about an election 8 years away.

No one would know what breakout Dem there would be in 2016, what the political landscape would look like, how Sec Clinton's reputation would survive over 8 years. Further, EW wasn't even in the public eye until 2008 when she was appointed to the Congressional Oversight Panel in November 2008, after the elections. As she wasn't a party to any "promises" I hardly think she could be held to them.

Having said that, she has said repeatedly "I am not running". My personal preference is she stay in the Senate, and continue the fight from there. She can get a lot more done there and work with the new Dem president to get progressive legislation through.

I could actually she her making deals with Hillary's camp to not run if Hillary will push Elizabeth's agenda.

[Ash_F]

47. Oh man, what a post

Welcome to DU.

That said, I do think there is heavy insider pressure on Warren not to run against Hillary. This time.

[Justice]

52. Elizabeth Warren is the anti-Sarah Palin. Accomplished, smart, powerful

Please never suggest there is any similarity between them.

[heaven05]

10. I wonder

if Sen. Warren were to somehow end up our nominee, whether Dr. Warren would be co-opted by the real power that is, corporate money. The nominee, once in office, no matter republican or democrat, owes so much to so many corporate interests, who pump millions into political campaigns, that they usually are effectively 'converted' to the corporate ways of running our country. Republicans much easier I would like to think. Just surmising, I do not mean to impugn Dr. Warren's integrity or honesty. It's just that I do know that big money has poisoned our system and until we get back to the limits on campaign spending, all elections are moot.

[Thinkingabout]

55. Candidates accept money from corporations in order to run. EW spent $42 million

Running for senator in one state, any candidate running for presidential party nominee will need the corporate funds. I have ask here several times who is going to step up and put in enough money required to run the campaigns but no one has accepted. End result will be corporate money going to the candidates, any of them.

[heaven05]

60. yep

no doubt about it.

[hedgehog]

69. One can use money from big corporations to run for President,

then forget all about them once in office, provided one is willing to risk losing the second time around! Of course, if one were to work during a first term to undercut the political power of corporations, then perhaps the chances of a second term would increase!

[NorthCarolina]

82. Warren talks "regulation", so I tend to think corporate $$ would be quite thin

to non-existent for her campaign. However, I believe her populist message resonates with the 99% regardless of stated political affiliation. Folks here in NC are even talking about her, and I know she has been assisting campaigns of fellow Democrats in conservative districts. That being said, it is not a stretch that she could mount a successful grass-roots campaign fueled by voter funding. If she hooks up with Senator Sanders, I think the team could take America by storm.

[heaven05]

84. Yeah, true as to the "storm"

yet it will be interesting to see the machinations of the DLC to keep a team like that out of the voting equation and you know WHO I mean. Then the corporate influence(s) to keep a team such as Warren/Sanders out of the public spotlight. I think we are into a make it or break it time for the Democratic Party and us, the constituency, this upcoming national election cycle.

[cosmicone]

13. although I love Sen. Warren

she is only good for energizing the base but is unlikely to move right-tilting independents.

She will not be a good presidential candidate unlike HRC who can carry a lot of swing states.

Sen. Warren is 100 times (at least) intelligent than Sarah Palin with no insanity factor like SP but in terms of energizing the liberal, ultra-liberal and extreme-liberal base, she serves the same function for us as SP does for wingnuts.

[NorthCarolina]

19. "liberal, ultra-liberal, and extreme-liberal base"...I had no idea there

were so many levels of "Liberal"

At what point in this newly broadened political spectrum chain does HRC start to become appealing?

extreme-liberal ~ ultra-liberal ~ liberal ~ quasi-liberal ~ pinch-O-liberal ~ moderate ~ pinch-O-conservative ~ quasi-consertvative ~ conservative (DLC style) ~ ultra-conservative ~ extreme conservative

I'm guessing the point at 'conservative (DLC style)' and then nothing to the right or the left of that point.

on edit: typo

[cantbeserious]

20. The Reason We Don't Need HRC - Prophetic 1994 Interview On GATT - Clinton's Legacy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025203338

[L0oniX]

31. ^^^this^^^ ...serious truth!

[Voice for Peace]

25. I disagree, I think she can connect with independents leaning in all directions, as well as

non-extreme Republicans (some among my friends and
family) who don't follow politics closely, more or less
cynical about current Republican party or thinking of
not voting at all.

[LiberalLovinLug]

42. and she also won't move right-tilting Hillary

But Warren is doing a great job at paving the road ahead of Clinton. Sealing up all those change and hopey Dems that were also hoodwinked the last time, and Clinton has the luxury of sitting back and allowing others to define this perpetually hoped for future Democratic progressive vision for the 99%. One that will never see the light of day under Clinton. Notice how she never says publicly that she agrees with Warren on anything.

[Veilex]

43. I don't think you understand the dynamic running through the country right now...

There is a very strong populism running, not just among Democrats and Liberals, but among Republicans and Conservatives. Particularly in areas of wanting money out of politics, redistribution of power to people over corporations, reduction in corruption, and of course more jobs. Elizabeth Warren is VERY strong on all those points. HRC is not. If you doubt me, all you need do is look at the tone Hilliary has adopted over the last couple of weeks. A quick comparison will show Hillary is trying to claim the same tone and message Elizabeth Warren has been espousing from the get-go.

Add to that equation Hilliary's recent checkered past, and Elizabeth Warren's lack of a checkered past, and it becomes very clear very fast that Elizabeth Warren would far and away be the superior candidate.

Hilliary is a corporatist, pure and simple. If we want the next several supreme court justices to be corporatists as well, then Hillary is the way to go. If we want reasonable thinking minds on the supreme court, then, since Elizabeth Warren has already stated quite clearly she is not running, Bernie Sanders is our best choice... hopefully with Elizabeth Warren as VP.

[Thinkingabout]

56. Do you think EW got the $42 million to run for senator from small donors?

[hedgehog]

70. Have you seen evidence that EW is paying attention to any

putative corporate donors?

[Thinkingabout]

71. Yes I have, how do you think $42 million unless there are some deep pockets.

http://www.americancrossroads.org/2012/01/elizabeth-warren-i-do-have-donors-on-wall-street/

She is going to get chewed up on the point she is nit connected to Wall Street and corporations. This should be swept under the mat and stop repeating this over and over again and again. It does nit serve DNC possible candidates well.

[hedgehog]

72. If I read that correctly, the complaint is that the WallStreeters gave her

money, and she didn't stay bought!



BTW - American Crossroads -

"American Crossroads is a Super PAC, a 527 organization that raises funds from anonymous donors for the Republican Party. Former White House strategist Karl Rove was behind its formation.[1] Its president is Steven J. Law, a former United States Deputy Secretary of Labor for President George W. Bush and the Chairman of the Board of Directors is former Republican National Committee chairman Mike Duncan. Advisers to the group include Senior Advisor and former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Crossroads

[Thinkingabout]

74. As some have stated before EW has not taken money from Wal Street and if a candidate takes money

From Wall Street then Wall Street owns them so therefore this is a subject which should be avoided.

[Veilex]

76. I have several counter points here

One: You have a single link that presumes the word of Karl Rove's brain child, American Crossroads, is providing legit info. Even assuming it to be legit, you'll still be comparing a single occurrence against Hillary's plentiful portfolio of pungent perpetrations. If you think Elizabeth would get eaten alive over just that one dubious-at-best link, then Hillary would get utterly obliterated for her well established foux pas filled history.

Two: Receiving money from the DSCC isn't the same as receiving money directly from Wall street. Also, once again, we must take the word of American Crossroads. I'd trust American Crossroads as much as I'd trust the Koch Brothers to ensure environmental integrity of the land directly impacted by the keystone XL pipeline. Which is, of course, to say, not at all.

[Thinkingabout]

77. What I am saying is a candidate does not come up with $42 million without deep pockets.

This was money spent in a senator race in just one state, any candidate running for president will probably need 50 times this amount. Do the finances, money will be coming from corporations, this is why we should not be "bragging" a candidate will not be taking corporate money. The GOP knows this, they will run EW in the dirt on this one issue. We need to let this go, go on her issues and positions, she will lose on the corporation issue.

[Veilex]

78. I understand what you're saying... however, its just hearsay.

More to the point, if any Republican points and says "OMG your taking corporate donations!!!" they open themselves up immediately to accusations of hypocrisy.

"we should not be "bragging" a candidate will not be taking corporate money" - I couldn't disagree more. We should be demanding at every chance we get that candidates not accept corporate money... and cheer loudly, when a candidate agrees.

[Ash_F]

48. Have you seen how Americans poll on most issues?

Hillary is right of center.

Hillary isn't going to swing 'right tilting independents' either, compared to Warren. Who's vote do you think she can get based on specifically what issue?

[NYC Liberal]

64. She will get the overwhelming vote of liberal Democrats, for one.

72 percent of the liberal base would vote for Clinton in 2016. Poll after poll shows her with extremely strong support among liberals. Including Elizabeth Warren.

"I hope she does {run}. Hillary is terrific." –Elizabeth Warren

[Ash_F]

65. Well, they are not going to vote for Republicans. /nt

[NYC Liberal]

66. This is in the primaries.

[Ash_F]

68. Over which candidate? Cite your source please. /nt

[Cal33]

50. I agree with you that most right-tilting independents, unfortunately, would choose Hillary. It's

in their nature to do so, being right-tilting. But I also think Elizabeth is the one who can
convince the largest number of undecideds among the Independents.

[w4rma]

63. Hilary's pro-big business talk turns off right-tilting independents.

The Clintons' political expediency are a big part of the reason why this country is in this mess.

[Doctor_J]

85. We don't need rightists to vote for us

We need to energize those who hate right wingers and get them to the polls. That's what Obama did in 2008. Then he turned out to be a far right president, and the 2008 voters lost interest and "hope".

[Rapillion]

14. That doesn't surprise me

She has a good message delivered in earnest. She's pretty likable.

[Dustlawyer]

16. Please come help Wendy Davis!!!

[mountain grammy]

38. I thought EW did campaign for Davis..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/21/wendy-davis-elizabeth-warren_n_4486586.html

I guess an email isn't like going there. I agree, EW should go to Texas and campaign for Wendy. Warren's voice somehow seems to cut through the bullshit and noise as a voice of reason and common sense.

[Dustlawyer]

46. Her voice sure does! It is harder for the RW to attack her and have it gain traction because

she is never shrill and yet doesn't beat around the bush. She is very direct, and even many Tea Baggers and Republicans like her attacks on the big banks, and on the Agencies for settling with the Banks instead of taking them to trial! This type of limited respect they give her would really help Wendy here in Texas with people who vote.

Some Republicans in Texas are starting to turn on Greg Abbott due to his protection of Frackers. As everyone in the U.S. knows, we Texans love our state and have watched the oil companies frack everything everywhere, tearing up our roads, using up limited water resources, and invading our wildlife habitats. Abbott, as State Attorney General, has fawned all over the oil companies and has worked to keep their activities secret. This is a great wedge issue for Wendy that EW could really help with!

[mountain grammy]

54. I only hope Texans will realize that as bad as Perry is, Abbott is worse.

Our cousins living around San Angelo are all Republicans, but I know they are far too intelligent to buy what Abbott is selling.

[MarianJack]

18. Great, now...

...she needs to come up here to Maine to help Shenna Bellows, who reminds many of a younger Elizabeth Warren. GO SHENNA BELLOWS!!!

PEACE!

[Jackpine Radical]

26. Lt us speak of effects for a moment rather than intentions.

Warren's barnstorming this year has a couple of major effects.

First, there is the obvious surface effect. She strengthens the campaigns of those for whom she stumps. This will have the obvious effect of helping to hold the Senate and maybe make some gains in the House.Warren needs that if she is to advance any sort of liberal agenda.

Second, she is setting up something of a power base among those she helps, which could be very useful no matter what role she plays in the future.

Third, she increases her own name/face/agenda recognition, both testing and enhancing her popularity across the country. While this development doesn't necessarily presage a 2016 Presidential run, it certainly doesn't harm the prospects for one.

Thus, regardless of her actual intentions at this point, her actions may have the result of setting her up for a Draft Liz movement.

[Plucketeer]

33. I haven't heard of Hillary stumping for these senate hopefuls.

Or is it enough that she already carries the tiara under her arm and is only waiting for the right moment to don it? Smug with the impending ordainment and the veto pen that goes with it. Hillary's too busy deciding to run at the moment.

Yes, I'm sarcastically summarizing. But it's because I'm VERY unhappy with our nomination being a forgone conclusion. Why even vote, if this is the way things are done now???

[NealK]

40. Oh she sure is the chosen one.

[Veilex]

44. She's a "foregone conclusion" and the "chosen one" because corporations are trying

to force her down our throats. If she is the only option for Democrats, then corporations win.
They LOVE Hillary because she's a corporatist.

Bottom line is this: she is NOT a "foregone conclusion" or the "chosen one" no matter what they say.
It is our choice, not theirs.
Its that simple.

[Thinkingabout]

57. Bill Clinton was stumping for Grimes in February.

[Plucketeer]

73. Good on Bill

Of course, he's not in contention for 2016 - not outwardly anyway.

[Thinkingabout]

75. He's the big dog, he encouraged her to run

What we need is Democrats in Congress, it doesn't make any difference who is the president. Even if EW stays in the Senate she will need help to get bills passed in the Senate.

[Beacool]

58. Always with the nonsense in this place.

Both Bill and Hillary will campaign in late summer - early fall. That has been announced already.

And no, she hasn't made up her mind yet, let alone assume that she has already won the nomination.

[zeemike]

39. Well my signature line explains how I feel about it.

[blkmusclmachine]

51. BHO used to be like this. Then he got elected, and, well ...

He got a terminal case of "bi-partisanship."

[Doctor_J]

53. yes and people are probably skeptical now about populist rhetoric

The president's governance has been nothing like his campaign, so hopeful voters will think twice about swallowing the stump speeches

[Thinkingabout]

59. It would probably be best to halt the EW doesn't takw money from Wall street

Or corporations. She has admitted this and the GOP is tracking this also. She will be placed in a position of continuous denial or questioning her about this.

http://www.americancrossroads.org/2012/01/elizabeth-warren-i-do-have-donors-on-wall-street/

[davidpdx]

67. It is bad form on DU to link right wing sites

Especially those run by KKKarl Rove. Shame on you!

[Uncle Joe]

61. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, DonViejo.

[yurbud]

62. DLC/New Dems carefully calibrating how much of this they can say without pissing off their masters

and/or telling them behind closed doors, "Look, I have to do this Elizabeth Warren shtick to get (re)elected, but once I'm back in office, it's just you and me again and fuck the little people, I swear to God."

Actually some of them like Rahm, I can't even imagine going that far.

[theHandpuppet]

79. So glad to hear this!

She'll be on the stump for Natalie Tennant here in West Virginia.

[PatrickforO]

80. Warren is outstanding.

She is a populist and keeps advancing things that would actually HELP the American people. A winning message.

[hedgehog]

81. The real measure of Warren's popularity is that candidates want her

at their sides!

[bread_and_roses]

83. Is this supposed to counter POTUS shrinking away from inequality?

As has been punditized about since about Jan - POTUS backing away from inequality as an issue and retreating to the quasi-Libertarianism of "opportunity?" One example of such reporting here, but I've read it repeatedly in different publications

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-democrats-split-on-inequality-issues-obama-shifts-talk-away-from-income-gap/2014/07/04/102f1f32-02be-11e4-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html

One quote from above I found particular amusing, as it's from the Dems Wall-Street-Shill-in-Chief Schumer:

“Both the White House and the Senate agreed that the decline of middle-class incomes was the most serious issue we face in this country, but the focus had to be on how to get middle-class incomes up, rather than drive other people’s incomes down,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the messaging chief for Senate Democrats.

I really have to wonder how the Dems are phrasing the polling questions that give them the result that inequality does not resonate with voters?

I do give POTUS credit for trying

Last year, Obama personally felt the pull of these arguments. White House political research showed that income inequality was a wonky term that did not always resonate with voters, but he insisted on speaking about it anyway.

But - SURELY - the message crafters can come up with wording that is not so "wonky?" I mean, I work on campaign lit for local candidates and on crafting messages for issue campaigns and we manage to do it all the time - and we're not marketing PHDs or whomever they hire and pay the big bucks to.

The hoi-polloi out here in the streets may be confused or put off by "income inequality" but when you talk about the rich and corporations not paying a fair share believe me, they get it, and they are right on board. When you talk about CEO and worker pay, they get it. When you talk about the Walmart profits and its owners vs its wages, believe me, they get it.

Schumer and the rest of the bought and paid for Wall Street shills don't want people to get it. Might be a few less $$ and cushy perks around for them if people did.

[Laelth]

86. k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t

-Laelth