It would be easier for me to get excited about Elizabeth Warren

[pnwmom]

if I hadn't lived through, as a heartbroken college student, watching Richard Nixon beat Senator George McGovern, beloved liberal, in one of the biggest landslides in history.

The only state that McGovern carried: Massachusetts.

Popularity in Massachusetts doesn't carry over into popularity everywhere else. I would love to feel more comfortable about Warren's ability to win than I am now.

Why are you confident Elizabeth Warren would be a much stronger candidate than George McGovern?

[sharp_stick]

1. I think she could

become a much more popular National figure but she needs more time. Right now I don't think anyone except those of us actually really paying attention every day really know her at all. If she's actually able to do something about Wall Street assholes it will help her immensely.

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. I don't have a metaphorical dog in the fight between the HRC & EW factions here at DU. However, I..

truly believe that HRC is our best chance to hang on to the White House after Obama. I don't see EW taking down a Chris Christie. We may very well lose the Senate in 2014, and the WH may be the only thing standing between us & total dominance of the rightwing. My fear is that any gains we've made can be quickly reversed if the WH & Senate turn GOP.

Since EW has already said she's not running, and HRC has made no declarations, I am much more concerned about the 2014 midterms. Will EW be able to pull independent and Republican votes? She benefited, significantly, from the coattails of Pres. Obama. Can she actually win an election with her name at the top of the ticket? And since she's expressed no desire to run, does she really have that fire in her belly? Bernie Sanders sure doesn't.

The one advantage I think that HRC has over EW is that she brings instant gravitas to the top of the ticket, and I believe she'll put some traditionally (non-liberal) red states in play.

[DonRedwood]

5. How about Clinton/Warren together :0)

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. Look, I'll vote for the eventual nominee, but I think the VP should be someone with Executive...

experience, perhaps a governor. Hey, there's even a mayor in San Antonio I've got my eye on. I could get very excited about him in the #2 spot.

[libdem4life]

14. He's just plain awesome to me. His family background, lovely wife and adorable daughter, committed

for life to Democratic principles, and has done good things for San Antonio. If there's "a time" in this next national election, it's also time for a Hispanic at the national level.

Si, se puede.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. I couldn't agree more. I think he has an awesome future ahead of him, and I hope it begins a.....

lot sooner than he anticipated.

[libdem4life]

18. I remember the first time I saw them interviewed, one of them joked that the only way to tell them

apart was by which one had a wedding ring on.

[Chan790]

19. He's already publicly refused to be considered for either Pres. or VP in 2016.

San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, considered the Latino rising star of the Democratic Party, told Efe here Friday that he will not seek his party's 2016 presidential nomination.

***

The future of the Latino community and the nation are united "and we're close to seeing one of ours as president," the Texas politician said, while insisting he will not enter the 2016 primaries or seek the second spot on a ticket headed by presumptive front-runner Hillary Clinton.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/11/09/julian-castro-san-antonio-mayor-rules-out-2016-presidential-bid/

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. Now you went and gave me a sad.

[pnwmom]

23. Another V.P. possibility is Gary Locke, two-term popular governor of Washington,

and currently the Ambassador to China.

He would be the first Asian vice president.

[PragmaticLiberal]

48. I've said it many times but I'll say it again: Governor Martin O'Malley.

[bullwinkle428]

37. Julian Castro is a FANTASTIC candidate. But at the risk of totally ruining

your day, a recent poll that pitted him in a hypothetical future (TX) Senate race, showed he would lose to LOUIE FUCKING GOHMERT.

Maybe that's more of a comment on the current state of politics in Texas, but it's still an incredibly disheartening thing to read.

[Lns.Lns]

33. I think that is a great idea

It would help Warren to get ready for the next eight years after Hillary and she would be in a position to help push Hillary more towards a progressive agenda. Win/Win.

I understand the desire for a Latino, but we need a lot of clean up in the financial area before this country becomes a good place for all. I don't think there is anyone else in a position for VP that understands it better than her. Maybe when it is her turn to run, then Castro.

[pnwmom]

22. I believe HRC has another large advantage over EW.

She's already run a campaign before and has a strong organization ready to go whenever she decides.

[Tarheel_Dem]

24. Ditto! She doesn't have to introduce herself. I don't think there's anything people don't know.

[Ken Burch]

50. But principle matters as much as electability.

HRC's whole argument is based on the assumption that our party can ONLY win with a hardline militarist as nominee.

The country is swinging against foreign interventions at this point, so why assume that argument is still valid?

To nominate HRC, you have to believe that, somehow, war can be good for women.

How can anyone look at the reality of places like Iraq and Afghanistan and still believe this?

Or anyplace else(other than Europe in World War II) where we've sent troops in this century.

War, other than war for territorial defense, is going to be a misery for everyone who isn't a white male defense contractor. It can't provide liberation for anyone anymore, it can't make anyone equal anymore, it can't end injustice anymore. All it can do is temporarily expand or reduce "spheres of influence". And really, at this stage, ti no matters between us and Russia or China as to who influences what. All three superpowers use their "influence" for purely reactionary and life-hating ends. And our interventions are just as imperialist as any from Austria-Hungary, the Brits, or the tsars.

[pnwmom]

52. A candidate who won't survive the general election won't do us any good.

So, no, being somewhat better on principle doesn't matter as much as electability.

Any of the possible Dems would be a far better President than whoever the Rethug is.

[Ken Burch]

55. Not one that would be open to bombing Middle Eastern countries.

Once you've done that, you can never do anything positive.

And the Nineties showed us what we get when this party decides that "electability" is all that matters...government WITHOUT principle and no gains. The Big Dog's first and second terms were almost exactly what Bush the First's second and third terms would have been like. And the progressive wing of the party was treated as though it had no right to expect any respect for its values from the president it worked its ass off to elect and re-elect.

And the election of Kshama Sawant to the Seattle City Council shows that you really can't predict "electability" in any given race. The "sure winner" was beaten by the starry-eyed dreamer.

[pnwmom]

56. Seattle isn't predictive of anything nationally.

And there are NO viable Republicans who are like Bush, Sr.

[Scuba]

3. I'm much more confident Warren can win than Hillary.

She has the ability to motivate the base, and stir those who ordinarily don't vote because neither party offers them squat. Hillary would win the party faithful, and not much of anyone else. The Republicans hate her and would show up in droves to vote against her.

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. Do you have anything in the way of scientific proof that "She has the ability to motivate the base"

or do you believe what you read on the internet? Like I said, either of these ladies would make a great candidate, but I'd really like to see something definitive to back up your assertion. I googled and can't find it. Thanks in advance.

[Scuba]

15. Yes, check out her fundraising record.

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. That's it. That's your empirical evidence that she "motivates the base"? If that's the case.....

why don't we run this lady? Although she'll never EVER be president, she managed to separate quite a few morons from their hard earned $$$ as well....



I'm gonna need more proof than that......

[Scuba]

21. Does Warren motivate you?

If not, why not?

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. About as much as Dennis Kucinich. Nice lady.

[Scuba]

30. Good that we know where you stand.

[DonRedwood]

4. She will stand up to the banks and Wall Street

Something that most of America is OK with at this time. But they will fight her like nobody's business.

There is never a sure thing, but this west-coaster adores Senator Warren!

[JaneyVee]

6. How's Chris Christie polling in confederate states?

[JI7]

8. times are different, Obama would not have won in those days

for obvious reasons. it probably wouldn't even be something that was considered back then.

[yurbud]

9. why do you want another Republican Democrat?

[pnwmom]

25. I don't. I want a Democrat who will beat the real Republican

in the general election.

A perfect liberal who cannot beat the Republican is not perfect after election day.

[yurbud]

34. they don't have to be perfect--they just have to differ from Republicans on economic and foreign

policy issues. Instead of pushing the same policies with better grammar.

[pnwmom]

35. You don't think Obama differs much from Republicans?

You haven't been paying much attention. This isn't the old Republican party.

[yurbud]

39. I've been paying very close attention, especially since I teach at a public college and my wife

teaches at a public elementary school.

On education funding, Obama has been better than a Republican, but on education "reform," he has been identical to a Republican, pushing Wall Street driven repetitive standardized testing, privatized for profit charter schools, blaming career teachers and breaking their unions.

The drive for similar kinds of "reforms" is just starting in community colleges here in California, and regrettably, it's being pushed by our supermajority Democratic state legislature.

As the public increasingly rejects the Republican Party, the Democrats need to stop compromising with, and adopting wholesale, corrupt conservative policies.

Certainly the sequester and any talk of cutting Social Security are in the same vein.

[pnwmom]

40. i completely agree with you about the failures of education reform.

Unfortunately, I believe it started with Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, right?

But if you look at the whole picture, there are far more in disagreements between Obama and the Republicans than there is agreement.

[yurbud]

41. it is not even the number that matters. It is the specific issues and the harm done in each

and frankly, I'm sick of being played for a patsy by corporate Democrats who tell us how dangerous the Republicans are when they are trying to get elected and then try to enact as many of the same policies as Republicans want once in office.

We have to look beyond our two party system and figure out how to get them to do what's right, and if we can't to replace the politicians or the whole system.

Unfortunately, I think Washington and Wall Street are going to crash the bus before we figure out how to take the wheel from the.

[Ken Burch]

51. The country isn't John Wayne hawkish anymore.

Most Americans, in all regions, want us to STOP militarily intervening.

And military intervention on our part can never have progressive results again. It hasn't since VE Day.

HRC will keep up the status quo position of continuing to threaten to bomb Iran, even though there's no reason to keep on with that anymore, if there ever was.

She'll keep pushing "free trade" in the Americas and Africa...which means she'll keep pushing greater poverty, greater misery, and greater hopelessness for the majority there AND the majority here. Only the corporate elite still want "globalization" in NAFTA terms, and HRC still carries water for them.

She still doesn't accept that the Cold War is over, for God's sakes(which is why she is STILL opposed to reducing the number of nuclear weapons in Europe in the slightest).

And she still has no right to ask black people to vote for her after the implicit "stop the n____r" campaign she ran in places like West Virginia in 2008, a campaign she has never apologized for(and, for the record, she would have lost West Virginia in the fall, since everyone who couldn't handle having a black nominee for president is automatically going to have a total straight-ticket GOP mindset and wouldn't vote for anyone with a "D" behind their name.

None of the tiny number of issues on which she is mildly progressive outweighs the great swaths of ugliness in her program.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Goldwater suffered a similar trouncing.

And after that the right gave up and went home and never again ran one of their own.

[gopiscrap]

12. Me too

[hfojvt]

13. Mondale did not even take Massachusetts

McGovern was running against an incumbent, Warren won't be
McGovern was running against a centrist Republican, Warren won't be.
McGovern ran a bad campaign (and also did not get key party support), as he quipped "Every since I was a child, I've wanted to run for President in the worst way, and now I have."

On the other hand, it would be easier for me to not be disgusted by Hillary Clinton, if I had not lived through all the betrayals of Bill Clinton's two terms.

[pnwmom]

27. Why do you assume Hillary would be a Bill clone? Isn't it possible

she will be her own person?

[cali]

43. btw, it couldn't be more obvious that this is all about Hillary for you

[pnwmom]

44. It's all about winning for me.

Last time I was for whoever won the primary, whether it was Obama, Clinton, or Edwards. (Sigh) I didn't give any monetary donation or work for anyone till after the primaries.

The same thing will be true this time. If someone else runs a stronger campaign than Hillary, fine. I'll support that person, whoever it is. At this point I have no idea who it would be, but no one expected Obama to come up from behind as he did, either.

[libdem4life]

16. The comment that she lacks the "fire in the belly" resonated with me. There is a level of

swashbuckling and fearlessness and "in your face" that doesn't usually come with an academic...which she undoubtedly is...regardless of her state. Further, she's needed more where she's effectively circling her tiring prey in the financial realm. I see her more as an Attorney General, then a SCOTUS. She would be an incredible addition...Justice Warren.

[pnwmom]

28. I would LOVE to see her on the SCOTUS, and I think that's a much better

fit for her temperament, too.

[libdem4life]

32. Just imagine, we could have both of them doing what they do best...driving the Republicans

nuts is just a bonus!

[MineralMan]

31. I am in the same place. I never

want to relive 1972.

[BainsBane]

36. She has said she isn't running

Can't we wait until people actually indicate they are interesting in running for President before picking a candidate?

[Jamaal510]

49. Slow news cycle.

Neither Clinton nor Christie have also officially announced they would run, but all the outlets have been running with that idea nonetheless.

[Le Taz Hot]

38. Yeah, I was pretty heartbroken about that too.

I also realize it was 1972. Couple of things have changed since then. Ya know?

[cali]

42. for pity's sake. how much more are you going to beat this very dead horse with the McGovern

thing. she's not running and you're running this into the ground.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

45. Eagleton. nt

[Ken Burch]

46. One, she won't be running against Nixon's campaign team

Two these days, most people don't think it was a good thing that Nixon won that election.

Three, McGovern wasn't nominated because he was popular in Massachusetts...he was nominated because he won most of the primaries and put together a brilliant campaign(until it was submarined by the regular Dems at and after the convention, who decided that it would be better to make sure their own nominee was destroyed than to let someone they didn't impose and totally control be elected president).

Four, there was no indication in any polling in the primaries in '72 that any OTHER Democratic nominee would have done better against Nixon. Nixon's "dirty tricks squad" was going to make sure that whoever the Dems nominated that year lost 49 states. Humphrey would have lost that many, Scoop Jackson would have lost that many, even Teddy, probably(a Nixon v. Teddy campaign would have been about nothing BUT Chappaquiddick...and I say that as a person who supported Teddy when he did run in 1980).

An Elizabeth Warren campaign would have none of the flaws the McGovern campaign had in the fall of '72...and HRC wouldn't do any better than Warren, especially since HRC has no core values and would run on a foreign policy platform of being MORE psychotic than any 'pug(which is not what the voters want...especially on the Middle East, where the American people are now overwhelmingly anti-intervention).

[HuckleB]

47. It's a very different world.

Besides, Nixon wouldn't even be able to run as a Republican now.

[Butch McQueen]

53. In 72 we still had a middle class

that felt safe, secure, and was reasonably prosperous. Today the middle class (whats left of it) is shrinking before our very eyes, most people have very little sense of safety, and the idea of job security died years ago - and most people seem to realize these truths. If EW can get a broader public platform that allows her to articulate the reasons for why this change has occurred I think she could do much better that McGovern did in 72.

Butch

[Armstead]

54. A few decades and a lot of water under the bridge have passed

I honestly don't know whether she could pull it off or not.

But times are totally different than that era, and much has changed. Don't know whether it is for then better or not, but old templates no longer apply.

I wouldnt assume defeat before anything has even started. A lot can happen between now and 2016.

[LWolf]

57. I think George McGovern was a strong candidate.

It was the electorate that was weak and/or corrupt.

[alarimer]

58. What I hate is having to vote for the "lesser of evils."

That is not democracy. From here on out I vote my conscience. I don't give a shit who wins anymore. Democrats are such colossal disappointments once they win, it's not worth the effort voting for them. I certainly don't believe in any parties anymore.

[kentuck]

59. In effect, what you are saying is:

liberal Democrats will vote for moderate or conservative candidates but moderate or conservative Democrats will not vote for liberal candidates? Otherwise, both sides would be equally strong.

[NuclearDem]

60. This isn't the 60s or 70s.

The Republicans and Democrats are nowhere near the same parties they were.

Class conflict is so much more of an issue now.

Social media and 24 hour news.

The list of differences is staggering. Ron Paul, for example, was taken even remotely seriously and stayed viable because it's become much easier to organize passionate supporters and drive a campaign through social media.