Friends, several recent polls are confirming what political soothsayers have been predicting for a while: Elizabeth Warren is becoming the woman to beat in the race for the Democratic nomination for President in 2020. Two polls now put her ahead in Iowa. That's big! Iowa is the first caucus state in the nation, and it sets the tone for the rest of the race. A win there can give a candidate the precious momentum to triumph in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and beyond. Note to the Democratic establishment, therefore: if you truly want a moderate like Joe Biden to be the nominee, then you had better start sharpening your knives, because you're going to need them. So far as I am aware, no candidate or outside group has yet run a negative ad in this race. That tells you something, because negative ads are, whether we like it or not, the lifeblood of American politics. You can't win any race without taking it to your opponent and driving up his or her negatives, especially when your opponent is the darling of elite journalists, as Liz Warren is, let's face it. Pete Buttigieg recently observed that Warren's expensive proposals are not backed by a realistic plan to pay for them. Duh. That's an understatement, Pete. Warren's ideas are all pie-in-the-sky. Biden started to make this point as well in the last debate. What's more, Warren has embraced a whole series of far left positions -- essentially out-flanking even Bernie Sanders, the socialist -- which will make her vulnerable as a general election candidate. No wonder the national polls that show Biden trouncing Trump show Warren under-performing. She's a dreadful choice for Democrats...which leads me to wish her all the best!
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html
Dr. waddy: What an appalling thought a President Elizabeth Warren would be. She would turn the Supreme Court into a radical rubber stamp and that, above all else, would be tragic beyond any calculation. But that said...
ReplyDeleteWe must earnestly hope that she becomes the prohibitive favorite for the Dem nomination and that with speed, so that the general election begins, in effect, long before the party conventions. Of all the real possibilities, she is perhaps the least likely to represent herself as a moderate once the main chance is contested (I think). And if she were to follow form the real America would have much time to learn to loath her. Her dismissive intellectuality, her oh so tired disdain for the accomplished in our society (can anyone be persuaded that when she speaks of taxing the rich she means other than taxing all those who "have",because to her "having" is by definition unjust; and her standards for "having" would be expansive indeed and confiscatory in intent).Oh, she talks about taxing only the very wealthy, but, well, she is lying!
One of Hillary's obvious motivations was her age and her determination to fulfill the radical dreams of her youth. That is fully evident and reasonably discernable in EW. That she is a consummate and sarcastic scold to all who excite her opposition is indicative of volcanic, vindictive anger characteristic of the '70's style feminists for whom ALL men were condemned. And their quest for power is fueled by the desire for revenge for (yes, yet controversially perceived) "wrongs".
If she were in full control of her emotions she might be able to use a prolonged general election campaign to project a false image of herself as a "moderate" reformer. But her open and enthusiastic participation so far in the left's reckless onslaught on our elected President and her very obvious support from the MSM, suggests on her part an assumption that she could lead a crusade to return our benighted country to the enlightened path from which it momentarily departed in 2016.
Well said, Jack. I agree -- Warren is very likely to run as an unapologetic "progressive". Partly for that reason, she's likely to lose, but her liabilities are legion, as you point out. I also concur that the worst part of her presidency would be her impact on the courts. I have a high level of confidence that most of her diabolical plans would be torpedoed in the Congress...but the courts would never be the same.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jack, well said. She might be running as this unapologetic progressive, but I think it is all show. I wouldn't exactly categorize her as a "alpha" anything. More like a yapping dog (is that too harsh?). What would her husband be called if she wins? First Man? First husband? I often wonder about these things, smiles.
ReplyDeleteHmm. Good question. We will have a woman President eventually, of course. My guess is she'll be a Republican!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy and Linda: Though I had my doubts in 2016 I fully agree. The man haters will fluff and and a woman who embraces the real America, male and female, race regardless , will prevail. Joni Ernst, Niki Halley? As for EW's treatment of her "mate" , well,what have we heard of him and from him so far? Surely, should EW have been Edmund Warren that question would have arisen,yes? Well, what Dems? Nothing ehhh?
ReplyDeleteOh,I imagine Mr. Warren knows his place! You mention some plausible candidates for first female President. Here's hoping it's Trumps as far as the eye can see, though, and I doubt Ivanka is in that mix.
ReplyDelete