Image 01 Image 03

When Elizabeth Warren runs for President

When Elizabeth Warren runs for President

We never have underestimated her

… she will have an enthusiastic base behind her.

Via Chris Cillizza, Why you shouldn’t underestimate Elizabeth Warren:

When we first put freshman Sen. Elizabeth Warren on our rankings of the 10 Democrats most likely to wind up as the party’s presidential nominee in 2016, many people scoffed….

But, a new Quinnipiac poll proves why Warren would be formidable in 2016 if she decided to run. Using a feeling thermometer — 0 meaning you feel totally cold about a politician, 100 meaning you feel warmly (aka) strong favorably toward a pol — Quinnipiac tested the majority of major national figures.

Warren finished third — behind only New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (53.1 degrees) and Hillary Clinton (52.1 degrees).  She finished ahead of, among others, President Obama, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Vice President Joe Biden.

Here’s why the thermometer matters — and matters for Warren in particular.  It’s a measure of passion, which is, of course, the sine qua non of politics. While passion isn’t everything — fundraising matters, organization matters — it’s hard to get elected to anything without passionate supporters.

We never have underestimated Warren, or the willingness of her base to ignore her past history of falsely claiming to be Native American and misrepresentation of her career.  (I’m not going to repeat all the details now, just go to, which we will be updating and expanding in the coming months.)

Warren has met our expectations in the Senate, bringing to bear her unique ability to demagogue issues like student loans, the minimum wage and regulatory enforcement to create YouTube moments which send tingles up the legs of the progressive movement.

The ethnic cleansing of her Wikipedia entry by supporters, and the media meme that Warren was aggressive while Ted Cruz was offensive, were early signs that the movement would do whatever it takes for her.

Since soon after Warren’s election we have expected the progressive money and media machine to thrust Warren to the top of the Democratic heap if she chooses to run.  We don’t see Warren running if Hillary runs, but if Hillary doesn’t run, watch out.

We’re sticking by that scenario.

And preparing for the worst case scenario.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Fauxahontas for POTUS. The dems, the party of firsts. First black followed by the first woman followed by the first native american! All phonies, liars and intellectual losers!

    GrumpyOne in reply to showtime8. | August 7, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Heh… Why not a fake Indian in the oval office? We have a fake black in there now!

    The party of no shame knows no bounds..

Dear gawd. That woman is an even more coma-inducing speaker than John Kerry.

Too early to tell. But I’ve noticed that Elizabeth Warren gets her name in the press on topics doing with banking. And, especially these expensive debts kids assume, for the “privilege” of going to college.

I didn’t know how she didn’t get killed during her senate campaign. Because it was wall to wall faux indian. But since she pulled out the victory, and she was running against a republican (but not Scott Brown), I can only assume the democrats treat their winners differently.

The republicans never made a big deal out of Brown. He never got any press at all when it came to banking matters. Or loans that were crushing people.

So it’s possible Elizabeth Warren is a contendah?

If I had to place a bet I’d say she’d make it up to the presidential ticket as a vice presidential choice. (But I feel this way because I don’t see Hillary running in the top spot.) And, if Elizabeth Warren is being set up to run against Hillary … I think we get the faux indian winning the race. (Sure, this is like picking a race horse before the race starts … and, maybe you do because this horse shows exemplary abilities to run in the mud?)

Prof – just love your bulldog tenacity.

But I wholeheartedly disagree. Lieawatha may sell on the extreme coasts, but flyover country will give her a sound rejection.

>>”Why you shouldn’t underestimate Elizabeth Warren…”

Underestimate her? I’ve said for months she’s going to run and win.

It is all about understanding the Left.

To believe the trajectory of the Left after Obama is retrograde motion to Hillary Clinton is a categorical misunderstanding of the Left. They ALWAYS demand MORE. The key questions are, to what degree will the Left feel empowered (and motivatingly frustrated) by the end of Obama’s term, and what influence will the moderate democrat bloc have on the party by 2016.

My sense is that Obama will have simultaneously both excited and frustrated the Left to such a point as to make retreat into even so-called moderation impossible. As for a “moderate bloc”, it no longer exists. There are only those democrats who dance the dance as necessary for them to survive in purple states. The Left emotionally rules this party.

As 2016 draws nearer, not only will the realizations of Hillary Clinton’s long, soggy trek through decades of corruption and compromise widen and begin to hit home, so will the possibilities of a vigorously radical candidate whose essence and identity can be defined as a total and audacious rejection of compromise.

So I think the real fight will be between Warren and the most skillfully dissimulating and popularly appealing democrat — that is, the best wolf in sheep’s clothing — who emerges. Hillary Clinton will simply, ingloriously, fade away.

    Carol Herman in reply to raven. | August 7, 2013 at 5:08 pm

    Before 2016 comes 2014.

    As to “flyover country” everybody has a credit card! Most everybody’s pensions took a hit when we had “the bubble” exploding.

    True, according to Meredith Whitney, she has predicted the shift. Because she says both coasts are losing jobs. Losing people. And, are under-functioning when it comes to a real estate recovery. While she says NONE OF OUR GROWING MIDDLE suffered from the real estate boom. Their prices remain affordable. And, they’re growing jobs.

    This is a key for the future. Where the coasts are losing out. And, you can’t fix this with a band-aid. Probably made worse when you’ve got democratic governors.

    Chris Christie on the other hand would probably be a shoo-in, because he can pick up democratic voters the same way Reagan did. Mitch Daniels. And, Walker in Wisconsin are also potential national figures.

    Who isn’t? Boehner. And, the chinless wonder in the senate, who crapped all over Scott Brown for not being “extreme.”

    Between the two parties, one party plays its cards better.

    You know, if you need an “example” … Well, back in 1948 … Truman won … in spite of being hated by the elites. Dewey, the best dressed gentlemen to ever race for the presidency … lost handsomely … Because Truman rode by train … up and down our “middle.”

    You can’t say Truman didn’t understand “flyover country.” Because he did! He even said July 25th was Turnip Day. But I think he was really calling the press-heads “turnips.”

    creeper in reply to raven. | August 8, 2013 at 10:29 am

    I see you’re assuming the next presidential election will be free from fraud.

It seems the Democrats are stocked with a never ending supply of scumbags, sex deviants and pathological liars.

    Musson in reply to txantimedia. | August 7, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    I am still waiting for Michelle to throw her hat in the ring. She already has an entire election staff.

    Carol Herman in reply to txantimedia. | August 7, 2013 at 5:16 pm

    Sex weirdos are distributed equitably across the map. And, in all time zones.

    2014 will have Al Franken racing, again. And, I think, so, too, Liz Warren. Because she’s completing what’s left of Kerry’s term? (I really can’t remember.)

    For me, the bigger question was why Scott Brown didn’t want to spend his money in the race Liz Warren just won. It’s possible he has the intention of running, again, for a full six year term. Which Liz Warren may be facing?

    Whose the democrat who now sits in Ted Kennedy’s old senate seat? And, isn’t Patrick Kennedy due to run for something in Rhode Island?

    There’s nothing like our “elite system” within politics. Ordinary guys never get a chance. (Perhaps because they like to stay home with their wives … than spending years climbing into different motel room beds each night?)

      elliesmom in reply to Carol Herman. | August 7, 2013 at 6:01 pm

      Scott Brown won the election over Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy’s old seat, which he then lost to Elizabeth Warren making her the person who sits in Kennedy’s place. Ed Markey won the race for John Kerry’s seat making Warren the senior senator from Massachusetts although Markey has oodles more legislative experience than she does.

If Liawatha is the best the Dems have (Hillary notwithstanding), then heaven help the country. She is already trying to buy the younger low information voters with her lame college loan proposals.

I apologize for MA for sending out these liberal tools.

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Dimsdale. | August 7, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    “I apologize for MA for sending out these liberal tools.”

    After Ted the Swimmer,Cut-Off-Ears Kerry and Whorehouse Bawny Fwank, the rest of the country sort of expects it.

    creeper in reply to Dimsdale. | August 8, 2013 at 10:34 am

    I’m in Iowa and for five years I’ve been apologizing for foisting these charlatans off on the rest of the country. Iowans have always prided themselves on being careful to study the candidates and issues. Dog only knows what happened in 2008 but herewith, one more time, a heartfelt “I’m sorry.”

    It’s time to let some other state go first. We’ve forfeited the right.

Would she be our first faux Cherokee president? I’m guessing that there must be dozens of other presidents who have also had 0% Cherokee ancestry, but probably none brazen enough to have claimed to be Cherokee anyway.

Pow-Wow Chow Princess Does The White House…

That would be interesting.

If Crazy Lizzie is hot with progressives, they are scraping the barrel.

No one on the left has the Hollywood dazzle of Obama… that empty pedestal will loom large in 2016.

They’re not ignoring her past history of lies.

They just don’t care.

Or applaud her successful gaming of the system.

We don’t see Warren running if Hillary runs, but if Hillary doesn’t run, watch out.

Hillary has a lot of enemies in the Democratic party. That is the untold story of 2008 – the Democratic establishment sandbagged her by secretly backing Obama. They would love to do it again.

The Borgias would fit right in with today’s Democratic party.

The media hates her too. If (when) she runs the knives will come out.

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to myiq2xu. | August 7, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    Having Lie-awatha at the top of the ticket is a big price to pay, but it might be worth it. I mean there is just something so delicious about denying Hillary something she’s wanted so badly for so long.

    Mapleblood in reply to myiq2xu. | August 9, 2013 at 1:05 pm

    The internet savaging of Clinton by the Obama campaign, and Obama’s use of Chicago-style politics in the primary, made the presidential election look like tiddlywinks.

    Republicans have improved the quality of their internet presence at the blog level, but they remain well behind Obama at black-ops.

    On another note, both party establishments remain committed to thwarting the principles that give their party’s existence meaning, while helping Goldmann Sachs et al gut the middleclass.

Looking back at the last two elections it seems that anyone can be POTUS. All you need is a Press Secretary who can read the script and hem haw, an AG with a big stick and a press corps ready to change your diapers.

I’ve seen criticism of Cotton from the left saying ‘He’s only been in the House one term, and he thinks he’s ready for a promotion already ? Who does he think he is ?’.

Let’s apply this to Elizabeth Warren, and Obama, also, shall we ?

Oh, wait, too easy …..

Uncle Samuel | August 7, 2013 at 2:07 pm

Worse than: ‘demagogue issues like student loans, the minimum wage and regulatory enforcement to create YouTube moments which send tingles up the legs of the progressive movement,” Elizabeth Warren Demands Blood Donation Rights For Gay Men. American Glob

Yet another candidate I couldn’t vote for at gunpoint.

If the choice is between Sen. Warren and Sec. Clinton, I’ll take Sen. Warren.

1. While both a shrill, shrieking scolds, Fauxahontas will grate on the American public, and her popularity will sink like a brick.
2. While both a incompetent Socialists, Liawatha has zero ability to lead. If you have to choose between Socialists, take the one who least likely to succeed.
3. First Gentleman Bill Clinton.

I’ve even got a theme song for her campaign:

Zombie voters will be the biggest problem in 2016.

Wait till Lizzie’s book (“I Am Legend”) comes out in 2014. The voters will be enticed – to vomit their Pow Wow Chow.

Bruce Hayden | August 7, 2013 at 3:56 pm

Don’t expect her to get the nomination any time soon. Too much baggage and too inexperienced How is a former law professor going to put together an effective national organization in under three years? Plus, she suffers from being from the North East, from one of the most liberal states in the union. At least John Kerry had the (reissued) war medals to show that he wasn’t a coward in a time of war, 20 or so years of experience in the Senate, and backing from the Kennedys. All Warren has are two X chromosomes, and maybe too much gray hair to sell herself to the younger generations (though she most likely covers it up), and if she looks likely, I expect that the Republicans can find a XX candidate with fewer gray hairs, more experience, and less baggage.

She is receiving some high-level exposure that is certainly unearned. The thought of her running for the presidency is too absurd to consider. Which means it will happen soon.

Liz Warren and Al Franken would make a great team – of tag team wrestlers

NC Mountain Girl | August 7, 2013 at 5:42 pm

Warren appeals to the left wing money but I suspect she is too close to what people have come to dislike about Obama for her to the appeal he had for middle of the road suburban voters. They are going to look at her resume as a law professor with only a couple of years in the Senate and little executive experience and balk. And like Hillary she is old. American voters may elect someone who is older than the outgoing President but seldom have they been from the same party.

Carol Herman | August 7, 2013 at 7:57 pm

I’m just not sure. I think Warren was running for the remainder of Kerry’s seat. Which means she’s got a two year time span. And, then in 2014 has to run, again?

This, I think, was the reason Scott Brown didn’t oppose her.

That the world knows she’s a faux indian? My guess is that the campaign against her was huge. (But if all you got is name calling “hey, you’re a faux indian,” it failed to appeal enough. Because she didn’t lose.)

2014 should prove to be a doozy. (The whole House. Plus, about a third of the senate. Possibly 24 democratic senators in this mix?)

Maybe, the key is TURNOUT. Usually a presidential year gets the biggest turnouts. But why assume anything when it comes to politics? It wouldn’t surprise me that Romney lost because lots of conservatives just stayed home? Hasn’t that happened before?

Carol Herman | August 7, 2013 at 7:58 pm

Plus all the governors who have to run in 2014. (Isn’t Christie among them?)

How exciting. It looks like we already have an Elizabeth Warren supporter here to mark posts as disliked.

If she wins, will she live in the Red House?

” We don’t see Warren running if Hillary runs”

This makes no sense. Warren is a liberal and therefore super arrogant. Also, because she’s a liberal, she lacks respect, in this case for a party elder. Therefore she assumes she can beat Hillary and also that her own career is the more important.

Also, with Warren’s past history of mendacity and demagoguery, we know that she will push for everything she can get, regardless of the consequences to others.

Warren is going to run, whether Hillary does or not.

Warren–Booker ticket. Or maybe Booker–Warren

Carol Herman | August 8, 2013 at 2:13 pm

Mitch Daniels and Liz Cheney

Go ahead, pick whomever you want. But, hopefully the republicans pick a candidate whose been a governor who fixed his State. No bleeding. No band-aids. (Christie’s problem is that NJ is not the “gold standard” in well run States.)

I don’t see Moochelle being chosen to replace her husband. Because he doesn’t like her. And, he wouldn’t want to live in the White House with Moochelle as boss.

[…] When Elizabeth Warren runs for President We never have underestimated her… she will have an enthusiastic base behind her. […]