It’s hard to look at the Democratic Party these days and not feel as if all the energy is behind Warren. Before she was even elected, her fund-raising e-mails would net the party more cash than any Democrat’s besides Obama or Hillary Clinton. According to the Times, Warren’s recent speech at the annual League of Conservation Voters banquet drew the largest crowd in 15 years. Or consider a website called Upworthy, which packages online videos with clever headlines and encourages users to share them. Obama barely registers on the site; Warren’s videos go viral. An appearance on cable this summer—“CNBC HOST DECIDES TO TEACH SENATOR WARREN HOW REGULATION WORKS. PROBABLY SHOULDN’T HAVE DONE THAT”—was viewed more than a million times. A Warren floor speech during the recent stalemate in Congress—“A SENATOR BLUNTLY SAYS WHAT WE’RE ALL THINKING ABOUT THE OBNOXIOUS GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN”—tallied more than two million views.
The poll numbers also suggest the Democratic Party is becoming Elizabeth Warren’s party. Gallup finds that the percentage of Democrats with “very negative” views of the banking industry increased more than fivefold since 2007, while the percentage who have positive views fell from 51 to 31. Between 2001 and 2011, the percentage of Democrats who were dissatisfied with the “size and influence of major corporations” rose from 51 to a remarkable 79.
While Hillary Clinton may be seen as the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee in 2016 based on her resume, political skill, and fundraising ability, I absolutely believe that she’ll be vulnerable to a challenge from the left, given how dissatisfied many Democrats are with the kind of political moderation we’ve seen from President Obama.
12 thoughts on “Is Elizabeth Warren Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare for 2016?”
She’s a big factor keeping me in the national Democratic party.
Zach, Hillary Clinton was the inevitable Democratic nominee in 2008 and look what happened. Elizabeth Warren, I have not thought of, but she is good on a lot of issues especially retirement savings. My 1st choice is Tammy Baldwin, followed by Mark Warner at this point. I could come around to Hillary Clinton depending on who the options are.
AJ, perhaps I’ve missed it, but I haven’t heard Sen. Baldwin say one word in defense of Social Security? What about, “raising the cap?” Reagan capped income over about $108,000/year, so that it would not be subject to the pay roll tax. That’s what makes the payroll tax so regressive.
Eisenhower Republicans supported collective bargaining, taxing the 1%, and investing in infrastructure. Most national Dems are far to the right of where Eisenhower was.
Obama let Bank of America “socialize” $75 trillion on the taxpayers in 2011.
To put $75 trillion in perspective, US GDP in 2012 was around $16.5 trillion. Very conservative estimates are that we blew $6 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Social Security’s Trust fund is $2.3 trillion.
Bank of America’s isn’t the only Wall Street bank with derivative exposure that they want to “socialize” onto the taxpayers. No one knows how many there are. I’ve seen estimates of $700 trillion.
Sen. Warren’s out front against Wall Street. Where’s Sen. Baldwin?
IMHO, the only real difference between Mitt and Barack was voting rights. That’s a really important issue. I had no problem with Dems in swing states, who voted for Obama. For libs and progressives not in swing states, I was encouraging them to vote for the green party candidate for President, Jill Stein.
John, I am a Democrat and in my view the best way to get good progressive candidates is by primaries. Their is not a doubt in my mind the economy would have taken fall and still be falling had Romney been elected, he wasn’t against going back into Iraq or repealing Obamacare. If Elizabeth Warren runs for president and wants to win she is going to have to do well in states other than just New Hampshire.
You are right Tammy Baldwin did not vote on the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform legislation. Tammy Baldwin did vote against Iraq and voted for Obamacare. I do believe Tammy Baldwin would make sound decisions if elected president, be able to pass legislation through congress, has the energy it takes to be president, and is electable other than just on the coasts.
Al, thanks for the response.
IMHO neither Romney nor Obama are capitalists. Neither understand that the real job creators are consumers with money to spend.
Billionaire Nick Hanauer:
“Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators”
“……When businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it is like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it’s the other way around.
It is unquestionably true that without entrepreneurs and investors, you can’t have a dynamic and growing capitalist economy. But it’s equally true that without consumers, you can’t have entrepreneurs and investors. And the more we have happy customers with lots of disposable income, the better our businesses will do.
That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When the American middle class defends a tax system in which the lion’s share of benefits accrues to the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.
And that’s what has been happening in the U.S. for the last 30 years. ….”
A few of the other oligarchs recognize this: Warren Buffett: “Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically.”
Pimco’s Bill Gross:
“Gross, whose $250 billion Pimco Total Return Fund is the world’s largest mutual fund, said that developed economies function best when income inequality is minimal.”
See: “Top Marginal Tax rates 1916 – 2011″
NOTHING ever “trickled down.” The 1% just used those tax breaks to buy both parties and the media.
When Democrats get serious about the economy, they’ll increase federal spending and bring back the holiday on the payroll tax.
If they don’t want to raise taxes on the 1%, they can just raise the federal deficit. The only fiscal constraint on FEDERAL spending is demand pull inflation.
“(Federal) Taxes for revenue are obsolete” from NY Fed chair Beardsley Ruml in 1946
“…The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements.
The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks.
The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold.
Prof. Kelton’s (@stephaniekelton) brilliant explanation of these slides (especially, sector balances) makes them even more accessible.
If you’re interested in this stuff hash rag for Modern Monetary Theory is #MMT.
A federal job guarantee could gradually phase out welfare and unemployment insurance.
“….The government could serve as the “employer of last resort” under a job guarantee program modeled on the WPA (the Works Progress Administration, in existence from 1935 to 1943 after being renamed the Work Projects Administration in 1939) and the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942). The program would offer a job to any American who was ready and willing to work at the federal minimum wage, plus legislated benefits. No time limits. No means testing. No minimum education or skill requirements….”
You might be my favorite commenter on a web-site ever. Chock full of good links with actual information, as opposed to most people who just parrot party politics, or worse yet, “freethinkers” who don’t actually use their cognitive abilities. I salute you. Please, Facebook friend me if you have the inclination, I’d much appreciate it.
Kathleen Vinehout is to Mary Burke what Elizabeth Warren is to Hillary Clinton.
Fascinating article. I’d just like to amplify John Casper’s comment that the 1% used their tax cuts to buy both parties and the media. Jennifer Granholm, former governor of Michigan stated in her autobiography that her GOP-controlled legislature forced her to cut business taxes several times. The businesses, she said, used their savings to create jobs elsewhere, or just pocketed them. The same will happen with the WMC members Walker has showered with cash.
I am not sure I want to say anything about Hillary because if I do that, even while promoting another female candidate, I am sure Emma will pop up and call me a hateful, spiteful, Benghazi conspiracy theorist and Tea Party misogynist. So, instead, I will just say that I think President Warren is the greatest nightmare of the entire corporate class, who have identified the candidate named Clinton as the would-be champion of their interests. I would love the opportunity to vote for President Warren for that very reason.
I’d be surprised if Emma showed up here again.
I’ll just say this…if Kathleen Vinehout were to defeat Mary Burke, Hillary Clinton stands NO chance against Elizabeth Warren. Warren is viewed more favorably by progressives nationally than Vinehout is by Wisconsin progressives.
Also, there’s not a lot of Democrats that I’d support Hillary over. Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Emanuel, and Mary Burke are three that I can think of off of the top of my head. Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, Russ Feingold, Alan Grayson, Joe Biden, Martin O’Malley, and Bill de Blasio are all Democrats that I’d gladly support over Hillary. I’d be undecided between Hillary and Democrats like Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Amy Klobuchar, and Brian Schweitzer (and I’d be leaning against Hillary in the case of the last two).
Schweitzer’s my man, Aaron. I’ll never forget this.
Comments are closed.