Skip to comments.Tucker Carlson: I think Elizabeth Warren would have beaten Trump last year
Posted on 02/09/2017 2:41:24 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Via the Right Scoop, I dont know that Id go that far. But Im also not sure, as I said yesterday, that Warren will be as useful a hate object to the GOP as it hopes and expects. Tuckers not sure either:
I dont know, though. I mean, I see your point, I think its a smart point, but I also think in fact, Id bet money that if Elizabeth Warren had received the Democratic nomination, shed be the president right now, because she is in line with what Democratic voters think. She has a worldview, she can articulate it. I dont agree with it, but its shes not just an identity-politics person, shes got a consistent left-wing economic view that has a lot of support in the country.
Warren doesnt have Clintons ethical baggage, she wouldnt have had an eleventh-hour Comey letter scrambling voters calculations, and she very probably wouldnt have neglected making her populist pitch to voters in places like, oh, say, Wisconsin. Liberals turned off by Hillarys coziness with Wall Street would have loved her; working-class whites might not have loved her, but they surely would have respected her as a more authentic populist than Clinton was. Would that have been enough to keep Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin blue? Maybe not. But its hard to see how Warren as nominee would have made it worse.
David Harsanyi agrees with Hugh Hewitt in the clip in thinking that Warren as the face of the Democratic Party would be a gift to the GOP shes ideologically radical, she lacks Obamas charisma, etc but he admits that its no longer so easy to tell what voters might or might not find acceptable in a president after the Trump revolution:
The real question is would Warrens left-populism play on the electoral map Trump has rejiggered? Is her protectionist trade rhetoric enough to win over white-working class voters in Pennsylvania coal country even though she rails against fossil fuels and cheap energy? Would a lawyer who built a political career growing bureaucracies and pushing regulatory burdens on Americans be popular with rural workers in Ohio? Is it possible that someone who believes Obamacare didnt exert enough government control over the health-care system going to run strong in a general election campaign in suburban Indiana? Moreover, can a Northeasterner with extreme social views bring working-class Missourians home to Democrats? Liberals from Massachusetts, after all, are still 0-3 (here, here, here) over the past 50 years. And Warren is farther Left than any of them, by a mile.
I use a lot of question marks in the above paragraph because 2016 taught me that the American electorate is volatile and angry, and coastal elites should never make assumptions about its temperament. Still, its fair to say at this point and a lot can change under Trumps leadership the answer to most of these questions seems to be Unlikely.
Unlikely, but then maybe not as unlikely as President Donald Trump. Whats striking about the exchange between Carlson and Hewitt is Hugh analyzing Warrens chances through a very traditional, even arguably outdated, prism of America being a center-right country that would never tolerate a censorious left-wing law professor as president. (Or rather, not another one so soon after Obama.) Shes too radical, shes too far-left, shes a new McGovern, etc. Carlson is entirely right to be skeptical of that frame, I think. The point has been made endlessly in political commentary since the election, with some merit, that left and right may not be as useful in deciphering American politics as they used to be. The right-wing president favors protectionism, warm relations with Russia, massive infrastructure spending, and health care for everyone. His political brand is populism and nationalism far more than it is conservatism or center-right. If in four years blue-collar voters havent seen the sort of economic gains under Trump that they were expecting, why wouldnt they give a hard look to an authentic left-wing populist like Warren? Plenty of blue-collar whites voted for Obama in 2012 despite his liberal cultural affinities because they were convinced that he was more in tune with their problems than Romney was. They werent a majority, to be sure, but they were enough to hand Obama a second term in office. If Warren can claw back some of those voters by preaching single-payer health care and more aggressive redistribution, why wouldnt she stand a chance against Trump if his first term is disappointing? And even if you think shed be a weak nominee, why would she be any weaker than Cory Booker, say, or Kirsten Gillibrand or Kamala Harris? The Democratic bench is thin right now. Warren may be their heaviest hitter even if shes not a heavy hitter per se.
The great question mark with Warren is how shed play nationally as a retail politician, especially pitted against an ostentatious alpha male like Trump. Yesterday I said that she comes across as an angry librarian (whereas Trump usually comes across as a blowhard uncle who got rich selling cars). Will Rust Belt voters accept someone like her in the role of commander-in-chief, even if they prefer her brand of populism on the merits? For that matter, did Hillarys gender lead any voters to hesitate last year in putting her in charge of the military, knowing that Trump, whatever his other faults might be, would at least be eager not to let America lose face vis-a-vis enemy states? You can dismiss all of that as sexist and improper and irrelevant in a better world if you like, but rest assured that Democrats will be thinking about it after the midterms. American voters like strength in their president, and Trump spends a lot of energy trying to project it. Maybe Warrens ideological fervor will be received the same way, but if it isnt, all the share-the-wealth rhetoric in the world might not be able to save her.
Also a liar and a crook, who is stupid beyond belief and farther to the left than Hillary.
No, he STINKS at “debating” lefties and is sadly, almost ALWAYS “owned” by his guest.
She is hate in Mass. and may NOT even get re-elected.
i very seriously doubt that Fakeahauntus could have beaten DJT. she’s a fraud down to her very identity (just like Obama was...and the LAST thing most Anericans want is another president who lies so much that s/he even lies about Themselves!)
but the commentator is correct insofar as the idea that someone OTHER than HilLIARy should have run for the D’s
Sounds like somebody just cucked the Tuck. Not good.
Ooohhhhh, please, don’t say that! I’m so hoping for a Warren/Franken ticket in 2020.
That’s about the dumbest thing Tucker has ever said.
I think Trump won in 2016 for the same reason that Obama won in 2008. Their respective opposition was so weak and/or so damaged that the winner became the lesser of two evils.
Hillary’s campaign was doomed when it was leaked that she and Was-a-man/Sgt. Schultz had conspired to rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders. While she kept most of her die-hard “we need a woman. any woman” supporters, those Democrats that were more of the Bernie mold (i.e. the far, far, FAR leftists) just sat on their hands in November. While it meant very little in the deep blue or blood red states, those lost votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were most likely the difference between a Trump and a Clinton victory in those places.
And as for McCain? Well, we could write a “War and Peace” length book on his problems in 2008 and beyond. Just leave it at “he sucked as a candidate” and Palin, like her or not, provided just too much cannon fodder for the in-the-tank press that year. Like they needed any more.
Obama wasn’t even an instructor. He was an adjunct lecturer - basically a fill-in substitute.
“If his political instincts were not worth anything, he wouldnt be good at cleaning liberals clocks.”
That’s not true. You can have a good grasp of political issues and have bad instincts when it comes to predicting the outcome of elections. It’s very common actually, because elections are not decided by policy wonks but by masses of people who do not usually worry much about the minutiae.
I’m hoping for Anthony Weiner/Eric Holder.
I have totally blocked out FOX at the 9 o’clock hour for the duration. That silly Ivy League know-nothing with two last names is not my cup of tea.
I was most worried about Biden/Warren. When they met in October 2015, I was sure they were working out a deal.
I wish I knew why it failed. Probably Fauxcahontas didn’t want to be #2.
Anyway, we dodged a bullet there. I do not share the low opinion of most people here about Biden’s political talents.
Every time I start to give Tucker a second/third/etc. chance, he shows his true colors again.
He made that comment about Warren last night. Is he a Never Trumper? It was a really bizarre statement. It was Trump and the Republicans turn - he was funny, likable, spoke clearly and in succinct sound bites and had common sense. Warren was shrill, angry, soggy white bread feminist left over from 1968. Wrong, Tucker! Stick to interviewing weirdo law professors.
I totally agree with you. I’m very aware of politics, both left and right, and have an awful ability to pick winning candidates. Trump is the only one I’ve ever been right about. Separate talents.
The fake INDIAN. What liars and low life’s represent some folks.
He is a lib. I think he’s queer.
If you think that Tucker than you are just another talking head who really doesn’t yet understand what happened. Trump rode a wave that has never been seen in American politics before. He would have beaten any Democrat but FDR. Warren comes from the same smug arrogant cut as Clinton and would have had the same stupid advisers who would have sent her to the same states. Tucker guy, do you really think Warren would have appealed to blue collar MEN anymore than Hillary Clinton did? Please stick to doing interviews as political pronouncements seem to be a bit over your head.