Posted on 02/09/2017 2:41:24 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Via the Right Scoop, I don’t know that I’d go that far. But I’m also not sure, as I said yesterday, that Warren will be as useful a hate object to the GOP as it hopes and expects. Tucker’s not sure either:
“I don’t know, though. I mean, I see your point, I think it’s a smart point, but I also think — in fact, I’d bet money — that if Elizabeth Warren had received the Democratic nomination, she’d be the president right now, because she is in line with what Democratic voters think. She has a worldview, she can articulate it. I don’t agree with it, but it’s — she’s not just an identity-politics person, she’s got a consistent left-wing economic view that has a lot of support in the country.”
Warren doesn’t have Clinton’s ethical baggage, she wouldn’t have had an eleventh-hour Comey letter scrambling voters’ calculations, and she very probably wouldn’t have neglected making her populist pitch to voters in places like, oh, say, Wisconsin. Liberals turned off by Hillary’s 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 it’s 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 — she’s ideologically radical, she lacks Obama’s charisma, etc — but he admits that it’s 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 Warren’s 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 didn’t 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, it’s fair to say at this point — and a lot can change under Trump’s leadership — the answer to most of these questions seems to be “Unlikely.”
Unlikely, but then maybe not as unlikely as “President Donald Trump.” What’s striking about the exchange between Carlson and Hewitt is Hugh analyzing Warren’s 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.) She’s too radical, she’s too far-left, she’s 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 haven’t seen the sort of economic gains under Trump that they were expecting, why wouldn’t 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 weren’t 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 wouldn’t she stand a chance against Trump if his first term is disappointing? And even if you think she’d 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 she’s not a heavy hitter per se.
The great question mark with Warren is how she’d 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 Hillary’s 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 Warren’s ideological fervor will be received the same way, but if it isn’t, all the share-the-wealth rhetoric in the world might not be able to save her.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
LOL - yes, I know you're right. I figured it out when Trump targeted Walker (to test the water) then Jeb - because he had the most money and 'staying power'... and took them both out. It was also fun watching people who had no clue what Trump was up to (like Morning Joe and O'Reilly) giving him 'advice' on how to win.
It was funny if not painful at times watching. Trump's like Bobby Fisher (years ago) listening about how to play chess from some unrated high school teacher.
That's exactly the point I was trying to make at too late an hour last night. Tucker's liberal guests are now *dominating* the air time on his show every night. Drives me nuts.
I'm glad you sent those comments (twice) to FNC. I can tell you from experience, they DO listen to viewers' concerns. Even if they may not respond. I hope Tucker listens and we see fewer of these libs on his show... I do want him to succeed.
I did happen to see that segment last night. It was good; a rare "tolerant" liberal/Democrat. I pretty much checked out of the show when the next liberal guest came on though.
But a little goes a long way when it's die hard apologist for evil... those interviews could be scaled back. It's not like we're not exposed to liberal thought - it's the sea we swim in.
Well said!
Maybe Tucker should start the show with the stuff we enjoy and move the ‘liberal showcase’ segment to a place 15 minutes AFTER the show starts. That said, I trust Tucker Carlson's instincts. He's still new to this - he'll be tweaking the show for the next year or two...
That's exactly what I've been hoping for. It's fine that he debates these libs, but not right off the bat *every night* and not so many of them. I agree that he'll probably be tweaking the show. His ratings continue to be good, though, so I guess those of us complaining are in the minority.
I knew that...
His stepmother (who raised him) was a Swenson Food heiress
Whoa... I did NOT know that!
True, but Tucker does bear responsibility for the design and content of his show. His show is boring me far more than, for example, Hannity's show. Yeah, I get tired of Hannity's formula, too, but at least I mostly enjoy the guests, and learn something from them. Even some of the liberal ones.
I'm enjoying Lou Dobbs show more and more - he's fun and always righteously indignant on behalf of the president.
I have to remember to check out Lou Dobbs' show on a more regular basis. He's great... wouldn't surprise me if he was a FReeper! Thanks for the reminder.
I don’t watch political tv after Lou Dobbs. Then I either watch a movie or read. Can only take so much! (I dvr Tucker and watch in the morning.)
Biological mom left family when he was a toddler. He has a brother.
Check out his wiki post. Quite well connected
I am in Oklahoma and we dont want her - lol
Whoa... I did NOT know that!
That might explain why liberals treat Tucker as an equal - rather than with the usual contempt saved for conservatives... I didn't know that either.
One of the things I like about Tuckers interviews with liberal 'elites' (and YES at times those interviews can seem to go on too long) is that Tucker finds people who explain the loony-toon progressive positions. He doesn't waste a lot of time on the 'talking points' types - people who mouth the newest 'fashion belief' - often with limited understanding.
Tucker finds people who came up with the ideas - or can defend them - or are close enough to those people who do to be able to explain them. Well, as well as elitist irrational ideas can be explained...
Maybe if he followed one of those discussions with a chat with an intellectual conservative so we could get closure it'd be better. "Our Take". Watters is capable of that type of discussion.
Thanks for bringing this up nutmeg and for your many thoughtful comments. It's worth thinking about.
I have used men’s rooms for 69 years. Never had a fag approach me. I do not frequent places they go.
I have used men’s rooms for 69 years. Never had a fag approach me. I do not frequent places they go.
Gay men use men’s rooms too. They don’t always use them to hook up with other guys.
Carlson looks like a fag.That is why he attracts them.
Hillary would of lost in 2008 if she had been nominated by her party....she is probably the worst candidate with a recognizable name they could of gotten. I liker the job Trump is doing but I don’t think trump would of won against anyone else. Hillary is incompetent politically. she took a look at all 17 republican candidates and conspired with the media to have one of three candidates become the republican nomination. the three were Herman Cain, Ted Cruz and trump. all three of them probably the worst ones for her to run against because all three are candidates that had passion about runing. the better one from the 17 would of been john Kasich, Jim Gilmore, Lindsey graham. because all three of them would not of been able to take the preaure and would of tried to soft serve conservativism and in doing so lost the base of the party
I’m tiring of watching Tucker’s “half bemused half confused” look every night. It’s getting old.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.