Jump to content
270soft Forum
admin_270

Is Elizabeth Warren a Hillary Clinton 2.0?

Recommended Posts

@ThePotatoWalrus has suggested that Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton 2.0.

If Warren wins the Democratic nomination, this will presumably be a line of attack that will be explored by Republicans against her.

So let's try to make the case, shall we?

  • Both are 70ish at time of running.
  • Both are female.
  • Both are of European ancestry.
  • Both have a law background.
  • Both based their political careers in the northeast while originally coming from the south.
  • Both are or were Senators.
  • Both have blue eyes.
  • Both have dyed their hair blonde for most of their recent public life.
  • Both are not high charisma.
  • Both are left of centre.

Have I missed anything?

Obviously, Clinton and Warren are different in other ways. Warren is more likable IMO (despite not being charismatic), Warren comes off as more authentic, Warren has less political baggage and potential scandals, Warren is more to the left than Clinton was, Warren is more populist than Clinton was, Warren probably will inspire the grass-roots left more than Clinton did as a candidate.

These are all important differences. Yet, people often don't think rationally like this. Will voters turned off by Clinton simply 'see' her again in Warren, hence undermining Warren's candidacy, because of the similarities mentioned above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Both are not high charisma.

I think it's crazy how, suddenly, Warren is considered not to be charismatic when in 2016 she was talked about with major enthusiasm constantly. (Also, she draws large rallies in this election too.) I think this is just another example of how the nebulous concept of charisma is not something that can be objectively measured but is often talked about as though it can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@ThePotatoWalrus has suggested that Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton 2.0.

If Warren wins the Democratic nomination, this will presumably be a line of attack that will be explored by Republicans against her.

So let's try to make the case, shall we?

  • Both are 70ish at time of running.
  • Both are female.
  • Both are of European ancestry.
  • Both have a law background.
  • Both based their political careers in the northeast while originally coming from the south.
  • Both are or were Senators.
  • Both have blue eyes.
  • Both have dyed their hair blonde for most of their recent public life.
  • Both are not high charisma.
  • Both are left of centre.

Have I missed anything?

Obviously, Clinton and Warren are different in other ways. Warren is more likable IMO (despite not being charismatic), Warren comes off as more authentic, Warren has less political baggage and potential scandals, Warren is more to the left than Clinton was, Warren is more populist than Clinton was, Warren probably will inspire the grass-roots left more than Clinton did as a candidate.

These are all important differences. Yet, people often don't think rationally like this. Will voters turned off by Clinton simply 'see' her again in Warren, hence undermining Warren's candidacy, because of the similarities mentioned above?

Warren is much more positive and optimistic. Her voice is a lot less grating, although still not ideal for a politician. She seems to be much more in charge of her ideas and more independent overall. Her likability within the party is much higher than with Clinton. While old, she’s still relatively new as a national figure, unlike with Clinton. She’s 1000x better as a debater (her in ability to respond to her healthcare plan was a blunder, but even the best debaters have bad moments). Warren is left of Clinton. Warren’s more trustworthy despite the very minor Native American ancestry scandal (minor compared to Benghazi or 90% of Trump’s daily scandals). Clinton has been a boogeyman (or woman, rather) for the GOP since 1992. Thus, she kind of had been a recurring villain for like a generation for Conservatives. Warren has only been around for a decade or less. Clinton had total name recognition, while Warren is still unknown/no opinion to like 15% of Democratic voters, and probably to many more Republicans. Warren is an idea person; Clinton announces establishment-consensus ideas. This makes Warren potentially more of a loose canon  

One thing that HRC and Warren have in common is that they were both Republicans before they were Democrats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@admin_270 I should also add that I think @ThePotatoWalrus has a rather simplistic view of women, based off his comments over the years. I'd go so far as to boil it down to 1) If they're an attractive woman Democratic politician, they aren't Hillary 2.0; 2) If they are an unattractive woman Democratic politician, they are Hillary 2.0. 

I also think the comparison is also going to be made by people that likely won't vote Democrat. Warren and Clinton are so different. If they were men, the comparison would never be made. One is a change candidate (Warren) and one is not (Clinton). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I also think the comparison is also going to be made by people that likely won't vote Democrat.

I'm thinking of independents or Democrats who voted Trump instead of Clinton in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. You and I might see them as quite different, but will blue collar voters in swing states see just another northeastern liberal Ivy League elitist, all of this buttressed by somewhat similar visuals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, lizphairphreak said:

how, suddenly, Warren is considered not to be charismatic when in 2016 she was talked about with major enthusiasm constantly

I'd be interested in an argument that she's high charisma, but it's going to have to be more than having decent rallies.

My sense is that she's higher charisma than either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, but she's definitely not high charisma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@ThePotatoWalrus has suggested that Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton 2.0.

If Warren wins the Democratic nomination, this will presumably be a line of attack that will be explored by Republicans against her.

So let's try to make the case, shall we?

  • Both are 70ish at time of running.
  • Both are female.
  • Both are of European ancestry.
  • Both have a law background.
  • Both based their political careers in the northeast while originally coming from the south.
  • Both are or were Senators.
  • Both have blue eyes.
  • Both have dyed their hair blonde for most of their recent public life.
  • Both are not high charisma.
  • Both are left of centre.

Have I missed anything?

Obviously, Clinton and Warren are different in other ways. Warren is more likable IMO (despite not being charismatic), Warren comes off as more authentic, Warren has less political baggage and potential scandals, Warren is more to the left than Clinton was, Warren is more populist than Clinton was, Warren probably will inspire the grass-roots left more than Clinton did as a candidate.

These are all important differences. Yet, people often don't think rationally like this. Will voters turned off by Clinton simply 'see' her again in Warren, hence undermining Warren's candidacy, because of the similarities mentioned above?

- Warren is not on the board of directors of a huge megacorp (Wal-Mart, in Clinton's case), and does not close friends she hobnobs with on Wall Street (note, though his business interests and highly wealthy friends are different, Trump is also very much in this crowd - Warren is the Plutocrat either is)

-Warren is not nearly as Hawkish as Clinton by rhetoric

-Warren is not as sharp and unpleasant a speaker as Clinton (whose husband's Southern charm has been used to "smooth over" some of her social abruptness)

-Warren was not a previous Secretary of State with a highly contentious career

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I also think the comparison is also going to be made by people that likely won't vote Democrat. Warren and Clinton are so different. If they were men, the comparison would never be made. One is a change candidate (Warren) and one is not (Clinton). 

Correct, you could make a lot of the same similarity statements about Biden and Bernie but they have similar dissimilarities with each other as Warren and hillary do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I'd be interested in an argument that she's high charisma, but it's going to have to be more than having decent rallies.

My sense is that she's higher charisma than either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, but she's definitely not high charisma.

It's interesting that you ignored what I said about charisma not being something that can be measured objectively to then make objectively said statements.

I was referring to the level of enthusiasm that people had towards her around 2016, her convention speech being a clear example of it.

Frankly I didn't understand the enthused response she seemed to always get myself (again, subjective) but it's weird to me that that has been ignored or downplayed this election (weird, in this case, meaning very predictable because any time someone runs for office, especially women, the positives are downplayed and the negatives are amped.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@vcczar

Do you think Warren would play up a possible Clinton endorsement (if Warren wins the nomination)?

That’s a good question.  I think if they are educated at all about Warren, either by watching the debates or watching the news, they’ll see a difference. These independents are populists. Warren, like them and like Trump, is a populist, although more subtly so than Sanders. Clinton is the antithesis to populism. Warren is sort of a compromise between Sanders/Trump and Clinton/Romney. She’s never tagged as an establishment figure but often thrown in with Populists, even though arch-populists may have some disagreements with her. Sanders clearly sees her as an ally and that’s good for her. As for a Clinton endorsement, she’ll accept it but probably won’t promote it. Clinton will have her speech at the convention and then will probably be told not to campaign outside of NY and DC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, lizphairphreak said:

It's interesting that you ignored what I said about charisma not being something that can be measured objectively to then make objectively said statements.

Not ignoring it. Charisma is like attractiveness, say - one person finds a person more attractive than another person might find that person. Similarly, one person might find someone more or less charismatic.

Yet you can still aggregate perceptions across a population to provide an average, such that you get an objective value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vcczar said:

That’s a good question.  I think if they are educated at all about Warren, either by watching the debates or watching the news, they’ll see a difference. These independents are populists. Warren, like them and like Trump, is a populist, although more subtly so than Sanders. Clinton is the antithesis to populism. Warren is sort of a compromise between Sanders/Trump and Clinton/Romney. She’s never tagged as an establishment figure but often thrown in with Populists, even though arch-populists may have some disagreements with her. Sanders clearly sees her as an ally and that’s good for her. As for a Clinton endorsement, she’ll accept it but probably won’t promote it. Clinton will have her speech at the convention and then will probably be told not to campaign outside of NY and DC. 

From Kissinger to Clinton, from Clinton to Warren, and so the poison spreads down...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

@ThePotatoWalrus has suggested that Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton 2.0.

If Warren wins the Democratic nomination, this will presumably be a line of attack that will be explored by Republicans against her.

So let's try to make the case, shall we?

  • Both are 70ish at time of running.
  • Both are female.
  • Both are of European ancestry.
  • Both have a law background.
  • Both based their political careers in the northeast while originally coming from the south.
  • Both are or were Senators.
  • Both have blue eyes.
  • Both have dyed their hair blonde for most of their recent public life.
  • Both are not high charisma.
  • Both are left of centre.

Have I missed anything?

Obviously, Clinton and Warren are different in other ways. Warren is more likable IMO (despite not being charismatic), Warren comes off as more authentic, Warren has less political baggage and potential scandals, Warren is more to the left than Clinton was, Warren is more populist than Clinton was, Warren probably will inspire the grass-roots left more than Clinton did as a candidate.

These are all important differences. Yet, people often don't think rationally like this. Will voters turned off by Clinton simply 'see' her again in Warren, hence undermining Warren's candidacy, because of the similarities mentioned above?

I mean, I feel like we could make a similar list to prove that Donald Trump is Abraham Lincoln.  Most of these things don't matter at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming from the guy who loves Warren and dislikes Hillary they are not.One is a genuine progressive,other is corporate politician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pilight said:

Hillary Clinton is not originally from the South

You're right - from Illinois, but then spent a significant amount of time in Arkansas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

You're right - from Illinois, but then spent a significant amount of time in Arkansas.

She didn't move to Arkansas until her late 20's and left in her mid 30's.  Even while living there she spent a great deal of time in New York and DC, working withe the New World Foundation and the Children's Defense Fund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pilight said:

She didn't move to Arkansas until her late 20's and left in her mid 30's.  Even while living there she spent a great deal of time in New York and DC, working withe the New World Foundation and the Children's Defense Fund.

Yes, you're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@admin_270 @lizphairphreak @vcczar @Rodja @Reagan04 @pilight My opinion is that any comparison between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren in any meaningful, plausible, and sensible way that is not utterly contrived is thoroughly ridiculous and highly stereotyped and out of touch, and that this whole idea was inspired by comments by @ThePotatoWalrus all the more shows the obvious flaws in that line of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

all the more shows the obvious flaws in that line of thinking

Good! I am trying to construct a case for it, to see if it has merit.

My guess is Warren is too different from Hillary for this sort of attack to succeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

@admin_270 @lizphairphreak @vcczar @Rodja @Reagan04 @pilight My opinion is that any comparison between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren in any meaningful, plausible, and sensible way that is not utterly contrived is thoroughly ridiculous and highly stereotyped and out of touch, and that this whole idea was inspired by comments by @ThePotatoWalrus all the more shows the obvious flaws in that line of thinking.

ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Good! I am trying to construct a case for it I can, to see if it has merit.

My guess is Warren is too different from Hillary for this sort of attack to succeed.

I agree with everything you said except that I think Hillary had more appeal and likability than Warren did. If I remember she was regularly voted the most looked-up-to woman in the US for like 8 years in a row or something, and had name recognition beyond niche political circles that Warren didn't enjoy (I'd say most Americans know who Elizabeth Warren is, but I'd say just about every American knows who Hillary is)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My *guess* is that Warren's weakness won't be Clinton's.

Rather, the obvious weakness for Warren will be things like advocating for universal public health insurance. This is where the 'won't say whether it will raise taxes' argument is going. It's part of a broader attack against Warren based on certain key issues where she's relatively far to the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...