Warren to run for Senate


Toilet Paper Media:

Elizabeth Warren Officially Launching Senate Campaign Against Scott Brown

Former White House financial reform adviser Elizabeth Warren will officially launch her campaign for U.S. Senate from Massachusetts on Wednesday, challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Scott Brown, a source close to Warren told TPM on Tuesday.

“The pressures on middle class families are worse than ever, but it is the big corporations that get their way in Washington,” Warren said in a statement. “I want to change that. I will work my heart out to earn the trust of the people of Massachusetts.”

Warren has been exploring a run in recent weeks, and has been on a listening tour of the state.

Brown was elected to the Senate in a special election in January 2010, following the death of long-time Sen. Ted Kennedy, in a stunning upset against Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakley. A recent survey showed Brown leading the lesser-known Warren by 44%-35%, but with the incumbent below the crucial 50% mark in a state that is expected to vote Democratic by a wide margin in the presidential race.


I like Elizabeth Warren and I think she would be a good senator. But I think she is making a mistake. 2012 is shaping up to be another big can of ass-whoop for the donkey party.

Her only hope is to run as far away from Obama as possible. If he campaigns for her she’s toast.

Meanwhile, Buffoon Juice is always good for a laugh:

Nothing about this campaign will be easy—Brown’s been craftier than anyone expected about threading the needle between Massachusetts progressivism and his GOP masters, and every bank-related Kochsucker that hates the CFPB like a cockroach hates the light will be inciting the Teabaggers into full spittle-and-lies mode. But I’m looking forward to this fight!


Damn that Scott Brown! He’s not behaving like the racist nutball we know he really is in his heart!


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Warren to run for Senate

  1. votermom says:

    Yeah, I think her timing is very wrong. The only way I can see a new Dem face winning is if they take a page from the Tea Party’s book. Find a blue area with an incumbent but Obama-linked Dem and primary that person, running on an anti-DC campaign. Then they have a chance, specially if the GOP contender is weak.

  2. 1539days says:

    The Coakley campaign provides an example of what could happen. She started off being against Obamacare like Brown, but then caved in to the party boyz and supported Obama. Warren needs to draw a clear line between herself and Obama. Even then, he’s going to marshall his covert resources to make sure she can’t win.

  3. Mr. Mike says:

    What votermom said but not anti-DC, instead anti DC business as usual. Yeah, it’s a nice dream but Elizabeth Warren will probably have the same fate as Martha Coakley.

    The thing is could she move the party to the left by running?

    If that answer is yes then it behooves us to support her and any other Democrat or Indy that does the same.

    • 1539days says:

      This would be the time to do it. If there’s going to be a Democratic bloodbath, it would be the time to purge the crony elements out of the party.

      • Mr. Mike says:

        If Candidate Warren keeps to the left she will get the donation I was going to send to Bob Casey Jr. Supporting him over Tricky Ricky Santorm (R-Pennhills Bungalow) was a no brainer.

        • WMCB says:

          Santorum is such a joke. Even most of the conservative commenters on the blogs were telling him to get his smarmy ass off the stage and out of the race during the debates.

          There are still a lot of social conservatives among the R’s, but a lot more libertarian-leaners than there used to be. And even among the social cons, many want a reasoned discussion of the tangible societal benefits of promoting family and morality, not pious pontificating and judgmentalism.

          The Dems are making the mistake of thinking that today’s conservative is the same animal as the 1980’s hyper-puritan “moral majority”. It simply isn’t. And if they don’t have a clue as to the mindset of who they are really fighting, then they will continue to lose. You can’t fight if you are ignorant of the enemy.

    • votermom says:

      I really wish her good luck. And I hope she has enough clarity and anger (yes anger) at Obama to connect with the voters.

  4. votermom says:

    Just had to look at the attackwatch tweets again:

    Hey #attackwatch, I saw 6 ATM’s in an alley, killing a Job. It looked like a hate crime!

    Pssst, #attackwatch , I think someone is trying to subvert the United States by usurping our Constitution! Any suggestions? Ken-ya help me?

    Help me #attackwatch, someone is trying to force feed his peas to me!

    #AttackWatch I would like to report the theft of NY’s 9th Congressional District (& the Democrat Party’s mojo) by the GOP.

    @TimGamble: #Attackwatch The head of Obama’s Jobs council, Jeffrey Immelt, is sending lots of jobs to China. Please stop him @attackwatch

    What a time sink!

  5. catarina says:

    Time to write a check and dig the Brown signs out of the basement.

    He’s been a decent Senator.

    Cleaning up the Dem party is not my problem.

    • WMCB says:

      I like Warren, but the only way she’s going to win is to repudiate Obama. She’s a brave woman, but not sure she’ll do that.

      • catarina says:

        It’s not just Obama.
        It’s the whole entire corrupt sewer the Dem party
        has become that needs to be repudiated (or is it refutiated 😉

        Three MA House Speakers in a row have been indicted on federal charges ranging from tax evasion to accepting bribes.
        The latest, Sal DiMasi, is going to jail.

        The Dems have a lot of people pretty disgusted and a few of us are still pissed about the MA delegation screwing Hillary at the 2008 dem convention.

        I’ve been asking people all morning if they plan to support Warren.
        Three said, “never hear of her.”
        This could be a problem.

  6. votermom says:

    Speaking of candidates running, saw this on c4p. Sarahpac sent out an email yesterday, asking for donations, and including this tantalizing bit:

    With the Presidential election right around the corner, Governor Palin has to make the important decision of whether or not to run for office. You’ve supported SarahPAC’s past efforts to defeat Obama liberals across the country, and I’m asking for your help again.
    Let’s show Governor Palin that she has our support as she faces this crucial decision!

    C4P says “The first time her PAC has explicitly referenced her decision to enter the presidential contest” and many of the c4pers are saying they are sending Sarahpac $20.12 in response. Most of them are expecting a public announcement, either yea or nay, by the end of the month.

    Passing it along in case anyone reading this feels inclined to donate.

  7. DandyTiger says:

    I think her biggest battle will be against the Obama campaign. If she sucks up to him, she loses. If she doesn’t, the Obama campaign will work hard to get her defeated as a message to others. Of course Obama will likely lose, so it will be a Chicago machine spite move, but they’ll still do it.

    • WMCB says:

      Coakley was doing better against Brown until she got pressured to get in line behind Obama and caved, and he came to campaign for her. She might have won if she’d run against him and his HCR.

  8. Mr. Mike says:

    If you go to her website and click on the links to the news articles, it looks like she is being fairly well received by labor leaders. If she can convince the rank and file that she is a real Democrat as opposed to a Reagan-Democrat like Obama she may have a chance to defeat Brown.

  9. elliesmom says:

    There’s a lot more to Massachusetts than Boston and Cambridge. Being a Harvard professor is going to be a liability for her when she’s running against the man with the truck. I would like to see Warren elected as one of our senators, but I don’t think 2012 is the year to be running as a member of the Democratic elite. She could run as the Harvard professor who got “kicked out” of Washington, but I don’t think she’ll get much of the Democratic machine support if she does that. I campaigned for Coakley, and it was a dramatic turn of events when she had to choose between running with or against Obama. She didn’t trust that enough money would be there if she didn’t get onboard the Obama bandwagon. I think she was wrong, but I’m not sure that Warren could raise enough money to run without substantial funding from the DNC. Most people don’t know who she is.

  10. Georg Felis says:

    “Former White House financial reform adviser Elizabeth Warren…”

    Um….I don’t think that’s a plus…..

  11. riverdaughter says:

    Depends.
    Can she make her case in terms easy enough for a Tea Partier to understand? Yep, I think so.
    Can she separate herself from the current Obama administration screwups? Well, Tim Geithner hates her guts. That’s a plus.
    Is she passionate enough? Heck, did you hear that interview she had on Planet Money with Adam Davidson?
    Scott Brown might be a good senator but does he represent the people of Massachusetts as well as she would?
    The only concern I have is that Warren might be “coached” to become just another cookie-cutter Democrat. That would be a shame because her strength is that she is genuinely on the side of the middle class.

    • catarina says:

      Scott Brown might be a good senator but does he represent the people of Massachusetts as well as she would?

      Does this really mean “too bad he’s not a Democrat?”

      • Riverdaughter says:

        No, it means that she comes down squarely in favor of the middle class and favors regulation to prevent that class’ slide into penury.
        Austerity, which is what Tea Party leadership seem to crave almost to insensibility, will only lead to more hardship for the middle class.
        Massachusetts is home to some exceedingly smart people. Smart people tend to think through a problem critically, evaluating the evidence and extrapolating into the future. That’s probably why it went so overwhelmingly for Hillary in 2008. Brown’s election was unusual. He won because Coakley abandoned her principles to satisfy the Democratic leadership. And principles are THE number one means by which we should evaluate a candidate. Does that candidate support what you support? Is he/she proud to be seen with those principles and vigorously defend them? Will those principles be beneficial for the greatest number of people for the longest period if time? Based on those criteria, I’d steer away from the Tea Party.
        Elizabeth Warren does not seem to like to compromise. That could be a plus for her if she can craft a winning campaign theme and lead. We’ll see.

        • catarina says:

          What does Scott Brown have to do with the Tea Party?
          Not much, as far as I know.

          He’s done a thoughtful and decent job-I don’t think his supporters will vote for someone else just because they want a Dem.
          Those days may well be over.

          BTW, Coakley’s refusal to investigate Dem corruption was well known and a good part of the reason she got her ass handed to her.
          I’m not convinced keeping Obama away would have saved her.

    • WMCB says:

      RD, I actually agree with you here. As I said above, Coakley was doing well against Brown until under pressure she drank the koolaid and the One came to campaign for her.

      Warren can’t win simply on the fact that she defied the Obama administration. But she can win if she runs on that, and boldly. If she splits the difference, downplays it, and tries to run as a mealy-mouthed “my own person, but still loyal to the party and to Obama” Dem, she’s toast.

    • elliesmom says:

      While she may be genuinely on the side of the middle class, the optics for that aren’t there. She’ll be portrayed as a member of the ivy league elite, a Harvard professor from “The People’s Republic of Cambridge”. A city that has proposed banning the sale or serving of meat on Mondays to promote vegetarianism., the east coast’s San Francisco. Massachusetts may be reliably blue, but outside of the Boston/Cambridge city limits, the man with a truck has more in common with the Yellow Dog Democrats than Elizabeth Warren does. This is not a good year for her to enter into the race. I would hate to see a repeat of the Brown/Coakley match-up. There’s too great a possibility that her loss will make it even harder than it already is to get a woman elected in Massachusetts. Let one of the old school guys take this one on the chin. That men like Mike Capuano haven’t already jumped in says it all. Warren is expendable to the Democrats.

      • votermom says:

        A city that has proposed banning the sale or serving of meat on Mondays to promote vegetarianism

        😯

        Warren is expendable to the Democrats.

        I agree.

      • Riverdaughter says:

        Oddly enough, I don’t agree with you. I don’t see her as an ivy league elitist despite her job. She’s pretty plain spoken, a strong advocate for the middle class and has demonstrated a clear understanding of the challenges it faces.
        One other thing is that she won’t be running to represent Cambridge. She’s running to represent Massachusetts.
        What potentially makes her candidacy so strong is that no one in congress is representing the failing middle class and in debate, she’s going to wipe the floor with Scott Brown on those issues. She can effectively argue against austerity.
        I’m glad she’s running. Her candidacy could be a real plus next year.

        • myiq2xu says:

          Yeah, Coakley was going to wipe the floor with him too. How did that work out?

          If the election is about Brown vs. Warren she will win.

          If the election is a referendum on Obama and the DINOcrats she will lose.

        • murphy says:

          Warren is a carpet-bagger. Her only connection to Cambridge is Hahvad. Mass voters are acutely aware of the distinction.

          I’ll be voting for her and I hope she wins, but she DEFINITELY will be viewed as a Hahvad professor.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

        • elliesmom says:

          Massachusetts politics looks very different from the inside looking out than from the outside looking in. Just as New Jersey’s does, I’m sure. While I, too, will vote for Elizabeth Warren, I don’t think she’ll “wipe the floor” with Scott Brown. At this point, very few people in Massachusetts even know who she is. While Brown was a relative unknown as well, he could comfortably run against Obama and the Democrats. Since other than Brown, the entire Massachusetts delegation are Democrats, Warren will find it hard to run against the status quo and still get DNC support. Neither Brown nor Warren will have the support of the Tea Party, not a particularly strong force in the Bay State in any event. The delight that people from out of state took in replacing Ted Kennedy with a Republican got Brown a lot of out of state money in the special election, but he has never been a “Tea Party Darling”.

          I would like Massachusetts to send a woman to the senate, and Elizabeth Warren is a better choice than most, but this might be a colossal mistake in timing for her.

Comments are closed.