As expected, the 2016 election cycle has unofficially begun after Tuesday’s electoral bloodbath with questions concerning whether and how the result will affect the strategy of prospective White House hopefuls.
With what most are calling a repudiation of Democrats in general and President Obama specifically, the party’s eventual nominee will almost certainly be the candidate, in part, who most effectively distances him or herself from Obama.
According to RCP’s Scott Conroy, that may very well be Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who has been vocally denying any desire to run despite pressure from donors and grassroots supporters.
Conroy details four reasons Warren should run in 2016 against the presumed frontrunner Hillary Clinton. First, her populist rhetorical tact reflects the growing attitude among many voters of both parties in which they view Washington, DC, as tone-deaf to real concerns, primarily economic, of the average American.
Second, according to Conroy, is that Hillary Clinton’s overwhelming approval in the polls is unrealistically high and thus cannot be maintained, especially after the almost-certain attacks from Republicans come concerning the botched events in Benghazi, the questions concerning her health and even her response to Monica Lewinsky’s newfound fame.
Conroy points out thirdly that since Hillary cannot be given a pass, someone will be expected to carry the torch for the anti-Hillary contingent among the Democrat base. And who better to do so than a populist female from New England?
Finally, he details that Warren would have little to lose in running for the White House. Since she’s not up for re-election to the Senate until 2018, she would have a free shot at president without having to give up anything.