Why Warren?

[LWolf]

It's a rhetorical question. That means you don't have to explain. I like Warren. I get why her name has been tossed into the ring.

But...the real question: why, oh why, has the possible list of primary candidates been narrowed to only two 3 years before the actual primaries? Aren't there others out there deserving of some attention? How does it benefit the nation, or the party, to limit the field so soon? Every day I see just 2 names repeated, over and over and over. Warren and the centrist.

The only benefit I see is to leave the conversation and the process in the hands of tptb, which will, in the end, get us another centrist as the nominee in the end.

Why not, while we've got the chance, play with a wider field? It's true that there aren't that many Democratic politicians with experience remaining that I'm all that interested in, since the party has continued to drift to the center/right. Still, there's more than just one.

Some great Democrats (and other) that come to mind immediately, in no particular order:

Bernie Sanders (yes, I know, but I'd vote for him for president in a heartbeat over whatever mainstream candidate the status quo produces,) Greyson, Merkley, DeFazio, Brown, and yes, Kucinich, still, Capuano, Donna Edwards...I'm sure there are more.

[TwilightGardener]

1. It hasn't been narrowed, unless people like O'Malley and Schweitzer and Warren are

scared out of the race by the Clinton It's-Her-Turn Machine.

[LWolf]

14. While I heard some discussion of

Schweitzer several years back, I've heard nobody talking about either O'Malley or Schweitzer for '16.

Start some threads about them!

[TwilightGardener]

17. Schweitzer's been discussing running--it was posted here about a month ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014624583


O'Malley's been traveling outside of Maryland in appearances, was on Crossfire a few weeks ago. Not much new to say about either guy, though.

[pscot]

2. It has to be someone capable of running the country

and fending off the Republicans. Brown is likely the only person in your brief list who meets that criterion, other than Warren.

[LWolf]

3. That's part of the problem.

Democrats themselves narrow the options with false claims about whether or not someone is "capable of running the country," or whether or not someone is "electable."

Democrats themselves seem determined to perpetuate lesser evils rather than support authentic, positive change.

[MuseRider]

6. Exactly! n/t

[HappyMe]

7. I think more progressive candidates should be put up for elections.

It would suck if they lost, but at least new ideas would be getting out there. People's thinking might start to change which would enable progressive candidates to then win.

[LWolf]

11. That's how Republicans

have been so successful. Win or lose, they put all the crazy on the table. Eventually, it becomes the "norm" instead of the crazy.

We need to put everything on the table; stop holding back because someone might call us "liberals," or "socialists," or "commies," or whatever. Eventually, when those ideas are part of the conversation on a regular basis over time, they would become the norm.

[HappyMe]

13. Exactly.

[pscot]

15. If you want authentic, positive change

we have to have a President who can drive the bureaucracy, dominate the Republicans, lead the voters where they need to go and manage an economy in permanent decline. Kucinich? Really?

[LWolf]

16. Really.

I'm remembering an idiot whose handlers drove the change that destroyed America. I'm remembering the other idiot whose handlers, two decades later, finished the job.

Two presidential administrations that managed fundamental change FOR THE WORSE without much trouble.

Neither of those presidents drove a damned thing but speeches, and idiot # 2 couldn't even manage that.

ANY Democrat could do a better job of leading the nation away from the disasters of fascism, and neo-liberalism than those idiots did leading us into them. A Democrat who actually WANTED to lead us out and into something better would be refreshing.

[magical thyme]

4. because she's high profile on the One issue that matters to a large number of Democrats

and Clinton happens to fail on the issue in a big way, so the juxtoposition of the two high profile women really stands out.

One is absolutely, outspokenly and actively anti-Wall Street.
The other is in bed with Wall Street.

Many other potential candidates are likely also anti-Wall Street. They just haven't had as much direct influence or taken Wall Street on head-to-head.

[Laelth]

44. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Because no one articulates economic populism as well as she does.

Everyone else who tries comes off as a crank. Bernie Sanders? I love him but he's as much of a crank as I am.

[daleanime]

8. I would work my butt off....

to have President Sanders!

[pscot]

18. But Sanders illustrates the futility

of one man, however noble in intent, acting alone against the immense inertia of the status quo. He's a nice man, but he doesn't inspire or frighten anyone. This country cannot be governed through sweet reason alone. To outflank the entrenched interests that are driving us to ruin, some kind of huge public uprising will have to happen. The country is ripe for it. If Hillary want to lead it, OK. But so far, Elizabeth Warren is the only national politician who seems to get it.

[daleanime]

19. Huh? The only way we get a President Sanders......

is a 'huge public uprising'.




And yes, I'm ready for that.

[KittyWampus]

9. I like Warren but even if she did run & became POTUS she'd be trashed within days/weeks

of winning by those who claim to support her now.

The POTUS doesn't have a magic wand.

Frankly, I think she has more possible power in Congress.

[Scuba]

10. I know I'd start trashing her as soon as ...

... she named Eric Holder, Rahm Emanual, Larry Summers and Ben Bernanke to her cabinet.

[LWolf]

12. touche

[daleanime]

20. Ouch!

Please play nice now!

[scheming daemons]

27. Ben Bernanke a) isnt part of the cabinet and b) ....

Will have his monetary policies followed almost exactly by Yellen.

Bernanke has provided the stimulus that the GOP has blocked from Obama. The GOP hates Bernanke... and with just cause... he is doing the right things.

[treestar]

35. + ninety gazillion

They accuse Obama's supporters of cult of personality. Yet they are the ones who really believe that. They think her personality will overcome the same problems. Like there is anyone who can mesmerize the Republicans into voting for progressive programs against the wishes of their constituents.

[Jim Lane]

21. Add Sheldon Whitehouse to the list

And, as others have mentioned, O'Malley and Schweitzer.

When you list "Brown" I assume you mean Sherrod Brown, and I agree, but it wouldn't completely surprise me to see Jerry Brown decide to give it another run. He has better progressive credentials now than he did last time. He's not perfect but he's much better than Andrew Cuomo.

As an aside, people are focused on Clinton, but I think there's a good chance she won't run. If she doesn't, Cuomo will, and he'll be a major threat. He's shown his "centrist" credentials by attacking unions, cutting social programs, resisting progressive taxation, etc., but he'll have something of a liberal image because he's from New York, he's a Cuomo, and he did take leadership on precisely one hot-button issue, namely marriage equality. If Clinton stays out, Cuomo will have the centrist image, the name recognition, the resume, the Wall Street backing (and the big financial advantage), and the support of the Democratic Party establishment. Any of the progressives mentioned will have a tough time beating him for the nomination.

As for your original question, saying "Warren" at this time is partly a reference to the senior Senator from Massachusetts and partly a metaphor for "generic progressive challenger" for Democrats who are tired of the corporatist policies. I wouldn't take it completely literally.

[LWolf]

22. Yes, Sherrod Brown,

although I'd take a long look at Jerry Brown, as well. I'll be glad to look at Sheldon Whitehouse, too.

Metaphor...for Democrats like myself who are tired of the corporatist policies? I get that. Literally, though, if only a couple of names get heard over and over, the rest of the potential progressive challengers may never see the light of day.

[Demo_Chris]

23. There are few progressive choices because the party weeds them out early. nt

[LWolf]

24. This version of early is ridiculous.

You'd think they'd at least leave them in play until the primaries began.

Of course they'll weed them out within the first few weeks of the actual primaries; that's Iowa and NH's job, among others.

[Demo_Chris]

39. The party tries to weed them out long before they reach the national stage. nt

[scheming daemons]

25. especially since she has no intention of running

It is the same people who scream Sanders' name all the time.

No regard to whether the individual actually is going to run.

[winter is coming]

26. I don't think think the possible field of 2016 Dem candidates has actually been narrowed to two.

I see them as placeholders for different points of view within the party: the "reformers", who want to do something about economic inequality and the threat that unregulated banks and businesses represent to average Americans, and the "pragmatists", who represent the status quo.

[LWolf]

28. If they are "placeholders,"

then we need to hear something about those they are holding the place for...or they'll end up the only potentials that end up on the table.

Except that Warren isn't even going to run, if I recall correctly. That leaves HRC.

[winter is coming]

29. So... you're complaining that the field has been prematurely narrowed, yet demanding that we know

exactly who will be running, two years before the first primary. I guess we'd better get a start on 2020, too.

[LWolf]

40. No.

Your choice of verbs and rhetorical style are ineffective and inaccurate. Do you have something to say about who should be part of the conversation at this point, or not?

[djean111]

30. "That leaves HRC"

So, is your complaint that anyone (but HRC) is being touted, or do you feel we should stop pushing the HRC is inevitable meme, too?

(I am in favor of skipping the Hillary stuff, by the way - although I do find it hilarious that Warren supporters have already been called "Pumas". Talk about clueless.)

[winter is coming]

37. My complaint is that I think it's way too early to limit ourselves to the names we can think of.

If you searched GD back in November of 2005, I'm sure you'd find DUers who thought Obama was an up-and-comer who'd given a great speech at the convention, but I doubt there were many who thought of him as a serious candidate for 2008. Instead, DU was probably talking about well-known names, as we're doing now. And when you do that, it's like casting a movie before the first draft of the script has even been written.

If you cast a celebrity before you've really nailed down your script, you'll likely end up with a vehicle for that person, which may or may not end up being a good story. I don't think we should be focusing on who right now so much as what. I think we're losing sight of 2014 in all the 2016 chatter, and focusing on what we want the Party to be rather than one particular race that's years away would be a better use of our time, as "what" applies to all candidates/races. Focus on what a Presidential candidate should be, and then start looking around for who best represents that as time goes by. But 2014 needs to come first.

[LWolf]

41. I wouldn't

classify it as a "complaint;" more a request to cast the net more widely.

I DO think that the "HRC is inevitable" meme should be stopped NOW; it's only inevitable if we accept it, and I don't. I hadn't seen Warren supporters called "Pumas;" I'm not here long enough each day, I guess. That's ironic, to say the least, and simply highlights my point. What other potentials should be getting equal time?

[djean111]

45. I think the net should be cast more widely, too.

And as a woman, I am very uncomfortable with the other meme - that we must nominate a woman. "It is time for a woman! Evidently any woman!". Blargh.

I don't care what gender Hillary is - she is a corporate creature through and through, and even if she espouses liberal ideas while campaigning, I feel she would promptly abandon them if she got elected. Been there, done that with campaign blather - it is deeds that count with me.

I am interested in finding out more about any of the alternative being talked about in this thread. We need real change, or at least an honest attempt at change - not lip service and same old corporate bullshit like the TPP.

[LWolf]

46. Agreed.

The next time I get to spend a day at home, I'm going to browse through the names in this thread that I don't know, and get to know them.

[JaneyVee]

31. Don't forget Martin O'Malley and VP deBlasio

[tridim]

32. Because fantasy is fun? She has already said she is not running. nt

[99Forever]

33. The only people I see trying to "narrow the field"...

... are those pushing the 1% Corporate Approved Establishment "inevitable choice."


It's not working.

[Le Taz Hot]

34. I'm more of an anybody but Hillary fan.

I love Elizabeth Warren because I think she is a TRUE, FDR Democrat. But I am certainly open to suggestions. Bernie Sanders, certainly, same with Greyson. I don't know enough about Merkley, DeFazio, Capuano & Edwards. Brown is too old and Kucinich ALWAYS throws his votes to the mainstream candidate in the end. I think he's pulled that shit one too many times. Having said that, I want to focus on 2014. I think we have a real challenge to hang onto the Senate and a real chance to take back the House.

On edit: I see you mean Sherrod Brown and not Jerry Brown. As a California, when I see "Brown" I automatically think Jerry.

[LWolf]

42. I'm a former Californian,

but moved out while the governator was still in office.

I'd shift my position a bit; not "anybody but HRC," but "ANY left-of-center non-neoliberal." I don't care WHO; I care WHAT they stand for.

That's why I threw those other names in the mix; it's time to find out who else is out there.

Merkley is my Senator, and will be re-elected in '14. DeFazio is a GREAT House Rep; both out of Oregon. Capuano is a Rep from Massachusetts, and Donna Edwards from Maryland.

[ecstatic]

36. What about Jason Carter (Georgia)?

Too soon?

[LWolf]

43. Tell me about him.

I think there are probably a lot of great people out there who are known locally, but not as familiar nationally.

[rustydog]

38. we need several people running, telling us their plan for America

I'm getting sick and tired of "chosen ones"
Be they Clintons, Bushes or whomever and those "whose turn it is: McCain, Romney, Kerry...
We have primaries for a reason, lets use them.

[bluedeathray]

47. She's the only advocate

For the middle and lower classes.

And I'd vote for Sanders too. Those 2 would be my dream ticket

[LWolf]

48. That WOULD be a dream ticket.

She's not the only advocate, though. She's the one getting the press, and so she's the one getting talked about. I'd like to see ALL of our advocates getting the time and attention their efforts deserve.