If Elizabeth Warren announced she was running for President,

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Mon Dec 15, 2014, 09:00 AM - Edit history (1)

would she be your first choice?

32 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	26 (81%)
	No, because she previously said she wasn't running
	0 (0%)
	No, backing Hillary
	0 (0%)
	No, backing Bernie
	4 (13%)
	No, backing someone else
	1 (3%)
	Manny sux! (no elaboration needed, you've already told us why)
	0 (0%)
	Other (please elaborate)
	1 (3%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[bigwillq]

1. No.

Bernie would be my first choice right now if he declared.

[newfie11]

10. Same here nt

[840high]

19. Yes.

[Autumn]

2. Yes. I would like to see a woman President before I die, Bernie is also my first choice.

Go figure.

[silverweb]

3. Too soon to say.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]I'll decide during the primary campaign.

However, if she does become the nominee, I'll enthusiastically support and vote for her!

[Andy823]

18. I agree

Until we see the whole group running in debates where we can see just what they are running on, I will not back anyone who just comes out and says they will run. The people need to hear what each one has to say.

Polls like this just help to divide, they are useless. I will also support whoever wins the nomination.

[silverweb]

26. Agree completely.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]On all counts.

[arcane1]

4. She kicked so much Senate ass this week, I'm starting to want to keep her there to kick more!

[G_j]

5. second after Bernie nt

[fredamae]

6. Sanders Or Warren...

but only one choice. I would get behind either one-I chose Sanders in poll but Warren works quite well.

[Nevernose]

7. I'm in a caucus state

So my precinct votes until there's a winner. You start with Kucinich, come close to Edwards, and finally end up with Obama as the candidate. It's certainly much friendlier than a voting booth, and someone always brings cookies.

If it's Hillary Clinton, we could do worse. However, I will probably focus my volunteering efforts on down-ticket races.

But whatever unholy abomination foisted onto the American public by the Republican Party will be a damn sight worse than Hillary Clinton.

[Nye Bevan]

8. I'm a Hillary supporter but would welcome Warren into the race,

and would vote for her in a heartbeat if she wins the nomination.

The more the merrier in the primaries, as far as I am concerned.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. I'd like to see the full menu and ask a few questions about ingredients and preparation prior to

making my selection. So if you could ask the captain to stop by the table when there are few moments to spare that would be nice, thanks.

[silverweb]

27. +1

[amandabeech]

11. I really like Warren, but she'll need to get up to speed on areas outside her expertise.

I'd love to see her rip the bankers to shreds--my gosh, she named names!

If we went into an economic meltdown during her terms in office, she wouldn't staff the Treasury with Citibank and Goldman Sachs alums, and that would be fabulous.

But what if the problem is war or internal unrest? I know Sen. Warren is extremely bright and her heart is in the right place, but she's really put her intellectual and political eggs in one basket.

Don't get me wrong, I'd spend long hours at the phone bank for her (too many old injuries to knock on doors anymore), but I'd like to hear from her with respect to other issues, and with respect to any administrative work that she's done.

[Stardust]

12. I'd vote for Warren or Sanders, but to be honest, I can hardly bear to see someone I admire

denigrated and excoriated like all my Dem presidents have been during my lifetime, starting with Carter and everyone thereafter.

[PAProgressive28]

13. Yes

I like Bernie more but I have no doubt Warren could win. Bernie would not run if she does so it won't matter anyway.

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. I voted "Other"; because ...

I know nothing/very little about her position on the other (I'd guess) 70% of the POTUS' responsibilities.

[giftedgirl77]

44. I have major issues with her openly declaring

that she would fight against Palestine's bid to the UN for recognition as a state for starters.

[LWolf]

15. There's a good probability,

depending on the rest.

[deutsey]

16. Yes, and I would work hard for her campaign

but I also have a tendency of getting behind lost causes.

[RiverLover]

36. +1

-1 lost cause

[Zorra]

17. Bernie said he may run. Elizabeth said she isn't running. So

I've already hitched my wagon to Bernie's team.

If Bernie doesn't run, and Elizabeth does, I will support her.

I like both of them, and take them at their word.

If neither of them runs, I have the option of leaving the country in 2017.

[RiverLover]

24. She's said, "I'm not running", and this is true. She isn't. No one is. Yet.

[woo me with science]

20. I support Bernie at this point, because

I trust him.

Bernie has earned trust, over decades. IMO she is uncomfortably silent on the MIC and the police state. I love what she has to say about the banks, but we don't just need to be financially more comfortable in a police state; we need the restoration of our democracy and Constitution. Perhaps she is the real deal, but it would be a leap of faith, and we tried that in 2008. We are dealing with a machine that knows exactly what we want to hear.

That Obama's team turns easily to Elizabeth I find troubling (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025950829), as I do her recent vote for MIC funding (on which Sanders voted "Nay&quot .

Not to mention that Bernie is better than almost any politician I've ever seen at resisting efforts by the MSM to divert and distract and distort and reframe the narrative.

If Bernie were to signal trust in Elizabeth by choosing her as a runningmate, I would ecstatically vote for a Sanders/Warren ticket.

For now, my strong support is behind Bernie.

Thanks for asking. K&R

[Brigid]

21. Yes, she is at the top of my list.

I love Bernie, but I think his age could be a concern.

[2banon]

22. Probably, barring anyone else that has similar appeal. I certainly am not voting for HRC.

That said, it will be interesting to see how her fabulous rhetoric holds up to her legislative actions. So far, so good. I like Bernie too, but I'm getting tired of hearing his spiel, which I agree with, but just tired of hearing it.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

23. But Manny, she's the "Tea Left" with ideas that will set us back decades, just like the "Tea Right"

You know, she thinks decades old New Deal ideas are good! She's just as dangerous as the pro-New Jim Crow law "Tea Right."

I know this because the media is telling me this everywhere I turn.

Her ideas are dangerous, Manny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TDale313]

33. Yep, apparently "tea left"

Is the new Emo-Prog, firebagger, Pony-demander, or, ya know, Liberal (oh, the horror) Cause the name calling is so very productive.

[aspirant]

34. tea left, turd right The t's have it

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

25. See, Manny, Chuck Todd says she's batshit crazy like Ted Cruz!

They both have similarly dangerous ideas, Manny!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

30. Even Fox News is reporting she's going to shutdown the government!

People need to stop thinking about Warren and just read what other's are saying. The media pretty much got it all right. After all, it has nothing to gain from creating a Cruz-monster on the left.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

37. Not just the media

watch out for other Democratic presidential hopefuls who will also define her

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. I'd back either Warren or Sanders.

I default lean toward Sanders, since he's also a dem socialist, but Warren is certainly an acceptable alternative.

[Ilsa]

29. Senator Bernie Sanders would be my first choice. nt

[Iggo]

31. Absolutely.

[donco]

32. Elizabeth or Bernie

but I will vote for any Dem that wins the primaries…but seriously, we’ve had enough Clinton's as well as bushes for my lifetime.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Yes.

Right now i cant think of anyone I would support more enthusiastically.

[KingCharlemagne]

38. I'm provisionally holding out for Sanders (provided he, of course, changes his

party registration to Dem).

[hrmjustin]

39. No. i am backing Hillary.

[Terra Alta]

40. I would vote for her in a heartbeat.

Bernie is my second choice. As for Hillary, I'll vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee, but I won't be too enthusiastic about it.

[dflprincess]

41. I'm not jumping on any bandwagons yet

(though I know which ones I won't be getting on)

Right now either Warren or Sanders would make my toes tingle - though I think Bernie might make them tingle just a little bit more.

[BillZBubb]

42. She'd be near the top of my list, but I still have some questions.

For instance, I was deeply disturbed by her recent trip to Israel. Schmoozing with Netanyahu is a sure way to lose my vote.

[helpmetohelpyou]

43. yes

[Prophet 451]

45. No, because I don't know enough about her positions

I can't vote in your elections anyway (I'm British) but all I know about Warren is what gets posted here sometimes. That seems to indicate that she's somewhat anti-Wall Street but I'd need to know her positions on that, gay rights and climate change (those being my big three issues) before I fully supported her.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. IIRC...

Wall Street: that's pretty easy to find, just check her videos on YouTube.
Gay rights: favored gay marriage by the time she ran for Senator in 2012, probably well before. She's from Mass after all - almost everyone has been pro-gay-marriage here for almost a decade.
Climate change: sent a letter to Obama with a few others in Congress giving him hell for pushing the EU to loosen climate rules so KXL tar could be imported to EU. Also against BS free trade, one of only 4 Senators to gote against the rich banker Obama appointed to finish off the TPP.

[Prophet 451]

47. That all sounds good

Of course, there's always teh chance that some previously unknown firebrand will stand but for now, she seems pretty solid on my key issues.

[DemocraticWing]

48. I like Bernie more, but Elizabeth can win...

It'll be a hard choice, and I won't make up my mind for a while, but I do think I like her more as a potential nominee. I might agree with Bernie on everything, but honestly I think he knows he can't win and only wants to run if there's no viable challenger to Hillary from the Left.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think Sanders and Warren will be running against each other.

[joshcryer]

49. No.

I've been watching her closely since reading her book and she's come off as a demagogue of the highest order. She got seniority almost right away. Has introduced no substantive legislation to solve the problems that she decries, and generally rails on other administrators who are doing the best job that they can.

It reminds me of her first Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing how she asked about if anyone was going to trial and kept repeating it over and over as if it was a solution to something. Asking it of administrators, people whose entire lives have been doing administrative work, following policies already implemented by the previous administrators, and implementing changes as legislated by politicians like Warren. Here's a hint, the only administration on the panel with enforcement power was the SEC, who is the most rebuffed administration in the country when it comes to crony judges overturning them.

She then snidely goes down the list of panelists asking them what they have done, who they took to trial, when she gets a response that the administrations' powers in questions can't do that, she "moves on" down the list of administrators. Then she asks why banks trade at below book value, very sensible question and implication (if you break up the banks and they aren't cooking their books, then the total conglomeration of the book value of the banks goes up; Citigroup is actually considering doing this to itself, GM at least did it to itself and its own financial service subsidiary).

1:52 here.

It went further at the later Federal Reserve hearing where she grilled Yellen and acted as if the Federal Reserve was failing to do proper analysis on banks' living wills, when all it would take for Warren is to go after the banks themselves through legislation to assure that the banks provided comprehensive living wills themselves via a third party, as opposed to forcing the Federal Reserve to go over tens of thousands of pages of paperwork.

It's all talk, bluster, it reminds me of another Senator who ran with amazing rhetoric that got millions of people to rally around them. Similar backgrounds, too, no real early aspirations to lead, no real early aspirations to hold public office. Just the whole academic / community organizer approach to things.

[ucrdem]

51. +1. That's been my strong impression too. Thanks for doing the homework!

p.s. except for the last part I suppose. Yeah PBO didn't have a lot of experience but he had more than Warren having first run for office in '95, back when Warren was still voting GOP.

Also I never got the impression of coldly calculated insincerity from PBO. A little arrogance at the end of the first campaign, sure, but he lost that fast. With Warren I've frankly never heard her make an honest statement.

[joshcryer]

52. You're right, that was being too harsh on PBO.

Warren didn't run for the first time until the Clintons and Obama finally got her out of that world of administrative committees and panels. That's what bothers me the most, if anyone should understand administrative work, she should know just how tied their hands are. She even writes about how the insiders and outsiders don't get along in her book! But on the committees she acts just like an insider. It's actually astounding, given the fact that the CPFB, which she spearheaded, turned into this nutered organization which is the only bank regulator that can be overruled by other administrative regulators.

You want to know what's rich?

In her speech blasting the Senate for holding up Cordray's nomination, Warren lamented that the CFPB was the only agency that could be vetoed by outside agencies when she says, "the CFPB is the only agency in government subject to a veto by other agencies," but in her testimony of May 2011, she said of such veto power, "I understand – and greatly appreciate – the important role of oversight."

If you don't want your agency to be the only agency in the entire administrative conglomeration of the United States government to be able to be vetoed, then why allow it? All administrative rules are governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, which means that the courts or the congress get to decide if rules are overreaching or not. And it's why in my other post I pointed out how nutered the SEC is, because whenever it does do new financial rules, they're overturned more than any other agency, usually by Bush appointed judges.

Anyway, again, you're right about Obama, he actually followed a classical roadmap to the Presidency. State Legislature, Congressional House, Congressional Senate, Presidency. The other roadmap is generally Law, Attorney General (or other high ranking position), Governor. In a way the Governor route is easier.

[Major Hogwash]

50. Pretty sure that her name, "Warren", only has 2 "r's" in it.

I'm jus sayin . . .

[pampango]

53. It is close but she may be a better senator than president. She has incredible knowledge and

commitment regarding curbing the power of the elite particularly in the world of Big Finance. And she is committed to the health of the middle class. She could be my #1 choice if she demonstrates similar knowledge and commitment in the broad range of issues a president has to deal with.

For now, I think Bernie would be a better president. Also, having Bernie as a serious candidate during the primaries and debates will open the eyes of people who have not listened to him before which would be a good thing in the long run even if he does not win the nomination.

I am sure that if both Bernie and Elizabeth run in the Democratic presidential primary, each will say some things that I disagree with. I will try, however, to resist the temptation to throw them under the bus each time this happens since I believe that both are committed to the welfare of the 99%. (Plus it is conceivable that they may know something that pampango does not know. )

Of course, any "flawed" Democrat is light-years ahead of any conceivable republican candidate. The idea of contributing to the election (by action or inaction) of Mr. 47%, Jeb, Rand, Mr. Bridgegate, the Canadian or (who am I forgetting) is revolting.

[Recursion]

54. I'll happily support her if she is nominated, but I'm leaning towards Schweitzer as of now (nt)