This is gonna get me yelled at. but... Warren does not have the 'exposure' to run for President....

[Rosco T.]

... yet. She's good, she's smart, intelligent, brilliant.

But I think 4 or 8 years as VP WOULD elevate her to the level of national exposure that would make her unstoppable.

2008 Obama/Biden
2012 Obama/Biden

2016 Clinton/Warren
2020 Clinton/Warren

2024 Warren/???
2028 Warren/???

after that 24 year string.... what Republican Party?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. That is an interesting scenario...

We'll see what the principals have to say.

[Warpy]

2. Warren will be 75 in 2024

You really want to put her through that?

She knows full well she doesn't have the exposure and she knows full well she could expect little support even from a Democratic Congress.

She's exactly where she needs to be and that's a good thing.

[Rosco T.]

3. For now, yes...

.. then. We see.

[karynnj]

13. Not to mention winning 2024 after holding the Presidency for 4 terms is rather unlikely

The fact is very few people - Hillary being an exception - have the exposure until they are the candidate. Ordinarily, only incumbent Presidents and VPs have this. For others, it is rare to see one candidate clearly outshine the others in the primaries - even if in retrospect that is how it becomes remembered.

Consider what exposure did Bill Clinton, governor of a small, non progressive state have before he won the nomination? What of Jimmy Carter? Neither were better known than Warren is now. In fact, in 1992, the desire of the party was that Cuomo - far better known than Clinton run - and many referred to the others as "the seven dwarfs".

Consider how the impression of Obama changed rapidly from a young, appealing, potential future super star in 2004 who grew progressively more serious and better at the debates - he was shaky in the first primary ones.

The pomp of the nomination process itself helps people see the person as the potential President.

In fact, a primary with events and debates might be the only way to test if Warren - or someone else is equal to Clinton -- or maybe better. We don't even know if Clinton 2016 will be better or worse than Clinton 2008. The current poll numbers might remain - and if so, it will be an easily won nomination for Hillary. One danger is that the high numbers may discourage anyone young enough to wait to wait. Then if Clinton decides not to run (unlikely as that is) there may be no one prepared to run.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. Clinton gave an (ill executed) nationally televised speech at the convention in 1988

And Carter attempted to become McGovern's VP at the convention in 1972.

I don't say this to disagree with your assertion that they were unknown to the vast majority of Americans (they were) but to note that they were known (and discussed as potential contenders) by people who followed politics, just as Elizabeth Warren is right now.

Nobody actually "comes out of nowhere" to become president. They always start making waves at least one election cycle before they run, and people who follow this stuff day in and day out notice those waves.

[karynnj]

58. Agree - I should have worded things better as you are completely correct

Not to mention, Clinton was given a NYT magazine cover in 1990 where he was praised effusively - as was his wife.

I do think that there was something almost magical about a person becoming the nominee. Part was that it was the norm before each convention to have all three networks (back when they really meant something!) putting on puff biographies that cast the life of the nominee in such a way that being elevated to the Presidency was a natural next step. 2004 was the only year this did not happen that I can think of.)

Though Carter, Clinton and every person who ever run would have been known to most people who followed politics, until they were President - they did not have the stature they later gained. It might be that to get to that level they already had to be compelling enough to get people to sign up for their team. Except in rare occasions, it may be that it is only for those who become President does the public see the person closely enough to understand the level of thoughtfulness or character they really have. (Not to mention, there is a natural tendency to want to write a story that "makes sense" - ie those who win deserve to win.)

[femmocrat]

4. Do you think the party would run two women on the ticket?

I think it is unlikely, sorry to say. Also, Hillary could be a one-termer.

[840high]

9. No.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. Warren has about the same "exposure" that Obama had in 2008. That said,

she has been very firm about not running. If Warren doesn't run, it will be because she feels she can do more where she is at.

Should Clinton win the nomination, I don't think she will ask Warren to be her VP.

[Rosco T.]

7. Warren hasn't had a speech like Obama's Red State/Blue state one...

.. that was covered and commented on so much.

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. Well, there was that speech at the Democratic National Convention.

but I guess that doesn't count.

But the reason she won't run is not exposure but her well documented statements that she won't run.

And once again, I doubt she will be asked to be VP. If nominated, Hillary will ask a male Democrat to be her running mate.

[Hippo_Tron]

54. Warren had 52% of respondents able to rate her in a March poll

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_National_314.pdf

Obama's numbers back in 2006 were comparable.

[joshcryer]

10. Not really, Obama was the keynote speaker in 2004.

Julian Castro was the keynote speaker in 2012.

Typically you can see that this is how the party wants to run things.

Demographically a Latino probably couldn't win over a women right now, so it will be a woman, Hillary will be the top contender. After that it will be a Latino.

[Agnosticsherbet]

24. I agree that Hillary Clinton is the most likely nominee, and her VP will be a Latino. nt

[question everything]

25. And this is why she will lose

As much as most of us love Obama and voted for him, he failed in many areas for, well, not being decisive enough, not being able to foresee the problems ahead, not, in short, having the experience to run an executive office.

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. Failing to move agressively to fight for Democrtas inthe 2010 eleciton was a huge error.

Most of the problems in legislation since 2010 can be laid at the feet of Republican obstructionism. A 50 state initiative, such as that run by Dean, might have saved the Congress.

Another huge error has been his belief that he could deal in a fair way with Republicans. They have shown repeatedly that even when H offered them things they really wanted (and liberals utterly despised) the were unwilling to sit down and negotiate. This was due to his failure to understand that they had no wish to govern, only to rule.

His attempts now to do everything he can with executive order shows that he finally came to understand the nature of the opposition.

I don't blame those things on inexperience as much on his world view that led to to believe that the other side wanted what he wanted, to govern.

[PatrickforO]

35. A thoughtful post

My own belief is that Obama is very much a populist - personally. He clearly has the intellect to understand the corporate cancer that has all but made our society into an oligarchy.

But, as the first black president, he has been very careful to be middle of the road, and I believe he understands quite well the unspoken rule the oligarchs have imposed on American presidents. Get too far left, advocate the people a bit too much, attempt to put policies in place that help the people at the expense of corporate profits, start taking away tax loopholes - well all that isn't tolerated. Not at all. Consider Jack, Martin and Bobby. It just isn't tolerated.

He did give us a clue, though, when he told us that we are the change we've been looking for. It is only through social unrest that the pendulum can be swung back toward economic and social justice, and then resistance from the oligarchs is strong and unrelenting.

Obama has sadly towed the corporate line with his drone attack policies, and in allowing the NSA to become the bloated overreaching monster it is. However, because of this, and because the profits from keeping the nation on a war footing have kept flowing, Obama is allowed to 'thunder' about the middle class, student debt and raising the minimum wage from the bully pulpit. Will those things do some good? Sure. But GE, Wells Fargo, Paccar, Mattel and dozens of other major corporations still aren't paying any US income tax and the loophole encouraging stratospheric executive 'performance' bonuses is still in place.

There's still plenty of our tax money for war and 'national security' but very little for our benefit. Free college? Universal healthcare? A guaranteed living wage instead of a minimum wage? Those won't happen without lots of suffering on the part of people who have the courage to demand them. No one politician has the power to put them in place.

[question everything]

40. Interesting points. And..

I have long given up on social unrest. The reality that in our society, people do not hate the rich; they want to be the rich. Most still cling to the myth of the "American Dream" that they, too, can get rich. Either through hard work, or through "entrepreneurship." Neither will ever happen and meanwhile the transformation from a manufacturing to a service economy finally came home to roost. We finally realize that there no longer decent jobs for high school dropout or for low skills workers. The middle class is shrinking and too many refuse to pump money into society to create decent jobs that will not be exported.

As for pleasing Wall Street - he almost did not have much choice. He took over when the stock market was in free fall and he had to at least demonstrate that he was not a "socialist."

Like it or not, what happens in Wall Street does affect Main Street.

I think that he, and us, were hoping for a more active role in the second term, but the Republicans have decided that opposing him at every step, not really bothering to think about the country was the safest route.

And.. Welcome to DU. Will be looking for future interesting posts.

[DJ13]

6. Obama didnt really have the exposure to beat the shoe in Hillary either

If the message resonates with the majority she can win.

[juajen]

47. Shoo-in (not shoe in)

[blkmusclmachine]

11. After 8 years of HRC, it'll be WHAT DEMOCRATIC PARTY? We'll have one huge PRO-Corporate Party,

exclusively serving the needs of the 1% only, and 99% of everybody else, well, ...

[PatrickforO]

36. Sadly, we have that already.

Most people just don't know it yet.

[rocktivity]

12. And exactly how much exposure did Bill Clinton, Obama

Last edited Mon Apr 28, 2014, 12:58 AM - Edit history (1)

and even Romney start out with?


rocktivity

[former9thward]

14. A 75 year old running for President?

No, that will not seriously happen.

[thesquanderer]

22. Then so much for Bernie Sanders in 2016, too... (n/t)

[former9thward]

23. Unfortunately, Yes.

Although I would vote for him in the primary.

[Sunlei]

15. Mrs.Warren is on the path to become one of our greatest Senator/Congress person of all time.

[grasswire]

16. exactly

The moment any intention to run for POTUS is perceived, the jackals will start ripping her up.

[juajen]

48. There is a perfect place for her

Supreme Court.

[Kablooie]

17. Are you implying that Hillary wears more revealing outfits?

[Beacool]

31. Well, there was that brouhaha about Hillary's cleavage in 2007.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902668.html

[customerserviceguy]

18. Interesting idea

Hillary is going to have to get someone to the left of her as a running mate, and Warren would excite a lot of people who would otherwise not vote for her at the top of a ticket, especially in a non-swing state.

As someone else pointed out above me, Warren would be pretty old by 2024, but who says that Hillary wants two full terms as President? She may just want to make history as the first female one, and let it go at that.

[Agnosticsherbet]

29. Clinton, if nominated, will pick a male Latino running mate,

at least a decade or two younger than she is. Considering that she is likely to be facing Jeb Bush, there will be no impetus for her to seek a more liberal running mate. Maybe, if the left were a powerful group that primaried centrist Dems, as the organized right through the Tea Party primaries what they see as centrist Republicans, she might see a reason to appease those to her left. The left simply is not recognized as a powerful political force in this country. Because Jeb Bush's VP will likely be someone that Republicans view as to his right (Say Rand Paul), the left will be seen as having no place to go. They either stay at home or hold their nose for what the Left sees as centrists.

If Bernie Sanders runs in an attempt to build an independent left party, which he has said he might do, the Democratic nominee might see a reason to appease the left.

The fight in 2016, will not be for the left or for the far right, it will be for independents at the center and center right.

[customerserviceguy]

32. Interesting

But I do disagree with one thing you've said. Jeb Bush is toast, he and Marco Rubio will split the fifteen percent of the Repuke vote that is OK with immigration reform. After reading Politico earlier today, where it said a lot of establishment Republicons would be 'OK' with Hillary, and given that I think she's a shoo-in for both the Democratic primary/caucus process and the general election, it might just be that Repugs figure that 2016 is useful for getting rid of the tea party element within them, and let Rand Paul get the nomination, only to be utterly crushed by Hillary.

It wouldn't make a ding dong damn worth of difference who she has for a running mate, but she's smart enough to give consideration to setting up an heir apparent, something that both GWB and Barack Obama didn't seem to do with their VP picks. Yes, a Latino candidate might just be the thing to carry the Democratic Party into the near future. That Castro guy might just be the ticket, or at least the lower half of it.

Oh, and Jeb Bush picking Rand Paul, all I can say is, pass me the bong, dude. If by some miracle he got the nomination, he'd never pick Paul, he'd have to pick someone more boring than him, and that's pretty tough. I'm sure the governor of some obscure Repuke-leaning state would do, but like I said, whoever the Rethugs run, Hillary will crush them into the dirt.

[Agnosticsherbet]

39. Only fourteen Vice Presidents went on to become Presidents.

Of those fourteen, eight assumed the office because the President died. Vice Presidents are not natural successors, so I don't think that is a primary consideration, more like wishful thinking. Historically Vice Presidents have often been important in winning a state, or for money sources (fund raising). VP's like Johnson were power brokers that played Congress like a cheap fiddle. Before teh 1900's, many Vice Presidents never went to Washington, because the office wasn't important. 2016 will be a continuation of 2012 in the conflict for the Latino vote. Republicans originally had it, but lost it in 2012. Nominating a Latino will be to build links to what will be one of the most important members of the Democratic Coalition going forward.

Because we are a two party system each party is a coalition of groups. In a system where power was split by half a dozen or more parties, liberals, progressives, Blue Dogs, Center Left, and Social Democrats would be distinct parties, rather than Cadre's within the Democratic Party Coalition.

I called Jeb because he is the current establishment favorite, and Republicans have a history of nominating establishment favorites. Romney, McCain, Bush II, Dole, Bush I, Reagan, and Ford were favored by the establishment in their elections. They always have more extreme candidates, but historically they do no win the nomination.

It is irrelevant, because I suspect that Hillary Clinton will run and will blow away the opposition.

[customerserviceguy]

41. True

Most VP's don't get to be President, historically. However, in a media-rich culture, it's an advantage to be seen on TV every once in awhile. I think it does pay to think about the party after you're gone. Reagan played that game marvelously, and Bill Clinton tried to.

Yes, the establishment candidate usually does well in the Republicon party, but in the age of the Internet, that's usually only good enough to win the nomination, and not the general election. I simply can't see Jebbie getting broad support from anyone other than the moneymen. And I agree that Hillary will take it all, and quite handily.

[TBF]

43. And it will likely be Julian Castro -

keynote at convention: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021265057

his facebook page (Nov. 2013):

[Agnosticsherbet]

44. I think you are right.

He is a very attractive candidate that would have real appeal to the Hispanic voters, and his last name is likely to cause the right to go nuts.

[TBF]

45. Latina women in Texas

Already love Hillary - but Julian can talk to the men. If she can turn Texas (unlikely thus early but you never know) then it's game over for the Republican party.

[Proud Public Servant]

52. I very much doubt this

Hillary is one of the most cautious, conventional politicians in America. Her candidacy will be unconventional enough; she (or, really, her people, and we all remember from 2008 how visionary they are) will not risk moving her any further from teh mainstream than her own historic candidacy will place her. She won't nominate a Latino -- she doesn't need one. What she needs is someone to counter the three most potent narratives that will be use dagainst her:

1) She's a raging liberal (hilariously false)
2) She has no real accomplishments (a lot less false than one would like)
3) She's a creature of Washington completely out of touch with "real America" (pretty true)

The pick that counteracts those narratives isn't a Latino or a liberal. The pick that counteracts that is a popular white-guy governeor, ideally from a swing or red state. Schwietzer or Bashear, with O'Malley as a back-up.

[dmosh42]

19. Lincoln had a lot less 'exposure', and her vision and ideas have attracted much following...

Right now, she wouldn't be ready, but in a short time, people will have to re-consider about who is ready to handle income equality and corporate power. Those are the main priorities for most of us, I believe. Bringing a balance to those issues would drive the economy to where it would benefit all of us.

[hedgehog]

20. I wouldn't want to predict what will happen in two years time -

First of all, the speed of communication plus the access to information increases daily. I don't think young people today have any idea how crippled Jimmy Carter was because of the false images presented by the media at that time. Look at the way the media smeared Geraldine Ferraro with vague suggestions of a Mafia connection. How many voters ever heard of Whitewater before the big article in the New York Times the week-end after Bill Clinton was nominated?

Now - take a look at how fast Clive Bundy rose and fell. Not only that, but look at how fast the connection to the Koch Brothers was made, and how fast that information is spreading.


Now - toss in the possibilities of a natural disaster - earthquake, hurricane, ongoing drought. What about another economic melt-down? What if there is a pandemic?

Now is the time to study the possible candidates, not try to place our bets.

[bornskeptic]

21. Making Warren VP is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard!

The vice-president has no power whatsoever. Constitutionally, the VP is given the power to break ties in the Senate, but that power is meaningless now, because 60 votes are required to pass almost anything. The main functions of the VP are going to funerals, running errands for the president, and waiting around for the president to die, resign, or be disabled. Elizabeth Warren would hate that job. She's a person who wants to accomplish something for ordinary people, not to be a bench-warmer. I don't think she'll ever want to run for president, but if she does, remaining in the Senate would give her a better chance. Incumbent VPs have won exactly one presidential election out of the last 45, omostly thanks to Willie Horton and Dukakis in a tank.

[Politicalboi]

26. She still has 2 years to get exposure

And who heard of Barack Hussein Obama in 2006?

[brooklynite]

33. Do you seriouly believe Obama woke up one day in 2007 and decided to run for President?

Both Obama and Clinton had been laying the groundwork for a Presidential run for a year before. If she's not lining up deep pockets funders and political connections in key states, she's not going to run because she won't be able to.

[Sunlei]

37. I think it was Pres.Os destiny, his entire life's path led to the Presidency (s)

[Hippo_Tron]

55. She just released a campaign-style book, I'd call that laying groundwork for a possible run

[brooklynite]

57. ...and she acknowledged signing a letter asking Hillary to run.

Keep dreaming.

[Jackpine Radical]

28. No way in hell you're gonna elect a ticket consisting of

two blonde women from the East Coast.

[DFW]

30. More to the point, I think

She does not have the INTENTION to run for President.

Even so, Warren can do us a HELL of a lot of good in Senate, and she is there now. BIG smile that we got that far.

I'm still not convinced Hillary wants to run, either, although someone I know high up in the DNC gives that a 75% chance. I'm convinced she would like to be President. I'm just not thoroughly convinced she wants to be a candidate for President. She might just as easily be thinking, "ugh, why would I want to go through THAT again?"

[tabbycat31]

38. This

Besides, a Senator can focus on 1-2 issues and zero in on them and make that the focus of his/her senate career. That's what I see EW doing with financial issues and the middle class. We need her in the senate.

I don't know where she stands on some of the other major issues (foreign policy, guns, immigration, etc) and unless those issues come up for a vote, that is fine (and her staff will brief her on them). As a senator, she can sit on committees where her area of expertise is (financial issues) and be the voice on that committee. She's great where she is.

Besides if she did run for President, I don't see her winning at all. I've said it before, but I know lifelong democrats who would not vote for her.

[brooklynite]

34. If Warren did Clinton's bidding for 8 years, how much DU support would she have left?

[TBF]

42. I could vote for Hillary - and enthusiastically

vote for Warren. But I think we need to start looking at Martin O'Malley and Julian Castro for the VP spot at minimum.

We need to grow our younger dems.

[Ash_F]

46. Obama came out of nowhere. She will be fine.

The problem is whether the rest of her party leadership will get behind her.

[ChangeUp106]

49. I can't say you are wrong

But I have seen her "exposure" EXPLODE in the past two weeks with her book coming out and more and more people in the Party looking leftwards for 2016. I've seen a lot of establishment D's on Facebook start posting pictures of her and links to articles on her.

She is gaining recognition. Fast.

[XiaomuWave]

50. Exposure doesnt matter. Republicans dont have the electoral math to win

The party/campaign/outside groups can supply all the exposure required.

[lostincalifornia]

51. well since she indicated she isn't running, and is supporting Hillary, it is kind of a moot point

[Hippo_Tron]

56. About half of respondents were able to rate her in a March poll

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_National_314.pdf

Obama had comparable numbers in 2006.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Warren has the exposure, the fundraising ability, and the message to make a serious bid for the White House. And I'd bet a substantial amount of money she will poll nationally and in the early primary states to assess her chances. Though I suspect she doesn't end up running, especially not if Hillary does.