2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum5 Reasons why Warren might run,
1.) A formidable progressive challenger to Hillary Clinton doesn't emerge. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Vice President Biden and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley are often listed as Democratic alternatives to the all-but-declared Clinton candidacy. But none has Warren's star power among the progressive base....................
2.) Donors rally behind Warren. Warren has already proven herself to be a prodigious fundraiser. donors." .................
3.) It's now or never. At 65, Warren is only one year younger than Clinton, even though age concerns tend to be raised more often in the latters case. ..........................
4.) The economy dips again. Clinton has been tight-lipped about her 2016 economic pitch, but liberals are hoping she'll offer a plan that would expand Social Security and increase big bank regulations. If she doesn't, they hope a Democratic primary challenger would push her to the left. .......................
5.) Hillary sits it out. If Clinton doesn't run for president, the Democratic field would be wide open and Warren would be a front-runner........................."Thats the beauty of presidential politics, you never know what random plot twist is going to catapult a random candidate into the spotlight," Singer added.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/220896-five-reasons-warren-might-run
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If both Hillary and Warren (or another liberal like Bernie Sanders runs against Hilary), then there is a lot more likely that populist issues will be brought up in the primaries, and force all candidates to take stances that they know won't upset an already upset public who can't stand the corrupt state of affairs that the 1% have us in today in terms of those who represent us.
If Hillary weren't running, and Warren were to run instead, the money people might feel that they would be more apt to have bigger influence with an Elizabeth Warren administration, if she doesn't do as much public stances on populist issues through a primary campaign that wouldn't have Hillary in it that would provoke an increased emphasis from hers other others' campaigns to do so.
I'd like to think for us populists that in the end it wouldn't matter with someone like Elizabeth Warren getting elected. That even if we don't have as much debate on issues concerning populists in the primaries, that Elizabeth Warren would still have stances if elected to support the beliefs/stances we have on such issues in the course of her administration. Much moreso than someone like Obama has, who has let his more nebulous "Change" campaign morph in to an administration that supports things like the TPP, etc. since he wasn't forced to take as strong a positions on free trade in the primaries in 2008, even though when he did, he made it sound then like he wouldn't support things like the TPP.
virgogal
(10,178 posts)Elections have turned into such dirty, mud-slinging fights and she has such class I think she would not do well in the fray.
I mean this as a compliment and can see her doing wonderful things in the Senate, as Ted Kennedy did.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)people she's been investigating and ask for money for her campaign. Does not make ANY sense at all.
fbc
(1,668 posts)She just was not willing to inflict that horrible song on any ears that had been fortunate enough to avoid it.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Since Warren has encouraged Clinton to run, why would this apply?
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Clinton's tight lips about her 2016 economic pitch is not an encouraging sign, either. Either she has no plan, which is bad, or she's trying to focus-group a way to have her cake and eat it, too, which is also bad.
antigop
(12,778 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Didn't Senator Warren endorse Hillary for President?
Or am I mistaken?
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)If Hilliary runs, there's a lot of baggage that comes with her. We need someone, with new thoughts, ideas, and a set of balls. Warren and Sanders can do that!!!!! I'd love to see them run as a team.
tracks29
(98 posts)Whichever side you pick (Hillary/Bernie) that's up to you. There are enough debate threads on that topic.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)He is a confirmed "socialist." Not gonna happen.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)will be for her. He knows that she has a better chance of winning in Nov. 2016 than he.
And he is that type of decent person.
This time before the Primaries is a very complicated and apparently divisive one. But once
it's over, I hope Democrats will know enough to stick together for the common good -- and
leave their personal pet peeves out of the way.
I'm for Warren, Sanders, Franken, Grayson, O'Malley....etc.... But if Hillary should win in
the Primaries, not voting for her in Nov. 2016 would be helping the Corporations to deal the
death-blow to democracy in our country. It would be like slitting our own throats! Hillary
as president would, at least, allow a weakened democracy to live a little longer, and hopefully
the president after her will be a Progressive one.
Where there is life, there is hope.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)implying or coming right out and saying that people who disagree aren't living in the real world, or are otherwise mentally/psychologically deficient.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.