Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why Warren? [View all]TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
48 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It hasn't been narrowed, unless people like O'Malley and Schweitzer and Warren are
TwilightGardener
Nov 2013
#1
Schweitzer's been discussing running--it was posted here about a month ago:
TwilightGardener
Nov 2013
#17
because she's high profile on the One issue that matters to a large number of Democrats
magical thyme
Nov 2013
#4
I like Warren but even if she did run & became POTUS she'd be trashed within days/weeks
KittyWampus
Nov 2013
#9
There are few progressive choices because the party weeds them out early. nt
Demo_Chris
Nov 2013
#23
The party tries to weed them out long before they reach the national stage. nt
Demo_Chris
Nov 2013
#39
I don't think think the possible field of 2016 Dem candidates has actually been narrowed to two.
winter is coming
Nov 2013
#26
So... you're complaining that the field has been prematurely narrowed, yet demanding that we know
winter is coming
Nov 2013
#29
My complaint is that I think it's way too early to limit ourselves to the names we can think of.
winter is coming
Nov 2013
#37