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: Warren on NPR: "I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?" [View all]Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)74. No, it's not a generic equivalent. It is, in fact, suggesting the exact same thing.
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, DUers are expected to support her. Those who won't support the nominee, and will go the extra step of undermining the nominee by voting independent, don't belong on DU the way I read the TOS.
Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
Winning elections is important therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
219 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
Warren on NPR: "I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?" [View all]
FSogol
Dec 2014
OP
no she didn't leave it open she isn't running, she isn't running she isn't fucking running
snooper2
Dec 2014
#47
In other words, "why didn't she respond in exactly the way DU wants it framed?"
brooklynite
Dec 2014
#84
Hey, your cut was better than the "she'd be a quitter just like Sarah" bullshit.
Scuba
Dec 2014
#165
well a good chunk of americans are religious so people do like their fantasies
snooper2
Dec 2014
#60
Almost every liberal I know "wants Liz just where she is" through 2016. I'm a little suspicious
maddiemom
Dec 2014
#62
And neither is Hillary currently. Plus she has said many times she will not run in 2016
krawhitham
Dec 2014
#191
Someone said last year that if there were an EWG group in 2017, like there is a BOG group now . . .
Major Hogwash
Dec 2014
#189
Must be worried trying to diminish Warren supporters like that. It's cute, really.
RiverLover
Dec 2014
#13
Hi! She certainly is generating a lot of buzz. That other post became quite lively, the one on
appalachiablue
Dec 2014
#32
Off topic, but when everyone clapped for Tinkerbell, she got better Healthcare than what the
FSogol
Dec 2014
#92
I think she doesn't want to shut the door on possibilities in the future but i don't
hrmjustin
Dec 2014
#35
No, it's not a generic equivalent. It is, in fact, suggesting the exact same thing.
Algernon Moncrieff
Dec 2014
#74
Some aren't into zombie voting for the candidate you select. Some will vote by their conscience...
L0oniX
Dec 2014
#77
Our district election ...the Dem candidate bailed out because of a previous commitment.
L0oniX
Dec 2014
#207
Never is a long time. She could remove herself from the persistant badgering by saying,
FSogol
Dec 2014
#11
Yeah, forget the "exclaimation point".. and insert "2016". The interviewer gave up too soon. :)
Cha
Dec 2014
#129
No she didn't. An article said that, she didn't. Just the standard "I'm not running". Insert yet.
RiverLover
Dec 2014
#141
"..Senator Warren has publicly announced she is not running for President in 2016.." from her
Cha
Dec 2014
#144
Excellent find, Cha! Hopefully NOW those "draft Warren for Prez" people on DU will accept
BlueCaliDem
Dec 2014
#182
Why get sick of her when it is those who who want her to run that keep this alive. She has made it
still_one
Dec 2014
#38
Ahhh..... some sanity. I'd vote for Warren in a heartbeat, but apparently not this time around
groundloop
Dec 2014
#46
DU high school, sounds like a Broadway play that could be turned in to a reality tv show!!
Major Hogwash
Dec 2014
#192
There is no doubt that Bernie is very serious about running. Hopefully, he will run as a Democrat,
still_one
Dec 2014
#34
So Citibank selling derivatives using funds backed by US taxpayers is sound economic policy?
think
Dec 2014
#97
Yes, according to Hillary and her banking buddies. I accept she's a Wall Street corporatist through and through. Just sad.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Dec 2014
#188
It is quite amazing how many people here really want to see something that isn't. I have tried to
still_one
Dec 2014
#31
People cannot take NO for an answer. I have read people commenting on this interview by
Mass
Dec 2014
#65
The thought of Hillary being the POTUS is very painful for a hell of a lot of Democrats.
L0oniX
Dec 2014
#85
Yes, I agree, so why support somebody who is not running why an excellent progressive has signaled
Mass
Dec 2014
#87
I'm fine with her not running. No matter who runs or what direction they try to take
Voice for Peace
Dec 2014
#68
JEEEzus. Make a Sherman statement or don't. To hell with exclamation points. n/t
yodermon
Dec 2014
#82
...because how a bunch of bloggers interpret her remarks is the most important thing to her.
brooklynite
Dec 2014
#119
Isn't it odd that every single conservadem on this site is ecstatic that Liz probably won't run?
LondonReign2
Dec 2014
#111
Exactly. Age matters, its pretty much now/never. Luckily, she's never said she isn't going to run.
RiverLover
Dec 2014
#128
Then it would mean that you are making a decision that is and should remain political into
Cal33
Dec 2014
#142
I don't like her policies for exactly the same reasons. But I do think that Hillary's
Cal33
Dec 2014
#149
I don't quite follow what you mean. In 1993 Hillary was not an employee of the government. She
Cal33
Dec 2014
#211
Hillary isn't going to take away Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Affordable Care Act,
Cal33
Dec 2014
#214
If you don't vote for HRC when she is running against a Republican for president, more people will
Cal33
Dec 2014
#217
"..Senator Warren has publicly announced she is not running for President in 2016.. " In a letter
Cha
Dec 2014
#137
Oh yeah, like Elizabeth doesn't want them to waste their hard earned MONEY! Nice person. But,
Cha
Dec 2014
#139
I don't.. she sure is expending a lot of energy to make it as to "..not confuse donors about a non-
Cha
Dec 2014
#150
MAYBE she wonders why she keeps saying she's not running, and people keep saying she is?
brooklynite
Dec 2014
#154
If she changes her hairstyle suddenly, overnight, then we'll know for sure!
Major Hogwash
Dec 2014
#195
She hasn't signed an oath in blood yet....so....some won't believe it!
VanillaRhapsody
Dec 2014
#152
What has O'Malley done that makes you think he is a "another Wall St hand me down"?
FSogol
Dec 2014
#171
Apparently, some people on DU think she's just another lying sack of shit politician
baldguy
Dec 2014
#167