Do You think Warren will run?

[Prophet 451]

Not asking if she'd win the primary or if she's electable. Just if you think she'll campaign for the nomination.

22 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	5 (23%)
	No
	17 (77%)
	EXPECTO PATRONUM!
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Fearless]

1. I hope.

[peacebird]

29. Me too

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I hope she won't. n/t

[Hari Seldon]

3. I thought she was running already

Absolutely the most effective campaign I have ever seen.

I cannot remember a candidate who was so eagerly awaited.

Oh I know she says she isn't, but I give that zero consideration.

When the public indicates that they want you to be president, then you ARE running for president. The primaries are merely a formality.

She is running, and she is winning.

[Autumn]

14. I like the way you think.

[Dawgs]

17. Yep. And for those that "hope" she doesn't run because they thinks she's best as Senator.

She will be mostly ignored after the new President is sworn in because much of her popularity surrounds the idea of her running. That and everyone will be focusing on what the new President is doing..not what Warren is doing.

[ucrdem]

4. Kind of think she won't.

She wants to, and she's got a great team singing her praises, but if she doesn't pick up some major endorsements she's going to have to give it up for this cycle anyway. NPR asked Jerry Brown last week who he was backing and he said HRC, and if Jerry's okay with it I'm okay with it. The interviewer tried hard to get a disparaging word or wink too but Jerry didn't budge.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

5. Not in '16.

Later on down the road.

[benz380]

24. She'll be 70 in 4 years. nt

[saltpoint]

6. If she were running, there would be a trail

of contacts -- calls and meetings -- for a campaign staff and fundraising apparatus. Strategists would have been approached.

None of that has happened.

[Prophet 451]

7. You think she would have lready established those?

We're still a couple of years out from the general, would she have started putting together those frameworks already? I'm British and our elections last maybe 10 weeks so I wouldn't know.

[Dawgs]

18. Why? Obama didn't have any of those things at this point in 2007. n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. Doubt it,

but I'm happy she's my senator.

[Stephen Retired]

9. "NO!"

How many times does she have to say it? Jesus!

[Prophet 451]

11. AFAIK, she's not said she won't run

She's said she isn't running but not that she won't run (AFAIK, although I welcome correction). Subtle but important difference.

[Stephen Retired]

12. You're pinning a "campaign" on semantics?

I'm sorry, but that's just pathetic.

[Prophet 451]

13. Personally? No

I'm not pinning anything on anyone (that sounds like it would hurt). But I know some here still think she'll run and I was curious how many thought that.

[madville]

10. Probably Not

The corporations and banks would not allow her to win. They know they win either way if HRC gets the nomination, she won't affect them much differently than Jeb or Mitt.

[pampango]

15. Wish she would and hope she wins but I do not expect her to.

Her expertise in economics is worth a lot in the senate. She would have to get up to speed on foreign policy - which she could well do - since presidents have to have a knowledge of that. I think she will stay put in the senate.

[tabbycat31]

16. No

The ultimate decider on whether or not she will run is Elizabeth Warren. She has said repeatedly that she does not want to run, and I believe her.

A presidential campaign puts a lot of stress on the candidate and their family. I don't think she wants that (and it's very legit that she does not).

[Dawgs]

19. Could be wrong, but I don't think she's said "she does not want to run".

Just that she wasn't.

[tabbycat31]

22. There could be other factors too

I read her book about 6 months ago, and IIRC her husband wasn't very keen on her running for senate. I'll have to get it out again next time I go to the library

If she chooses to keep her marriage in tact instead of running for president, would anyone here fault her?

[oberliner]

20. How many times does she have to say she isn't running?

How much clearer does she need to be?

[Iggo]

38. "I shall not seek, nor will I accept..."

She knows the words.

[Autumn]

21. I hope she does, I understand if she decides not to. But we need someone to run

who will look out for the poor and working class, Another 4 or 8 years of this we are fucked.

I'm counting on Bernie unless Liz steps up.

[Prophet 451]

23. I think Bernie would have an even harder time of it

He describes himself as a "socialist" (although he's closer to a Social Democrat) and you know that word is anathema to much of the genpop.

[Autumn]

25. People like his message. I post his things on FB and it says Bernie Sanders Independent.

My republican friends and relatives always click like and I can't think of a one who doesn't agree with what he says.

[Prophet 451]

26. Trying to think of how to phrase this

You know how a load of people think Obama's the reincarnation of Stalin? Imagine what they'd do with a guy who actually describes himself as a Socialist. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone trying to murder him.

[Autumn]

28. I have a teabagger ex BIL in Texas, As racist as can be, hates Obama with a passion.

He likes Bernie. I posed what Bernie said about SS and the one about Veterans and he is still sharing those posts that I posted last week. They like those Socialist programs, and they like anyone who says they must be defended and goes into detail about them.

[Prophet 451]

32. I'd love it if he did run

You don't really have a left party over there. You have one centre-right (Dems), one fringe-right (Repubs) and the Teabaggers are outright Fascist. But you don't really have anything on the left. Even Obama is centre-right by global standards.

[gwheezie]

27. Same here

Some of my friends who were attracted to the teabags early on due to the populist message and then realized they were just rightwing loons support bernie.

[BlueCaliDem]

30. Unfortunately, no. Most of America isn't as liberal as Massachusetts.

And with Senator Warren on the warpath with Wall Street (granted, that's a GOOD thing unless, of course, you need money in order to win a nationwide election, which is currently the case), all Wall Street money will flood to her Republican opponent, and she'll be crushed. That is, unless people can open powerful PACs equal to those Wall Street PACs and educate the uneducated American voter in time for the Primaries - which is a tall order, at best.

Even Senator Obama needed Wall Street money in order to win from McCain in 2008.

Wall Street (albeit begrudgingly) supported Senator Obama because of the crash, and they - just as we - know that Democrats are the ones who can bring them back from the brink of financial disaster. And we did. But traitors that those Wall Street billionaires are, they turned on then President Obama in 2012 and gave the lion's share of their donations and PAC money to Mittney. But by then President Obama really didn't need them since he was well-known among the electorate and although he didn't copy the 52.9% win from 2008, he did win with 51.1% in 2012.

[Prophet 451]

33. That's pretty much my view as well

In America, you don't really seem to have elections anymore, just auctions. And Warren, good as she is, scares the piss out of the big money boys.

[BlueCaliDem]

34. Exactly. Senator Warren is GOOD for Mainstreet, but Wall Street *fears* her, and they won't support

her. And as well-funded as MoveOne.org, even if they were to join forces with other progressive action groups, they can't match the money Wall Street will deluge the candidates with this coming election cycle.

I love Senator Warren, and I do hope she'll run because she'll have my vote in the primaries, but above all else, I want a Democrat in the White House because of three potential Supreme Court seats - Bader-Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Scalia - that will be up for replacements in the next decade. I don't want a Republican President to choose their successors.

[Prophet 451]

35. I have three major issues

1) Climate change. I absolutely will not support anyone who denies that A) the earth is warming or B) that humans are the primary cause.
2) Poverty. I will not support anyone who opposes or wants to cut the minimum wage, food stamps or unemployment. I think the minimum wage and food stamps should both be tripled and Clinton's disgraceful gutting of welfare should be repealed post-haste but those aren't a litmus test, just my opinion.
3) Gay rights. I will not support anyone who denies the right to marry to our gay comrades.

Everything else, I'm open to negotiation on. Being British, I can't vote for your president anyway but I'll support (and encourage my friends to vote for) the most liberal candidate available in teh primary and whoever the Dems nominate in the general on teh grounds that teh Democrats might be imperfect but teh Republicans are downright Fascist.

[BlueCaliDem]

40. Excellent major issues that you've noted there! I agree, 100%.

There is no sane human being on Earth with more than half a working brain who can deny, with any credibility, that humans don't play a huge role in the alarming climate change we're experiencing.

Equal rights for gay people is here to stay - unless, of course, we get a fully rightwing SCOTUS that might overturn the law through gutting it, just as they've done to the Voting Rights Act. Can you see now how incredibly important it is to ensure that we have a Democrat in the White House? Two of the three justices ready for retiring are Republican justices. Scalia is the worst, only second to Justice Thomas, though. And Kennedy, the so-called "swing voter", has actually been swinging pretty rightwing lately. Both, however, are entering their eighties and ripe for retirement. So they'll either retire or keel over in their posh seats a la the late Chief Justice Rehnquist - a former Rightwinger.

But to address your worries regarding Welfare reform, I'll defer to a 2006 interview by the Examiner with Ron Haskins; one of the people who had helped pass the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)
http://www.brookings.edu/research/interviews/2006/08/24welfare-haskins

It will help give you an insight to the behind-the-scenes machinations in getting this particular bill through, and why it was necessary. To note: President Clinton vetoed two earlier bills to reform Welfare because it was too Republican...i.o.w., it was too harsh on the less fortunate American people who needed help.

[Starry Messenger]

31. Not if Clinton is running.

She polls far behind Hillary.

[Prophet 451]

36. How far behind?

Is it a few points or are we talking impossible-to-counter numbers?

[Starry Messenger]

37. It's a pretty wide spread.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/228136-hillary-clinton-keeps-massive-lead-over-warren

"The CNN/ORC poll released Sunday finds that Clinton leads by 57 percentage points, 66 percent to 9 percent, over Warren. That lead is essentially unchanged from a CNN poll in November, when Clinton was up 65 percent to 10 percent."

Warren is a political crush of mine as well, but I like Clinton too (not all of her positions, obvs.) I don't think Warren would consider making a Quixotic run against a politician that she's already come out in support of.

[Prophet 451]

41. Ouch, that's pretty crushing numbers

Barring some unknown, I think it's pretty likely that HRC will end up being the nominee.

[Vinca]

39. No. I hope she'd take Secretary of the Treasury though. Or a SCOTUS nomination.

[Prophet 451]

43. Is she qualified for SCOTUS?

I know it's not actually required that justices have a legal background but it's usually the case.

[Vinca]

45. Technically, I'm qualified for SCOTUS . . . a frightening thought.

Elizabeth Warren would make a brilliant justice.

[Liberal_in_LA]

42. saw my first Hillary bumper sticker this week. "i'm with Hillary"

[Marr]

44. Seems like a coin toss to me.

A smart politician who intended to run would now be doing what she's doing; keep it quiet until the campaign season starts, and stay out of the magnifying glass as long as possible.

But this looks more or less identical to what a politician who has no intention of running would be doing so... there you go.

[HereSince1628]

46. IMO, her point of view will most certainly run for the presidency.

She's made it legitimate for dem politicians to chaff at the leash of The Financiers.

And she's demonstrated there is a deep well of support to be tapped by anyone who does so.

Events may impose addition issues on the campaigns of 2016, but whoever is running will be forced to acknowledge that.

Running or not she's bent what was the conversation.

[HappyMe]

47. Sadly, no.

I'm waiting for primary season.

[hrmjustin]

48. No, she doesn't want the job.