Warren: I will consider running for president after the midterms

[left-of-center2012]

Source: The Hill

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said at a town hall today she would consider running for president in 2020 once the midterm elections are done.

“After November 6, I will take a hard look at running for president,” she told a crowd in Holyoke, Mass., which garnered an extended standing ovation, according to CBS News.

The comments are among the firmest of any prospective Democratic presidential hopeful that they could seek the party’s nomination.

Should Warren run for president, it is expected that she would enter a crowded Democratic primary and could face fellow Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Warren has long been considered a darling to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in a time when many prospective candidates seek to appeal to that part of the party.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/409095-warren-i-will-consider-running-for-president-after-the-midterms

---

Elizabeth Warren says she will take a "hard look" at running for president after midterms

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elizabeth-warren-2020-presidential-run-hard-look-holyoke-massachusetts-today-2018-09-29/

[Pisces]

1. I love her, but she can't win. We need young charismatic like Newsom

[KayF]

17. I heard that a lot about Obama

I like him a lot but he "can't win", because of this or that, including the fact that he was black. (Still is lol). Well, the guy that "could't win", won, and then got re-elected.

[Pisces]

19. She's no Obama. And I always thought Obama could win.

[murielm99]

31. The party wanted Obama.

I am active in Illinois politics. Don't discount this state. We have a lot of powerful people here.

It was obvious to me from the beginning of his career as a state politician that the national Democrats wanted to have him run for President. Remember his keynote speech in 2004? That should have been a clear indicator to everyone. Remember that when he ran for President he had not even completed his term as Senator.

I belonged to several statewide Democratic organizations when Obama ran for President. Even before the primaries, we were being lined up to endorse him as the candidate. I objected to that. It is the norm to refrain from endorsing before the primary.

I was a Hillary supporter then, but I could see the handwriting on the wall. Of course I worked hard for Obama after he won the nomination and when he was reelected.

[DrToast]

48. I don't like her and she can't win.

Amy Klobuchar all the way. She would chew Donald Trump up and spit him out.

[DemocracyMouse]

51. I love Warren. She has heart, brains and down to earth gusto.

She's progressive and sensible. Strong, but warm.

She is also very media savvy. Makes concise, meme-friendly statements that pack a wallop. She is the hard-hitter we need – with research and science to back her up.

[DrToast]

49. John Edwards, Part 2?

I’ll pass.

[brooklynite]

2. Warren: I'll serve my full Senate term if reelected (April 5)

DORCHESTER, Mass. — Elizabeth Warren said she would serve her full six-year term in the Senate if reelected in November.

“Yes, that’s my plan. I’m running for the United States Senate in 2018,” Warren told reporters Thursday, when asked if she would commit to serving out her full term. “I am not running for president of the United States. That’s my plan.”

The Massachusetts Democrat had notably dodged the question in a March 11 interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” fanning speculation about her 2020 plans even as she told host Chuck Todd that she was not running for president.

Warren clarified her intentions after participating in a moderated town hall event Thursday evening at the Boston Teachers Union.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/05/warren-pledges-full-senate-term-2018-505308

[thesquanderer]

5. She has *always* left wiggle room.

In this case, it was her "plan." Well, plans change. It was by no means a pledge/promise.

[brooklynite]

9. I'm sure voters will appreciate that subtle distinction...

I'm also sure folks here will be understanding the next time a Republican who pledges to run for only two terms decides that his plans have "changed".

[BeyondGeography]

16. The funny thing about your post is you're not joking

She gave herself wiggle room at the time and you still don’t see it. Told you five-and-a-half months ago you were wrong.

[KayF]

18. I think it's pretty common

people want to pick the right time to announce, and until then they deny they're thinking about it.

[brooklynite]

24. But Warren isn't supposed to be an "ordinary politician".

[thesquanderer]

34. Not ordinary according to who?

She's not "ordinary" in the sense that she positions herself more to the left than most Dems.

Though you could also argue she's more honest than some who have entirely reversed course, in that, whether you want to see it or not, she has always left wiggle room when discussing her future. No "Shermanesque" statement was ever issued, and she surely knew that she could issue such a statement at any time. But she was "typical politician" in avoiding making such a statement even when pressed. As far as I know, she has never actually committed/pledged/promised to serve the full 6 year Senate term if elected.

Typical exchange would go something like this:

Q: What are your thoughts about running for President.
A: I am not running for President. I am running for the Senate.
Q: Are you saying you will not run for President?
A: I am not running for President. I am running for the Senate.

That is, when asked for pin-down clarification on a followup, she would never say Yes or No, she would only repeat what she'd already said. (And tense matters, as Bill Clinton taught us. He was arguably acquitted from impeachment by virtue of pointing out what the meaning of "is" is.)

At any rate, one can be an ordinary politician in some respects, and not others. there's no purity test for ordinary-ness. Some of the anti-Warren stuff reminds me of anti-Sanders stuff. Anything that shows he is not 100% perfect is used to make him seem like a fraud. Whoever it is, we're not going to get 100% perfect, and we don't need it. We need to win. And we need to move left (IMO).

[LanternWaste]

45. I appreciate it.

I realize it's tough to comprehend we can't read tea-leaves and entrails to determine the voter's will, and are merely left to allegations lacking any evidence to support them and spurious 'whataboutisms.'

[liberalnarb]

7. This was from April.

She announced potential POTUS run about an hour ago.

[thesquanderer]

44. Actually, I think it's good she said this now...

...rather than waiting until after the November election. At least now no one who votes for her will be saying they felt mis-led if she goes that direction.

[bearsfootball516]

3. I like her, but don't know how she'd do against younger, more charismatic candidates in the primary

She might struggle against people like Harris and Booker.

[deminks]

4. Nevertheless,she persisted.

[getagrip_already]

6. sometimes, people run but not to win the nomination.....

They are angling for either vp or a cabinet slot. She is my senator, and I honestly don't think she wants to run for president. She isn't a campaigner. She doesn't like to raise money.

But she might want a cabinet slot - say treasury - to undo the damage the munchkin has done. Running could get her some national attention, especially if she uses a populist message about fiscal issues.

[liberalnarb]

8. YES!

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. No

She is wonderful as a senator, but beyond that? I really don't think so.

Bringing up this possibility won't help her re-election bid, either.

[Dopers_Greed]

11. She is a great senator

But even if she made it through the primaries, would likely lose to Trump

[FailureToCommunicate]

12. Warren is a good Senator for us. We worked hard and closely to get her elected. Sadly,

as great as she is, I do not share the wild enthusiasm many have for her, and certainly do not think she has what it takes to run and win the Presidency. If she is maybe going to run for other reasons, then fine.

[smirkymonkey]

47. I agree. I am like the work she is doing as my Senator and I would vote for her as Senator again,

but I don't think she has a chance to win the Presidency. Especially if she runs against Trump.

[pecosbob]

13. Pretty short-sighted IMO to cross her off because she's currently in the Senate...

does that also apply to Booker? Harris? If it meant a shift in the balance of the Senate that of course would not do the party any good. I have not seen one thing that has damaged her politically in my eyes. She is currently the loudest, clearest voice from Washington on the issues that matter to me. Cue the expected racial slur from Trump...

[Rebl2]

14. Please no

I like her as a Senator, but we need younger people running for President. It’s time for younger people to lead this country and I say this as a person in my 60’s.

[Yavin4]

15. No one articulates the progressive vision better than Sen. Warren.

In words, legislation, and enacted reforms, she's critical to building the progressive philosophy that counters decades of conservative ideology.

She can do for progressives what Reagan did for conservatives.

[Pisces]

20. She can campaign for the candidate when the time comes.

This is not the time or did he mood of the country. We need youth and excitement.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

21. I would support her.

She looks a good fifteen years younger than her actual age and is a genuine progressive.

[BlueStater]

22. Hard pass.

She's not charismatic and I'd really like a candidate, at the very least, under 70.

[Luciferous]

23. Meh. I think it should be Booker or Harris.

[INdemo]

25. i would support her. Democratic voters are ready for a real pprogressive candidate

However every cable news outlet would be chanting .."In order to win they must run in the Middle"
Something we have heard for several election cycles...She would stand a real good chance of winning the Democratic nomination.

Warren/Schiff

[still_one]

27. Democrats will vote for who the Democratic nominee is. Whether she has a good chance of winning the

Last edited Sun Sep 30, 2018, 04:22 PM - Edit history (1)

nomination is unknown. There are going to be a lot of very go prospective Democratic candidates

Only part of the question involves who the Democrats support, and equally important part is who will be able to atrack independents,

[rpannier]

32. There are going to be a lot of very go prospective Democratic candidates

And that will be the nub of the whole thing
If you have 10 candidates running, one or two people with 16-18% of the vote will likely drive away candidates who might be much better
Trump benefited from the six zillion clowns running
You don't need a lot of support, you just need committed support in a huge field

[still_one]

26. If she runs and wins the nomination, great, but if she doesn't win the nomination, I will be damned

pissed if those same self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016, play the same game in 2020

[INdemo]

38. That wont happen. I just said Democratic voters are ready for and will vote for a Progressive

for those Democrats that want a candidate running from the "Center" go ahead and put me on ignore now.

[still_one]

39. Put you on ignore for what? I don't even know what your point is. All I a said is no matter who

is the Democratic nominee, Democratic voters I have no doubt will vote for the Democratic nominee. I just hope those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016 don't do the same thing they did in 2016 if their candidate isn't the chosen candidate.

Also, I don't put people on ignore, that isn't my style

[INdemo]

43. I don't know

I just want to see all Democrats all on the same page and no outside distractions.
I belive either way this Javanaugh thing goes Democrat’s have a big advantage to carry both houses and take our Democracy back

[woundedkarma]

28. She'd have my vote. With a lot of enthusiasm. n/t

[mountain grammy]

29. I love her!

[YOHABLO]

30. We must stay together on what ever candidate the Dems choose. There's too much at stake.

[still_one]

40. That should be the main focus

[duforsure]

33. No matter who wins the Democrat primary's and wins

I'll vote for them , and I've always liked Senator Warren. Smart, articulate, kind, compassionate, and like President Obama is very likable and funny. She also is very ethical, moral , and has integrity , which is the complete opposite of this idiot we have now. It won't matter as trump will be gone before the 2020 election . He can't make to then after everything exposes him and many others. He knows it, and the one reason he's doing these rally's is to generate money for himself because I suspect he's nearly broke and having problems paying his bills , again. He uses that money for legal fees also.

[djg21]

35. No more candidates from the blue Northeast or California.

We need someone from the west, the south or the rust belt. So long as the electoral college exists in its present form, it’s all about delivering electors that ar not a sure thing. New England, NY and CA are already firmly in the blue column and will stay that way no matter who runs.

I’m liking Hickenlooper right now, and it looks like he is going to run.

[BlueWI]

36. Hope she runs.

Brilliant and committed to reining in Wall Street and 1 percent excesses.

There are several good candidates, but her voice is distinctive and needed.

[madville]

37. This is going to be a mess

I can see Bernie easily winning the nomination with about 30% support in such a potentially crowded field. Booker, Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, Sanders, Biden, Patrick, possibly Bloomberg with his billions, and I can see Clinton trying again as well. It will be a year to remember. They all will come out of the gate attacking Bernie since he will be the preseason #1 when it starts just based on the last performance, he can use that to his advantage though.

[still_one]

41. Clinton is NOT running again. She made it very clear, and frankly all the distortions, lies, and

and trashing she got from a good number of the left, and most of the right was a disgrace.

Both she and Obama were called every foul name in the book by some of those so-called self-identified progressives who characterized them with every foul and sexist name in the book.

[MrsCoffee]

46. He will not run.

He doesn’t have the temperament to go through a thorough vetting.

His refusal to show his tax returns makes it look like he has something to hide. That’s a non-starter for a Democratic candidate.

Women and people of color are going to drive the next few elections. That’s not Bernie’s base by a long shot.

I’m pretty sure he gets all that.

Sorry.

[YOHABLO]

42. Too early to start this: Let's focus on midterms, and registering people to vote.

[truthisfreedom]

50. If so, Elizabeth, embrace it. Pocahontas vs the great white Satan.

Own it.