Slate: Why Elizabeth Warren Won't Run

[Derek V]

You could almost call this week the official start of the 2016 presidential race. Yes, the “invisible primary” of jockeying and influence has been going on since the end of the last election. But it’s only been in the last few days that the structure of the field, on both sides, has become clearer.

For Democrats, clarity means the picture is still static. Hillary Clinton still towers over every potential competitor, the most popular person in the Democratic Party not named Barack or Michelle. Need proof? In a survey released this week, 50 percent of Americans said they could support Clinton in an election. And in a hypothetical primary—drawn from an average of available polls—almost two-thirds of Democrats support Clinton over everyone else in the field, from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Vice President Biden. And, contrary to some observers, this isn’t like 2006 or 2007. Then, Clinton was a modest favorite in the field. Now, she’s the undisputed leader.

Where things have changed are in the internal dynamics of the party. A year ago, the left of the Democratic Party didn’t have an ideological leader. Now, it arguably does in the form of Warren. Many see this as a prelude to a presidential run, but it’s just as likely that she tries to institutionalize her influence as a party broker, someone who speaks for liberal Democrats and can claim concessions in return for support. Or, as Dana Milbank argues for the Washington Post, a left-wing analogue to former South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who now serves as president of the conservative Heritage Foundation.

If that’s true, then the ambiguity of Warren’s status in the presidential race—“Is she running?”—is a strategic choice. The more Clinton, or anyone else, is worried about a Warren insurgency, the more likely it is that that person will try to adopt her positions or assuage her concerns as an ideological leader. No, the eventual Democratic nominee won’t be Elizabeth Warren, but she might sound like her.

Link

If this article---which acknowledges the possibility that Elizabeth Warren may actually NOT be the Messiah---angers you, I suggest that you read the whole thing, for it ALSO opines that Jeb Bush can't win.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Don't mistake support for Warren as some sort of personality cult.

What it is, actually, is a "populism cult." Warren is the focus because at this moment she appears to be the best expression of progressive populism on the scene, packaged in a really appealing format.

She represents a lot of unknowns, such as where she may come down on military involvement in the Middle East, aggressive action against global warming, etc.

However political opinions tend to come in clusters, statistically speaking, so if one has progressive economic views, one is also likely to have progressive opinions in other areas as well. If this turns out to be a false assumption, then people, including me, will have some rethinking to do.

In any case, as I started out to say, Warren support is not actually about Warren. At least not for me. It's about the stances she is taking. Give me an equally electable candidate who more clearly represents my views, and I'll throw my support that way.

And, finally, the obligatory Bernie comment. I love Bernie. He more closely represents my views than any other major political figure. But he's 75, he comes with the Socialist label (which I sorta carry myself, but I'm not running for anything), and he could not be elected.

So, for the time being, I continue to show the Warren flag.

[Derek V]

2. Here's the Thing: I Believe YOU

Others here, I'm not so sure of!