Discussion: Elizabeth Warren Now Says She's Not 'Going To Run For President'

Discussion for article #231981

While that does make me sad, she can continue to do her great work in the Senate. And absolutely nothing says she can’t be the VP nom.

Bigger problem is without Warren, there really isn’t yet a viable alternative to Hillary in the primary. And it is getting kind of late for one to show up.


Jeez, no one in her family’s been President before, no hidden off shore assets, no strange hobbies like toe portraiture or horse dancing and I’ll bet she doesn’t even have one measly corporate board from which she could resign…


and yet with all that being said she is probably one of the most qualified cannidates we could have…someone who actually gives a damm about her job and the american people


I love Warren a lot—but she has zero foreign policy experience, zero security experience, and very little domestic policy experience.

She would be a dreadful nominee.

She’s far more valuable in the Senate, where she is currently taking names and kicking ass.
And her populism is driving the Democrats leftward, which is a good and necessary thing.
That wouldn’t happen if she had to deal with being a nominee.


She won’t be the VP nom if Hillary is the Dem candidate for Pres. She’d pick a pale stale male that could help her in a swing state like Ohio or PA.

Warren would make a great Treas Secty in a Hillary administration though.


It’s a big problem. Hillary is going to lose if she’s the nominee and we’ll then face the Supreme Court, the senate, the house and white house all in Republican control.


Her zero foreign policy experience and security experience mean that she’d be enormously better than Hillary, whose demonstrated foreign policy and security stances are WAR WAR WAR (and more war).

Elizabeth Warren also is far more sensible on domestic policy than Hillary.


Agreed. Although despite the media’s constant insistence to the contrary for the past decade or so, PA is not a swing state. Overall it is Democratic in presidential elections, time and again. It is a highly split state though with Philly and Pittsburgh urban areas being strongly Democratic areas and the middle being “Mississippi North” (a little over the top) as someone once said.

1 Like

Somewhat dismaying re: Warren is that it is rare that she expresses much appreciation for what President Obama has done regarding the economy considering where it was in 2008. Her points are well-taken but her nuance needs serious work sometimes.

I’m not sad, I’m relieved. There are other terrific Dems, including some in the Senate, but nobody has had the impact she’s already had from there, and I want her there forever. The instant she became a presidential candidate the media coverage and the right-wing smear machine would turn her into something other than what she is. And if she happened to win the presidency, she’d inevitably have to do things that would disappoint people (more conspicuously than, say, her opposition to the ACA’s medical-device tax), which would be glommed onto by professional pessimists and gleeful Republicans and dilute whatever power we might think she’d have. Not to mention that we don’t even know how she’d be on myriad issues outside her career focus; she can be as fabulous as she is because as a Senator she doesn’t have to be in the lead on everything, No, I want her right where she is as long as she can stand it, the lioness of the Senate.


I believe the description of Pennsylvania you’re looking for is Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama in the middle.


I’d much, much rather her stay as my Senator, than become VP. Or president, for that matter.

1 Like

Totally agree with what you are saying here.

That might be the case, but if you think that Warren would do better in a national campaign, you’re mistaken. It wouldn’t take the GOP and its propaganda arm FoxNews more than three weeks to convince half our ignorant country that she’s a raving Socialist bent on expropriation of all private property. Since the Democratic Party as a whole is completely and fecklessly incompetent at attacking Republican lies, Warren would be on her way to a McGovern-style defeat. For better or worse, Hillary is much more difficult to successfully attack that way.


She’s not running? GOOD.

We don’t need Elizabeth Warren as president. We need Elizabeth Warren as an evangelist who can remind Democrats what they stand for: Making people’s lives better.

Most Democrats in Congress seem to have forgotten that. We need Warren to remind them. She can do more good in the long run by helping return the party to one that helps people, rather than one that serves corporate masters.


No, what will happen is that Hillary will be painted as a left-wing extremist, despite being a center-right corporatist politician. Which will convince that same half the country you are wringing your hands about, and then true left-wingers with actual good policy ideas (you know, not Hillary) will be so far to the left of the newly shifted overton window they will be ignored by the ‘serious’ people. Thanks but no thanks. I would rather take my chances with someone who will actually improve the country. I don’t think Hillary has a shot. I think a true progressive could win big, while if we run another of these fake Democrats we will be crushed for sure.

What is the quote again? (Paraphrasing) “When given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat pretending to be a Republican, the voters will choose the genuine article every time”.

That is why bad Democrats like Nunn, Davis, and Grimes, who had real shots, lost this year. Name one progressive Democrat that lost the election last year. We have spent 30 years putting the lie to the claim that we need to nominate ‘moderates’. Let’s try running a progressive for once. Obama ran as one (though he wasn’t in many ways) and he won twice in major landslides.


You mean like Obama circa 2008? Obama’s federal experience in 2008? Four years as Senator. Warren’s? Four years as Senator.

No one (short of Hillary) has the depth of experience you are asking for. What matters is the ability to put together a like-minded team of advisers and cabinet. I trust Warren to do that. Unlike Obama’s ‘team of rivals’.


I don’t think this counts as a firm no, or else she would have elaborated. A one-word answer to that question is no way to dispel rumors or get the folks in New Hampshire as we speak to stop trying to draft her.

BS. Teddy Kennedy spent years in the Senate trying to get universal health care done. He was the ‘so-called’ lion of the Senate. And how did that go for us? We got it after he died, and only because of the new president not him. You want serious policy change? Put a true believer in the White House. You cannot run serious policy change from the Senate. I can’t think of even a single major reform that ever started in the Senate.