Elizabeth Warren’s former national finance chair, Paul Egerman, has told several inquiring donors this month that, despite runaway speculation and a burning desire from the party’s left wing, the freshman senator will not run for president in 2016.
[snip]
Egerman, close to both Warren and to the heavy-hitting liberal base of funders who helped her raise $42 million last year, has been approached by donors in the last two weeks and told them that, no, Warren is not planning to run, according to two major players in Democratic financial circles who spoke with Egerman directly.
[snip]
More recently, at meetings last week in Washington for Democracy Alliance, a tightly guarded coalition of some of the country’s biggest liberal donors, the question of Warren’s candidacy was still fresh. Warren herself spoke at the conference on Thursday, introducing a panel on the judiciary with Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU.
At the meetings for the group, which funds a portfolio of progressive organizations, Warren and Egerman spoke about her intentions in 2016, according to a Democratic political strategist with close ties to the Democracy Alliance who had a private conversation about the interaction with Egerman later. Warren told Egerman, according to the strategist, she had no plans to primary Clinton.
Another donor, based in New York City, asked Warren directly at the conference about her intentions and received the same answer…
[snip]
Lacey Rose, Warren’s press secretary, gave BuzzFeed the following statement: “As Senator Warren has said many times, she is not running for president,” Rose said.
“Good”…we don’t need another kamikaze liberal from Massachusetts routine on the presidential campaign trail in 2016. We should be leveraging our money and power to ensue the platform is broadminded and progressive, likewise the candidate…
Elias N
But Liz Warren is no John Kerry or Dukakis. She is a far better politician and politician and policy advocate than either of them. I expect her to sit this one out, but I do hope she is open to the possibility. Obviously there is a lot of
money and support waiting for her that wouldn’t be there for a lesser candidate from the left.
at the federal or the state level. I went to Lowell in July and voted for a platfom with a bunch of stuff our state legislature won’t be doing anytime soom. Never yet seen anyone who
Warren is unlike Kerry and Dukakis in that, three years out, she already has a devoted following and a signature issue that happens to be the most important issue we have going. And no, New Republic, it’s not arcane “financial regulation.” It’s basic fairness and opportunity in our economy.
“Never yet seen anyone who lost a re-election bid for not following the party platform closely.”
was a “kamikaze liberal” you may have more in common with the R-variant of the MGs in this state.
Being President is a whole different ball game. As smart as she is, she’s (probably) far from ready to either run or govern the country. As much as we need an intelligent progressive, we need one who can be effective.
Elizabeth Warren can do anything if she puts her mind to it. If she decided to run for president, she would win. And, she would do a great job.
Can we maybe transplant some of her populist bona fides into whomever the eventual nominee is? Can she maybe get into a room with HRC and teach her how to say bad things about investment banks (“don’t worry, Hil, they’ll still give you their money!”? Can we at least slip into the DNC platform a single little Warren-like plank–maybe with a nice colorful chart–detailing the toll that growing income inequality is taking on our economy and our society? What excited me most about the prospect of her running was that there would finally be someone addressing these issues.
If Hillary were to adopt Warren’s views on banks and Wall Street, then Elizabeth could not possibly oppose her. Otherwise, there is still a possibility that Warren could run.
“Has no intention to run”
“Is not planning to run”
“Is not running”
All things that do not mean “will not run”. I don’t think a Warren run would be successful, and I’m not sure it would be helpful. But I see a grammatical loophole big enough to drive a campaign bus through. If Hillary declines, couldn’t her plans and intentions change?
Elizabeth Warren today: raise Social Security benefits.
Greg Sargent:
I think Senator Warren is the current placeholder for people who are not Ready for Hillary. It’s our version of (though not as bad as) the Republican tendency last year to seek out non-Romney frontrunners. Hell they almost married RIck Santorum.
Some of us are implacably opposed to Hillary Clinton because nominating her would be an endorsement of the biggest and stupidest atrocity this country has voluntarily committed in a very long time. We felt similarly in 2008, and we were successful in finding a viable candidate to defeat her with. Whether we’ll be successful again for 2016, I’m not sure, but we’ll certainly try.
I was referring to this.
Guess what, I didn’t like Iraq either, but I’m firmly with HRC. The only time I will probably vote for someone with whom I agree on everything is when my own name is on the ballot. She would have had a stellar career if Iraq were never voted on and that ought to count for something.
The Iraq situation is pretty bad. Not only did she vote for the way, she never said that it was a mistake. To this day, Hillary claims our invasion of Iraq was a good thing.
And, there is also thsoe votes on the Patriot Act.
And then there is her statements that banks should be de-regulated.
…that the atrocity cos was refering to was Iraq. For me I’m going for overall preparedness and competence rather than counting votes, while staying within the party of course and no, HRC is not a DINO either.
In other words, you’re choosing to stay with your opinion of her regardless of the facts of her political history. “Overall preparedness and competence” sounds like a euphemism for “somebody I like”. Similarly, you use “counting votes” as if it’s a euphemism for “picking nits”.
My differences with the public policy advocated by Ms. Clinton go well beyond “counting votes”. I see very few issues on which she lands on the same side as me (except when she “evolves” to meet an electorate that got there much earlier). What you call “counting votes”, I characterize as “looking at policy”.
To me, therefore, your statement could be reworded as “I’m going for somebody I like rather than looking at policy …”
Did you miss the preparedness part? That’s what I said I’m looking for and that’s exactly what I mean. She knows the issues inside and out. She knows how the White House works. She’ll need less on-the-job training than anyone other than an incumbent. She will have no illusions about working with Congress. She is highly respected around the world. Putting words in my mouth is inaccurate and uncalled for. By all means she should be asked her criteria for putting troops in harm’s way, which legislation she’ll sign or veto, and her criteria for appointments, but I refuse to accept that she is beyond redemption and I don’t object to some of her votes nearly as much as you do anyway.
Hillary Clinton has a horrible voting record on Iraq. And, she does not say that she made a mistake. She still supports the war in Iraq.
I don’t blame you for trying to get us to forgive her Iraq record and focus on the subjective issue called “preparedness”. That’s a reasonable switcheroo to try to get support for a candidate with a highly objectionable track record.
She came out against how Iraq was being handled in 2008, so I’m not sure she still supports the war in Iraq. On the vote specifically she may not think it was a mistake AT THE TIME which is the only standard by which a vote can be fairly judged.
Please tell me how you propose to measure “preparedness”. Then let’s apply that benchmark to prior Presidents and see how it holds up.
She has approximately the same knowledge of issues as any other one-term Senator. The view of a resident/spouse is different from an incumbent. There are a great many meetings, briefings, and updates that are made available to an incumbent that are not offered to the incumbent’s spouse.
I have not said she is “beyond redemption”. I’ve said that if forced to make a choice, I will choose her over any imaginable Republican nominee. Fortunately, we are not faced with that choice today.
By the standards you propose, virtually none of the Presidents going back to FDR were “prepared”. Was Bill Clinton prepared? Somehow he muddled through. How about George H. Bush? Here’s a list:
FDR:
Truman:
Eisenhower:
JFK:
LBJ:
Nixon:
Ford:
Carter:
Reagan:
Bush I
Bill Clinton
Bush II
Obama
???
I’m serious, we can all try an experiment. Give each a score from 1-5 (1=least, 5=most) on preparedness, as described here. Give each a score from 1-5 (1=terrible, 5=great) on their overall effectiveness in office.
I think the question I challenge is whether “preparedness”, as described by Christopher, has any correlation at all with performance in office.
First score is preparedness, as defined here. Second score is my opinion of that guy’s effectiveness. 1 is least, and 5 is most.
FDR: 3, 5
Truman: 4, 5
Eisenhower: 4, 3
JFK: 2, 4
LBJ 5, 3
Nixon 5, 1
Reagan 2, 1
Ford 5, 2
Carter 2, 3
Bush first 5, 2
Clinton 2, 3
Bush Second 1, 1
Obama 2, 4
YMMV
…your opinion that she has approximately the same knowledge of issues as a one term Senator. That is ONE piece of her resume. She has been Secretary of State which surely you haven’t forgotten and, yes, a policy-active First Lady, which boggles my mind you discount so much. She is in the same class as an Eleanor Roosevelt when it comes to First Ladies. From what I understand she was just as involved in her husband’s state business as well. Come on, when you hire someone don’t you want someone with the most relevant experience? FWIW, here are my rankings, but none of us gets to rewrite history and I don’t necessarily know whom I would have chosen in primaries. I’ll use bluewatch’s format.
FDR 4, 5
HST 4, 5
DDE 3, 3
JFK 3, 4
LBJ 5, 4
RMN 5, 4
GRF 2, 2
JEC 3, 2
RWR 4, 4
GHWB 5, 4
WJC 4, 4
GWB 3, 3
BHO 2, 2
So yes, there’s a close correlation in my mind. Doesn’t mean there are never exceptions – Lincoln comes to mind.
Let’s look at a few recent elections that did not involve an incumbent president:.
2008: Obama and McCain, clearly McCain was most “prepared”.
2000: Bush and Gore, Gore was the most prepared.
1960: JFK vs Nixon: Nixon was most prepared.
In all of these cases the most prepared candidate lost.
When it comes to the general I almost certainly go with the Democrat, but in the context of a primary preparedness is a high priority.
Good exercise. I don’t know if anyone is prepared to be president.
FDR: 4,5
Truman: 4,4
Eisenhower: 3,3
JFK: 2,3
LBJ: 5,3
Nixon: 4,1
Ford: 4,2
Carter: 3,3
Reagan: 4,2
Bush I: 5,3
Bill Clinton: 3,4
Bush II: 3,1
Obama: 2,3
Why are we supposed to get in line with the conventional wisdom three years before the election? How about we wait until 2016, THEN decide who we want to represent us? If I wanted to the read re-heated opinions of Ross Douthat, I’d just read Buzzfeed.
Some of us are Ready for Hillary regardless of who else is in. Others are passionate about EW and would go for her in a heartbeat again regardless of other comers. We’re political junkies here – it’s never too early to start handicapping the next election:)
I went door to door for John Kerry in 2004…and for Tsongas in 1992 and for Dukakis in 1988. Perhaps I’m trying in my small way to save Citizen Warren some unecessary heartbreak.
Elias
n/t
Maybe, HRC will change her pro-big-bank views and actually become progressive.
Or, maybe, this Buzzword article was sourced by HRC supporters, and
Maybe, EW will run!
What matters is the economy!
He was on NPR this morning, plugging his book and sounding a lot like a guy who’s running.
When they write a book, you know they are running.