Why Elizabeth Warren will not be the Democratic nominee for President
Posted July 23, 2014on:
Let me say first: that is if Hillary Clinton decides to run for the Democratic nomination. Should Hillary decide not to run, well then, that’s a whole new ballgame. But I believe that barring something horrendous happening, that Hillary Clinton will indeed run for the Democratic nomination.
Now, for all my dear Widdershin friends in the northeast; Massachusetts, New York and other areas please don’t be too offended by this but here’s the thing: Elizabeth Warren is too liberal to win the Presidency. Nope, she would not be able to carry enough areas outside the Northeast and West Coast to win in the general. She certainly could not win in the southern states and possibly Clinton could not either. But, could Warren carry Illinois? Ohio or Indiana? My bet is no. This is not to say that I dislike Warren…hell I love Bernie Sanders, that old socialist, to death. And I will say that certainly Warren, in the Senate and before, has championed the “little guy or woman”. But is that really enough?
Hillary Clinton has had the experience “in the trenches” so to speak for a long time. She’s been around the block more than a few times in Washington and knows how things work. Warren is in her first term in the Senate dealing with politics at the national level. Some folks have said “Oh that doesn’t matter!” “She’ll learn how to handle the ropes as President.” My response would be that we’ve had a great example of not enough experience for the last six years; how’s that worked out? Not to knock Obama too terribly, but he was such a newbie in the Senate that he never learned how things work in DC before he became President and many people in the know talk about how he abhors “retail politics”.
There is certainly a rising clamor for “Run Elizabeth Run!” Why even our dear old friend (cough cough) Donna Brazile has talked about Warren:
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile called Warren “a perfect surrogate” this campaign season for areas in which Obama is too divisive to enter.
“Warren has captured not only the spirit of the Democrats this political cycle but she represents and speaks for so many in our party,” Brazile said.
Some will say (and I did) that Warren has no intentions to run for the Democratic nomination, that she signed a statement with other Democratic women supporting Hillary in 2016, and has repeatedly said she’s not running. But in a recent interview with HuffPo she had a different story:
As Warren’s reception has been strong, she has modified her response since her emphatic December statement that she is not running for president.
In an interview with Huff Post Live in June, Warren dodged answering the question, instead saying, “This is a moment in time for our country and, I believe, for our world, a moment in time where we decide who we are as a people and what kind of a future we’re going to build.”
Now John Dickerson with Slate believes it would be a good thing for Elizabeth to run. That by doing so, she would force Clinton to more clearly define herself as to whether she is truly for the “little guy” or for the Wall Street banker crowd:
Warren would challenge the Democratic Party on issues like corporate power, income inequality, and entitlements. She would be a long shot and she would have nothing to lose—which means she could keep talking about those ideas out loud. Because Clinton is close to Wall Street and finance executives and Warren is gunning for them, she has the potential to put campaign pressure on Clinton that other candidates can’t. Clinton and other candidates would be forced to explain where they stood more than if Warren weren’t in the race.
Sure, Warren would indeed push Clinton more to the left, but then that is what frequently happens in the primaries: Candidates run more toward the extremes of their party and then in the general they move to more a centrist view because they have to capture a good part of the all-important independent voters in the general.
On the other hand, David Weigel also with Slate feels that the entire Warren movement is make-believe.
When Warren appeared at the Netroots Nation confab as she concluded her speech, all of her supporters brought out the signs with “Run Elizabeth Run”. And the press that was present, ever eager to pounce on anything that would generate a page hit had fun with it:
But the story was already being told. The signs made it into write-ups by Politico, Huffington Post, McClatchy, and a Washington Post story about how “cracks are beginning to emerge” in the Clinton restoration’s coalition.
In some ways I’m not worried about a primary challenger for Clinton. The idea by some is to try to nudge Clinton more to the left wing of the party:
“Hillary Clinton is going to say these things,” said former Rep. Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat who left his seat after a 2011 gerrymander. “Whoever our Democratic nominee is will run as an economic populist. When the pollsters and consultants come back with the numbers, they’ll tell her: Holy crap, you may not have been a populist before, but you are one now! The problem will be credibility, and whether it’s believable coming from someone who has close ties to the financial sector.”
It is clear that Hillary Clinton fits more into the central part of the Democratic Party. But I also believe she “gets it” that not all Americans have been given a fair shake by the system in the last couple of decades.
Let’s be honest here: with the House firmly in the hands of the Republicans and with the chance that the Senate may flip that way too, it’s going to be difficult for any Democratic President to have much of an agenda that can be implemented. It may take another two year cycle for the electorate to be disgusted enough to make a change. As she said before in 2008, she could see what was coming and that’s what she was running against and why she was running in that election.
Feel free to discuss whatever is on your minds.
22 Responses to "Why Elizabeth Warren will not be the Democratic nominee for President"
Comments are closed.