The Widdershins

Why Elizabeth Warren will not be the Democratic nominee for President

Posted on: July 23, 2014


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"

Excellent points. After seeing the Daily Show & Charlie Rose interviews, I think she is planning to run; also, she did talk a lot about the great divide, etc., much more populist. I think she is rested and ready, and already has a strategy.

I love Warren also, but she’s too green. You are right about Obama not having served enough time. He has had to “learn on the job” and a lot of people thought that was a good thing, that it was refreshing, but I don’t think so. Not for that job.

annie: thanks for commenting. I truly like Warren and admire the work she’s done. Saying that though, I think, like you said, she’s too green. I truly think that someone who wants to be President has got to be able to play the game as the other side does. I have read too many articles about how Obama did not like to “schmooze” with the politicians on the Hill. Sadly, it’s a part of the job.

I don’t think that Warren has a chance of getting the nomination if she runs against Hillary, but I also don’t want to see a schism in the party like we had in 2008.

Yes, they really need to be united this time. Especially if, god forbid, they lose senate.

annie said: Especially if, god forbid, they lose senate.

Yep, that concerns me big time.

I agree with you, Fredster, completely.
I live in NE Ohio and my dream ticket would be Clinton/Brown, as in Senator Sherrod Brown. He’s great-as liberal as Warren-more experienced than Obama was, God knows, and from one of the most important battleground states.
If the Democratic Party was smart, it, too, would hold its National Convention in Cleveland (there’s no law against it and we’ll be ready) to nominate Clinton/Brown.
Of course, that’s just one Buckeye’s (and, very fed up Democrat’s) opinion.

Sue@5: Phew! I was so afraid i was gonna p*ss off some folks. I’m about as liberal and left as you can be, but being down here in the red states I just know Warren would fall flat in so many states. My La, Senator, Mary Landrieu is about as centrist as you can get, and all you read and see is “liberal Mary Landrieu” this and that.

That ticket of Clinton/Brown sounds pretty good to me! I’ve seen him on some of the talk shows.

Boo Radly, thanks for liking my post; you should have left a comment!

Fredster@6: Well, Brown is very liberal (yay), but it’s that roll up your sleeves, rust belt, lunch bucket kind of liberalism, not the Ivy League, best and brightest sort.
I don’t think you could piss me off.

I don’t think you could piss me off.

Thank you Sue! 🙂

Oh I heard from chat y’all, got an email. She is back from her quick vacay but has been with her mother-in-law at the e.r. I imagine we’ll hear from her possibly tomorrow.

Shame about Chats MIL. I hope all will be well.

I don’t know much about Sherrod Brown, but that sounds intriguing.

annie@11: Brown is one of the good guys, like Sue said.

Warren is from Oklahoma and has a working-class background that could potentially play well in states like Indiana and Ohio. My problem with Warren is not that she is too liberal to win the nomination but that she is too inexperienced to be President. In particular, she lacks foreign policy experience. The world is becoming increasingly dangerous and foreign affairs are likely to dominate the next administration’s agenda. The Israeli-Palestinian and the Ukrainian-Russian situations are signs of that. I think both will continue to escalate and they require a leader who understands their complexity if we want to avoid WWIII. A POTUS who has looked Putin in the eye and seen that he has no soul is important. I will keep my opinion about Bibi’s soul or lack thereof to myself.

Obviously, Hillary is by far the best candidate on both foreign and domestic issues to be the next POTUS. I am an admirer of Sherrod Brown, but like Warren, his lack of foreign policy experience is a concern if he were to run for President. But I agree with Sweet Sue that Brown would be a great VP choice for Hillary. If Hillary doesn’t run, I think Biden is a better choice for the Democratic nomination than Warren or Brown because of his foreign policy credentials. Yes, I am serious. ( Okay, fire away at me for that opinion. ) A Warren or Brown administration would require a very strong Sec. of State and Defense to make up for their deficiencies in foreign affairs.

I think Warren should stay in the Senate where she can do the most good for the Average Jane and Joe. I would prefer that to giving her a Cabinet position in the next Clinton administration. Warren can wield more power in the Senate than she can in the Cabinet.

The “next Clinton administration”! It can’t happen soon enough for me. Hillary has sounded brilliant, looked fabulous, and seemed ready to run during her recent book tour. Go Hillary!

Beata@13: Good points Beata; I forgot about Warren being from Oklahoma (that brings up the “Indian-thing” doesn’t it?).

Fwiw, I wasn’t arguing that she was too liberal to get the nomination, but rather too liberal to win in the general.

I agree with you that she should stay in the Senate.

Hillary has sounded brilliant, looked fabulous, and seemed ready to run during her recent book tour.

(sigh) The talking Meekas on Morning Schmoe were all atwitter about how her book is selling fewer copies than the one written by that right-wing idiot Ben Carson. Funny…I didn’t even know he had a book out. 😛

I’m back. I got home 2 days ago, and spent yesterday in the ER with my stepmother. She is now admitted to the hospital, and I will be back and forth/ Thanks for everyone’s good wishes and patience.

I concur: I like Warren, but she can’t win the general election. Nominating her is to surrender the Presidency to a Republican in 2016. For now she does well in Congress, pushing liberal issues. And she gets more airplay that your average freshman Senator. So good for her, she needs to keep doing that!

I am glad you are back chat!

Hi beata!!!!

DYB@16: You brought out some very valid points there.

Well said Beata & DYB.

Just because…

“Take my hand in your hand. Say it’s great to be alive.”

@annie: Ewwwwww!!!!! 😯

My opinion is that no one knows who Elizabeth Warren is. Seriously. Love her though. 🙂

Comments are closed.

Keep Up

Atrocities Documented:

What the F*ck Just Happened?!

Victories Won:

Your Victories Against Drumpf!

Wanna Be A Widdershin?

Send us a sample post at:

widdershinssubmissions at gmail dot com

Our Frontpagers

I’m ready. Are you?

Blog Archive

July 2014
« Jun   Aug »

Kellyanne Conway’s new job

Take the kids to work? NO!

That moment when *your* pussy gets grabbed

You go gurl! h/t Adam Joseph

“The” Book

Nice picture of our gal

Time till the Grifter in Chief is Gone

Hopefully soonerJanuary 21st, 2021
2.5 years to go.

Mueller Time!

Wise Words from Paul Ryan


Only the *best* politicans bought by the NRA

Marching for their lives

Perfect Picture

Rudy: oh shit the pee tape IS real!

Need Reminders?

Never too early to shop for Christmas

“Look this way”

Manafort’s Jail Photo

Indeed who?

Trump spam