Elizabeth Warren Not Interested In Running For President

[Cali_Democrat]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) insisted in a recent interview with The New York Times that she does not plan to seek the presidency.

"In the interview, Warren, 64, said twice that she had no interest in running for president, a point her aides amplify privately," reported The Times. "But she said she would continue to focus on economic fairness, saying it is the signal issue of the day."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/elizabeth-warren-president_n_4016319.html

[winter is coming]

1. That's all right. She's a gem for us in the Senate and it's the message, not the messenger,

that's important. I'd be amazed if no one steps up for the 99% in 2016.

[whathehell]

7. I'm disappointed, frankly, but it is, of course, her choice

I am surprised though, that you would be surprised if "no one steps up for the 99%" in 2016, as

my reaction is more like...I'd be surprised if someone DOES....What other possible contender do

you see?....To me, it looks like it's going to be Hillary vs. Christie -- no big time supporters of the

99% there, although a Dem is always preferable in that regard to a Repuke.

[winter is coming]

8. This far out from the election, attention tends to be focused on "name recognition" candidates

as if they're the only possibilities. Using that logic, Hillary should have been the nominee in '08. I'm thinking Martin O'Malley or Sherrod Brown are possibilities. IMO, there's a strong potential voter base for a 99% candidate. Funding could be problematic, though.

[whathehell]

9. True, but I don't think that logic is flawed..

I think Barack Obama was an anomaly, the exception that proves the rule.

[betterdemsonly]

10. O'Malley is a leading light of the dlc

hardly a representative of 99% . Sherrod is not very well known.

[winter is coming]

12. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=467321

[betterdemsonly]

13. Those aren't in anyway related to bank regulations

wages, foreclosures, or labor laws. Many dlcers are liberal on abortion, gay marriage an gun control. If those are definitive Bloomberg is a 99%er.

[highmindedhavi]

2. Good for her

She won't be bribed by Banks/Wall St. like the current puppet leaders.

[Jackal87]

15. because

she knows that she won't win. Don't assume just because obama won two times then thats the default for any future presidential race, Warren is not popular enough and never will be then hillary to win a huge amount of states. Plus Hillary's coattails will help dems win house/senate elections just like in 2008.

[dkf]

3. I don't blame her. Smart woman.

[grantcart]

6. +1

[Jefferson23]

4. Her prerogative.

[rrneck]

5. Well, okay. But I'd vote for her before quick. nt

[betterdemsonly]

11. I hope she reconsiders

It isn't just about her. It is about the country. She would make a real difference in that position by choosing a different economic team.

[blue14u]

14. My heart is broken...

[Jackal87]

16. she'll be fine

She doesn't want to become another dennis kucinich, remember that episode??

[blue14u]

17. Yes, and frankly

who can blame her.. Why put herself through the mill

when she can stay home and still make a big difference!

Maybe, just maybe, I can still pretend she would consider

VP!!!!! YEA!!! That's the ticket!!! lol

I really am so disappointed... but we still have Wendy Davis

to cheer about, and change Texas.. She would not be on the

ticket if she didn't really believe she has a win win there!

She has never lost before!!!

[betterdemsonly]

18. Not committed to Wendy.

I think Wendy is probably a center-rightest. So I am so so on her. Even Clintonoids are prochoice. I am for economic progressives only. Center-rightests are probably just ex prochoice republicans, who haven't changed thier politics significantly. I don't care about winning Texas if it empowers them at the expense of traditional democrats.

[blue14u]

19. I only know of her

from the filibuster.. If she is center right, then that is something I would watch closely...

Center right is better that the beef cakes Texas has now, but even if a more left-ie

came on board, they would have little to no chance of winning in Texas unless the
Latino, and young people really got out and voted for the Democrate.... I hope they will.. We need them.

It's possible to move Wendy to the left, maybe after the election...

Honestly, after seeing my POTUS go RW so much this latest term, I was

ready to throw in the towel... No more centrist or third way for me.. Obama

seems to be coming back around to the left these last few weeks, and I for one

am grateful. He really had lost me and I was also considering not voting for Hillary

for the same reason. I wanted Warren... I'm waiting to see how it goes now instead of

dropping out altogether. I want left wing candidates in office... I know what I'm getting then..

BTW... Welcome to DU!!!

[betterdemsonly]

20. never seen a new democrat or a bluedog

Last edited Thu Oct 10, 2013, 11:08 AM - Edit history (1)

ratchet any direction but right after an election! The idea that they run right and govern left is a myth propagated by dlc spinners. They run more progressive than they govern historically!

I don't think Tx is all that winnable personally. I think alot of women there are Southern Baptist coolaid drinkers. It is unfortunate for poor and minority women there but there isn't much that can be done about it other than wait for the right time when demographics change it.

It is true California turned around but California isn't Southern and doesn't have a high percentage of evangelicals.

Thanks for the welcome.