= new reply since forum marked as read
In fact, nobody is. That's because they know something that more than a few DUers do not. That there are three years until the next presidential election and the Democrats have a possibly very difficult mid-term election in less than a year. Plus, there's the small matter that nobody will be running for 2016 until after the 2014 mid-term, whose outcome is very likely to have a profound effect on the candidate field in 2016.
In other words, all this 2016 gum flapping now is just that, and nothing more.
Get the fuck to work on giving our 2016 candidate, whoever it is, a Congress, state legislatures, and governorships which will enable him or her to get some shit done.
That's fucking job number one. Anybody spewing about 2016 now is effectively distracting us from that most important job.
And. Who. Eventually. Runs. Is. Very. Likely. And. Highly. Dependent. On. The. Outcome. Of. The. 2014. Midterms.
Any 2016 talk now is mere gum flapping.
So, by all means, flap away.
"Warren 2016."
Warren announces she's not interested in the Presidency.
"Warren 2016!"
Warren staffer signals Elizabeth not interested in the White House.
"Warren 2016!!"
Warren pledges to complete her Senate term.
"Warren 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Do you realize how that looks, especially three years before the 2016 election?
"But she may change her mind!!!!!"
The latter sounds like delusion more than a practical and realistic political stand.
And whoever is elected President in 2016, we are going to want Democratic state legislatures, governorships and US Congress critters. The mid-terms are less than a year from now. We've got get things on the hump. We've got some flying to do.
Then, we can all flap our gums about 2016. I will gladly join in.
Exactly.
I mentioned in another post that constant talk about 2016 at this point is just a coordinated GOP/Tea Party/Libertarian effort.
It's a designed distraction.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024054563
I still maintain that point of view.
Obama said no as well and lookie lookie.
I don't know why this disturbs so many here, that Elizabeth will be running and she will win the Presidency.
Strange.
Does it bother you that I think Warren will run if she gets enough encouragement?
I hope you get an answer.
-Laelth
She's been in public office all of ten months and she has repeatedly said that she has no intention to run for president.
Her money guy said the same thing:
"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."
Does she have to sign an oath in blood?
the same thing Hillary will need to do to tell people she has not decided to run yet 
She's not a politician at heart. She's an economist who can make a lasting difference right where she is right now.
Even in 2016.
(2017, though...)
it's hard werk for some people.
In 2012 Pres Obama got support from moderate Republicans and Ex-Republicans because they felt he was better than wack-a-doddle Romney. He didnt need the left. But if HRC runs against Christie, she wont have that luxury, because the moderate Republicans will switch back to voting Republican. This means that she will need help from the left. The problem that follows is that if she gets big money backing from major corporations and especially The Third Way, the left may abandon her. That's why I say, if we dont want Christie Creams for president we cant nominate HRC.
The chances of getting a progressive nominated is remote, but IMHO we must try. Eight more years of conservative rule will most likely finish-off the middle class.
Other than on LW sites, where's the massive voter demand for this saintly individual?
And there likely will be no confirmed 2016 candidates until well after 2014? (Maybe a year after!)
So all the 2016 cheer leading is useless gum flapping. There are no candidates and there will likely not be any candidate field for two years.
Do you mean other than those inevitabilities? Plus, there's another indisputable fact that Warren has repeated signaled her intention to stay in the US Senate and not run for President.
I know. Some will respond:
Warren 2016!!!
Such a position comes very close to delusion.
And don't get me wrong. I love Elizabeth Warren. I hope she has a long and prosperous tenure in the US Senate. We all need her there.
It's delusional to stake ones claim on the candidacy of a person who has repeatedly stated that she is not interested in being a candidate.
So our search for a progressive presidential candidate is going to have to tread down a different path. But here's the thing. And it's kind of a biggie. If a president has a progressive congress and if the state legislatures have a progressive lean, the president will have to follow.
We have seen the opposite in the past few decades. Democratic presidents have had to shed the liberal label, poisoned by partisan bullshit. They govern from the middle.
If you want a progressive liberal as president, you have to first change the political culture of the country. It is not sufficient to merely put some person into the White House. We've seen what that gets you the past two years, when the White House and the Congress diverge in purpose. And, of course, we've seen it before.
If we want a liberal progressive in the White House who's going to do what we want, we have to do it from the bottom up, not from the top down.
That means taking over the party at the precinct level and then the districts, then the states, then the national delegation. It may take years to do it. But that is the political reality of partisan politics in the USA. It's what the Jerry Falwell's Religious Right and Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition did to the Republican Party in the 1970's and 1980's. We are paying in spades now for what happened then.
In short, one cannot turn a political party, let alone an embedded political culture, into a progressive one by merely putting a progressive at the top of the ticket. That takes a concerted effort and it happens from the bottom up, not the top down. That's one lesson that the Republicans have long since learned. Although, if we play our cards right they may regret the day. We can only achieve our goals by very diligent and hard work, starting at the local level.
Nobody seems to see this reality.
I welcome your input.
Again with your usual imaginative narrative.
for Hillary by mentioning her botched healthcare plan in the 90s and Benghazi. 
As if there isn't more serious stuff to wonder about, Rinse. Her health plan and Benghazi are kindergarten stuff compared to what most don't want to talk about.
Is Rinse a friend of the Clintons? I thought you might know.
Try making sense once in a while.
Regardless of which Democrats run in 2016, the Republicans will go after those candidates with a vengeance. If they are going after Hillary right now is because they think that she's the strongest candidate the Democrats have and want to kneecap her early on. They will do the same to the nominee, whether it'll be Hillary or someone else.
Our side will try to do exactly the same to their nominee. It's the nature of the game.
A 75 year old Socialist.
would elect as president a Socialist old man. It ain't going to happen.
guess you didn't get my sarcasm....
plus I don't huff glue
I like bern but he isn't going to be a factor even if he runs.
Sorry, dear, I didn't get the sarcasm. So many things seem upside down lately.
Thank you, sweets!!! You always think of me.
There are no quick fixes. Warren, Bernie, etc. would be as stymied as Obama has been. I blame the Tea Party crowd mostly, but I also blame those who sat on their hands in 2010 because their delicate noses could not be held long enough to vote for a Blue Dog incumbent. And I'll be even more angry if they sit out 2016.
in deep red states...
ps I hope you like the new bankie
Thank you, my friend.
We have plenty of time for 2016...let's GOTV for the mid-terms.
Back in 2010 I kept warning the crowd that was hoping that the Blue Dogs lost their seats in the House that they were Blue Dogs precisely because they came from conservative districts. Well, they got their wish and many Blue Dogs lost. Who won those seats? Republicans, that's who. To make matters worse, some of them were Tea Party members. Now who's sorry?
It only helps the opposing party. Elections are about winning, not about running some ideal that has zero chance of winning an election.
but but but Warren MEANS it, we all know Hillary is a fibber.
much and could have easily supported her in the General. Hugs my friends.
is the point that some DU'ers remember both what politicians say and then what they do?
or is this a point proving that DU'ers are "delusional" because they don't see how "inevitable" the former Walmart executive will be?
