Who will choose our 2016 nominee?

[Laelth]

Last edited Wed May 7, 2014, 12:21 PM - Edit history (1)

This is not a poll. It's supposed to be educational, and it's a response to a naive but well-intentioned DU thread that appeared recently and sank like a stone. That thread questioned whether or not Elizabeth Warren's populism resonated sufficiently within the Democratic Party to allow Warren to win the nomination were she to seek it.

There are many of us who still believe (or cynically advance the proposition) that our nominees are selected based upon their stands on "issues" that affect the electorate. The idea is that Democrats will vote for the primary candidate that most closely reflects and advances his or her own political ideology, and that the person who is closest to "mainstream" thought within the Democratic Party should win. This notion is now absurd (and it may have always been absurd).

Most people who are paying attention realize that money drives politics in the United States, and this rule applies to the Democratic Party's nominating process as well. The best indicator of a candidate's chances to win a primary election is that candidate's ability to fundraise. Policy and ideology (while not entirely irrelevant) are but minor concerns in the grand scheme of our national politics. As such, when we consider who our likely nominees will be for the 2016 Presidential election, our first concern should be the fundraising capacity of the candidates in question.

Here's the list of the top three fundraisers in the Democratic Party, in order:

1) Barack Obama
2) Hillary Clinton
3) Elizabeth Warren

Noam Scheiber, in a seminal essay, explains that there are two, separate, and competing money-generating machines working in the Democratic Party. One is controlled by President Barack Obama, and it is dominant. Obama inherited this machine from John Kerry who, by endorsing Obama and throwing his machine behind him, allowed Obama to secure the 2008 nomination. Obama, for his part, improved Kerry's machine and created the greatest and most powerful donation-generating mechanism in the history of American politics, but it remains true that the Clinton machine (inherited by Hillary from her husband) remains potent and can not be dismissed. Elizabeth Warren, for her part, is building her own, separate fundraising machine, and she has been remarkably successful in doing so, but her fundraising capacity lags behind that of our President and Hillary Clinton significantly.

Given this dynamic (considering the reality of fundraising capabilities in the Democratic Party today) it seems clear to me that Barack Obama will choose our next Presidential nominee. Someone will inherit his fundraising machine, and that person is likely to win the nomination. To whom he will give his machine is the only relevant question.

I hope, of course, that he decides to throw his weight behind Elizabeth Warren. Those who take Warren at her word that she's not running for President are rather naive, I suspect. At the very least, Warren is keeping her options open (as she should--being the savvy politician that she is), but the release of her latest book, A Fighting Chance, is the best indicator I have yet seen that she intends to pursue the nomination. A book like that (laying out a general political philosophy and advancing specific policy proposals to address the nation's ills) is a prerequisite for a Presidential run these days. As an aside, liberals who want to support Warren and who would like to see her run should buy the book. She needs the money, and she needs to be able to point to significant sales of the book in order to convince the "money people" who run the Democratic Party to back her.

That said, the main "money person" in the Democratic Party, at the moment, is President Barack Obama. His machine is our strongest, and the person to whom he gives this machine is likely to win the nomination. I hope he chooses wisely, but I don't believe for a second that our nominating process has anything to do with "issues" or "ideas." If only that were true. Instead, money runs the process. The best indicator of our likely nominee in 2016 is that candidate's ability to marshall and unite the big donors (with some help from millions of small donors) who drive American politics today. Ultimately, it's up to President Obama. Whomever Barack Obama chooses to inherit his colossal (and unprecedented) machine is likely to win.

-Laelth

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. We have this thing called "Primaries"

but we may not need them if Joe Biden decides to run....furthermore we have MIDTERMS in November to think about and it doesn't even matter which Democrat is elected in 2016 if we don't win big this November....as all that will happen is.....4 more years of obstruction.

You want to see Progressive change for the next 6+ years....GOTV this Summer!

[randys1]

2. We know unconstitutionally required ID's will make the difference this november

if we lose the senate or dont gain the seats we should because of illegal laws or Jim Crow laws

what
do
we
do

how many more elections do they get to steal? lets see, Nixon treason with North Vietnamese to get elected, stole election, Raygun treason with Iran to win, W stole two elections so obviously nobody even debates those anymore

While W is president the stealing and crimes, oh my god...while Raygun was prez hundreds went to jail or indicted for crimes and yet the damage they did to ME and YOU was what we now know as insurmountable...

[Laelth]

3. Hmm ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4910557

-Laelth

[VanillaRhapsody]

4. 99% don't get out and get OTHER people to vote WITH Them

DU is NOT representative of the country....or even Democrats for that matter. That is what GOTV means...

[Dragonfli]

48. Then get out in the real world and do something other than admonish those that WILL vote

Get out of the chair... go to a campus... and stop being a god damn hypocrite.

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. Are you accusing me....because I did door to door last election....so

wrong...

[Dragonfli]

50. You should be doing it now if GOTV were as important to you as you claim

but you seem to be having more fun pretending to do it by posting here today.

I needed some food so I went to a local food pantry today, ended up with nothing because there was not enough and I let all the mothers get theirs instead, but I spent 4 hours there talking to people about voting for candidates endorsed by The Working Families Party most thought it was a waste of time because they just had their food stamps cut and see the corporate politicians as their enemy, but I did try to explain that this 'party" supports people that are different than Obama, Schumer, and our governor. Not many were buying it, but I was trying to get out the vote, what have you done today?

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. Already making plans to travel to another state to do exactly that....

You were saying?

[Dragonfli]

58. Stop making "plans", get out the vote or STFU

Or just STFU, your bullshit is getting old.

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. I don't JUST make plans.....I carry them out....

I am talking about going about 400 miles away....I am a older woman....I am not going to go there on a whim...so you can STFU instead thank you very much....

[Dragonfli]

61. You are the one constantly yelling at DUers to get out and vote, not me

So walk the walk or, again, STFU

[VanillaRhapsody]

63. I already told you....I do...

so....speak for yourself.

[Dragonfli]

47. If they were more than posers looking for a pat on the back here

for yelling at everyone to vote who already does, one would think they would spend more time at campuses trying to inspire the younger voters to do mid-terms.

They are annoying as hell and are doing nothing other than seeking attention with there unnecessary and condescendingly insulting insinuations against political junkies that not only vote, but who often are far more active than they are.

Perhaps they will buy a clue, stop the poser bullshit and talk to a demographic that often have more on their minds than politics and so tend to skip mid-terms. The young voters are known for such, they should get off their high horses and keyboards and start working the campuses if the mean even a small bit of what they go on about here instead of actually doing something that might actually help GOTV.

[Laelth]

52. LOL. Good post. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[hughee99]

32. May not need them if Joe Biden decides to run?

Do you think the field will clear like it does for an incumbent president?

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. VP gets poll position....

The first Presidential election to include neither the incumbent President nor the incumbent Vice President on a major party ticket since 1952 came in 2008 when President George W. Bush had already served two terms and Vice President Cheney chose not to run. Richard Nixon is also the only non-sitting Vice President to be elected President, as well as the only person to be elected President and Vice President twice each.

[hughee99]

42. Is there any poll which lists Biden as the favorite in a Democratic primary?

Why would Clinton clear out of the race to make way for Biden? Besides even if Biden were in the lead, he's always only one soundbyte away from being in second. No Dem that thinks they have a chance will clear the way for him.

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. What do YOU think happens it Biden decides to run even with Hillary in?

You say this like I have no idea that Hillary Clinton is not way out front of all comers of every stripe...BUT if Joe Biden decides to run.....what do you think that means for any OTHERS that are thinking about running?

[hughee99]

44. If Biden gets in while Clinton is in, we're still going to need a primary.

and those candidates with little money but looking to gain some name recognition for 2020 and beyond will still be there. If Biden gets in, he's not going to run essentially unopposed and so you're still going to need the primary. Personally, I think the Democratic Primary is going to be a lot messier than people are expecting (at least this far out when we have an "inevitable" candidate).

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. Not messy at all...unusually UNMESSY in fact.....UNLESS Joe Biden decides to run...

[Bluenorthwest]

38. I occasionally see these posts that say 'we don't need a primary' when an incumbent is running

and that is false and it is a trope that causes folks to skip our Primaries, which are not only required to nominate even a sitting President, but which also and of course involve nomination of other Democrats for other offices, all of which should be voted on. I saw a few of the more 'ardent Obama supporters' state they did not even know there was a primary ahead of 2012. I assume they skipped them and did not vote. I recall one poster from NC saying 'we don't have a primary because Obama is the nominee' and look at NC for a minute and tell me how that worked out.
Plus, Biden is far from a shoo in for the nomination. He'd have to win it. In a Primary.

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. and I didn't say we didn't need it....do you know the history of being Vice President

and what that means towards future Presidential ambitions? Tell me you DO know that...

[frazzled]

5. Obama had his own fundraising behemoth a year before Kerry's endorsement

Kerry endorsed Obama on January 10, 2008 ... after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries had already taken place.

Already in the first quarter of 2007, Obama had raised just about as much as Clinton, as detailed in this NYT article from April 2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html?_r=0

Yes, money matters in elections, but it's not the total answer.

[Laelth]

7. I suspect Kerry threw his weight behind Obama long before January 10, 2008.

The "official" endorsement date is not really relevant. Kerry chose to back Obama long before then, I suspect, and the "money people" in the Democratic Party knew it and responded accordingly.

-Laelth

[frazzled]

14. "Supposing" is mere conjecture

Frankly, Kerry's influence was not all that great a factor, given the intense competition between Obama and Clinton that persisted throughout the very long primary season. A good deal of Obama's success in the primary came from his participation in the caucus system, which Clinton had ignored early on. The rest was a function of the huge number of Obama's donations from small donors. Obama had created a revolutionary new way of fundraising that not only raised a lot from small donors but also engaged them as active volunteers who were out canvassing and phonebanking. Huge numbers of people were giving amounts under $200 ... something John Kerry probably had little to do with What counted most was the internet. Let us not forget:

The phenomenon of donors giving modest amounts more than once was particularly important for Obama. It resulted from his campaign's remarkable success in using social networking and other Internet campaigning tools to engage his supporters repeatedly. More than two hundred thousand of his supporters started off by making small contributions and then came back again, often multiple times, to end up by giving more than $200. These repeat donors also were often among those who formed the core of the Obama campaign's crucially important online and offline activist volunteers.

When you look at money from donors based on their aggregate levels of giving, Obama received 30 percent of his primary campaign funds from donors who gave a cumulative total of $200 or less for the primaries. His $121 million from donors of $200 or less nearly tripled the $42 million Hillary Rodham Clinton raised from similar donors (21 percent of her total primary funds) as well as the $42 million raised by the Republican nominee, John McCain (21 percent of his total funds).

http://www.cfinst.org/press/releases_tags/10-01-08/Revised_and_Updated_2008_Presidential_Statistics.aspx

[Laelth]

22. I mentioned in the OP that Obama improved upon Kerry's machine.

No doubt Obama adopted Howard Dean's internet-focused strategy and improved upon it as well. And as for my "conjecture," I'll stick with it until I see evidence to the contrary. If you have such evidence, I'd love to see it.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[davidpdx]

10. Very true

Some of the success in his fundraising can also be attributed to the trailblazing campaign of Howard Dean who began mobilizing online. Obama did so well because of online fundraising, which both Clinton and Warren are benefiting from.

[Octafish]

6. Great post, Laelth!

Money trumps democracy.



For details, the academically challenged should GOOGLE: "FDR + New Deal" + "Hillary Clinton + Jackson Stephens + Walmart."

[Laelth]

37. Thanks for the response and for the kind words. n/t

-Laelth

[CK_John]

8. Your problem is that Obama's machine no longer exists. It was a one time thing, successful but...

unable to be sustain.

Why because many in office or running have put too much daylight between getting elected and Obama, thus being shorted sighted and foolish.

[Laelth]

15. Interesting response. Thanks.

A couple of things ...

First, if there's a "problem" here, it's the Democratic Party's problem, not mine.

Second, I see no evidence that Barack Obama's fundraising machine has evaporated. Quite the contrary--when I see President Obama backing things like the TPP (an attempt to protect the economic interests of big, American film, music, television, and agricultural corporations), I see a politician trying to preserve his fundraising machine by catering to the interests of his donors. The same goes for his tepid response to Wall Street malfeasance. He's preserving his donation machine by catering to the moneyed people who fund that machine. I don't think his machine has gone away. Quite the contrary, I see him trying to maintain it. If he has done so successfully (and he may have), he has a powerful tool that he can hand to a politician of his choosing. Whomever inherits his well-preserved machine, I argue, will win the 2016 nomination.

-Laelth

[NV Whino]

9. Thanks for this thread

Given that Obama is and has been run by the DLC/Clinton machine (look at his cabinet), I believe he will throw his support (covertly) back to the already formidable Clinton machine. Hillary will be shoved down our throat just as Obama was since (his keynote speech in) 2004.

And to the rest of the posters, of course GOTV in 2014. But that is not what the OP wanted to discuss in this thread.

[Laelth]

55. If Hillary wants to run (and Joe Biden does not), I agree.

I think Obama will back her, and she will win the nomination. I also think she will win in the general. In fact, demographics say the Democratic nominee will win in 2016 no matter whom we nominate.

Things will get interesting, however, if Biden decides to run. The President will be torn. Joe Biden has been loyal and good. What I hope, however, is that neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Biden decides to run. Then, the President has a lot more options from which to choose, and I hope he chooses to back a real liberal.

Only time will tell. Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[Le Taz Hot]

11. Excellent essay

and I agree that whoever Barak Obama backs will, most likely "win" the nomination. Sadly, I think we all know where Obama will throw his support and it won't be behind Warren. He's a corporate Democrat and so is Hillary. He's backed by Wall Street and so is Hillary. This isn't a decision he'll make on his own, he'll be instructed who to back and we all know who the DNC is behind. My only hope is that there will be enough grassroots for Warren to overcome the Party Machine -- a tall order. We all see what happened when the populace bucked the corporate Democrat and went for the populist (Howard Dean). He was rolled over, not by the Republicans but by the Corporo-Democrats.

Otoh, Warren has some extremely powerful liberal organizations who would far prefer to put their support behind Warren who absolutely can win the General. Unless the Republicans nominate someone from the Clown Car, Hillary will lose in the General.

[stevenleser]

19. Obama will back either Clinton or Biden and that has nothing to do with "corporatism"

Both supported him hard in the 2008 general election campaign and then as able lieutenants in the top two positions in his administration after running against him in the 2008 primaries. If one of them runs and he does not support them, it would be a serious stab in the back.

[L0oniX]

25. "a serious stab in the back" Oh well we're used to that.

[Laelth]

26. Ultimately, I agree.

Friendships and personal loyalty matter in politics and in all walks of life. I suspect that if Biden decided to run, the President would back him. I am not quite as certain about Hillary (due only to the fact that, as Scheiber noted, there is no love lost between these two, separate machines operating within the Democratic Party). Even so, were Hillary to decide to run, I suspect you are right. Obama would probably back her.

That said, I am not convinced that Hillary will run. She's tired, as her daughter reminded us publicly, and she has done enough for her country to retire with pride and dignity. She's being pressured to run, certainly, but I am not convinced that she will succumb to said pressure. If you know more than I do about this (and you probably do because you are better-connected), please share.



-Laelth

[davidpdx]

12. I have to admit I'm interested in Warren

I donated to her Senate campaign and was so glad she won. I'll try to find her book (could be hard as I'm overseas) and read it.

[Laelth]

28. I linked to Amazon in the OP.

Not my favorite company, but I think they can ship the book to you overseas.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[davidpdx]

65. For overseas

Just as a reference

www.bookdepository.com

Actually they got bought up by Amazon a few ago unfortunately but they do offer free shipping to most countries.

[Laelth]

66. Very cool. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[MineralMan]

13. The voters will choose. That's why there are primary elections.

The voters chose President Obama in 2008, and they will choose the candidate in 2016, too.

Those who do not participate in primary elections have only themselves to blame when their favored candidate doesn't appear on the ballot in November. In such cases, they have no right to complain about their choices.

If DUers and others show up to vote in the primaries, they'll have my praise. If they don't, and they later complain about their general election choices, they'll get a different reaction from me, and should from everyone. Vote in primary elections and bring others to the polling place with you. It's your best opportunity to help determine who will be the candidates in November!

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[Laelth]

16. Mineral Man, I have to admit ...

I have a soft spot in my heart for you. Your idealism is beautiful. Part of me wishes I shared it. The other part of me is glad that I shed my idealism long ago.

Thanks for the response.



-Laelth

[MineralMan]

17. Idealism only dies when people stop striving for the ideal.

We still have primary elections. I've never missed one in over 40 years. That's because I know that my vote counts even more in primaries. And it's not just about the Presidency. Primaries are where we select candidates for almost all offices. In some cases, where positions are non-partisan, we actually elect people to office in primaries.

I'll never stop pushing the ideal of voting to select our elected officials. That's idealism that actually works. Go to the polls on primary election day and look at the voters who come through the doors. Every last one of them is an idealist. You can be one of those, too, and can help others bring their ideals to the polling place.

I will not give up my idealism, despite my disappointment that so many already have given it up. Never!

[Exposethefrauds]

24. My idealism died many years ago and has been replaced by reality and sarcasm

however it is refreshing to see it still alive in an older voter still.

[stevenleser]

18. If you are a compelling candidate, you can raise enough money to compete in the first 2-3 contests

and build a skeleton infrastructure in the rest.

If you win at least one of the first three, you can raise enough money to compete further.

There are enough debates leading up to the primary contests to allow people to get to know you and decide if they want to donate.

Folks like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, should either decide to run, have the name recognition to ensure they will have enough money to be around for at least the first 5-7 contests. If they don't win any of those, as I suspect will be the case, they will be gone after that.

[Laelth]

56. Perhaps, but ...

Is it not true that the candidate that the President chooses to back (quietly, behind the scenes, of course) is the odds-on favorite to win the nomination? Would you disagree with that statement?



-Laelth

[LittleBlue]

20. The 1% will give us our "choices"

and we get to pick one or the other.

[Scuba]

23. Kick this sad, but true thread.

[Laelth]

70. Thanks, Scuba.

-Laelth

[SamKnause]

27. Wall Street and the upper crust.

[bvar22]

29. President Obama has NEVER chosen or appointed someone from the Progressive Wing of the Party...

...to ANY position of power or authority in his administration.
He doesn't take calls from the Progressive Caucus.
I guess he could "change" or "evolve" at the last minute,
but I don't expect that to happen.

[Laelth]

30. In all fairness ...

... we had Greg Craig. When he was pushed out, I was quite disappointed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=98204&mesg_id=98646

-Laelth

[bvar22]

34. ...and there was Hilda Solis, appointed as Labor Srcretary in his frist administration,

.....but she in gone now too.


That is what.... 2 out of several hundred?

[Laelth]

54. Cabinet appointments matter a great deal.

You and I and a lot of other people on the left have been bitterly disappointed by most of Obama's cabinet appointments.

I drool nostalgically over FDR's cabinet, for example. Sadly, All in the Family's theme song comes to mind. Those were the days ... (and I realize that Archie was pining for a return of the Hoover administration, but still ... the song came to mind).

Thanks for the response.



-Laelth

[Orsino]

31. The money already has. n/t

[Sheri]

33. i didn't think my vote mattered, anyway.

i'll still vote, but I, and a lot of Americans like me, have become convinced that voting doesn't change anything.

[Fearless]

35. I sincerely hope you're not talking about my poll

If you are, you've missed the point entirely.

[Laelth]

53. No. I wasn't.

I was referring to this rather interesting thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024912078

-Laelth

[KoKo]

36. Interesting post...but, I'd say it isn't Barack Obama who will decide...

but his Major Funders who will decide. And there is an overlap between Obama's supporters and funders and Hillary supporters in the Wall Street/Banking and Hollywood Communities. With Obama not able to run again the supporters and major funders will easily move to Hillary.

We have no choice. It was evident in Obama's Appointments and who he rewards. Nothing has changed in his Second Term...so the writing is on the wall.

Citizens United has made it impossible for an alternative chosen by any of us out here. And, we didn't have much say so in it before...but, this was the death of any choice by the "people" ever being able to make a difference in the future.

As for Warren...I support her, and hope for her voice to continue to be as well spoken and populist as it has been so far. But, there isn't much hope for her beyond the primaries is she decides to run. And, she is needed in the Senate. She might be a voice who could start to shift the inner-beltway group think and influence younger Senators in the future. She could inspire a new movement of young people seeking to go into politics with bold democratic ideas and ideals and not be so beholden to lobbyists and Think Tanks. But, that will be a long time in coming as things look now. Citizens United must be overturned or a solution to the corporate money in politics found in another way.

[sabrina 1]

39. Excellent points, Laelth. My only addition to your post is to ask since we now KNOW that money

decides our elections, where does the money come from? If it were coming from the people there would be a better chance of the people influencing the choice of candidates. But if you look at the donations they are coming from mostly from Big Corporations who have a vested interested in what laws are put in place that might affect their businesses.

I haven't done it yet, but a study of the donations would help to understand some of the reasons why we get candidates (speaking of Dems) who speak about issues we care about, seem to be sincere in their support for those issues, then we are disappointed later when they flip flop on some of the most important issues.

Were they sincere during their campaigns or just working to get the votes they need to win? Take Wheeler eg, nominated by Obama who was absolutely convincing in his campaign that he would fight for Net Neutrality. But his nomination of Wheeler seems to say something else. Wheeler was a Cable Co. Lobbyist. Wouldn't it have made more sense to have nominated someone who had no such conflict of interest? Then see the money Wheeler donated to his campaign. Was he owed that position because of that money?

Another possibility is that Obama thought he could get him on our side and better to have an insider, INSIDE in order to influence him not to work on the outside, influencing members of Congress eg, with donations etc.

Whatever the reason, nominations like that raise questions as we now see the result with Net Neutrality looking more and more threatened.

That is just one such nomination.

Or is it something more ominous. Are there 'national policies' in place that no president can change? And do they know that before they get to the primaries?

[Laelth]

69. Thanks for the kind words and for the response.

I recall being outrageously excited in 2008 when Barack Obama received campaign donations from over 2 million individual donors. I speculated, at the time, that the internet had the capacity to restore democracy to the people by giving us the opportunity to, quite literally, buy politicians like our oligarchs have always done. I thought (as did many others) that We, the People had finally purchased a President. Turns out this prediction was wrong and that keeping Wall Street happy remains the primary concern of the leaders of both our major political parties.

As for individual politicians, in this political climate I want to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who runs for office with a (D) after their name. Selecting that (D) means weak party support, media hostility, and less campaign cash than one would get if one selected the (R) instead. What cynic would make that choice? I think the cynics are more likely to choose the (R) because that is the easy path to money and power. The (D) path is much more treacherous these days. For this reason, I think most of our politicians are good, reasonable people who, once they understand the system, have to make some very hard choices, and many of those choices are contrary to the best interests of the people. The money that drives the system makes this so.

I think, as you speculate, that there are national policies that Presidents are reticent to change, but only out of fear of reprisal from huge, powerful, and wealthy interests in this country that have the power to destroy a President and his administration. Look at how the health insurance/hospital/pharmaceutical interests crushed Clinton for merely suggesting reform of their profitable (but evil) practices. Just imagine a President who messed with big oil. Big oil could easily crush that administration by jacking up the price of gas (which, by the way, is how most people gauge the health of the nation). There are some interests that it is simply unwise to fight. Presidents who do so jeopardize everything else that they want to accomplish while in office.

So, it's very complicated, but thanks for the response and for this interesting discussion.

-Laelth

[Exposethefrauds]

45. Ahhh so refreshing to see someone who thinks we

The unwashed masses actually have a say in who will be on the ticket for POTUS

All that matters is what the 1% want.

However the illusion of a horse race will make for lots of meaningless op-eds and internet arguments and in the end the 1% will get what they want because they have the money to make it so.

[KoKo]

57. Recommend

[Laelth]

71. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[WillyT]

59. K & R !!!

[alarimer]

62. Bankers and Wall Street

Certainly WE won't have any say. We'll get to pick from a short list of corporate-approved conservative Democrats, as per usual.

[Beacool]

64. Did it ever occur to any of you Warren supporters that maybe Hillary is the one Democrat

that most other Democrats actually want to be the nominee? Why insist that it's all some kind of conspiracy by TPTB?

There is such a thing as a primary season. People can actually go out and vote for any of the candidates that will be in the running.

Also, how about listening to what Liz Warren keeps repeating over and over? She doesn't strike me as someone who plays games. If she insists that she has no interest in running for president, how about having enough respect for her to believe her?

[ecstatic]

67. I don't think there'd be any difference between a President H. Clinton

and a President E. Warren. They'd both make great presidents, and I'd support either of them if nominated. The problem is that those who have put E. Warren on a pedestal will turn on her before she's even sworn in. She's human and would be subject to the same constraints (congress, Supreme Court, etc.) that President Obama currently has.

[Laelth]

68. I suspect their cabinets would be very different.

And cabinet appointments matter a great deal. I also doubt that Elizabeth Warren would have a knuckle-dragging homophobe making a speech at her inauguration (and, thereby, stabbing a core-constituency in the back on Day 1).

You are certainly right to note that liberals will call-out conservative appointments and conservative policies when they see them. I don't really understand why this bothers you.

-Laelth