Either, or?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

Taking DU's temperature on 2016...

PS: We really should be concentrating on 2014 but the Warren/Clinton debate will rage no matter what, soooo...

12 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Hillary Clinton
	1 (8%)
	Elizabeth Warren
	11 (92%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[SheilaT]

1. Explain to me again why Hillary is inevitable?

[Maedhros]

2. You're basing your argument on what Democratic voters are indicating they want.

This, of course, is folly. Democratic votes are harvested, not earned. We're expected to vote for whatever candidate the party machine chooses.

[MineralMan]

5. The vast majority of Democratic voters do not even know

who Elizabeth Warren is. However, they do know who Hillary Clinton is, and most of them like her.

Here on DU, we do know who Warren is, although many seem not to know her very well, if their posts are examined. Who she is to many is "Knott Hillary." Beyond that, few people know her background or even what her positions are beyond economic matters.

She will become better known, once people start caring about 2016, but the same group who don't know who Warren is also aren't thinking about 2016 right now.

The mistake people here are making is assuming that DU is anything like the mass of Democratic voters. It is not. It has never been.

[Dawgs]

6. How is that argument different than similar ones used in 2008 against Barack Obama?

The answer is, it's not.

As a matter of fact, his name, his race, and his lack of experience were all reasons that Hillary supporters used to guarantee that he had no chance of winning.

[MineralMan]

8. Elizabeth Warren is no Barack Obama.

Truly. The comparison is not valid.

[Dawgs]

10. Really? You don't think EW is just as popular as Obama 2+ years before the election?

You need to spend more time away from DU if you don't realize how popular she is among many independents.

[customerserviceguy]

31. Well said

Most voters don't bother to make up their minds until the weekend before an election, and that proves they're not paying attention. With those kinds of voters, perceived front-runner status means a lot, unless the opposition has done a pretty good job of scaring voters away from the front-runner.

Frankly, I didn't know who Elizabeth Warren was a few years ago. I just saw people posting pictures in their signatures of this stern-looking schoolmarm woman. The majority of American voters might well react to her this way upon first becoming aware of her. If she were running, she'd have her face all over the TV, not just when she's selling a book. Keith Ellison manages to make more network TV appearances than Warren, and he'd never be electable nationally.

[baldguy]

7. Not inevitable, but she's running & she can win.

Neither is true of Warren.

[Dawgs]

12. Neither Hillary or Warren have said they are not running in 2016.

Let me guess, in 2006 you thought a black guy from Chicago with the name of Barack Obama had a chance against Hillary.

[baldguy]

22. Elizabeth Warren: ‘I’m Not Running for President’

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/elizabeth-warren-im-not-running-for-president/

[Louisiana1976]

26. I voted for Hillary because EW said she isn't running.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

13. I suspect among Democrats outside DU that are paying attention or who will do their research

between now and 2016, the ratio you see (and will see) in this poll will be small by comparison. I think Warren will blow Clinton's boat right out of the water if she decides to go for it.

[MineralMan]

3. You realize that DU does not reflect the general population, right?

Not even close.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

14. Post #13 is my response. Also...

does such a presumption preclude my posting a poll on DU if I want to do so?

[MineralMan]

33. Of course not. However, if you post a poll, it

May generate comments, just as yours did. This is a discussion forum, after all. Now, I'll go find #13.

[Starry Messenger]

4. I really like both, but think all the things that happened with Kerry will happen with a Warren run.

Even more so, since Wall Street hates her and plus, she's a woman, with the whole Yankee liberal baggage, which doesn't bother me but seems to not play well in elections.

I think Hillary will have to run on economic populism, given the times.

[Dawgs]

9. So, let us get this straight.

Hillary, who's also woman, will run on economic populism against someone who's whole message is economic populism; but Hillary is the one with a better chance of winning. Is that about right?

And why would people vote for the pro Wall Street candidate in Hillary, instead of the one that is hated by the very unpopular Wall Street.

Sorry, but your post contradicts itself all over the place.

[Starry Messenger]

11. Hey, it's an opinion.

That and 1.50 gets you a cup of coffee.

Candidates need big bucks to run, which means a candidate will need Wall Street funding. Warren isn't going to attract that.

Or they could both decide to retire to Tahiti. Relax.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

16. "Warren isn't going to attract that." Doh! EVERYONE...

...Warren comes into contact with asks her if she's running. Theyare not doing that because Warren isn't generating interest.

[Starry Messenger]

20. I am being specific about *Wall Street funding*

Is this thing on? Obama needed big bucks to win and so will a 2016 candidate. I never said Warren isn't generating interest from *people*. I said she was going to need corporate donations. Do you see that happening?

But it's undeniable that Clinton is a very strong contender. Over 57% approval rating as of 5 days ago.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/15/us-usa-politics-clinton-idUSBREA4E11C20140515

[ChisolmTrailDem]

21. Yes, that thing is on but it's not helping your anti-Warren case! Obama also had to have millions

of small donations from people like me and you or he wouldn't have had the funds to pull it off. Warren could generate the same or maybe even better grass-roots, small-donation support than Obama did.

As for corporate support, you're right. She will have a challenge there, up front. She will have the support of left-leaning, socially-conscience businesses. I say "up front" because, if she is a challenge for the nomination, more corporate support will jump aboard the bandwagon.

Also, it's not a given that a progressive agenda cannot overcome big money. It's not all that uncommon for the biggest spender to lose in an election. If people aren't buying Hillary's message, all the money in the world isn't going to help her.

There's no doubt Hillary is a strong contender. Leads like she has right now have been overcome countless times. She already been roundly defeated by a black man from Chicago's South Side with the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Also, we don't need Hillary at this time in history. We need Elizabeth Warren, not who will fight but who IS, fighting for the little guy. That include (most of) you and me. Hillary hasn't done much of anything for me lately.

[Starry Messenger]

23. I'm not anti-Warren, I adore her.

I was pro-Obama when he ran in the primary, and I know where his funding came from: I was one of the small donors. He was also the largest recipient of Wall Street money (in 2008) than any other candidate in history.

I must dispute that Hillary was "roundly defeated", Obama won on caucus states, and the fact that Edwards and he both teamed up against her in debates early on, which made her seem like the outsider. That was what caused me to solidify my support to Obama, because I could tell he had a ruthless streak at that point. Not very nice, but nice doesn't win elections. (I'd already had my eye on him because of his 2004 DNC keynote.)

I appreciate your optimism on all points, I just don't share them at this time. I've fallen in love before with candidates and had my optimism dashed. If things change around 2015, I might see things differently.

But a favorable of 57% going in is nothing to sneeze at. I'd sleep well at night knowing a Democrat has that many positives before even running.

[geek tragedy]

15. Warren would have to demonstrate electability on a national scale.

She significantly underperformed compared to Obama in 2012 (he won 60.8% in MA, she won 53.7).

[ChisolmTrailDem]

17. The fact that every time she is interviewed by a journalist or she speaks to private

citizens, she is asked if she is going to run.

And you guys forget one thing: IF she decides to run, she won't be running against Obama. She'll be running against Hillary.

[geek tragedy]

19. Hillary came close to beating Obama in 2008, and probably

would have had she not shot herself in the foot.

Unless she hires Mark Penn again, she's going to be a lot tougher than she was in 2008.

Warren's been asked, and she always answers that she won't run.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for Senator Warren, but as a politician she's still relatively untested.

[winter is coming]

30. She'd be running against Hillary in a climate where income inequality is a big issue. n/t

[BainsBane]

18. 2014 midterms

2014 midterms
2014 midterms
2014 midterms
2014 midterms
2014 midterms
2014 midterms
2014 midterms
2014 midterms
2014 midterms
2014 midterms
2014 midterms

[Nye Bevan]

24. I'm a Hillary supporter but I welcome Warren, and anyone else, to run in the primaries.

Choice is good, and I trust the primary voters to pick the best candidate. I will not be posting any "PLEASE (candidate's name) DON'T RUN!!!!!!" threads.

[arely staircase]

25. so what is Sanders? not worth including? nt

[joshcryer]

27. +1

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. Not a Democrat.

That would be my guess as to why he was left out of the poll.

It's not a negative in my books, but many folks here seem to feel different.

[arely staircase]

29. But unlike Warren, Sanders has actually expressed interest in running in the Dem. Primary

Right?

[99Forever]

32. No dynasty candidate will ever get my vote. EVER.

Especially Hillary Clinton.