HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Populist Reform of the Democratic Party (Group) » Thanks for nothing, Eliza...

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 08:09 AM

Thanks for nothing, Elizabeth Warren: How the Democratic Party’s rock star missed her chance....

Salon
3/1/2016

Thanks for nothing, Elizabeth Warren: How the Democratic Party’s rock star missed her chance, hurt the progressive agenda
*************************************
The appetite was there for a truly progressive candidate to topple the Clinton machine.

That candidate did not run


Elizabeth Warren could have been the biggest political story of 2016. Well, at least, the biggest story other than Donald Trump. Right now, she could have been coasting toward a Super Tuesday landslide and locking up the Democratic nomination. It doesn’t take a wild imagination to picture it.

Instead, Warren is nowhere to be found, unless you’re a Democratic donor on the receiving end of DNC email blasts signed by the Massachusetts senator. Raising money like this — or lending her name to these emails — might be her biggest contribution to the Democrats in the 2016 cycle. And unfortunately, that’s why Super Tuesday is likely to seal the nomination for Hillary Clinton tonight.

My point is not to relitigate Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders for the millionth time. That argument closed in Nevada, and screamed to a halt in South Carolina. Hillary Clinton will make a Democratic candidate in the same mold as her husband or Al Gore or John Kerry. If elected president, she’ll likely carry on the Obama legacy, appointing the right Supreme Court justices and blocking the worst excesses of the gerrymandered Republican Congress, while also remaining the same politician who served as the senator from Goldman Sachs and toured war zones with Lindsey Graham and John McCain. Even most of Clinton’s harshest critics from the left would pinch their noses and vote for her in a contest against Donald Trump.

Bernie Sanders ran a near-perfect race to make it this close, but was never likely to overcome Clinton’s superdelegate and electoral map advantages without more debates and a stronger, sharper performance in them.

What Sanders did, however, was demonstrate that with a different messenger — one willing to draw sharp contrasts, perhaps someone who was not a wild-haired socialist in his ’70s from Vermont — the appetite was there in 2016 for a truly progressive candidate to capture the Democratic nomination.

That candidate did not run.

Progressives of a pessimistic bent might feel that they just missed a once in a generation opportunity to reorient the Democratic Party.

Had Warren run, you could make the case that she would have swept to the nomination.
A February 2015 MoveOn poll found that 79 percent of Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats wanted Warren to enter the presidential race, and showed Warren polling higher than Clinton in both states.

Keep in mind that this was well before Sanders’ summer surge, when the Vermont senator had single-digit support in most polls.....

Read the rest~
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/01/thanks_for_nothing_elizabeth_warren_how_the_democratic_partys_rock_star_missed_her_chance_hurt_the_progressive_agenda/

Its a moot point now, but I agree with this article. I often say to myself, "Thanks a lot Elizabeth" when I think on how the massively corrupt conservative third way Clinton2 has taken over the party. Total control.

People love Elizabeth. The media loves her. I've never witnessed a more effective speaker. She is sharp & on point & dynamic & quick on her feet, she would have nailed this thing.

Hillary will lose to Donald in the GE. But we have lost the party.

15 replies, 5910 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply Thanks for nothing, Elizabeth Warren: How the Democratic Party’s rock star missed her chance.... (Original post)
RiverLover Mar 2016 OP
INdemo Mar 2016 #1
DonCoquixote Mar 2016 #2
enough Mar 2016 #3
tech3149 Mar 2016 #4
RiverLover Mar 2016 #10
BeyondGeography Mar 2016 #5
RiverLover Mar 2016 #8
BeyondGeography Mar 2016 #11
Buzz Clik Mar 2016 #6
beachbum bob Mar 2016 #7
RiverLover Mar 2016 #9
lapfog_1 Mar 2016 #12
Warpy Mar 2016 #13
Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #14
CobaltBlue Apr 2016 #15

Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 08:20 AM

1. No No no .....Elizabeth Warren would have

Trashed by Hillary,Bill, DWS and the Corpirate News because Hiilary is the anmointed one. She has wanted this for 30 years and to her nothing or no one will stop her.....she started her fund raiser with
Corporate USA in June 2008...
Sad part if Hillary is the nominee she will lose

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 08:27 AM

2. if anything

Liz realized that there was a group that had not stopped fighting since 2008 to anoint Hillary, because she reflects their dreams, to be be honest their vanity. If Hillary loses, Liza will be plan b for 2020, which is important, as Hillary has done an excellent job of making sure no one else, especially the younger people, got camera time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 08:29 AM

3. Elizabeth Warren has one responsibility: to use all her skills and effort to have as much

positive influence on the situation as she can. That does not always mean running for President, especially in the current climate. She's smart enough to know what she should be doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 08:34 AM

4. I'm sure the transition from professor to politician is not easy

I never thought Ms Warren would achieve the influence she already has. Speculating that she lost an advantage by not endorsing at this point may or may not be accurate but I think it confirms her integrity and valuation of policy over politics.
I think Ms Warren is well placed to steer a new path when more people are willing to hear the message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tech3149 (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 09:08 AM

10. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 08:41 AM

5. I think she rationally made a rational decision

And it was probably pretty easy for her. She would have been trapped in the insurgent category, fighting for votes from people who don't know her against a much more established opponent.

Sanders was politically and temperamentally better cut out for that role in many ways, and look how hard it was for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 09:04 AM

8. I LOVE Bernie. But he is quite old & wasn't effective at debating. He's called himself a socialist.

Most Americans had never heard of him before this run. I wish they had been following him like we have, but that isn't the case.

As much as I would love for him to be president, realistically, he never had a shot. He did much better than TPTB and the media, who have worked tirelessly against him, thought he would though.

In my heart, I know Warren would have won the nom & the GE. Even my repub family members are drawn to her & agree with her. Like that Citi cromnibus speech. They were gagga.

People want anti-establishment now, but Bernie has too many strikes against him, imo. Its just my opinion.

Who knows, maybe he'll pull out some wins today & mid-March and stay in contention. I hope so! I've already voted for him in Ohio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 09:17 AM

11. Warren had her own problems though

At least you never had to wonder if Bernie voted for Reagan, e.g. The reality, as we're seeing, is this is a tough process and Hillary has a lot of advantages. The calendar, for one. Less established candidates spend most of their time and resources on two white states and come into the broader contest with basically one month to focus on getting known/recognized/respected by voters who aren't familiar with them. I agree that Warren would have been a tougher opponent, but I'm not sure by how much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 08:43 AM

6. Under the bus!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 08:55 AM

7. take off your idealistic glasses, Warren would have been destroyed in same manner

 

Sanders would be destroyed....by the rightwing machine portraying them as commies socialist punks....not able to keep america safe....the soccer moms would end up voting for trump over those 2 after 3 months on non-stop smear...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 09:05 AM

9. The media loves her. She would not have been destroyed like Bernie. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 09:59 AM

12. I think early on she decided to not run

if Hillary or even Joe Biden decided to run.

I agree that she would have made a unifying candidate. But only if Hillary had decided that "elder stateswoman" was going to be her role.

I don't think Elizabeth is "setting up to run in 2020" after Trump defeats Clinton... nobody was predicting a Trump primary victory.

Besides Warren will be 70 in 2020, presidential campaigns are a lot of long hours and being on the move. I'm in my late fifties now and there is NO WAY someone could convince me to do it... I can't imagine having the energy for it in 11 years from now.

I think she won't endorse Hillary until the nomination is completely sown up... because she a) agrees with Sanders on most issues more so than Hillary, and b) she doesn't trust Hillary as evidenced by the interview she gave about the Bankruptcy bill and meeting with FLOTUS Clinton in the 90s to kill it... and then Senator Clinton supporting the same bill later. The interview has been posted to DU a number of times... but basically you can't view that segment and think that she trusts Hillary. And this was a very important issue to Warren.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:23 PM

13. Well, I never really considered her that

For one thing, she was a Republican for far too long. For another, she'd be far, far better in a position like Comptroller of the Currency, a job a lot of people don't know exists that would put her knowledge of the banking industry into practice and might actually give us a decent chance of reforming the bastards.

Failing that, I'm delighted she's in the Senate.

It's not a given that Drumpf will be the nominee, he still has to survive a corrupt party talking about a brokered convention. It's even less likely he'd win the general because he's racking up negatives every single day. It's not even a given that Hillary Clinton will be an exact copy of her husband, rubber stamping destructive legislation from a Republican Congress.

It has been, however, the weirdest primary season I've ever seen. I'll give y'all that much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 01:18 AM

14. She really could have made a big difference. She would have put Massachusetts over the top

 

where Bernie only lost by a couple points. Sad day. Probably she has got plans to run herself later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:45 AM

15. Elizabeth Warren is correct

 

Elizabeth Warren made the correct decision to not run.

My initial reaction was that it had to do with the reality of what it is like to serve as president of the United States.

I think what it actually is an awareness for how corrupt and disgusting the Democratic Party—fully on display here in 2016 with their collusion with Hillary Clinton—and that Warren knew to say “no.”

It is no longer that desirable to be president of the United States. The country hasn’t had a great, important, non-destructive commander in chief since Franklin Roosevelt.

Many in the Democratic Party want the next version of FDR. But, with the current players behind the scenes—that stench of Al From, Bill Clinton, and everyone who aided in having transformed the party from New Deal to New Democrat (or, as Bill Maher stated, The New Republicans)—it will take a good while longer given the overdue exits of such parasites would be necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread