Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If not Warren, then whom? If not now, then when? [View all]Laelth
(32,017 posts)123. I agree with you in many ways.
Consider this argument from 2010: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/41
I think we win when we energize the base. I won't argue with you on that, but it appears that Warren is the best candidate we have in that regard:
On one side is a majority of Democratic voters, who are angrier, more disaffected, and altogether more populist than theyve been in years. They are more attuned to income inequality than before the Obama presidency and more supportive of Social Security and Medicare.1 Theyve grown fonder of regulation and more skeptical of big business.2 A recent Pew poll showed that voters under 30who skew overwhelmingly Democraticview socialism more favorably than capitalism. Above all, Democrats are increasingly hostile to Wall Street and believe the government should rein it in.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare
And then there's this:
Judging from recent events, the populists are likely to win.
<snip>
she is relentlessly, perhaps ruthlessly, maybe even a bit messianically, focused on advancing her policy agenda. Everything else is merely instrumental.
<snip>
An opponent who doesnt heed political incentives is like a militant who doesnt fear death. Yeah, Hillary is running. And shell probably win, says the former aide. But Elizabeth doesnt care about winning. She doesnt care whose turn it is.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare
<snip>
she is relentlessly, perhaps ruthlessly, maybe even a bit messianically, focused on advancing her policy agenda. Everything else is merely instrumental.
<snip>
An opponent who doesnt heed political incentives is like a militant who doesnt fear death. Yeah, Hillary is running. And shell probably win, says the former aide. But Elizabeth doesnt care about winning. She doesnt care whose turn it is.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare
She's a liberal, she is focused on the economic issues that matter to most of us, and she doesn't care whose turn it is. What's not to like?
-Laelth
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
248 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Being a conservative Goldwater Republican in your youth, maybe because your parents
merrily
Nov 2013
#226
After posting, I saw another thread saying she wants the filibuster rule changed.
merrily
Nov 2013
#230
I am curious why you are offering advice here. It's apparent that you dont share our
rhett o rick
Nov 2013
#195
Yes, but I'm just saying, one term in the Senate is now considered an appropriate spring board. Hell
Erose999
Nov 2013
#96
I love Elizabeth Warren but I have to agree with Renew Deal. It's too soon for her to run.
Dollface
Nov 2013
#110
What they ignored was the single sentence where you declared "we must start now"
jeff47
Nov 2013
#66
Excellent, well reasoned post. It's time to start the 'draft Elizabeth' movement now.
Scuba
Nov 2013
#16
The economic issues are vitally important. Whoever can credibly run on a "the game is rigged"
winter is coming
Nov 2013
#105
I'm not afraid of our losing. I can't stand the media hype of some divide within this party, is all.
ancianita
Nov 2013
#90
I think she's letting all the Republican opponents and the GOP policy come out through them.
ancianita
Nov 2013
#93
Understand. HRC handles bullshit. Doesn't mean she should. Now, try to think about the delay --
ancianita
Nov 2013
#101
Don't worry. We'll get a good primary; better than the GOP idiots deserve, as they slobber over
ancianita
Nov 2013
#111
What Shcheiber's essay shows is that the Democratic Party has moved to the left.
Laelth
Nov 2013
#42
Couldn't have said it better. The "back bench" thought is right on, especially the Progressive one.
libdem4life
Nov 2013
#190
I support drafting Sherrod Brown, if not him then Russ Feingold both over Warren
TheKentuckian
Nov 2013
#69
Not really. I'm evaluating candidates on their positions, not their gender.
winter is coming
Nov 2013
#103
I'd happily vote for Warren, any day. Same goes for any genuine populist.
winter is coming
Nov 2013
#125
I want a Clinton/Warren ticket. I love Warren but believe Clinton is more electable. I'd also love
OregonBlue
Nov 2013
#77
Because I think she has total name recognition and she has the Obama machine behind her.
OregonBlue
Nov 2013
#121
We need to nominate a liberal/progressive. Warren is a good choice as a liberal.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Nov 2013
#82
Kamala Harris is an underrated possibility. I like her. Primarying Hillary might be the national
ancianita
Nov 2013
#91
Bill Richardson-Howard Dean-Amy Klobuchar-Joe Biden-Barbara Mikulski-Patty Murray-Maria Cantwell
ieoeja
Nov 2013
#95
Nope, he didn't. But many here did. Of course she won't say right now. It's not the time for it.
ancianita
Nov 2013
#106
Charlie Pierce has made me re-think my all-out support for a Pres. run for her -
bullwinkle428
Nov 2013
#122
Oh, you're totally welcome! I'm on board with CP probably 99% of the time,
bullwinkle428
Nov 2013
#186
Dec 2014. There are many qualified candidates, she is no more anointed than HRC is. nt
La Lioness Priyanka
Nov 2013
#168
whomever actually declares their candidacy? I am not going to pretend that i know of every potential
La Lioness Priyanka
Nov 2013
#175
I don't think a Presidential candidate can be "recruited" or "drafted"
scheming daemons
Nov 2013
#194
Yes, but many won't run unless they feel wanted enough by being "drafted"... We've "drafted" before
cascadiance
Nov 2013
#214
Almost every candidate says they're not running this early in the game.
Courtesy Flush
Nov 2013
#207
+100000 I agree with you that she would be a formidable candidate.
woo me with science
Nov 2013
#225