Time to drop Warren from DEM polling, insists she's not running

[Tender Branson]

Elizabeth Warren insists she won't run for president

Elizabeth Warren, the state’s first woman senator to serve in Congress, will not run for president in 2016, she insisted repeatedly and emphatically during an interview this morning on CBS’ “Sunday Morning” program.

“I’m not running for president,” Warren, 64, of Cambridge, told reporter Mark Strassmann. Her autobiography, “A Fighting Chance,” hits bookstores Tuesday.

Strassmann persisted, however, noting that President Obama wrote “The Audacity of Hope,” like Warren, two years into his first term as U.S. senator. Epic, inspiring autobiographies have become a common political precursor to presidential runs, and speculation has swirled around Warren, who is seen as a alternative if Hilary Clinton chooses not to run, because of her popularity on her party's left wing, as well as her success as a fundraiser for Democrats nationwide.

“I’m not running for president,” Warren cut him off. “You can ask it lots of different ways.

Rather, Warren said she wrote “A Fighting Chance” out of “gratitude for my start and the opportunities that America built for me. I think that’s what we’ve got to do again. I’m committed to that.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2014/04/elizabeth_warren_insists_she_wont_run_for_president

[RogueBeaver]

Warren was never running.

[Lief 🗽]

If Clinton doesn't run, Warren would be stupid not to. But Clinton is going to run so of course Warren will not.

[Mister Mets]

I have no idea whether or not Warren will run. My guess is that she won't, mainly because she wasn't a plausible presidential candidate until she was in her sixties, and most older presidential candidates have been running for years. The only exceptions I can think of are Gerald Ford (who lucked into the presidency by being a Veep choice acceptable to congressional Democrats at a time of Republican scandal) and Zachary Taylor, who had major military victories at 61 at a time when whigs were willing to pick potential Presidents with unconventional credentials.

I don't think she should be removed from all polling. There is precedent for candidates to enter a race after saying they won't. And there is a value in determining whether there's an opening in a primary. If Warren polls at five percent, that information has value as an indication that even the most prominent progressive will have difficulty making an impact. If Warren polls at thirty percent, that reveals a vulnerability for the frontrunner.

[whanztastic]

If Clinton doesn't run, Warren would be stupid not to. But Clinton is going to run so of course Warren will not.

It's not stupid if you don't want to be President.

[Bull Moose Base]

Chris Christie destroyed Shermanesque denials for everyone when he climbed on the fence.

That said, unlike Christie and Obama, Warren hasn't aspired to electoral politics (or the presidency?) from a young age. The first time she ran for anything was when she was drafted to run in Massachusetts. For all we know, Warren would say no to being president if it was offered with no election.

[MATTROSE94]

I feel that Elizabeth Warren may run in 2020 if a Republican is elected in 2016 and ultimately has a failed term in office.

[Supersonic]

Still won't stop people from going on and on about her running. Unfortunately.

[IceSpear]

If Clinton doesn't run, Warren would be stupid not to. But Clinton is going to run so of course Warren will not.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What has Obama been up to since he sat out the 2008 election?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10909406/#.U1VzlJJdWBt

[Meursault]

Even if Warren doesn't run, keeping her in the polling is useful as a barometer of the degree of left-liberal opposition to Hillary. If Warren polls, say, twelve or fifteen percent in March, the platform committee might well be inclined to write a slightly more liberal platform just because.

[Zioneer]

She's much more helpful to progressivism in the Senate, just like Ted Kennedy was. Running for president would be a fool's errand.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Gillibrand and Klobuchar are first "in line" when it comes to liberal female Senators anyway.

[ElectionsGuy]

Hopefully Ted Cruz can do the same. That way we can keep polarization in the senate.

[Mr. Morden]

Maybe she should have been dropped one of the first 100 times she said she's not running?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Maybe she should have been dropped one of the first 100 times she said she's not running?

True, people should give up on Warren 2016, just like Obama 2008 was never going to happen.

[Mister Mets]

Gillibrand and Klobuchar are first "in line" when it comes to liberal female Senators anyway.

Warren has a higher profile. And less to lose in a run against Clinton.

Gilibrand and Klobuchar could try in 2020 or 2024, depending on how the next elections go. Warren doesn't have that luxury.

[Mr. Morden]

Gillibrand and Klobuchar are first "in line" when it comes to liberal female Senators anyway.

Warren has a higher profile. And less to lose in a run against Clinton.

Gilibrand and Klobuchar could try in 2020 or 2024, depending on how the next elections go. Warren doesn't have that luxury.

None of them are running if Clinton does.  The question is who might run if she doesn't.  Warren has ruled out such a run repeatedly, though obviously many politicians have changed their minds about such things in the past.  Klobuchar, OTOH, is actually making trips to Iowa, doing fundraising for NH and SC politicos, etc.  But again, she's not going to run if Clinton does.

[Lief 🗽]

Warren won't run because she knows liberals don't vote for liberals. The establishment would never let a true liberal be the nominee.

Definitely. Which is why the last Democratic nominees were right-wing blue dogs John Kerry and Barack Obama.

[nuclearneo577]

Warren won't run because she knows liberals don't vote for liberals. The establishment would never let a true liberal be the nominee.

Definitely. Which is why the last Democratic nominees were right-wing blue dogs John Kerry and Barack Obama.

Well to be fair, Kerry '04 wasn't Bush, and Obama was campaigning at Mr. Change. If Hillary gets the nomination in 2016 I can't think of any excuse for her supports who still claim to be liberals.

[SWE]

Warren won't run because she knows liberals don't vote for liberals. The establishment would never let a true liberal be the nominee.

Definitely. Which is why the last Democratic nominees were right-wing blue dogs John Kerry and Barack Obama.

Exactly! Glad you see it.

[Potatoe]

Guys, Warren has never been interested in the Presidency. STAHP with the speculation.

[IceSpear]

Warren won't run because she knows liberals don't vote for liberals. The establishment would never let a true liberal be the nominee.

Definitely. Which is why the last Democratic nominees were right-wing blue dogs John Kerry and Barack Obama.

Well to be fair, Kerry '04 wasn't Bush, and Obama was campaigning at Mr. Change. If Hillary gets the nomination in 2016 I can't think of any excuse for her supports who still claim to be liberals.

Because despite being a centrist, Hillary will advance liberalism more than electing a Republican would.

[Potatoe]

Warren won't run because she knows liberals don't vote for liberals. The establishment would never let a true liberal be the nominee.

Definitely. Which is why the last Democratic nominees were right-wing blue dogs John Kerry and Barack Obama.

Well to be fair, Kerry '04 wasn't Bush, and Obama was campaigning at Mr. Change. If Hillary gets the nomination in 2016 I can't think of any excuse for her supports who still claim to be liberals.

Because despite being a centrist, Hillary will advance liberalism more than electing a Republican would.

Ted Cruz is more liberal than Hilary

If you mean more Liberal in the TNF sense then yeah, but if you mean it in the real world sense, then no.

[IceSpear]

Warren won't run because she knows liberals don't vote for liberals. The establishment would never let a true liberal be the nominee.

Definitely. Which is why the last Democratic nominees were right-wing blue dogs John Kerry and Barack Obama.

Well to be fair, Kerry '04 wasn't Bush, and Obama was campaigning at Mr. Change. If Hillary gets the nomination in 2016 I can't think of any excuse for her supports who still claim to be liberals.

Because despite being a centrist, Hillary will advance liberalism more than electing a Republican would.

Ted Cruz is more liberal than Hilary

Please elaborate. This should be good.