Will she or won't she?

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

On Wikipedia she is listed under "declined to be candidates".

[Mr. Morden]

On Wikipedia she is listed under "declined to be candidates".

You need to learn that that Wikipedia list is utterly ridiculous.  Warren is asked if she's going to run for president all the time, and often she deflects the question and says it's too early to think about, but sometimes she gives an answer like "I am not running for president", which is present tense, so not very meaningful, because it doesn't rule out her starting a presidential campaign in 2019.  But Wikipedia counts that as a "denial" and says that she's "declined to be a candidate".  Meanwhile, no one ever asks Caroline Kennedy if she's running (because why would they?), and so she manages to stay on the list of speculative candidates forever.  It's really dumb.

Should be noted though that while Warren is running for reelection in 2018, she has very explicitly not made any kind of Shermanesque promise to serve her full term.  And when called out on the fact that she wasn't promising to serve her full term, she stuck to her guns (or at least, she has so far).

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

You need to learn that that Wikipedia list is utterly ridiculous.  Warren is asked if she's going to run for president all the time, and often she deflects the question and says it's too early to think about, but sometimes she gives an answer like "I am not running for president", which is present tense, so not very meaningful, because it doesn't rule out her starting a presidential campaign in 2019. 

But the present progressive can also have a future meaning, can't it?

[Mr. Morden]

You need to learn that that Wikipedia list is utterly ridiculous.  Warren is asked if she's going to run for president all the time, and often she deflects the question and says it's too early to think about, but sometimes she gives an answer like "I am not running for president", which is present tense, so not very meaningful, because it doesn't rule out her starting a presidential campaign in 2019. 

But the present progressive can also have a future meaning, can't it?

It could, but I don't take it like that in this case.  Warren is doing the same thing that most of the other candidates are doing: offering non-denials in different ways.  Remember early this year when Booker "ruled out a run for president"?:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/cory-booker-president-2020/index.html

Wikipedia put him in the "declined" category after that as well, then put him back in "speculative" when he was asked again and gave a different answer.  Unless you're a candidate who's willing to go the O'Malley route of publicly admitting that a 2020 presidential run is something that's on your mind, you're at some point going to give an answer that Wikipedia deems a "denial".

But contrast that with, say, Tim Kaine's denial back in November, when he ruled out a presidential run.  That came off as something more pre-meditated, where he was making a conscious effort to cut off 2020 speculation.  Maybe that was also just a ploy, or maybe it was sincere but he's going to change his mind, but it seemed different from the fake "denials" that we get from folks like Booker and Warren.

[Holmes]

I think she will, yes.

[kyc0705]

On Wikipedia she is listed under "declined to be candidates".

You need to learn that that Wikipedia list is utterly ridiculous. 

It's preferable to wild speculation. ("Oh! This person was within 250 miles of Iowa. You know what that means!")

But anyway, to answer the question, I don't think she will. She doesn't really seem interested, to be honest.

[Mr. Morden]

On Wikipedia she is listed under "declined to be candidates".

You need to learn that that Wikipedia list is utterly ridiculous.  

It's preferable to wild speculation. ("Oh! This person was within 250 miles of Iowa. You know what that means!")

I don't think so.  Or rather, it depends on what you mean by "wild speculation".  If you actually pay attention to the tea leaves, then you have a much better handle on who is likely to run than if you just blindly follow the fake "denials" in the sense that Wikipedia defines them, which is a terrible way of interpreting things.

The best indicator, IMHO, is not what the candidates are saying publicly, but leaks to the media from the candidate's inner circle.  This is the basis for much of the Cuomo speculation.  He never visits Iowa or New Hampshire, and he rarely (if ever?) goes on the Sunday morning talk show circuit for example, but his inner circle has leaked to the press for years that he has presidential ambitions, so we've got to figure there's a decent chance that he'll run.

Unfortunately, we don't get leaks like that from very many candidates, so we have to rely on other indicators, which, yes, includes trips to early primary states, and also which potential candidates set up PACs (which unfortunately doesn't tell you much for sitting Senators these days, since almost everyone in the Senate has a PAC now....but it's still relevant for those out of office like Julian Castro) or which ones go to events like the CAP Ideas Conference.  Another big one is meeting with early primary state delegations at the DNC.  Seriously, Cory Booker meets with both the Iowa and New Hampshire delegations at last year's DNC.  What is the point of doing that if one doesn't have any presidential ambitions?

Synthesize that stuff together, and you can make reasonable guesses about who is most likely to run.  Sure, if the candidate also says publicly (like O'Malley has) that they're thinking about running, then that's also a pretty big clue.  But few of them end up doing that.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

On Wikipedia she is listed under "declined to be candidates".

But anyway, to answer the question, I don't think she will. She doesn't really seem interested, to be honest.

2020 would be her very last opportunity to run for president. It would be very stupid of her not to run.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Everybody says they're not running until they actually run. We're still in August 2017, people.

[kyc0705]

On Wikipedia she is listed under "declined to be candidates".

You need to learn that that Wikipedia list is utterly ridiculous. 

It's preferable to wild speculation. ("Oh! This person was within 250 miles of Iowa. You know what that means!")

I don't think so.  Or rather, it depends on what you mean by "wild speculation".  If you actually pay attention to the tea leaves, then you have a much better handle on who is likely to run than if you just blindly follow the fake "denials" in the sense that Wikipedia defines them, which is a terrible way of interpreting things.

Wikipedia should not in the business of "tea leaves." As someone who is fairly familiar with the WP editorial process, especially for politics, that is synonymous with "wild speculation." Anything more than a direct statement is. If they say, in any form, that they're not running, then you move them into the "declined" category. You can always change it later.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

It could, but I don't take it like that in this case.  Warren is doing the same thing that most of the other candidates are doing: offering non-denials in different ways.  Remember early this year when Booker "ruled out a run for president"?:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/cory-booker-president-2020/index.html

Wikipedia put him in the "declined" category after that as well, then put him back in "speculative" when he was asked again and gave a different answer.  Unless you're a candidate who's willing to go the O'Malley route of publicly admitting that a 2020 presidential run is something that's on your mind, you're at some point going to give an answer that Wikipedia deems a "denial".

But contrast that with, say, Tim Kaine's denial back in November, when he ruled out a presidential run.  That came off as something more pre-meditated, where he was making a conscious effort to cut off 2020 speculation.  Maybe that was also just a ploy, or maybe it was sincere but he's going to change his mind, but it seemed different from the fake "denials" that we get from folks like Booker and Warren.

So, you basically said politicians deny running for president in order to not provide their opponents with a target?

[President Johnson]

Hopefully not. We need somebody with a broader appeal who can crush the Donald by massive numbers. Liz Warren is not that person.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Everybody says they're not running until they actually run. We're still in August 2017, people.

Does that mean by implication that the Great Delaney won't run?

LOL @ the poll results btw

[Mr. Morden]

On Wikipedia she is listed under "declined to be candidates".

You need to learn that that Wikipedia list is utterly ridiculous.  

It's preferable to wild speculation. ("Oh! This person was within 250 miles of Iowa. You know what that means!")

I don't think so.  Or rather, it depends on what you mean by "wild speculation".  If you actually pay attention to the tea leaves, then you have a much better handle on who is likely to run than if you just blindly follow the fake "denials" in the sense that Wikipedia defines them, which is a terrible way of interpreting things.

Wikipedia should not in the business of "tea leaves." As someone who is fairly familiar with the WP editorial process, especially for politics, that is synonymous with "wild speculation." Anything more than a direct statement is. If they say, in any form, that they're not running, then you move them into the "declined" category. You can always change it later.

Well wait, now we're on a different question: "What should Wikipedia be doing differently?" is different from "What is the best guide to figuring out who is going to run?".  I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't switch to a subjective tea leaf reading standard, however I also think that if I, as a free agent person making 2020 predictions, were to use Wikipedia's list to figure out who was likely to run as opposed to doing my own subjective tea leaf reading, I'd be much worse at doing the predictions.  The Wikipedia list doesn't really help me much in sorting out that question of who is going to run, even though I understand why there isn't really a good way for an organization like Wikipedia to do it much better.

That said, I do think that even using objective criteria in their sourcing, they could do the list better.  I don't have time to go through all of their sources one by one right now, but I have definitely seen past cases where a headline writer in a news story got overeager with "So-and-so rules out a presidential run" but the actual statement by the candidate was something innocuous like "I'm not thinking about that right now", which isn't a denial at all.  If they used a more rigorous standard for what counts as a "denial", then I think the list would be better.

It could, but I don't take it like that in this case.  Warren is doing the same thing that most of the other candidates are doing: offering non-denials in different ways.  Remember early this year when Booker "ruled out a run for president"?:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/cory-booker-president-2020/index.html

Wikipedia put him in the "declined" category after that as well, then put him back in "speculative" when he was asked again and gave a different answer.  Unless you're a candidate who's willing to go the O'Malley route of publicly admitting that a 2020 presidential run is something that's on your mind, you're at some point going to give an answer that Wikipedia deems a "denial".

But contrast that with, say, Tim Kaine's denial back in November, when he ruled out a presidential run.  That came off as something more pre-meditated, where he was making a conscious effort to cut off 2020 speculation.  Maybe that was also just a ploy, or maybe it was sincere but he's going to change his mind, but it seemed different from the fake "denials" that we get from folks like Booker and Warren.

So, you basically said politicians deny running for president in order to not provide their opponents with a target?

It's not just that.  They also don't want to come across as looking too craven, or pathetic.  It's a bad look to be publicly musing about a presidential run this far in advance, especially if you currently hold some other office and face reelection next year.  It makes people think you don't really care about your current job, and are already looking ahead.

[Mr. Morden]

Everybody says they're not running until they actually run.

That isn't strictly true.  There are always a few potential candidates who will actually give a "maybe" when asked the question.  E.g., both McAuliffe and O'Malley have done that this year:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=233345.msg5547247#msg5547247
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=233345.msg5564031#msg5564031

But you're right that non-denial denials are far more common.

[Lord Admirale]

I hope not, she'll give Donald a second term.

[AN63093]

Morden is right on the money.  I don't know how long he's been following presidential elections, but I have since the early 90s or so, and his method of analysis is the correct one.

Very, very rarely will a candidate come out and announce a run this early.  90% of the time a candidate will give some elusive statement about how they're "not running" until the time they actually announce, so you learn to just ignore those statements.  

In order to have an idea of who actually is going to end up running, you have to follow the "invisible primary" or.. I guess, the "tea leaves."  Though I don't like that term, because it implies that this process is like a fortune teller or something, just straight pulling BS right out of your ass, when in reality, if you're following the invisible primary closely, there are plenty of concrete things to point to (there is some speculation as well, of course, but it isn't what I would call "wild" speculation).  Keep in mind also, that there are some people who "run" in the "invisible primary" but never officially announce (or announce and then withdraw before a race) because they either "lose" the invisible primary or a path never opens for them.

Anyways, back to the topic, it's too early to tell with Warren.  I think she probably "wants it less" than someone like Booker, who wants it so badly that he's been awfully transparent about throwing his hat in the "invisible primary" ring.  But I think there's a good chance she'll run if she thinks she has a realistic path.

Maybe put her at a 50-50 or so right now.

[AN63093]

I think she probably "wants it less" than someone like Booker, who wants it so badly that he's been awfully transparent about throwing his hat in the "invisible primary" ring.  But I think there's a good chance she'll run if she thinks she has a realistic path.

I do wonder to what degree this will hurt Booker leading up to, or during, the primaries. It's one thing to be seen as ambitious, but going too far and being seen as power hungry and/or desperate doesn't sit well with voters.

I agree.  I understand needing to raise a national profile, name recognition, and so on, but he's already pretty well known and he keeps inching closer and closer to O'Malley territory.

[mcmikk]

Hopefully not. We need somebody with a broader appeal who can crush the Donald by massive numbers. Liz Warren is not that person.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I hope not, she'll give Donald a second term.

lololol...this sounds awfully familiar, like when Jimmy Carter's 1980 campaign manager Pat Cadell said that Ronald Reagan would be easy to defeat:



Keep running middle of the road trash if you want to choke like a dog and lose 2020

Thanks, Mondale and McGovern.

[GoTfan]

I hope not, she'll give Donald a second term.

lololol...this sounds awfully familiar, like when Jimmy Carter's 1980 campaign manager Pat Cadell said that Ronald Reagan would be easy to defeat:



Keep running middle of the road trash if you want to choke like a dog and lose 2020

Thanks, Mondale and McGovern.

This isn't the 70s and 80s anymore. It's the 21st century, and rallying y9ur base is the only way to win in the US. Progressives are usually very good at that.

[GoTfan]

I hope not, she'll give Donald a second term.

So will your hero.

[BlueDogDemocrat]

I think she will run and stay in till at least Iowa, but she will do a lot worse in the primaries than people think.

[Lord Admirale]

I hope not, she'll give Donald a second term.

lololol...this sounds awfully familiar, like when Jimmy Carter's 1980 campaign manager Pat Cadell said that Ronald Reagan would be easy to defeat:



Keep running middle of the road trash if you want to choke like a dog and lose 2020

Reagan was also very charismatic, something Warren lacks. Reagan talked circles around Carter, while Warren lacks that type of energy.

Also, like others have said, look at McGovern and Mondale. Two people who ran as uber-progressives, lost in landslides.

Sorry that my centrism pissed you off so much that you broke into a fit of rage at the end of your ramble. :/

I hope not, she'll give Donald a second term.

So will your hero.

Joe Manchin? I don't think Joe Manchin will run, or even wants to run.

[GoTfan]

I hope not, she'll give Donald a second term.

lololol...this sounds awfully familiar, like when Jimmy Carter's 1980 campaign manager Pat Cadell said that Ronald Reagan would be easy to defeat:



Keep running middle of the road trash if you want to choke like a dog and lose 2020

Reagan was also very charismatic, something Warren lacks. Reagan talked circles around Carter, while Warren lacks that type of energy.

Also, like others have said, look at McGovern and Mondale. Two people who ran as uber-progressives, lost in landslides.

Sorry that my centrism pissed you off so much that you broke into a fit of rage at the end of your ramble. :/

I hope not, she'll give Donald a second term.

So will your hero.

Joe Manchin? I don't think Joe Manchin will run, or even wants to run.

This is not the 70s or 80s anymore, in case you hadn't noticed. Centrism does not work anymore, and 2016 proved that. Hillary tried to run middle of the road; she picked frickin' Tim Kaine as her running mate. And she lost. Jon Ossoff ran as Republican-lite. He was supposed to be the great Democratic saviour. And he lost.

And if your hero were to run, then there would be a left wing third party challenge, guaranteed, unless he shifts sharply leftwards on Wall Street, healthcare and education.