Will she or won't she?

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

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

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

She'll run and she'll be in at least the first few rounds of contests (IA, NH, SC).  Beyond that, we'll see.  She's the leader of the "Progressive Movement" within the Democratic Party (key words "Democratic Party", Bernie).  I believe she'll be pushed to run to keep Bernie on the sidelines, because Bernie isn't really a Democrat.  That fact is lost on many here, but how could a political party credibly nominate someone as its Presidential standard bearer who didn't even self-identify?

I'm pretty sure she will win Iowa, and I believe it's like guaranteed that she will win New Hampshire. South Carolina, however, could become a huge problem for her.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Even if she were to somehow excite the base enough to win, a senator from a navy blue state who's never lost an election and who's only been in politics since 2013 would not be a particularly effective President. No board sweeping progressive agenda will happen unless the Democrats win a large majority of the country (55%+).

That's why Obama lost twice...
By the way, If Warren wins, she will have been a senator for seven years.

I don't see how she's preferable to somebody like Sherrod Brown. 

So, you wanna say that a senator from a "navy blue state who's never lost an election" is less electable than a senator from a deep-puple-turning-red state who will have lost his next election?

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Illinois isn't navy blue, and Obama won downstate Illinois handily (granted he ran against a garbage candidate) as a Chicago candidate. His appeal in downstate Illinois appeared to resonate in the rest of the Midwest. Where exactly does Warren wrap up extra support? New Hampshire and Maine I suppose but that's a paltry amount of EV's.

In Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Montana, perhaps even Utah and Alaska.

Also Obama's lack of D.C. and/or executive political experience wasn't a good thing when it came to cutting deals, twisting arms, and working with the bureaucracy to push through legislation.

Doesn't every presidential candidate have a lack of D.C. experience? Basically you're claiming that only U.S. secretaries and White House staff are capable of being an efficient president, aren't you?

Also the reelection rate for senators since 1982 is 96%. Brown has won twice in Ohio before and 2018 will be a midterm with Trump hovering between 30-37% approval. I don't see how anybody can claim that Brown is somehow destined to lose this early on. Wasn't Hillary Clinton leading every generic Republican this early on as well in polling data?

Ohio has become too Republican. If Kasich runs, which I'm assuming, Brown will have no chance. Kasich is way too popular.