Talk Elections

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).

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.

I think she will, yes.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

LOL @ the poll results btw

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'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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

So will your hero.

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.

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. :/

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.

Doubt it. Their progressive savior(Warren or whoever) could end up having one insignificant position where they disagree with most of the progressive base, and then the progressive purists are going to start calling them Republican-lite. This kind of obsessive nitpicking and these purity tests are going to be the death of liberalism in American government. Liberals will keep being angry at Democrats for losing while continuing to not vote for Democrats.

*chants of "Ohhhh, Jeremy Corbyn" ring in the distance*

I think she'll at least form an exploratory committee. I'd love to see her run but I do think some of her past might come back to haunt her in the primary. The base hated Hillary because she wasn't progressive enough, so Warren might run into trouble with the fact that she was a Republican before 1995 or whenever it was that she changed parties.

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?

Nah

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.

Unless another progressive one runs, she probably will as standard bearer of the more left wing elements.  While she would be wildly popular here in Canada, and could make things interesting in Britain, I am not sure she would do so well in the US.  Yes Sanders did well in the primaries but I think a lot of Americans still are fairly pro free market and the whole soak the rich type politics doesn't have the appeal in the US (despite the highest levels of inequality in the developed world) it does elsewhere.  In many ways the US has taken a strong swing to the right so its tough to say if a more progressive one would bring out their voters necessary or if choosing a centrist would be better.  It also could be the Democrats just have to wait until the GOP goes too far, but even there it seems while too far to the left is very much an issue in American politics, I question whether there is such thing as too far to the right in US politics, certainly Trump put them into question.

Liz isn't running.

Sorry, I don't buy the broader appeal tning. It's nonexistent in the US. Stop chasing Republican votes and go after Democrats instead. How's that for a novel idea?

You need to excite the progressive base in the US. Wareen can do that. Hillary couldn't. Maybe Democrats need to start chasing their own base before touting the backing of Henry Kissinger.

That assumes there is a large enough progressive base to win off.  My understanding of the US is it is a fairly conservative country and a lot of Americans believe in American exceptionalism so anything that is seen as making the US more like Europe (or as a matter of fact Canada too) tends to be a tough sell.

You can sell progressivism without being contrary to American exceptionalism.

Did you see Bernie's campaign or were you distracted by a bumblebee?

A lot of that base is going to be young voters and blue-collar workers from the industrial states. That is the base Democrats need to excite, or they're going to lose again and again.

I saw what happened, but also it's all speculation how he would have done in a general election.  Yes the polls showed he would have done better, but no doubt when the GOP and all the Koch Brother third party ads were rolled out, would have his numbers held up?  Perhaps, maybe not.  Never mind with congress many of his more progressive ideas would have been DOA.  I think the reason I am skeptical is everytime single payer health care has been on the ballot be it Oregon about 15 years ago or more recently Colorado it's gone down in flames in spectacular motion.  Yes I realize a lot of that was over the details not the concept and if it was say a 60/40 split I might think the public was more open to it but close to an 80/20 is what makes me skeptical.  I think the price tag of a lot of Bernie's promises is where he might have trouble.  Sure he would do this by raising taxes on the rich which is reasonably popular, but you can bet being pounded for 3 months by negative attack ads saying he would raise everyone's taxes (believe me the GOP will say this even if untrue) would probably take its toll.  That's not to say a progressive like her couldn't win, but I think a charismatic slightly progressive but not too left wing is what the party needs.  Part of the reason Obama won while Clinton and Kerry didn't is Obama was able to connect with people on a personal level quite well while both of the other two came across as cold fish and distant and lacked the emotional connection that Obama was able to establish.  I think someone like Julian Castro who is a great orator like Obama is probably more where the party needs to look.

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


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?

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


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?


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

Remind me again of what issues Stephen Harper and Andrew Scheer are to the left of even Ted Cruz on?

I cannot read their mind, but on policies plenty.  Neither advocate a 10% flat tax.  Maybe they favour tax cuts for the rich but the top marginal rate under them was still over 40% when you add in the provincial rates whereas under Cruz it would have been in the teens.  Neither have called for abolishing Revenue Canada.  Neither support concealed carry and neither support outright privatization of health care.  Yes they may favour a parallel private system like you have in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand (and in fact we already sort of have it Canada, I get an MRI by paying and will be getting shoulder surgery at a private pay clinic), but not outright privatization like the US.  Scheer and Harper would be similar to Kasich on the political spectrum which is very right wing by Canadian standards by quite middle of the road by American.  Someone like Justin Trudeau wouldn't be able to win on the platform he ran on last election.  Yes he probably could win in the US, due to his charisma but he would have to run on a very different platform (I don't think he has that strong a principles and suspect he would run on a different one if he lived in the US).