Warren for pres.? Don't you know she is "unelectable"?

[G_j]

just getting that out of the way early..

of course, most who use that term plan on it becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. Say it often enough.....

Don't know if Elizabeth would ever run, but I'd work my ass for her if she did.

[Th1onein]

1. Grayson/Warren

I'd vote for them, and work my ass off for them, too. AND give my money to them.

[G_j]

3. I like Grayson too!

I'm sure he will be labeled equally "unelectable". The establishment has other plans.

[Marr]

2. Yep-- Hillary Clinton is 'the only viable candidate'.

[stillwaiting]

27. We have so many choices don't we! Freedom and democracy!! nt

[Agschmid]

34. No she's not, but Warren would be a disaster.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. She's plenty electable; the people will eat 'er up. That said.....

... she may have trouble keeping pace in the fundraising dept.

[Th1onein]

6. Why can't the internet fund her?

And, now that foreign governments can fund our elections, wouldn't some of them be interested in seeing a REAL Democrat get into office?

(Hello NSA!)

[Turbineguy]

5. Well, one thing, she's smart.

That's a problem. Repubs like to have stupid people running the government.

[treestar]

7. 2014

If she is a real liberal, she'd encourage you to get Democrats in for that.

If Congress is still Republican, she would "disappoint" you anyway. Cannot believe all this attempt to find a new Obama for the Presidency while ignoring Congress.

Come to think of it, if Congress is democratic, she will still have to disappoint you.

[G_j]

8. why are you speaking for me?

I can speak for myself, thank you.

[treestar]

12. I notice you're ignoring 2014

and looking for a new messiah for 2016.

Figuring she will have the same government to deal with, I'm predicting big disappointment. She's a Democrat, so I predict I'll be defending her from your howls of disappointment.

[G_j]

14. you don't know me

I'm not ignoring anything by making a single post. Again, speak for yourself.

[bahrbearian]

15. Treestar ... Meh

[Agschmid]

16. You realize you spoke for all of us in your OP?

She is not electable, she is a VERY strong regional candidate and is doing an amazing job in the senate. America is really not well educated enough to appreciate her as a candidate for the presidency.

[G_j]

20. maybe for you

if you think tagging someone that way is productive. It's not though, in fact, it's very counter productive, and that is point of my OP!

[Agschmid]

22. I think it is productive to support a candidate who can win...

but hey, whatever floats your dinghy.

[G_j]

29. certainly, and the DLC will be very happy

to determine who those people are.

[Agschmid]

33. The DLC is gone.

It seems you are afraid of something which does not exist.

[G_j]

37. technically yes, but in fact their

their ideology is more than alive and well, and evolved even further toward the center(right)

[Life Long Dem]

9. 2014 comes before 2016

Lets concentrate on that first.

[Maven]

10. Says who...the BOrG?

[Skittles]

11. LOL......Maven

you know it

[treestar]

13. Why would we?

Why would we not want a Democrat for President in 2016?

Likely most of us will be supporting the candidate. And is he/she wins, will be defending that person the same way and be called authoritarians for doing so. We will be EWGers.

[great white snark]

30. Crickets

Poor folks just can't believe that Liberals would support Obama, even though 90% have approved of him since day one.

I'd ask if they think themselves "true" Liberals and not us but I suspect they're busy working on silly and unclever names to call us.

[G_j]

32. we're talking primaries

that is where the "electable" debate happens.

[KittyWampus]

26. I would think the BOrG would find her more electable than Dennis Kucinich.

[Recursion]

17. Does she have any desire to run?

I haven't heard that. Most people aren't crazy enough to run for President.

[bahrbearian]

18. That explains the Presidency

[Recursion]

19. Doesn't it, though? Sigh (nt)

[cali]

21. sorry, she doesn't have either of the two critical ingredients needed for a successful run

She has neither the innate political "genius" of a Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or the political campaigning experience of say a John Kerry, who doesn't have the former but does have the latter- and he lost anyway. And the other vital thing she doesn't have: The infrastructure and backing. Sucks, but that's the reality of our system.

She didn't run a brilliant campaign for Senator though she got better at it as the campaign progressed. It was her first and only campaign for elected office. She has no support among party bigwigs or in Congress.

A grassroots campaign? Yeah, that worked so well for Howard Dean who was an experienced pol.

In any case, Elizabeth Warren is a very smart woman and she won't run. I appreciate her more and more each day, but running for President would be an exercise in futility.

[Agschmid]

35. Well worded, thanks.

[LWolf]

23. Anybody worth voting for is unelectable.

At least, that what I've been taught here at DU.

[G_j]

25. Thank you!!

for getting my point! You and I have been around here a long time, and have witnessed the "unelectable" brigade pile on any candidate who dares step out of the mold.

[LWolf]

31. Yes.

It robs us of the opportunity to usher in significant positive change.

[tabbycat31]

24. Does she WANT to run?

I will say that she won't even be finished with her term in the senate, but that did not stop the last freshman senator who ran for President.

I'd vote for her, but the last 3 presidential nominees who were previously elected statewide in MA did not do so well (both parties).

[geek tragedy]

28. She very well could be electable. We don't know that yet. nt

[leeroysphitz]

36. Sounds hot.