Actually, the ideal democratic ticket must transcend the Hillary fiasco of identity demographics and appeal to middle America.
Elizabeth Warren and Stanley McChrystal, not necessarily in that order.
One with domestic bona fides and the other with foreign policy operations experience in the areas most relevant to national security.
Ms Warren must apologize for her stupid admonishment of small business owners that "they didn't build it." They did. They took advantage of the infrastructure available to everyone else, poured their sweat equity into years of uncertainty, and reaped varying rewards. But make no mistake, they built it.
Absent such fence mending, Ms Warren is toast.
Mr McChrystal would be a shot across the bow of every republican and every adversary to the US. He was wrongly castigated for mocking President Obama's foreign policy. President Obama was necessary and great for US domestic issues, but he wasn't very successful in his foreign policy efforts in the middle east. He tried to do it differently, which was good, but his efforts did not yield success. McChrystal saw the gap and, thinking he was in private, did what many intelligent people do; he made fun of his boss. Who among us hasn't?
But the point is such a ticket would be a refreshing break from the same old same old guard. The party needs new blood with demonstrated records of achievement. Warren and McChrystal, not necessarily in that order, provides such a break.
3
The baby boomers have had their fill, no one over 50 please!
10
The question: "how to appeal to a wide range of demographic groups like white rural voters, suburban women, college students, and black and Latino Democrats in the South and the Sun Belt." Two-word answer: Warren/O'Rourke.
6
EW can not win, but can help Trump win.
27
She doesn't stand a chance.
22
Elizabeth Warren is the leftist, female Donald Trump: Strident, irritating, abrasive, authoritarian. A presidential contest between them will be really interesting--go for it!
11
And this is how Trump’s second term begins...
19
she has about as much chance as a match in hurricane!
19
I admire and respect Senator Warren but she is the wrong candidate for President. The whole Native American dna test thing was ridiculous and made her look weak, foolish, and not to mention, vulnerable. Trump would destroy her in a live debate by being his usual bullying self and mocking her nonstop. It would be a disaster.
She and Bernie would have made a terrific dream team in 2016 but they missed their opportunity.
No Warren for President or Gillibrand for that matter.
16
Warren, more than any other liberal, will ignite again the radical right that has hijacked the republican party just as their embers begin to fade. She is everything they despise. Worse than Clinton because there is no hint of moderation.
10
Good news for Trump; he can easily defeat her!
12
You folks who say that Elizabeth Warren can't win because she does not fit some profile that you think is essential (liberal female senator from Massachusetts can't win, etc) sound like the same people who said in 2008 that a black person could not win, or in 2016 that a playboy shady New York real estate dealer could not win. Wake up. The old stereotypes are dead. New models, good and bad, are being created. It is called social evolution, and it happens all the time.
10
Since we all know now that the White House is available to virtually anyone, can we have someone in there who is young, vital, angry, intelligent, compassionate and knows how to build consensus instead of these dried-up, "trot 'em out again" candidates who all say the same thing? "Special interests control our government!" "Free money for all!" "I'll do anything/say anything!" Warren, Biden, etc need to sit by the fire with a hot cup of cocoa. Seriously. "You can't always get what you want, boomers." Also, how about military service being mandatory for, you know, the Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces?
4
Maybe she can go all the way but look at the history of presidential runs from MA politicians, e.g., Dukakis, Kerry, Ted Kennedy.
4
Asked if Warren could win, Trump replied: “Well, that I don’t know, you’d have to ask her psychiatrist.”
Whereas in Trump's case, we'll have to ask his podiatrist.
9
.
God help the United States of America!
I can't for the world of me visualize the US being led by a Socialist.
Venezuela, here we come, following in the footsteps of your success!
.
3
From one of the Democratic strongholds in America, if she gets anywhere close to the nod for the job, then you'll welcome 4 more years of Trump. Mark. My. Words. FIFO, First In, First Out
7
I won't vote for anyone who cares more about illegal immigrants than American taxpayers and displaced workers.
7
53% of white women voted for the Donald. Depressing, I know. If the 2016 presidential run taught us anything it is that Americans are generally misogynist and racist. Want to lose in 2020? Run a Warren or Booker. I voted for HRC in 2016 and that was a massive fail. Forget these old folks(I'm 67 y/o) and give us some new, young blood. Bernie? Stay home. Biden? Laughable. We need someone young and fresh like a Beto from TX or a Jared Polis from Colorado. Maybe one of the Castro brothers from TX.
I despise Trump but if the Dems put up another obvious joke, like HRC, I will stay home in 2020 and sit on my hands.
The Dems have to confront the fact that the haters at Fox Noise and the Tea Partiers have largely bought up the country. Sad, I know.
4
Warren is the female version of Sanders although neither may be appealing enough for voters who were foolish enough to believe that Trump was a real populist.
3
The most important event of the Century so far is the consignment of Trump and his spawn to the dustbin of history. Alas, Elizabeth Warren, with her shrill demeanor and caving in on doing a DNA test instead of telling those that challenged her heritage to go to the devil, does not have the appeal needed to get the task of throwing the bums out accomplished, so...next!!!
6
I don't think the Dems should pick a candidate with Donald Trump in mind. By the time 2020 rolls around, he will be greatly diminished. I think we really need to listen to them all and then decide - not based on age, sex, skin color or ability to defeat Trump. Trump will defeat himself.
6
I don’t think Elizabeth Warren can beat Trump.
It is absolutely essential that we defeat Trump in 2020.
However, if Warren wins the Democratic nomination, which is 1 year, 7 months away (it’s completely insane that the 2020 election cycle has already started; of course, Trump has been running non-stop since he won in 2016 - unending campaign with no ability to govern), I will enthusiastically vote for Warren in the general election, and I will encourage everyone I know to vote for Warren.
We will have an insane number of people running for an insanely long time. But whoever the Democratic candidate is, we need to fully unify behind and vote for.
Every Democrat, liberal, progressive, socialist, corporatist needs to make that absolute commitment: vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it is, no matter what happens in the primaries, in the next 1 year and 11 months.
Literally anyone is better than Trump.
8
Now is the time for the media to step up and responsibly report, what are the achievements of each candidate? What is their voting record? Facts, figures, first and foremost so that every one has an equal opportunity to argue on the basis of facts, not on gender or race.
7
Bernie is over, as is Biden and Beto is way too inexperienced. I like Klobuchar but no profile yet.
And I think the GOP owners are moving to put up a Romney/Haley ticket that would be tough to beat and almost as frightening as Trump/Pence II.
Maybe Warren is the best bet - and I am saying this having written to her yesterday suggesting she stay in MA !
3
I hope she won’t win the party’s nomination I would have to sit out the election I could no more vote for her then I could Trump.
1
"...Ms. Warren has also become a favorite target of conservatives, who have sought to label her as an out-of-touch liberal from academia..."
Having show themselves incapable of being truthful about the opposition makes this - a great little endorsement and recommendation!
1
If the presidential election was based on the popular vote, Senator Warren would be a viable candidate; however, that is not the case as it is based on the electoral college where Red States carry more clout than liberal or blue states. Simply put she is too extreme and too much disliked - think Hillary.
I do not want four more years of Trump and believe the Democrats need to put up a candidate who can both appeal to liberals and moderate Republicans and I see no reason that a woman can be more or less successful than a man. I believe the candidate must be reasonable, honest and intelligent without carrying negative baggage. Unfortunately this candidate will be hard to find.
3
I wish the Times and other papers would stop talking about the DNA test. What relevance does it have to anything at this point? News media must hammer away in each and every article these ‘items of interest’ - they’ll be mentioning it in Oct 2020.
As for Senator Warren’s announcement? Well, I’m not over the fatigue of the last campaign, I wish they’d all give it a break until the new House is installed and Mueller has issued his report, which is supposedly coming in a few weeks.
3
This is exactly what the democratic party does not need. We need a centrist like Jim Webb, the former senator from Virginia. I am so frustrated by this party sometimes.
4
Happy New Year America.
I would vote for Elizabeth Warren for President and I would vote for Mike Bloomberg for President.
I support reason and discourse, civility and decency, sanity and common sense.
4
Senator Elizabeth Warren has kicked of 2020 presidential bid. I think by the end of January there will be several other democrats and independents like Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg. Come on out and fill the circus tent. The wall is high, may not be a concrete one. My advice is don't make promises you cannot keep and don't buy into the idea that the president is the most powerful person on earth. As an independent, I would like a president who is for winding up all current wars and never sending troops for new wars.
World unite to fight war against disease, hunger, poverty, corruption, abuse of all kinds, over population and armed conflict. Peace and health to all life on earth in the new year 2019 and beyond.
1
The great advantage over Trumpism in 2020 will be that the president's base will have peeled off a segment who are slowly realizing that Trump lacks the negotiating skills to do anything, and may in fact be a Russian stooge.
Clinton simply lacked the ability to see that calling Trump a racist was basically an admission of inability to address the economic and cultural dislocations triggered by an unfettered financial class, and immigration. Trump had no ability either, but at least he claimed he did.
Warren is the icon of stopping the economic predation that produced a wave of populist revulsion with government and society.
4
No need for speculation, the only thing that matters is that on Nov. 3rd, 2020 you go out and cast a vote for democracy.
1
Zero chance whatsoever. Not electable. If Warren gets the nomination, we are stuck with Trump for another 4 years. Please, someone, step up.
7
2020 is way too important an election to run Warren. The Dems can't put up a candidate that matches closely to the last candidate that Trump defeated. He's already pummeling her in his first interview re her candidacy....
4
My personal preference is Bernie, but to anyone who worries that Warren could end up alienating more conservative factions, there’s one thing you should’ve learned from the Trump victory: the path to the White House is to excite your own base not try to syphon off “moderate voters” from the other side. Ask Hillary how that worked out for her in 2016.
3
“I don’t think we ought to be running campaigns that are funded by billionaires, whether it goes through super PACs or their own money that they’re spending,” she said. “Democrats are the party of the people.” This is precisely her problem! MONEY isn't the problem, POLICY is! The fact that everyone aspires to money is a simple fact of human nature. We don't like how money has driven policy initiatives that have been detrimental to all good people but money, in and of itself, isn't the issue and the way she puts it only serves to drive a wedge between people of similar ideology simply based on the wealth they possess as though that disqualifies them ad hoc. This is what I dislike about her and it's NOT going to lead to a win for her, no matter how much she wags her finger at us telling us that she has all the answers, like a good lecturer would do but as a presidential candidate would NOT do.
1
Senator Warren is easily the best candidate if you want real change. She's serious, thoughtful, tough and very smart. By contrast, Sanders is impractical. He played an important role in 2016 keeping the inequality issue alive while Hillary was tone deaf to it. But the party does not want socialism, it wants the government to step in when markets aren't working which is exactly Warren's position. I like Beto some but he's running on feel good, charm and looks. He's not a change agent. I like Harris but her best move so far is to avoid offending anyone. Maybe they'll show more but right now, Warren is a heavyweight, they aren't.
The principal criticisms of Warren here are weak. 1 Some say it was a tactical mistake to take the DNA test and she'll be smeared by the GOP. I disagree but it's irrelevant. All campaigns make mistakes and the GOP will smear whoever our candidate is. It's way too early to be deciding who can't win. (Recall, Hillary was supposed to be the safe bet.) 2 Some progressive activists are upset with Warren over the DNA test. They need to get over it. The test confirmed what her mother told her about her ancestry. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. This point reflects more on Warren's critics than on her. 3 Some here say the country won't elect a woman. Seriously? We came within a hair of electing Hillary and she was a really bad candidate (she wouldn't have been a bad President). Warren is the real thing.
4
Please don’t. You are not electable.
You will make it easier for the current president to settle in for a second miserable 4 years.
If the Democratic Party seriously wants to win the 2020 election, it needs to select one (only one, not twenty) candidate who is moderate, very moderate and very calm and clean. That candidate is not Elizabeth Warren.
5
"There's a sucker born every minute" a phrase often attributed to the showman P. T. Barnum is the adversary Elizabeth Warren would run against should she win the Democrat nomination for the 2020 run. President Trump will run if he does not die, is not in prison, or just gets bored with the tedium of not reading briefs. Given his abstinence from alcohol, cigarettes, and sleep, he seems to have an iron constitution.
She has no chance against him. Someone like Beto O'Rourke probably does... . I don't think any of the "old" people who are teasing us with their probable hints are viable options. The world wants someone younger and charismatic... .
I just hope he/she will be a scholarly individual who reads and does not announce policy via Twitter. Bright, shiny objects may be the answer.
1
Liberal Democrat candidates such as Warren, Booker and Harris will never resonate with the Centrist Midwest and could never win a National election. Bloomberg has a better chance but he is very low energy and is seen as a wealthy banker. With Cortez, she is mostly immature and her fantasy based Socialism again will not sell in the Midwest. Biden probably has the best chance to win and Joe has the most experience in the field although expect many gaffs from crazy uncle Joe
The 2019 Dems want a newer, younger face but it is so hard to find a young Democrat moderate as they are all extreme leftists and the moderate Dem candidate will also be eaten alive by the far leftists. What to do?
1
She has too much baggage and is a niche candidate lacking nationwide appeal.
2
Juxtaposing this current field of Democratic Congressional reps running for 2020 POTUS office against the 2016 field of Republican Congressmen is telling.
So far, the 2020 Democratic POTUS candidates include three women (Harris, Warren and Gillibrand) and two people of color (Harris & Booker) whereas all Congressional GOP 2016 POTUS candidates were while makes. It's reflects the diversity of American voters available to both parties. The Good Ole (Boy) Party is just that, a small cliche of rich white guys trying to exclusively run things.
I’ll tell you what will ruin Dems chances in 2020. All this ridiculous infighting for one. Another, bland meaningless middle of the road stances. While it may win that particular election, things will just swing back when nothing gets done again. Democrats need to be bold brave and honest. And fight back loudly when the lies against them are told which will happen daily. A sadly large number of Americans fell for Trump’s faux populism. How about we try for the real thing?
3
I see that the Koch Brothers paid political hacks and apparatchiks are also starting early this campaign season, sending in correspondence stating that they are really Democrats but fear that Warren running and winning the Democratic primary will doom us all to another four years of Trump.
These clowns were all over New England social media when Warren ran against Scott Brown and sent him packing off to New Hampshire looking for a constituency. The truth is that the Koch Brothers, the Chamber of Commerce and all the other private and public corporate powers and the incredibly corrupt financial industry and Wall St. banks that are all “too big to fail” are all terrified of Warren because their reign over Main St. and the middle and working classes would rapidly come to an end under a Warren Presidency supported by a Democratic House and Senate.
It’s the wealth gap that all these corrupt, corporate powers want to protect by nit picking any negatives about Warren or any other Democratic candidacy. As for the fallacy about a candidate that everyone can support...forget about it as there is no perfect candidate. After all, look who lives in the White House now.
3
If you make less than $1 million per year, struggle to pay for healthcare, are not a defense contractor or greedy banker or a polluter of our air and water, your interests have not been served by a single US congressperson in decades. Born lower-middle class in Oklahoma, Senator Warren is a self-made woman who comes closer than anyone to the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" persona who is fighting for an America where a full time job means you don't live in poverty or gov't assistance. 40 years of coordinated attack of selfish lunatics like the Kochs against middle class have left our infrastructure in shambles, our communities starved of opportunity and hope. Addiction, suicide, delusion run rampant We need 1000 Elizabeth Warrens to reduce the influence of oligarchs and restore the belief the system is NOT rigged against us. The opportunity gap is threatening the very fiber of capitalism and if reforms aren't implemented soon, Americans will rise up, armed and vengeful, to break the oppressive system revolving on profit for a few at the expense of the many. The coming financial meltdown and bailout will propel America to the streets, with 300 million guns versus 50,000 families that control almost everything...how do you like those odds? If nothing else, Ms Warren will provide a relief valve of hope to the millions who work hard and who cannot get ahead as inflation eats their meager salaries and their children go hungry.
5
I’m afraid her candidacy is a misfire. Warren is such a great asset to the Senate that losing her there would be unfortunate. Although a superb legislator, she comes across as a humorless scold, and her ill-judged claim to be part Native American, while perfectly true, gives Trump invaluable ammunition. You know he would not let this go, and we would be subjected to endless Pocahontas, Pocahontas, Pocahontas. That said, if she does end up heading the ticket, I would proudly vote for her. And yes, she would indeed make a great president. I just don’t think she’d win.
3
Just two necessary ingredients: 1) " . . . no broadly unifying ideology. . ." - that's the intellectual side of the equation. 2) ". . . no obvious front-runner . . ." - the emotional standard bearer. After a strategic shellacking, the DNC continues to be the incompetent marshaling agent without competence. Warren is merely a double down from the last gruesome showing, the definition of insanity personified.
1
How utterly delusional.
Aside from a very tiny smattering who believe Sen. Warren's candidacy is valid exclusively because of her gender, regardless of her reckless socialist agenda, no one trusts this candidate.
The Democrats have learned nothing, evidently, from 2016: HRC was a candidate with numerous, plainly evident flaws, and now Sens. Warren, Gillibrand and Harris arrive on the election cycle scene equally undistinguished and totally unqualified. Try as you like to paint their detractors otherwise, their thin electability have nothing whatsoever to do with their gender.
If we're going to discuss a candidate who also happens to be a woman, how about let's talk about well-defined agendas, wide-ranging support and political appeal, and then gender.
Former US UN Ambassador and SC Governor Nikki Haley is the only potential candidate following President Trump's second term who has the vitae and, coincidentally, is female.
4
A Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Ralph Reed or Joel Olsteen Vice President? Across the pulpit approach can stitch this candidacy together like a Sunday school social. A prosperity preacher from a Mega Church the key to salvaging this ticket.
1
No way Jose.We need someone who is not easily attacked.She has bad political instincts.Supported Hillary Did not let her Indian heritage die a natural death.Pushing the truth too much to get the right media coverage.I want somebody different than Trump.She is not going to make it.
I just don’t like her. As other commenters have said - she lacks charisma. Not her!
1
If Warren is The Democratic nominee, Trump is guaranteed re-election.
1
Warren will get trashed in the primaries, if she even gets that far. Her Native American claim and theatrics during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings will come back to haunt her 10 fold. She’ll be portrayed as a privileged white womanizer totally out of touch with reality.
2
When will the Democrats Learn the the Country will never elect a northeastern liberal for President? Ted Kennedy, Dukakis, Kerry etc.
2
Much as I like a woman to run, I do not find Warren compelling.
I think Elizabeth Warren is playing her cards right and should not be deterred by naysayers. As far as the ancestry issue, I thought I was part Native American and French and only recently found out through DNA testing that I'm 40 percent Italian-- go figure. In any case, her heritage is not an issue for me. There are much more serious issues to focus on, including good health care for all, closing the gap between the rich and poor, and focusing on environmental sustainability to ensure that our kids and future generations have a place to live.
15
In 2024, indeed Mr.Trump can't contest for white house if he becomes the winner again in 2020. If Mr.Trump plans to make a presidential hopeful from his family members who is more ambitious than Mr.Jeb Bush and the American voters still have reluctance to elect a woman as their president, the world could experience the Trump era of next generation from 2020 to 24.
1
Elizabeth Warren is the best Democrats have to offer? Really?
It’s unpleasant for me to say this, but if the Democrats elect Warren I’m voting for Trump.
PLEASE find someone suitable for me to trust with my vote. And the current names written about in the NYT over the past few days don’t fit the bill either.
I’d vote for Jimmy Carter rather than the current list of names.
30
Rob, negative media coverage in this country is used too frequently, and effectively to dissuade voters from voting in their best interests. You may find by looking at Elizabeth Warren’s life work through the years that she is someone who is actually out for the best interests of this nation and it’s citizens. Probably the most important is removing large money flows to candidates. We will never have good government as long as votes are purchased by those at the top. Their is a genuine good in some people and I believe Elizabeth Warren is one of those people. Here is hoping for a better 2019.
25
Do you care to explain why? Why would you vote for Trump and not Warren? What about her policies and her work made you decide that? Trump has proven to be a terrible person that has no integrity and doesn’t care about the country. So, I ask, why? What has Senator Warren done?
4
What’s the problem with the current list? How is Trump preferable?
2
Of course the right will try to make her look "elitist" and all the reast. I suspect they will do that whomever the Democratic candidate may be.
It's not just about winning thew election in 2020. It's about having serious plans to tackle the Nation's problems if elected.
Elizebeth Warren will take on the big banks. Imagine her debating Trump on foreign or domestic policy? I think at least half the population would be convinced.
14
Not one word here about the most important topic of all: climate change.
That's not just my favorite topic, it's THE life-and-death global issue that we need to jump on immediately. Yet, even Warren and Sanders keep playing on jobs, race, etc., all hugely important, to be sure, but they're just more America-centric issues.
America created climate change and we're still the most responsible for it, per capita. We, more than anyone else, are destroying the world. We need to reverse that...now!
All issues -- economics, immigration, food and water, disastrous weather, et al -- are subsumed by climate change. The right wing denial movement, with their idiotic conspiracy theories about volcanoes and sunspots, continues in full force.
We need our leaders to confront this issue head on.
We need to return to the climate change fight in full force and stop pandering to people's short-term concerns.
Climate change is for all the marbles.
28
Warren was okay when she started the CFRB, but since then she has been a loose cannon, twitter fights with Trump, flitting down to the southern border in a frenzy to save the illegal immigrants from having to comply with the rule of law.
Warren probably was an excellent professor, but presidential, she is not; too emotional, almost irrational.
27
Do you think Trump is presidential? Emotional and irrational are often code for a woman - specifically - not being qualified.
4
I wonder if anyone at all on the 'exploratory committee' will have the spine to tell her, "We've explored the idea and the people don't want you."
Warren is the Dem's biggest liability heading to 11/2020
29
It is too early to plan for the 2020 elections.
The main open question is whether Trump will be impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate. This affects who the Republican candidate is likely to be.
Depending on the Mueller report, some Republicans may decide to abandon the president. In a country so polarized it might seem that Republicans might continue to support Trump no matter what. But Trump has made too many mistakes. Among recent mistakes are the bad handling of the resignation of Mattis, the needless trade war with China, and a shutdown of the government with no end in sight.
At some point, even many of Trump's supporters will realize that although he shares some of their positions, his incompetence will be a liability in 2020. He may have heard some of the concerns of poor whites who see living standards declining, partly because of too much population growth, driven by illegal immigration. But governing requires actual policies, not just slogans like "build the wall."
The trade war with China might bring about a market crash or higher inflation, or both. A faltering economy will affect Trump's supporters, and they may begin to desert him when they realize that effective changes in policy require negotiation and compromise.
Elizabeth Warren has worked for greater accountability in the financial services industry. This recommends her for further consideration. After the dust settles she might be a reasonable candidate.
2
As a Democrat, I say oh no. Another shrill, scolding schoolmarm to turn off swing voters and the conservatives who might respond to an appealing person. What we know about presidential elections — aside from the chilling fact that the taller one usually wins — is that communication and likeability are the key factors. You can win over almost anyone if you can connect, like both FDR and Reagan. When you go out and shake your finger at people, telling them what they should do, it’s a dead-end. I don’t think I could support this candidate.
36
I agree with you and “shrill” is precisely the word that comes to mind when I think of Warren. I don’t care for anyone, man or woman, who shrieks at me while discussing policy goals and initiatives.
2
New faces in congress, fine. Diversity - great. But we are talking about running for POTUS - requiring experience, knowledge, and the wisdom of having been around the block. Beto? Looks a lot like my 25-year-old kid who is starting Harvard Law School - very smart, but not quite ready to be president!
Getting elected to congress does not mean one is ready for the White House. There are more requirement than just diversity.
10
@Sam Kanter Clearly, becoming president requires none of those traits. Nor sanity. It is breathtaking to hear republicans berate Warren, and every and any Democrat including both Clintons, John Kerry, and Barack Obama, after having inflicted upon us the pestilences of GW Bush and now the un-president Trump. Irony is a wonderful thing.
2
Democrats need a candidate who can get white votes from the Southern and Middle states; I don't think she can do that. The candidate must be a white charismatic and centrist male. It cannot be Joe Biden, as he is too old.
If Demorats fail to field a candidate who cannot win then all of humanity will be at risk. Hence, the choice must be wise and pragmatic.
10
Sorry but this is the old way of thinking. A centrist male? We’ve had enough of that. It’s time for new and exciting leadership. And it’s likely to be more progressive. Centrist doesn’t move the needle.
@Rahman
This is tricky. I agree with you. However, as someone pointed out in another post, we could then lose the segment of the progressive vote that is more concerned with diversity than beating Trump. The relative balance of voting groups in the midwest will decide the election.
2
Thanks for boosting the Republican likelihood of making a comeback in 2020. Warren is NOT what the Democratic party needs to win in 2020. She is a distraction with little credibility. Exactly what the Republicans want on the Democratic side. Can the Democrats not come up with anything better than this?
18
So, Senator Warren, what are your plans for dealing with China and the issue of tariffs? Are you going to stay in Syria? How are you going to stop Russia’s aggresssion in Ukraine? Do you know where Ukraine is? Presidency is the most powerful job in the world. Lives of millions of people depend on the decisions taken in the Oval Office. So what are Warren’s qualifications for dealing with international crises? Has she ever lived outside the US? Has she traveled widely? Does she have a globalist outlook? Does she understand other people and other cultures? Judging by many of these comments, it seems that the only qualification necessary is that the candidate be acceptable to a bunch of opioid-addled know-nothings in the Rust Belt. If so, why not to stay with Trump?
9
@Mor
She is well qualified and educated to understand and operate in the world we live in. She has a chance of tilting America to operate more like Scandinavian countries. I don’t think she is considered weak on the world stage. She is better qualified than mrs Clinton if you ask me and just look at her performance while she was the head of the SEC.
4
So, the NYTimes is going to make the same mistake as in 2016: covering the election as a horse race rather than focus on substance.
Surely, the most important part of the Presidential campaign should be on the candidate's positions on important topics, and on the candidate's qualifications for office.
Yes, this NYTimes report has SOME of that inforrmation about Senator Warren, but only in in Para 18, ff.:
"A longtime bankruptcy law professor at Harvard who never held public office before 2013, Ms. Warren became the first woman elected to the Senate from Massachusetts after defeating a self-styled moderate Republican incumbent, Scott Brown, with a populist message based on advocacy for strict Wall Street regulation.
Ms. Warren has both assets and possible drawbacks in a White House run. Strategists for several other likely Democratic candidates say private polling found Ms. Warren’s political brand — as a warrior against powerful corporate interests — to be exceptionally strong with Democratic primary voters. Her signature initiative in recent months has been a sweeping bill to crack down on government corruption, effectively adapting her longtime focus on private-sector greed for the public-sector scandals of the Trump era"
Nowhere mentioned in this article is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Senator Warren.
Let's not do this again, NYTimes. Let's focus on what is important for America and Americans, not on the horse race.
29
I will support whoever runs on the Dem ticket.
Some of the contenders I like more, some less.
Warren is one I like more, for her energy, enthusiasm, and drive.
19
Warren has the brains, ability and vision, but I question if she has the “X” factor, that is the Obama/Kennedy type charisma and message-delivery style that is needed to resonate with the swing states.
15
Charisma shouldn’t matter. Haven’t we learned that by now?
3
At least you can say one thing about her. Unlike Hillary who everyone knew was running, Warren hasn't dilly dallied about it, hasn't been coy, or pretended we all didn't know exactly what her plans for the elections were all along.
5
Elizabeth Warren would make an excellent president.
8
Amazing how many people here are saying that the country isn't ready for a female president. Clinton proved that wrong when she won the popular vote in '16 despite being a pretty weak candidate. Of course, it didn't hurt to be running against Trump. However, that said, the popular vote doesn't mean squat. The Democrats need to find a candidate who can win the EC votes. That's not Warren, not Harris. If they can't find a moderate voice who can win in Middle America, you'll be looking at four more years of Trump.
8
This is what four more years of Trump looks like. Support her at your peril.
23
I’m thrilled that she’s running.
I can’t wait to be entertained by the clown fest that 2020 is shaping up to be,
11
I find a number of the comments touting Senator Warren and other trendy Democrats alarmingly naïve. I hope Democrats will be more sensible in voting booths.
Senator Warren has no hope, even for vice-president, as other comments have explained beyond any lingering doubt.
A number of bloggers here favor Beto O'Rourke. He lost to Ted Cruz in Texas, even though the state is now a bit purple and Ted Cruz has about the same personal appeal as Robert Mitchum in "Cape Fear" (and looks similar). I heard one of O'Rourke's speeches; it concerned illegal immigration and came across as open-borders-y to me, albeit couched in long-winded euphemisms.
The Republicans would eat Kamala Harris like a canapé over her refusal to seek the death penalty in a couple of infamous San Francisco murder cases. Just that she is a product of San Francisco politics would be the kiss of death. San Francisco is dirty and dysfunctional, and its intractable squalor will feature in Republican TV commercials.
Then there are the two gentlemen who argue that anyone posting against Senator Warren must be a Russian troll. I thought baseless conspiracy theories were supposed to be the province of political extremists. In fact, if any Boris Badanovs are writing from Magnitogorsk, they'll be posting in favor of Senators Warren, O'Rourke, Harris, and Cory Booker, assuming that they favor four more years of President Trump.
15
Warren's native American DNA issue is much like Hillary Clinton's email issue: much ado about nothing, but something that would be about the only thing we hear about during the campaign.
Sad but true.
12
Looks like Trump's Christmas wish has been granted.
18
To the Editorial Board, 3 small requests:
1. Please provide roughly equal "air time" to ALL the presidential contenders as they announce their intentions.
2. Please allow them to use the NYT forum as a way to speak DIRECTLY to the public, without having their messages curated, altered and editorialized. Show your readers the respect of acknowledging our intelligence in being able to digest the raw facts and come to reasonable conclusions.
3. Please resist the temptation to back a candidate too early. This will inevitably color the coverage of other candidates. When you do decide to back a candidate, please announce your endorsement loudly, openly, so that all your readers know that, from now on, all coverage of other candidates can be expected to be biased by the NYT preference.
In short, please don't repeat what you did in 2016. Your readers really hope for better this time.
16
I’m not voting for anyone over 70. Period
7
@Linda Flagged for ageism.
I am gobsmacked by the number of comments suggesting this is not the time for a woman to run. (Also gobsmacked by comments about Sen. Warren’s wardrobe, ‘shrillness,’ resemblance to their grandmothers, etc.) It’s 2019. When will it be a good time? Should there be a swimsuit competition?
Hang on a minute. I want to FaceTime my two year old granddaughter Violet and tell her not to set her sights any higher than becoming a Philadelphia Eagles Cheerleader.
225
@itsmildeyes
Do you want to stick up for women, or do you want to win?
A campaign that divides our country down the middle, by setting women against men, is an inherently defective strategy.
If you are more interested in supporting women, than in winning, I have to assume that you don't think Trump is a horrid president.
5
@itsmildey
If you want Trump to win go ahead and support her.
4
@itsmildeyes
It's not that either Warren is a woman not her wardrobe. She is a Northest liberal who has offended the progressives in her party. Additionally, the DNA fiasco hurt her. Many also claim she is too rigid on financial institutions. I just think she is a weak candidate.
And I have three daughters.
4
I feel differently about her candidacy, and better, now that she's apparently in. I'm a moderate, but she's very smart and strong, and depending upon how she plays her cards she could win my support.
23
Massachusetts voters elected her to the Senate in 2012 with 53.7 percent of the vote and re-elected her earlier this month with a 60.3 percent majority. The voters rightly concluded that Warren’s ancestry was trivial compared to her positions on economic inequality, health care, and the other issues.
Warren has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate. If she gets the Democratic nomination for president, Republicans will attack her for that and anything else they think will tarnish her – if not the Nnative American controversy then something else that Massachusetts voters would consider inconsequential
9
I like Elizabeth Warren but I just don’t think she’s electable against the Cheeto in Chief. To be clear, I’ll vote for anyone who runs against Trump but she seems so polarizing. And sadly, I don’t think a woman will win against him in 2020. I have my eye on Michael Bloomberg who seems credible and competent. He will need a VP who is dynamic enough to attract the younger generations. Beto?? I never really understand how VP candidates are selected but I hope he is in the mix.
22
I agree with you although I don’t think it’s true that a woman can’t beat Trump, it’s just not gonna be HER. And I have my eye on Bloomberg as well and will, ultimately, vote for the Democratic nominee. In fact, will NEVER again vote GOP, ever.
1
I used to be a Bernie supporter but after seeing a couple of her videos I am fairly torn. She comes across as a a 'get it done' person. Bernie comes across as namby pamby. one wonders if he will start compromising all over the place once he gets elected. I don't see that happening with Liz purely because she knows what she wants to do and she will not give an inch. I am amused by the 'milquetoast moderate' opiners here who continue to think that she is too strident or she is 'Capitalist' etc. Total bilgewater. The flyover country is absolutely craving for someone to speak out truth to power like Liz. Someone needs to carry the fight to the 1% and there is no one better to do that than Liz. I think she is going to beat Bernie in the primaries. I am going to be torn but I will be watching her very keenly before I vote. The main advantage with Liz is, she is 200% against Wall Street and knows how to take them down. She has a plan. She will get it done. That is her main difference and selling point against Bernie. I think progressives need not worry about this Liz-Bernie competition, we only need one of them to win because the loser is going to definitely help achieve the progressive make over this nation desperately needs. If Bernie wins I sincerely hope he makes her Attorney General. If Liz wins, I hope she will do the same for Bernie. Its time to cut the Corporations and the 1% down to size. I hope they jack up the top income tax rate to 70%.
13
@paulArt I agree with you 100%. Thank you for your analysis. I was a member of the Occupy movement. I habe been heavily impactes by a big bank and by predatory lenders. The 1% is destroying the US society.
as a member of as family of business men. I know better!!!!
4
@Paul Art
I'm a Bernie supporter, but would also take either Warren, Jeff Merkley, or Sherrod Brown (if he comes around on single payer healthcare.). And i hope they'd all support each other, whichever of that crew ends up doing the best. As it stands, I highly doubt i'd vote for any of the other hopefuls though, but i will hear them out and look at their records. What's the point of going through Trump just to get back one of the Third Way Dems that helped to get us here in the first place.
2
I support a 70% top income tax rate. And a law limiting highest paid worker to 20 times lowest paid worker. And removing FICA cap.
1
I don't know yet whether Warren will be my first choice when the Democratic primaries arrive, but there should be no doubt that she would be a serious upgrade over our current president. Few people in congress have thought as deeply about what has gone wrong with our economy and political system or have been as stalwart in defense of working families. Her positions are always carefully thought out and pragmatic. It is impossible to say whether she would make a great president, but she surely would stop the vandalism of our government and the pillage of our country that is now occurring. All Democrats should welcome her into the race; her presence will contribute to a thoughtful discussion of the issues we face.
11
As my fellow readers consider the various emerging candidates I hope you will keep the following ideas and questions in mind.
1. As far as the 2020 presidential election, the #1 priority must be to select the candidate with the best chance of beating Trump. All policy issues are secondary.
2. Q.: What does it take to win a presidential election?
A.: This is different than other elections because of the Electoral College system. To win, it is absolutely necessary to win in several of the key "swing states". And these states are won by persuading "swing voters", independents who sometimes vote DEM, sometimes GOP. This has been the case in EVERY presidential election in our lifetimes. Presidential elections are not won in those swing states by trying to increase voter turnout in the party's base. It's by appealing to the "swing voters" in those states that they are won.
3. So, which candidate (or ticket) has the best chance of getting a key group of people who voted for Trump in states like Pennsylvania to vote for them instead?
4. What kind of a voter are you? I'm a "West Coast Liberal". My favorite candidate, based on my own personal views, may be entirely unsuitable based on the above points. For the good of our country I need to be conscious of that and not let my views color my objective judgment.
10
@J Jencks Beating Trump is the number one priority above all, policy considerations are secondary. So if Warren ran on the communist party platform and advocated abolition of the Constitution, you'd vote for her anyway?
@Alan - This is such an absurdly hypothetical questions that I fail to see the value it adds to the discussion.
Just in case my original comment wasn't clear enough, it was pointed at how to differentiate and choose among Democratic contenders for the nomination. It had nothing to do with the final DEM vs GOP race. It was about the importance of choosing the candidate most likely to win from among the DEM contenders. Assuming that there may be a dozen or more to choose from, which appears fairly possible, do you think the one running as a Communist who wants to abolish the Constitution would be the most likely to beat Trump?
2
I would love to see Trump debate her. Warren was surely next in line to be president if Hillary did not pull it off. However, the amount of her baggage, especially her hyperbolizing her minute Native American ethnicity, is going to make for plenty of fodder for Trump to exploit. I wonder what her plan is going to be, knowing he is going to bring it up, and I wonder if the Democrats think she has enough mettle to effectively take on Trump. Further, in light of how much stock Democrats place on intersectionality, I don't think she is going to make it past the primaries. If there is going to be a female going head-to-head with Trump, my money is on Kamala Harris, not Warren.
1
Cory Booker will be the President of the U.S., if not in the next election, he will be eventually. For the past several years I’ve followed his rise, very similar to President Obama. He did wonders for Newark, he’s savy, personable, and relates to so many Americans.
4
Sadly, he is another neoliberal, deeply in the pharma companies' pockets...
2
Oh please, let's talk about Elizabeth Warren's positions and intellect, she is undeniably qualified to be president. Warren the "senior-citizen" could debate any of her young critics on this thread. I shouldn't be, but I'm astonished at the ageism (she'll be younger in 2020 than Bernie was in 2016) and sexism (she's "shrill") on this thread. I support her wholeheartedly. I don't want a political neophyte. And there's a lot of time between now and the primaries. No matter who's picked to represent Democrats, I will support that person wholeheartedly.
15
@KM I like some things about Warren, and dislike others, and I probably don't agree with you on many issues. But I do agree about the ageism among NYT readers, and also its editorial board, btw.
1
@KM - I admire Warren for what she has done and like her stand on many policy positions.
However none of that is very relevant as to whether she should be nominated as the DEM candidate. The ability to beat Trump outweighs all other considerations. And beating Trump means getting voters in swing states like Pennsylvania who voted for Trump in 2016 to vote for her instead.
Among the various DEM contenders we can expect to toss their hat in the ring, do you think she is the most able to accomplish that?
1
The Cherokee Nation criticized Ms. Warren saying that using a DNA test is "useless" for determining tribal citizenship or any connection to a tribal nation.
Brava, Elizabeth. She has raised an issue that resonates with many Americans. Who are the gatekeepers who can determine a citizen's ethnicity, a determination which often comes with significant government-protected privileges?
The Cherokee Nation and other ethnic gatekeepers say, "No science, please." Who then determines the the rules and on what basis?
Elizabeth passed the one drop rule, but evidently that wasn't good enough for the Cherokee Nation. OK, how many drops must a person have? How do we count the drops? Who counts them?
5
I like her. I will vote for ANYONE but trump.
She CAN'T win a national election. I can almost guarantee it will go down in the Electoral College just like it did in 2016.
Please, Dems - nominate someone who can win in the Electoral College, not just carry California and the Eastern Seaboard.
Did you not learn ANYTHING from the last fiasco?
26
Elizabeth Warren is the only Democrat more unelectable than Hillary Clinton. She will not last long in the primaries.
18
I seriously doubt Ms. Warren can do any more than cause damage to the party and discourage voters. She comes across as angry.
13
I'm angry too. I like that.
4
Are you not angry at what Trump and the Republicans are doing to us and the country? I want a candidate who is damn angry!
4
Look. I'll vote for a dead squirrel over Donald Trump (or most any Republican for that matter) in 2020.
But I have to say, Senator Warren is just not that likable. Or electable.
We need electable in 2020.
Electable isn't the left wing fringe. It just is not. The election will be won in a half dozen swing states. And those states are not the same as Massachusetts or even California.
That is reality.
We ignore it at or peril.
20
I dread this. I'm going to do my best to shut it out until a candidate is selected. The season needs to be shortened by half.
7
Quote:
I hope all of us on the left will debate in good faith
End Quote
Should have read: I hope all of us on the left and right will debate in good faith
1
I have only one thing to say to Elizabeth Warren: no. I have one thing to say to Bernie Sanders: no. I have another thing to say to Hillary Clinton: no again. Please don't make us lose another election. Please don't waste our time anymore. You are all not it. What we need is someone like Michelle Obama who commands respect, has charisma, and character. Unfortunately, she's not interested. She would even be a better president than her husband.
7
Agree with all you write regarding Michelle. She is the most qualified.
1
A multimillionaire ranting on about income inequity. Someone who was paid nearly half a million per year as a professor (teaching one course per year I believe) at Harvard ranting on about the the high cost of education.
Next candidate please!
12
Though I was "really" hoping to see this headline for 2016, I welcome it for 2020 just the same. Sen. Warren is a fighter for the shrinking middle class that Republican policy is actively attempting to stomp out of existence. I unequivocally disagree with the Boston Globe's stance that she shouldn't run, it sounds as if they're attempting to engineer a field not unlike the engineering performed in 2016 to Democratic detriment. It remains to be seen if she'll have my vote, but I look forward to making the decision - not having it made for me.
5
Against the recommendation of her senior staff, as CA attorney general, Harris declined to prosecute Mnuchin or his bank for foreclosure fraud and interestingly received large campaign contributions from Mnuchin and especially from his wife at the time.
Beto does not have a progressive voting record. For example, he voted with Republicans to roll back Dodd-Frank.
Only Warren and Sanders have over time consistently been advocates for the public at large rather than the elites.
I would not vote for Harris or Beto (or Booker - friend of big Pharma and charter school DeVos) under any circumstances, but would happily vote for either Warren or Bernie.
16
Senator Warren has some things going for her, e.g., the Consumer Protection Board. She did what Senator Sanders should have done but didn't during the 2016 general election. That is, she took on Trump directly, vigorously and effectively, on behalf of the Democrats and Sec. Clinton.
8
Agree with the previous comments. I like and admire Senator Warren but think she has close to zero chance of gaining a foothold as a leading Democratic candidate. WAY to left, progressive, outspoken and liberal-elite to garner support in most of the the country. I give her credit for trying, and being in the campaign will offer a platform for her idealistic ideas, which may move the conversation in a good direction, as Bernie did in 2016.
6
I admire her political decision making in this instance. She doesn’t have the charisma to be at the top of the ticket, but she can position herself to be on the bottom of the ticket.
Her time in the Senate will make her effective as a legislative liaison. Similarly, her work as an academic and consumer advocate will make her an asset on economic policy.
She will make an effective running mate for someone with a national security or foreign affairs background.
3
After Sen Elizabeth Warren announced her DNA results, it was a foregone conclusion that she would run. And a knowledgeable candidate like her running would be good for the nomination process - ensuring that the eventual Democratic nominee will be solid on the issues.
Though coastal candidates (including Sen. Kamala Harris) are very interesting because of their edge, I continue to think that 2020 is an election that calls for the likes of Sen. Klobuchar to be nominated. Hope she runs.
4
Senator Warren should unite the 2016 warring factions within the Democratic Party. A very intelligent woman with a progressive platform.
Her politics and focus on wealth inequality and the corruption of our plutocracy should appeal to those who supported Senator Sanders in 2016; and the fact that she’s a strong, smart, and accomplished woman should appeal to those that supported Senator Clinton.
Unfortunately, too many Dems appear to be buying into the narrative that Trump has poisoned her candidacy by virtue of a nickname.
Every candidate has flaws. Elizabeth Warren would chop, frappe, whip, and liquify Trump in presidential debates, and she has the potential to appeal not only to suburban women and some men, but even those white, working-class voters in the center of the country with her economic message and populism.
17
Do we really need another unelectable senior citizen? For the good of the country, can’t we let go of our idealism and support a centrist that can actually get elected?
39
@Jose Define "centrist". The fact of the matter is that the middle ground was ceded by the GOP some time ago and they are now so far to the right that anyone slightly left of them is should be considered a centrist.
2
Rough that you brought in age. Shame on you. That’s not why this candidate will not win - we need a uniter, not a spitter. If we’re to continue being the “United States” we need a candidate that will enable us to move back in that direction.
Your remarks are divisive. We need people who give reasons to come together. Age-discrimination is not going to help that cause any more than race, sex, or any other type.
If you are “young” - your future depends on this country coming together.
3
Read the Politico article: The Secret Weapon Democrats Don't Know How to Use. It's about how Democrats can win in rural Trump country. Truly valuable lessons.
1
I agree with much of what Senator Warren espouses. We must highlight that she was one of the few people who foresaw the Great Mortgage crisis. Senator Warren was instrumental in the formation of the Consumer Protection Agency. She is wise and brilliant.
All said, elections are about timing and chemistry. Neither are in her favor.
While qualified, she is not a strong campaigner. Senator Warren is not a great orator. Because racism is skin deep and not genetic, the issue of her family history and DNA testing will always be viewed as inauthentic. It reminds me of the Biden plagiarism scandal (Lol, in the era of Trump, that seems so naive).
I do not find her to be inspirational. If she wins the primaries, I will vote for her.
10
Despite her obvious intellectual advantage, or maybe because of it, Liz will not beat Trump. The Democrats need a younger, inspiring candidate from the Middle or South of the country, not a New York or New England "elitist" (in the country's mind) who can appeal to the folks who were lured in by Trump's lies and TV "Apprentice" appeal.
15
Warren would be the best President we've had in eighty years, so of course she's a complete non-starter. Go America!
20
I mean, sure, I'd vote for her, but the way her entire generation (Trump and Bernie included) are going full "from my cold dead hands" with regards to running this country... we're past dark humor at this point.
Harris-O'Rourke 2020.
8
@Anonymous Why is ageism so much more acceptable than racism? Flagged for ageism.
1
Couldn’t she have at least waited 1-2 weeks, rather than in the middle of a government shutdown? Doesn’t she have work to do as a senator to find a solution to shutdown?
8
@Midwest Moderate
You might have missed the part where the Senate unanimously approved funding and Trump rejected it. At that point, republicans of course decided that they would not vote to over-ride their own president.
There's no secret where everyone stands and who wanted the shutdown. There's even video of a certain individual bragging, if you need it.
2
Oy. She is unelectable.
25
Say who? Trump was unelectable as well and where is he now?
3
Wasn't it not so long ago she announced that she was a Native American?
I'd like to use my moment in the penlight here to advocate that we stop calling the lived-here-first tribes "Native Americans". Here's why:
1. They didn't call the land "America".
2. They weren't 'native', they migrated from Asia.
That's not enough for all you exaggerated-sensitivity types?
I propose referring to them henceforth as "Bering Strait Migrants". Because while 'America' is also a geographical demarcation, it does bear political and cultural influences that the Asian migrants didn't share. Whereas the 'Bering Strait' has no political or cultural demarcation, it is merely the name of a geographical location.
I think the name comes from a misspelling of "bear" on the chart made by Captain Hosiah Grevnall Bering as his expedition passed through those waters. There is some contention that it was originally called "The Bear Strait" because of all the polar bears they saw. But one evening as Hosiah's cabin boy attempted to convince his master to name it for himself, the boy slipped on some spilled caviar and the edge of his sleeve smudged the wet ink on the chart so that the word 'Bear' now read something that looked like 'Bering'. With providence's forberance, the name stood when Captain Bering became distracted as he tended to the spilled caviar and then heated some cold seawater on his tea stove to dab the ink smudge off his cabin boy's sleeve.
Probably Kamala Harris could beat her.
2
So the right gets to decide our candidate? No it’s time to move the pendulum the other way my friends.
14
I just wish this whole process could have been put off for about 8 more months (actually 1 year but I'm trying to be reasonable). DEMs need to get the new House in place and make some progress, so that they have something to point to before going back into campaign mode.
This risks becoming too much of a distraction.
17
As a centrist and conservative Democrat, I agree with the thought of you will have to have a candidate who will do well in the purple states. I myself am a swing voter and have voted for Democrats and Republicans. I supported Clinton (2008 primary, 2016 primary and general), McCain (2008), and Romney (2012). I am conservative as far as fiscal policy (and very much anti-abortion) but am liberal on so many other issue such as gay rights, immigration, health care (which will be the issue in 2020). I don't care for Trump, but I also see what his hard core supporters that is so appealing. He can be re elected in 2020. It's a matter of who runs against him.
17
I just want the Democrats to win across the board in 2020. I don't really care how. All we know right now is Republicans can't govern and somehow 30% of the electorate likes it that way, and we need some of their votes to get the Electoral College. Calm, rational, and purposeful thought will not win the White House. Charisma, "trustworthiness", and an evocative vision might.
6
@Ying Wang. Let us know how the Dems plan to govern instead of obstructing.
7
They could afford that and blame Reps. Reps had whole government at their disposal, and managed to shut it down at the end
1
She would be the first female and Native American president! Two firsts!
4
I'm a fan of Ms. Warren and her efforts that got the CFPB working for us, but as qualified as she is, she's not electable because even though qualified, she's the exact opposite of Trump.
Trump is an ignorant, charismatic carnival barker that knows how to manipulate the press and get people into the tent, but completely unqualified for the job of president.
Elizabeth is totally qualified and bright, but has no charisma and speaks like she's lecturing a bored elementary school class: there's substance in her words, but no form in the presentation.
I'm also a fan of Bernie Sanders, who is both qualified and charismatic, and who I would be happy to see replacing Trump, but I have difficulty in voting for someone who is always shouting at me.
If Bernie runs he'll be 78 during his campaign, 80 when he takes office, and pushing 90 when he finishes his second term, and I hate to sound critical of senior citizens (because I'm one too), but I think that's just too many birthdays for the stress that being US President causes.
And I don't want to even think about the Tiki-torch parades that would be held against the candidacy of a Jewish 80-year-old Socialist, because even though those three qualities would no doubt make him a darn good president for all of us 99-percenters, it would be painful to see what the right-wing-nuts would do to him.
GeneGrossman.com
9
This lady does care About the people. She is the one that ho stopped credit card companies from charging too much money when she was working as the head of the SEC. god bless her and hope she wins!
She sounds too far left but it’s good for the people. We need this kind of person to be in charge.
13
I must have missed Warren's time as head of the SEC. Wonder where I was.
5
Sorry she was never at the SEC much less the head of it; perhaps you’re confusing her with another Native American?
A stunning mix of Santa Claus and Scrooge, with just enough (alleged) ethnicity to check a diversity box.
In other words, the perfect Democrat in this day and age.
10
Regardless of how much we like the candidate's charisma, we must, we must focus our support on a candidate who can win this time around. For the most part, Democrats align politically. Let's get behind a candidate who can help us get the WH and the entire Congress back into Democratic hands. From that position, there is much that we can do to help save our democracy and our planet. I like Elizabeth Warren, but I don't think she can get us there.
10
Dear Presidential Wannabees: Please note this voter is still recovering from the 2018 Midterm elections. I would prefer not to have the likes of Senator Warren, and others announce their candidacy this early. She and others were elected by the people to run our country which is sadly lacking in leadership right now. We have a budget standstill which needs attention so that our government can fully operate once again. Once a candidate announces his/her Presidential plans, then their time is devoted to fundraising, campaigning and not on the task to which they were elected. Please we need our federal officials to focus on the current crises at hand.
15
Quote:
... it’s likely to get even nastier."
End Quote
Lucky us... we have children running the government. Both parties are without a doubt absolutely disgusting children. Both parties are a disgrace.
You've got Trump harming many innocent people over this border issue; You've got Chuck Schumer saying nasty things about Trump when not that long ago Schumer was saying the same things and memorialized on video.
I'm totally fed up with the political process anymore, both sides of the aisle. If I wanted kindergartners' running the country I would have attempted to elect one. My stupidity was I actually thought we might get a reasonably intelligent, although far, far from perfect, adult at the helm. Then again I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw.
We no longer take care of our own, we avoid trying to take care of our veterans, you know, the people our government sent off to war to some impoverished country where respect of other human beings is unknown. We're abandoning others who need our help around the world. We're doing a heck of a job.
Trump is going to do nothing but disparage Warren and Warren will do nothing but disparage Trump. They're both a disgrace. We can vote on who does disgrace the best.
The Roman Empire fell a long time ago and perhaps it is now our turn. Or, maybe we're just enroute. Or, maybe the ideal was always a fantasy to begin with.
Ain't we lucky...
2
To beat Trump requires the ability to ensure a huge voter turnout and re-capturing the lost rust-belt states.
Therefore, it requires a ticket that inspires while at the same time connecting with said rust-belt voters.
It's early days, but a Beto/Sherrold ticket do just that.
5
@Hilary Tamar. Do tell us of Roberts accomplishments.
6
I'm very much looking forward to multi-millionaire Senator Warren lecture America about income inequality on the campaign trail. Let's start with seeing her pay stubs for teaching one class at Harvard.
16
Thank you Astead Herndon and Alexander Burns for a very thorough, balanced and rounded article. I can see myself considering voting for Ms. Warren after a careful review of this updated article. Sincere apologies for my earlier remarks.
2
Well, as a Democrat, I dont think shes capable of handle being president. First of all I think shes to white, we need to be more inclusive. Yes, shes a women, but we need more. We need this, if we want to be a true America! A country that can make a difference in the world, thing that we make right now, but for the bad reasons. Overall, shes not qualified for what we really need.
2
The comments invoking the better angels of a fair and rational contest among qualified candidates such as Sen Warren remind me of the millenials in 2016 who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary, so they threw away their votes on Sanders or Stein or stayed home.
A Warren candidacy would be Hillary redux, a gift to Trump.
Nominate a Democrat who can win, please, not one who will become a well-intentioned punching bag for the right and will surely lose.
7
@AnnieM - Jill Stein got 1/3 the votes of the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. So Trump was probably hurt more by 3rd party "protest votes" than Clinton.
As far as write-in votes for Bernie Sanders, only 9 states allow for unregistered individuals to be "written-in". Of those only Pennsylvania was a swing state that Clinton lost. In PA, there were 50,000 write-in votes in total. The PA official website doesn't show which individuals were written in. But even if 90% of those write-in votes were for Sanders, which stretches credulity, Clinton still would have lost PA.
There are many states that do not allow for write-in candidates at all. And there are some that allow REGISTERED candidates to be written in. Sanders did not himself register as a candidate in any of those states. It's possible someone could have registered him on his behalf, without him knowing. That's not illegal. And it's possible people might have then written him in. But I can find no evidence that such a thing happened anywhere.
Pennsylvania results from the Sec. of State:
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania,_2016
4
I love how her new website has a section about facts. Just facts sitting there next to myths. I both hate and love that transparency is something a potential president would have to highlight facility for: an ability to tell fact from fiction. And back up those facts. It’s like a new form of oxygen.
4
I can’t see her winning the nomination but it is early, time will tell.
4
It seems to me that she is an excellent choice and I was hopeful in 2016 that we would have had a Biden/Warren ticket- maybe 2020 is timed just right for her though as they are predicting another recession- who better to take on the titans and get the country back on a fiscal track than her!
4
I have voted for her twice as my senator but I won't support her beyond that. Power has gotten into her head, that is very sad
9
Ugh. I’m pretty old, and believe that we need young-ish candidates. And preferably candidates that are are reasonably moderate in their policy positions, regardless of party affiliation.
Moderation in all things and representation for future generations - and that would not be Elizabeth Warren.
8
Elizabeth Warren may have been a viable candidate years ago when she was still speaking about bankruptcy and economic inequity. Since then she's become a projection of whatever progressive meme happens to be in vogue.
Sorry, "anybody but Trump" only works in solidly blue states that would elect a [vegan] ham sandwich as long as there was a D next to the name. Elsewhere, the bar is higher. There's still this pesky thing called the Electoral College. If Democrats don't face that, then it's Gore, Kerry, H. Clinton, over and over again.
20
I've contributed to both of Warren's senate campaigns and would have voted for her if I lived in Mass.
Won't contribute a penny to this "exploratory"campaign and if she shows up on a primary ballot I won't vote for her for most of the reasons others has set forth.
Stay in the Senate, help the Democrats take back the Senate!
10
Anyone but Trump 2020!
Elizabeth Warren is an experienced, intelligent, diligent, compassionate person who would be an infinitely better President than Trump.
13
With the possible exception of Kristen Gilibrand who I wish would primary Donald Trump I like all the Democrat's potential candidates.
There was a time any of the Democrats might have saved America and any of the Democrats could have made a great President.
If Elizabeth Warren is a leftist it is too late for America.
To those who claim that Sen Warren is a "polarizing" figure: Hogwash!
The only reason that anyone views her that way is because Trump and the Conservative Media Cabal have portrayed her that way from the start. Remember when they were claiming the same thing about Pres Obama? And Hilary Clinton?
Warren, Obama, and Clinton are no more "polarizing" than Trump, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, or Ben Carson, etc. It's just a fake meme that Conservatives fling against anyone who they don't like (i.e. anyone who doesn't believe that Conservatives are the only "real" Americans).
And to all the naysayers who claim that Warren can't win in swing states: Hogwash again! Two years before 2008, did anyone think that Obama would carry FL, CO, MI, NC, PA, OH? Didn't everyone predict that a moderate Republican like McCain and Romney would of course carry the swing states?
At this point, we Dems should feel like we need a single, unified voice against Trump. We are a diverse party, and the whole point of a primary is to have meaningful and forthright debate about the difficult issues, to develop a platform which is a consensus of our diverse views. Having these debates isn't a bad thing; it's a way of demonstrating to voters that we actually care about the issues, and aren't just offering up anti-Trump soundbites.
It's ridiculous to shoot down any candidate as soon as they announce! Let's let them tell us what they stand for; then we can decide in due time.
19
Ugh. Can't the Democrats come together and put up just a few electable candidates instead of the plethora of unelectable ones? We need to win the 2020 election, not fight against each other.
9
She's a perfectly sensible candidate with sound ideology and a track record of true public service...
Which means she's going to be attacked with nonsense about DNA tests that bastardize her ideology and conflate her public service with self service.
The better the democrat candidate, the more nonsensical the republican opposition.
10
@J Haven't you noticed that the "better" candidate very seldom wins? Nonsense trumps them nearly every time. These is the USA, after all. The United States of Amnesia.
3
Whether she wins the nomination or not, Warren is just too polarizing to be a candidate. She will only serve to energize Trump's base against whomever is finally nominated. Don't do it!
13
Senator Warren,
You just gave Trump and his Trumpsters an early Christmas present by announcing your intention to run for President.
I like you, but you can't win. Period. You will cost all of us another 4 years of Trump. I hope you know this.
Terrible decision.
14
Mike....most Massachusetts Democrats agree with you. We know that a Massachusetts liberal can't get elected President.
The number one objective: Democrats must be pragmatic and find someone electable.
There's time for idealism later. I am truly frightened for this country and our democracy if Trump is re-elected for 4 more years.
3
Ms. Warren:
We love your ideas, your passion and your determination. But most of us believe you'd be far more effective as a senator. You'll succeed in much the same manner as Ted Kennedy and John McCain. If you leave the Senate to run for president, we'll lose your voice in Congress.
But if you really want to run for the presidency, you'll need to prove to us that you can manage the bureaucracy, choose experienced department leaders. As of today, we don't see you in that role.
2
excuse me? and the trumpster does?!
2
@JaaArr
You’re kidding, right? Did Trump meet the pre-requisites you are asking of Sen. Warren?
4
I think Elizabeth Warren is smart but also somehow grating, and I wish she had the good sense not to run for President. I admire her passion and commitment to economic justice but she is not likable, and we know how that worked out for Hillary Clinton.
8
@Mark Alas, all too true. Let a newcomer come out and shine. Kamala Harris could surprise all.
2
I'm in. She is the REAL DEAL. Bernie ridiculed identity politics. White people like him. Warren understands diversity of all kinds. She understands the need for each human to feel dignity and love. She would not have been a cry baby if she lost the primary two years ago. No, she would have lifted up Hillary Clinton and she would have insisted her followers do the same. Bernie's ego is sad and boring. How about Warren and Harris? Or Warren and Gillibrand? I'm in. How can I help?
4
I find it really interesting that despite the comment section "vetting" process that I see here is that many still believe that Trump needs a "real" opposing candidate or he will win.
Trump ran against the entire GOP gauntlet of mostly white, privileged, sometimes wealthy and well-spoken white men who had political clout, experience and acumen. He slaughtered them. A woman with better traits that all of them was next (not by popular vote, but she still lost).
Regardless of who is the "best" candidate for the Democrats, the Trump political machine does not rely on credentials, honesty, proven results, criminal history or even "American" values. For many, despite being a billionaire whose existence is so far apart from the average American ($3.1B approx. net worth would take ave. American family 52,000 years to make) he is able to connect emotionally to people. This is partly why Obama won as well.
Ms. Warren, as far as I see, lacks the ability to engage with the majority of America on a viscerally emotional level. The candidate in opposition is going to need to be intelligent enough to sound like a leader, cagey like a fighter, idealistic like a patriot, and emotionally connected enough (or at least appear to) connect with every walk of life.
Trump's whole life is a living lie, but he lives it, breathes it and reinforces it every single day. His perception, however wrong, is his reality. Beating him means crushing that reality and exposing him as the "other."
5
Globalization is the single most destructive force to the natural and cultural resources of our country. We need a working class fighter to get us out of this - not an academic. (A cabinet position would great though).
6
I've followed Ms. Warren's career ever since her design of the Consumer Protection Agency, and the subsequent Republican emasculation of it in Congress.
"Caveat emptor" run riot is capitalism run riot. We've learned to expect deception as a natural thing in certain professions and are prepared for it, but when our bankers look us in the eye and lie in their teeth, well, have a look back at the 2000's.
There are quite a few things in our lives where we have a reasonable expectation of basic honesty. But when capitalism is completely unshackled from that basis, woe follows.
Sometimes free market capitalism has to be reined in, if only lightly. That's what Ms. Warren wanted, and that's what the GOP hated. Even Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, understood that capitalism run rampant will come to a sorry end. Ms. Warren understands that, even if the bone-headed Republicans in Congress don't, or can't.
7
Spare us.
Now, Nick Foles, there's someone. Bounds back when beaten down, takes one for the team - literally on both counts - and would get the PA Electoral College votes for sure.
1
I hope this doesn’t become the side show the republicans put on in 2016. 15 candidates in a feeding frenzy. Activate that smoking back room and get a front runner out there fast.
5
By the time Robert Mueller is finished, EW and others may be vying for the nomination along with President Pelosi.
4
@Tim Robert
I’m sure President Pence will have something to say about that.
Elisabeth Warren actually gets things done. She invented and got signed into law the Consumer Protection Bureau, which fined Wells Fargo $1 billion for opening accounts without customer permission, just for one example.
She also speaks clearly and passionately about how our government has been hijacked by global corporations and what to do about it.
When she called Trump's bluff and proved that she had native ancestry, the response by Democrats who pounced on her, instead of Trump for reneging on his promise to donate a million dollars to charity, was a pathetic display of attacking those that attack Republicans.
Billionaires didn't build the roads, internet, schools, etc. We the People built those things, and the billionaires profit from it. Warren is the invite who says it loud and clear.
Warren for president!
10
Hillary Lite. Not good. If she runs with Bernie the Dems will have a ticket capable of winning New York City, Boston, and a portion of Northern and Southern California. Good luck and Godspeed. Trump's mouth is watering.
7
Sanders is un-electable.
6
I wish Warren could win. Too many sound bites to ward off, not a broad enough repetorie and she's not the one to win, neither is Bernie, Booker. No to Hillary and romantic notion of Beto. Yes to Schiff and VP Harris. Dems should narrow early the best team to beat the most feasible, best Republican candidate. Begin to shadow box an excellent opponent. Minimize wasting donations to support unelectables.
2
We MUST unseat Trump! Warren is a poor candidate to do so. Not dynamic. Not charismatic. Agenda may appeal to "us" but not enough to the middle to be elected. Though intelligent, I don't think she would be a strategic thinker as a candidate or president. I also want someone who has substantial experience with foreign policy as well as economic issues. And someone who can stand up to Putin. Warren fails on all of these counts and more. However, she might make a fine Attorney General.
2
I think Senator Warren would make an outstanding Attorney General in the new Democratic Presidential administration of 2020.
2
She will do more good for many many more years in the senate. Don’t run!
2
What an awful idea. I’d vote for her myself in a heartbeat, but she won’t find a single Republican—Trumpkin or not—to vote for her.
3
I found CNN's columnist Jill Filipovic's opinion article "Elizabeth Warren's Brilliant Beginning" intellectually appealing because she credits Warren's unique way of framing what the fundamental issue is:
"she wants economic and racial justice and recognizes that the two are neither identical nor severable (unlike too many others on the populist left who believe class is a singular unifying force and racism is a secondary "identity politics" issue solvable by economic changes alone)...Most strikingly, she doesn't issue a milquetoast call for unity and change, or demonize some amorphous threat to American families and prosperity. No, she names and shames her villains, ..."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/31/opinions/elizabeth-warren-running-2020-gets-it-right-filipovic/index.html
Regardless of whether she should/should not run, her approach should force the 2020 political dialogue to reach a deeper level than is usual among politicians.
10
In my opinion, a female candidate would be a bad strategy to confront Donald Trump.
4
Hashtag me too overreaching may end up costing Democratic female Presidential contenders. Good luck Ms. Warren.
3
"The winner will challenge President Trump in 2020."
Herndon and Burns know this for a fact? That Trump will be the GOP candidate in 2020? Really? Good luck with that.
3
With her running, TRUMP in 2020 for the win
5
Although I am glad to see an intelligent Harvard professor announce candidacy, I think that an economic populist has no chance to be nominated by either of the major parties, which are beholden to large corporations, Wall Street, and the military-industrial complex.
It would be terrific to be able to vote for Ms. Warren, who seems to be running on economic issues, rather than gender as Clinton did.
9
"Elizabeth Warren is a terrific candidate", but not for the US; may be for Canada or a Scandinavian country.
The US public is too far to the right to be receptive to Ms. Warren's liberal views or see a women as the US president. If in doubt, just remember that the majority in the US are open to the idea of sending US military to other countries to defend "the US interest", while it has no idea what constitutes "the US interest" or who are the people defining them.
9
which majority?
how do you know this?
2
@Eddie B.
And then there’s Canada.
A nation with a surplus of smug, a nation which has never had a non-white PM, and a nation that has been more than happy for decades to let its allies do the heavy lifting on defense.
3
Senator Warren missed an enormous opportunity in 2016 -- either to lead Democratic liberalism or to stand alongside Bernie Sanders and support his campaign. She did neither. There is much to recommend her as a candidate, but I fear her best opportunity is already past -- sacrificed, perhaps, to a felt need to support Hillary, despite Clinton's being just another establishment candidate.
11
I admire Sen. Warren and think that she would be a strong voice against the idiocy and lies emanating from the White House. She could even come up with an insulting name to match the one that she has been given by Trumpty-Dumpty, he of the Wall.
But I think that she has too many vulnerabilities for us to be confident of victory in an election that we (and the US in its current form) cannot afford to lose.
Apologies for being ageist, but I want to see the Democrats nominate someone who is young enough to be my child, give or take a year or two (that's for you, Sen. Harris). I think that Sen. Sanders, VP Biden, and others in their 70s and beyond, should be very proud of everything that they have achieved in their lives and do everything they can to rub the Trump stain out of existence, but not as candidates to replace him.
6
I have always been a fan of Warren’s. Her policy positions are exactly what this country needs, and I believe most liberals and working-class voters would agree.
However — her liabilities as a candidate aren’t her values or positions. Nor are they related to her sex, as many have wrongly suggested.
Warren comes off as somebody who dresses up to go to Whole Foods, choosing her best hemp shopping bag to fill with expensive herbal tinctures.
This election is too important not to consider the political viability of a candidate.
12
@Ludwig Van. Oh surely she has Whole Food deliver.
On New Year's Eve when no one is paying attention? Who advises her?
11
Elizabeth: you are a good person and well intentioned, but you do not have a chance in h3ck of being a presidential nominee: nor should you. please do not bring the Democratic party down by throwing in your hat. There is just too much going against you. Do the party a favor and rethink your plan.
Thank you
11
Bloomberg / Beto or a midwestern woman could beat Trump.
Hillary 2.0 (Warren) can't.
11
I hope Warren and Sanders run. I hope that they do lots of events and repeat over and over progressive proposals like Medicare for All, raising the minimum wage, a Green Infrastructure Initiative, and preserving and enhancing Social Security. Also expanding the Supreme Court. Someone needs to remind the American people what is possible.
10
Too many of those issues and she'll alienate the moderate voters. That's not what she needs to do if she wants a shot at winning.
1
They have very short memories of what it’s like to not live as wages slaves of the 1%.
Ms. Warren, there is a much cheaper way to "explore" the viability of your candidacy than your current plan. Just read these comments, over 1,700 of them. A better, more valid sample cannot be created anywhere. These are your voters, these are your people, this is your core, and they know you. You are no mystery to them.
All it will cost you is a NY Times digital subscription. I'd call that a bargain under the circumstances.
And what are your voters telling you?
--- Mon 5:58 pm
14
@John Xavier III I agree. She should keep in mind that many of the negative comments come from her own base often in the coastal states. See how her candidacy plays out in the Rust Belt and flyover states in Trumplandia where voters would never even have subscriptions to the NYT.
5
I'm open-minded about this candidate. I'm also excited to learn more about her and to see what she's made of. Running for President is brutal. I suspect that she is up for the challenge and will come out on top however it shakes out.
6
Put me down for a "no" vote, too.
Early in her career and over several years, she claimed to be Native American in a directory of law professors used by recruiters to diversify the faculties of law schools. Her rapid rise through the ranks was due in part to checking that box, and attracting the attention of the law schools.
The deception is not only unbecoming of a President, it's a recipe for electoral disaster.
16
if warren thinks that our current economic system represents unregulated capitalism then she has no idea what that really is. the current system is highly regulated. mostly as a result of laws passed by democrats. the problem is that the republicans have taken over those laws and regulatory powers and turned the regulations on their heads. so laws that were originally meant to stop pollution are now being used the create greater pollution and supercharge climate change. if warren plans to create further government powers to regulate she will be falling prey to the fallacy of hubris: the assumption that you will always be in control of the laws you pass and government regulations you enact, and they will always be used for the purpose you intended.
5
It seems to me the Democratic candidate Mount Rushmore of Sanders, Biden, Clinton and Warren need to come to grip with reality...they are not electable. If they truly care about their party and the country, they'll step aside and make room for a young fresh talented face.
12
She'll be an excellent candidate for president and I can't wait for her campaign to get going. if anybody can stand up to Donald Trump it's Elizabeth Warren.
5
Hopefully the committee that Senator Warren is commissioning to explore a campaign and/or nomination will spend the time to search and READ the thousands of comments that are already popping up across news media sites in reaction to her announcement, however soft-pedaled it is at this point.
It is simply not enough to WANT to be president. In this day of "lethal politics" (I'm coining that, if someone else hasn't already), service to country, which Trump absolutely does not understand or care about, is everything. Baggage with the weight of a feather is just as bad is that of lead. And Warren has enough to drag down her candidacy and also push besotted Trumpers to the polls in droves to vote against any Democrats, even in state races.
Progressives from the center left to the more extreme left need to UNIFY behind a candidate who can represent as many in the country as possible. A moderate, not a wild-eyed wild card. Not a lightning rod of hate for the far right. The extreme politics has to, finally, be modulated so that we can come together as Americans again.
4
I love Elizabeth Warren but, she is not the candidate to run against Trump. I would love to see a smart and intelligent woman running but, right now, we need someone who can win against Trump.
4
I'm dismayed to see many self-identified Democrats here complaining that Warren would not adequately appeal to conservatives. That is the point! Hillary Clinton was too conservative! You don't beat them by joining them. It's high time Democrats cut ties with corporate America and stopped pandering to the 1%. We need an alternative to the Right Wing, and it's not a "Not-Quite-As-Far-To-The-Right Wing" candidate.
9
It seems to me the Democratic candidate Mount Rushmore of Sanders, Biden, Clinton and Warren need to come to grips with reality...they are not electable. If they truly care about their party and the country, they'll step aside and make room for a young fresh talented face.
3
The Democrats are handing the White House to the republicans in 2020 if she’s their candidate. On a silver platter.
11
She is sure to sweep the South, Midwest, and western states. Are the Dems unaware of the Electoral College? If they put up an unelectable progressive, they will doom the world to Trump until 2025.
2
Good the more viable candidates the Dems can field will allow voters to evaluate their potential to beat Trump which sadly has to be the goal. Trump has to be called out on every weak point he has and goading him to expose his volatile temper and let him explode with erratic rants. American voters have to realize the danger of an impulsive violent nature of this commander in chief with access to the nuke codes. Trump lies and his desperate to survive exposure and would use any distraction no matter the costs including the lives of our troops. King Joffrey of game of thrones is a fitting description of our vile boy king and his crime family.
1
I'm in Dallas TX. When Warren announced her candidacy the people around me cheered. When I asked why they were cheering, they laughed. One man said "Because if she becomes the nominee, Trumps is sure to win".
There it is, the popular sentiment in a nutshell.
28
Pffft, Warren is principled and tough. She could make a dent in popular sentiment.
5
But it means that they were Trump's supporters. How do they know what the rest of the country thinks? They are sure that Trump is a best President of all time. Should we pay a lot of attention to Trump's supporters. After all they would vote for Trump, no matter who will run against him.
8
@Paris
Sentiment of what a nutshell contains.
2
She is talking about entering the primary and almost everyone here is making a decision today based on preexisting ideas and opinions. Wait for the debates. Debate-off
Democrats are desperate for a candidate who can take on Trump. They can try to parse tactical advantages and demographics to decide who that is, but the easiest way is to imagine them in a debate together. And the easiest way to imagine them is to see how the Democratic candidates themselves debate.
Luckily for them, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) last week announced that there will be 12 official primary debates. Each will mix front-runners with back-runners, attempting to put anyone who meets a basic set of qualifying criteria on equal footing.
All political debates are performance art, but multicandidate primary debates are the most unpredictable kind. The format is built for unexpected breakouts and flops, especially in a field of candidates who will start out almost completely unknown.
They won’t have to wait long to begin their arguing: The DNC schedule has the first two debates set for June and July, fewer than 200 days away.
6
@joan How many of the candidates will get a chance to say anything besides their names before the moderators cut them off? Still waiting to hear from James Webb, Martin O’Malley and Chafee?
I like and admire Elizabeth Warren; I despise Donald Trump. I am sorry to say that Warren's candidacy (if it is sustained) will be a gift to Trump, sort of a Hillary on steroids. Warren will be a perfect foil for Trump's misogyny, hyperbole and historical lying. This contest would be a total carnival when what we need is a nuts and bolts, analytical destruction of the Con Man.
20
Here it comes ... No woman politician will ever be good enough for the Bernie Bros ... mark my words...
9
@some one
I'm a female Bernie Bro, and Warren is plenty good enough for me. That other woman wasn't.
11
She’s good enough for me and then some; she’s never taken huge speaking fees from corporations.
9
@some one You're right, I'm still left wondering if we'd have Trump and his Republican demons had Elizabeth Warren felt it was more important to do the right thing and endorse Bernie before Massachusetts voted in their primary instead of banking on being in Hillary Clinton's good graces had she won. In a situation in which she could have looked out for the people or looked out for herself she looked out for herself.
1
Seems she got the "okay" from Hillary. Gonna be a very entertaining race for the DNC Politburo nomination--something South of Bernie, it seems, an uber Grand Collective with open-borders.
5
@Alice's Restaurant
I have never talked with any liberal who wants open borders.
But it makes conservatives feel good to say those things.
4
@Alice's Restaurant
They also say Bernie Sanders wants to turn the US into Venezuela.
They never talk about Denmark or Germany or Norway, etc.
3
@Independent
Right.
No open borders.
Just sanctuary cities.
3
Congratulations on 2019's first grand misstep, Senator Warren; you even got there early. You can not win (even though, if you are the candidate, I would vote for you over any Republican). Too many Democrats who need to be united behind a candidate find you too divisive, and the crossover Republicans you need will never board your campaign wagon. You have just made yourself an iultra-high profile piñata for the Republicans, who will now beat on you early and often to distract attention from the actual issues that really need attention. You are much better in the senate, where you know you can withstand those idiots' slings and arrows and still get your points across and get work done. I am a committed Democrat, but I urge you to please reconsider.
18
Lots of people are bringing up the Pocahontas thing as a potential liability. That should be the least of anyone's concerns. Republicans are going to find something about every single candidate and blow it out of proportion. If they can't, they'll just make something up. It doesn't matter.
Others are saying that the Democrats need a white man to be the nominee out of necessity, but again, it doesn't matter. The Democrats could choose a young, handsome white man from the Midwest who's a war veteran and invented the cure for cancer, and Republicans would still paint him as Satan.
Everyone is going to get a nickname from Trump regardless, so don't overthink this. Just find someone intelligent and charismatic who'll make a ton of trips to the swing states.
13
This is a gift for the Republican party. Trump 2020.
12
Any Democrat oblivious enough to believe that Elizabeth Warren is electable probably deserves another four years of torture under Donald Trump. Of Democrats succeed in nominating Warren, that's exactly what they'll get.
23
So how many people do you know who are excited she's running?
5
As I read through the 1.7k comments
I notice rolling repeats.
Why? It’s annoying.
13
She would guarantee a GOP win. She will be hated by conservatives as much as Hillary. She is an easy target for their ridicule.
11
this is terrible...i so badly BADLY want a democrat for president...but not one that wants to save the orcas!
4
She can’t save the orcas.
But WE must save the orcas.
2
a mistake. She cannot win and is too kooky for words. Forget her please!
12
Finally. Someone who is smart enough and courageous enough ton throw her "Hat in the Ring".
8
No. Would love to hear her sharp tongue going after Trump but most of her ideas are terrible.
4
Which ideas are those?
8
"Ms Warren is expecting to be competing against her party's only two black senators, Ms. Harris and Mr. Booker."
Kamala Harris is not black. Don't gaslight voters.
4
This would be a disaster like running Hillary again in 2020. Time for some new blood in the democratic party. Beto O'rourke has some charisma, something Warren and Hillary lack.
6
@Joseph B Lots of charisma. No experience. And lost to Cruz.
4
Beto barely lost to Cruz. He has great ideas, is a charismatic speaker, and energized Dems in a state where a Dem can feel it’s not worth a drive to the polls bc Dems never win here. He’s not ready to be president, but having him as a VP with someone from the Midwest, like Sherrod, is a winning ticket.
For the love of God, can't anyone see that she will be perceived as Hillary ll on steroids? Republicans are rejoicing.
10
Not a good idea!
5
Oh, great ... another 70 year old white woman. The Dems will guarantee another Trump victory if this is their nominee.
10
She needs to lose the ever present black jumpsuit and different color jackets....would she wear those as President?
2
Seriously, Ann? The house is on fire and you're concerned about whether or not her slip is showing?
11
Is Senator Warren the first Native American to run for President?
6
@BC
On another note, Mitt Romney's father, George Romney was the first person born in Mexico to run in the Republican primary.
Seriously, look it up.
2
@BC
I think Eisenhower had a great-great grandmother who was 1/4 Cherokee.
2
And here we go.
Sorry Senator. You're too far left for most voters and you've made yourself look ridiculous with the DNA nonsense.
Please stay in the Senate. We need you there.
13
@EK Your too far left comment is nonsense and not true, the right candidate could sell many of those policies to the American people. She may not be the right candidate for being a little kooky and for being a New England liberal old lady but people love Bernie!
What is the lesson from all the negativity on Warren? That Americans would prefer a lying, sociopathic con artist? I would sooner vote for my dog. Pathetic.
5
@Doug Lowenthal... no, we want someone who could defeat Trump. She cannot. She is constantly haranguing and telling us that the system is rigged. Not a positive message
1
@Doug Lowenthal
Why not? They re-elected Bill Clinton who exhibited those characteristics. The appalling DJT is no worse.
1
As a not-quite-old-but-getting-there white person, I‘m completely over the phenomenon of older white people dominating the highest positions of power in our government and businesses.
With all due respect to Senator Warren and all that she’s accomplished, I believe our culture is beyond ready to mix things up a bit in terms of diversity of leadership, and to reap the benefits of the shifts in awareness and thinking that result.
5
How about a woman president - seems diverse enough for me. Enough men!
1
Minor point: that trump would be the candidate in 2020 is an assumption, is it not? There’s the possibility of indictment, impeachment, resignation, a decision not to run for a second term and a successful challenge for the nomination by another Republican. Just sayin...
2
She can't win and neither can the other Senators mentioned. But I'd love to see her lob a tweet at Trump every day for the next 2 years.
6
I think she'd be great. In Canada, she'd have a real chance for electoral success, but in the US I fear she is just a distraction, worthy though she is. The US seems to believe more in every man for himself than in people using government as an agent for helping each other. Whatever the next president's beliefs what the world needs is someone who is honest and principled and cares for fair play, and treats those who are different than himself or herself with reasonable respect and consideration. The world needs better than someone whose words lack a shred of genuine concern for anyone but himself.
5
Good grief. Every time I think Trump has NO Chance at a second term the Democrats say "Watch This." Please run Joe Biden. Please.
5
I vote democrat most of the time, as they are more flexible on social issues. But, Elizabeth Warren scares me. She is a lightweight and doesn’t have the fortitude to run a national campaign against Trump. Trump is incredibly vulnerable, even in his own party, but someone like Warren stands no chance. She is too caught up in her own ideals to to unify the country. She doesn’t understand policy outside of talking points (sound familiar). And, she bends too easily to progressives. We need a president in the mold of Clinton or Bush (yes, the second one). They lived up to some ideals from the far reaches of their parties, but they both also compromised for the good of the country (Clinton on welfare reform; Bush on Medicare reform). Yes, both men were significantly flawed, but, they had the best interests of the country in mind.
8
@Chris
"She doesn’t understand policy outside of talking points (sound familiar)."
Are you sure about that? Have a look at the detailed policies she proposed (no, you won't find them in the NYT, just the identity issues), and then ask yourself if it's really her who doesn't understand policy.
From the start, commentary from various sources is including Sen. Warren's Native issue and leaving out her lived background, including the depth and breadth of her economic knowledge and her dedication to families trying to manage.
3
Prof Warren is a distraction in this race. She is willing to take on Trump's and his supporters' taunts and harassment and to keep more viable Democratic candidates away from the Republican ire. She is willing to test the waters and let the Democrats figure out what message might work. She is a true patriot. Her Senate seat is safe.
2
For all those worried about Trump's derogatory comments.
Anyone Trump dislikes, I am probably for.
I hope Ms. Warren will wear those as a badge of honor.
7
Think: Angela Merkel. She is a female leader who succeeds internationally and is even popular in the US, and fends off Trump insults through her unflappability, clarity, calm demeanor, and steadfast scientific analysis of the issues. All qualities missing in Sen. Warren. I vote for her in Massachusetts as my Senator because there is no viable Dem. alternative to Warren and she is a fair Senator. She has no hope of succeeding as a US Pres. or VP candidate. Checking that box on her Harvard employment application to get preferential hiring as a "Native American" is a mistake she cannot overcome.
9
@firestsar
What do you really know about Merkel to compare her to Warren? Next to nothing,
She did not become a professor at Harvard Law School because she checked some ethnicity box. It is not that simple believe me.
The peccadillos that ANY politician including Gandhi, Mandela and Willy Brandt did not make them ineffective ad leaders of nations in very difficult times.
Please think before you speak and learn a bit more about people and history before you decide to ditch a candidate of such solid footing.
1
@firestsar And like Merkel, she or any other progressive will throw open our borders even wider to the billions who want to come to North America or Europe. That is sure to win the votes of Independents.
3
@Jeremy Bounce Rumblethud We barely have a third of a billion people here now derp.
The best candidate will be someone who walks the walk and talks the talk of New Deal/working class Democratic Party values, and who can keep laser-focused on that message and not try to lash back when Trump is labeling him/her "Pocahantas," "Lyin'," "Low Energy," etc.
I've always been impressed with Rep. Tim Ryan (D Oh). Seems to be a genuine guy who can shrug off the Republican smokescreen and talk straight to the "common" voter and remind them that it is the Democratic Party that is concerned with the issues and needs of 99% of the country.
3
@Dan88 No, the Democratic Party is NOT concerned with the needs of 99% of the country. Watch how hostile they will be to Bernie Sanders who genuinely is.
3
@Timothy Dannenhoffer I'm not following your line of reasoning, which is not much more than a declaration. Can we at least agree that Republicans and Trump don't genuinely represent much more than 5% of Americans?
@Dan88 About the same percentage that the Democrats actually do. They have become a “meritocracy” and “bootstraps” party just like the Republicans. See Thomas Frank’s book “Listen, Liberal”.
First In, First Out. And one of Trump's favorite targets to boot. And another glaring example of why the Democrats are clueless. At least her campaign will be over quickly. As a life-long Democrat, 2019 will not start well. And a final question- Who determined she is "the first major candidate"? Certainly no one with any horse-racing experience.
5
While I applaud her outspoken disdain of the current president and republicans, she doesn’t stand a chance. Too polarizing, too vulnerable to the republican candidate’s derogatory comments, too radical for middle America. Better to spend her energies supporting a viable candidate.
13
Be smart and run a ranked-choice election. Otherwise you run the risk of a candidate who “wins” but is not liked or supported by the vast majority of Dems. Kinda like what happened with the GOP in 2016
2
I would suggest that the negative commenters read Elizabeth Warren's book before casting their opinions of her. She is more intelligent than Donald Trump, has filed for bankruptcy fewer times than Trump, has failed less times than Trump, and has been caught lying far fewer times than Trump. All of which makes her a much poorer candidate for the presidency than Trump, right?
5
@John Trump voters don’t read books by Democratic Senators. They vote based on what they see on TV news. Facts mean little to them and they don’t know the difference between fact and fake news.
Example. The word is already circulating that Kamala Harris is not elegible to run for President because her parents were not citizens when she was born. Here, in the US. it was printed in the comments section here yesterday and when I saw it three people had recommended this lie.
These were Times readers. Imagine what that story will be on some conservative news site.
Elizabeth Warren was the ONLY person, male or female, to stand up strongly against the abuses of large banks and financial institutions during the 2008 meltdown. She will be a powerful leader.
10
This is why all the venom. The rich are afraid of her.
2
I have one fear with Elizabeth Warren.
She may be too intelligent for half of America.
They voted for W Bush over Gore and Trump over Hillary.
And both W Bush and Trump have fleeced the country with their tax cuts for the billionaires.
Their response is "the liberal elites" which always makes me laugh.
I learned I was the liberal elite in the Bush election of 2000.
I grew up in a blue collar family, first generation in my family to go to college.
I started working at ten years old, got a job paying taxes at 15 (you could do that back then) and have been working and paying taxes ever since.
I worked my way through high school and college, going to a state university in math and computers which I paid for myself. Saved my money and got a masters in engineering which I paid for myself.
But Bush was the regular guy even though he is third generation multi-millionaire, whose family paid for him to go to Yale and then to Harvard.
And what makes Republicans call me a liberal is that I want to help people less fortunate than myself.
Kind of sounds like a Christian but so many Christians I know go to church on Sunday and say buyer beware Monday through Friday.
I want to pay more taxes to help those laid off factory workers with retraining and health care.
But for them, I am the liberal elite and the bad guy.
Go figure.
Obviously, the Republicans have great marketing. In fact, it is Orwellian.
7
@Independent
You want to help people less fortunate than yourself using other people's money.
6
@Independent, I like the way you think; thank you for sharing your story.
@Reader in Wash, DC, Independent explicitly wrote that they'd "want to pay more taxes," so they'd be using their own money to help the less fortunate.
1
@Noke
If independent and his ilk pay more taxes then everyone pays more. You can't tax some people and not others. He wants to do charity with other people's money. Let him give to a charity or start one. Leave the taxpayers out of it.
2
She is firmly in the middle of the road, not a flaming radical, as Republican pols like to characterize her. She only wants transparency and fairness in government and is willing to open her mouth about it. And that's where it gets tricky. Despite my agreeing with her on just about everything, she will never get herself elected president. I know this sounds sexist but it's the way in which she presents herself, as a kind of mad, uncompromising, shrill, woman. Which I would love to see in a president, especially now! We need that kind of person to clean this very messy house. But she could never get elected in this country. Too many people despise her because of her no holds barred attitude. I don't understand it, but we have a long ways to go. Beto O' Rourke presents himself in a calm, intelligent manner, speaks Spanish, has the same values, and is a better shot to throw at the Golden Emperor who currently resides in the white house.
2
We saw what happened to Hillary. Her biggest liability was that she was a woman. I fear the Dems will not win with a woman at the top of the ticket again. Biden is too old, Sanders is, like Trump, too way out from the mainstream to appeal to the base, and too old. It's a sad state of affairs that Hillary's candidacy was sabotaged by Comey and the Russians and America's own misogyny and mistrust of a woman commander-in-chief. I happen to like Adam Schiff, but, apparently, he is not interested in running for president.
5
If she is the best the Dems have we will unfortunately have 4 more years of the Donald. There is no way the MidWest or independents vote for her.
11
Should Donald Trump . . . or Sean Hannity . . . or someone of similar ilk be accepted as the measuring stick for our society? God help us, NO WAY! Elizabeth Warren, on the other way has an empathetic soul—feels the pain and sorrow of everyday Americans and will fight unselfishly to alleviate it. Where snide Donald's "Pocahontas" put-down is concerned, it's petty, cruel and unfeeling. Elizabeth's blood contains at least by adoption the spirit of America's earliest settlers, who once again are being over-run by gold-seekers and other ungodly sorts. I'd like to see some tribe step forth one of these days and make her an official blood-sister in the traditional way.
2
I think we may need to be more crassly strategic about this. Let's get a candidate that can motivate Democratic voters in swing states to get to the polls and make a difference. I don't think a white female (even with partial Native ancestry) is going to do this. Let's go for black or Hispanic, probably should be male. This may sound cynical but Trump is too much of an emergency for airy-fairy wishful thinking. Do what it takes to win.
@nerdrage Or instead of obsessing on skin color, perhaps we should pick an electable candidate with a platform which addresses the concerns of the majority of all Americans? Identity politics and illegal immigration gave us Trump, and will again in 2020 if the Dems can't find their big boy pants.
7
Oh, for heaven's sake. Do we really want Trump again? This sort of egotistical behavior is not for the benefit of the party at all. Next we'll get Hillary and Bernie. Do we never learn?
6
I'm sorry, but the Democrats are out of their mind if they choose a woman in 2020; so far, we've pitted the absolute worst man we could find against the absolute best woman we could find, and Donny boy came out on top. All of this talk about how Clinton wasn't bold enough, and a more radical woman candidate would have won is absolute bunk-- just look at how far Biden towers above the rest of the field in the polls-- does he seem like radical change to you?
By all means, chance another woman against a candidate in the vein of Romney or McCain, but _not_ against Trump. Choose a man, Democrats.
6
@Alexander Bernie is ahead of Biden in the polls that have the courtesy of including him. Be sure you know that.
3
It is Democratic voters who vote in the primaries who will choose the party's candidate to oppose Trump. An exploratory campaign will test her appeal to major donors, who will no doubt assess not just her policies but her "winnability" in that one-on-one match with a bully and a liar. I intend to send her my small donation (when my Social Security check comes in) so those big donors will know that at least one "little person" likes her agenda and rhetoric. I will also make that small donation to other Democrats who say what I want to hear. When the primary election comes, I will vote for the one who says what I believe AND who I believe can beat Trump.
2
Pa, no. Wi, no. Mi. no. Ia, no
Dems better get their heads around the reality of electoral politics and if they do a McGovern, no complaints when Trump picks 1-3 justices. Since HST, they've had 2 charismatic candidates, that fit a pattern, youthful!! They've won with 3 Southern candidates. Pragmatism must preempt all as the consequences for not winning will be felt for a generation.
3
Although Warren isn't my first choice for the Dem candidate, I'm glad she's running. In fact, all the Democrat contenders are miles beyond anyone the GOP has run in a long time. I just hope they can debate the issues and avoid the usual circular firing squad.
2
Wall Street hates her - intensely. I'm sad to say this is enough to sink her candidacy. She is an honest, self-made woman with real working class roots and a fighting spirit. That's exactly what we need.
6
I wish Adam Schiff would run. He's smart, qualified and he can take on Donald Trump. I've seen his responses to Trump's inane tweets. He either shrugs them off with a "I'll consider the source and move on" attitude or responds with acerbic wit.
3
I'm kind of amazed at the amount of sexism and ageism on this thread... especially as these are mostly liberal type Democrats commenting.
I'm not saying Elizabeth Warren is my candidate of choice but the fact that she's a woman or 69 years old should not be disqualifying. 69 is actually fairly young these days and older people with experience should be honored not discarded. and the idea that a woman can't be elected president of the United States is just plain boring.
6
Elizabeth Warren, like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, is a polarizing individual. She has no chance of securing the Democratic nomination for POTUS. American voters are tired of extreme political thought, left and right. A repeat of 2016 will not occur in 2020. We won't get fooled again. Democrats...do the right thing and nominate a unifier.
3
@Jake Unify with WHO? People that like Republicans as bad as they are? Or corporate Democrats that are too legally bought and compromised to fix some of the biggest problems the American people are facing?
1
I think she has a pretty good conception of what the key problems facing America are; understands that the villains can be found in large and powerful corporations that influence politicians; and has the background and personal life experience to prioritize what Americans need.
Unfortunately, the school marm appearance and her intellect is a deal killer for too many Americans.
2
This is going to sound crazy, I know.
But how about before we and the media decide whether a candidate is electable, likable, risible, agreeable, etc. etc, we give said candidate a national forum in which to state her/his views on what our country needs at this time in history and what they have to offer in the way of ideas, plans and programs?
How about turning the horse race into national conversation to determine which candidate has the best experience and most intelligent proposals to salvage our sinking ship of state?
How about following each Presidential candidate’s announcement with a long, detailed article that lays out their plans for the United States of America and their strategies for achieving said plans? (There could even be a sidebar documenting his/her experience and speculating whether it would help the candidate be an effective President.)
As situations arise in the nation and the world, the Presidential candidates would be asked for their opinions in depth, both assessing what is happening and explaining what they would do as leader.
If there were any justice and serious intent to coverage the 2020 election in a way actually helpful to the citizenry, my letter --and its unfortunately unusual proposal-- would be a Times pick.
I very much doubt it will be. Like the rest of the media, this newspaper is addicted to the polls, the pundits and the pony races. Getting reporters to leave the track would be almost a miracle.
6
It amazes me that with all the baggage Trump carries the party is worried about Senator Warren's Indian claim. Actually, it is up to the media whether they will make a mountain out of this molehill as they did with the constant Hillary email references. I don't know who I want to run at this point, but the Democrats and the media have to learn how to respond to these overblown nothings without letting them be blown out of proportion. As for Sanders, the man who doesn't live in the real world and makes impossible promises, l hope he stays out of the one.
6
Stay in the Senate - thought you were the inheritor to Ted's legacy but off you go trying to win the Presidency. Stay in the Senate - we think you are too old to win and will not stand a chance in the primaries itself.
1
Please Senator Warren, if you really cared about the country, you'd remain in the Senate. Your tossing your hat into the ring only elevates the noise and distractions emanating from the WH. We don't need more mindless tweets that Individual 1 uses to pull people off point. The media will latch onto it and you'll be jettisoned in flames.
I highly respect your role in the Senate and strongly believe you can be much more effective there.
This is coming from an Independent.
5
No offense to Sen. Warren, but this feels too much like “Hillary - the return”, and way too many voters in critical swing states will see her exactly like that. Trump has succeeded in making a caricature and mocking her in a way that she now passes for an elitist, arrogant phony liberal. Which she is not, but this is what the “base” will perceive, come election day.
If we want to avoid another Hillary debacle we must find another solution. Then whoever wins can hire Warren at Treasury or in any other cabinet position in which she’ll be tremendously effective. But as presidential material, I’m sad to say that she is “damaged goods”.
4
Oooh the handwringing, the negativity. The I know better than you what America needs
attitude.
Well we all have opinions. Here’s mine. How about we listen to what the candidates say, how they conduct themselves and how they define the problems this country is saying and evaluate the solutions they offer to those problems before we start bashing them.
Let’s let them have at each other. Get all the dirt out there. One of the reasons Barack Obama weathered the Republican smear machine so well was because it was all old news. Hillary let him have it with both barrels. Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes of 2016 was Bernie Sanders giving her a pass on the e-mail issue and not forcing her to confront the problem head on.
Above all let’s not try to channel what some imaginary voter in some unnamed swing state wants in their next president. People don’t always vote for people who are like them. Think about it. The most popular nationally known politician among millennials in America is a Jewish grandfather from Vermont. Ideas matter, passion matters and authenticity matters as much or more than gender, race or age.
6
I like Warren. I wish Hillary had chosen her instead of the useless dead weight that was Tim Kaine. I don't even worry about the "Pocahontas" thing; Trump will come up with insulting names for whomever he runs against, that's a given.
At the very least this announcement should lead to an interesting primary season unlike 2015, and hopefully, the best ideas and candidate rises to the top. Not just someone who feels she is entitled to the Presidency and manipulates the system to grab it.
3
Save for her stand on Abortion,
I would be happy to vote for her,
but there sure are a lot of Progressives
she is going to have to split the Primary Pie of Votes with.
Get some speechwriters to give you stinging barbs
to fire back at Trump with and let us see how it all goes.
1
Does she really think a socialist from Massachusetts has a shot??? My dream as a Republican is to have someone moderate challenge Trump and win in the primary and have Warren as an opponent. Can anyone say landslide?
3
@Greg She's not a socialist derp. She just understands that the wealthy shouldn't be buying our government and dictating their tax rates, deciding what minimum wage ought to be, or deciding how meager our safety net ought to be.
1
it's a terrible omen.
A sign that Democrats have learned nothing?
That they don't realize that they too share in culpability for the Trump disaster.
4
So Senator Warren is the first of the Democratic candidates for President to announce her candidacy. Big whoop. Leading contender Joe is just Biden his time.
3
@Jay Orchard Joe isn't leading contender, Bernie is.
2
@Timothy Dannenhoffer
Actually, Biden is leading the pack of pre-supposed democratic candidates.
Why is everyone excited? The Dems will t let her be nominated. They still want Hillary. She’s already spending money quietly “exploring her 2020 options.” Which means four more years of Donald of Orange.
1
Warren......fagedaboudit......she cannot win, but she can be a good mentor...same as Bernie, who is not a Democrat except when convenient. We need you guys in the background educating the candidates and especially need you in the Senate. Which poll exactly are you reading that say's you have any chance at all? We need someone who can appeal to all of us as best as possible and it simply ain't you two.....it may be Sherrod Brown, a mid westerner with a heart and good idea's. Eliz. simply not inspiring but with many good idea's. Kristen, why dontcha run for some office in Minnesota where Al Franken lives.
3
The question is not whether you like Warren. The question is whether a bunch of white rural voters living in the south will like Warren. Stop pretending that the election process is irrelevant when choosing votes.
5
This country is not ready for a woman President.
1
What a joke. She will never beat Trump.
We need a better candidate.
5
No disrespect for Senator Warren, but this is not her time, just as 2016 was not Hillary's time. The red meat republicans will eat her alive. Unfortunately, to stand up to Trump and his rancid brand of governing, a candidate with wide national appeal is needed to win the job. Senator Warren, not of her own doing, is already branded by negative predispositions. It is going to take someone who can metaphorically 'cross swords' with Trump and the remaining GOP stooges and get down and dirty. Such (unfortunately) Neanderthal behavior would not at be a flattering look for Senator Warren. Maybe 2024
3
I love Warren but she has about as much chance of being elected POTUS as my pet dachshund...whom I love too.
5
If Democrats eschew progressivism because they’re afraid of right wing lies and propaganda, this country is finished. None of our problems will ever be solved. Even the Trump-loving middle class will be crushed out of existence. What does Trump really have to offer? Zip. Histrionics. We need an FDR. If not Warren, then who?
2
@Doug Lowenthal If the Dems continue to embrace progressivism, with its arrogant contempt for everyone else, the country is doomed to the worst Republicans can do to us.
4
The middle class has been nearly destroyed by corporatism (conservatism) and has prospered under progressives.
1
Too extreme. So far.
Something is way off base here.
A great number of "true blue Democrats", "lifelong Democrats" and "leftists" have posted critical comments about Warren's candidacy.They are afraid not that she will lose, but that she will win. Don't fall for the phony concern from right-wing trolls.
3
I wish Warren could win. Too many sound bites, not a broad enough repetorie and she's not the one to win, neither is Bernie, Booker. Yes to Schiff and VP Harris. Minimize wasting donations to support unelectables.
She has excellent ideas, passion and integrity. I only wish she was more talented and had a modicum of charisma
2
@vera
I agree with you. Sen.Warren, may too "stiff" and "serious" to sustain voter interest for long.
I like Sen.Amy Klobuchar much more. She seems to have more humor, ease and enthusiasm. I hope that she will soon decide to run...
Also, I hope that Trump will soon decide to quit...
Happy daze are here, again?
2
@vera
Why is she not talented?
She is not auditioning for a role in a movie.
She is running for President if the United States.
She had more charisma than a lot of clowns who run around as politicians.
4
Please no. If she were to be the nominee (1) "Pocahontas" and her DNA would become 2020's version of Clinton's emails; (2) although her policies may be right for many of Trump's base, she would the most unlikely Democrat to actually win (since policies are only part of the formula): a liberal from Massachusetts and a woman into the bargain. This is not right, but it is political reality (political reality being something that often escapes my fellow Democrats).
5
"a Democratic Party desperate to beat President Trump"
I think it is more licking their chops.
The ambitious will be elbowing to the front. Now is the time for Democrats to ensure a truly quality candidate, not just the one who wants it most.
Much respect for her willingness to hit Trump, hard, and her consumer-finance reform advocacy. But Sen. Warren comes across as shrill and completely non-representative of Middle America. I also like Kamala a great deal, too, but neither of these women will excite the heartland base, sufficiently, and Trump would likely prevail in 2020, as a result. [My top wanna-see pick: Sherrod Brown/Kamala Harris ticket.]
7
Shrill is just plain sexist. Was FDR or JFK representative of middle America?
I'm several years younger than Warren, active and healthy. But there is no way I could withstand the rigors of the Presidency for four years, let along eight. We need somebody in their 40s or 50s, not least because of the contrast with Trump.
9
This announcement is a gift to President Trump. He's proven (many times) that he will set out to destroy anyone in his path. I wouldn't be surprised if he finds leaders of Native American tribes to campaign against Pocahontas.
24
@MarathonRunner
Count on that happening. The same way the 2004 Bush campaign came up with "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," GOP operatives who claimed to be Vietnam Vets who "knew" that John Kerry, a war hero, faked his wounds and abandoned the men under his command. The GOP plays dirty and they'll find an entire fake Native American "tribe" to denounce Warren as a phony.
1
In the current political climate, the Democratic Party more than ever needs a strong candidate that can win, that would weather through and withstand the Republican nasty game of character assassination. A candidate who can unite the country, put forth a convincing political platform and a vision for the country.
9
Beto?
1
We are still more than a year and a half away from the 2020 election and I am tired of reading about politics and who will be running.
Give it a break for at least a year and to all the Senators seeking the Democratic nomination, concentrate on the job voters expect from you, which does not include campaigning around the country the next 18 months.
So if either give up your Senate seat and run for POTUS or sit down, hush up and get to work.
17
@MDCooks8
Spot on! My thinking, Exactly.
1
Some people I know voted for Trump to end the Republican Party. In the same way, people will vote for Warren to end the Democratic Party. If this match up is Little Bighorn Redux, which is which?
1
I watched the accompanying video (which was well done). I find her rather grating, like fingernails on a blackboard, I don't think she would have wide appeal.
16
@JackC5
Very insightful.
"fingernails on a blackboard" sizes up her broad appeal better than any other comment I've read.
Timing is everything. Four years too late. Would have been a perfect candidate and messenger four years ago.
Sen. Kamala Harris will be the eventual nomination.
3
While your coverage of Sen. Warren's announcement that she is exploring running for the Democratic Presidential nomination is still in the early stages, I would urge the NYT to consider not framing too much of the coverage of Sen. Warren through the lens of her history with Trump. It is important to be reminded that their relationship is but one side (and maybe not the most interesting side) of a larger narrative. I hope your reporting will reveal the complexity of this potential candidate's ideas and goals. And doing the same with all other future candidates as they emerge will better serve the public as we try to navigate a primary season that is clearly beginning way too soon and will be filled with a lot of candidates. Let's not allow the noise of Trump to get in the way of the messages these candidates are trying to send, and the change they are trying to envision.
25
It seems to me that Trump's 30% base will vote for him, and everyone else will vote for whoever the Dems put up. Saying Warren is "unelectable" is absurd, unless it's Russian bots saying it, trying to keep Trump in office.
17
No way. There are many people in the center who will absolutely not vote for Warren. Hope she doesn't win the nomination.
5
With the greatest respect, the number one priority for the Democrats should be to nominate a candidate for election as president of the United States who is middle of the road and electable, because if the candidate is a left knee-jerk opposite of Trump, he/she will lose, and that will be a disaster.
14
She doesn't inspire much confidence either. Although I have to think she is not nearly as crazy as the loon in the White House now.
3
If Senator Warren thinks she can be elected President in 2020, or even be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020, by siding with the Progressive, anti- Israel wing of the Democratic party, she is sorely mistaken. If Ms. Warren truly was a Native American, she'd be called Dances with Devils.
9
Hate to clue you in but the Democratic Party IS the progressive party. Republican light has never worked.
If she's the candidate, congratulations Dems. You've just reelected the Trump.
21
@greatnfi....No way. Trump will be lucky to still be around by the end of 2019, and in any event will not be the Republican candidate in 2020
6
@greatnfi. Very well put. That is exactly my thinking.
@Wayne Spitzer I wouldn’tcount on it. “ If wishes were Kings, Bagers would ride.”
She's a brilliant tough woman who definitely sides with the people. Not sure she is up to the task of taking on a pathological liar and criminal psychopath though. Maybe we need a psychiatrist with a sharp wit and great oratory skills to do it. Anyone available?
6
Warren as the democratic candidate plus images of illegal and uncontrolled border crossings will virtually guarantee the re-election of DJT.
9
@Michael It seems to me that the Democratic Party needs to focus on two things...1) fight back against GOP gerrymandering, poll closure, poll purges, barriers to voter registration - and conduct voter registration drives and 2) somehow defuse the immigration issue before 2020. This issue got Trump elected and could do the trick again.
It does no good to argue that most of us are 'descendants of immigrants', or that illegal immigrants take jobs that 'no one else wants'. I know many, many people who say "I hate Trump but agree with him on border control/illegal immigration".
I like Warren and think she would be a thousand times better than Trump. Her baggage is minimal compared to Trump, but I’m concerned that her campaign would devolve to being about her Native American Heritage. If the American people chose a president like they chose a surgeon who operated on them she would win.
5
This is just the beginning of the announcements. Unfortunately for Senator Warren there will be many, many Democratic women announcing their run for the office thus diluting any advantage her gender would otherwise confer. Perhaps, with all the women planning their Presidential run in 2020, being a man may prove to be an unexpected advantage in the primaries.
2
Please do not boor us with the trivial item of Ms. Warren getting a DNA test.
If anyone thinks that is worthy of discussion, when we have nuclear weapons, climate change, huge economic disparities, poor health care outcomes compared with other countries, millions without affordable health care insurance , huge college financial debt, millions living paycheck to paycheck in a very wealthy country, and corporations having more rights than individuals.
Her idea of requiring corporations to be chartered and controlled in the sense of improving their involvement in community, environmental and human values will make this country distinct in the world and will cause even out the horrid income disparity. Universal health care will save lives, reduce massive anxiety in that area and allow greater prosperity and freedom in this country.
13
Sometimes early announcements pay off (Kerry, 2004); sometimes they don't or it doesn't matter either way (Vilsack, 2008). More important, there are a lot of Democrats who will or may run in 2020. The latest tally, in alphabetical order:
Joe Biden
Michael Bloomberg
Corey Booker
Juan Castro
Hillary Clinton (or so I hear)
Kristin Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
Terry McAuliffe
Michelle Obama
Beto O'Rourke
Bernie Sanders
Tom Steyer
Elizabeth Warren
Oprah Winfrey (so rumor-spreaders say, though OW says "no," emphatically)
If I've overlooked anyone (which I doubt), my apology.
That's a lot of names, but it's still less than the 17 Republicans who ran in 2016. Some names are definite; others are maybes. Some have a good chance of winning the nomination (and maybe the election); others don't. But all of them are on the list, and at least a few will be on the list again in 2024 if the Democratic candidate doesn't win in 2020.
Age?
Trump is by far the oldest person ever elected President. Warren and Clinton would come close but not pass him; Sanders and Biden would be much older than any of them, Trump included. (Frankly, I expect all 4 of them will be "aged out" for the nomination.) While I don't see any potential Democratic Party leaders on the list (with the possible exception of Tom Steyer, who is a cut above the others), there are plenty of contenders for the "new, younger leader" spot that many observers say the Democratic Party hopes to fill.
4
@MyThreeCents
Not to be nit picky, but Reagan was the oldest person to be elected President. He was over 73 years of age, when he was elected the second time.
@MyThreeCents Bob Casey, Tulsi Gabbard, Sherod Brown, Senator Tester, Gov. Inslee, Al Franken and I am throwing in Tammy Duckworth and Joseph Kennedy III
Meh, I don't have anything against her, but she's a non-starter for a lot of the country. I think she's valuable in the Senate and could possibly make a good Attorney General, but she is too polarizing to be president. She doesn't project the qualities needed to bring the country together. I'm so tired of the extremes.
10
Senator Warren is a passionate, dedicated public servant. She is, however, too strident at times and far too controversial and thus not electable as President. At a time in our history when the defeat of Donald Trump is the paramount objective I will not support Senator Warren's candidacy.
6
@Tom
“Strident”: a sexist word, only applied to strong women.
Those who are concerned that Elizabeth Warren will never beat Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential election, don't fret. Senator Warren is going to learn the hard way that when it comes to tallying the chances of a successful Presidential campaign, the FIFO method often applies - first in, first out.
6
This is the best news I’ve had all year. It will be hard to hold the White House with Trump at the top of the Republican ticker. This will help as much as anything. Except perhaps nominating Hillary Clinton again. That’s too much to hope for.
3
I give her as much chance of success as I gave Bob Dole in 1996:
a zero percent chance
10
The question is, why would an someone like Sen Warren, fighting for the middle class against the corrupt dominance of big banks and corporations, NOT be seen as a great candidate?
Because many America voters are manipulated against their own interests. They want to identify with the powerful, not the powerless. Is this an ego thing?
Democracy exists to reject elite dominance, and to give citizens representation for their taxation. This isn't America today.
It's a measure of the manipulation and distortion of our political culture, that Warren, with her excellent record, wouldn't be seen as a 1st rate challenger to Trump and a rw extremist GOP.
The powerful manipulators of our politics and our media have fixed it so what would be centrist in any modern democracy--- in bank regulation, consumer protections, fair taxes, govt regulations, health care, education -- are here simply demonized as too left wing, progressive, liberal, socialist, big govt. Instead the values of the mega donors to our elections shut out the public voice.
American politics has become a triumph of political propaganda by big money interests as both parties must vie for campaign funding.
Russia and the US both have oligarchs and a big media monpoly aligned with the powerful.
Sen Warren, or someone like her, would be the antidote to this political virus infecting our politics.
6
@Meredith. I agree with your logic. Sadly, I don't think the average voter even comprehends the economic, voter repression and climate change issues at this time. Although they could perhaps be educated to care.
GOP will campaign on guns, immigration, abortion/returning women to 'traditional' roles/'religious liberty'.
Her candidacy will be god's gift to Republicans. The same goes for Bernie.
8
The exploration has come to a dead end Elizabeth. Stay in the senate where you can be more effective. It is time for a female President and Klobuchar is primed and ready for the job. Amy doesn't have any baggage and she can handle anything Trump and his posse can throw at her.
5
Hillary 2.0. Absolutely nobody I know is excited for her presidential bid.
12
I will support Elizabeth Warren.
She has been working on these economic issues for a long time since before they have become more mainstream for Democrats.
She has Executive branch experience from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
She has legislative experience from the Senate.
She has years of economic and legal experience fighting against corporations and their legal strategies.
If I could give one advice, Democrats sometimes feel they have to act a role. We saw that with Al Gore and some with Hillary.
Ms. Warren has always come across as herself. Don't change.
12
The Democratic Party must focus on who is most capable of winning the presidency. That nominee must make a very real commitment to be more inclusive of Democrat voters backing the other candidates and what they want.
What's most important is unity within the party to defeat the Republican presidential candidate and follow-through to provide an expansive platform that works to provide the most benefit to the most Democrat voters and our nation at large.
4
And here we go! From one extreme to the other.
I still think a middle of the road conservative or liberal can sneak up the middle and win this thing in 20.
A campaign of Warren being called Pocahontas (and worse) could... haunt us...
7
Chiming in to say I'm thrilled she's running. Warren is brilliant, passionate, unflappable and experienced. I'd love to see her debate the fool in the White House right now. As my father would say, she'd shellack him. That alone is worth the price of admission.
16
Love her politics, they're what we need, but...
1) If we've learned anything after Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, it's that America will always vote for a good-ol' scoundrel over a privileged, ambitious, scold.
2) Warren rose to Trump's "Pocahontas" bait and embarrassed herself. She's smart, but she doesn't knowhow to rassle with a pig without getting muddy.
10
Heaven help the Democrats if this is the best they can offer. Biden, Warren, ‘Beto’ don’t get it and never will
This is a recipe for four more years of Trump
Wake up Dems!
10
She's about as dynamic as humorless college professor. Doesn't stand a chance.
17
Looking at comments here, it seems like the Russian bots have started, trying to kill Warren’s candidacy before it starts. They must be afraid of her digging into world-wide monetary corruption.
12
@Sam Kanter
Try to think clearly.
If there were subversive Russian posters here they would be encouraging Warren. Meanwhile, on right leaning sites they would be reciting her resume.
3
Democrats rigged the primaries in 2016 and scoff when you point it out. No wonder Trump is president, they’re utterly clueless. Watch Hillary announce her candidacy about a year from now. Trump could easily win in 2020.
12
The Democrat Challenges In 2020
Obviously it will be a crowed field. If more than one runs it can give Trump a win. Will the Democratic House go overboard with endless investigations over-playing it with an election backlash? All concerns.
But I believe the major challenge facing Democrats will be Trump's record. Not his imperfections and moral failings, as tempting as that may be. Those already are baked in. It will be what he has or hasn't achieved.
On the Negative side are perhaps the wall, maybe continuing friction between allies, there most probably will be a lingering North Korea nuke threat and most probably an ineffectual Congress when controled by all branches. Withdrawing from the Iran deal and Paris Accord along with presumably Syria will all be front and center. Scandals involving staff is an issue. These will be weighed against...
Positives begin with the healthy Economy - impressive consumer confidence and unemployment rates. Others: The destruction of ISIS' caliphait and hopefully no major U.S. terrorist attacks since Jan. 2017. U.S. embassy in Jerusalem. A "First Step" Law and important "Try It First" Act-experimental drugs for terminally ill. Trump's missle attack stopping Assad's gassing will be portrayed as decisive leadership as will his trips to meet Kim Jong-u. Return of American hostages (NK & Turkey) along with NK return of remains of American soldiers. And now energy independence (Keystone & ANWAR) with military no longer "unfit for combat."
1
@Frank Leibold Please consider adding 'environmental degradation', 'abandoning leadership on green energy to China', 'efforts to undermine the Constitution and separation of powers', 'does not work well with others', 'obsequious to dictators and thugs, thereby humiliating proud Americans' to your list of negatives.
Wow! Look at all of these comments opposing Elizabeth Warren's candidacy... The corrupt GOP/Russian internet hit squad is out in numbers, in most cases, posing as Democrats!
They will do ANYTHING to keep this intelligent uncompromised principled woman out of the White House.
17
@Jeff You Ignore the comments at the cost of the election, just as you did in 2016. You can have a negative opinion of Warren’s chances and be a worried, red blooded American. As the old rye bread commercial went, you don‘t have to be Russian. Just informed.
Start the name calling and finger pointing at people in your own party two years early and you will lose again. Signed, a former Bernie bot and bro.
3
I think we need a candidate that will appeal to a broader slice of America. Our goal must be to defeat the vile Donald.
5
As much as I agree with most of her ideas, Trump would cut her to ribbons and serve her on toast points in a one-on-one race. The last thing the Dems need is someone as humorless and strident as she is.
9
Let's nominate Stormy Daniels.
She is the only one that can outfight Trump on a Twitter war.
5
Not an American, but Beto/ Bernie combo sounds great right? A mix of old and new, centrist and progressive.... something for all democrats to like
2
@Rhea
Not not only not American but also not a clue it seems.
Try Jeremy Corbin and Boris with the blond mop across the pond. As apt as your suggestion. By the way Beto votes with Republicans so don’t tell me they are both Democrats. On paper Bernie is a Democratic Socialist voting Democrat and Beto a Democrat voting Republican. Confusing, no?
1
As a Trump voter, not Trump supporter (there is a difference even though you folks whose left leg is shorter than your right can’t seem to grasp that concept) let me put your mind at ease. Trump will not be re-elected as long as you don’t pick Mrs. Clinton as your candidate. Trump was simply the least distasteful of the two and we thought that he might have sense enough to listen or at least get out of the way of others with actual ability. I guess we were wrong.
Mrs. Warren would beat Trump. Joe Biden would beat Trump. I’m not sure if the insurance companies would allow Bernie to win. I like his attitude and passion but under his healthcare system I would be dead today so I can’t really support him.
Anyway, don’t worry to much. And try not to be so hypocritical. It makes you look stupid. We all have a right to our opinions no matter how wrong they may be.
1
no, no, no. she has no chance. i support a biden beto ticket
1
@Eliza
Great choice! For a GOP ticket, that is.
1
Problem with Biden is that he had been on the government payroll since he was 29. Prior to that he was in the military. Need a president or Vice President for that matter who had experienced wondering about his/her next paycheck or if they will have health insurance for their family. Biden does not appear to have lived in the real world!
1
We need someone to restore our sense of who we are. Senator Warren doesn’t cut it. Running against Trump, is a bad idea. Running against Trump’s failed policies (domestically and internationally,) his inability to get the support of the American people, sowing the seeds of division and tribalism, which are UnAmerican, is, in my opinion, something the majority of Americans are hungry for.
4
Senator Warren will add knowledge and color to the primaries, and will align herself for a cabinet position, but has no chance of being nominated. But if she is, Trump will clobber her unfortunately.
3
Am in a minority who believe that the five top candidates now from the senate should remain there for at least one more term. Rather let us wait and watch whether the trumpists will triumph over republicans or they will field other candidates. We saw the tongue of trump: his tongue and vileness could be a separate super hero, rip Stan Lee, his narcissism is still not recognized by 90 percent of followers who do not know what it means. Trump's advantage is his personality disorder. A normal, more than competent, more honest, compassionate, and more human being will always at a disadvantage to trump. And let us be realistically unreal, until big money is removed from our elections and funded by the government giving a level playing field to any and all excellent candidates, we will not move forward in any appreciable manner. The hole of shame that trump has dug is akin to Deepwater Horizon oil spill the worst oil spill disaster in U.S. history. and his administration pathological patterns/decrees/policies will be handled the same way. i.e. not good for us minor mortals. Perhaps after Trump we need another upheaval, like a bipartisan collaboration for president and vice president. Never before, but neither was there a never before trump. the impact of his galling illegality needs a remedy that reaches beyond party lines.
Warren is relatively progressive and not a wholly sold-out neoliberal corporate Dem as are Booker, Harris, Biden, O'Rourke, etc.
Bernie Sanders is the only authentic FDR-style candidate and he has overwhelmingly positive appeal.
Liz should be his VP.
6
Never mind VP, would like to see her as secretary of the treasury.
1
Seriously, fellow commenters? We’re going to let Donald ‘Joan Collins’ Trump continue another season of Dynasty in 2020 because we allow his poison nickname darts to penetrate and stick?
Watch any episode of Antiques Roadshow. A lot of family lore about objects/relationships isn’t quite what they’d always been led to believe. What does that have to do with the price of eggs? We’re talking about the demise of our democratic institutions under the present administration. (I’m half Cuban. My mother was Cuban; my father German. My mother didn’t raise me. I don’t eat fried plantains. Am I not half Cuban then? Are my opinions less valid because of any permutation of heritage? Will you attach Little Fidel to my screen-name?)
Sen. Warren isn’t left enough for you? Unless you’re willing to initiate a 1917 Soviet-style revolution, we live within the constraints of a capitalist economy. We’ve tempered that economy, however, with great social programs over the last seventy-five years. This allowed for the development of a large middle class. Since Ronald Reagan, legislation has stealthily evolved wherein wealth has been steadily concentrated in the hands of a few. This is an area in which Sen. Warren has expertise and passion.
She’s too old for you? Provided one is not a hollow huckster such as we have installed now, with age comes wisdom.
In dismissing Sec. Warren out-of-hand, I see some of us simply repeating the odious lines of the Grasping Fool currently in the White House.
11
If a brash reality TV celeb and dubious businessman can win a presidential election, all bets are off. Warren is as much a contender as anyone.
6
Lots of Nay-Sayers.
So what if she can't win - because maybe she can. No one knows.
She will put the Progressive agenda front and center. She will make Progressivism centrist, and that's what we need.
This is not a fight for the Presidency - as the shallow thinkers believe - but a fight for the country. It's Corporations against the People, the Rich against everyone not like them, and the Corporatocracy against Democracy.
This is a fight for our future. Will we stop the global march of Fascism as we did in the 1940's? Are we willing to again die in the millions? Are you?
There will be sacrifice and Liz is a hero for standing up. We need many more like her because many will be lost.
8
Folks chill out. It is far too early to say this and that and think you're so smart about candidate so and so. If you have won Fantasy football, NCAA basketball bracket, or any serious handicapping game you might have something to say that is worthy of consideration. Otherwise you're just another pundit who will have egg on their face and should be laughed out of the pundit game. You guys and gals know who you are.
As for Senator Warren, let her fight the good fight. Let her show that she is worthy of our votes or not. Stay tuned for the others that will announce soon enough. I give her kudos for being brave enough to be the first.
10
The Democrat Challenges In 2020
Obviously it will be a crowed field. If more than one runs it can give Trump a win. Will the Democratic House go overboard with endless investigations over-playing it with an election backlash? All concerns.
But I believe the major challenge facing Democrats will be Trump's record. Not his imperfections and moral failings, as tempting as that may be. Those already are baked in. It will be what he has or hasn't achieved.
On the Negative side are perhaps the wall, maybe continuing friction between allies,there most probably will be a lingering North Korea nuke threat and most probably an ineffectual Congress when controled by all branches. Withdrawing from the Iran deal and Paris Accord along with presumably Syria will all be front and center. Scandals involving staff is another issue. These will be weighed against...
Positives begin with the healthy Economy - impressive consumer confidence and unemployment rates. Others: The destruction of ISIS' caliphait and hopefully no major U.S. terrorist attacks since Jan. 2017. U.S. embassy in Jerusalem. A "First Step" Law and important "Try It First" Act-experimental drugs for terminally ill. Trump's missle attack stopping Assad's gassing will be portrayed as decisive leadership as will his trips to meet Kim Jong-u. Return of American hostages (NK & Turkey) along with NK return of remains of American soldiers. And now energy independence (Keystone & ANWAR) with military no longer "unfit for combat."
1
The Democrat candidate cannot depend solely on African-Americans, white liberals and women. Women did not turn out in mass for Hillary Clinton and will not do so for a Democrat just because she is female. The candidate must be able to peel away some Trump voters in crucial states where Obama succeeded and Clinton failed. I very much doubt Elizabeth Warren is that candidate.
4
Let me make this brief.
Donald Trump and his ilk have paved the way to Ms. Warren winning the Presidency. No one gives a hoot about whether she is 100% Native American or 0.0000001% Native American, or what she says she is or isn't.
Authenticity is dead and she'll profit by DT paving the way.
What a sad and complete waste of time this is going to be. Yet another 'problem' with politics in this country that Trump has
exacerbated. The idea that anyone can win. Elizabeth Warren has
one of the worst public speaking presences (and this is aside from a horrible speaking voice) of anyone in politics today not to mention a hoard of bad ideas. Many of which are just as bad as the nonsense that floats around in Trumps expansive empty head. Zero evidence that she can make the most difficult decisions or that she has some or any sort of magical solution to the gridlock that calls itself government today. This potentially because she is one of the grand contributors to the lack of substantive discussion that simply is non existent in government today.
And most importantly, nothing new to say and no real new ideas.
All this is going to do is dilute funding for candidates that have a real chance. If she actually cared about everyone (which is the President's job), and was committed to seeing Trump roundly voted out of office, she would not run.
1
If Senator Warren announced that she's running for the presidency, then how much work can she accomplish in her current position as Senator?
Leave now and start your other job!
1
Warren sharply disagrees on economic issues with both Pelosi and Schumer. If she is elected President, there will be substantial conflict among the leaders of the Democratic Party. The point of winning the election is to advance the Democratic agenda. Warren would create unwelcome conflict. She is not a consensus sort of leader. Rather, she tends to go her own way. You may like that or not. I prefer a united Democratic Party.
1
@michjas
Yeah, united in favor of the system and it's donors.
That's what the Democrat and Republican politicians are united on.
Neither represent the People.
5
Well, this coming election cycle certainly has the potential to divide the left. Especially if they all decide to drag it out to the very end. Unless, of course, there is one who can trump (pun intended) the others.
1
Yes, divide the left from “Republican lite”.
2
Whoever is the next Democratic nominee must suggest absolutely realistic remedies on job loss, immigration, health care, the dwindling middle class, income equality, Amerca's lost world stature and the culture of meanness and near-inhumanity of the Trump years. The nation requies more than candidate eloquence and deep concern. It requires workable solutions.
2
I'll vote for Warren in a heartbeat! Along with all her other qualities is her ability to motivate and inspire, something sorely missing in the other Democratic hopefuls.
6
I only hope that Sen. Warren will avoid the temptation of making an issue of her gender. The issue, even though we have never had a woman POTUS is old news, as almost all secular advanced democracies have.
HRC made a serious mistake by emphasizing this. I remember her promise that her cabinet would be a majority of women, "like the population." Of course, the correct position would have been her promising to appoint the most qualified, irrespective of gender.
It's the same with every other identity that has become too much of an aspect of the current Democratic party. It's a perverted form of the old racism, that could turn out to be just as harmful
7
@Call Me Al
These are just steps. Trying to tackle systemic discrimination requires a period of reverse discrimination; otherwise how do we get the train rolling. HRC made the right promise. In a few generations from now, your post will also be correct.
3
Oh, boy! Ms. Warren has already shown a lack of savvy by announcing her candidacy during the holiday break. What were she and her advisers thinking?! Aside from this rather minor slipup, I just don't think Ms. Warren has what it takes to galvanize enough voters to her side.
6
Comments on the kickoff to the nomination process:
1.) The idea that a candidate should be excluded because "it will be easy for Trump to attack her!" seems irrelevant, as he will relentlessly attack no matter who the candidate is. If there is nothing to attack, something will be created - this is what Republicans and their leader do.
2.) The 40% hard Trump base should be assumed unreachable. Whether a Trump supporter would consider a candidate is irrelevant.
3.) Posters on websites who claim to be Democrats yet relentlessly bash Democrats are likely not Democrats.
4.) Assuming the candidate is qualified to be President, the most important considerations should be the ability to attract independents in the Rust Belt and Florida, the ability to satisfy both wings of the Democratic Party, and if applicable the added bonus of inspiring young voters.
10
I predict Warren will be the Democrat equivalent of Scott Walker this election cycle. Big name recognition, big negative poll numbers, and a seat at the minor candidate debates followed by a withdrawal after the Iowa caucuses.
6
Her chances are about as good as Custer's at the Little Big Horn. We've had more than enough of handwaving, ranting presidents and are ready for some nice calm steady-as-she-goes government.
10
Clinton lost Florida, Penn, Ohio, Mich, Wisc and Iowa - all states Obama won previously. The next candidate needs to win some combination of those states. So who is most able to win in Florida and some of the midwest states is the person to go with. Mich, Penn and Wisc were close races and winnable.
Elizabeth Warren has 0 (ZERO) chance of beating Trump. He will pulverize her at any debate. Not to mention her silliness with the genetic testing.
Only Joe Biden can deflect Trump’s vicious attacks - hope the Democrats wake up and throw support for one winnable candidate. Biden has the “Ronald Reagan” Teflon temperament needed to dispel Trump.
Look at the beating Clinton took from Bernie Sanders candidacy- it was one of many factors that weakened her position. I know several of his supporters who were so vehement over his lost of the nomination they didn’t vote at all - See where that went.
8
I'll pay attention to her campaign, but the huge field of democrats is not giving them the focus necessary to get rid of Trump. Unless and until the abandon the open borders advocated by some in their party, Trump will simply run on build the wall. People are fed up with thirty years of talking about the illegal immigrant problem and that's what they will vote on. Democrats will not win until they address this problem, because Republicans don't understand economics, but they do see over 20 million people breaking the law as their first act in the country. They are even shifting away from DACA because they view it as more slick marketing...the 'dreamers' pffff! Elizabeth Warren is far too earnest to make it in politics, even though she invented the Consumer Protection Bureau, she didn't end up running it, because she is not a Washington politician. I wish her luck, but she is not a winner and she did herself no favors with the native American schtick.
2
@thewriterstuff. Yes, Democrats MUST find a way to defuse illegal immigration as an issue. This one issue propelled Trump to victory first over other Republicans - who all defended the status quo - and then the country.
Warren's real hallmark is listening and learning. She changed the theme of her early bankruptcy work when digging into the real causes of personal bankruptcy revealed so many families devastated by the costs of a single illness or injury. This past year, she held over 30 town hall meetings throughout Massachusetts, allowing over an hour at each for a wide-open Q & A session; her responses to the questions/ comments/ statements were not just thoughtful, but showed she was carefully considering new perspectives on public policy issues. She is a tireless campaigner, and though the phrase "I'll work my heart out" may sound like a cliche, she truly means it. Just imagine - a President who listens and learns.
12
@SAnderson. And what has she accomplished with all that listening? She held the town halls because she was running for re-election.
1
It seems the electorate (Dems as well as Republicans) pays more attention to glib characterizations than actually looking at a candidate’s background and what they have said and done. This is how Trump got elected, as ignorant people saw him on a TV reality show and went no further.
1
I would love for Ms. Warren to be President. The key issue for her, as well as for all other potential Democratic candidates is how well each would do in the contested swing States. Let them all run through the primaries, although this will not tell us how each would be favored by non-Democratic, centrist votes in these States. If she does not win the primary, Ms. Warren would be a marvelous Cabinet Secretary tasked with financial issues. (and with Bernie joining her in the Cabinet of the actual candidate). This is not the time for us to choose our favorite to run; it is to chose the one most likely to get the most electoral votes.
6
If Trump can win - anybody can win.
6
@Paul RuszczykThat is obviously not true. That is the “she is inevitabile” attitude that lost the election in 2016.
1
This sums up everything about a Democratic Politician / they are NEVER Doing their JOB , alls they do is run either for Election or Reelection this ....and last she is the epitome of why Republican Women get things done while Democratic Women Cry Wolf!
2
Elizabeth Warren can't possibly win. She's less exciting than Hillary. We need a ticket of Sherrod Brown and Kamala Harris. Blue collar workers, liberals, the Midwest, women and minorities, all in one ticket.
5
@KL
You seem to be looking for a clown rather than a president.
Time to grow up and elect people on their intellect, decency, honesty, efficiency, energy, eloquence and ability to close. A Harvard Law School Professor who immediately delivered with the great Consumer Protection Agency and provided a superlative opposition as a Senator to the clown in chief and the disgusting GOP is good enough for me.
I prefer to watch Meryl Streep or Emma Thompson when I want to see good acting (Bruno Ganz or Robert De Niro will do too).
1
Such a bad idea. If she is the Democratic candidate (God forbid), I will not be voting in 2020. She needs to stay in the Senate. The Democrats need to put up someone who can win -- and she cannot win. Why she can't see that is really surprising to me!
3
So you will not vote for her because “she cannot win” and would prefer to keep Trump in the White House?
I’m beginning to think Democrats are as ignorant as Trump’s base.
5
@Liz Siler
This is how Trump won. Would you rather have Trump than her? Sometimes you have to vote for a mediocre or even poor candidate who you are not excited about in order to protect the country from a truly terrible person. The people who said "Oh - I could never vote for Hillary" - they gave us Trump. Get off your high horse.
3
@Paul Ruszczyk You know nothing about me. I voted for Hillary (though reluctantly). I had supported and campaigned for Bernie up until the Democratic party decided that it was going to ignore all the evidence from the bajillions of energized young people who supported him that they had a winning candidate (Bernie) and go for the identity politics candidate (a woman at any cost regardless of her obvious issues --- perhaps the largest being she failed t to campaign in so many places in this country). But still I voted for her.
A vote for Warren would be a vote for a terrible candidate. Talk about casting your bread on the waters --- and getting back nothing but soggy mush. The Democratic party is the problem here --- it needs a clear message, and yet it continues to refuse to see lightening and hear thunder. Trump is a truly awful person, barely a carbon-based life form. Hopefully we'll get rid of him before 2020 (impeachment/indictment/jail). But if not, well the Democrats are going to have to take a HARD look at the electability of whomever they put up. Just mindlessly continuing to vote for never-likely-to-win candidates empowers the out-of-touch national party and sends the Dems the wrong message. If the Dems want change, they need to put up electable candidates. Warren is not electable and I'm not going to waste a vote on her because she will lose anyway --- and each vote for her will continue to empower the Dems wrong-think.
Is this really the best the Democratic Party has to offer in 2020? Sad to say we will surely loose. It’s time to stop recycling the same old and bring in a new MODERATE voice. Why isn’t Chris Murphy in the mix?
3
If she gains the nomination,we are doomed.
6
She won’t.
During the 2016, the yards in Ohio were plastered with "lock her up" signs featuring Clinton in an orange jumpsuit, along with "deplorable and proud of it" signs. The frequency of these signs might surprise people who aren't from the Midwest, but honestly, on some streets, nearly every yard featured them. Hatred of women seeking power runs so strong. There's no way Warren can win in a place like Ohio. I'm already imagining the hateful signs they will make for Warren. There's just no way. She'd be a great president, but nominating her would be handing it to Trump.
3
Being anti-Hillary and her criminal behavior did not make Ohioans anti-woman. The same people who fancied Hillary in a stylish orange jumpsuit would vote for Nikki Haley or Condelezza Rice in a heartbeat.
4
@Bob Maybe not. But the "deplorable and proud of it" make it at least worth considering. Also not seeming to be bothered by Trump's criminal behavior.
Bad Idea. Though I am one of her biggest supporters, She. Will. Never. Win.
Sigh. 4 more years.
10
@BB
Why???
Did you think Trump would have won?
3
Not someone who can win. She drives me crazy with her constant harping on the same issues. She did some good work on the CFPA but she hasn't really shown that she can be measured, calm, and effective over a range of issues. Too much showboating for me. I'm in the Amy Klobashar camp.
3
@roark . Cult of personality nonsense. Warren and Klobashar have virtually identical platforms on the issues. Either would make a fine president and ANY non-Republican would be an overwhelming improvement.
2
Snowball's chance. Someone needs to be electable. She is needed in the senate.
1
We need Warren, not a Hillary type as our 1st woman pres.
I just don’t understand the negative reaction to Warren’s DNA test response that she has Indian ancestry.
Warren’s aggressive challenge to dominance by the banking industry are exactly needed. She’s not making speeches to Wall St banks for millions in fees, and then trying to keep what she told them secret from the voters.
The runway to Wall St recovery was smoothed in Geithner’s words ,but many Americans still haven’t recovered. So what does voting mean in America?
In any functioning democracy, Warren’s policies to regulate the big banks would be centrist, operating policy, not seen as ‘left wing’.
But US politicians need big money to finance the onslaught of media campaign ads that manipulate voters. And which other world democracies ban to prevent special interests from dominating the political discussion.
Why do Democrats think party unity and bank regulations are at odds? Because our S. Court legalized and redefined corruption, calling big money in elections a form of Constitutional Free Speech. This shuts out the influence of the majority of citizens on lawmaking that affects their lives.
Dems must compete with GOP for election funding, listen to the donors, then market themselves to the voters. A recipe for hypocrisy.
As Trump worsens the Dems look great—even if they are careful not to alienate rich donors.
Good luck to Warren as she operates in a poisoned political culture.
11
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. I fully supported Hilary. I will not support Warren in the primary, and hope I won't have to support her in the general election.
2
@Bill Ejzak
Anyone who "fully supported" Hillary is a Republican. Most of her votes were anti-Trump votes.
2
With possibly 20 Democratic candidates seeking the nomination, any one who is making predictions about the prospects of one candidate or another at this point clearly hasn't been paying attention to recent history.
Whoever wins the nomination in such a large field is likely the have won the support of a minority of the Democratic Party electorate. Trump's path to the Republican party nomination in 2015-2016 proves how unpredictable the results can be with that many candidates.
I also think there is a strong likelihood that there will be some Republican challenger to Trump for his nomination.
In other words, if you thought the last presidential election cycle was crazy, just hang on. This one is going to be the weirdest at least since '68, or maybe ever.
1
No surprises here. Whether she can form a coalition to include Middle America and both coasts is up for grabs.
As life-long moderate Democrat, I applaud her for taking on Trump at rallies and other political venues these past 24 months, but. . . I am still not convinced that she is the best candidate for 2020.
She fell into an obvious trap with her DNA "proof" of American Indian ancestry when I think a better strategy would have been to say nothing and let Trump be the blowhard that he is.
And with so much at stake - we MUST limit Donald Trump to one term - I still think Sherrod Brown is a better choice for the nomination.
His name recognition might still be low but in today's world if viral youtube videos and social media platforms, that can be quickly remedied.
3
What's indisputable is that oligarchs and their entourages don't care at all for Senator Warren. What higher testament to her character and abilities would anyone who's in search of fair and effective leadership ever need?
10
In a normal world, in a time when candidates ran because of their experience, their beliefs in improving the lives of Americans, and their respect for the people of our country, Elizabeth Warren running for president would be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, the US is burdened with politicians who care nothing about the lives of Americans and only about their political careers and is demeaned by voters who are more interested in charisma and celebrity than experience and serious goals about the future of our country and the planet. I hate that I am torn about Warren's candidacy because she may not be attractive to voters in red states and therefore may not overcome a Trump re-election. I want to have an intelligent, thoughtful choice of candidates who argue responsibly about the best way to continue American ideals and keep (or restore) our standing in the world. Warren would be one of those choices if we didn't have such a divided electorate. This is a sad state of our election process.
1
In every respect, Sen. Warren’s political views seem in good alignment with the combined ideal vision of the America’s founding fathers.
Let’s deal with the DNA CRISIS first: the founders discussed that all the white settlers could probably intermarry with all the American Indians, and then within a few generations the Indian heritage would simply wash out, leaving the Euro Americans unharmed in the long run and that this might be the best way to assimilate the Indians into the new republic. As a strategy it failed, and probably was far too overly rational of a view to ever take, because it disallowed for a race preservation ethos among other things, but nevertheless it bears on Sen Warren’s recent public image problem as living proof of something the founding fathers suggested, as coming true. But this older view all hinged on one small fact: that the non-Euro population was small compared to the Euro population, and today that is most certainly NOT the case with our modern race demographics shift. But that shift has occurred within Sen Warren’s lifetime; and it is not her fault who her grandparent’s were or what views they adopted. Therefore I submit it is not a really a problem for her at all if discussed properly in this way.
Second, she touts the virtues of Mixed Capitalism, which is in alignment to the Founding Fathers, who broke us out of the mold of two-tiered monarchy capitalism with their many works to lay out a much fairer and better system for tomorrow.
5
Ms. Warren, running with her current policies and beliefs, has no chance in winning over those center-right Democrats and those center-left Republicans that voted for Trump. First of all, as Hillary unfortunately did, she talks down to them. The uneducated do not like being reminded that they are uneducated.
She should do one of two things after she apologizes to Native Americans for linking herself with them. She should either remain a US Senator or possibly accept a VP slot running with Joe Biden. I still think Biden is the only Democrat who can attract those referenced above and defeat Trump.
3
No.
Warren wasn't there for progressives when we needed her in 2016. And she was originally a republican. Elizabeth Warren won't get my vote.
1
Amy Klobuchar is by far the best "first woman President" option the Democrats have. Elizabeth Warren will be defined as another "radical liberal Hillary" by conservative media, and Kamala Harris is too unproven on the national stage. Klobuchar will quietly impress, and rise among the large group of candidates. If the Democrats have the courage to run another woman, Klobuchar has the best chance to win.
2
Basically in synch with her ideas but she has become the face of the radical left and the chances of her attracting any swing votes is zero to none. Let's not have a repeat of Bernie and lets all remember, perfection is the enemy of the good.
Cooperation & compromise will win the day.
2
Warren, and hopefully Harris and Booker too. Thank you Democrats for an early 2020 Christmas present!
2
Sorry you are wasting your time for this Independent vote.
I need new ideas, not rehashed old ideas that did not have a future.
Hopefully, someone with great ideas who believes in the wholeness of the American idea will step forward. You do not have that.
1
I'm frankly chagrined by the number of comments here about reasons why Warren can't possibly beat Trump - in large part because they're all fallacious in nature. To address a few:
1. "Trump will make mincemeat of her." This is just plain silly: Trump will make mincemeat out of whomever wins the nomination. The right-wing media will dig up specks of dirt on that person, and Trump will do his usual thing and make a mountain out of a molehill.
2. "She's too old." Please: she's younger than Trump, Biden *and* Bernie - and as the latter proved in 2016, age is clearly not a deterrent for younger voters in particular.
3. "We need a candidate from the South or Midwest." Really? You might wanna let Biden, Sanders, Booker and Gillibrand know.
4. "American voters are too sexist/misogynist to vote for a female president." Such comments presume Hillary lost due to her gender, which itself is a sexist suggestion (and a false one). As a reminder, Trump won the traditional swing states that clinched his win because he successfully positioned himself as a "champion of the working class" and Hillary as part of the "Beltway elite." Warren is not the latter, and the former has long since been proven terribly false.
Warren isn't perfect, and she has ample "problem points" from her past that could be used against her in the election. Guess what? So does every other prospective candidate - and NONE of them have ones even close to those Trump had, including the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape.
14
Not to mention Trump couldn’t have won without a big push from Putin and the Russian propaganda machine.
1
Note to Democrats: Vote your hearts in the primaries but vote your heads in the general election.
3
@Rob Vukovic
Vote your head in the primaries too. Vote for someone who can beat Trump.
1
Gender and progressive attitudes make her candidacy a steep hill to climb from the outset.
But those challenges notwithstanding, this 71 year old baby ultraliberal baby boomer is forced to state the obvious. Like me, like Biden, like Trump, she is just too old.
The Democratic Party desperately needs a moderate candidate who isn’t a “coastal elite/limousine liberal” - someone who doesn’t qualify for Social Security - preferably someone in their ‘40’s or early ‘50’s.
The GOP/FOX/Trump smear and slur machine has honed the art of demeaning, insulting, and marginalizing women, especially progressive women, to a fine art.
She would be crushed.
2
Just reading the mixed comments of my fellow readers shows that she can not win.
Here is a woman who has a great American story of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
Here is a woman who singlehandedly took on Wall Street with the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an idea that she had in 2007 as a private citizen. This bureau is having positive results, to the point where Trump and the Republicans want to destroy it.
Here is a woman who told the CEO of Wells Fargo, John Stumpf, he should be criminally investigated and should be in jail:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/09/elizabeth-warren-tell-wells-fargo-ceo-he-belongs-in-jail.html?source=Registration&email=>m=bottom>m=bottom
We need someone who understands how the system is rigged, someone who Wall Street is afraid of, someone who can fight for the 99%.
The Democrats should stop turning on leaders like Warren and Pelosi who actually get things done and stop denigrating them with Republican and Trump talking points.
But, if Warren doesn't win, she would make an outstanding Secretary of the Treasury.
13
@V
I can't see why Trump would ever want her as Secretary of the Treasury.
Long odds on Oprah; short odds on Borto. Warren doesn’t have a chance so I’m suspicious of her motives.
@JeezLouise Borto?
Is the reference to Borat or Beto? Or someone else?
If we can all hope for one thing and one thing only, it's that the American electorate will be far better informed on Nov. 3, 2020, and much more civic-minded (aka patriotic) -- and therefore vote for country over party and reject demagogy, dishonesty and divisiveness -- than it was on Nov. 6, 2018.
So far, the evidence isn't encouraging.
1
Too bad Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is too young to run.
1
@J Alfred Prufrock
Why?
What do you know about her?
Presidents need to be a little more known quantities than Alexandria.
She is an excellent activist. The type that we had protesting Vietnam and organized sit-ins against Nixon and Kissinger in the Columbia campus.
She has to show a little more as a congresswoman before we can endorse her as strongly as you are doing right now.
Stick to Bernie, Warren, Kamala, or any combination of those three. Her time will come I am sure.
1
@J Alfred Prufrock
You mean the same Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who, two weeks after her election to Congress, referred to the three branches of government as the presidency, the Senate and the House? Sounds like there are good reasons that she is too young to run for the White House.
2
We are ready to sign up as volunteers.
7
Elizabeth Warren is the greatest fraud of the 21st century.
4
@Duke
And you say this in the era of Donald Trump?
Be serious.
8
With all due respect to the white female caucus, this woman is completely and woefully unelectable. We on the left need a strong shot at defeating the current blowhard in chief: Think Gavin Newsom, Beto O'Rourke, even Bernie.
I'm sorry: I look forward to the day when a woman is leading this country, but now is not the time to grandstand on breaking barriers; we need a safer bet.
3
Al Franken in 2020 !!
The "Grassroots Campaign" which no one - including all of "US" on the left - has heard about - yet...
1
@Howard G Whatever Franken supposedly grabbed couldn’t be as bad as what trump bragged about. He could possibly get my vote.
I will happily vote for Elizabeth Warren if she only refers to her Republican opponent as Pokapornstar
11
As a lifelong Democrat, I say, please, forget it.
4
Reading through these comments, it seems the Republican/Russian hit campaign on Elizabeth Warren has already begun - at a rate of five comments per minute!
Man, do they fear this strong honest uncompromised woman, or what?
17
She is the candidate for working people. Trump can scream "pocahontas" all he wants -- Warren couldn't care less and will crush him in debates on virtually any issue.
The many comments here lamenting her DNA test, or the country's "not ready" for a female president, speak to our typical Dem party weakness of "not good enough."
And then, the Beto lovers! He MUST spend time as a U.S. Senator first, it would give him the needed chops.
Warren 2020!
7
Elizabeth,
DO NOT RUN.
Sincerely,
The Democratic Party
6
@Christine
That will do it.
2
Go Warren GO. We can do this.
7
No thanks. A Dukakis for 2020.
2
@Sterno
Why? They have less in common than I have with Wilt Chamberlain.
1
I admire Ms. warren. She's light years ahead of Trump and his cult with a sharp mind, good policy ideas for the common person, and compassion.
With that said, she doesn't have a snowball's chance in heck of getting elected. MA, CA, WA and NY do not elect the President. Fox News and Trump will, as usual, operate from the gutter and tar her with "A Socialist who hates America" (code for white rural voters).
Ms.Warren needs a trusted friend or aide outside our liberal echo chamber to tell her that this, while noble, is a lost cause.
4
While I would be happy if Senator Warren were to win, I believe the same voters who voted against Secretary Clinton will also vote against her.
I'd like to see Senator Mark Warner of Virginia run for President. He doesn't seem to get the kind of negative press that so many other Democratic candidates receive.
https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/biography
1
Best news ever.
Of course she is a target of the right -- they recognize how good she is and want to take her down. The DNA non issue? Please. Vile right wing candidates prey on women, launder money, and work for the Russians, and no one cares.
Elizabeth Warren has a proven track record for getting things done. Bring America back, Ms. Warren. I'll be voting for you.
3
Such a brilliant SNL Church Lady !!!!
1
Oh God. It's going to be 2016 all over again in 2020. Have the Democrats learned nothing?
4
Charisma!! That great inspiring charm and magnetism. She ain't got none. Never had none. Ain't gonna get none. Even Eric Holder and Old Joe have more charisma than she has. She is more like Hillary than any other possible Dem candidate. There are Democrats who will vote for the nominee (I am one) but the nitwits who could care less about issues and love reality shows have rejected all uptight bespectacled preachy Eastern eggheads. Especially preachy female eggheads and we need some of their votes. Sorry Warren. You are well prepared to govern but you lack the qualities to WIN in this climate. Same goes for old Joe and some of the other old also rans. I’d love to see her in office but she is not going to be our nominee. Not gonna happen. Zero charisma.
2
Young women don't want to vote for their mom. Warren has no chance.
2
I want a Democrat to blow Trump out of the water in 2020, but this is the best thing to happen for the GOP since Hillary won the nomination. Warren can barely win with more than 60% in Massachusetts. She will not win white heterosexuals outside the 495 loops.
5
Donny will be delighted.
1
I guess Lizzie ignores the polls. She’s about as popular as Hillary.
3
sorry. I don't want her.
3
Hurray for Elizabeth Warren! She would make a fabulous president, as well as any one of 8 others; each of whom would be far better than the lying pretender now in office.
5
Warren come across as an elitist and is about as likable as Hillary was. She's an easy target for Trump and her obsession with being native american is ammo for him. Besides who really cares if she is or isn't......nobody. Note even real native Americans.
1
She's right... but tone deaf, easily baited and not remotely able to build a coalition of Democrats, let alone one with Republicans. Great enlightened despot, bad politician.
1
Elizabeth Warren is a cheerleader for illegal migrants surging across our borders. Hence, she will not get my vote.
1
And what is Putin's position on Warren?
1
Let's get her thoughts on Gustavo Perez Arriaga, the illegal immigrant who's now been charged with the murder of the California police officer that pulled him over for suspected DUI. That'll end her candidacy real quick I believe..
2
What is Putin's stance on Warren?
We now have the worst president in our Country’s history and the Democratics will figure out how to get him re-elected.
3
Dems need to concentrate on bringing Trump Crime Family and GOP enablers to justice. Use your limited supply of energy wisely. Worry about 2020 later. Ray Sipe
3
Afraid not, Liz. Love your ideas but a Harvard elitist (even with humble roots) will not fly with the present national electorate. It would be great to see you in a cabinet-level post in the Biden administration, though.
1
I'm thinking of Trump's "funny" Pocahontas wisecracking. And the " Rocket Man" banter with the North Korean dictator. Just so entertaining and presidential. And the President's many victory rallies and trips and speeches in support of mid-term candidates. Him "winging it." And the crowd roared. The trips paid for by the taxpayers I am guessing. How about a "funny" label for his regime?....The Donald "Jerry Springer//John Gotti//Classic Abbott&Costello's 'Who's on First' " Trump Administration
1
May God help us.
2
@William Lanham
I think the good Lord has better things to do these days.
1
Regardless of who the Democrats nominate, Trump and the GOP will run a racist campaign because at its core the GOP is a party of Southern and Midwestern Evangelicals whose love of Jesus is only surpassed by the their hatred of black and brown people.
1
Just what we need, a freak with an oversize personality cult. Haven't we taken anything by way of lessons from contemporary history?
4
Woman. Strike one. Massachusetts liberal. Strike two. Here's the wind-up . . . and the pitch . . .
1
Not on a bet....!
1
Lizzie Warren, with an axe,
Will give Wall St crooks 40 whacks.
And after that job is done,
She'll give those congress crooks 41.
3
Just to be clear, here: The article headline states that Elizabeth Warren announces she is "Running for President." This isn't even true. An exploratory committee is not an announcement, and she never even said she was. This is a lie that only damages the NY Times credibility.
3
Yippie! Everything will be Free for "asylum seekers" !!!
Free Health Care
Free College
Free Electric cars
Free Bus rides
Everything free for undocumented immigrant workers!
5
As a average intelligent human, I’m glad that she is running. Donald Trump needs a good punching bag, the one in 2016 was pathetically Boring!
2
She is a political reincarnation of Hillary Clinton. The Oval Office undoubtedly opened the Champagne bottles early. David
3
Beto 2020.
Wow, four minutes into breaking news and we see the slew of misogynistic comments from all the men, who doubly seem quite stuck in the past an obviously very threatened. ("not to my taste" "strident" "old"- wth?). This right here should be a huge lesson to all readers about just what we have to overcome as a nation- a truly reprehensible level of misogyny. Hopefully she and her team and supporters will take note.
5
@Marina As a political campaign the Dems in 2016 had to put up with Debbie Wassermann Schultz, Donna Brazile, the ex Mrs Anthony Weiner, Loretta Lynch and offensice commemts from the likes of Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem.
No woman candidate whose candidacy or supporters make an issue of the candidate’s gender will get one dime in contributions from me. Defeating Trump and working to make the lives of ordinary Americans better is all that counts. Talking about breaking some glass ceiling or throwing the word “misogyny” into every comment or article would cause me to pull the lever for the man in the primary, whoever he is. And I am an old white woman. That stuff helped your candidate lose in 2016 as much as any Russian did.
2020 is the time to take just a little bit of Trumpian advice. Be Best. Forget everything else. Not enough to Be Woman.
2
The high cost of a college education is working its destructive damage on the middle class. Let's se a return to the college costs of the time when Elizabeth Warren was a student.
Wage controls on faculty and increased teaching duties. Perhaps if EW wasn't paid $385,000 to teach 90 hours per year of classes, students would not be indentured for the next 25 years of their lives.
5
No, and double ,triple no. Warren would make Trump president win his 2nd term. Trump would eat her up in any debate session in spite of her "Big Brain."
I had little respect for her when she had her DNA tested to show trump up. Trump won Warren in case you didn't notice. And BTW what percentage was it that showed Native American blood line? And who cares.
I just may enter my cat into the fray.
A Democratic voter who has a bit of Jewish blood in her. My great grandfather was a 100% German Jew. So what. He lived. He died. He sired my grandmother. And who cares. Just little 'ol me.
2
@Nightwood
Wow! Freud, Marx, Wittgenstein and Einstein would have been proud of you.
Grandson of 100 percent German Jew! I would have added Spinoza to the list but alas he was Sephardic.
1
@Blunt Wow! Thank you sir for the kind reply. I know these guys, especially Einstein, but of course not his math.
I'm an international published poet and many of my poems are on the internet....much to my surprise.
Happy New Year, Blut.
Biden for President. His grace, charm, and basic Decency will make Trump look like a braying mule.
First in,..first out.
2
Don’t ... Please. Just. Don’t.
4
I am so confused. Why all this hatred of Elizabeth Warren? Trump will call her Pocohantas. She can call him Liar, Mob Boss, Adulterer, Moron, Buffoon, International Embarrassment, etc. etc. After this disastrous presidency, why would anyone reject Warren's competence, intelligence, compassion, and wisdom? Warren is nothing like Hillary Clinton. She has spent her life fighting the banks and insurance companies that HRC propped up. She is a national treasure. Give her a chance to prove it to the rest of the country.
7
Here’s the problem with trying to identify with an ethic or racial group, when ones own ethnicity so over shadows the group you are trying to identify with. Elizabeth Warren is white, period. I have 2% Neanderthal DNA with my genome. I could not possibly nor would I run as a Neanderthal. Why Warren got all mixed up with Native Americans, I have no idea, except to garner their vote. Big mistake. Hillary played the same card with her 1/32 Jewish heritage. She’s Christian.
So, Dems stop playing ethnic roulette. Be what your are. There are no cave painting on the walls of my home.
3
No thanks, Senator. We care nothing for your racial politics and ultra liberal idealism. Anyone that pretends to be another race for the purpose of self advancement should be laughed outta the room.
3
@CG
No one pretended to be of a different race. Be a little deeper than that. Read the wonderful Bruce Rozenblit comment above. The one people really like.
1
Warren is anti-Klan, anti-racism, anti-war, pro-environment, pro-middle class and pro-science.
In short: no chance of winning in America.
6
I don't think that Elizabeth Warren can win the Democratic presidential nomination. She is too far to the left and she will have to compete with several candidates who are younger and also members of a minority group. I predict that the candidate who wins the Democratic nomination will have charisma, will be younger, and will be more centrist than Elizabeth Warren.
4
President Warren in 2020? Not a chance. She's running for the thrill and publicity.
5
As a Trump supporter I hope she wins the Democratic nomination. She has been named Pocahontas for over three years now and Trump’s master branding sticks!
5
@Jay Lincoln, you are so correct about his brand sticking. Felon. misogynist, ignorant, collusion, treason, cheat. Boy are they going to stick.
I read this news with a wince at first because I think Warren has no chance to win a Presidential election.
Then again Warren does have the ability to push the conversation forward and help flush out a candidate who can win a Presidential election.
Let's hope that candidate isn't the incumbent.
3
What's so maddening is that this made Trump's day, made his last day of 2018 an utter joy. He would consider it the greatest time of his life to campaign against her, and the drudgery of running the country from 2020 to 2024 would have been made worth it just to have dragged her through the mud and manure. Trump obviously doesn't like the job of president but loves the campaigning, and this would be the greatest show on earth to his way of thinking.
3
I’d rather see someone fresh/ Gavin Newsom is my choice to take on Trump.
@Don P
Why? This is not a choice of salad for most of us.
1
I like Elizabeth. My winning dream team is -
Kirsten Gillibrand and Beto O'Rourke!
@jahnay - That's a dream, all right.
1
Yes! She will not only be the first woman President, but also our first Native American President!
5
I’m a moderate Dem from eastern PA. She will never win a general election. Never. The Dems cannot have her as a candidate. The east coast libs don’t get it. I called the Trump win in ‘16—would never ever vote for him—because HRC wasn’t getting traction in my locale. Same with Warren. Too left—too much baggage.
6
Here's what Dems should be doing. Imagine Trump is the Democrat President. How would Republicans attack him? Because THAT is what will win.
For example, can you IMAGINE what Republicans would say if John Kerry skipped out on serving his country by concocting a phony bone spur report? We'd never hear the end of it!
Dems should be hitting Trump with that CONSTANTLY. Whenever a Dem is on TV for any reason, they should say "unlike our President, who lied about so-called bone spurs to get out of military service. Where's your phony bone spur report, you bloated liar? Where are your tax returns?"
NEVER let anyone forget Trump mocked a disabled person and CAN NOT spell words most of us learned in kindergarten.
Our elections are mud slinging festivals. If you're not going to go on the offensive against Trump, right out of the gate, don't bother running.
9
This is just posturing to get a Cabinet position in the new POTUS' West Wing.
2
I would never vote for her. Socialists always run out of others' money. BUT I will say I think she is well meaning. And pleasant to listen to and look at. Listening to Hillary was like listening to fingers on a chalkboard.
2
Unlikely you would describe a male candidate this way. Much of the animus in these responses seems, to me, based on dislike of women.
If Warren doesn't get in, I recommend pairing her with Beto as a VP pick. Could shore up the liberal base, similar to the way Mike Pence helped lock in social conservative support for the Trump ticket.
I like Liz a lot. But I don't think she can win; even her voice sounds like a squilgee on wet glass. She seems overwrought and melodramatic, which really isn't all that inappropriate, but I think it would turn off voters looking for a strongman, and their name is legion.
Unfortunately, we're not, as a nation, wise enough to vote for a Sanders/Warren ticket, but I believe that a Biden/O'Rourke ticket would put Democrats back in the White House.
Biden/Beto 2020
If the Dems don't get their act together quickly they will all but hand Trump the election in 2020.
5
@northeastsoccermum
Cool!
We once had Bill Clinton for 8 years, who despite his personal faults, Newt Gingrich and the birth of FOX News, delivered prosperity and had this country on track to eliminate our national debt. Then we had the "Gore Establishment Democrats" vs the "Nader Democratic Independents" in the 2000 election...and that delivered us George W Bush...a trust-fund man-child who was asleep at the wheel on 9/11, allowed Cheney's wars, added more crushing debt and was on the clock during the 2008 financial meltdown.
Then as a country we elected Barack Obama, and for 8 years, with zero support or cooperation from the GOP, his policies slowly brought this country back from the brink and re-established a foundation toward economic prosperity, national healthcare and respect once again in the world. Then in 2016...we had the "Hillary Democrats" vs the "Bernie Democratic Independents"...and that (with a little help from Putin) delivered us Donald J Trump...another trust-fund man-child who conned his way with corruption, lies, incompetency and adolescent tweets. He and the GOP dead-end'rs are once again driving this country into a Constitutional and economic ditch, of which we may never really recover from.
All Democrats need to wise up and get smart. Voter apathy, gerrymandering and corruption is the only way the GOP wins elections anymore. If this country, specifically the Democrats, cannot get behind one candidate in 2020...then may god help us all.
7
John Kerry was an exemplary candidate: intelligent, honest, strong, a war hero, experienced, qualified. Take a good look at what the Bushes/GOP did to Kerry w/ Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
The GOP campaigns from the gutter. They aren't honest. They aren't fair. They aren't decent.
We need to win in 2020 - the future of our democracy is in great danger.
Warren has too much baggage, specifically the heritage controversy. Which Warren foolishly resurrected with the DNA stunt.
That's her brand now - "Pocahontas."
Whether it's fair or not, Warren's widely perceived as having lied about being Native American in order to unfairly gain something she didn't really deserve. A cheater. Whether it's fair or not, Warren drags that behind her like an anchor. The same way HRC dragged Bill's lying, the Clinton Foundation, Bengahzi & other junk attached to her. HRC's brains & experience couldn't overcome the baggage that was part of her narrative.
The DNA/Native American controversy is the defining thing everyone knows about Warren.
Trump/GOP have a powerful cudgel to beat her with - the suspicion she lied about who she is to get something she didn't deserve. A cheater. Now an essential part of Warren's narrative.
Don't live in Fairyland about this just because you like her. We lost the world-defining 2016 election because many insisted the good things about HRC outweighed the horrible narrative attached to her.
I'm sorry someone as intelligent as Warren can't see this.
4
Trump and the GOP have successfully branded Warren as "Pocahontas."
That's who Warren is now and will remain to a large part of the electorate - the belief she told a lie about who she is in order to cheat and gain something she didn't deserve. Yes, this is stupid.
But it is what it is and it will be used to beat up Elizabeth Warren every day she's a candidate.
If nominated, she'll lose because of this.
No it's not fair.
Politics isn't fair. Robert Kennedy was murdered. So was John Kennedy. John Kerry's not president. Al Gore's not president. Hillary's not president. None of that is fair.
Warren already has an insurmountable bad narrative attached to her that will cost her the election.
We can rail against how unfair this is for Warren and keep insisting "but there are lots of good things about her! Besides, this isn't fair." Like the HRC campaign's determination to have only the good, fair things about HRC under consideration as if all the bad stories didn't really exist. Which was a pipe dream.
The Pocahontas narrative is welded to Elizabeth Warren and we need to move on and find a candidate not burdened with a defining problem like that.
What we have to lose is the future of our democracy.
3
Let’s not fall for ratings fodder voters
I already sense the media darlings sensationalism surrounding Kamila and Cory.
Not ready.
Like Obama wasn’t ;to go toe to toe debating animal house incarnate.
His presidential missteps and urbane
Detached management style turned off all the military hawks and social club set.
Now we have chaos man in place.
Yes to Elizabeth.
Yes to Bernie. Yes to experience and hutspa.
No more media prepped elections
No more electoral college missteps in your charge to protect us from demagogues and traitors please.
All nominees will have a role in the cabinet and as committee heads and important roles after the election
Ego has to be squelched now for all candidates
And do not attack each other ,just trumpetes
1
"but also which mix of identities should be reflected in the next nominee." Only in the minds of The New York Times writers and editors, who have demonstrated time and again that they are out of touch with the majority opinions in the U.S. (see 2016). Americans care about healthcare, jobs, pensions and taxes. Democrats are concerned about the environment and social justice. The average voter does not care about the "identities" of candidates. The best proof of this is Barack Obama.
10
@Anne Well said!
1
Who said that honesty and competency had no room in politics, just because the currrent cadre of Trumpist republicanism is rotten? Meet Elizabeth Warren, one of several candidates that shall prove there is hope in true democratic values, and an attempt to cut down the odious and deepening inequality we are "enjoying" now, and worsened by money 'unhinged'.
2
Everyone is a know-it-all. Her greatest challenge to overcome is that she is female, period. IMHO, Trump will not even be president in 2020. We've got a long way to go.
1
UGH............one of the worst choices of all the perspective candidates. i agree with a lot of what has been said here. NOT another woman and i think center is the only way Dems will see a win.
3
Sarah Palin has a better chance at winning then Warren. Middle America will never vote for an intelligent, educated, accomplished female. And from the east coast no less! Never. It just won't happen. The left is going to have to elect a candidate who can "dumb it down" to reach the flyover states. Think incomplete sentences and absolutely no big words. George Bush was genius at this. If the democrats want to win they will have to elect a male candidate that is comfortable with guns. If Beto isn't a hunter than I suggest he take it up immediately so he will have photos for the campaign trail. We need to play this one smart.
3
@Oliver
I live in Texas. Beto was only a toy for Cruz to play with. Beto is only around because of the his wife's money.
1
@Oliver "Middle America will never vote for an intelligent, educated, accomplished female."
I can only assume this comment is based on Hillary's loss - never mind the reality that a) much of Middle America will vote Republican regardless of which Democrat is running, and b) the single largest constituency that's abandoned its support for Trump is the one *most* likely to vote for a female candidate: female suburban voters. This was one of the main reasons the Democrats regained control of the House, and there's zero reason to think the calculus here will be any different in 2020.
"The left is going to have to elect a candidate who can 'dumb it down' to reach the flyover states. Think incomplete sentences and absolutely no big words."
Your use of the term "flyover states" says quite a bit. I hate to break it to you, but voters in such states aren't uneducated rubes who need to be spoon-fed policy details. (Perhaps ironically, the American most infamous for this propensity is the New York billionaire currently occupying the Oval Office.) Also, I can only assume you overlooked the fact that Obama was one of the smartest presidents we've ever had -- and won two terms despite being smart *and* non-white.
4
I refuse to support her on account of her previous misrepresentations on federal contract applications. Haven't we had enough of professional liars in Washington? I certainly have.
1
May I point out that the Senator is now in her '70's? Another geriatric candidate in her late 70's when a prospective 1st term will be over? Uh, NO.
4
Let me start by saying I am an independent that held my nose and voted for Hillary. A deeply flawed and divisive candidate. I was not surprised when she lost.
I had hoped the Democrats might actually have done some soul searching and realize that there are a lot of people in this country that are not on one side or the other. Nor do they like what both extremes are pushing.They are sick and tired of one side or the other pushing their agendas down the nations throat.
Yet who is the first Democrat to throw their hat in the ring for the 2020 presidential race but Elizabeth Warren. In my perception a poster child for a far left with an agenda that is as repugnant to me as the current administrations.
What will it take for for the Democrats to see that we in middle long for a someone better.Anyone better! Someone who doesn't have to fabricate a history, by appropriating Native American heritage. Someone that rises above mister Trumps petty put downs rather than fall to his level. Whoever that is I hope they will step forward, and not leave the people of this country with another deeply flawed and divisive candidate to vote for.
5
@Phil "In my perception a poster child for a far left with an agenda that is as repugnant to me as the current administrations."
Your "perception" is way off-base. If anything, Warren's ideology is centrist compared to that of many of the prospective Democratic candidates. And I'm sorry, but how is supporting a more strongly regulated Wall Street and consumer financial protections with actual teeth to them in any way "repugnant"? (or remotely similar to anything the Trump administration is pursuing)
4
Cannot imagine after 4 years of Trump, 4 years of Warren! Think country needs a calmer, more unifying leader.
2
It seems like character, intelligence, experience and policies have little to do with a candidate's viability. It's a vague, ignorant "electability" and marketing skills that count, and got us Donald Trump.
I would be thrilled to have a fighter and brilliant woman like Warren as president, and so should every voter. It's hard to understand where all the hostility comes from...
4
Sam,
"It's hard to understand where all the hostility comes from..."
You are so right. We currently have Mephistopheles in the White House. Commenters are concerned Sen. Warren is not liberal enough (or a socialist), not Native American enough (or too white), too grandma (as opposed to Grandpa Trump), too shrill (where have we heard that before?), too female (???), too educationally elite (as opposed to raised-on-TV Trump?).
Who needs a drink?
3
The majority of the comments so far are in some way opposed to Elizabeth Warren's candidacy.
I find that odd, as she has done nothing but stand strong on the right side of every issue her entire career (consumer rights, worker rights, equality, environmental protections, affordable education, etc... ) Yet most of the most "liked" comments prefer to focus on her age or some other trivial angle, while ignoring her stellar record of achievement. One of the most popular went as far as to call her a shameless "capitalist". This uninformed lowbrow commentary is not the type we usually see on this site that caters to informed readers.
I also see there has been 1192 comments on this article in only 4 hours... This is an unusually high rate of commentary, even for the NYTs. I also see what seem to be a lot of new user names.
Statistical anomaly? I think not.
It seems that there is a high probability that a disingenuous big money anti-Warren hit campaign is behind a good number of these comments and "Likes". After all, the theme of her announcement is centered on eliminating big money corruption in our government and political process. There is motivation for such a campaign. (And let's not forget Putin's paid army of internet trolls.)
No other explanation makes sense.
Let's not allow the powers that be to limit the Democratic field this time around.
PS (I saw much of the same sentiment over at the Huffington Post - also with four times the usual comment rate.)
10
@Jeff - "Big money" would be thrilled to have a Warren nomination, because she would be so unlikely to win. You have it exactly backwards.
1
@Jeff I concur, though I suspect these comments are more likely the handiwork of Russian trolls yet again trying to interfere with the American electoral process. Warren is one of the strongest potential candidates against Trump, and we've already seen what they did to the last accomplished female to challenge him for the presidency.
The Times has taken Facebook and Twitter to task on repeated occasions -- for good reason -- for allowing troll infestations to go unchecked. Might I suggest they consider the possibility that said trolls have now infiltrated their own comments section as well? Yes, I know it's moderated, but I also know their moderators typically allow all comments that aren't openly offensive or vulgar to be posted online.
5
In her video (according to this article), Warren says: "Others, who work just as hard, slip through the cracks into disaster...And what I’ve found is terrifying: these aren’t cracks families are falling into, they’re traps. America’s middle class is under attack. But this dark path doesn’t have to be our future.”
Wow, what a misstep, already! Look at the bleak words she is using: "cracks...disaster...terrifying...traps...attack...dark path."
Such a message will appeal to almost no one. (And I say that as a vehement supporter of Warren and her platform.)
Instead, she should be saying words to the following effect: "Hey, fellow Americans. Let's get this great country back on track and make sure everyone has the chance to succeed. We need healthcare for all! Education needs to be of high quality and affordable! We have great businesses and market systems: let's make them even better by ensuring that they work for us all--for the leaders as well as for the workers, all of whom deserve a living wage and the opportunity to rise up the ladder! We have so much inequality now, but we can bring back more equality by imitating the tax structures of the 1950s, when we still had plenty of economic growth, and everyone paid their fair share! It's gonna be great! WE are great!
Warren won't appeal to voters by portraying America as a dark and evil place (any more than Clinton could with her "basket of deplorables" comment).
You're smarter than this, Professor Warren.
4
I attended several Sec. Clinton events where the theme was Love Trumps Hate. You can't fight vitriol with pleasant platitudes. Have a nice day isn't cutting it.
Not to be too Blind Willie Smith, but Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground sounds about right. We're going down if people don't smarten up and read Elmer Gantry before the Trump crowd starts burning books.
I attended several Sec. Clinton events where the theme was Love Trumps Hate. You can't fight vitriol with pleasant platitudes. Have a nice day isn't cutting it.
Not to be too Blind Willie Johnson, but Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground sounds about right. We're going down if people don't smarten up and read Elmer Gantry before the Trump crowd starts burning books.
1
I like her very much, but I'm remembering for starters how Mitch McConnell banned her from speaking during a debate on the nomination of Jeff Sessions (https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/elizabeth-warren-mitch-mcconnell/index.html). Despite her persistence and complaints from all the Democrats and her supporters, she said she was relegated to being a "non-person" in the debate because she was banned from speaking on this matter. This "reprimand" is just PEANUTS compared to what they will pull in the general election. That goes for Beto as well who lost an election. If you think Texas was tough, the general will be far worse. Think about Hillary who lost twice (once to Obama and then the general). The Dems need a proven winner--someone who can draw huge crowds and massive support but who also has the personality and proven record to take on and triumph over the not to be underestimated opposition.
3
@DLS The Republicans are guaranteed to tar-and-feather anyone and everyone who ends up becoming a serious Democratic contender for the presidency. Period. They'll make mountains out of molehills, and probably won't hesitate to make things up at times. Trump is guaranteed to do the same, assuming he's still in office and hasn't been banned from Twitter by 2020. That alone is no reason to dismiss Elizabeth Warren or any other candidate.
"The Dems need a proven winner--someone who can draw huge crowds and massive support but who also has the personality and proven record to take on and triumph over the not to be underestimated opposition."
In the past two decades, the ONLY Democrat who has successfully achieved all of the above is Barack Obama. But by all means, please feel free to name someone else - ANYONE else - who fits these criteria, in your view.
1
@Jeff Bernie Sanders drew record breaking crowds. Sherrod Brown won handily in Ohio—a republican heartland state. It is true as you say any serious candidate will be tarred and feathered. But the odds of winning are better for some than others. I put my money on these two. And Hopefully we’ll get some more choices in a few months.
I believe her exploratory committee would do well to read through the comments posted here, regarding her announcement to run, that by and large respectfully do not support her in this role.
As a life long Democrat and sometimes Independent voter myself I could not support her for President for many of the same reasons discussed here.
5
@Mr. Bantree: How about supplying us with some of those reasons.
2
@Jeff
The reasons have been well supplied by the comments already posted. One has to simply read through them, starting with the NYT picks.
The 2020 election is arguably the most important presidential election facing this country in a generation. We need to defeat Trump but also to restore the faith that we are not the enemies of each other, irregardless of our political party.
Elizabeth Warren can sometimes be as much a divisive and strident demagogue as is Trump, it is not what this country needs at this time in my opinion.
Like many other Massachusetts residents, I have been a firm supporter of Ms. Warren as our Senator. But I do not believe she is electable nationally.
I hope she will step aside early in this presidential campaign and make way for other more centrist democratic candidates to emerge and create the coalitions needed across the country to defeat the President in battleground states.
6
No way. Not a viable candidate. Her office backed out of supporting a ma state house event for the probable reason that it was a ma Republican sponsored event. despite it being n an innocuous bipartisan event endorsed by many dems. Also, what exactly has she done? Harvard law prof practicing law without a license because she doesn't understand state licensure requirements. Handled the Pocahontas issue in an unbelievably foolish fashion. Unqualified and will not win.
3
I had no idea that being nonwhite automatically means an expertise in the political world! It is this game of identity politics that has dragged me, a former liberal, away from the left.
2
Elizabeth Warren is fiercely intelligent, has a very clear grasp of the woeful situation our country is in, has proposed significant, sweeping legislation to counteract the twin poisons of pay-to-play politics and corporate malfeasance and most important--is not in this for personal aggrandizement, but rather out of her sincere belief in, and dedication to public service.
Her running for president?-- a very bad idea. Why?
Because she is fiercely intelligent, has a very clear grasp of the woeful situation our country is in, etc.
While those are qualities that are extremely attractive to me, they spell "pointy-headed, out-of-touch, socialist" to many Americans. Add in "shrill" and "still, she persisted", and sprinkle in a healthy dose of schoolyard Trump taunts, which will be eagerly taken up by MAGA crowds. Top off with 24/7 ridicule from FOX, Rush, et al.
And...a female Dem. candidate will NEVER prevail against the GOP. And...Dems from MA don't play well in the "heartland", even though that's where Warren comes from (won't help now that she's been branded as an elite Harvard socialist).
Sadly, there is no candidate I can put forward as "the best" choice. In any and every case, a Dem. candidate will have huge obstacles to overcome...the electoral college disadvantage, voter disenfranchisement, chaos at polls (in Democratic districts), 24/7 FOX+Sinclair propaganda and Toxic Trump and his beloved nastiness.
2
@bobg I think you've stated the matter perfectly. It is time to put the blame where it squarely belongs--on our idiotic and vile citizenry who will never elect an intelligent, honest, financially responsible and decent human being.
3
My hunch is that Sen. Warren knows she has zero chance of garnering the presidential nomination, for all too evident reasons (the all too effective 'Pocahontas' caricature' that she has only made stick even more with her poor judgment since then about 'setting the record straight') but is positioning herself to the Democratic Party nominee's choice for VP.
2
Oh brother, the new campaign starting already. Like the 2016 campaign ever stopped. Talking to people recently, a sizable portion express their weariness about or deliberate avoidance of reading/hearing about politics. And now were bracing for what looks like a real stomach-churning tale. Really, does the body politic, whom the campaigns are supposed to serve, want these long affairs? Are the masses consulted on all this? We have the longest campaigns in the world x 10. Those of most developed nations are a couple months, some funded (idealistically?) by the government. Of course in our money-sated (read corruption) system you'll see the amount of money spread around/made by the many different participants that would boggle Einstein's mind.A system maybe mostly about the players that run it. Wrapping up, this is where we are, following the utterly pathetic and ugly 2016 campaign that offered two polarizing candidates. As an average person taught/want to be a good citizen blah blah, you really do want to turn away. Not saying it with any glee...it's like were supposed to be going a great restaurant and then we're served a baloney sandwich with a glass of cheap wine.
2
I respect Senator Warren, but she cannot win. The "DNA issue" was a PR disaster, she will be mocked and swept aside.
2
Horrible idea, just like her DNA test. She would have been a great candidate in 2016, but not now. And Trump will eat her alive. I hope she changes her mind, though I'm also worried that a centrist like Beto might gain traction. We don't need another Bill Clinton.
2
No matter what the virtues, a liberal candidate from Massachusetts won't play in Peoria.
6
@Wayne Spitzer You seem to have forgotten JFK. RFK would have won, too, if the powerful hadn’t wanted him out of the way.
1
That's the best the Democrats have?
Guess 2020 will be a very easy reelection
2
Better left in the Senate. What sort of executive experience does she have and please, not another non authentic politician.
She won't be our candidate. But, I agree with most of her planks. She will also be the tip of the spear in the Trump attack we mount. She is fearless and articulate.
O'Rourke/O'Bama is my preference for 2020. Barack can resign on swearing in and then we can appoint Elizabeth to V.P.
2
@Mark Obama would be ill advised to run for VP, what if Biden chooses him as his running mate and wins and then passes away a month after elected? It is probably unconstitutional. From wikipedia: "Since no president who has served two terms has ever tried to be vice-president, this problem has not yet been decided by the courts." So we actually don't know if it's "Constitutional."
I wish she wouldn't give me the impression she's out of breath, but I do look forward to the fireworks. She better go slow cuz she's going to need every possible return stroke in the book of politics against the greatest insult manufacturer in the history of modern politics. Game on!
The likelihood that the current president will be running for reelection in 2020 decreases with every passing day
I believe that any Democrat nominated will win
2
The Democrats are going to be their own worst enemies. They will shoot themselves in the foot especially when there could be a landslide victory for them in 2020 which has been unintentionally primed by Trump. Sen. Elizabeth has officially kick-started her Presidential bid. But she is the wrong woman (again!) at the wrong time. Both Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders will make great Presidents with their hearts in their right places. But they are way far left to win support from the Trumpistas, rightists or even moderate rightists. Thank God we have Primaries! Of course, there is one candidate who Goldilocks will find it just right - Joe Biden!
She dealt with the Pocahontas problem all wrong. She didn't have to get a DNA test. She should have ignored that question and used the publicity to highlight the issue of missing Native women. That was a test and she failed it.
2
There is much to be admired in Ms Warren. She is highly intelligent, honest & strong willed. Unlike Donald Trump, she seems to be genuinely concerned for the well-being & fair treatment of all Americans, especially those in the middle & lower classes of the economic strata. But, she is a woman & sadly, a large percentage of Americans are not comfortable with a female in the number one role. Mrs. Clinton was arguably one of the most experienced and qualified presidential candidates in American history as an activist first lady for 8 years, 2 term senator representing New York State and Secretary of State under Barack Obama. Yet, she lost to a petty, narcissistic man-child who was arguably the least qualified, least suited and most corrupt candidate in US history.
Trump had already planted the seeds of doubt and destruction about Elizabeth Warren before she even announced her presidential aspirations. Fairly or unfairly, Ms Warren lost significant credibility pursuing her DNA claims of Native American heritage. That being said, she could make a very credible vice presidential candidate to a dynamic and youthful male candidate in the mold of Barack Obama. A Democratic ticket of someone like Corey Booker and Elizabeth Warren is intriguing and would hold appeal for minority, female and young voters.
Bernie Sanders is too old, too white & too socialist for many Americans, Perhaps even more significant is the fact he alienated far too many Hillary Clinton voters
1
@Jeff - It was actually Hillary Clinton and her minions who fixed the primary in order to steal it from Bernie...
2
@Sam C.
Oh, please. Bernie lost and Hillary won fair and square. While there were members of the DNC who favored long time Democrat, Clinton over Independent Socialist, Sanders, no one "fixed" anything. The Bernie Bros and Trump and his deplorable supporters will never let that myth die in order to discredit Mrs. Clinton. Sigh. The Democratic caucuses that Sanders won, however, were possibly won under suspicious means but the entire caucus process is bizarre and sketchy at best.
1
Please, let's stop the nonsense about her DNA report and her backing HRC last time around. I was annoyed that she wasn't more vocal with regard to Bernie since they have many of the same goals, but I can put that aside and concentrate on her achievements. She was the force behind the CFPB and handed the reins over to a competent administrator. They were able to return monies back to people who were owed them. That's action.
Democrats seemed to be enthralled with Beto. Perhaps I've been living in a cave, but I keep up with politics, live in a blue state, and I had never heard of him until the Florida race. Do we actually think voters in red states--the real Americans--would vote for him? Let's face it: Trump and his minions and Fox News will belittle and make fun of whoever runs. The truth is a lame horse could beat Trump if we all just got out and voted for the candidate who will work for the 99%.
Having said that, run Elizabeth!
1
@Cass
Dear Cass,
Actually, Beto ran for the Senate seat of Ted Cruz of Texas. Not Florida.
Jesus Himself could announce, I wouldn't care less, unless He was for:
Campaign finance reform, so we can get most of the corrupt money out of our election system.
No open boarders, so we can control who/when enters the country.
Medical Insurance reform, so we don't become bankrupted by the medical establishment and big pharma.
Race, gender, party, age, Putin, makes no difference to me. Issues do.
2
To a centrist, she has too much baggage .. Next candidate, please. One that has good name recognition, not too far left , honest to a fault, recognized competent to all. one that is aggressive enough to have Trump going off the deep end.
Bill Clinton basically invented aggressive triangulation: the idea that the Dems could incrementally sell out to corporate interests in order to reap campaign contributions and as long as they kept mouthing socially liberal platitudes their base would have no where else to go. This has resulted in a party who couldn't find a single financial executive to prosecute after the greatest criminally induced financial disaster of the last eighty years. Instead they used their control of the presidency, the house, the senate, and the attorney general to let it all slide while the Fed threw trillions of dollars at the perpetrators. The strategy has worked out really well as a game of political chicken for the Democrats, and really horribly for the nation.
The only way to turn this party away from a continual, lucrative slide into corporate subservience is to hand them defeat, even at the cost of Trump. They don't understand, or care about, anything else.
The basic deal being offered by the Democratic party is "vote for our next corporatist shill, or you'll get four more years of Trump." Well I say, no! You give us an actual liberal candidate, who will work for the interests of the middle class, or we will hand you another defeat to the Orange Toadstool. I'm almost positive we won't see Warren or Sanders as the Democratic nominee. In that case I will be voting green; again. Yes, this is what it has come down to.
4
God, please no. I’m a true blue democrat, and in no way does she represent the Democratic Party. She is self serving and only interested in furthering the interests of those who are self absorbed...a current boutique industry. I have more North American indigenous blood flowing through me than what she claims to have. If she does have native ancestry, then she certainly is fighting against it. She is clueless about the way. It would be telling her to stay humble, and that her moment passed long ago.
3
Misogynist is when you vote against a woman because of her gender. It is not misogynist to vote against someone who has little in common with the needs and interests of the Democrat base. We need women like the ones who went into the neighborhoods and places where those people live and work. Who get where the pain is among low and middle income people. I swore at the last presidential election, I am becoming a nonvoter if Democrats again nominate the type who come into town for tea and big bucks in Beverly Hills.
I can't wait to vote for Elizabeth Warren for president. Don't let the republicans write her out with their false narratives. She is amazing!
2
@rockstarkate She IS amazing.
American voters however, are NOT amazing. American voters are the opposite of amazing. That's the issue.
2
Speaking as a Massachusetts resident who despises the current occupant of the White House, the idea of Senator Warren as a presidential candidate is only slightly less nauseating than the possible candidacy of Hillary Clinton. It isn't because she can't win (which she can't), and it's certainly not because she's a woman. It's because she is profoundly annoying, preachy, uninspiring, and appeals only to that self-righteous elitist crew of upper middle class white liberals--i.e., the Clinton crowd. Listening to her makes me wince. And the DNA incident proved to me she is entirely lacking in political savvy. I supported Bernie. He also should back off; he served a useful purpose, but now his time has passed. As it stands, none of the Democrats are of interest to me, but for the sake of the country I hope that changes.
3
I don't want a candidate who I like.
I want a candidate who can win against Trump.
Elizabeth Warren is the perfect person for Trump to caricature. He will work her up in a self-righteous frenzy - he often already has - and it will be 2016 all over again. Trump needs to face someone like Joe Biden, someone who can pack a punch at Trump's level and beat him at his own game.
I hope Elizabeth Warren does not run for president.
Ms Warren needs to get out of the way - before Democrats once again spent all their time fighting one another and let another GOP take White House.
This woman is already toast due to her “American Indian” fiasco. Warren will never be elected and her ego and troublemaking will undermine Democratic chances in 2020.
Sad to see this free for all already starting
Have we learned nothing from the Hillary fiasco? This nation will not elect a schoolmarm, regardless of how good she is on the issues. Sad to say, but we need someone who will get our blood up. Senator Warren is not that person.
3
The cognitive dissonance in comments from Trump supporters is exhibit 1 for why she MUST run.
Their views?
Warren dishonest. Trump honest.
Warren shrill. Trump calming.
Warren extreme. Trump mainstream.
Got it?
She needs to remain in the race as long as possible to drive Trump's obsession with her and provide breathing room to the other candidates, while he focuses his wrath on her.
Because we all know;
Warren mean. Trump nice.
Now that Elizabeth Warren has announced her intentions of running, one would expect any moment now the "Third Way" Wall street, corporately controlled democrats to begin her demonization. They have already started on Bernie Sanders and he hasn't announced yet whether or not he is even running. One has to always remember the corporate/establishment and their minions are very fearful of progressives especially when it comes to Warren's going after the big financial institutions, hence they will do or say anything to maintain the "status quo".
Once all the democratic candidates are announced, check for those that continue to accept corporate/super pac money and strike them off your list of possibilities, otherwise if not and one of them wins the primary, expect another FOUR years of Trump and his chaos.
3
While I appreciate Sen. Warren's work, I believe she should stay in the Senate. If nominated, Trump would have no trouble contrasting himself with her. Contrast is Trump's stock-in-trade (whether it's real or imagined).
1
Love her feistiness, but not right for top of the ticket. The pendulum needs to stop a little towards the middle to win, and winning is what is required first. Maybe a VP candidate, at this time.
2
There was already a consensus that Warren can't win against Trump long before this announcement, so the fact that nearly all the top comments here are against her candidacy is no surprise.
Elizabeth Warren doesn't inspire me; Bernie Sanders has inspired millions, and he's healthy as a horse. Biden might be leading in the polls but he's had health issues, so if he doesn't run, I'm predicting a Sanders-Harris ticket. It's time to save this county and this planet!
3
I have never liked Warren as a candidate, but I have to say i am warming up her. If she can get past the Native American fiasco, I think she may have a chance. I think she has some good "retail" campaigning skills. We'll see.
In any case, I'll vote for anybody against Trump. That's a pretty low bar.
3
I really like Elizabeth Warren. She is smart, independent, and a fierce critic of Donald Trump. I think we should listen to what she has to say - I think most Americans will agree with her.
5
Love her policy stances, but I dread a Nixon vs. McGovern redux if she becomes the Dem nominee.
3
I'm afraid that doubt will champion her day, but I am wholeheartedly ready for and psyched to vote for a woman of her caliber.
1
Unfortunately, I simply think that the US is not yet ready for a woman president. I wish that weren't so, but I feel deeply that it is.
1
"Elizabeth Warren is one of the most knowledgeable public policy experts in the United States."
Hillary Clinton was also considered to be the most qualified candidate with tremendous domestic and foreign policy expertise. Her accomplished resume didn't get her into the White House. People have had enough of these coastal Ivy League elitists. There is a wide swathe of rural Americans in flyover states who voted for a man devoid of any discernable policies apart from the easy-to -understand sound bites which resonated with people in a visceral way.
3
Where is Mario Cuomo? His political experience, age, and demeanor is in my opinion what a presidential candidate should look like. He governed New York, what better qualification is there?
Warrens talk about corporations and corruption although accurate and well-intentioned does not address health-insurance, inequality, loss of jobs, educational opportunity, affordable housing, defense spending, immigration, and the environment. She looks too nice, and a little milquetoast.
The Pocahontas nick name will not be forgotten and will follow her throughout the campaign. She looks like another HRC and the good ole boys will not vote for her, same as last election. Trump will stalk her like he did Hillary, it will not be pretty and will cost her the election.
1
@Peter
Where is Mario Cuomo?! He died 5 years ago! Glad to see the Dems are so au courant.
3
@Peter - Mario Cuomo passed away some time ago....
2
@Sam C.
Mario the Magician? He resurrected himself, and is better than son #1.
1