Once Again, Elizabeth Warren Says She’s Not Running For President And, Once Again, Nobody Will Listen

Elizabeth Warren said once again that she's not running for President, now or in the future. That's not going to stop the efforts to draft her, though.

Elizabeth Warren

In an interview with Fortune magazine, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren says yet again that she isn’t running for President and doesn’t plan to, but that’s unlikely to deter the efforts by some in the Democratic Party to draft her to run:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has now rejected a 2016 presidential campaign in both the present and future tenses.

The Massachusetts Democrat has for months gently patted away questions about her presidential ambitions with a present-tense “I am not running for president.”

But in an interview published Tuesday in Fortune magazine, Ms. Warren gave a categorical response to the future-tense question: “Are you going to run for president?”

No,” Ms. Warren responded to Sheila Bair, the former FDIC chairman who conducted the interview.

Ms. Warren’s apparently firm rejection of a future presidential campaign breaks from her previous hedged answers, in which she said she was not at that moment running but did not appear to rule out launching a campaign in the future.

Of course, prior disavowal of presidential ambitions didn’t prevent then-Sen.Barack Obama from joining the 2008 campaign he eventually won. Nor has it stoppedMitt Romney from discussing a 2016 run after firmly ruling it out many times since losing the 2012 race.

While polls show Ms. Warren far behind presumed Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, Iowa’s Democratic leaders are hungry for Ms. Warren to join the race.

Of course, this latest pronouncement from Warren, which joins countless others she has made in the past and precedes others she will no doubt make in the coming months, isn’t deterring the people trying to get her to run:

Her supporters appear undeterred. A joint statement from MoveOn.org and Democracy for America, e-mailed by DFA’s Neil Sroka on Tuesday, said: “Sen. Warren has been clear for years that she isn’t planning on running. If she were running, there wouldn’t be a need for a draft effort. We launched the Run Warren Run campaign to show Senator Elizabeth Warren the tremendous amount of grassroots enthusiasm and momentum that exists for her entering the 2016 presidential race and to encourage her to change her mind.”

And, of course, careful readers of the Fortune interview may well notice that the senator did not say “never, ever” or “in 2020,” or “no way, no how.” Stay tuned.

The truth, of course, is that Warren could say no a billion times and it still won’t end the speculation about 2016. Perhaps the only thing that will bring it to an end is if, not long after Hillary Clinton enters the race as most people expect her to some time in the coming months, Warren appears at a rally with her and endorses her for President that will finally bring the speculation in the media, and all of the “Ready for Warren” nonsense to an end once and for all. Until then, the speculation is likely to continue for several reasons. A big reason for that, of course, is the simple fact that the political media loves a good story and the possibility of a populist challenge to the seemingly inevitable nomination of Hillary Clinton would make for a great political story. Since there’s no actual campaign to report on yet, and we’re more than a year away from the first actual votes of the 2016 race, it’s inevitable that the political media will focus on something like this.

The second reason that the speculation, and the movement, is not going to end any time soon is one that I noted last month:

Finally, there is the simple fact that there is a vocal wing of the Democratic Party that at least wants the 2016 race to be something other than a coronation, and for a so-called “progressive” voice to be part of that race. For many, the natural candidate for that role is Elizabeth Warren, and they are likely to keep pushing her to run notwithstanding her denials until the very end, or until another candidate such as Brian Schweitzer or Jim Webb comes along to take up the “progressive/populist” banner. None of these candidates is likely to have much of a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton, of course, but the hope is obviously that they will be able to force her to address issues that she otherwise might ignore during a primary campaign where she is not seriously challenged.

Given this, there really isn’t any reason for these groups to give up on their efforts to push Warren to enter the race no matter what she might say in public and despite the fact that she is taking absolutely none of the steps that one who is seriously considering a run for the Presidency might take at this point in the election cycle. As Greg Sargent notes at The Washington Post, the groups that are pushing the Warren fantasy are unlikely to give up on it because, as long as this is the case it really doesn’t cost them anything to keep pushing the idea of a Warren candidacy and, as I’ve noted, this movement isn’t really about Elizabeth Warren so much as it is about trying to push the Democratic Party in general, and Hillary Clinton specifically, in a more “progressive” direction on issues like Wall Street regulation and income inequality. Warren is merely the surrogate for that agenda at this point, and, indeed, it would be quite easy for these groups to transfer their loyalty to someone else when it become finally apparent that the Senator from Massachusetts is not getting into the race for the White House. Until that time, though, expect this silliness to continue.

FILED UNDER: *FEATURED, Campaign 2016, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. Tillman says:

    As Greg Sargent notes at The Washington Post, the groups that are pushing the Warren fantasy are unlikely to give up on it because, as long as this is the case it really doesn’t cost them anything to keep pushing the idea of a Warren candidacy and, as I’ve noted, this movement isn’t really about Elizabeth Warren so much as it is about trying to push the Democratic Party in general, and Hillary Clinton specifically, in a more “progressive” direction on issues like Wall Street regulation and income inequality.

    It’s going to cost them soon. They’re being incredibly obnoxious in their emails about drafting Warren. Not only is it easily seen through as a fundraising ploy, but the longer it goes on the more childish these groups come off as.

    I understand dignity left politics some time around when Cicero farted in the Senate chamber to uproarious applause, but this is absurd.

  2. Gustopher says:

    I think it shows that the mainstream left is not terribly enthused about Hillary Clinton, otherwise holding out for someone further left would not be a good fundraising strategy.

    I find it hard to separate her policies from her husband’s (what does she think about interns, for instance? Ok, cheap shot, but I honestly hope she is as free to pursue something on the side as Bill is), and am not looking forward to more Wall Street Democrats, triangulation, increasing police, and decreasing benefits.

    But I’d rather have Elizabeth Warren in the senate, overseeing Wall Street, and someone else to the left of Clinton in the White House.

  3. michael reynolds says:

    Warren is out if Hillary is in. It is still possible that Hillary will decide against a run, in which case I’ll bet you your favorite bottle of Scotch that Warren is in. The pressure would be irresistible.

  4. James Joyner says:

    @michael reynolds: Yup. As a reflexive Republican, I simply can’t envision myself voting for Hillary unless we nominate a truly loathesome candidate. Meanwhile, I actually genuinely like Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Manchin. If the Democrats nominate Manchin, in fact, I’m pretty much on board unless we nominate Jon Huntsman. But that’d be storybook, man.

  5. Scott says:

    I like Warren but I do think she is and will be more effective in the Senate than in the presidency.

  6. michael reynolds says:

    @James Joyner:

    Manchin vs. Huntsman? Next we can hope for a Beatles reunion.

  7. Scott says:

    @James Joyner: So you’re basically for the sane candidate regardless of party. Sad to say, so am I. The pickings are slim on the Republican side.

  8. Kylopod says:

    The reason a lot of people don’t take seriously when potential candidates boldly declare they’re not running for president is the long history of candidates who have gone back on such claims. Just in the past week, we had Romney making motions to enter the race after more than a year and a half of telling people another White House run was absolutely ruled out. In 2005 and 2006, a certain Senator Obama kept telling the press he wouldn’t run in 2008. This isn’t a new pattern: having people run for president after repeatedly saying they wouldn’t goes back a long, long way. Personally, I think it’s a remnant of the early days of the Republic when candidates didn’t even campaign for themselves, and when they were finally elected would act as if they were accepting the presidency purely out of a sense of civic duty. In the present day, there’s a tricky balancing act being played, because candidates have to be cautious about jumping in too early and deflating their momentum. That’s why you see all the stages where they’re not running, maybe running, exploring a run, and finally making it official. It’s silly, but it’s the way our system works.

    With respect to Warren, I agree that it will all depend on whether Hillary runs or not. As far as I’ve seen, nobody ever gets punished for walking back promises not to run for president, so if she wants it and it looks feasible, she may well do it in the event that Hillary doesn’t run.

  9. Tyrell says:

    Around here people I talk to have never heard of her. I would want to know what she would do about ISIS and other terrorist groups. Would she favor a middle class tax cut. How about North Korea ?
    Nobody seems to know much about her and what she is thinking.

  10. Scott F. says:

    @James Joyner:

    Perhaps you could explain the appeal of Joe Manchin to me. He advocates for a balanced budget amendment, then goes on to say we must live within our means without touching entitlements or defense.

  11. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tyrell:

    The middle class already enjoys ridiculously low real income tax rates.

    Don’t believe me? Run this scenario through your favorite tax calculator:

    Married couple, with two minor children. Father earns $65,000 and mother does not work. Factor in no credits or extraneous deductions. Report back with their effective tax rate.

    (Hint: it’s about 4%).

    Toss in the various additional credits and deductions available (mortgage interest, child care expenses, etc.., which are NOT a part of that 4% analysis), and it can easily hit zero or go negative, so I’m not buying it.

  12. Pinky says:

    Not taking “no” for an answer is an option? I didn’t realize that. Excuse me, Representative Ryan, come back here a second…

  13. wr says:

    @Scott: Joe Manchin is the “sane” candidate? So by sane you mean “a wholly owned subsidiary of the energy industry”?

  14. anjin-san says:

    I have a hard time seeing Warren going too far at the national level. It’s a shame, as she is one of the few pols in DC worth getting excited about.

    Keep an eye on freshman congressman Mark DeSaulnier, who represents my district. I had some dealings with his office when he was our county supervisor, and was very impressed. He struck me as a straight shooter who is serious about serving his constituents.

  15. michael reynolds says:

    @wr:

    We have a very weak bench. We have Hillary who is frankly looking and sounding weary. We have Warren who I would support. We have Manchin who’s not a bad dude and could cut the GOP’s throat by taking some southern realty. We have Andrew who I’m sorry is not Mario Cuomo and will lose us places like Wisconsin and maybe Virginia. Jerry Brown’s a hundred years old. Biden I like, but seriously, as a candidate? Mark Dayton who is barely known in Minnesota? Patty Murray?

    If Hillary bails we are in serious trouble, and with her we’re in serious trouble unless the Republicans help us out by picking Ted Cruz. I am not seeing a woman who is serious about the sheer physical energy required to run and win. If she tries to coast we will get beat by Jeb or Mitt.

    Manchin would not be bad enough to lose any blue territory, and he can cut into red territory. He looks like such a hillbilly we could take Georgia. Manchin-Warren 2016?

  16. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Fauxcahontas speak with forked tongue.

    Plus, in addition to her years of lying about her ethnicity for personal advantage, she has an equally entertaining history of academic fraud and spent several years apparently practicing law without a license.

    Media Matters, of course, rushed to her defense and found someone to argue that the rules don’t really apply to her, but that is only to be expected. (Heading off the inevitable citation of the left-wing smear merchants as if they have some kind of credibility.)

  17. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    LOL, that tired old “practicing law without a license” bullshite again …

    I’ll give you this much – you’re consistent.

  18. Just 'nutha says:

    @James Joyner:James, your party is going to nominate either a Mitt lookalike or a Ted Cruz lookalike (probably the former) and you are going to hold your nose and pull the lever. Stop kidding yourself.

    You are a “reflexive republican.” Own it and be proud or figure out how to change.

  19. Just 'nutha says:

    @wr: Why yes, now that you mention it, he does mean that.

  20. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @HarvardLaw92: She was representing clients, but didn’t bother to pay her bar dues. But yeah, the rules are for the Little People, not the Beautiful People.

    Especially Beautiful People who commit academic fraud and ethnic identity theft in the service of The Little People. It’s wrong — and probably racist and sexist — to expect them to live by the same rules as the rest of us.

    Especially the rules they write.

  21. Tyrell says:

    @anjin-san: “getting excited about”: just what has she done that is so exciting ? I haven’t seen hardly a thing about her in the news.

  22. Gustopher says:

    @Tyrell: Warren has a few areas of expertise, but is not well rounded, yet. That seems like a Senator to me.

    And, we need a couple of good, strong liberals in the Senate.

  23. Gustopher says:

    @michael reynolds: We had a weak bench in 1992, once Mario bowed out. I’m not a big Clinton fan, but I wouldn’t be surprised if one of our less known politicians turned out to have potential again.

    Our weak bench isn’t crazy, just not well accomplished.

  24. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    “Representing clients” has a very specific, very defined meaning. Warren’s activities don’t really test those limits, for a variety of reasons

    1) The work in question was not before the Massachusetts courts, but instead was in the federal courts. There is no indication that Warren entered into any agreement with a client to represent him/her/it in a Massachusetts matter. For that matter, there is no indication that Warren entered into an agreement for representation with – or directly provided legal services to – anyone.

    2) Unlicensed attorneys who provide consultancy services to licensed attorneys, who then advise their clients based on said information (which is what Warren did …) are NOT engaging in the practice of law without a license. They become ancillary subject matter experts acting in a consultancy role – no attorney / client relationship exists.

    Your guy Jacobson is on a witch hunt, and, frankly, he’s an idiot.

    You have a history of citing questionable experts with regard to subject matter that you clearly do not understand or have any degree of expertise in, so maybe you’ll want to consider accepting that you are out of your depth here.

  25. jewelbomb says:

    @Tyrell:

    what has she done that is so exciting ?

    This was pretty big news just yesterday. Seriously, I don’t know what you consider to be “the news,” but she’s basically been omnipresent in the media since she was elected.

  26. michael reynolds says:

    @HarvardLaw92:
    You know, when you spank Jenos like that he has to switch to a sock puppet.

  27. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    While you’re at it, call up your buddy Jacobson and let him know that filing an amicus brief isn’t considered to be practicing law. Likewise acting “of counsel” …

    Being a law professor, you’d think he’d know that already …

  28. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Probably. I generally ignore him, but when he wades into my pool acting like he’s Johnny Weismuller – well, I’m going to poke holes in his floaties …

  29. jukeboxgrad says:

    Jenos:

    she has an equally entertaining history of academic fraud and spent several years apparently practicing law without a license

    You have an “entertaining history” of relying on worthless sources. You gave us two links to William Jacobson. He’s a joke. Anyone in any doubt about where Jacobson is coming from should review his multiple posts calling on Obama to release his birth certificate, while also claiming that he’s not a birther (link, link, link). More information about his credibility is here. The pattern with Jacobson is that his claims fall apart when examined.

  30. jukeboxgrad says:

    Jenos:

    practicing law without a license.

    And with regard to this specific claim: Jonathan Adler is no friend of Obama, but here you can find him pointing to an analysis that dismantles Jacobson’s accusation.

  31. wr says:

    @michael reynolds: I don’t think there’s any constituency in the Democratic party for Manchin. Who does he appeal to, other than coal miners who hate black folks? And why would a single Republican vote for him? As they say, if you’re going to choose between a Republican and a Democrat pretending to be a Republican, you go for the real thing every time.

    And you can cross Cuomo off the list. It’s turning out he’s Chris Christie with a better diet… but every bit as corrupt. There isn’t a lot that DQs you from running, but creating an ethics commission, and then closing it down once it gets close to your buddies… that’s one of them.

    I’m not wild about Hillary, but I don’t see her coasting through this. I think she knows there’s not point in starting to run before the gun goes off. If she starts hiring people like Mark Penn, then I’ll be concerned.

  32. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @wr:

    I’m not really buying the viability of Manchin, although as a moderate I do tend to like moderate candidates.

    He just doesn’t buy us much. If we’ve proven anything over the last 8 years, it’s that the Democratic Party no longer needs the South to win national elections, so there’s nothing to be gained by enlisting Manchin that can’t be obtained elsewhere at a lower overall cost.

    I’m not thrilled about Clinton either.

  33. michael reynolds says:

    @wr: @HarvardLaw92:

    Same concern about Penn.

    I think it’s a difference between a strategy of going for the win, and a strategy of going for the kill. Right now we are down to a handful of swing states. The killer, the big one, is Florida. But Ohio could still flip, Wisconsin tends to be in play, Colorado and Virginia, too. I think an energized Hillary takes them all, no problem. But so does any moderate Democrat who can campaign.

    But a lazy Hillary could lose one or two. We’d still win, but we wouldn’t crush.

    And there’s North Carolina and Georgia out there, too, not far out of reach. If we take NC and GA, both, the GOP doesn’t just lose, they’re gutted. I don’t like a war that doesn’t involve aggressive action to finish off an opponent. I think the GOP is fatally sick and needs to be put out of its misery so a new conservative party can rise in its stead.

    Now, I’ve never seen Manchin campaign. He may be a dud. But if he has chops someone out of right field like that, he would bring us West Virginia, maybe NC and GA.

    Hillary if she’s up for it. Warren if Hillary doesn’t get in (with a very different strategy obviously.) But if Hillary isn’t it, and Warren isn’t it, tell me who’s more it than Manchin? I’m just not seeing much talent out there.

  34. michael reynolds says:

    @wr: @HarvardLaw92:
    You guys know what this is? This is Fantasy Football for politics nerds.

  35. wr says:

    @michael reynolds: West Virginia has all of 6 electoral votes. Ohio alone has 18. So in order to win those precious six, you give up any chance of actually motivating anyone who is slightly to the left to actually get out and vote for the dem.

    What’s his campaign platform? “Hey, pay no attention to the catastrophes happening all over the planet — Exxon says there’s no climate change, and they’re paying for this ad! Also, I really hate the fact that poor people have heath insurance. Oh, and when cops kill black folks, it’s clearly the black folks fault because cops are infallible.”

    Joe Lieberman would have been a better candidate than this guy. What’s his appeal? That he’s a “moderate”? That means he votes with Republicans to kill health care — yeah, let’s go campaign on that!

  36. wr says:

    @michael reynolds: “You guys know what this is? This is Fantasy Football for politics nerds”

    Well, sure…

  37. Tillman says:

    @michael reynolds: You know, I think FantasySCOTUS has us beat a bit.

  38. Liberal Capitalist says:

    My .02, for grins…

    @Kylopod:

    The reason a lot of people don’t take seriously when potential candidates boldly declare they’re not running for president is the long history of candidates who have gone back on such claims…. That’s why you see all the stages where they’re not running, maybe running, exploring a run, and finally making it official. It’s silly, but it’s the way our system works.

    Maybe it’s late, but that logic just reminded me of the Monty Python / Holy Grail “She’s a witch!” bit

    Except here we would have to ask: Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of (political) science?

    Anyway, back on topic…

    I really don’t get the whole Ms. Clinton thing.

    Sure, I would like to see Ms. Warren run, but notwithstanding I just can’t get all behind Hillary.

    I mean, c’mon… is that really the best we have to put out there? Most of the reasons WHY people tell me that I should consider Hillary a candidate still baffles me. It’s a good resume, but not one that makes me feel that she is the best we could have.

    As a former Michigander, I think Granholm would have been great, but there is that whole Article 2 Section 1 argument that I don’t want to hear. And she has stated that she would not run.. But of course, that brings back Kylopod’s point, right?

    So, if she weighs as much as a duck, then she’s made of wood, so she’ll float… then… she can run!

    Of course, what do I know… I thought Edwards would have been great and THAT just went south fast.

    @James Joyner:

    …unless we nominate a truly loathesome (sic) candidate.”

    James, the way the GOP is going right now, pretty well any candidate that will make it out of that scrum will be loathsome.

    But don’t worry, The GOP has two years of majority to show their cards and convince Americans that their clown car should not be in the lead of the American parade.

    Leave it to our clown car. We’ve been doing pretty well the last 6 years.

  39. Gustopher says:

    @wr:

    I don’t think there’s any constituency in the Democratic party for Manchin. Who does he appeal to, other than coal miners who hate black folks? And why would a single Republican vote for him? As they say, if you’re going to choose between a Republican and a Democrat pretending to be a Republican, you go for the real thing every time.

    I don’t see how Manchin gets the nomination, other than a brutal bloody fight that destroys two better candidates. But, if he manages to get the nomination, I would vote for him. Hold the nose, and fill in the little oval on the ballot. I might only donate money to down ticket races, though.

    Actually, I am in a safe state, so I might go with a protest vote for whatever socialist or green or whatever lefty fringe candidate gets into the race. But if it looked like it might matter at all, I would vote for him.

    Even a bad Democrat is better than a Republican these days.

  40. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Well, I guess if you have the right connections, you can act kinda-sorta like a lawyer, even to listing an address as your “law office,” without actually having to pay your dues and be a real lawyer. Hell, she missed a great opportunity — she could have had the disbarred Bill Clinton “Of Counsel” of her UnPractice.

    And with all the fixation on that point, isn’t it nifty how the academic fraud and decades of falsely claiming Native American heritage for professional and financial advantage get conveniently swept under the rug?

    For those who may have missed it, Warren spent years claiming to have Native American ancestry — including being acclaimed as Harvard’s first Native American law professor — until her run for the Senate and someone had the racist and sexist audacity to ask she actually prove that ancestry. Ever since then, that particular aspect of her life — which had been one of her key bragging points — is now a taboo subject.

    But all that doesn’t matter, of course. She’s a hardcore devoted leftist with the right credentials who says all the appropriate things about the wealthiest people (like herself — net worth in excess of $14 million), so she’s obviously destined to be a progressive hero.

  41. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @michael reynolds:

    To wit, starting from 2012, we could lose Florida, Virginia and Ohio, yet STILL win the presidency.

    I feel where you are coming from, but on some level I don’t see it happening. We still have a divided electorate, with an energized sub-opposition determined to believe that water isn’t wet. The only way we defeat that over the long term is to allow it to fail, publicly and in spectacular fashion – such that its supporters can’t ignore the fallacy of their beliefs any longer.

    If they happen to go off of the ideological deep end and alienate just about everybody but the bible thumpers in the process, well so much the better.

    I tend to be a long term thinker – a strategist – it goes with the job, and I’m willing to trade a short term wander through the wilderness if it means that I get to drown Pharaoh in the Red Sea down the road. We’re at a tipping point, societally speaking, with a dying fringe opposition which is as much of a burden to sane Republicans as it is to the rest of us, so if it takes a bit of excess to encourage the Pubs to throw their crazies under the bus once and for all, so be it. Of all the lies that they tell themselves on a daily basis, the one about them being the great, powerful majority is the most heinous – and the most deadly for them in the long run.

    Aside from a deep-sense of antipathy towards the South, to which I will readily admit, I just don’t see what wasting time and resources buys us there. It’d be rather like sending missionaries to an al-Qaeda camp. All you get in return is dead missionaries. I’m not interested in working with them. I want them eradicated politically, and my best chance of getting that is to give them the rope with which they will hang themselves.

  42. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    isn’t it nifty how the academic fraud and decades of falsely claiming Native American heritage for professional and financial advantage get conveniently swept under the rug?

    Aside from both of them being invented non-issues, the only people remotely motivated to care about (or indeed believe) either of them are fringe dwellers who were never going to vote for her to begin with, so, truthfully, who cares?

    I’ll take it from your complete avoidance of the legal discussion that you’ve seen the light of your own failure in that regard, and wisely decided to (lamely) try to change the subject with this drive-by?

  43. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Liberal Capitalist:

    As a former Michigander, I think Granholm would have been great, but there is that whole Article 2 Section 1 argument that I don’t want to hear

    I like Granholm as well, but there is no Article II argument. As a naturalized citizen, Granholm is absolutely ineligible for the presidency. No wiggle room there.

  44. Tony W says:

    @HarvardLaw92: There is something appealing about Warren, in that she scares the bejezzus out of the right in the same way Obama does, and Hillary for that matter with their factual, logical approach.

    You are correct that the aging right-wingers are a lost cause but their kids might be won over with Warren’s likeability + logic.

  45. Mikey says:

    @Tony W:

    Warren’s likeability

    I just don’t see it. I don’t like her at all. I find her populism condescending, and her manner patronizing.

    Still, given the likely assortment of reprobates the GOP will put up, I’ll have to keep an open mind about her, should she eventually decide to run.

  46. Moosebreath says:

    I don’t see Warren running, and I don’t think I want to. I’d rather she stay in the Senate and be Teddy Kennedy’s successor as liberal touchstone.

    Manchin does nothing for me, and I don’t see him appealing to enough Democrats to win a nomination. He’s the Democratic equivalent of Mark Kirk, who has to be so moderate to have a chance in his state that he has no chance nationally.

    I know Martin O’Malley is still making noises like he wants to run. I don’t know enough about him, but I like the idea of someone credible running against Hillary, both to keep her from moving too far to the right, and to keep the Democratic primary visible, so the media over the next year and a half is not dominated by Republican candidates saying how awful Obama is.

  47. James Joyner says:

    @Scott F.: I don’t pay much attention to the domestic politics of individual Senators. He’s very reasonable on foreign policy—neither a reflexive hawk nor a knee-jerk isolationist. He’s also been a governor–and by all accounts a successful one—so I presume he’ll be a competent pragmatist on domestic policy.

  48. James Joyner says:

    @Just ‘nutha: I’d almost certainly vote for a Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney type. I’d vote for Biden, Manchin, Martin O’Malley, or any number of non-Hillary Democrats over Cruz. I’m not offhand sure who I’d choose, if anyone, in a Hillary-Cruz matchup.

  49. Facebones says:

    @michael reynolds:

    We have Manchin who’s not a bad dude and could cut the GOP’s throat by taking some southern realty.

    Stop. No matter who the Dems nominate, the GOP will go into overdrive to paint them as the most liberal candidate since Chairman Mao. Outside of Florida and Virginia, there are no states in the South the Dems can realistically take.

  50. Facebones says:

    @James Joyner: Please. You’d vote Cruz and you know it. Stop pretending.

  51. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @michael reynolds: You know, when you spank Jenos like that he has to switch to a sock puppet.

    OK, time for a full, willful violation of the Terms of Service here.

    Kiss my ass, you worthless twatwaffle. You and the other idiots keep accusing me of changing names around here, and every single time it’s tested, you’re proven to be just making up shit. At this point, the only reason for you to do it is because you see that it usually provokes a somewhat ill-tempered response, and that is the purest definition of “trolling.”

    Find a new schtick. I wouldn’t issue that challenge to wr or Cliffy, but you’re a semi-creative sort. I’m sure you could find one.

  52. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Aside from both of them being invented non-issues, the only people remotely motivated to care about (or indeed believe) either of them are fringe dwellers who were never going to vote for her to begin with, so, truthfully, who cares?

    And why are these two shining examples of gross dishonesty “invented non-issues?” Here are two theories:

    1) They make her look bad, so we don’t talk about them.

    2) She’s a liberal Democrat, and lying is actually a resume enhancer.

    Two of her major career highlights were based on lies, both perpetuated to advance her career.

    But such things are only detractions for conservatives. Viva la double standard!

  53. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Facebones: Stop. No matter who the Dems nominate, the GOP will go into overdrive to paint them as the most liberal candidate since Chairman Mao.

    And whoever the GOP nominates will be painted as a right-wing fascist Tea Partier womyn-hating pro-life American Talibaner. It’s how the game is played, ya wuss.

    So quit your whining.

  54. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Jenos Idanian at 11:16 AM: Kiss my ass…. You and the other idiots keep accusing me of changing names around here…. you’re proven to be just making up shit. At this point, the only reason for you to do it is because you see that it usually provokes a somewhat ill-tempered response, and that is the purest definition of “trolling.”

    Jenos Idanian at 11:25 PM: It’s how the game is played, ya wuss. So quit your whining.

    My, what a difference nine minutes can make.

  55. Rafer Janders says:

    @James Joyner:

    As a reflexive Republican, I simply can’t envision myself voting for Hillary unless we nominate a truly loathesome candidate

    Loathesome how? Maybe someone who advocates and orders the kidnap, torture, rape and occassional murder of helpless and often completely innocent prisoners? Someone that loathesome?

    Nah. James would still vote for him, and gladly. We all know it. James knows it. Why pretend otherwise?

  56. Neil Hudelson says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    Not as quick as his change from “Obama should’ve been at the Paris rally!” to “Empty gestures are detrimental, which is why Michelle Obama is the WORST!”

    I believe that time span was only 10 minutes, and his comments were even back to back.

    His ability to be completely dishonest at all times compartmentalize is breathtaking.

  57. Pinky says:

    @Rafer Janders: Cheap shot.

  58. Rafer Janders says:

    @Pinky:

    Cheap shot.

    Almost as cheap a shot as claming that the commenters here would treat the murder of two police officers as a Christmas present?

  59. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    And why are these two shining examples of gross dishonesty “invented non-issues?”

    You mean aside from the fact that there is no substantive, meaningful evidence that either accusation is true?

    Note: the ravings of insane bloggers do not count as substantive, meaningful evidence. Trying to save you the trouble of breaking out the cut-n-paste.

    You’re flinging poo. Enough said.

    Next?

  60. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tony W:

    Indeed – the fact that the rage-o-sphere wasted no time in repeatedly attacking her (Warren) on multiple fronts lets me know that she’s a viable candidate – one who scares the crap out of them.

    If nothing else, the debates between her and the Republican candidate would be breathtaking to behold.

  61. Mikey says:

    So, as I said, I have to keep an open mind about Warren. So I read the Fortune interview (linked in the first story excerpt in the main post) and was actually a bit impressed. In fact, I agreed with her quite a lot.

    Still, I don’t think she’ll run–she seems to relish the spoiler role she’s playing, and will probably want to stay where she is.

  62. al-Ameda says:

    I believe that Elizabeth Warren (notwithstanding her ‘not running’ remarks) has a chance (25%?) to win the Democratic nomination for two possible reasons:

    (1) Hillary Clinton is not particularly good on the campaign trail, and
    (2) at some point do people get tired of the Clinton and Bush dynasties?

    The 1st Female President factor would be neutralized if Warren is the nominee, presumably the same people who would vote for Hillary would vote for Elizabeth. Some would believe that Hillary is entitled to the path to the White House, but there are no guarantees. On the other hand, I find that Warren is not that compelling as a public figure. Still, if Hillary is 1, Warren is probably 2.

  63. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Did Warren spend years claiming Native American heritage? Yes.

    Did Warren repeatedly exploit that claim for personal benefit, under Affirmative Action quotas and other such regulations that gave her an advantage over those without such ethnic status? Yes.

    Was she touted as Harvard’s first Native American law professor after she was hired? Yes.

    Did she stop making that particular claim during her Senate campaign, when reporters actually asked her for proof that she had the heritage she had claimed and used to her advantage? Yes.

    Did her staff immediately declare all questions about her ethnic heritage off-limits and taboo once those claims started being challenged? Yes.

    And as for the academic fraud… that was busted back in 1990.

    FWIW, the professor who busted her was very much sympatico with her beliefs, so you can’t smear him as some partisan smear artist.

    But go ahead, nominate Granny Warbucks/Fauxcahontas. It’ll make the campaign incredibly entertaining.

  64. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Rafer Janders: Forgive me for thinking that there might be higher standards for commenters here among each other than those applied to rabid partisans going after national candidates.

    But as you note, and I said… I usually make a point of observing the rules around here. That once, I chose to act like several others do and choose to freely flout and violate them for a specific purpose.

  65. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Moosebreath: I don’t see Warren running, and I don’t think I want to. I’d rather she stay in the Senate and be Teddy Kennedy’s successor as liberal touchstone.

    She’s got the wealth part of the Kennedy formula down. I haven’t heard about the drunkenness angle, and to the best of my knowledge she hasn’t killed anyone, so she has a way to go.

  66. Gavrilo says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    If nothing else, the debates between her and the Republican candidate would be breathtaking to behold.

    I agree. I’m dying to hear a lecture on income inequality from someone worth between $3.7 and $10 million. I can’t wait to listen to someone rail against Wall St who has millions of dollars invested in mutual funds. I’m always interested in hearing about plans to help the middle class from someone who owns a home assessed at $1.9 million.

    Elizabeth Warren = Friend of the working man!!

  67. anjin-san says:

    @Gavrilo:

    I’m dying to hear a lecture on income inequality from someone worth between $3.7 and $10 million.

    While you are waiting, you might want to break out a high school level US History textbook. In it, you will see that wealthy Democrats have indeed been able to work successfully on behalf of the middle class, the working class, and the poor. Start with FDR and go from there.

  68. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    freely flout and violate them for a specific purpose.

    To indulge your love of whining?

  69. Scott says:

    @Gavrilo: Of course, her net worth is just the place to argue against inequality and Wall St. That is why Teddy Roosevelt (as well as FDR) were able to be progressive and do something good in their presidencies. This argument that one cannot be both well off and progressive is just ahistorical and silly.

  70. Pinky says:

    @Rafer Janders: There’s a difference in describing how political campaigns are run and making up stories about online identities. Or, if you will, there’s a difference between saying “both sides do it” and doing something that seems to be exclusively a move of the OTB left.

  71. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    She’s got the wealth part of the Kennedy formula down. I haven’t heard about the drunkenness angle, and to the best of my knowledge she hasn’t killed anyone, so she has a way to go.

    Deficiencies abound. In a minor patrician/elitist shortcoming, she has not installed a car elevator in her home. In a non-minor non-ethnic identity item, she has not leveraged debt to acquire companies, subsequently sold off their assets, fired thousands of workers, and sold the companies off, thereby making hundreds of millions of dollars for herself and her colleagues.

    She certainly does have a long way to go.

  72. Rafer Janders says:

    @Pinky:

    If you could run this through garble-to-Englsh translator I might be able to respond. I can sense you’re trying to say…something….but really have no idea what.

  73. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Jenos at 11:16: “At this point, the only reason for you to do it is because you see that it usually provokes a somewhat ill-tempered response, and that is the purest definition of “trolling.””

    Jenos at 13:09: “She’s got the wealth part of the Kennedy formula down. I haven’t heard about the drunkenness angle, and to the best of my knowledge she hasn’t killed anyone, so she has a way to go.”

    Maybe we have it all wrong. Maybe Jenos doesn’t have multiple sockpuppets. Maybe there are actually multiple people posting under the name. That’s really the only explanation for this kind of instant contradiction.

    Oh, or maybe he really doesn’t care about a thing he says, and thus can change his attitudes from second to second, depending on what he thinks will be the most annoying to human beings.

  74. Scott says:

    @anjin-san:

    In it, you will see that wealthy Democrats have indeed been able to work successfully on behalf of the middle class, the working class, and the poor.

    As well as wealthy Republicans. See Rockefellers and Oyster Bay Roosevelts.

  75. Neil Hudelson says:

    @Pinky:

    You’re saying that claiming commentators here view the death of police officers as a Christmas present is now a “political campaign?”

    Ok, I’ll bite. What is your campaign’s website? Does it have a campaign manager yet? Policy positions?

    This is now my go to excuse for making up stuff.

    “I know I said Pinky liked to touch little boys, but it’s different when it’s part of a political campaign.”

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    But as you note, and I said… I usually make a point of observing the rules around here. That once, I chose to act like several others do and choose to freely flout and violate them for a specific purpose.

    Yeah, you’re such a stickler for the TOS that you were banned under your last screen name and had to come slinking back with your oh-so-subtle “Jenos Idanian.”

  76. Pinky says:

    @Rafer Janders: You’re making a false equivalence between (a) Jenos saying that all campaigns portray the opposition unfavorably, and (b) Reynolds accusing Jenos of using multiple names.

  77. Pinky says:

    @Neil Hudelson: (Sigh.)

    See my last comment to Rafer. I wasn’t talking about the whole NYPD thing (as I’ve said, I’m not going to bother responding to the tangent-bait every time), but to Rafer’s false equivalence. Maybe I didn’t write that comment well, but it doesn’t seem like you’re even trying to understand.

  78. Pinky says:

    And you know what? Maybe there’s a reason that it’s hard to understand why my Comment A to Rafer’s Comment B comparing my Comment C to Comment D from moths ago, rather than rather than comparing Comments E and F from above, was hard to understand. Maybe we should be trying to untangle knots rather than add new ones. (Even now, I’m thinking that I missed at least one iteration.)

  79. Neil Hudelson says:

    @Pinky:

    Your second comment cleared it up. To be fair, you were responding to a response to a response (well, you get the idea), so your reply really didn’t make any sense.

    That said, it’s still rich that you complain about cheap shots while accusing others of being enthralled by police officers deaths, so, yeah, it probably doesn’t look like I’m even trying to understand because, frankly, I’m not.

  80. Pinky says:

    @Neil Hudelson: Are you saying I shouldn’t bother reading your comments from now on? or reply to you? Because all this untangling isn’t worth the effort if you’re not interested.

  81. Neil Hudelson says:

    @Pinky:

    I honestly couldn’t care less. Get down with your bad self, anyway you choose.

  82. Rafer Janders says:

    @Pinky:

    You’re making a false equivalence between (a) Jenos saying that all campaigns portray the opposition unfavorably, and (b) Reynolds accusing Jenos of using multiple names

    Oh my gosh, was I making a false equivalence? I can’t imagine how hurtful that must be to Jenos Idanian or to you….

  83. Pinky says:

    @Rafer Janders: Great; now that you’ve thought about it, you’ll keep an eye out to make sure you don’t do it again?

  84. grumpy realist says:

    Well, this thread ran off the rails pretty quickly….don’t we have other things to do?

  85. michael reynolds says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    As a “semi creative” I feel I should point out that “twatwaffle” is a singularly ineffective insult.

    As a straight male with a sweet tooth, the word “twatwaffle” conjures up for me a lovely melding of warm fluffiness mixed with luscious melting butter and maple syrup. Also waffles.

    (Rimshot!)

    And that’s how we semi-creatives do it.

  86. anjin-san says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Well, this thread ran off the rails pretty quickly

    Yea. That seems to happen when the drama queens show up.

  87. Neil Hudelson says:

    @michael reynolds:

    I don’t think he was trying to insult you, he was just trying to be honest. I do believe multiple book critics have described you as a “lovely melding of warm fluffiness mixed with luscious melting butter and maple syrup.”

    If the shoe fits…

  88. CET says:

    @michael reynolds:

    While I could see voting for a single candidate who was the mathmatical average of Manchin and Warren (Webb perhaps?), I think the Manchin/Warren ticket would be too bipolar.

    I can think of a lot of things they would disagree on (energy and environmental policy, abortion, guns, corporate regulation…) and I can’t help but picture the Bartlett/Hoynes relationship from the West Wing, with the conflict dial turned up to 11…

  89. Mikey says:

    @grumpy realist:

    don’t we have other things to do?

    Judging by the number of comments on the “OMG OBAMA DIDN’T GO TO PAREE!!” post…no.

  90. Pinky says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    garble-to-Englsh translator

    Hey – I just realized that the reason my comment didn’t make any sense was because I was describing your non sequitur accurately. I guess the funny part is that you couldn’t recognize it when I paraphrased it back to you.

  91. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @wr: Or, as Pinky noted, I see a distinction between talking about national public figures, especially those with well-established flaws and peccadilloes, and just making random insults against people here.

    If it would make you feel better, I could go on at length about your various shortcomings and failings, to the exclusion of the topic. It would be another violation of the TOS here, but it might be more familiar to you…

  92. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @michael reynolds: I owe you an apology. I’m not sure where the hell that particular insult came from (I’d blame it on the hospital food here, but it’s actually damned good, and once discharged I might occasionally come back and hit their cafeteria), and it really doesn’t work well and I respect and agree with your refutation of it.

    But back to the “sock-puppeting” thing. It’s never achieved anything besides irritating me (and getting some of the regular idiots here to parrot you). If there was a shred of truth to it (like my pointing out how Cliffy seems to have a free pass from the TOS or wr being gobsmackingly stupid) I could see why you’d use it, but the only reason I can see for you to keep saying it would be because you enjoy the reaction it garners. And that is pretty much a textbook definition of “trolling.”

    But back to Warren… faked an ethnic heritage for personal gain, faked a bunch of her first major academic work, and didn’t bother to get/maintain her law license while still doing lawyery stuff. Plus, somehow she racked up a personal wealth into eight figures while doing nothing of real productive value and excoriates the wealthy (like herself) for not sharing the wealth. Oh, and she claims to have created the “intellectual foundation” of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

    Yeah, what an ideal modern progressive. PLEASE, let her run!

  93. anjin-san says:

    @ Jenos

    I’ve got an idea. Why don’t you just head on back to “Ace” and let the grownups talk? They have some dandy right wing homo-erotic chatter going on today. Go for it dude.

  94. Phillip says:

    If you’re looking to draft a dark horse, Sherrod Brown is your man. Probably as opposed to it as Warren, but he really does have the right stuff.

  95. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “If it would make you feel better, I could go on at length about your various shortcomings and failings, to the exclusion of the topic. It would be another violation of the TOS here, but it might be more familiar to you…”

    Of course it would be familiar. It’s what you fall back on when your “arguments” have been laughed off the internet. Interspersed, of course, with lectures on how you are the only one who writes posts with substance and how sad you are that other people feel the need to stoop to personal insults, and whatever fleeting nonsense passes through that puddle of neurons you call a brain.

    Of course, you generally get to something witty like “You’re so stupid you’re stupid. Because you’re stupid. Stupid stupid stupid.” And then you claim you’ve out-argued everyone else here and leave the thread.

    Honestly, is it really possible that you are this unaware of yourself?

  96. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: @wr:

    Sod off, Swampies.

  97. michael reynolds says:

    @wr:

    I was going to say he’s basically a five year-old, but honestly, my son at five would have argued rings around him.

  98. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Is Swampies a brand of waffle?

  99. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Here’s some advice from someone who is probably a little older than you. Don’t be a dick, Then people won’t treat you like one.

  100. Tony W says:

    @wr:

    Oh, or maybe he really doesn’t care about a thing he says, and thus can change his attitudes from second to second, depending on what he thinks will be the most annoying to human beings.

    Or maybe he delights in living rent free up in our heads.

  101. Liberal With Attitude says:

    When your fastball zinger is calling someone “Fauxcahontas”, you really are in trouble.
    And I’m talking Jacobson, not Jenos.
    (Then again, have we ever seen them together?)

  102. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @wr: That was actually a vaguely clever comeback, and as such I will acknowledge it and actually take it seriously.

    It was a reference to this infamous incident involving the legendarily stupid Occupy movement.

    I get the feeling I’m going to be facing a lot of “waffle” references in the future. And as I now won’t be allowed to have waffles any more, it’s going to be particularly painful…

  103. jukeboxgrad says:

    Neil:

    it’s still rich that you complain about cheap shots while accusing others of being enthralled by police officers deaths

    For the benefit of readers who aren’t regulars, I’m going to point out that you’re talking about this:

    If some of you guys believed the things you’ve typed over the last few months, two dead cops should be like an early Christmas present for you.

  104. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: I missed that comment by Pinky. Thanks for bringing it up.

    Although I’m somewhat curious why you’d bring it up, when he nailed the mentalities of some of the regulars here so well.

    Oh, yeah. It’s unfair to make connections between mobs chanting “WHAT DO WE WANT? DEAD COPS! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!” and a couple cops getting killed. Just like it’s unfair to try to draw a connection between militant killers shouting “ALLAHU AKBAR” and Islam.

    The obvious connections to draw, of course, is between people who believe in gun rights and cop killers, and religion in general and the jihadists. Some day I hope to be wise enough to understand why that is so…

  105. jukeboxgrad says:

    I’m somewhat curious why you’d bring it up

    “I’m somewhat curious why you’d” falsely claim that I brought it up.

    It’s unfair to make connections between mobs chanting “WHAT DO WE WANT? DEAD COPS! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!” and a couple cops getting killed.

    Since you like to “make connections” you should address the “connections” I described here and here.

  106. jukeboxgrad says:

    Gavrilo:

    I’m always interested in hearing about plans to help the middle class from someone who owns a home assessed at $1.9 million.

    Link:

    Besides a focus on helping the poor [Romney] told people he would build a new campaign around … supporting the middle class …

    Others have given you a better answer, but I think this answer should also be here.

    The difference, as history shows, is that when rich Democrats say this they actually mean it.

  107. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Oh, yeah. It’s unfair to make connections between mobs chanting “WHAT DO WE WANT? DEAD COPS! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!” and a couple cops getting killed.

    Well, it’s certainly monumentally stupid. But if you can show that Ismaaiyl Brinsley was in that little group of protesters, which represented a tiny fraction of the the overall protests, you might be on to something. I will stand by.

  108. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: The “connection” I drew was that the people who did the chanting would, logically, celebrate getting what they were demanding. And those who supported the chanters and their chant would also welcome the deaths they called for.

    Not necessarily a causal relationship, but insightful into a mindset.

  109. Pinky says:

    @anjin-san:

    I’ve got an idea. Why don’t you just…let the grownups talk?

    Oh, I didn’t realize you were serious about your irony meter being broken. My condolences.

  110. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    The “connection” I drew was that the people who did the chanting would, logically, celebrate getting what they were demanding

    Umm. No. This is what you said:

    Oh, yeah. It’s unfair to make connections between mobs chanting “WHAT DO WE WANT? DEAD COPS! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!” and a couple cops getting killed.

    That’s a pretty clear link you are attempting to make between the protests, and the actual murder of the police officers. You did not say anything in your comment about satisfaction over the deaths on the part of protesters.

    If you are going to lie, at least put a little thought into it.

  111. anjin-san says:

    @Pinky:

    If you post often enough, the law of averages says you will eventually say something clever. Don’t give up…

  112. Grumpy Realist says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: are you a lawyer? If not, then please keep quiet before slinging around terms like “the unauthorized practice of law.” Have you passed the MPRE? Then you have no idea of what you are talking about.

  113. jukeboxgrad says:

    Jenos:

    those who supported the chanters and their chant

    Show us “who supported the chanters and their chant” other than those exact chanters.

    And since you like to “make connections” you should address the “connections” I described here and here. Maybe this time you won’t dodge the question.

  114. grumpy realist says:

    Sorry, but I get really annoyed when people with NO background in law start opining on stuff they clearly have no knowledge about. “The unauthorized practice of law” is something that has been defined by the ABA and case law, and has its safe harbors and exceptions, just like every single other regulation I’ve run into. Jenos (like usual) has NO IDEA of what he is talking about, and I wish he would stop slinging around stuff and making wild claims in areas he has no experience in.

    He sounds like the idiots who scream “First Amendment!” when the CEO of a company says something racist/sexist/otherwise stupid and then gets fired by the Board of Directors. No, there is NOT a First Amendment right in this matter, you sillies….

  115. Tillman says:

    Maybe it’s just the Thai stick, but it seems like there’s an undue amount of acrimony in the air.

  116. superdestroyer says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    A family of four with a total income of $65 K probably does not have a mortgage since $65K will not quality one for enough of a mortgage or puchase any type of housing outside of the worst neighborhoods. Besides mom is probably working which means that every dollar of social security insurance she pays is waste (she would get the same benefit as a SAHM).

    A family of four living on $65k is in reality a poor family and is, as Senator Warren argues, one mishap away from bankruptcy.

  117. Moosebreath says:

    @superdestroyer:

    “A family of four living on $65k is in reality a poor family”

    Fascinating. You are saying that over 60% of American households are poor. That does not seem consistent with the fact that over 2/3rds of US households own their own home.

  118. Louis C DePasquale says:

    I am going to start off by saying I am a moderate Republican who leans to the right on some issues. It would be in the Democrats best interest if Elizabeth Warren stayed out of the Presidential race. First of all she is a one issue candidate and secondly her condescending approach to people will not play well outside of the North East. Hilary is old and tired with health issues but she can get the nomination and beat a number of the GOP candidates on the right. Where she runs into problems is with a challenge from her left flank. I know this goes against the grain but I think she will also have problems if Jeb Bush is the nominee. He is an articulate man who will appeal to conservative Democrats concerned by the liberal direction the party is taking. He will also have a strong appeal to Hispanics in swing states. That is assuming he can survive the Republican primaries in southern states. I think people will be surprised by Jeb he isn’t Mitt Romney and will not move right to appeal to conservatives. His attempt will be to move swayable conservatives to his positions. His campaign will succeed or fail on that effort.

  119. wr says:

    @Louis C DePasquale: “I think people will be surprised by Jeb he isn’t Mitt Romney and will not move right to appeal to conservatives”

    Jeb Bush has already demonstrated that his conservative principles include the belief that government has the right to forcibly interfere in the most intimate family matters of private citizens as long as he disapproves of the decisions made by that family — no matter what the law says.

    Please, Google “Terri Schiavo” and explain to me Jeb’s firm belief in limited government and personal freedom.

  120. jukeboxgrad says:

    Jeb’s firm belief in limited government and personal freedom

    As you know, the GOP concept of those things is highly elastic. Here are some other illustrations.

    See, a government that tries to enforce court orders against a scofflaw rancher is a government that is too powerful and a threat to liberty. True patriots must defend Cliven Bundy’s right to be a freeloader. Likewise for the right to not photograph a gay wedding, and the right to not pay for health insurance that covers contraception. Stand up for freedom from government tyranny! On the other hand, a government with the power to torture (and then cover it up) is not too powerful and not a threat to liberty.

    ‘Conservative’ rhetoric has so many contradictions that even the contradictions have contradictions.

  121. superdestroyer says:

    @Moosebreath:

    A family with two kids trying to live in a good neighborhood with good schools is much poorer than a retired couple living on $65K a year or a single 20-something living in Brooklyn, NW DC, or SF.

    The key is that a family of four with a total income of $65k and without a working spouse is generally poor. Such a family faces very long odds trying to complete with the upper class elites and the tiger moms so that their children will not be even poorer.

  122. grumpy realist says:

    @superdestroyer: They’d be much poorer if they had a working spouse and still were only clearing $65K…..child care would have to be paid for.

    The idea of having a working spouse is that hopefully she can bring in MORE income above and beyond the original $65K, enough extra to offset the child-care costs, nu?

  123. Moosebreath says:

    @superdestroyer:

    “The key is that a family of four with a total income of $65k and without a working spouse is generally poor. Such a family faces very long odds trying to complete with the upper class elites and the tiger moms so that their children will not be even poorer.”

    No, they are generally middle class. Yes, their chance to compete with the upper 10% is poor. One party is trying to do something about it. One party is totally fine with it, and indeed wants to magnify the differences between the middle class and the economic elites. Hint — you support the second.

  124. superdestroyer says:

    @Moosebreath:

    There is nothing that the Democrats are doing that is going to help a lower middle class family of four with two children. Open borders and increased immigration will not raise their pay or increase their employment prospects. Increasing the cost of energy (in the long run) will not help. No social engineering in the public schools will not help the children compete in the world market or compete against the private school educated children of the elite.

    The main goal of the Democrats is to make having children such a lousy deal economically that middle class people will stop having children. If you look at birthrates for whites for each state, the bluest states have the lowest fertility rates for whites. Progressive policies means giving up having children and grandchildren. It does not make having children easier.

  125. Moosebreath says:

    @superdestroyer:

    “There is nothing that the Democrats are doing that is going to help a lower middle class family of four with two children.”

    Your statement is only true in worlds where Democrats do not support:

    1. Obamacare.
    2. Stronger unions.
    3. Shifting tax burdens from middle class taxpayers to upper class ones.
    4. School funding which is more evenly distributed between richer and poorer districts.
    5. Workplace health and safety protections.

    That is not this world we live in. The rest of your comment is your typical race-determines-everything nonsense