Even though 2016 is still so far away, and 2014
remains a seriously pressing battle, there is still
much interest in the 2016 Presidential race because, well, that's how it goes. There's a major difference between Presidential and nonPresidential turnout, and so it goes with general interest. And without fail, whenever there is a discussion on 2016 here in Dailykos, you will invariably see (or more likely if you're reading this diary, write)
a comment expressing support for an Elizabeth Warren run for President.
However, without any real plan, one that address the realities of the political implications, this is nothing better than a pipe dream. And worse, by pining over a Warren Presidency that has no hope for even getting off the ground, we risk dividing our forces over an endlessly futile debate. So long as Hillary Clinton continues to sport such overwhelmingly strong numbers, we should commit to her as the candidate.
Of course, the only other alternative is to commit to improving Warren's numbers, and that is not going to happen with wishful comments and infighting, but hard work, and an actual plan.
So, if you really want to keep on fighting this battle, for even a slim, minute chance that Elizabeth Warren will run for President, here's a dose of reality for what you need to accept and take to heart.
Elizabeth Warren will not run.
As kos has pointed out on more than one occasion, Elizabeth Warren has not expressed interest in running for President, and based on her personality and goals, it is extremely unlikely that anything that happens between now and 2016 will do anything to change that.
Of course, kos was also one of the first to call for drafting Wendy Davis for Texas Governor. And sure, he would probably be one of the first to remind us that there are some very clear differences between Wendy Davis's situation and Elizabeth Warren's, for instance, that Davis expressed a willingness to run. And he would be right to point them out.
Then again, you could also point to the rhetoric kos uses for why Wendy Davis should run for Governor, and apply much of the same rhetoric for why Elizabeth Warren should run for President:
But this is bigger than just getting rid of Baby Cruz, it's about accelerating trends that will eventually make Texas purple, then blue, whether Republicans like it or not (see here, here and here). But why wait until 2024 if we don't have to?
And that's what Wendy Davis represents: the kind of inspiring progressive leader Texas has lacked for a long time, one who promises to activate those Democratic-leaning voters who refuse to participate out of apathy, weariness, or loss of hope that anything can improve their lives. But with Texas corporate interests flooding the zone, victory will require hands-on work from every able progressive Texas, and the financial support of the rest of us in the other 49 states.
But in the end, if Elizabeth Warren won't even throw her hat in the ring, this is all trivial. And who could blame her?
Elizabeth Warren will face a brutal uphill campaign.
A lot of the proponents of a Warren candidacy like to point to the uphill battle Obama faced in 2008, and how he managed to win, as evidence of the viability of a Warren candidacy. However, what made his battle less uphill was that he enjoyed the strong backing of the Capitalist Establishment, something Elizabeth Warren is not likely to enjoy. In all likelihood, they would put their full force into backing Hillary, rather than risk Warren even getting close to the nomination, and then if she did, putting all their eggs in the Republican basket. So a Warren run for President means not just weathering attacks from the full Conservative machine, but the full brunt of the Wall Street machine as well.
Of course, in a lot of ways, even with this support, Barack Obama still faced a brutal uphill campaign in 2008, and even in 2012, and of course, Hillary Clinton has already been targeted by some serious attacks. So no matter who the Democratic candidate will be in 2016, they will probably face a brutal campaign as well.
But it's not like Elizabeth Warren has any experience waging an uphill electoral battle or anything.
Elizabeth Warren can do more good in the Senate than anything she could do as President.
The people who make this claim point to all the accomplishments she has already achieved as a Senator as reason why she should stay there. Sure, she would likely have such similar opportunities and maybe even moreso as President to shape similar progressive policies. But let's face it, the flexibility and longevity that comes with being a Senator far outweigh the opportunities to shape the agenda of the entire country, to issue executive orders, to appoint key administrators in every agency, and judges at all levels of the judicial branch, even potentially one or two Supreme Court appointments, and all the perks that come with being a President.
Sure, most people with only a general understanding of US politics would find such a claim outrageous. And really, it practically just sounds like consolation for people who actually would want to see Warren, or another true Liberal like her, run for President, but have cynically dismissed this based on the current likelihood of such prospects.
But really, what could she really look forward to as President, other than having a basketball court in her house?
A Democratic Primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren would be catastrophic.
As kos mentions, a battle in the Democratic Primaries could be a major distraction from battles further down the ticket, and within the states. And as we have seen recently in the Republican Primaries, there is a risk of losing precious ground in the Primaries that can't be made up by the average backpedaling in time for the Generals. For example, the Primaries made it practically impossible for Romney to campaign on Romneycare, probably his most validating achievement.
Of course, kos also pointed out a major difference: while a GOP primary lately means each candidate floundering further and further to the right and further away from the general electorate, a Democratic primary fight would actually mean the candidates moving further to the left, but closer to how the general electorate actually feels.
And what often gets overlooked is that the Primaries often shape the agenda well into the General Election. By avoiding a pitched battle between two Liberal heavyweights on home territory, Democrats would be missing out on an opportunity to showcase some of their best ideas and proposals and leadership qualities, since Democrats have more control over the agenda and policy issues that gain coverage and attention in their Primaries than in the General.
But obviously, so long as Hillary is the overwhelming favorite, a serious primary battle should be avoided at all costs. After all, we wouldn't want to risk Clinton, or whoever the nominee is, having to stake their position too far to the Left than they would prefer. That's just not what a primary season is for.
Even if Warren makes it through the Primaries, she will need to tack to the Center in the General to win.
The conventional wisdom is that the eventual nominee will have to move back towards the Center to win enough independent and undecided voters to win the General election. Of course, what the conventional wisdom really means, is convincing the major corporate funders and their lackeys to give you their financial and political backing because you won't rock the boat too much. In doing so, we may lose the Elizabeth Warren we fought so hard to nominate in the first place.
Of course, the recent victories of Populists such as Bill de Blasio and Kshama Sawant suggest that campaigns that target the income inequality and economic populism that have drawn all the blistering Establishment attacks, the type of campaign a candidate like Elizabeth Warren would likely run, can overcome even the Establishment pocketbooks these days.
But if you are really serious about a Presidential run, the only logical move is to get in line with the large Corporate funders, that is, if you want to win. What point is there in running if you don't intend on winning?
If Warren becomes the Democratic candidate and loses in the General, Liberals will take all the blame.
As if convincing Warren to even run, and then beating Hillary and/or the Establishment favorite and/or all the other Democrats in the Primaries weren't hard enough, none of that guarantees that Warren will defeat the GOP candidate. And if she were to lose, Moderates would just use this as evidence that Liberalism and Populism were the reason for electoral defeat, and that could prove disastrous to the overall path of the Democratic Party in the long run.
Sure, it might seem like a great idea to choose a candidate who most closely exemplifies all the values the Party claims to represent for the highest office, because that person always ends up being the standard bearer for that party in most people's minds for years to come, Democrat, Republican, and Independent alike. And sure, no matter who ends up winning the nomination, if they lose to the Republican, Liberals will likely get a lot of the blame either way.
But it's not like running a Liberal campaign that remains true to Democratic principles but loses could in any way be more beneficial than a moderate campaign that actually wins but might have to alienate some of its base supporters in the process. Well, other than establishing a precedence of integrity and strong commitment that would last the Party far longer and endear far more supporters to it than a single electoral victory ever would.
These are the realities that a Warren candidacy face.
In the end, you can still hope against the allest of all odds that Elizabeth Warren will run for President. But you would be fighting against the combined efforts of not just the entire Right Wing, but most likely the Corporate Wing as well. You would be committing to a very organic, boots-on-the-ground, grassroots campaign. You would be combating all sorts of prejudices, against women, against unconventional politicians, and against an unabashedly liberal partisan. And you would be doing all of this for a person who probably doesn't even want the job, and doesn't even have the ego and unscrupulousness that it normally takes to run for President.
Let's get real. Is that what you really joined the Democratic Party to do?
Edit: Per Erich's suggestion in the comments, I'm going to cut to the chase.
If all you're focused on is the Elizabeth Warren has said that she will not run, what are you even accomplishing? She says she won't run. So what? That's about as constructive as the wayward comments calling for Warren to run.
A lot can happen in two years. People can bow out, endorsements can show up from the most surprising places, things change. Even Hillary hasn't officially announced that she will run in 2016. Hell, a lot can happen in the 8 months until the midterm elections. Even Hillary didn't announce her 2008 run until after November 2006. Neither did Barack Obama. So, let me just say, if all you can say is that she says she won't run, that's not exactly the same as having a good argument for why Elizabeth Warren shouldn't run, or that Democrats shouldn't want her to run.
And I don't buy into the idea that such 2016 speculation now detracts from the fight we have in 2014. It doesn't matter what year it is, people care about Presidential elections. Voter turnout proves it. And after all, I agree with kos that if Dems want to win in 2014, Democrats have to get their base to turn out. But here's an idea: one of the ways to energize these voters, is to get talking about the most promising leaders we have today. Presidential Primaries, especially when they are spirited and clash of the titan-esque, are one of the best vehicles to highlight these leaders and accomplishments, and energize loyal base voters. Ask yourself, isn't that the kind of Primary you want?
The real question isn't will she or won't she run. The real question is, do you want her to run?
I don't care how you answer that question, only how your actions reflect your answer.