Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Playinghardball

(11,665 posts)
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 06:53 PM Jun 2015

Elizabeth Warren won’t be president. But the Senate may not be her final destination.

Even the Draft Warren folks now accept it: Warren won't run. But she may have a new job come 2017 anyway

Several months ago, supporters of an Elizabeth Warren presidential candidacy detected some glimmers of hope in their bid to convince the Massachusetts senator and liberal favorite to take her fiery brand of progressive populism to the national stage. Though Warren insisted she wasn’t seeking the nation’s top job, political grammarians couldn’t help noticing that Warren spoke only in the present tense. Sure, Warren may not have been “running for president” in October 2014, but who knew what mid-2015 held in store? While Warren was remarkably disciplined in sticking to her pat “I’m not running for president” response, she even spoke, rather cryptically, of “amazing doors that could open” down the road. Moreover, Warren’s pre-midterm campaign swing — notably including stops in Iowa and New Hampshire — stoked speculation that it was the prelude to something larger.

But it was not to be. Even as organizers of the Draft Warren campaign raised funds and set up shop in early primary states, Warren herself never took any serious steps toward mounting a presidential run; she did not set up anything resembling a national campaign infrastructure, nor did she make any additional forays into early-voting states. In recent months, she became more emphatic in spurning entreaties to enter the race, even going so far as to couch her answers in the future tense. On Tuesday, the Draft Warren folks conceded to reality, with the campaign’s leaders announcing that they would end their efforts next week, after they delivered one last plea.

For some of Warren’s most ardent fans, this turn of events isn’t quite as unwelcome as you might think. To be sure, many progressive activists dissatisfied with Hillary Clinton saw Warren as their only viable hope of dislodging the Democratic frontrunner. But amid the Draft Warren push, many of the senator’s devotees maintained that she was right where she belonged — holding bankers’ feet to the fire, sounding the alarm about soaring income inequality, and holding presidents from her own party to account from her perch in Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat. Much like the late liberal lion, who represented the Bay State for 47 years, Warren could demonstrate that you don’t need to be president to prove an effective agent for progressive change.

More here: http://www.salon.com/2015/06/02/elizabeth_warren_wont_be_president_but_the_senate_may_not_be_her_final_destination/
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Elizabeth Warren won’t be president. But the Senate may not be her final destination. (Original Post) Playinghardball Jun 2015 OP
So...where is she headed? I read the article but my poor old iPad can't handle that site. Stardust Jun 2015 #1
my guess is that she wanted to be that engine of change that happened because she was CTyankee Jun 2015 #2
Speculation about being a Clinton appointee: beam me up scottie Jun 2015 #3
Supreme Court would be a nice fit for her! n/t KatyMan Jun 2015 #5
In my dreams! beam me up scottie Jun 2015 #6
No president would appoint someone that old to the SC. former9thward Jun 2015 #11
Thank you. If we can't have her as president, an appointment such as Treasury Secretary Stardust Jun 2015 #17
Please no milquetoast, effectless adminstration position brentspeak Jun 2015 #4
Actually, she's pretty powerless right now Cali_Democrat Jun 2015 #7
Actually, as senator, she can still shape legislation brentspeak Jun 2015 #8
She can't shape shit with the GOP in control of the committees Cali_Democrat Jun 2015 #9
She can still shape the legislation, despite your statement brentspeak Jun 2015 #12
Anything that truly reigns in the banks, would be voted down in committee. Cali_Democrat Jun 2015 #13
I think I'll take my chances with her remaining in the Senate, thanks. brentspeak Jun 2015 #14
LOL. I wasn't trying to convince you that Warren should leave the Senate Cali_Democrat Jun 2015 #15
You responded to my post brentspeak Jun 2015 #16
Imagine her in the Attorney General's chair. hifiguy Jun 2015 #10

Stardust

(3,894 posts)
1. So...where is she headed? I read the article but my poor old iPad can't handle that site.
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:19 PM
Jun 2015

I wasn't sure what the author was implying...

CTyankee

(63,926 posts)
2. my guess is that she wanted to be that engine of change that happened because she was
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:26 PM
Jun 2015

there, a thorn in the side. I firmly believe she thinks this is her destiny and that she can make the change she has so long wanted. I believe this with all my heart and soul. I believe in Elizabeth Warren.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
3. Speculation about being a Clinton appointee:
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:26 PM
Jun 2015
That choice may well present itself come late 2016. Let’s say President-elect Hillary Clinton wants to reassure Democratic liberals that her populist campaign proposals weren’t mere election-season rhetoric; tapping Warren for a top economic post (perhaps even Treasury secretary) would send a surefire signal that her administration would follow through on progressive priorities like financial reform and tax fairness. For Warren, there’s much to be gained by accepting such an appointment; she’d get to exercise the administrative muscles she’d hoped to use at CFPB, and if Republicans maintain Senate control in 2016 (as they’re slight favorites to do), serving in a Clinton administration would offer Warren an escape from the frustration of serving in the Senate minority. What’s more, an economic appointment would allow Warren to intensively focus on the issues that have defined her career.


I feel your pain, using dial up here.


former9thward

(32,169 posts)
11. No president would appoint someone that old to the SC.
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:53 PM
Jun 2015

Presidents want their SC legacy to last decades.

Stardust

(3,894 posts)
17. Thank you. If we can't have her as president, an appointment such as Treasury Secretary
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 09:17 PM
Jun 2015

would be great for our country.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
4. Please no milquetoast, effectless adminstration position
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:29 PM
Jun 2015

She would be 1000x more valuable staying where she is in the Senate. Appointing her to an admin position would simply be kicking her upstairs.

I wouldn't mind seeing her appointed to SCOTUS, however.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
7. Actually, she's pretty powerless right now
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:43 PM
Jun 2015

The GOP took control of the Senate, remember?

The 2014 elections relegated the Dems to minority status and all the chairmanships went to the Republicans.

They have full control of the agenda.

Some folks decided that both parties were the same and didn't bother to vote for Dems. In the process, they hurt Bernie and Warren.

So now folks like Warren can't get anything through the GOP-controlled committees.

Legislation is how shit really gets done.

There will be no pro-Warren legislation coming out of the Senate any time soon.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
9. She can't shape shit with the GOP in control of the committees
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:47 PM
Jun 2015

That's the reality.

Of course Dems can filibuster legislation, but that's only obstructing the GOP agenda.

Warren can't put her agenda forward.

Elections have consequences.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
12. She can still shape the legislation, despite your statement
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:56 PM
Jun 2015

She is a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; a ranking member of the Subcommittee on Economic Policy: http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=committees. Minority members are not powerless.

If the Democrats regain the Senate majority, she'll be in control of the committee.



 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
13. Anything that truly reigns in the banks, would be voted down in committee.
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:59 PM
Jun 2015

Kinda like the public option, which couldn't even make it out of committee.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
14. I think I'll take my chances with her remaining in the Senate, thanks.
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 08:05 PM
Jun 2015

You tried hard to convince me otherwise, but it just didn't work.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
15. LOL. I wasn't trying to convince you that Warren should leave the Senate
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 08:09 PM
Jun 2015

I was explaining to you the current situation in Congress.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
16. You responded to my post
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 08:14 PM
Jun 2015

which stated she would be "1000x more valuable in the Senate" than holding an administration role. I never claimed that the GOP didn't, for now, hold the Senate majority. If you didn't think she should leave the Senate for an administration role, what else was your point?

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
10. Imagine her in the Attorney General's chair.
Tue Jun 2, 2015, 07:48 PM
Jun 2015

The sales of brown pants would skyrocket among banksters and other fraudsters.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Elizabeth Warren won’t be...