Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren has been talked about for months as a potential Presidential candidate, but she has always said she is not interested, and has signed a statement backing Hillary Clinton.
But she has been campaigning for the election and reelection of Democrats across the nation, and has attracted large and enthusiastic audiences everywhere she goes, including early caucus and primary states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire, along with many other states.
She inspires people with her message of attack on the barons of Wall Street, and the need to make the banks lower interest rates on repayment of college loans, which have burdened millions of students, who will never be able to marry, own a home, own an automobile, have children, and a normal life, because their college education has enslaved them in long term debt, due to very high interest rates.
Warren also promoted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one of the major accomplishments of the Obama Presidency.
She has come across as a truly genuine, real, human being, rare for a politician. Her sincerity and real concern for promoting fairness and equity in America has pushed the demand that she run for President.
The odds of her being the Presidential nominee seem low, but her campaign would make other Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and other potential candidates work harder, and make for a better campaign, and she could certainly end up as Vice President or a key member of the cabinet under a Democratic President, assuming she loses the chance to be the Democratic Presidential nominee.
Running for President will certainly not hurt her future, and it just might make our future as a nation much better!
Yes Professor, I’m a big fan of Elizabeth Warren. She nails it when it comes to, what should be, the TRUE concerns of the citizens of this country.
Being about the same age as Hillary, this would be her only time to run for the Presidency.
Ronald,
I have a question for you…
Do you think it would be a good idea to move away from having Iowa and New Hampshire be the first two states routinely scheduled for presidential primaries or caucuses? (Specifially with the Democratic Party?)
Reason I ask is because, for the many discussions had about the Democratic Party not being truly liberal, I’m wondering if having it always be Iowa and New Hampshire Nos. 1 and 2 on the timeline are contributing to the problem.
If the base of the Democratic Party is liberal—and that’s questioned but at the same time not argued against (because the party can’t mathematically prevail without self-identified liberals)—going to moderate states Iowa and New Hampshire as the first two stops may be a distortion of where the party’s supporters are really at. Why not Vermont as the selected New England state. (That’s to name one other state with a similar-level electoral-vote allocation—and it is in from the same geographical region, being that Vermont neighbors New Hampshire.)
D, what you ask is a fascinating idea, but I doubt it would happen, as it would be criticized as turning the party too far to the left image wise.
And in place of Iowa, I cannot think of a replacement of the same or close size, although Wisconsin sounds good to me, although larger.
And of course, Iowa and New Hampshire would be alienated by such an action, and it would be roundly criticized!
I hear Bernie Sanders is thinking about running.