This morning I read a Politico article , that can be found here, arguing for why senator Elizabeth Warren won’t run for president in 2016. Likewise, there was a list published in the New York Times in November last year enumerating interesting people to keep an eye on in the 2016 election, a list from which Warren was absent. This highlights an issue that may very well be decided as far as political coverage in the US goes, but that I must have missed. It looks like everyone has now agreed that there is no chance at all anymore for a Warren candidacy.
Even the people over at TYT seem to be in on this. Now in hindsight I recognize that for example Cenk Uygur has always talked about a Warren candidacy that should happen rather than something that he is glad is going to happen. The reason any of this is relevant is that I have always maintained that there is no other viable candidate among the dems who could challenge Hillary Clinton, if it’s not going to be Warren then the whole matter seems settled to me.
Consider the other democrats on the list mentioned above. Senator Bearnie Sanders is on that list, but I for one cannot imagine anyone who would vote for Sanders rather than Clinton but not Warren rather than Clinton. This isn’t simple triangulation, trying to score the middle and the fringe at the same time, this i a matter of both candidates being similar but one simply being better. Warren and Sanders talk about the same issues and both are as left-leaning as it gets in the United States, but Warren has more of a cutting edge image and has really made a thing of making politics into a matter of “us against the banks”.
If it is settled on the democratic side then maybe it all is settled. I had expected to hear by now of the resurgence of people like Jon Huntsman, but alas that was not to be, leaving the GOP with Romney or Bush or perhaps Christie. That is, if senator Rand Paul doesn’t make it. There are other names like Huckabee and Perry but if either of them ever becomes president then I will be mightily surprised. (I wrote about the possible resurgence of Romney here)
What I’m trying to say above by stating the obvious is that I have a bad feeling about the coming elections, in the sense that they will be more boring than they tend to be. After an irrelevant coming primary season it now seems even more obvious that there will be a general election featuring Clinton vs Bush or Romney. They will of course both run their campaigns by trying to appeal to the entire political spectrum at once and ignoring what they said in their respective primaries.
Contrast this to how it could have been with a Warren vs Paul, (or hell even Sanders vs Cruze) general election, and one has to ask if Clinton vs Bush (or Romney again) is a s good as it gets. Has the US electorate really already settled for these two? Is it already over?