Doesn't decrease my support for her or increase my support of anyone else.

I think DUers know more about what she will do than she does.

Bernie. Maybe she will get the idea that some of the things she supports are not going over so well with some of the voters.

into opposing Hillary , even though she's the nominee.

No one but Hillary. You do know that Hillary is not the nominee yet? She won't be the nominee until and if she wins the primary.

an interest, and he's far more conservative.

I'm not entirely sure the structure of that sentence, referring to a future state of events, is a statement of present facts.

bandwagon now? No.
I believe the biggest wish for those who keep hoping Warren or Sanders will run - is to not have to vote for Hillary.
There is nothing anyone can OP on about Warren or Sanders or Hillary that can change that.

besides Hillary, is Jim Webb -- who will be opposing her from the right.

So will you support him over Hillary?

Seems like you want to focus attention only on likely contenders that are more right wing... Perhaps to obfuscate that Hillary is more corporatist, etc. than this party wants now?

The question is, if enough people show they don't support Hillary now before the primaries, perhaps Hillary might at some point realize that perhaps her running might jeopardize the Dems chances winning, and might not even enter the race. Maybe someone like Rand Paul emphasizes the more talked about libertarian issues that young people favor, someone like Hillary might be more apt to lose than someone who's more populist like Warren.

... should be considered as potential candidates.

I get it! Money talks today and we can't stop it! At least that's what the PTB want us to believe!

The winner of that fight is Rand Paul!

... and more concerned about getting rid of drug prohibition, or stopping wars that they might get drafted to serve in at some point, get more attracted to Libertarians like Paul, because the media emphasizes those issues, and not the severe faults of Libertarianism that would tear down much of what government does for us today and some who haven't studied Libertarians in depth take for granted.

Many of us older folk were around in the times of the higher marginal tax rates, greater union power, etc. and that people like the Kochs ran as Libertarians then know a snake when we see them.

It's not that they would pick up disaffected Warren supporters so much as they'd pick someone like Paul being drawn with an image by the media as being more anti-establishment than Clinton who pretty much is a part of that establishment, which would be a lot harder for the media to do with someone like Warren, who on many occasions has said the system is "rigged".

To date, she's not running, but an increasing number of Democrats want her to run. Thanks for the update though, no doubt issued due to the gnawing anxiety of Clinton folk that Elizabeth Warren is emerging as the soul of the Democratic Party.

This is how I felt during the 2008 campaign, too. And I watched millions of strong Hillary supporters drop their grievances and shift their support to Obama during the general campaign. And that's what allowed us to win.

If the anybody-but-Hillary crowd can't join the rest of the party even if Hillary does secure the nomination, then we will all suffer during the next Republican administration.

as Hillary Clinton argued:

"I am a sore loser."

"My supporters are racist.'

"I have no ethical standards."

They think everyone is willing to forgo democratic principles and follow in lock-step. They forget how well that plan worked in 2000.

If you don't want Jeb, DON'T NOMINATE HRC. There are other choices.

So why choose her? Why take the chance on another 2000? Nominate a progressive and give the country a chance for change.

I guess we'll just have to accept a lesser candidate.

"better a 'lesser candidate' that is a Democrat than a republican President that we know will be worse."

That said: I was pleased to vote for her in her victory over the despicable naked senator, Scott Brown.

... 5 perfect decisions out of 500...

This is FUD... no doubt

and keeping her cards close to her chest at the same time. Yes, she can do all that. Why? Because shes smarter than Hillary. Thankfully she is also a better candidate than Hillary. These are all good things.

Clearly Elizabeth will run against Hillary.

Sooner or later the people will be heard. In the meantime, hold tight to that status quo.

... *running* for office. I'm sure many out there would encourage those who even challenge them in an election to RUN for office, in the spirit of our democratic system. Just because some encourage others to RUN doesn't mean they support them as their CHOICE to win office. Unfortunately many Clinton supporters feel the democratic system of a primary election is too inconvenient and just gets in the way of someone "getting their turn". I thought we started this country to avoid family monarchies!

As much people say that Warren "isn't running" here, perhaps there's just as many if nor more Warren "haters" here as supposedly there are Hillary "haters".

I said 8 years ago, then again 7 years ago, then again last year, and will continue saying this year:

I'm not going to support HRC.

Whether Warren runs or not has no effect whatsoever on that fact.

I get it: you hate Hillary. But you will have to stop saying that around here if she wins the nomination.

I don't hate HRC. I don't want her to be my president, but that's not hate.

Maybe I don't get it, either. I assume that those who keep pointing out that Warren isn't running are doing so in an effort to promote HRC as a candidate. Maybe I'm wrong. If that's not it, what IS the OP about? As far as I know, NOBODY has formally announced a candidacy at this point, which makes discussion of any Democrat as a potential candidate valid.

when I watched millions of disappointed Hillary-supporters switch to Obama in the general.

But I don't think people should insist they will only vote for a candidate who hasn't shown any sign she's running.

And every day we spend wishing and hoping for a candidate who's clearly said she won't be running (unlike Hillary, who has never said she won't run and has a campaign organization already set up) is a day we don't spend fighting the real enemy: the Rethug nominee.

That would make most people enemies, and make it impossible to ever reach out and find commonalities that would move us forward.

If I had enemies, though, Republicans would be one group. So would neo-liberals.

This OP sounds like a petulant 5 year old. I can picture someone holding their hands up to their head and sticking out their tongue.

There is no other purpose for this thread. It accomplishes nothing and is merely negative and seems to celebrate us not having anyone to fight for the people.

Very UNdemocratic.

Something tells me that the Clinton folk are still worried of the grass roots pushing her to run later.

that she's not going to run.

Maybe she will change her mind. But it's false to say she hasn't been clear. Her statement in January was unequivocal, and time is running out.

So pretending you are doing them some kind of favor is pretty silly.

No, this OP is exactly what it appears to be. Passive-aggressive, smug, snarky, nastiness. It's purpose is to poke fun at and be mean to people.

For the life of me I don't know why some folks act this way. It's like junior high in here sometimes.

If she's so inconsequential, and you believe she's committed to not running, why do you care what we think or are asking for?

Do many Warren supporters keep harping on Hillary Clinton isn't running yet either? NO! We know it's not our decision whether she will or when she will announce.

If Hillary Clinton hasn't announced yet, then some might interpret that there's a chance she won't run too. If she doesn't run, do you think that Elizabeth Warren wouldn't consider running then? Do you KNOW she wouldn't? I've heard it from the horse's mouth from someone in the Senate that this kind of possibility might make a difference.

If we believe Warren's the best person for the job, and no one has put their name in the hat yet even, PLEASE don't be nasty to us for wanting to exercise the democratic process and not want who runs for us being a pre-selection process instead of one where we can all choose who represents us! In my book, that isn't what our system of democracy is about.

Personally, I think Warren or many like her that might bring us a more progressive voice are waiting for us to make this movement happen that if it gets big enough, they will choose to lead it when it is big enough. FDR didn't shape much of his New Deal policies and making cabinet selections to carry them out until he was pushed to do so from the left side of the aisle too.

If you don't like this movement to get someone like Warren to run and lead a more progressive movement, instead of dismissing it as "not going to happen", why not have a dialogue on why you think this sort of movement is a bad idea.

without having to run herself.

...and it was "Opposite Day"

people often change their minds.

What is the point of being so negative? You don't want someone who will actually stand up for the people?

Warren represents many of the things they'd like to see in a candidate. If some other candidate announced who believably represented those same positions, I think they'd flock to them.

Same on the chart. This just may be the reason Warren has endorsed Hillary.

It does nothing to capture the difference between corporatists and people who think Wall Street should be regulated and prosecuted.

But a good primary where it gives the DNC to put their platform before the people. If Hillary is the nominee then she needs to say where she wants to take her agenda. A primary helps the candidates to sharpen their skills getting ready for the general election.

One of the things we can do on DU is promote Democrats and not the continuous misinformation, this is why we have FOX news, we know they lie.

it'll become more and more obvious that state of affairs will fracture the party
maybe that realization would change some people's minds about running?

We can all rally around a nominee if we think there has been a fair contest of alternate ideas and persons. If the primary election start looking like elections only for show it won't be long until no one will give a shit about voting

I don't think it will happen, but that would be a sight to see.

begin before November 2016, and we will hear demands that she primary Hillary in 2020.

So?

People are still free to use their free speech to call for whatever they like.