Will Harris run if Warren runs?

[henster]

They seem to be good friends, Warren endorsed Harris in 2016 and the two seem to respect each other a lot. I don't see these two both running, do you?

[Mr. Morden]

I don't see these two both running, do you?

I don't see their decisions on running influencing each other much at all.  Rubio ran against Jeb Bush.  Fred Thompson ran against McCain.  "Friends" run against each other all the time, and I'm not sure Harris and Warren are really that close.  Booker and Harris seem closer than Warren and Harris, IMHO.

[President Johnson]

Both won't be running, I think.

I long thought that Warren will run, get the nomination and then lose to Trump. Now I begin to think that Liz Warren is not running but Kamala Harris is. Both of them will probably agree that Harris should enter the race, because she's the better candidate and more likely to defeat the Donald.

[Mr. Morden]

Both of them will probably agree that Harris should enter the race, because she's the better candidate and more likely to defeat the Donald.

I just see little evidence that prospective presidential candidates tend to coordinate like this.  What's far more common is that candidates are convinced that they are uniquely capable of both winning the election and governing the country.  You usually need a pretty massive ego to be playing politics at this level.  Now, it's true that candidates will often pass on running because some other candidate is blocking their chances of winning the nomination (e.g., Romney didn't run last time because too many party bigwigs had flocked to Bush), but I don't believe there are many examples of candidates not running because they think someone else would be a better general election candidate or a better president (whatever they might be saying publicly).

[Bull Moose Base]

Sanders reportedly offered to stay out of 2016 if Warren wanted to run, but that's a bit different because he apparently didn't think he could win until a while into his campaign. I don't think either would defer to the other this time around but if Warren is ambivalent and Sanders gets in early, she might be deterred from running in an anti-establishment version of the Romney-Jeb dynamic.

[Possiblymaybe]

I don't see these two both running, do you?

I don't see their decisions on running influencing each other much at all.  Rubio ran against Jeb Bush.  Fred Thompson ran against McCain.  "Friends" run against each other all the time, and I'm not sure Harris and Warren are really that close.  Booker and Harris seem closer than Warren and Harris, IMHO.

I think they are good friends. Warren tweeted support for Harris  and Harris wrote the Time 100 profile on Warren. In terms of Booker and Harris they also seem like good friends but Harris would be running to the left of Booker so it would be more a case of who gets influential African American/Obama wing backing.

[Mr. Morden]

I think they are good friends. Warren tweeted support for Harris  and Harris wrote the Time 100 profile on Warren.

I don't think that's enough to qualify as "good friends".  Booker also tweeted support for Tulsi Gabbard becoming a Senator, but I think they barely know each other, and I would be shocked if one of them running impacted the other one running.  And writing a positive blurb in Time magazine about your colleague from the same party doesn't seem exceptional to me.  Plenty of people with closer bonds than that have run against each other for president.  I mean, Jeb Bush gave Marco Rubio a sword!

[Beet]

Both of them will probably agree that Harris should enter the race, because she's the better candidate and more likely to defeat the Donald.

I just see little evidence that prospective presidential candidates tend to coordinate like this.  What's far more common is that candidates are convinced that they are uniquely capable of both winning the election and governing the country.  You usually need a pretty massive ego to be playing politics at this level.  Now, it's true that candidates will often pass on running because some other candidate is blocking their chances of winning the nomination (e.g., Romney didn't run last time because too many party bigwigs had flocked to Bush), but I don't believe there are many examples of candidates not running because they think someone else would be a better general election candidate or a better president (whatever they might be saying publicly).

In 2016, virtually every other candidate decided not to run by the end of 2014 solely to rally around Hillary Clinton, thus depriving the party of a contest of ideas. Warren is particular made a cowardly choice, as there was actually a draft Warren movement, and she was in a better place than Sanders. Hillary would not have been able to use the "first woman" thing, and Warren was an actual party member and 8 years younger than Sanders. Warren also had major achievements she could point to, like helping create the CFPB. In the primary, Warren was again cowardly, refusing to endorse her ideological soul-mate, Sanders, causing him to lose the critical Massachusetts primary. She strikes me as someone who can easily be intimidated into not running.

[Mr. Morden]

In 2016, virtually every other candidate decided not to run by the end of 2014 solely to rally around Hillary Clinton, thus depriving the party of a contest of ideas. Warren is particular made a cowardly choice, as there was actually a draft Warren movement, and she was in a better place than Sanders. Hillary would not have been able to use the "first woman" thing, and Warren was an actual party member and 8 years younger than Sanders. Warren also had major achievements she could point to, like helping create the CFPB. She strikes me as someone who can easily be intimidated into not running.

Being "intimidated" into not running is different from not running because you think someone else would be better.

In 2016, the other candidates didn't run because they didn't think they could beat Clinton for the nomination.  That's different from not running because you think someone else would be either a better general election candidate or a better president, or because you're friends with them.  Warren may opt not to run again if she either doesn't want to be president or again doesn't think she's going to win.  But I don't see her (or anyone else) choosing not to run because they think someone else would be better, or because they don't want to run against a "friend".  All of these candidates have massive egos, and presumably all think they could do the job better than anyone else.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These hacks are so dumb. Political history is full of surprises -- no one thought Trump could win the nomination; no one thought Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter could win when they first decided to run. Heck, no one really thought Obama could win was early as 2008, back in 2004/2005. Bernie Sanders nearly won the nomination despite being a 74-year old socialist from Vermont. All of that proves that things are never as inevitable as they seem. What's important is the candidate's message, not so much fundraising, insider support, or even current polls, which these prospective candidates always seem to overvalue. They would be shocked by how well someone like Tulsi Gabbard can do, just by taking the right positions.

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These hacks are so dumb. Political history is full of surprises -- no one thought Trump could win the nomination; no one thought Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter could win when they first decided to run.

Lots of people thought Bill Clinton could win the nomination by the time he announced his candidacy.  When Bradley, Cuomo, Gephardt, and Gore all decided not to run for president that year, Clinton became the de facto early frontrunner (in a field full of nobodies).  Likewise, there was no single overwhelming frontrunner in the '76 race either.  Primary races with no overwhelming frontrunner are unpredictable.  But primary races that do have a single frontrunner who's seen as heavily favored early on usually end up with that frontrunner winning.  Sure there are some exceptions.  But for better or worse, the CW was that Clinton was as heavily favored to win the nom. going into the 2016 race as any non-incumbent president in recent history.  You may think the CW is stupid, but it is what it is.  Almost everyone (not just Clinton's potential rivals) believed it.

[Possiblymaybe]

I think they are good friends. Warren tweeted support for Harris  and Harris wrote the Time 100 profile on Warren.

I don't think that's enough to qualify as "good friends".  Booker also tweeted support for Tulsi Gabbard becoming a Senator, but I think they barely know each other, and I would be shocked if one of them running impacted the other one running.  And writing a positive blurb in Time magazine about your colleague from the same party doesn't seem exceptional to me.  Plenty of people with closer bonds than that have run against each other for president.  I mean, Jeb Bush gave Marco Rubio a sword!

There's more to it than that. I wrote about it in another thread so I didn't want to repeat myself. Harris campaigned for Warren back in 2012. They are also connected through Katie Porter who is close to Warren and worked under Harris when she was AG (prosecuting insurance companies- the foreclosure deal, they are both supporting Porters run for congress) Harris wished Warren happy b-day on social media, I don't see her doing that with other democrats. There was also an article about Harris a while ago it basically said she's well connected, it mentioned her relationship with Warren.  Not that I think it wil necessarily affect eithers desicion to run. But I defineltly see Harris supporting Warren if she runs. Of course in the event Bernie and Harris  both run,  Warren would probably just as well support Bernie.