Senator Warren is pretty well-liked in my circle of friends and family, and we are not worried. trump can do the foolish and ridiculous Pocahontas thing all he wants, but she's smarter, better informed, understands the constitution and law, is passionate about our country, is a positive influence for our children, puts America first without pushing our allies away, and is a patriotic truth-teller. Clearly, go Elizabeth Warren!
32
“Head-versus-heart debate”? No biggie—Warren is a head AND heart kind of candidate. Which is exactly the kind of person America must elect in 2020. A person like Warren is just what this country needs to begin the long healing process ahead of us. Our people and our values have incurred deep scars, inflicted directly by this shameful presidency. I saw Elizabeth talk in Chicago and the crowds were actually enormous, highly energized, and even brought to tears during her speech. I can’t wait to vote for her and am ignoring all idiotic fears about electability. I will never vote for a candidate that I can’t be proud to vote for just because the media is concerned about another woman candidate against Trump. A woman MUST beat this awful man in the 2020 election, don’t people understand that?
19
The lack of real enthusiasm around Biden, much in the way there was a lack of real enthusiasm around Clinton, should be your tip off that you're all about to walk into the same trap that we basically set up for ourselves in 2016: Go for the 'safe' option that isn't very exciting and basically kill any enthusiasm from anybody outside the Dem establishment.
Think back to 2008, a point in history where most people put electing a black president (even half black) as something so far out into the future as to be in the realm of science fiction. We've got to stop being such cowards and go bold.
20
According to this article a lot of Democrats want Warren to prove that she can slug it out with Trump when he calls her Pocahontas — apparently to some people that is one measure of her "electability." So the problem is not Trump's inane, childish and racist taunt; the problem is she hasn't proven to enough people that she has a clever rejoinder. Sorry, folks, I don't think we'll see "clever" in this context.
But on the other hand Ms, Warren did bring the topic up, and she is the policy person, so where is the policy-driven response? Where is the policy that shows some insight into the unique relationship of Native peoples to the Federal government, and their unique history on this land — the same kind of deep insight evidenced in so many of her other policies? Where is the self-examination of her Oklahoma roots, the former "Indian Territories" where so many tribes and nations were relocated then swindled out of their allotments and other resources? Has she read "Killers of the Osage Moon" or listened to the podcast "This Land"? If not, then please do. Proving you're more clever than an ignorant, racist child is beneath your dignity. Apologizing for confusing genetic lineage with cultural propriety is not sufficient. Show you really understand in the way you do best - with a policy stand.
10
I am scared by her policies like getting rid of private health insurance, forgiving all student loans, etc., which will make her unelectable.
12
I will vote for whomever the Democratic majority chooses to oppose Trump. Most Democrats will, the exception being those buffaloed by terms like “electability” and “not time for a woman.” People said it was not time for Obama, that he couldn’t be elected. He had a clear and simple message, and it resonated. That’s all it takes. Elizabeth Warren also has a clear and easily understood message. Yes, even people not in a Harvard graduate economics class can understand it. And, she has been a champion debater since her high school days. I would love to see her take on Trump, I know she can. She has more intellect, respect for our country and wonderful dreams for what it is and can be moving into the future in her little finger than Trump has in his whole ego-driven body.
I agree with many letter-writers; get off the whiny fear stuff and give us platforms and speeches. We’ll decide who is the best candidate. I understand that reporters go to gatherings and need to report what people are saying, but everybody can’t be tied up in knots about electability and willing to forgo their ideals and hopes for the future to compromise with a candidate who represents the most mediocre ideas instead of our best dreams.
23
I worry about EW being able to beat Trump, but I worry even more about Biden. I think Biden will be weak in the debates and be run over by Trump's bullying. I believe Warren can stand up to him better than Biden can. I also worry about the liberal democrats staying home if Biden is our candidate, just as many did in 2016 when Bernie didn't get nominated. So if ALL our dandidates worry us, let's just go with the one we think has the best chance of being a good president.
10
i remember the days when media opined that donald trump wasn't electable. so i'm not worried about what liz warren can do. she's already passed bernie in the polls, and by october will sail past biden.
16
Democrats should start worrying about winning MY vote. There are FAR more people who DO NOT VOTE, then those who are too 'moderate' for Hillary. Blaming me, and people like me, for voting green or sitting it out will NEVER convince us.
I don't know of a single person who like me votes green or sits it out because they find democratic candidates to be insufficiently bland, insufficiently tied to corporate interests, or insufficiently corrupt. In the last election I had the choice between two people who were best friends, having shared cocktails at the elite club for the past half century, attended each-others weddings, flown around the world with Mr. Epstein in his private jet. If the democrats could choose a candidate who wasn't from the exact same social circle as Mr. Trump, I would at least consider them.
10
I am a centrist voter and a Gen Xer. I will be voting for Pete Buttigieg . The primaries are six months away but I feel it’s time for a generational change. Pete Buttigieg is a genuine, thoughtful individual and feel he has the temperament and the intellect to surround himself with the best and brightest and think through important decisions. He has a quiet strength and hasn’t received the media attention he deserves. Elizabeth Warren is a smart woman but is too far Left for many Americans. I think she would be a tougher sell that many realize. Remember, 25-35% of the population lies on the far ends of the political spectrum and the other 30-50% lie in the center and will swing the election either by staying home because they don’t like the Democratic nominee or will privately vote again for Trump in the booth. I can’t stand Trump and will vote Democrat but my support will be with Pete Buttigieg until the convention. There’s is a lot of substance to him...
4
According to the most recent Gallup poll, Americans self-identify politically as approximately 25% Democrat, 25% Republican, and 50% Independent.
If the progressives in the Party succeed in nominating a far-left candidate like Warren, they will lose the support of some moderate Democrats, most Independents, and all Republicans.
Democrats lurch to the left may provide feel-good headlines to some, but will all but assure Trump’s 2nd term.
7
"The concerns about Ms. Warren partly reflect ingrained assumptions that women ... would have a harder time winning the presidency than white men."
NYT, why cant you just call this what it is? It is flat-out sexism and misogyny, not "ingrained assumptions." If she were a man, like, say, Bernie, would you be writing this? Did you write it in 2016 about Bernie with his liberal ideas? Maybe you should go back and check. Then do us all a favor and stop glossing over this, going to great pains, apparently, to do so. Let's talk about policy, integrity, and leadership, for once. And if a lot of "negative stuff" is being hurled at her, why not ask why instead of reporting that like it is a valid reason to oppose her? Because there is none.
29
@Carla Very well said!
9
It’s not just liberals who ask themselves “how badly do we want to beat Trump?”
Centrists ask this question just as often, and unlike when their more liberal brothers and sisters ask it, it can be soul searching depending on who the Democratic nominee is.
If the candidate is Elizabeth Warren, my answer is sadly, “not that badly.” I can’t bring myself to vote for Trump, but his repugnance won’t force me to vote for someone that far to the left. I’m sorry.
88
@Michael Brian Burchette
The truth is that "Anyone but Trump" isn't really true for a lot of Americans. "Anyone but a far left winger" is equally true for a lot of Americans.
41
@Michael Brian Burchette Please consider that it would take a congressional landslide of historic proportions for any of Warren's policy positions to actually be enacted to threaten (such as you see them) the country, and the likelihood of that happening in our current hyperpolarization is pretty darn low.
Trump has demonstrated time and time again, though, that he's perfectly capable of dragging our country into the ditch and crushing our norms and institutions into the dirt with just him and his Twitter account if reelected.
98
@Michael Brian Burchette
What you're saying Michael, as a centrist, is that cruelty, racism, ignorance, and white supremacy - all traits of the current occupant - matter as much or more than progressive ideas like universal health care, education, living wages for all, and other similar ideas which might cost you more in taxes. Or to put it another way, your concern for your own wallet exceeds your concern for the lives and well-being of your fellow citizens. Do you not see how this kind of thinking is an abandonment of the country's stated ideals and further degrades our standards of living? Please re-consider your statements and try to examine the issue from a wider perspective.
201
his guy interviewed 30-something people in 3 states, and featured a quote from a former chairwoman of the state Democratic Party in Iowa... one of the whitest states in the country...as though it represents some sort of national zeitgeist. UGH!! I am so sick of Ithe NYT running articles about Democrats worrying about if people are "electable" or not - the subtext is: we have to find someone who is so unobjectionable no one will *LOVE* them but this unloved, bland person will somehow still beat Trump?? This is at least the third article I've read on "Democrats' concerns." How about if we just let the candidates campaign and stop giving an overly amplified voice to all these worriers. I'm not a BIT WORRIED about Elizabeth Warren!!
26
It has to be a woman! We need a candidate who energizes women, and who can actually improve people's lives. MOST Americans are very progressive when it comes to FINANCIAL REFORM. Highlight THAT, focus on income inequality, how Trump has filled the swamp and hurt workers. Contrast that with how Warren has PLANS to help workers, and SHE CAN DO IT.
Regarding the Native American question- Warren was brought up in a time when Natives were romanticized, but definitely discriminated against. She has been enlightened on their plight and perhaps needs to come up with a PLAN or 2 to gain their endorsement, to counteract any lies thrown at her.
9
Senator Warren is one of the most dishonest candidates out there. She lied about her alleged Native American ancestry. She recently falsely claimed that Michael Brown was "murdered" by the police officer in Ferguson, when the investigations said otherwise. She has repeatedly made the conspiratorial claim that our economy is "rigged." Of course, none of these claims get fact-checked the way Trump's lies do, but they will matter in the general election.
35
Then again, some people are just biased on what gets past their ears. Elizabeth makes so many valid points on everything concerning our nation, that one really has to try hard to disagree with her.
98
There is nothing “alleged” about Elizabeth Warren’s Native American ancestry — she, in fact, had a Native American ancestor. The DNA test proved it. Six or seven generations back — which is consistent with her grandmother’s stories about having a partially Native American grandparent shunned by in-laws. Yes, the amount of DNA is minuscule — which is what happens as hereditary DNA is cleaved with each subsequent generation. But that doesn’t mean the Native American ancestor is a cipher, or that Ms. Warren’s connection to her is any less real.
54
@R.P.
Sen. Warren was brought up thinking she had Native ancestry. If you are worried about lies, why aren't you worried about the current President's tendency to lie about everything? Sen. Warren's career considered how the economy disadvantages poor people -- in that sense the economy IS rigged. If you have savings in the bank, you pay fewer fees, get better mortgage rates, have a higher credit rating and are allowed to borrow more. That is how the economy is rigged. Those that have have an easier time getting more.
52
Warren is impressive - smarter, more articulate, and more passionate than her Dem contenders. However, electability a real issue. Her professorial background unhelpful, as she's removed from real-world pain, living in a comfortable, highbrow academic bubble. She's never had to make payroll for workers. Most issues are an intellectual abstraction, fodder for classroom or cafe debate. But removed from real world practical action. And she MUST move to center (escape academic mindset) to be electable. She has enormous potential. Not just a smooth talking politician, but one who conveys sincere passion and concern for all Americans
152
@charlie corcoran I highly suggest you read about Warren's background. It is clear from your comment that you haven't.
149
@charlie corcoran
Do you know her personal history? She clawed her way up to Harvard — she wasn’t born into that. She very nearly quit her professional career — but just as she was about to, her aunt showed up to help her with child care so she could keep up her education and career. And how can you say her work is removed from real-world practical action? Have you heard of the CFPB? Look up the history on that. It’s one of the government agencies that should have a real impact on everyday Americans (except for the fact that Republicans have been trying to defang it). But Republicans were scared of Elizabeth Warren actually being in control of it because then they knew that the era of the system being rigged in favor of big banks vs. everyday people would truly be over. Find out about how her parents struggled, how she struggled, and how she came up with one of the next fixes for the ills of the financial system — and then decide if you still think she doesn’t know anything about the real word.
211
@charlie corcoran
Trump had to make payroll for workers, when he wasn't stiffing them that is, and look at what a financial wreck he is. America would do well to never vote for a businessperson for president again, especially one who has failed so spectacularly like Trump has.
131
Senator Kamala Harris would be an excellent choice for the democratic ticket. Smart as a whip, well educated, strong experience as a prosecutor, district attorney, and senator...and tough as nails. She was wonderful in the debates, and has become more moderate as time has passed - a requirement to knock Trump off.
Senator Amy Klobuchar also has the right stuff to take on Trump. She has a super resume (high school valedictorian; B.A. magna cum laude from Yale; J.D. University of Chicago; private and prosecuting attorney for years; U.S. senator for 12 years).
Klobuchar's stellar work on the Senate's important Judiciary; Agriculture; and Commerce, Science and Transportation Committees shows she can handle legislative minutia while working well with folks on both sides of the aisle to get things done. Her questions during the Kavanaugh hearing revealed a lot in his non-response responses. Her impassioned statements during the first two debates on health care, immigration and other topics are strong reminders that she cares deeply about all American citizens. And her midwest creds would help her grab battleground republican states. Senator Klobuchar's smarts, cool under pressure, and keen abilities to get to the heart of the matter while treating others with respect and fairness seem to be the best antidote to Trump's pugilistic, hit before thinking approach.
Senator Klobuchar would take Trump down. So could Senator Harris. Hopefully one of them will get that opportunity.
7
The reality is that the Banks, Insurance companies and Wall Street are terrified of Elizabeth Warren. She is way too smart for all of the other candidates.
Warren will work on behalf of the people and the country and not her own personal enrichment (like Trump).
Trump will go to prison if he loses the presidency in 2020! He will never be able to return to his old life. Trump will say and do the most outrages things" against his opponent" no matter "who" it is. The media will be fueling Trump's most outrageous comments and lies so that they get our attention. We now know that Trump has nothing" good or true" to tell the country. Trump has silenced the voices of the honorables in the Republican Party.
Elizabeth Warren is everything we would want the President of the United States to be, intelligent, articulate and SANE.
This is NOT 2016!
Make America Sane again!
15
I read this and all I think is, good God, White people really are the worst. Poor Liz just wants to offer a better vision for this country, but since we’re all pundits now, it allows Whites to hide behind their latent racism and sexism for reasons why she can’t win. White people are poised to destroy the strongest democracies in the world over racist motives. What a waste.
16
I'm all in for Elizabeth Warren...it's high time the United States had a Native-American president.
3
Elizabeth Warren is spot on. She could debate circles around DT.
Can we take a look at Pete Buttigieg in this light? I believe he can beat Trump.
4
I don’t want a female version of Trump. I don’t want the complete opposite of Trump. I want someone dead in the center so sue me.
5
Go ahead, nominate Joe and see what you get. He may beat DJT--or he may not. Suppose he does win by a closer margin than you thought. Now we're back to where we were with Obama: the right will never concede that a Democrat beat them fairly, no matter what. And we will be stuck with yet another get-along-go along muddle of the road centrist. Another four wasted years, because in 2024 the GOP will be back with another hot dog red meat reactionary.
4
All I can say, Mr. Martin, is that I hope you've gotten this out of your system now and can write about issues.
6
To all the readers and pundits who make recommendations based on their predictions about what other people think: you're probably wrong. Everyone should vote for the person she or he likes, instead of trying to get into the minds of other people.
6
This whole perspective just sad.
You’ve got a candidate who does their research, and addresses the root of the problem pretty often. Yet people debate whether or not they will like her. Well guess what, if someone was in office fixing real problems with real solutions, you’re probably going to like them. Regardless of who it is.
7
Warren is Sanders Lite. The country needs stronger medicine than she can provide.
2
I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for,”
-Elizabeth Warren
8
Why is this in the news section and not the opinions? It's straight-up sexist.
8
The Democratic candidate with the most enthusiastic support will be able to beat Trump by getting out the vote This is how Obama, who was seen as unelectable, won. Clinton did the same thing. Appealing to the middle destroys the party’s values/integrity, as well as the enthusiasm necessary to beat Trump.
8
Why is it bad to point out that people were saying exactly the same thing about Obama nine years ago?
And why do people still think that "safe" candidates are safe? Every election we hear the Very Serious People tell the minority party that that they have to coalesce around the candidate no one is excited about because they all hate the other guy even more. Just ask Hillary, Romney, Kerry, Dole or Mondale how sound that theory is.
There are no shortcuts and there is no reward without risk. There was nothing safe, inevitable or preordained about any non-incumbent president in my lifetime and I was born during the Kennedy administration. The candidates that win are those who put their faith in the Democratic process.
Let's not get so worried about repeating 1972 that we repeat 2016.
8
@James,
Trump unearthed and gave confidence to the racists and they now believe in a real way that they can win.
That’s the difference
2016 irrevocably changed this country and it’s future for the worse.
Democracy may not survive the 21st century.
6
One thing I didn’t see in the article was any reference to the intense dislike that Republicans have for Senator Warren. There is no Democratic candidate that would do more to galvanize and energize the traditional Republican base.
12
@BobPaineGroup I am not a republican, and I despise Warren. I don’t like Trump, but Warren’s far left craziness scares me. I’d vote for Trump over Warren.
5
Elizabeth Warren is an Ideas Person. Not a leader.
Is it right? Of course not! Was it right that all the popular kids at your high school were popular? No. Did people still place them on the top of the social hierarchy regardless? Yes they did.
If you think tens of millions of Midwestern and Suburban voters are going to be won over by the Wonky Policy ideas of an ambitious Academic, I got news for you. It's called Four More Years.
She's intelligent? That's nice. People tend to not really care about that so much though when you're talking about groups the size of the electorate. They're more interested in someone who can effectively relate to things they understand.
The Democrats are not going to Wonk their way back into the White House simply because overeducated Times readers like the smart law professor turned friend of the working man. Mostly because most working men and women don't have any friends like Elizabeth Warren. If we don't nominate someone they can somehow see themselves or their friends or family in, then we will lose this election.
9
@O My They called Obama a wonk. They called Bill Clinton a wonk. They called Carter a wonk. They were afraid they would lose "the heartland." They were wrong.
The electorate judges Democrats and Republicans by different standards. They don't elect wonky or "reasonable" Republicans and they don't elect Democrats who are transparently political and trying to be everything to everybody. If they want a Big Daddy who will make them feel strong and safe and "relatable" they will elect that kind of Republican (as opposed to someone like Romney or Dole). If they want to elect someone to clean up after the mess Big Daddy made they will elect a competent and brainy Democrat.
All the voters you're concerned about are going to vote for Trump. The "swing voters" who will decide the race aren't those who can't decide between a Democrat and a Republican, but those who can't decide if it's worth it to leave home to cast a vote at all.
4
In my opinion, the reason why Senator Warren is the most compelling/electable candidate is because she can clearly articulate the level of corruption and rot in our current system.
Russians use convoluted plans involving English lords (Lord Gregory Barker), Trump-linked lobbyists (Mercury Public Affairs), cash-strapped American businessmen (Craig Bouchard), politicians from poor states (Gov. Bevin and McConnell) to change sanction laws to suit them. Because of these men’s kowtowing to Russians with money, the people of Kentucky are now in bed with the Kremlin-backed Russian oligarch: Oleg Deripaska through the Rusal deal.
And there are so so many instances of shady self-dealing, perhaps, when Senator Warren puts on her teacher’s hat and explains this to folks like Mr. Christensen, that’ll change their minds.
6
Are we going to see another very smart women running against Trump? At least Warren wasn't receiving emails from the State Department on a server in her house. So no potential James Comey head scratcher at the last minute to save Trump if he is matched against Warren. But Warren will be accused of who knows what by the alt-right, kids in Macedonia, Russians in Saint Petersburg, and all kinds of clever right wing extremists out there and many Americans will believe wild accusations that a typical fourth grader should be able to easily spot as a lie. So Warren will have to convince millions of Americans who can't tell the truth from a lie if you paid them that she is the best candidate for president. Warren would make a thousand times better president than Trump but he still might win.
2
She has a 1 in 1024 chance of winning.
5
Wait, MORE than 36 voters you say? Are worried about what some other hypothetical (white) voters think? Where did 37 or 38 or 39 (I assume if it was a whole 40 you would be shouting it from the rooftops) people get the idea that some people in America would not vote for Warren? Is it possible they got it from the endless fretting in the media over whether those mysterious other people can bring themselves to vote for a woman? As Kate Manne pointed out, electability is iterative. The Times is contributing to that conversation. Just like you contributed when you kept writing about how people were maybe voting for Hilary, but grudgingly. No one ever asked me or my friends. And I'm a millenial no less. We loved Hilary! We love Warren! Stop being part of the problem and ask better questions.
4
trust the NYTimes to write another s/he's wonderful BUT article.
4
If Ms Warren would be as politically talented as Ms. Merkel, she would make mincemeat out of Trump in a second
The problem is not that Ms Warren is a professor. Ms Merkel was one . Physics no less
The problem is not that she is a woman. Ms. Merkel is one
The problem is that Ms. Warren, unlike Ms Merkel is not a gifted politician.
It's something you are largely born with. Studying helps but if you lack innate talent, you can't make up for it.
Bill Clinton had it. Hiillary did not.
The Democrats need to find someone who has it. There must be someone out there.
And the sooner, the better
5
@Lars,
The problem is not Warren. It’s the American people. Germans are more intellectual than Americans. Americans go on gut and passion. They vote based on vacuous criteria like having a beer with the candidate, likeability and how they respond to one line singers.
Our political class, from “President” to town councilor are unqualified for their positions. Eventually the US will lose out as we get outmaneuvered by more thoughtful countries.
3
People use all sorts of criteria when selecting someone to vote for. Electability is always one of the criteria when we're talking about the Presidency, but I'm not certain I can remember any election (at least during my 40+ year adult lifetime) when it was as dominant as it is in this year's Democratic primary.
It feels like everyone watching the debates had 50% of themselves analyzing the minutiae of the policies and positions and plans of the candidates, and the other 50% simply visualizing what each candidate would look like on a debate stage next to Trump.
And that is leading to the conflicted feelings that are articulated in this article. Bernie and Liz both have the (mostly) progressive ideas that are loved, but people have real worries about the electability of either. Biden used to seem like the most electable by far, but seems to be turning in - at best - an inconsistent campaign. Bernie has a lot of energy, but I personally just do not think America is going to elect someone that lectures them like an angry grandpa. And Biden and Liz both feel a bit, well, somehow old and frail.
So as far as ideas go, there's plenty. But there's no one that seems like a slam dunk against Trump in debates. He doesn't play "fair", and like it or not, the dude knows show business better than any of the Democratic candidates.
He speaks in juvenile, emotional sound-bites suited for 10 year olds, but ... so does every sitcom, drama, and cop show on network TV. Because it sells.
1
Elizabeth Warren will not win – she is extreme in her own way. Trump cannot occupy the White House for another four years. She may be a better person (who isn't a better person than Trump) but she is not a more electable person. Biden will do fine - gaffes and all.
8
@BLH Biden barely knows what year it is, no thank you
6
The latest poll in Iowa released today of likely caucus-goers has Warren way out front for the first time: 28% to 17% for both Sanders and Biden. That seems to undermine the premise of this article on questions of her electability. https://iowastartingline.com/2019/08/15/poll-elizabeth-warren-jumps-out-to-big-lead-in-the-iowa-caucus/
9
Just a typical, silly, counter-factual piece of Wall St. propaganda about the eternal “impracticality” of real economic progressivism in America. Yet the incontrovertible fact, as Trump’s own 2016, recently agreed, is that Bernie would have wiped the floor with Trump in the Rust Belt, and Trump only won there by pretending he was Sanders fighting for the little guy
12
Democrats should not worry about beating trump. Instead be true to the cause of working men and women. The country has moved too far to the right and acceded to the wants, nay whims, of large companies. It is time for a correction. If not now, then democrats should be okay with waiting for 4 more years. That is better than watered down values. Stop worrying about big changes to the system or whether it is 'realistic or not'. The system needs a big change. Was the last 2 years realistic enough for you? Healthcare and college education should be a right in America or nothing. 8 years of Bush gave us Obama. Maybe 8 years of Trump will give us someone better than Obama.
Be patient but do not give in to your values.
6
Elizabeth Warren's background is not that of being an intellectual elite. Her background is working class from Oklahoma. Like Bill Clinton, she gets the people in red America. I think her ability to appeal to those people is enormous.
Elizabeth Warren has the economic chops to explain and attack Trump on his finances, his bankruptcies, and the ways he and people like him game the system. She has gotten under his skin in the past and knows how to do it now. I love that she was one of the few who never ever, for one second saw the need to pretend that this man was going to grow in the job and that he was anything other than a dangerous con man.
It is the ultra PC left that does Warren a grave disservice regarding her Native American ancestry. We cannot let this non-issue prevent us from electing a supremely qualified and politically gifted candidate.
14
Thanks for the article. I just donated to her campaign.
11
@Jordan Baker
Ha! I’m trying to find the link right now so I can donate again.
7
This article reminded my wife and I - both GW Bush Refugees who now live in Canada - about how mainstream Democrats, especially the DNC, marginalized Bernie. Can Warren beat Trump? Absolutely. People are ready for change. NYT needs to carefully examine its own biases and be careful not to inadvertently help Trump win a second term.
16
Try it on: Voting for a smart woman who has society's best interests at heart.
9
If Warren is the nominee, will those with electabilty concerns not vote? I assume they won't vote for Trump.
3
I'm sick and tired of democrats having to apologize for wanting to move to the left. the republican party has gone so far to the right that in any other country they would be considered far right extremists. The difference between the republicans and the democrats is the republicans do what they want without apology or concern about abandoning moderates. Democrats should be just as proud or unapologetic about their platforms, lets have a real choice between two different parties, not republican-lite
12
"The concerns about Ms. Warren partly reflect ingrained assumptions that women or candidates of color would have a harder time winning the presidency than white men."
A black man won the last time for Democrats, so let's please leave race out of it.
9
The 2016 election and Trump’s ascension set the country back 40 years.
I don’t think Obama, as a first time candidate, could win in this environment.
A lot of Americans want to forcibly turn back the clock to the early 20th century. Now they believe they can do it.
Democracy will have a tough time surviving the 21st century.
1
Can we please stop referring to Joe Biden as some kind of aging Father Time figure? Donald Trump isn't that much younger, and frankly, Biden appears to have the better physique.
9
After reading up on policy positions, background, the debates, etc. my choice is Senator Warren. Think back on Mitch McConnell's "still she persisted". While sexism is a factor, and trump will continue to be an ignorant bully to whoever runs against him, she has as much chance as anyone to beat him. Yes, she is energetic, passionate and smart. Consider your own challenges to keep up with the complex issues at home and globally. We need a smart person in that office. She has a heart, a strong mind, and deep knowledge on financial realities. Of course, just like Obama, when in office, a smart leader makes necessary compromises to keep the country going and the world at peace. But we need a brave visionary. The trump machine with all those tax break dollars may squeak by with another electoral college win, but we should still choose who can lead best. And VOTE.
17
@Terri Fitz
Hate to rain on your parade, but she has zero experience running anything, and zero accomplishments.
Its nice to have a plan, but a true leader put it to work in the real world, and was successful at it.
Shes done nothing of the sort.
Its easy for a politician to promise free stuff to the masses. They all think they deserve the fruits of other people labor. The folks with their hands out the farthest will call them "smart".
5
Have you heard of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Please Google it.
4
I want a "Warren For President 2020" sign for my front yard. I want everyone to see who I am supporting. She needs lots of exposure to beat Trump!
This is one election in which EVERYONE must get involved. Get everyone out to the polls on Election Day.
17
Unfortunately, the electorate, and in a way this article. tend to compare Warren and Harris as much on the basis of gender as their ideas. Since these are not all different, voters may split between them.
1
Stop worrying. Be confident happy warriors. She is the one of the best possible candidates of all time.
20
Elizabeth Warren has a unique ability among those running of making even the most complicated issue understandable. She will, in all probability, not win over the small percentage of people who will vote for 45 even if, as he once stated, he shoots someone in public on Fifth Avenue, but neither will any of the other candidates currently vying for the presidency. Also, no matter who the Democrats nominate, the Republican smear machine will attack wherever that candidate seems most vulnerable. If all they can do is roll out the same "Pocahontas" thing, it will stale quickly except, again, for those who attend 45's rallies. Elizabeth Warren will win if all those who are afraid to vote for her in the primaries overcome that fear and have the same confidence in her that she has in her policies and plans. Period.
15
Warren would be a disaster. Sure she has energy. But the last thing the US needs is a socialist planner and demagogue equally as bad as Trump. If she leads the ticket I and millions of centrist and independents will stay home and trump will win again but this time in a landslide like Nixon over McGovern.
6
@GCM
Plain nonsense or, more probably, wishful thinking. Elizabeth Warren is the only one who can both beat Trump and not turn out to be a disaster when elected.
As for the "millions of centrist and independents" who you assume "will stay home", perhaps you should try and count them again. It seems you got your numbers from Trump himself.
8
Beating Trump isn't the most important thing. It's the only thing. Ideology has to take a back seat this time around.
9
@HKGuy,
It’s amazing how your statement is not understood by so many people.
No state in this country has implemented these liberal proposals and almost half the country backs an nationalist ethnically driven President.
Right now race is front and center.
Once again, it's Liz and Mayor Pete, for the progressive wing. Biden and Harris, for the moderates. I have my preference, but I will absolutely VOTE for OUR Ticket. No excuses, no pouting, no wimping out. If you don't vote, you get what you deserve.
12
@Phyliss Dalmatian
I will make no excuses, I will not pout, I will not "wimp out" (whatever that is), but I will not vote for Biden/Harris. Whether you vote for Biden you will get what you deserve: four more years of Trump. Think about it!
2
My goodness, there is so little equivalency here between any baggage Warren has, and Trump. She's smart, she can surround herself with smart people, and she can adapt. This is the problem with democrats--they worry about every possible flaw of a candidate, while the republicans just throw stuff on the wall and go all in with whatever sticks.
Warren has a few pimples. Trump is a cancer. This story represents a skewed narrative, and I would love to see someone from the Times critique it, and why it is so common, especially for women candidates, to have to address.
It's up to the journalists to force the sitting president to debate actual issues and show some rudimentary knowledge of the duties of the presidency.
12
Dear God
Sen Warren is the best we've got: heart, smarts, integrity, experience, character. Only the willfully ignorant and the deliberately misled do not realize this.
If we have to deal with another four years of a clearly unfit President, then so be it: we got what we deserved.
Meanwhile: we need to support and vote for our best candidate, period.
We need to say our prayers and to have honest conversations both with fellow Americans who think as we do, and with fellow Amercans who don't: in search of common ground, without which we are a one syllable word which rhymes with plucked.
This is not a tv show. The corporate owned, ratings-driven media should stop treating the election as if it were.
We citizens should turn off the tv, get off the internet, and start conversing in person with one another: we might learn something.
The next election like all elections is about who we really are as a nation, comprising not just rich white people who have chosen to center themselves on the worship of money, but everybody else as well:
A messy good-hearted nation comprising all of us who agree upon our founding ideals as per our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Amendments, rule of law, and the common good:
One nation under God -- hopefully able to still hear the whispers of our better angels as per Pres Lincoln -- with liberty and justice for all.
YES: still great, regardless how we've blundered, failed and erred in the execution so far.
5
These concerns about Warren or any Liberal are valid. Almost half the country is comfortable with a ethnonationalist “President” who is, at best, indifferent to the notion of basic human rights. Half the country. A country that has greenlighted a Muslim ban and has upended its immigration policy.
We are in a very dark place as a country. I don’t believe there is much appetite for a liberal candidate when so many people are ready to junk democracy in favor of a candidate that emulates Turkish/Russian style leadership.
I don’t think this country, in its current mental state, is capable of electing a liberal or a women. In fact, I don’t think a “first time” candidate Obama could win right now.
Why are so many white evangelicals and business elites so angry?
The 2016 election set the country back 40 years. Turned out to be very high costs to vote ones conscious.
1
Don't worry. Warren is not going to be our next president. Biden stands a better chance.
4
Democrats: You tried to do the "sensible" thing in 2004 when you nominated John Kerry, a true war hero, and he managed to lose to the second-worst president in modern history.
Then you tried to do the "sensible" thing n 2016, when you nominated a woman who drove a powerful political machine, and she managed to lose to the worst president in modern history (not to mention one of the worst human beings ever to enter the public spotlight).
I beg you: Please go with your hearts and your principles on this one. You did that in 2008, and it gave you 8 years of the best president in modern history. Learn.
10
"These Democrats worry that her uncompromising liberalism would alienate moderates in battleground states who are otherwise willing to oppose the president." What the hey does this mean!?! Who, exactly, are these moderates in battleground states and what are they moderate about? If they haven't become Never Again Trump voters by now, will any Democratic candidate (of the top four) really get their votes? A woman cannot win is the only "real" factor, albeit a phony one, a lie they tell themselves to ease their conscience as they vote again for the disaster that is Trump, that rules the minds of these so-called moderates. Surprise, Warren has a plan for them . . . register young people and get out the vote. This should be the plan for any and all the potential Dem standard bearers.
3
"Many fear Ms. Warren’s past claims of Native American ancestry would allow Mr. Trump to drown out her policy message with his attacks and slurs against her."
If you stop perpetuating this ridiculous notion, it will go away. Nobody cares about her Native American claims, especially in relation to the volumes of offenses by the president.
8
I don’t worry about Warren’s electability.
I worry about the ability of The NY Times to separate fact from innuendo, substance from rumor.
11
Don’t care, I’m voting for Warren on Super Tuesday.
11
Senator Warren should not run away from the Pocahontas slur or any of these other false negatives. Treat them with the humor they deserve to highlight their stupidity. Hire a few comics (Samantha Bee, Stephen Colbert, Al Franken, Chris Rock, etc.) to give the Trumpkin a fitting nickname (dummkoph) and compare his 12,000 + (and growing list of lies) to the elision about the Indian blood story, which is fittingly something true that she grew up with. Don't be afraid to confront the dummkoph with humor, the power of which Mark Twain was well aware as the quote mistakenly attributed to him, " al lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its pants on."
4
This article reads like a smear. The times is supposed to report news, not innuendo and spin.
I’m reading many comments here of people who have, or are going to allow their subscriptions to the armed to lapse and point to articles like this one as a reason why.
I thought I couldn’t do without the WSJ when I let that lapse after 25 years, but after a month or two I found I didn’t miss a thing. Perhaps the same will occur here. I do already find myself reading The Guardian as a more reliable source of information.
8
I know I shouldn't say this, as it goes against a strict interpretation of how one is suppose to compose comments in the "NY Times Comments" submission requirements, but after reading the article carefully a couple times, and upon reflection, I get the uncanny feeling that somehow, in my act of my reading this article, I have encountered a stealth, slightly manipulative voice of a journalist -- a voice I cannot find easy to trust.
The piece references interviews with "three dozen Democratic voters and activists in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina this summer, at events for Ms. Warren" and then extrapolates from anecdotes into a several general cases. Using anecdotes to build a theory on "electability" seems to me very much like what OPED writers do. It's not a scientific analysis of the electorate. It's not news, it's opinion. Give me answers from three dozen people and I'll surely find a few that agree with my political positions.
Can we see the questions that were actually asked? Why were no question asked about how people feel about the $12 billion dollars the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau initially staffed by Warren saved American Taxpayers.
Discussing (and doubling down via NY Times reponse) on the legitimacy of "electability" as a reporting topic seems to me dubious when other major features of the psychology of election dynamics go unreported.
Ultimately, there's something weird about this article that makes me feel like I'm being used.
24
My mother-in-law worries a woman can't beat Trump.
I remind her that a woman already did - by 3 million votes.
20
@Larry
And she reminds you that's not how American elections work.
4
Her stance on immigration is a losing one. Most people want strong border protection, enforcement of our laws. Voters do not decriminalizing illegal immigration, abolishing ICE, or free healthcare to anyone who crosses the border. Democrats are weak on setting a plan to curb illegal immigration, and that might be their downfall.
9
As a supporter of Elizabeth Warren I fear the irreparable self inflicted wound she put on her self when she claimed Native American heritage and then tried to back it up before acknowledging it was a mistake. Should she become the nominee she will be hammered with the label "Pocohantas"by the Predator in Chief with Fox News and the right wing media screaming out the mantra. And the merits of this triviality will be lost in the narrative. And then what?
3
@Lawrence Garvin,
At election time, Americans will be so fed up with Trump that Caligula's horse could out poll him.
5
Do you really mean to say that you think Trump can come at Warren about an error of judgement with HIS extreme criminal background?
3
I don't worry about a smart and articulate presidential candidate going up against a bloviating bully one bit. She would clean his clock in a debate. Russia's Agent in the White House has to go.
13
Wouldn't it be absolutely AMAZING to elect the SMARTEST person in the room rather than the DUMBEST?
Go, Liz Warren! She would make a fantastic POTUS! One of the greatest!
Please listen to her.
16
This article is emblematic of what’s wrong with the NYT and why I cancelled my subscription after many years. This paper isn’t what it used to be and it has compromised its moral center and formerly high intellectual standards (think Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat; David Brooks is mostly harmless and now, well-meaning). Its complicity in helping Trump get elected—by normalizing his racist, bigoted, hateful messaging—is unforgivable. You’d think after its breathtaking missteps with downplaying Hitler’s motives in the 1930s would have been a lesson it would have engraved in stone and never repeated, but alas, no. We’re back in the land of moral equivocation once again. It’s a shame. And it’s dangerous.
7
@Earthling
... but there is money to be made whenever you put Trump in the headlines. Writing just "the president" would not sell well, although it would delightfully hurt his feelings.
2
This is absurd. No one thought Trump would win the nomination. Everyone thought he was a laughing stock. Yet, he proved doubters wrong. If he won because people hated Hillary then why can she win because people hated Trump? I am not going to vote just for anyone just so to replace Trump, but her, Harris, or Butiege would get my vote.
3
Regarding Patrick Healy's weigh-in: He's like the emotionally unavailable guy you meet on a dating site who specializes in obfuscation. The guy just wants to talk incessantly about how bad online dating is, and how it's impossible to meet anyone, and you're trying to tell him about yourself and learn about him. Fat chance. Obfuscation.
3
Um...if the absolute worst, most incompetent, racist person ever to run for President could get elected, seems like a well qualified woman should have no trouble.
16
By happy coincidence, I read this article just after seeing that the latest FOX NEWS POLL has WARREN BEATING TRUMP BY 7 POINTS in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup.
18
Times clumsy (or slanted?) headlines strike again. Seems to reinforce the weekly talking point of the Clinton Dems. She's an Eisenhower spectrum "reformer" and no radical... except to the propagandists of the 1%. (Most of whom are Democrats - as the Republicans don't even bother.) Electability reminds me of Hillary inevitability...Songs very much out of tune.
10
Only thing that count against her is that she is way too smart for general Americans
10
Warren and her team need to get her life story out there. Once people know her life they look at her with respect and see the person instead of the GOP caricature
8
This is really frustrating.
Firstly: there is absolutely nothing wrong with being or believing you are part Native American. I agree taking the DNA test to prove it was a misstep, but didn't it prove she was right (though perhaps not as right as she thought)? I realise the vast majority of Trump voters are lost to Warren (or any other Democratic candidate! Argh!) but of those that aren't am I really supposed to believe they will all think: "You know I really love most of her policies, they'll really improve my life - but I can't vote for her 'cause she was wrong to be wrong about how much Native American she is, unlike Trump who's never said anything not completely right about himself in his life." Please!
Secondly: can I advise every American who plans to vote for Elizabeth who meets someone who says (basically): "I'm not sure I'll vote for Warren 'cause I'm not sure other people will vote for her" to advise them to follow their heart and head and vote for her and just trust that enough others will do the same because it's the right thing to do? One hesitant and slightly confused basically solid American at a time - huh? Together I'm sure you can make a difference. Thanks.
7
@GRW
Dude, she indicated "American Indian" as her race when she applied to college, and on her bar associations.
There comes a time when you have to call this what it is - she lied about being a minority in order to get ahead.
Is that part of the ideals that the Democrat Party wants in its leadership?
6
@GRW
No, her test did not prove her right.
There is plenty wrong with believing stories as an adult. More precisely, there is plenty wrong with pretending to be a minority to score jobs and placements you otherwise wouldn't have gotten.
How many Harvard Law profs have a working background similar to hers? Zero. Sorry, but doing real estate legal work while working from home is not what gets you a professorship at Rutgers or Harvard.
This isn't to say that she's not smart. But let's stop pretending that she didn't cling to affirmative action policies to get her foot in the door when otherwise it would have been slammed in her face - as it was for many women who decided to go to law school after having children and no serious job history.
5
Warren is the only Dem candidate who can stand up on the stage and spar with Trump. She is strong in her energy and authenticity. Yet. She has a pedantic tone and policies which are very far to the left. These will not play well in "Peoria". Where it counts.
6
@Carol Colitti Levine
Shes never created a job in her life, whereas Trump has created tens of thousands of jobs.
You sure about your assessment?
2
I wonder who the "they" are. I think she could convince enough people that her plan, any one of them, is better than Trump's lack of a plan.
5
I don't think any of the Democratic candidates can defeat Trump on the basis of a gutter to gutter street fight.
So, instead, go forward with the best vision of America and how it can be made better. Fight the fight on the basis of smarts, where Warren would clearly win.
As as for Pocahontas, as she has to say is, this was family gospel.....but maybe it was wrong. Oh well.
3
For those who keep saying that America is not ready for a woman president but maybe some time in the future: just a decade ago, some people were saying that Americans weren't ready to elect a Black president. But they did.
I might also refer you to this quote from Martin Luther King's letter from the Birmingham jail: "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed... For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!'... This 'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never.'"
7
She would make a great President. She *will* be elected if Democrats and those who don't want more of the same vote for her. Those voters are the majority.
This 'can she beat Trump' is nonsense. That the NYT's and WaPo continue to beat this drum is why my subs to both run out at the end of August.
I can't take this anymore.
8
Why does the NYT consistently editorialize against progressive candidates and call it news? It’s obvious that Warren is a strong candidate. Initially, because she is an actual progressive on many issues Warren was down played by corporate media, e.g. the NYT. When she said that she was a capitalist, the same media began to promote her as a progressive bulwark against Bernie Sanders. Also the neoliberals who promote identity politics, began to use her as a female candidate who could be used as an progressive alternative to Sanders who they falsely slander as a misogynist. It’s a win-win for these center right ‘moderates’ if they split the progressive vote. But then in the last debate, rather than fighting each other, Sanders and Warren worked together to promote a progressive agenda vs the other male and female neoliberal candidates. So consistently neoliberal media like the NYT must now start to raise ‘questions’ about Warren’s electability as they continue to editorially malign Sanders in their news reporting on a daily basis.
11
A stiff, ultra-liberal Senator from Massachusetts who misrepresented her background for decades and lectures incessantly while on the stump? Sure sounds like a winner to me.
13
1. She is from (not Massachusetts) Oklahoma. 2. Most people in OK have some Native American ancestry and many Americans claim it on the basis of some story told by their grandparents. 3. There is no evidence that Ms. Warren used her claim of Native American ancestry to get a job, college admission, or anything else for that matter.
10
@Susan
There's a world of difference in claiming a certain ancestry to your friends at the local watering hole and actually putting it on your job applications and law profile.
How many Rutgers law profs have a similar background to hers? Zero.
6
@Viv. Trump lied over 10,000 times since he became president and you worry about one lie that didn’t even make a difference in whether or not she got the job? SMH.
3
Warren should appear willing to confront the Native American heritage issue head on...Bring it up if necessary... Challenge Trump's fake claim of Swedish heritage..Challenge him on his German background... his racist background..
He will fight dirty and his opponent will have to be able to fight back even harder...Not easy for someone like Warren, but she may have to.
5
Warren stands out heads and tails above all other candidates on the campaign trail. She is promising the moon and I don't think her lassos is that big. Of course she will beat Trump.
3
A nation capable of appreciating Elizabeth Warren would never have elected Donald Trump in the first place. Donald Trump should have quit his campaign in disgrace as soon as the photo of him making fun of a disabled reporter came to light. Instead, he got more popular. Upon hearing his "Mexicans are rapists and murderers" comment, he should have been relegated to list of old, tired, wannabe Nazis, and sent home in disgrace by the custodians of his own party. Instead, it was on that day, he became a serious contender. And upon his nomination, every Democratic voter in America should have stopped whatever squabble we were all having and set our minds on a singular task to send Trump down in flames. Instead, Democrats intensified their internal bickering, while many went into full "pout mode" and refused to vote for Hillary.
I cannot point to one single factor in the 2016 Presidential election that gives me any hope that a majority of voters possess the intelligence or attention span to understand or appreciate Elizabeth Warren.
8
My favorite argument for Elizabeth Warren's electability comes from an old 1990s Simpsons episode, where in a fictionalized future, the grown up Lisa Simpson is elected president to clean up the mess (and vast national debt) left behind by fictional President Trump. To me, Liz Warren is our real Lisa Simpson. Here's hoping.
8
After 50 years of voting as a Dem, I’m going to bed
2
@RVC
She reminds too many people of Marge.
6
She'll win if there are fewer articles like these.
Please stop issuing and reinforcing this trope. Elizabeth Warren is credibility itself. What better person to believe in? Focus on that, because what you're doing here undermines her. It isn't neutral. It's a negative force and a scare tactic that has consequences.
13
I never fail to be stunned by the incredible cowardice of so many Democrats. Vote for person YOU want to see in the White House. Period! This constant quaking and shaking about what "other people" might think is vomit-inducing. Grow a spine!
14
… after having lived here for 30 yrs, I have seen the GOP move more and more to the right to where they now are off the deep end into nationalism and white supremacy … so the well thought out programs Elisabeth Warren brings to the table are actually middle of the road democratic and should appeal to moderate Republicans and center left Democrats alike … they don’t fill the pockets of Trump and friends of Trump … which is exactly what this country needs. Since so many trust the capacity of Elisabeth Warren to put forward proper plans, not voting for her could hand the victory to the same moron that has wrecked this country domestically and its standing in the world.
7
I have a couple of problems with this article.
First, Joe Biden is not a "front runner". There is no "front runner" at this point. Nobody has voted and many are not paying attention. The for-profit media - the NYT included- love the horse race and they are in part responsible for Trump as President by their coverage.
Then there is this:
"These Democrats worry that her uncompromising liberalism would alienate moderates in battleground states who are otherwise willing to oppose the president."
If you support Donald Trump or would even consider voting for him, you are not a moderate. You are amoral regardless of party label.
Trump has put a union buster at the Labor Department, lobbyists in charge of our natural resources and environmental regulation and a South Carolina extremist whack-a-doodle in charge of the CFPB. He put a woman in charge of Education that is neither an educator or one who even attended a public school and has assiduously worked to undermine public education through her wealth. He claimed some of the right-wing extremists at Charlottesville were "good people" and has gutted the foreign service.
Harry Truman put it right when he said Republicans have called everything done for the common people Socialism from the time of the New Deal. He also said voters would reject a pretend Republican for the real thing- Joe Biden is closer to the traditional Republican Party than FDR, JFK, LBJ and Give em Hell Harry. Nominate Biden and get a Trump second term.
14
Iowa isn't representative of America and I believe Iowans' opinions are grossly disproportionate. They have only six electoral votes. What the people of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin think would be infinitely more useful information.
6
I want to see Elizabeth Warren (and all the rest of the Democratic candidates, for that fact) go into some of these deep red states and talk to the people there who are so sold on Trump. I want to see if she can connect with those people, even if she can't change their minds. The only one of the candidates who have done that is Sanders. We need a Democratic candidate who can make inroads in those red states. Let's see if any of them can pull that off.
9
I am so tired of this electability argument. It suggests that Ms. Clinton was an appealing candidate who ran a good campaign.
She lost in 2008 to an unknown newbie, and in 2016 showed she had learned little from that experience. I voted for her in 16 with a long sigh. I understand those who chose not to show up in the states she chose to neglect.
So far, Ms. Warren has been engaging, smart, and present. She isn’t my first choice but if it comes to that, I won’t have to hold my nose as I pull the lever.
10
Every time I see one of these articles about “electability” of a particular candidate it always centers around a few states like Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska, or the “heartland” and what their residents think. The states that have urban populations where individual cities contain more voters and varied opinions than most of those “heartland” states combined are rarely considered, as if being in the majority is unAmerican, or something. Hence, Hillary winning California and the popular count by over three million votes, but losing the election. The anti democratic Electoral College must be abolished and one-person-one-vote must become the norm as this is where the problem lies. The Republicans would fight this to the death, for changing demographics and the institution of true majority rule would guarantee their absence from power for decades to come.
6
What so many do not remember is that Trump won by approximately 70,000 votes in three states. Hilary was doomed from the beginning, between 20 years of Republican tactics beating her up, Comey's several errors, the albatross of her husband, etc. She was not a good candidate to begin with.
I am voting for Warren proudly, but will vote for whatever Dem wins the nomination, because I am not a child, and sometimes must compromise. To those who call her too far left for God's sake, do some research.
5
Biden-Warren? The Democrats need to win more than the presidency! The way for the Democratic Party to have any hope of reclaiming state and national seats in states such as mine is to draw black voters to the polls in large numbers. Biden-Warren will not excite the non-voters here. Biden-Abrams is a MUCH better ticket.
3
@Smufty
Those same black voters who couldn't be bothered to vote in the last election... Why exactly sound we care?
1
Why is Bernie Sanders not even mentioned in this article? Corporate Dems and the media are afraid of bold progressive change, a country that works for all citizens not just the rich. Sanders/Warren is the winning ticket!
6
@Leah Sirkin
I beg to differ—Warren/Sanders is the ticket.
3
@Robert Ash
Bernie is not too old to be president, but definitely too old to be Vice President:)
He also deserves to win after campaigning hard in 2016, bulding a movement, and setting the agenda practically every other democratic candidate is mimicking to some degree.
2
Someone with this amount of intelligence should be able to differentiate between a cold blooded murder and a killing in self defense.
Now, I don’t trust her judgment and that goes double for Harris.
4
"Electable" and "likable" are a fool's errand. Democrats are never going to win by choosing the nominee who appeals to people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway. They will plead that they thought of voting Democrat, and that they really and truly considered it, but in the end, they just had to vote Republican like they always did. So stop trying to pursue them, and go with what your heart tells you. Every time.
7
Elizabeth Warren did not begin her campaign for president by bragging about her native ancestry. trump et al dug that up, like the old name-caller would've done for any tidbit to try and discredit her.
She never used the family lore to gain an advantage as trump has claimed. Her only mistake was to take the bait of a shameful bully.
You can't beat a bully, Elizabeth. Especially when you are a principled, sincere, honest human being. Anything you say in that regard will get twisted you can be sure. Continue ignoring it.
I hope you win, I will vote for you for president and look forward to our proud country's dignity being restored when you serve.
6
_I_ worry about the possibility that she might not be president.
5
This article omits the fact that although a lot of people didn't like Hillary Clinton, she won the popular vote by about 3 million votes. Warren's so-called baggage of her Indian ancestry is a tiny blip compared to what Hillary faced. And it's even less than a tiny blip compared to the truths we know about Trump's love for dictators, his assaults on women, extreme racism, and general ignorance and incompetence.
9
...facing questions...
...many fear...
...many think...
And who are these "many"?
"more than three dozen Democratic voters and activists in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina"
How very scientific. This is just another piece of self-fulfilling doubt-casting directed toward progressive candidates by the centrist NY Times. Yawn.
6
This New Your Times subscriber back Ms.Warren and is NOT WORRIED. She can do the job. Let a female run our country for the first time.
5
not to be anti-feminist here yet it is refreshing to see Warren with a new look.
1
To win the war against Xi Jinping who is the best and to fight against Putine who is best fit ?
1
Mentioned was her modest midwestern beginnings into a successful Harvard academic and public advocate; but as a detraction to feasible frontrun. WHY??? She's demonstrating a 20th-centuryAmerican dream, but its presented as a liability. Just what mindset does this article espouse? Visions of circular firing squads are coming to mind.
3
This is redolent of the mindless Clinton coverage last cycle. I find it inexcusable that the Times can't get its political/election coverage anywhere close to what informed intelligent readers demand and are forced to seek elsewhere. Near tabloid like horse race reporting is sub standard at this point. Apparently this means little to Times editors as it marches to a distant drum pronounced dead last time out. There are no excuses. I suggest readers take a look at "votesmart.org" they publish loads of factual non partisan factual information because the news media's coverage, rather lack of coverage is near criminal in its superficiality.
6
Just keep loading the guns for the circular firing squad....
Moderates are very real, very numerous and they are the ones who will determine the 2020 election.
Step out of the echo chamber.
7
Blah blah blah
The president was born with a silver spoon and was a millionaire by the time he was in grade school. He's only squandered what his dad gave hime. Warren can go on offense and rip him up when the time comes.
4
I am unsurprised by the well-based concerns regarding Senator Warren.
She is, unquestionably, fleet-footed as to how to she responds to questions.
I size her up this way: having a solution for every issue does not play well in my book. As well, Senator Warren might very well have a listening problem.
And Medicare-for-All might become an encumbrance. Perhaps a more nuanced approach— say a graduated reduction in age over ten years in qualifying for Medicare.
I think back a century ago to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, also a college professor. He proved himself as incapable to bend on the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles.
Having said all of this I find compelling the moderation of Senator Klobuchar vis-a-vis Senator Warren.
To my mind the best Democrat is someone with the bona fides to defeat Donald Trump.
1
She offers the best intellectual description of what is fundamentally wrong in this country, and with that understanding, offers the best, most consistent visionary approach to make things right. Principle means more to me than "win-able". Can't the two could come together, just once, in politics?
6
The secret to electability is someone who can motivate us, someone who can speak to our desire for change, who's life and works testify to the philosophy they have and the argument they make. Warren is exactly that candidate this time around, so far anyway.
10
I’m warming up to Warren. She gets better the longer she’s campaigning for ideas that help the average American. At first blush, she seems to want to overhaul our capitalist system, but I think she makes great sense in trying to get more equality for all Americans. I’ll vote for her anyday over Trump. I’m a moderate Democrat.
12
The only worry I have about Elizabeth Warren is her NOT getting the nomination. IF she does, watch her destroy Trump. She is OF the people and in rural areas, they'll see her sincerity and similarity in upbringing (she was raised poor in Oklahoma after all), and Trump will get trounced in some very red states that his campaign thinks are safe. Warren is the one!
10
Joe Biden's liabilities are like Hillary Clintons's: they both have a tendency to flip-flop on issues. For example, Biden has expressed different ideas about busing at different times. In contrast, Elizabeth Warren has taken clearer positions on issues, a quality which will inspire more people to get out and vote and makes her a stronger candidate than Biden.
5
A woman can win, but not this woman. As unfair as it may be, Warren reminds too many of the electorate of Marge Simpson, or of the fifth-grade teacher who hated boys. Her earnest sincerity in advocating her many plans strikes too many people as sanctimony.. This may say more about the electorate or the human race in general than about Senator Warren, but that’s how it is. The 2020 election may be our last chance. We cannot afford to lose this one to a typical American-left circular firing squad.
7
@Realist
You're speaking for yourself, not "too many people." Those aren't widespread beliefs, just yours.
6
@Realist
I completely disagree.
5
@JC and LFK
I would be happy to be wrong, and I would love to live in a country that is ready for a president like Senator Warren. Let me respectfully suggest that you step away from Ann Arbor and Charlottesville, delightful places that they are, and talk to people elsewhere.
This is our last chance.
7
It's called #womancapping. Women who run for political office are "capped at the knees" at the starting line by political pundits and many in the electorate who believe all things being equal, a woman is a worse choice than a man for political office, particularly, the Presidency of the United States. This is soooooo last few hundred centuries, and we need to get past it as a society. I'm interested in Elizabeth Warren's ideas, and not her gender. Political pundits prey on the gender prejudices and preferences of many in the electorate to declare Ms. Warren as a big risk as a candidate. This is the 21st Century and I do believe people are ready to elect a female to the Presidency, but the pundits keep on pushing the narrative that the voting public isn't ready. This #womancapping feeds on itself and pundits need to recognize they are part of the false narrative that feeds on itself.
7
Trump’s not worried about being a racist.
Why should Warren be worried about standing up for issues that about 2/3rds of Americans support?
13
Thanks, NYTimes, for bolstering a potential swift-boating of Elizabeth Warren with an emotional, sexist issue so early in. During Kerry's campaign, I remember watching Chris Matthews filling his slow August shows with the swift-boat non-issue and fanning the flames night after night with interviews and shouting matches til it really took off. A dumb, stupid, non-issue whipped into a conflict to attract viewers. Why don't you explore Warren's policies and what, if any, research is behind them and see how that might influence supposed doubters?
15
@Gypsy Mandelbaum
Sorry, but it’s not about policy. Many things contributed to Kerry’s defeat in 2004: swiftboating, the general perception of Kerry as effete(”Bubba don’t windsurf”), the power of incumbency for even a moderately popular president. I would suggest that the single most powerful element was homophobia in Ohio, win right wing voters turned out en masse to defeat a gay marriage issue. Ohio would have won it for Kerry.
In any case, Warren would lose for some similar concatenation of stupid, dumb non-issues. Maybe the Pocahontas thing, as stupid as it is. She is simply too vulnerable. Like Adlai Stevenson, she would need more than the votes of intelligent people.
2
I’m not worried.
2
@Kacy M
Neither was Hillary
4
The winning ticket is Biden-Warren.
3
Warren is Sanders-lite but equally uncharismatic. The more she lectures me the less I listen. I know the NYT is totally hooked on her but they will fall for a glass of water with a “d” next to it.
Socialism is just not going to play well to the independent voters much less those in Texas or Florida.
8
Warren is dishonest in a way that is more dangerous than Donald Trump.Her fake Indian heritage is the least of her problems.Michael Brown was not murdered That case in Fergusson was evaluated by the Obama Justice department and the officer was found innocent.It was also dishonest to say that you are a progressive then endorsing HRC against Sanders 1n 2016.She is going to melt in the limelight if she is the democratic nominee.
10
" ... allow Mr. Trump to drown out her policy message with his attacks and slurs against her ... " Mr. Trump is going to do that to whoever the Dem nominee is. He has already started - "Sleepy Joe" Biden, "Alfred E. Newman" (Pete Buttigieg), etc. His base is eating and will eat it up. Just ignore him, don't feed the troll.
6
What a sad and shameful article. The only reason these people sense any worry about Warren is because that’s all the Democratic Party and the Biden Club here at the Times has talks about.
What are you going to do when Democrats alienate progressives?
8
@Noah G
Blame "purist" progressives for not showing up to vote for yet another uninspiring centrist, that's what.
2
@Noah G
If progressives become sufficiently alienated from the Democratic Party, they can give up hope for progress, and perhaps even their safety, for the remainder of their lives. Yes, it’s just that bad.
1
Amazing the lengths the NYT will go to not mention Bernie Sanders. "Few candidates inspire..." They will go from mentioning Biden as number 1 (and falling...) and skip straight to number 3...
8
We don’t need to explain Elizabeth Warren or any other Democrat. We need to stop allowing the world’s most terrible person to hold our candidates to standards that don’t apply to him. Stop apologizing. Stop explaining. And most of all: stop worrying! Your insecurities make other people doubt the fitness of very comparably fit candidates. Anxiety is communicable! Chill, people! NYT included.
6
The USA news media of every stripe, including the nytimes, is repeatedly driven to present Warren as un-electable. One article after another tells America the same droning mono-message. I question the veracity of news articles like these. Meanwhile -- Biden is doddering and he needs to retire out of politics for everyone's good yet for some reason many newoutlets including this one think he is "the one."
9
I think most of the democratic candidate can defeat Trump but Mayor Pete of Indiana won't have any problem defeating Trump, because Mayor Pete understand who we are dealing with and he knows how to deal with a psychopath.
Tulsi Gabbard should not have any problem with Trump, either.
Both are veterans, they will make the coward's head spin !
2
Actually, this article should be entitled "Pearl-clutching NYT editors worry Warren may embarrass them by winning nomination" or maybe "Clueless NYT editors worry about nonexistent moderate voters."
In 2016, it was endless days with headlines celebrating HRC while clueless criticism of Sanders in so-call "analysis" stories. You people STILL don't get it -- YOU put Trump in the Oval Office by your unwillingness to accept the policies favored by the rank and file.
Sorry, not listening this time!
17
I wish I could recommend this comment a thousand times to raise it to the top of the list. Says it all.
5
Democrats should be more worried about old Joe Biden and whichever black female running mate the DNC chooses. Doesn't look too promising to me.
9
Another stupid - and self perpetuating, self fulfilling - horse race story, instead of substantive coverage of the candidate’s positions.
I did not learn ONE SINGLE THING about Warren’s stands on any issue from reading this article.
If people could learn more about them in the Times, maybe, just maybe, more people would overcome their “electability doubts”.
If the mainstream news media wants to know “what’s the matter with Kansas” it should look in the mirror.
I stopped watching TV news. Am I going to have also rely on reading the Guardian?
12
@unreceivedogma
this is called "sticking your head in the sand."
1
Worried? About a woman? Worried???
The handwringing by feckless dems over gender is disgusting and a completely cowardly passive aggressive move typical of Trump not FDR or JFK.
It lacks courage and projects the ugliest and basest uneducated fears.
BUCK UP!!
4
Double standards. An ignorant, nasty, clueless, hatemongering, misogynist, greedy, racist man was elected ... but when it comes to Democrats, we can’t bear to elect a smart, kind, egalitarian, hard-working, thoughtful woman? What is wrong, people?
12
O.K.: New York Times. We know spin when we see it. Enough. Who are these worried Democrats? Where's the news here?
8
@Inez
I am by no means a fan of Trump, but I do seem to have missed those "documents" that show Trump is a sex offender or rapist. Maybe you could post a link?
1
Each time that Trump insults her Elizabeth Warren should say that’s she is not concerned about insults coming from a documented serial sex offender and rapist.
4
“Electability” isn’t electability — it is simply the OPINION of what’s electable from the same people who brought you “electable” Gore, Kerry, and Hillary and we’re scared about unelectable “Obama.” This is “news,” NYT?
5
This democrat doesn't worry in the slightest. She is the best candidate. Shame on you NYT for making this your headline. It's Hillary all over again. How about a headline about ONE of the trump atrocities that are occurring every day? Crickets.
4
I don't "worry about her." Why would I? She's super-smart. She gets it all. She's from the middle of the middle. What is wrong with you, NYT?
5
What I "worry about" is whether the NYT will EVER stop gaslighting its readers about any Democratic presidential candidate to the left of Attila the Hun.
Stop it. Just stop it.
11
This election will be decided not by the Democrats and not by the Republicans but by the Independents - they will not vote for Warren or Sanders. Progressives who did not vote because they saw no difference between Clinton and Trump gave 2016 to Trump. How's that working for you?
1
@Beech49
So a few wishy washy "Independents" get to decide? That's not democracy.
1
@Beech49
And how's it going to work for you when you steer toward the center (again) and some progressives stay home or vote third party (again)? But I'm sure the same game plan that lost the last election is sure to work this time.
2
I don’t like it when the New York Times edits Pete Buttigieg out of the forum. See, it’s not Warren’s uncompromising liberalism that would make the Presidency unattainable; just the uncompromising part. Our Congress has succumbed to a partisan tug of war that keeps legislation batted back and forth, never passing go. And that is sadly, and through no fault of her own, Warren’s stock in trade. Like Trump, you don’t mention Buttigieg. I know why Trump doesn’t mention him. Buttigieg so deftly swatted off the Alfred E. Newman sobriquet that Trump was too befuddled to come up with another one and only acknowledges Mayor Pete when he has to. Trump doesn’t attack Buttigieg because Buttigieg doesn’t respond like other contenders. He doesn’t respond like a politician. I am just saying, again, to the New York Times. Don’t be fooled into discounting Mayor Pete just because Trump does. Don’t edit Buttigieg out of the discussion. There are so many good reasons to keep his name at the forefront. And here’s the wrong reason to keep his name at the forefront. He scares Trump. That works for me. My favorite.
6
@Mix Rix
He has a quiet strength and power that the other candidates do not show. Yes, he truly scares Trump.
3
Is it really enough for us as a country to be simply against something, even if that ''something" is Trump, i.e., racism, greed, dishonesty and cruelty? We need also to say what we are for - and unlike Joe Biden that is what Elizabeth Warren is doing in her campaign. I'm proud she's my Senator and I'd be proud to have her as our President.
5
warren's native american heritage issue: the controversy was only that dna does not determine TRIBAL membership, which she never claimed. the current occupant of the white house will say outrageous and egregious lies about everything no matter what - that includes himself, his opponent, his record, his promises, his taxes...etc etc etc
2
i wish people would not worry so much about what other people are thinking and just support the candidate they think will do the best job. Not because they're "electable" or because they can throw out some zingers during a debate, but purely because they'd make the best President. If people would treat elections more like hiring an employee, then we'd all be better off.
4
Senator Warren will run circles around Trump in any debates, and can match his insults and derogation by staying focused on her plans to reform America's economy and political system. I don't know how anyone can fool themselves into thinking Biden would do a better job of this - his plans amount to "trust me" and his inability to articulate a clear thought without putting his foot in his mouth will be no help in beating Trump.
I've had this conversation with a liberal, SF area, retired female - she's a self-described "pragmatist" and rhetorically contorted herself to justify why my support of Senator Warren is a mistake because she "can't win". Here's some of the language this liberal retiree (and I emphasize liberal!) used in describing Senator Warren: "she's strident" (when I asked her to name a male politician she would describe as such there was a 2 minute pause before she finally pulled Ted Cruz out of her hat), she's too "school marm-ish", she's always "lecturing" people. I was completely shocked. I politely informed her that she's mastered Republican and establishment talking points (that happen to be rather sexist as well). Democrats may just end up shooting themselves in the foot yet again by rubber stamping the only candidate who excites no one. Senator Warren could be just the sort of candidate to actually change our nation's trajectory if Democrats could get over their immense fear of "losing".
4
Two things going for Warren:
1. Scapegoating works - not only as demonstrated by Trump, but unfortunately, everywhere else it's ever tried around the world, and Warren is scapegoating the right people - those who have captured most of the world's wealth and rigged the game against everyone else.
2. She's a former republican with a strong background in economics. Obviously, she's downplaying this in the primaries, but if she gets the nomination, expect her to play up the SAVING capitalism angle. I.E. - If you truly are worried about socialism, you need to fix the unsustainable excesses of unbridled capitalism.
4
I heard the Very Smart People insist that HRC was “most electable” last time around.
So, I’m not terribly inclined to believe the Very Smart People this time around.
10
The election of Donald Trump should have permanently put to rest any discussion of electability. He destroyed every existing theory of what made a presidential candidate unelectable.
High negative ratings
Never held public office
No foreign policy experience
Multiple accusations of sexual misconduct
Extensive history of flopping on issues
Lack of any policy plans
No support from the Party
Accusations and lawsuits involving fraud
Disrespected war heroes
Prior history of racial discrimination
Refused to release tax returns
Older candidate
History of donating to candidates in the opposing party
Never served in the military
Ran multiple companies that ended up in bankruptcy
But Elizabeth Warren is a woman and was called a name. The NYT thinks we should be concerned.
4
You guys in the media seem to be the only ones determined to focus attention on whether or not she's electable. It seems to be a favorite method of reporting on female candidates that men do not get. everyone I know knows she is and even if she's not their first choice everyone is focused on not trump. stop the misogyny
3
Is there a smidgen of survey data to support the idea that Trump's Pocahontas shtick will hurt Warren with Dem and independent voters? We all know the meme is out there and popular with the Trump base. But that is irrelevant to Warren's electability unless her target voters will be less willing to vote for her because of it.
Instead of punditry about the slur perhaps the NYT should use its resources to survey voters on its relevance.
4
I think Elizabeth Warren would be great as president. However, she does come across as shrill and a bit grating as a candidate. This is unfortunate.
6
Are American voters so averse to having someone smart in the WH that they would vote for Trump in a Warren-Trump match-up? They voted for an intellectual midget in 2016, and now they're, hopefully, seeing the damaging consequences of doing so. Warren is electable because of her smarts and her policy positions. It's smart policy that will defeat a candidate like Trump. So please don't do to Warren what you did to Clinton in 2016 by focusing on inanities.
4
“Democrats have to be perfect and traditionally presidential or else I will vote for the political equivalent of an unsealed balloon released to the sky.” - the American Electorate
2
It's unclear which candidates don't inspire worry? Maybe Obama running for a third term?
“If it were completely up to me, I’d vote for her.” How does this make any sense at all?
1
As someone who plated automotive bumpers for a living before going to University.
Ms. Warren is too far away from the experience of average Americans, who live from paycheck to paycheck, never knowing when they will be laid off next, to emotionally connect with average working Americans.
Trump was forced by his father to work on construction sites and his mother came from a dirt poor Scottish family.
Trump did have a privileged upbringing, but along he learned to communicate with average Americans.
It paid off in his TV career, and later in politics
2
@Karl
Trump was totally scripted and reading off of cue cards during the run of The Apprentice. And he has no idea of how the other 99.9% lives. He proves that all the time.
But some people will see and hear only what they want.
2
@Karl, Warren is from a working class family. Look it up. Trump is just crude and crass (so was daddy Trump—former KKK member). He never really had to work. He was already a millionaire at age 5. His work was token work. He’s had a free ride from birth.
Don’t be fooled by his fake working-class schtick. He’s an actor (a bad one) playing you and all the other voters he’s scamming.
Warren really cares about inequality. Trump exploits it. The fact that he ran casinos (badly, like everything else he’s fine) tells you something. Anyone in that business is deliberately making a killing off of poor people. The saying goes that “gambling is a tax on stupidity.” Trump is stealing your country from you.
2
The simple answer is that E. Warren is incapable of beating Trump. To each his own to figure out why that is true.
6
I an not worried about Elizabeth Warren at all. In fact, I plan to vote for her in the Democratic primary and the general election. A smart, passionate, engaged, fearless candidate, what’s to be afraid of? That she’s female? And smarter than you are? Get over it. After alpha male Trump, we could use a correction.
3
Dear NYT reporters:
August 15th.
Warren: 28% (+16)
Biden: 17% (-7)
Sanders: 17% (-7
The first phase of our campaign for America the beautiful? Win activists on the left who are the heart and soul of the Dem party.
The next phase is to win a wide swath of the middle.
The third phase is to give 45 and his Russian crime syndicate their day in court and then get his whole family in cages. Actually I just want to imagine that. I want to treat them better than they treat Americans and people who are seeking asylum here.
Landslide is coming.
The first phase resulting from the best organized political campaign in a generation:
"Elizabeth Warren’s early investment in Iowa is paying off.
A new Iowa Starting Line-Change Research poll shows the senator opening up a commanding lead in the Iowa Caucus. Warren was the top pick of 28% of likely Iowa Caucus-goers in the poll, an 11-point lead over the nearest competitor. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were both tied for second with 17% each. Pete Buttigieg came in fourth at 13% and Kamala Harris has the backing of 8%.
Both Cory Booker and Beto O’Rourke garnered 3% of caucus-goers’ support, while Steve Bullock, Tulsi Gabbard, Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer got on the board at 2%. Julian Castro, Michael Bennet and Andrew Yang rounded out the field at 1%, while everyone else had less than that."
2
I don't "worry about her." Why would I? She's super-smart. She gets it all. She's from the middle of the middle. What's the problem?
2
2020 will be like no other Presidential election in this country. We can't take any chances. Our nominee HAS to be a center- leaning candidate. Obama won because he was a centrist and many felt he would fit in. Many left-leaning Dems want to go with a wild card. Wrong. Biden is for shoring up Obamacare and he has the right demenor (sp?). We have a crazy person running this country and we are tired of it. Biden is a nice guy who understands government.
1
Elizabeth Warren and, to a lesser extent, Bernie Sanders are the only two candidates worth voting for. (Biden is a born loser and most of the others are not to be trusted.)
Warren for President!
3
Biden can say a hundred stupid things before breakfast and still keep his minimal lead. Trump can insult the Pope and take a dump on the White House lawn, and some of his supporters will still be naming their kids after him.
But Warren makes the mistake of sounding "too professorial" (Something they used to say Obama) and flubs one ancestry test, and suddenly she's "unelectable?"
You know, I think the feminists are right. We live in a misogynistic, narrow-minded country that enforces ridiculous double standards on women, and those standards are constantly robbing us of the chance to put competent people in charge.
I saw the coverage from Iowa. People were flocking around Warren like she was a celebrity. She has no problem being likable to regular people.
5
NYT, Stop promoting worry about Warren or any one else's "electability". This is not your job.
Explain her many plans, explain her accomplishments, interview colleagues and mentors. Give us tangible information.
We who are reading the NYT, are very able to make up our own minds when given the facts. Not implanted with worries and what if's....Write in opinion articles about your fears...do not project them onto us.
3
Her mealy-mouthed politically correct schoolmarm stances, like pretending to be a Native American, really stick in one's craw. And we need to depart from the failure we call our venerable Two Party System that is really One Rule by Money. By whatever means necessary.
5
Is America ready to elect a woman President? Of course it is. America elected a black man whose middle name was Hussein—twice.
Is Elizabeth Warren too far left to be elected? That is a difficult question. Will she be able to moderate her positions so as to appeal more to the middle after she wins the nomination? The first question is difficult in part because the second question is difficult.
2
If the media stopped perpetuating the idea that women are 'unelectable', voters would have more confidence in Warren and other female candidates. One woman lost. So what? Is the majority of the population now categorically unelectable? Maybe not so much if the media stopped driving home the point.
Nobody likes Biden. He's a gameshow host bozo, but if the media keeps harping on his electability, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy and we'll have another 4 years of Bozo in chief no matter which party wins. Please stop the nonsense.
4
@kitty
They aren't saying that all women are unelectable, just Hillary & Warren
6
Too school-marm-ish. Too Hillary 2.0. Too easily rolled by DJT.
7
EWarren has calmed down quite a bit from her Hillary C days, however, I simply have too many visuals of her off the wall screaming. Would prefer Biden or Ms. Gabbard.
4
Readers should look at the Dornsipe Poll at USC, that has a strong methodology and has success in its past election predictions. Its methodology is explained at their website, as are past poll results.
https://dornsife-center-for-political-future.usc.edu/past-polls-collection/2019-poll/
As of June, 2029, its sample of registered voters said Dems prefer older White guy candidate:
June 2019
USC Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research
Methodology and Survey
Los Angeles Times Article This poll asked voters to create their perfect candidate. Democrats picked an older white guy Janet Hook, Los Angeles Times (June 19, 2019)
1
My suggestion to Senator Warren is to get some coaching on smiling and warmth. The first picture in this article is a good example - the woman with Warren is beaming, while Warren looks to be grimacing. A lot of people use intangibles to get them over the hump with committing their vote to a candidate and warmth I believe is one of those. Biden exudes a lot of warmth because he is always smiling. Might be one reason people gravitate to him.
3
@Scott Werden
Lol...the dude (Biden) has so much botulism (Botox) injected into his face he looks waxen. His face barely changes; how can you tell if he's smiling or grimacing?
He exudes a caricature of an old politician past his prime.
2
If the Democrats run on a handout, giveaway, or entitlement platform, they will lose in 2020.
For Ms. Warren's plans to work, she has to pull off a real coup, as far as funding is concerned.
She has to get states, some of which are already in a fiscal bind, to agree to match funding with the federal government (part of her plan), on a huge scale (on the order of $500 billion over 10 years, and ongoing).
She has to convince Congress to agree to a wealth tax plan, generating $2.75 trillion over 10 years. Wow! Our U.S. GDP is only about $19.4 trillion.
Warren's plans may be backed by spreadsheets, but the funding column, thus far, is blank (or filled in with imaginary numbers).
This is a good reason to back a more moderate, and realistic, position.
8
@Raz
Okay. Let's talk figures. Due to the tax giveaway to the wealthy last year we have an $867 billion budget deficit and an almost $4 trillion spending spree going on --- and that's just this fiscal year!
"Giveaways" are not truly giveaways since many people need those lifesaving funds and put it back into the economy when they buy groceries, medicine, diapers, pay rent, utilities, gasoline, etc. I do not like welfare fraud anymore than anyone else. But painting social programs as "giveaways" is not fair nor informed. That money often supplies a safety net, keeps kids in school, roofs over people's head, hunger at bay so it's money well spent.
In your state, folks condemn "giveaways" in the form of subsidies to ranchers and farmers. I would not support fraud in those programs either but I do support keeping our ag industry afloat in hard times since it too, has an impact on our economy.
1
@Sherrie
I support welfare for those who actually need it, not for those who simply line up at the public feed trough with no intention of working, themselves.
Giveaways:
18.4% of households on SNAP (part of the farm bill, and a bigger percentage of the farm bill funds go to SNAP, than to farmers)
Farm subsidies...they do nothing to control food prices and make large industrial farms possible. If we don't get rid of them, the land is going to be controlled by a bunch of corporate kingdoms.
Guaranteed income for all.
Reparations of any kind (and there are several being discussed).
Medicare for all.
Paying back college loans for people...make a deal, hold up your end.
5
@Raz
Nice job in ignoring my points about how these programs contribute to the economy, albeit in backdoor ways. You talk like they go down a black hole.
And very nice job ignoring the big elephant in the room re: Republican welfare for the wealthy and sticking debt to the generations that will follow.
2
I worry that Warren is a lone wolf and won't build an effective coalition of Democratic supporters. For this reason, I'm out.
4
What a shame!
My vote is for Warren ,but I do wonder why in polls with vs. Trump she does so poorly compared to Sanders or Biden. RCP has Warren 2.4 and Sanders 8 and Biden 8. Warren and Sanders are near identical in most of their policies yet there is a huge discrepancy in general election polls. Whereas Sanders does just as well as Biden who has a wildly different policies. The only factors that can explain this are lack of name recognition (Sanders from 2016, Biden from being VP) or gender. Hopefully it’s not the latter but I fear it may.
1
@NKM
No, Warren and Sanders, while touting many of the same ideas; are not in lock step. Nor are they alike as politicians and people. They have many serious differences.
That is like saying HRC and Sanders voted 92% of the time the same on issues; they must be the same. Not even close. It is those differences that really make them stand out from each other.
Same with Liz 'n Bernie.
Yes, gender may have something to do with it. But that like/dislike works both ways doesn't it. Human nature and all it's foibles and idiosyncrasies.
Many times it isn't gender related. Many times people just don't like or match up with other pol's and candidates. Sex be danged.
1
Elizabeth Warren comes across to me as earnest, passionate and unequivocal in her conviction that her policies are right and what this country needs. She is a true believer of her policies.
Unfortunately, her policies are way too radical and will not work in the general election. It is too much, too soon. Banning employer provided insurance, tax payer funded health insurance to illegal immigrants, open borders will not win the electoral college votes.
Her wealth tax proposal has already been tried by a dozen European countries in the 1990s and 2000s - only three still have it in 2018. And the math doesn't work. There are enough details on her website to put together a spreadsheet showing that the estimated projected collection from the wealth tax falls far short of paying for all of her programs.
Warren's tax returns show that she and her husband reported adjusted gross income of around $900,000 both in 2018 and 2017. Forbes estimates her net worth at around $12 million. I don’t begrudge anyone earning an honest buck. But voters may find it hard to reconcile the Warren wealth with her constant demands for more taxpayer subsidies on tuition and student loan forgiveness benefiting institutions like the one where she and her husband made their fortune.
This is why she is not electable. It's her policies, not that she is a woman, claimed Native American ancestry, not likable, etc.
4
Still another "election analysis" pushing ex-vice president Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination come 2020. And why? Oh, supposedly because he would be a "safe candidate." Or, how about because of the worrisome fact--to pseudo-liberal Democrats, that is--that progressive ideas have taken hold within certain segments of the Democratic party? And despite all the political obfuscation that this provokes among party operatives, the fact remains that popular sentiment clearly seems to accept this ideological shift as part of a new election platform.
3
This article has two goals: Elevate Warren as part of the project to knock out Sanders. Then create enough worry about Warren herself, that the "centrists" triumph. Only such a triumph will be like Hillary Clinton's.
6
When reporters fixate on "electability" and ask voters about it, they are helping to plant the seeds of fear and hesitancy in the voting population. It's clearly a LEADING QUESTION. However, most people I know, including myself, if asked would say "YES, Warren is very electable."
5
‘Electability’ is most easily measured and understood by the results of the polls and primaries. The sample size of this writer’s ‘poll’ (fewer than a dozen) is insignificant and hardly random. Hearsay is not a scientifically valid method for determining a candidates electability.
3
The best study of Warren's claim to native American ancestry was published in the Boston Globe, September 1, 2018. That exhaustive investigation shows that Warren never benefited from any such claim. The Globe showed documentary evidence that any reference she made to ethnicity came AFTER she had been hired into a job. She earned later jobs based on her earlier stellar performances. You don't get a job at Harvard Law because you're part anything.
I like Warren. I went to school with women like her. My only caveat goes to one issue: eliminating private insurance in addition to Medicare for all. And I believe she'll repudiate that mistake at an appropriate time. Why mistake? Two related reasons. (1) Because our goal should be to raise the standard of care for those who can't afford it; not lower the standard of care for those who can. And (2) Because every dollar that people of means use for private health insurance is a dollar that Medicare can save.
2
Interviewing three dozen voters does not constitute a scientifically valid measure of electability. Carefully managed polls and primaries more reliably determine who is ‘electable’ and who isn’t, rather than hearsay and conjecture gathered from the opinions of a few voters whom were personally chosen by the writer.
1
If Democrats don't vote for the candidates they really want, they aren't likely to get the policies they really want. Senator Warren needs to work hard on the Native American issue, but in other respects she seems to be handling potential difficulties quite well. She shows every sign of being someone who'd do the job of president well. As for electability, any Democratic candidate, no matter who, will face a hurricane of slurs, lies and threats. There isn't any safe candidate. Why not choose someone who represents things that can inspire people and turn out voters who otherwise might feel too discouraged to bother, instead of a mere least of evils?
3
Many of the Democrats are promising the sun, moon , and stars in an effort to get the nomination. However, sooner or later, when the voters realize that they will somehow have to pay for all of the "freebies" the potential nominees want to give out, the voters will vote with their wallets and bank accounts in mind.
2
We need to win back the rust belt and the middle. HRC gave them away by ignoring the rust belt and insulting working people.
The middle is where the most votes are up for grabs.
I preferred Warren in 2016. But if she’s the nominee and promotes forgiving student debt, taking private health insurance away, giving health insurance to illegal immigrants, and open borders, she will hand a landslide to Trump.
4
What does it say about our country that a candidate who has no-nonsense plans to address our problems is considered a firebrand? Do we really want a candidate who will tell us everything will be fine and not push us too hard, when there seems to be a consensus things are broken?
3
..Personally, I'm not a fan of Warren's 'let's overturn the system' ideology.. -- She comes across as too ideological & unable to form consensus with different viewpoints...
..-- Also, I'd be concerned that her policies could destabilize an already uncertain economy...
...I'd pretty much vote for anyone over Trump, but I do think a lot of moderates & independents would be put off by Warren's policies..
3
Newsflash: there's not one candidate who would not face persistent worries about their ability to beat Trump. So, let's look at the candidate on the merits, and coalesce support behind the person who can best represent Democrats and nonDemocrats for the next Presidential term. Enough handwringing from the headlines
5
Many in the US still believe in American exceptionalism. We are not exceptional as compared to Europe. We have exceptionally expensive and poor healthcare, exceptionally poor education. I live in France half time since Trump got elected. France is a country were health care, education and, not guns, are valued. Ms Warren is the only candidate that understands we need to change radically because we are far from exceptional and we are far behind western Europe. I hope that the press supports her rather than attack her. We need trump out and the press can have either a positive or a lethal influence on her. We have to all stick together to move together into a more enlightened society.
3
@Graciela
"Ms Warren is the only candidate that understands we need to change radically because we are far from exceptional and we are far behind western Europe."
Dang. Could have sworn we heard all these ideas four years ago; in the last elec. Oh yeah, we did. From the very same candidate that is running in the primary also and polling ahead of her (in most polls...).
Seems Ms. Warren isn't the only one huh.
3
We all know that Elizabeth Warren is tough, smart, honorable, prepared, diligent and patriotic. She has a positive vision for America's future, detailed practical plans to realize that vision, and the willpower to execute them.
So, why do we doubt that Warren can win?
Because she is a she? Do we have any evidence that a male will do any better? There are more women voters than men. If we are pursuing a counting strategy, a female candidate appeals to more voters than a man.
Because Warren is a progressive? Do we have any evidence that an establishment centrist will do any better? Hillary didn't. Obama ran as a progressive (then governed as a right of center centrist). Is Joe Biden really all that charismatic that majority of voters who say they are desperately seeking change will vote for reliable old Uncle Joe instead of reform?
You need to support the candidate you most want to see become president. Trying to second-guess other voters who think differently than you is a fool's errand. Trusting polls is even sillier.
If you vote your heart, you may be pleasantly surprised to discover that many other Americans also have hearts and your preference is the most popular candidate who, by definition, is the one most likely to win.
If your candidate loses, then live with your broken heart and vote with your with head for the stronger Democratic nominee.
Smart voters don't outsmart themselves by fantasizing they can read other peoples minds and predict the future.
3
@Been There
HRC did not lose because she was centrist. She lost because she ignored the rust belt and went out of her way to insult working people.
We must win back the middle, where the most votes are up for grabs.
3
All of the idealistic talk and ideas will vanish into thin air if Trump is re-elected. He wants to change the words on the Statue of Liberty for God's sake. Therefore I will vote for the person I think has the best chance of beating him. Right now I think that person is Joe Biden. There's plenty of time for me to change my view, but realistically the race to the left by some candidates will turn off voters we need. It is the duty of the Democratic Party to save the country by removing the Trump Crime Family from power. NOTHING else matters.
2
A good handful of Democratic hopefuls are electable. Stop the handwringing.
Out of that handful, we must now choose who's BEST for the job. After months of observing the candidates, I know for me, it's Elizabeth Warren. She has the greatest depth of knowledge, the best communication skills for the masses, the strongest spine with lots of grit, and she has patience. She also has courage to withstand the slings and arrows of petty minds. Think back when she took to the road to sell Obamacare and made impressions on both Democrats and Republicans---which speaks to her power to explain the complicated issues.
As for her DNA, I was fed all my life the story of my Cherokee heritage, which just recently was proved bogus. Darn! I so wanted to be a proud Native American. I would tell Elizabeth to answer with pride as well in the thought of it.
3
I would like to see a Biden - Warren ticket. Biden for electability and moderates. Warren so she can be VP-President for 16 years. And bring about some REAL change to make US really 'great' again.
Can we please stop lumping Warren and Sanders together? They are two individual candidates with individual positions on issues and with vastly different styles and background.
4
Warren's reality-TV inspired video with Carlos Bustamante was a train-wreck or a parody or maybe a bit of both. Watch it again.
1
When I was a MA resident, on several occasions I emailed or called Senator Warren’s office for a response on various issues. Never did I get a response. I did however, receive a mailing from her saying she was holding a meeting in my area and if I would like to speak with her and ask her questions, that privilege would be granted if I donated $5000 to her campaign.
16
@TravelingProfessor - that’s just a lie. And you know it.
2
This otherwise excellent analysis overlooks my big concern with Warren -- her insistence that people must forfeit their private health insurance under her single-payer plan. Wholly apart from the public policy merits of her plan, this goes directly to electability. We routed the GOP in the midterms in part because the electorate feared the GOP would take away their health care protections. We simply can't risk handing this issue back to the GOP in 2020. Joe Biden's plan to install a public option provides the same political benefit -- Medicare for all who want it -- without the political liability of removing individual choice. Apart from that issue, I think Warren is a superior candidate to Joe Biden. But JB is more electable and that is all that matters.
10
@Peter. What makes you so sure that Biden is more electable than Warren? His policy positions compared to her or what?
I think you've just been brainwashed to believe that by the old guard Democrats and have no real evidence to support it.
1
We need a candidate with the spark, character and personality to pull everybody together and make Americans glimpse the possibility of a country that is united, strong, compassionate, fair, inclusive and respectful of our own differences. A candidate that can make us all dream again, like we did in 2008.
I see only one candidate for president that would mercilessly annihilate Donald Trump in a debate, call out his lies, set forth real and factual proposals, and defend them like modern samurai, with grace, no fear, and great communication skills.
That candidate is Elizabeth Warren.
To be clear, she is not my ideal vote, and I do not agree with several of her proposals. We’ll all have to get used to the idea that we won’t be able to vote for our personal favorite.
Warren however has unquestionable strengths: she the only one who’s really done her homework, and has developed a series of solid and effective solutions for the most sensitive and pressing problems we face. She’s a populist who can expertly surf today’s fluid media and social media cycles, but she also backs all her positions with facts, she’s one of our top experts in banking and finance, and she’s a true capitalist. She also has a solid amount of cold-blooded, non-ideological pragmatism that allows her common-sense solutions to get through to moderates.
She would obliterate Trump in a debate.
None of the current candidates can do that. Not based on what we’ve seen.
21
@Donkey Spin A true capitalist? Thanks for the laugh!
1
She's our best bet. Would love to see her debate the Big Child. I don't think de Blasio has a chance, but that's also a debate I'd like to see.
6
This article would be better with some reporting of head to head Dem vs Trump poll data in swing states to test the electability presumptions for all leading Dem candidates. I’ve seen a few such swing state polls published elsewhere. It’s super early for polls but better to balance the speculation with at least some facts.
5
What is the point of winning with someone who wants to maintain the status quo and attempt to be bipartisan with a Republican party that has tethered itself to wealth and win at all costs practices?
Trump is their creation. They’ve given us a tax bill that amounts to a tax heist for the wealthy, they want to repeal the ACA, environmental laws, cut deals with despots, allow Russian meddling in our elections while refusing to harden security for our voting system and propose nothing that benefits average Americans, and now an exploding deficit with economists worried about another recession.
What in the world is too liberal and how would we even recognize it after so much repression?
Journalists voices are important but need to refrain from picking winners and losers at this point.
I’ll take Pocahontas over Boss Hogg any day.
16
@MG
I’d take her too. But without the middle, will enough other people prefer her?
@Franco51
I don’t think any voter who can choose Trump is a centrist. He represents a movement towards radical change in this country and should cause much anxiety among mainstream Americans.
Democrats should be able to use that and win big.
1
The question is-Is Trump re-electable? Based upon the last two weeks, he is not.
Elizabeth Warren will run circles around him.
11
Many Democrats, Independents & Republicans (my brother among them) held their nose to vote for Hillary Clinton for various reasons: dirty tricks to block Bernie Sanders, (who I still believe could have won the general election), too corporate, or just never wanting her husband anywhere near the White House again. Yet she gained ~ 3 million more votes out of 128 million.
Anecdotally, colleagues across many states confided we would have worked for Warren.
Of course she can win--Elizabeth Warren went into this race with substantial credentials similar to Obama, experience, analysis and heart for ordinary people, knowledge, books authored, and governmental fixes for unrigging the skewed economy. In 2008 total popular votes were 1 million more than 2016 & Obama won by 9,500,000 votes. The votes are out there, and more people are motivated to return to sanity. Even in Kansas., where we won the Governor's office, and have a retiring (R) Senator
9
A few thoughts. 1. Let's get rid of the electability talk. In 2007 would anyone have dreamed that we could elect as president a young black senator named Barack Hussein Obama? in 2015 would anyone have believed that Donald Trump could be elected?
2. While I am the last feminist to discount the role of misogyny, that isn't what killed Hillary. Remember that in 2016 the biggest constituency was the non-voter. DJT won with fewer votes than Romney got when he lost in 2012. The problem was that she didn't inspire people to come out and vote. While she won the popular vote, she lost the electoral vote by 77,000 votes in those all important states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
3. We need a candidate that will inspire people to get off the couch by offering them a reason to vote. Every time the Dems run a "moderate" (which is a euphemism for Republican lite) they lose.
4. Is anyone really FOR Biden? Not that I've heard. They have a fantasy that he is electable. That won't inspire anyone to come out and vote for him.
5. Dems can't win with a candidate who offers nothing but not being as bad as Trump. Trump will certainly get his base out, not with compromises or by being moderate. If Dems are to win they have to get their base out by offering bold and progressive ideas. You aren't going to win over Trump voters with moderation. They clearly want Trump, not a moderate. Forget about Trump voters and get your own voters out!
17
I still believe the Democratic candidate hasn’t enter the race yet who can defeat Trump.
This group isn’t it, maybe vice presidential material.
3
I admit to some degree of selfishness--we didn't want Senator Warren to run because we need her in the Commonwealth. She is OURS, OURS, OURS. I don't care what her DNA shows. She is the smartest, hardest working, best prepared candidate and she would be great as president. I just hope she survives the brutality of the primary process.
13
Are you kidding? Ms. Warren has the right ideas for the right time and is quick on her feet, and there's no way she will take a back seat to trump in any debate. I wouldn't be surprised if trump found an excuse not to debate her.
I would go along with any Democrat against trump, but both my head and my heart say Warren. The last thing the Dems need is to chicken out of fielding one of their strongest candidates. I can't believe that the doubters seriously weigh Ms. Warren's PERCEIVED inability to respond to trump's one-liners, versus her policies that they favor. We all know what happened when the Dems fielded a "safe" candidate in 2016. Some courage, please.
17:00 EDT, 8/15
10
My theory is that a woman CAN win now. Trump has been the 45th man in a row and the worst one yet. He is awful about women. I think there is enough revulsion toward him that can help elect one of these several very competent women.
7
@markercan
I think a smart, experienced woman is the IDEAL anti-Trump. If a woman can't win against a sexist liar, then we will have many more years ahead of us until we get to the Whitehouse.
2
Elizabeth Warren deserves the support she receives. No wonder: her workable plans for change are believable. She's brilliant, solid, shines with her audience, wherever it is. She started the Consumer Protection Agency with we the people in mind. Of course you know how Trump did away with that.
Are voters worried about who can beat Trump? They'd be foolish not to be worried. Look at 2016. Too many put their faith in a charlatan. Manipulation, fake news through public media, dishonest cronies, a hopelessly outdated Electoral College, voter suppression, etc. etc.
At 90 I read reputable news, skip most TV, write letters, make small donations to many worthy fighters for a retreat from all things Mitch McConnell has to enable a takeover of
the Trump agenda.
We all must work in whatever way we can. Contribute. Talk about what is at stake. I'm worried, but confident that America won't make the same mistake again. I have a long memory of America's best administrations.
11
If a so-called Kenyan can win, so can a so-called Pocahontas. Electability is all about turnout and turnout is all about change we can believe in. Yes we can!
At this point some candidates are all about the change we can't believe in and about no we can't.
And some, I believe, are electable by the good people of America who will reward who offer them some good stuff to elect instead of predatory credit card company ties and gaffes.
6
Biden would lose "hands-down" against Trump. If Democrats will not pick someone smart - Warren or Buttigieg - we are looking at 5 plus more years of Trump.
7
"If it were completely up to me, I'd vote for her," said Jessie Sagona. News Flash: It is "up to me" -- and no one else. This is a person waiting for another NYT OpEd piece on electability to make up his mind for him -- "electability" being all about media buzz and pundits with little to fill their columns.
President Trump was considered to be the least electable candidate in recent history right up until 8 PM on election night. Vote for who you want to be president and ignore the glib politicos who tell you someone hasn't got a chance. That's their job. Yours is to elect a president you like.
And if you are afraid of Trump going schoolyard on you and calling you names, I suggest that you have some of your own to respond in kind. My current favorite: "Locker Room Donald."
6
I wish the times would write an article about the huge group of people who say enough with discussing ‘electability’. I want to think for myself. I want to vote for who I like. People like us exist and we want a voice. Please NYT help tell our story too.
10
If, like me, you believe Elizabeth Warren would be the best president, stop saying, "but she might not be electable". Don't be guilty of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Work to convince yourself, if necessary, and then others that she is electable.
Hillary Clinton was a woman, was widely disliked, was not an effective campaigner, and she still won the popular vote.
Stop describing Warren as some kind of wild eyed leftist. She is a reformer, not a revolutionary.
She didn't and maybe still doesn't handle the old Native American heritage claim well, but this is a single stumble in an overall sterling history.
Please stop looking for faults and start applauding the person and the policies. Elizabeth Warren can be elected--with our support.
21
@Conn Sunyata
I live in California, and I'm getting tired of hearing about Clinton winning the popular vote. Guess what: the vote was pretty evenly divided in the 49 states outside California.
5
re “If it were completely up to me, I’d vote for her":
Well, it is. So please do so.
The "conventional wisdom" and groupthink of the political chattering class and punditocracy should never be allowed to override the fundamental integrity of the American voter.
20
I’m much more worried about the state of journalism than I am about Elizabeth Warren. This information (not news!) about the misogyny she and other women candidates face could and should have been reported in a way that didn’t concede and perpetuate the underlying anti-woman assumptions, at least.
That said, I would offer strong encouragement to anyone who agrees that Warren would make a terrific, informed, caring, even visionary President. If we vote in the primaries for the person we believe is best for the job, we will be able to generate the necessary enthusiasm for a win in the general election. This—and not simply her gender—was why Hillary Clinton did not win the electoral college. Between the Clintons’ past and the DNC’s mistreatment of Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign, she did not have the passionate, enthusiastic support that gets people to the polls in full strength. Warren won’t suffer from these problems—and I think Americans have seen that there are scarier things to confront than a woman in the Presidency.
6
Sorry, although she’s wonkish and has a plan for everything ( remind you of 2016?), she is shrill and yells all the time. I’m sure she’s more sincere than Cory and others, with her indignation but she won’t bring independents to the voting booth! IMHO
15
She reminds me of several schoolteachers I couldn’t stand.
11
You can run down the list of Democratic candidates and find something about every one of them that calls his or her electability into question. Trump was supposed to be unelectable...right up until election night. Biden is currently seem as the most electable, but it appears that concerns about him are growing, based on his age and his frequent verbal slips, i.e. "gaffes". He seems more oriented toward the past than toward innovative policies to face the serious challenges of the future. And those concerns will only increase as the campaign goes on.
As for the concerns about Warren's electability, the main one seems to be that her ideas are too liberal. Many pundits are preaching that anyone not defined as a moderate is doomed. And yet... Warren's ideas to address the corrupting influence of BIG money in our politics and our chasm of economic inequality (as well as other issues) actually enjoy strong popular support when presented by themselves. As for eliminating private insurance as part of health care reform, surely there is room for discussion about the details of how to achieve universal coverage, which is the important point.
I don't believe that simply being a woman would make Warren unelectable. In 2016 Hillary faced a negative narrative built around her by DECADES of effort from her opponents. Warren has her detractors, but not to anywhere near the same degree. And with all the negatives about Trump any alternative SHOULD be electable.
3
The problem that I keep hearing in all of this "electability issue" is that: 1) It really is arising from an old and very sexist point of view (and a point of view Mayor Pete for example never seems to come up against) 2) Every one is assuming that Elizabeth Warren is incapable of intelligent compromise with other political leaders to get her ideas rolling should she win the presidential election. Warren is brilliant and that means she is also capable of leading a party toward the kind of structural change we do as a nation actually need: change that will take on the corruption in Washington and level the economic playing field for lower and middle class Americans.
Warren isn't going to kill a good idea for purity's sake. She is an open minded individual with high standards and high ethics. I don't agree with everything she says, but boy do I believe in her ability to implement and lead in an effective manner. She was a Republican for a long time – remember that – those of you who doubt she actually believes in capitalism. She does. But she wants a more fair and fairly regulated capitalism, and she is smart enough to know how to get that done. Americans have a hard time with wonky women and it is high time for us to get over that!
5
Well, there's a lot of time to go - and the jury is still out...
...but honestly, I wouldn't vote for her, or ANY woman - not right now.
Why?
The legacy of Hillary Clinton.
HRC FAILED to win the presidency in 2016 to what has GOT to be THE worst presidential candidate (I'm talking "Individual One" here - I mean, even HE didn't think he was going to WIN) put up to run against her (I mean, she even got a significantly large victory in the popular vote, and STILL she lost)
And why?
Well - opinions differ - but I think it was in great measure because she 1) pandered to identity groups, which dissipated her strength; 2) FORGOT - COMPLETELY - the BIGGEST "identity group" - i.e., unemployed, underemployed, and oppressed middle aged white workers in the Rust Belt; 3) had NO JOBS program to speak of; and 4) FAILED to articulate what you might call "mass traction economic demands" which are (a) honestly - all too obvious, and (b) that would appeal to a BROAD cross-section of voters, including the Rust Belt.
And honestly, all I see in the candidates - ESP. the WOMEN - in the first two debates are PALE SHADOWS of a candidate who ran using an ultimately LOSING STRATEGY.
And honestly, I don't see Warren doing much better right now.
So, if nothing changes, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Biden as the candidate.
Flawed as he is, at least he's a known quantity, and is consistently - IF, in fact, he is consistently AVERAGE.
3
The way he acts, the way the economy is going, the way he degrades every single person who doesn't agree expressly with him, the way he threw away how many reasonable offers at immigration reform last year and still throws a fit about our southern boarder... Any sane candidate should have no problem defeating Mr. Trump.
And yet I'm petrified.
8
An excellent piece! Look no further than this statement: "These Democrats worry that her uncompromising liberalism would alienate moderates in battleground states who are otherwise willing to oppose the president." This is exactly what is going to cost Ms. Warren a win against the current POTUS. Her grandstanding and constant stunt proposals are already alienating moderate dems who want realistic ideas on how to move this country forward. Ms. Warren is cooking her own goose by not addressing the frustrations that many moderates feel, particularly those voters in the mid-west and south, who feel her extreme liberalism hits just too close to what they view as socialism. Who is this hard working middle class she's constantly referring to? What is she planning on doing for them? If she views undocumented workers and the working poor as the middle class, then she's missing out on addressing a huge portion of the population that does not want four more years of the Trump horror show, but also want THEIR needs addressed! It has nothing to do with Ms. Warren's gender and everything to do with her inability to rally moderates. Trump is great at rallying his throngs of closed minded bigots and unfortunately that group and moderates repelled by Ms. Warren's extreme "proposals" represent a larger group than democrats who do support her. She will not beat Trump if she continues this.
6
I really like Warren but she needs to cool it on all the freebies. She sounds desperate. Many many people worked extra jobs or went to less status colleges to be responsible. To forgive 50k in college debt to others is a slap in the face. And healthcare is complicated. Just say she supports combo of private and public insurance to get to affordability for all. Most Americans don’t have time to really understand some of her plans and she’s giving the GOP sound bites.
And if claiming Native American heritage wrongly is the worst thing she’s done, she’ll be our cleanest President ever!!
12
@Meg Riley You nailed it!
1
@Patrick Healy, I've read your reply - - the official NYT reply I would guess - - to the many critical comments this article has received. Three questions come immediately to mind. If our roles were reversed, I'm not sure I would want to answer them 😁, but ask them I must:
1) Why hasn't the NYT done an article this election cycle that asks whether or not many voters aren't perhaps asking the wrong question when they focus so exclusively on "electability"? What exactly does that word "electability" even mean, and how can any of us, political pundits and writers included, presume ourselves to be accurate judges of something so fuzzy? As many previous comments have pointed out, people made the same argument about both Obama and Trump.
2)By writing an article like this with this very particular slant, isn't the NYT, in effect, putting their thumb on the scale? Is that "good" journalism, or even the role of journalism?
3) Why does this article leave out the very relevant and apt fact that in 2016, many people made the exact same comparison between Hillary and Bernie? I understand that there were multiple factors in Hillary's loss, but, even so, this debate between "head" and "heart" is not like some new thing. I am personally not sure we wouldn't have been better off going with our hearts in 2016.
3
Dear Ms. Sagona: Deciding whom to vote for IS completely up to you.
Sincerely,
The Elective Franchise
2
With the benefit of hindsight, when did Obama and Trump become electable?
2
Many pundits and strategists were having the same reservations about Barak Obama in 2007. He had even less legislative experience than Warren, his work as a "community organizer" carried much the same taint as Warren's claim to have some native American heritage. Certainly the right used both to disparage them.
But we have five more months of 2019 and at least six more until the conventions. Momentum, awareness and success of the message can change a great many things in much shorter amounts of time.
Trump had been abominable in office. He may not have the economy (Obama's economy) to point to much longer as a success because of his chaotic mismanagement. His laziness, incompetence, conscientious ignorance and cowardice--which I suspect is not only moral but physical as well--grows more stark and evident with every passing day (or tweet).
A growing contrast could be telling with time. Even overwhelming. it could make all the difference in the privacy of the phone booth, especially to those would never publicly support her. But with the curtain drawn, the ballot in their hands and in the privacy of their own counsel, who knows?
4
@crowdancer
I meant 'voting booth' in that last paragraph. Long day.
1
I love Warren, and have loved her for years.
I also don't think she's the strongest candidate. She lacks charisma -- as does Biden, as does almost every Democratic candidate currently running.
The only person who has the charisma to inspire confidence in ambivalent, half-interested voters is Kamala Harris. She is the only one people will enjoy watching on stage against Donald Trump.
It doesn't matter (much) that Warren's a woman. It matters that she does not command nor demand attention the way that Harris can. Harris can rally the black base of the party, she can reassure moderates, and she can beat Trump. She's not my favorite candidate, but I wish the Party would fall in line behind her.
And a Harris-Warren ticket? That would knock my socks off.
1
She would be great in a debate with DT. She is a former Republican who is a Main Street capitalist with a heart for the commonwealth. She is smart and quick and knows her issues. She grew up poor and has struggled to get where she is. A lot of Ds are cowed by DT and the autocrats. If people are going to pander to DT about the "Pocahontas" thing, they are part of the problem. The whole thing is laughable. He calls everyone names and lies about everything. He is a failed bankrupt who is doing everything he and his enablers can do as quickly as possible to destroy institutions and the rule of law, leaving a trail of destruction behind them. Stick to talking about the issues that face every day people and problem solving for the greater common good, and it will be obvious that DT deserves to lose by a landslide.
5
Running against Trump will simply not be just telling the truth and stating policy... this is going to be the dirtiest campaign in our lifetime. The press needs to step up and call out Trump and Warren is going to need a lot more bark on her.
2
Mr. Martin has written many articles in the NYT, and a quick look over them shown that most of them focus on divisions in the Democratic Party, or worries about various Democratic candidates.
It doesn't seem like an objective opinion coming from this particular source.
Phrases like "many Democrats" and "Some Democrats" festoon this piece. Hoping for people to have doubts is not the same thing as doubts being significant enough for reporting.
There are so many positive and interesting things to focus on with the Warren campaign that are far more worthy of coverage than a piece about vague doubts. Try reporting on something of substance. This piece is an unwelcome distraction.
2
If only white women supported their own causes represented by a woman (access to health care, quality education, gun control, etc.) instead of voting to keep white privilege, this country would have a quality leader. Instead white women are likely to vote for a racist, misogynist who is creating more income inequality, under funding education and health care, and enriching the 1% at the expense of everyone else. I don't know about the rest of the readers in the NYT, but my federal income tax increased significantly in 2018. I believe the wealthy saw a tax reduction. So white women need to wake up and see what they are doing to the future of their children. Most minority women and men don't vote for Trump. So it is on white women again to elect the next president.
3
Yes by all means we need "somebody in the middle" so the oligarchy can continue....
4
Some time ago Sen. Warren was asked how she would respond to Trump's fourth grade Pocahontas taunts. She answered that she would just turn them around and start calling him Pinocchio. She should just stick with that and just continue being the smartest and ablest candidate in the field.
No worries.
5
Seems as though the "persistent questions" about Elizabeth Warren's electability mostly come from reporters.
Stop stirring the pot and just report news and maybe we'll end up with a human being as President in 2020.
3
Electibility is the only real issue - and only Joe Biden has the capacity to unite all the various anti-Trump and disaffected Independent/Republican voters.
Warren's stand on decriminalizing border-crossing; her stand on elimination of private insurance; and her position on guns guarantee a Trump victory in 2020. And the idiotic issue of her ancestry certainly does not help win over voters seeking an authentic candidate for president.
It should be a Biden-Brown ticket with Warren heading the Senate Banking committee in a new Democratic majority senate in 2021.
3
She's going to be Pocohontas and will never be president. Biden is old and addled and a plagiarist to boot. He will never be president. The sooner that these two fools give up on the nomination the better. Trump is going to destroy the country if he gets another term. Why on earth don't people see the problems with these two (nice people) candidates?
4
Hmmmmm, a very smart, female, liberal candidate who comes across as somewhat stern. What a great idea. Uhhhh, wait, didn’t we try that in the last election?? How did that work out??
3
Trump would love to beat Hillary 2.0. As much as I like Buttigieg and Warren, the "Good Old Boys" will never vote for either one.
2
I refuse to vote on the grounds of electability in the Democratic Presidential Primary. I have donated to both Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. I see them both as great Presidents. Unfortunately, I can only vote for one.
I plan to vote for Elizabeth Warren because I so completely believe in her ideals.
I have no intention of voting on the grounds of elecitibility. We learned in the last Presidential race that predictions of the outcome are often off base.
Since we are far from being able to predict the outcome of the Presidential Election we should vote for the candidate that most represents our beliefs, not the guesstimates of some pundits.
I say go the Elizabeth Warren because she best represents my beliefs and because she is a true fighter for what she believes in.
7
What is important whether a Presidential candidate should keep decorum or hurl as many abuses as possible at the rival.
The Democratic Party’s Presidential candidate should be capable enough to take on President Trump on one to one basis on all important issues particularly reduction of military budget, strict gun laws, infrastructure revamp, efficient and affordable healthcare, child care, affordable colleges, housing and uniform minimum wages, gender parity in jobs and eventual promotions and employment generation.
It would be nice if well educated, qualified, efficient and capable lady eventually becomes the President of America.
5
I am a progressive, liberal Democrat. If Senator Warren is the nominee, I wll of course work and vote for her. I am worried, however, and think a more centrist candidate would be better. The problem is that Joe Biden seems to be fading and who else is out there. Mayor Pete has the money, but seems stuck, Kamala's can get people's blood moving the wrong way, Bernie's Biden as a "socialist" and so on.
We have not had a brokered convention in my lifetime, but I'm wondering if that is not in the cards. If she is the nominee, I would urge Senator Warren to pick someone like Michael Bennett from Colorado.
4
Well if Warren is the nominee, the only question is -
Does Trump win the popular vote as well as the electoral vote or just the electoral?
12
Enough with the hand wringing. Just vote for the person who presents the best vision. Right now, Elizabeth Warren is doing just that.
15
I was sad to read the woman retiree who stated that she "did not think Ms. Warren could win the presidency because of her gender."
Mrs. Warren is a highly intelligent, well-educated and talented woman. It is sad for me to think that we do not give someone with her qualifications a fair chance. The female retiree cited in this article substantiates the premise that there are woman who would rather vote for man because they feel more comfortable with a male leader. These women do not consider the fact that the current president disrespects the office of the presidency, his past behavior with women has been despicable and other nations have little or no respect for Donald Trump. But to woman like the retiree, the job mandates a man. I feel we should select the most qualified person for the job and not use gender as the primary criteria.
4
I don't worry about her at all. The real test is debate performance where contrasts will do the work. (Poor, made good by actually studying; transparent even if it flops v. rich, indolent, [undergrad] Ivy school but won't show grades - or taxes.) Academics have to prove what they say. One thing: don't go high. It's bad theater. Stand up and strike with apt, incisive wit that skewers the man and underscores his failures and lies.
5
@Gypsy Mandelbaum
Warren is too frenetic in her delivery to be a convincing debate adversary for the President.
3
Well I'm not afraid. If she's the nominee she has my vote.
10
If moderates are so turned off by Warren that they'd vote for trump, they would have voted for trump anyway.
16
I could care less that Warren is a woman or if she is "likable". Hillary Clinton was one of the most qualified, smart and ready candidates for the presidency of the United States and people on the hard right and the hard left conspired to give the presidency to this buffoon in the White House because they didn't thinks she was "likable".
Elizabeth Warren is not qualified to be president of the United because she lacks sincerity and espouses socialists policies that would bankrupt the country and steer away the United States from the can-do, entrepreneurship and growth driven economy to a pessimistic, small minded socialist country only worried about distribution of rather than creation of wealth. Her lack of sincerity is not just based on her disingenuous claims of Indian American heritage, it's also based on the fact that this person was a traditional Republican into her fifties and now all of a sudden is a socialist? That sort of opportunistic transformation makes one question the core beliefs of this person.
If it came to Warren vs. Trump I'd reluctantly vote for the incumbent whom I despise deeply. I am sure that millions other moderates would do the same because the harm Trump is doing is temporary and personal while the harm Warren would be doing would be more structural and permanent.
5
@Robert
Are you kidding? Bankrupt the country? We just gave away tens of trillions in unwarranted tax cuts to billionaires.
Honestly, is this a shill comment? Warren was a fairly apolitical Republican until the mid 90s. (her 40s, to correct your misinformation). Y'know, more than twenty years ago, when she started work that exposed her to the impact of bankruptcy on normal people. She quickly came around to working as a consumer advocate and has been doing important work in this area since.
6
@Dan
"...tens of trillions in unwarranted tax cuts..."
Over what time frame?! Our entire GDP is only about $19.4 trillion.
2
@Raz
I just did some digging - probably 2-3 trillion over a decade. Mea culpa.
The unicorns & moonbeams inquisition is out in force, as I expected when I spotted the article heading. Their first impulse is to attack the messenger (the author) for committing the unforgivable heresy of addressing the e-word (electability). Never mind that what is being reported is the primary reservation of the public, not the author. "Hey, don't confuse me with the facts," they growl.
I have always held EW in high regard, going waaay back to when the CFPB was just a glimmer in her eye. I was surprised that someone so bright could have so naively amplified a threadbare claim of Native American ancestry as she did, a catastrophic unforced error, but I still tangled with gutter snipes on The Guardian's site (which attracts riffraff because it is not as tightly moderated) arguing it was an expression of her pride, not a fatal example of dishonesty. Then our Native American friends unhelpfully pulled the rug out from under her, in what can only be described as baffling political fratricide.
EW is a policy wonk, like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman. She (and they) are ideally suited for positions in a Democratic cabinet. None, however, has any business running at the top of the ticket, neither as President nor as Vice-President. That is not an expression of ill will, it's just simple realism.
Also forget Biden, his time is long past. Sanders is just an angry grouse. Harris and Buttigieg are the strongest choices we have.
Nominate EW, and prepare for a repetition of 1972.
3
Warren has no way to pay for all her "plans" except to tax the rich. This is a fantasy, her fantasy and one shared by progressives.
11
Good heavens. I think she'd make Trump look even more ridiculous than he does on his own in a debate setting.
She may be a bit liberal for me, but she is very much fact based, so I have given her the benefit of the doubt - and a couple of donations.
The real worry with Senator Warren is that as president she would do a Jimmy Carter and get so far into the weeds as to be unable to lead. But I bet she has a plan for that.
6
The same people who purportedly worry about Warren are the ones who assured us that Clinton was the most electable Dem last time around. I have lost all faith in the pundits and the other so-called political experts. I have a novel idea for Dems - vote for the candidate you like instead of trying to second guess what other people think.
21
Worry about Warren’s electability because who’s on the fence about re-electing the current occupant of the White House?
6
Sanders as president and Warren as vice president would be the winner couple against Trump. I know that all the corporate media is trying to portrait Biden as the one who can win, but Biden (and his terrible gaffs - I hope not a sign of early dementia- ) will be like a second Hillary, a looser, unable to inspire people. Sanders and Warren are the real ticket.
11
I wholeheartedly support Elusabeth Warren, her ideas and energy and her ability to represent all Americans are the best. Has trump reallt damaged our country to the extent that he can win by name calling? I hope not. Warren is kind of like Mary Ingalls from little house on the prarie, sweet, honest and simple but ready to take on bullies with her lunch pail.
14
Warren is a liberal like Teddy Roosevelt was a liberal. Our global burst of populism -- of both the left and the right -- may have skewed our judgment.
Where Trump leads racist and xenophobic pep rallies to explain why the economy has left them behind, a major faction of his counterparts on the left rely on identity politics to deliver a matching message. They are the actual liberals in this campaign.
Elizabeth Warren advocates an economic solution perfectly tailored to the proper role of government in the face of economic realignment. Instead of austerity, she as advocates direct government intervention in the three greatest economic wrecking balls hitting the middle classes -- catastrophic rises in the cost of housing, healthcare, and education. It strikes me as the historically correct follow-up to the Great Recession -- which relied on massive handouts to businesses and investors, leading to a thrilling stock market ride, and a dismaying claim that all the jobs and incomes lost to global trade have now been recooped.
12
She’s a powerful woman. But why should that worry us?
Things have gotten so abnormal with Trump, we’ve forgotten to reason.
10
Soon after I made a modest contribution to Senator Warren’s campaign, she, along with Senator Bernie Saunders, went out of their way to make an endorsement of Tiffany Cabán in a local Queens, New York, District Attorney primary race.
As a Queens resident for 63 of my 64 years, and a retired prosecutor with a 37 year career, I still hold an interest in that race. It disappointed me that Senator Warren would endorse someone with truly radical ideas about criminal justice and no qualifications for the job other than being an admitted attorney.
I was saddened by what I believe to be a serious lapse of judgement; either the Senator’s for endorsing an unqualified candidate, or mine, for not sufficiently vetting Warren’s position on both issues and philosophy.
I am not looking for perfection in a Democratic Presidential candidate; but we do need a winner. I wish I knew what factors would increase our chances of defeating Trump. I do think, that without the broad turnout of the African American community, as we had for Obama, we are doomed to four more years of this insanity. I am not sure that Senator Warren can deliver that vote. It is one of several things that concerns me about her candidacy.
12
If the Democrats run on a handout, giveaway, or entitlement platform, they will lose in 2020.
For Ms. Warren's plans to work, she has to pull off a real coup, as far as funding is concerned.
She has to get states, some of which are already in a fiscal bind, to agree to match funding with the federal government (part of her plan), on a huge scale (on the order of $500 billion over 10 years, and ongoing).
She has to convince Congress to agree to a wealth tax plan, generating $2.75 trillion over 10 years. Wow! Our U.S. GDP is only about $19.4 trillion.
Warren's plans may be backed by spreadsheets, but the funding column, thus far, is blank (or filled in with imaginary numbers).
This is a good reason to back a more moderate, and realistic, position.
10
If Warren and Sanders are both on the Democratic ticket, if they don't win, it will be a lasting indictment of America.
Don't look for rationales that would preclude that possibility
4
I hope that it will be a "Biden-Al Franken"' ticket.
This will energize America's center, weaken President Trump, and win red/purple states in the midwest and beyond.
There is a path forward but we need to select the actors carefully.
1
We need to win back the middle, which HRC lost by ignoring the rust belt and insulting working people.
The middle is where the most votes are up for grabs.
I wanted Warren in 2016, but we will not win the middle back by opening borders, taking away private health insurance, giving health insurance to illegal immigrants, or forgiving student debt, which punishes people who work hard to avoid such debt, while encouraging those who irresponsibly run up as much debt as possible.
12
You've got to stop with this "Is she electable" non-sense! Of course she is electable. My concern with Biden if he is the Democratic nominee is that he will give us four more years of Trump. Elizabeth Warren is the dream candidate in the flesh: she came from humble beginnings, she is intelligent, and she truly cares. She is the only candidate who will fix, or at least try to fix, this huge mess the US is in. Warren is completely able to defeat Trump, no question. When she visits red areas and gives speeches, the people there actually like her. And that mis-step on Native American ancestry, she apologized for that twice. Let's move on! Guess what . . . if you vote for her, she will win
10
I wanted Warren in 2016. Now, I believe if she’s the nominee, and she promises forgiveness of student debt (which punishes thrifty hard-working people who avoid such debt, and rewards those who run up as much debt as possible), opens the borders, gives health insurance to illegal immigrants, and takes away private insurance from those who want to keep it, she will lose.
Dems need to win back the middle, win back the rust belt. HRC ignored the rust belt and insulted working people. That’s why she lost, not because she was too centrist.
5
If Elizabeth Warren, or any other Democratic candidate cannot defeat trump, it is not the candidates fault, it is our country's fault.
6
Warren is superduper, as are a few other candidates. I'd vote for her proudly and without hesitation. Stop worrying about electability and let's vote in a great candidate, be it Warren, Buttigieg or Harris. Someone wise and capable and energized and ready for a fight.
9
"Electablity" is not a separate issue. If a candidate is a hypocrite, spewing poll-tested pablum that neither the voters nor the candidate believes in (like Harris or Biden, for example), then that candidate is not electable. Being right, being consistent, and having sincere values that are obvious to the voters, count as making a candidate electable.
Warren's problem is not electability, but niceness. It's hard to envision her twisting arms, or punishing enemies. In debates she can be tough and convincing, but it is hard to conceive of her as Machiavellian: she would raise Social Security benefits because it's the right thing to do, but plenty of voters would want her also to do it to win Florida and Arizona. She might audit defense contractors because it's the right thing to do, but not because they are donors to the Republicans. She seems to need some lessons from LBJ, or even Andy Cuomo (or Dick Cheney, if you take lessons from the other side), in how to swing a baseball bat.
This is the real downside of running as someone who has been a teacher nearly all of her life. If she shows a little more ruthlessness, she will be unstoppable.
2
can we please stop with the "only tepid, Republican light candidates can win elections!"
We've been hearing that for years, and see where it got us.
I dont remember Barak running on lukewarm, just a little policies!
8
With Joe Biden as a running mate (not as a first choice, but in order to win), there would be no question it would be a winning team.
2
Contd..
3) Israel/Middle east policy: To reverse Trump, any tie and assistance with Israel must cease. The funds saved should be sent to Palestine charitable organizations (even they are accused of terrorism funding - non sense) . Tie with Saudi Arab must end and instead remove restriction on Iran and and heavily invest in Iran.
4) North Korea/ Afpak policy: Remove all sanctions imposed on NK. They don't benefit us in anyways. Call back troops from Korea and Japan. Billions will be saved. Send upto 2 billion fund per year to Pakistan so they they can fight terrorism. Allow another 50 billion for financial assistance to Pakistan to improve the economy and to attend ability to stand up against India.Cut all ties with India since the country is run by a Trump like leader Modi. Oh Afganistan! - bring back all troops and don't look back. They would know what to do and it will be their problem.
The usual nonsense from another political pundit. You threw nothing but negativity towards Bernie in 2016 and now you are doing the same towards Warren, Bernie, and yes Tulsi Gabbard. Here's a survey question for you:
Do you think the mainstream political press (not the hate news people, Fox and its ilk) treat left wing candidates like Bernie, Warren, and Gabbard fairly? The answer will be overwhelming no.
7
Calm your fears, fellow Democrats, about Elizabeth Warren being able to stand up to Trump. All she has to do is laugh at him -- and he will fold.
He's got no policy, no plans, no strategy, no game. He's all gut and bluster. He will try to bully -- name calling, woman bashing, mean-spirited taunts. The same old thing. She will laugh and he will get red in the face and maybe throw himself down on the debate floor and have a hissy fit.
10
Whenever Democrats pick an "electable" person, they lose: Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, etc. Warren inspires enthusiasm which is what is needed. Many people will go to the polls just because they fear and loath Trump, but the Democrats also need to turn out the irregular voters - urban dwellers, the young, some racial minorities - to win, and they need enthusiasm for that.
8
OK, I'm in with Warren. The Pocahontas smear will be easy to divert as a racist slur. Any smart Native American will back her up, since, given her vulnerability, she will be the best (the only, if you are cynical) candidate to do anything for Native Americans.
She could use some joke-telling practice. She was correctly impressed by Amy's remark to Jay Inslee at the first debate. She can be a Hillary-like scold but only needs to restrain that when she is not going to get a couple minutes to back up her points with facts and stories.
Imagine if she announced tomorrow a deal with Booker to be her VP. It would blow everybody out of the water. I would be tempted to vote for Trump, just to punish the Democrats for gutlessness, if he's up against Joe Biden.
4
The candidate most likely to win is Elizabeth Warren, and not only because she has an intelligent. practical plan to address each of our ills. Not just because she can tell her story without using it aggressively against someone else and endangering another Dem who might win the nomination.
Warren is bully-proof. She called for impeachment immediately after reading the Mueller Report. Some Dems were saying since the Senate won't convict, Trump will claim he’s been exonerated. Others said the process will get the whole story out to voters. These arguments, and others, have been tactical: What's the best move is to put a Democrat in the White House.
Only one candidate has taken a moral position.
Elizabeth Warren said the report confirmed the president had obstructed justice, and she declared that it was time to impeach him--Pelosi didn't want that, and without waiting to see how other Democrats responded. Someone who can stand up to her own party can stand up to anyone.
Imagine having a president who does the right thing for the right reasons!
Warren’s commitment to what is right allows her to debate not only with integrity but with certainty. She can’t be thrown off course when an opponent implies that one position or another won’t play well, dredges up some true or false piece of her past, or calls her a nasty name. Warren will stick to her plans because she believes in what she says, and that makes her bully-proof in any encounter with the Bully-in-Chief.
8
First mention in article of actual #2 to Biden, Bernie Sanders, paragraph #25.
The liberal mainstream media are puffing Warren so much she may float away. Faced with a choice between Trump, the kamikaze trade warrior, and that crazy Socialist with the Brooklyn accent, one can expect that 2020 will see the emergence of Elizabeth Warren--as Wall Street's only hope.
3
And so the Mainstream Media, controlled by big money and the corporatocracy, continues to sow FUD regarding the candidates our country most urgently needs to turn us around from the train wreck of climate change, nuclear proliferation, and four years of Trump that we are on: Warren and Sanders. Come on, NYTimes! You know the extent of the dangers we face. And the measures we MUST take, and soon, to alleviate them. And you are going to rely on Biden to provide them! Nonsense.
And anyway, if it is conceivable that Trump can actually win re-election at ALL, we're history.
12
The same people who worry about Warren's electability were saying the same thing about "is America ready for a black President". Watching Warren slap Trump around on a debate stage would be "must see TV". Trump is scared to death of her because she won't take his childish name calling and will get in his face. I'd like to see Trump try hovering behind Warren like he did Clinton, only to have Warren turn around, poke him in the chest and tell him to back off. We need a strong person to pick up the pieces of Trump's tantrums and childishness. We need Warren.
14
Trump will not show up for any debate. Case closed
3
Trump will have a ridiculous and nasty nickname for whoever the Democratic nominee is. The question is, who will be able to channel Reagan and swat it away ("There you go again") before moving on to something of substance? I mean, everyone expects him to be nasty. His supporters revel in it, his opponents hate it and stew over it. I say, give it the smallest acknowledgment the first time he brings it up, then step past it. The second time, and the third, and the thousandth, ignore it. And if a reporter asks for a reaction to the thousandth iteration, ignore the reporter, too, and move on to substance.
6
Trump's policy and governance is ruining this country, the world. This must be stopped in several fronts. We need a strong candidate who promise to reverse everything Trump is doing. I believe Ms Warren has the ability to drive this - but she must include and update her agenda wth the following counter actions:
1) On immigration side - the border has to be completely open. All of south american countries and all of Africcan counties, by default, will be given a 10-year green card (renewable or turned into citizenship) and will be given $100k for settlement assistance. ICE must be abolished and border patrol must be removed and utilized their service elsewhere. All such arrivals are eligible for free medicare until they rolled into employment based medicare. If they are young and their subsequent children are all eligible for interest free student loan. Loan can be paid if the candidate is able to otherwise they should be pardoned.
2) No more trade wars with China. The basis on which Trump is feuding with China is IPR stealing. There should be no such demand. If american companies doing business in Chine they are obliged to handover technology and patents to China for free. With no such confrontation, the trade with China will improve with very larger scale.
Contd......
1
@NoNonSense
Contd..
3) Israel/Middle east policy: To reverse Trump, any tie and assistance with Israel must cease. The funds saved should be sent to Palestine charitable organizations (even they are accused of terrorism funding - non sense) . Tie with Saudi Arab must end and instead remove restriction on Iran and and heavily invest in Iran.
4) North Korea/ Afpak policy: Remove all sanctions imposed on NK. They don't benefit us in anyways. Call back troops from Korea and Japan. Billions will be saved. Send upto 2 billion fund per year to Pakistan so they they can fight terrorism. Allow another 50 billion for financial assistance to Pakistan to improve the economy and to attend ability to stand up against India.Cut all ties with India since the country is run by a Trump like leader Modi. Oh Afganistan! - bring back all troops and don't look back. They would know what to do and it will be their problem.
1
She is spot on in her demands for more regulations on Financial Institutions and Wall St. The recent GE scandal proves she is correct. What we got from the GOP is deregulations that will lead to another 2007 meltdown. Compared to Trump Warren is as genuine as they come.
7
@GUANNA
Warren would make a great Agency head. She is extremely focused and relentlessly pursues her ideas. She is not easily deterred. Alas, these qualities also make her inflexible and unlikely to compromise, which is a recipe for not getting anything done as a president.
There is no way she'll steamroll the republicans with her "plans". And, clearly, the word, "compromise", is not in her vocabulary. She would fast become gridlock president.
5
I've been saying this from day one. I love Warren. But... I don't see most Conservatives or Republicans voting for her, simply based on her age+gender, and for her level of outspokenness. Although...maybe there's something I'm missing...maybe there is something in her message...in her proposed policies etc., that would appeal to a good number of Repubs/Moderates?
Either way, it is precisely that which the Dem party needs to figure out. Stop the petty infighting and one-upmanship as seen on social media and at the debates. Dems needs to strategize and figure out who are the 1-3 Dem candidates most likely to win much-needed votes from certain Repubs and Moderates who'd consider voting Democrat, if given the right candidate.
If Warren's team can figure out how to appeal to more Conservatives, and potentially beat Trump, I'd be thrilled.
1
@Lisa, conservatives and republicans won’t vote for any democrat, so stop harping on that. It’s a straw man.
2
Looked at the stock market lately? I have no doubt that we will be going into a recession BEFORE the election, so why not rally around a person who has real solutions and the integrity and drive to pull them off.
Courage.
6
Not quite: "Mr. Trump’s unlikely victory, after two terms of the nation’s first black president, amounted to a warning sign about the American electorate’s openness to change."
More likely eight years of Empty-Suit and no "Hope" or "Change" brought a new hope for change--Trump.
No question about it this time.
4
I honestly don't think her followers need be, as this article claims, "chastened by Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016" -- Hillary ran the worst campaign in the history of campaigns during the final stretch, and that sealed her (and our) doom. Rather, I think they best be mindful that her philosophy that 'federal government largesse is the boon to all that ails us' is not going to sit so well on a national scale with voters outside her immediate coterie of worshippers.
7
Warren has a big problem and it all centers on her decades-long false heritage claims. She may think she has put this issue behind her, however, it will be revived big time if she were to be chosen as the Democratic candidate. There will be endless tv attack ads mocking her on a daily basis. This issue will resonate in a negative way among the working class. She did this at a time when there was no downside to claiming that heritage. In that respect, she is no better than someone like Rachel Dolezal. This issue is a giant red flag. I don't get how people are willing to overlook this huge flaw.
8
Maybe we should just trust our instincts for a change instead worrying and fretting.
2
Can she be pragmatic? Can she exhibit the wisdom of understanding that too radical a stance is too risky? Can she be a person prepared to be president for all the people?
1
@Karn Griffen Yes!
I have "electability" concerns about any of the Democrats, not because of their positions, many of which have great popular support, but because of gerrymandering and the electoral map. I am not sure why Warren is being singled out here among others. I fear that this discussion of "electability" is much like one of "likeability," a topic which only seems to get coverage in relation to female candidates. I would prefer that the NYT prioritize reporting on candidates' platforms and whether they line up with facts.
5
@Stephanie - your comment should be a New York Times Pick.
1
I understand that neither Dems or Reps are a monolithic group, and that some Democrats would greatly prefer someone more 'moderate' than Warren (I am not one of them, but hey, it's all good). If she loses the primary, I will be disappointed, but I will vote for whichever Dem wins. But if she wins, the idea that any Democrat (or anyone who can see how terrifying Trump is) would either vote for Trump or abstain is beyond me. What part of Warren's platform is so terrifying that it is worse than another 4 years of Trump? I personally hope that progressive Democrats vote honestly in the primary, let the chips fall where they may, and don't allow the fear-mongering (and this means you, NYT!) to sway their vote.
This wouldn't be considered an issue at all if we could get rid of the archaic electoral college, but we should not allow our voices to be suppressed before they are even heard.
3
I will quote my friend, "I would vote for a toaster instead of Trump."
Whoever it will be please do the following:
-Starting now, every time Trump makes abhorrent statements that divide and belittle any American or group, start a registration drive in a swing state. Use funding from non-swing states (Believe me, they will help).
-Once the candidate is chosen, campaign in swing states and target women voters.
-Get out the vote.
4
@TNM
The problem is that Warren has less charisma than a toaster.
1
If the focus is going to be whether or not the "Pocahontas" chatter by Trump can be responded to then we are in dire straights . The blustering , bullying rhetoric of this man needs to be removed from political discourse.Haven't we learned that this man has less then zero to contribute in every sense of the word. Allowing his pettiness to direct the conversation and minimize the voices if candidates such as Elizabeth Warren, who is thoughtful and engaged in finding solutions to issues that have been ignored by the Trump administration would be tragic.
2
I’d like to see Stacey Abrams as her VP pick. That would make the “woman question” obviously irrelevant (we’re not voting for genitalia) and make the ticket super powerful
4
@Emily Kane, fantastic.
AOC would be far better as a running mate. She has years of knowledge and experience about people, gained when she was a bartender.
@Emily Kane
You are all delusional. AOC? Stacy Abrams? Are we talking about running for President of the Berkeley Faculty Club? Dems need to win a national election. Abrams is a proven loser and AOC is reviled in most parts of the country.
I would proudly run to the polls to vote for a Warren/Buttigieg ticket. So tired of stale ideas from the left and racist tropes on the right. It’s time for a change.
10
The fact Warren made so much money from Grassroots Funding alone shows people aren't worried about her "electability." This things this article addresses honestly isn't necessary. If the people of America called this into question so much, her campaign wouldn't have skyrocketed the way it did.
Why is her focus on being more uncompromising suddenly a concern when the people seem to not be satisfied by Centrists anymore? Biden talked about a "middle ground" for Climate Change and got lambasted for it. People want change. Positive change. Our President has brought change, but not the good kind, and America is deeply divided. The last thing we need is taking the few good candidates we have and questioning their electability when Trump of all people is our President. It's not a bad question to ask, but it's not the most important one to be asked right now. Our current president is giving us all a lesson in what "Electable" looks like."
9
Warren or bust!
Bernie would be ok, but as far as the rest of them...
I only half jokingly would rather Trump be reelected, let the GOP own this mess, and try again in 4 years.
4
Enough already! Warren had one questionable answer on a form decades ago and it is feared that it could sink her electability. Trump lies or intentionally misleads almost more often than he watches Fox News and it doesn’t harm his electability. Stop reacting to and repeating their anti-Warren propaganda.
9
Trump attacks ALL his opponents/detractors with what he divines as their weakness with a “super intelligent” sobriquet: Sleepy Joe, Pocahontas, etc. It’s his modus operandi. I’m sure he will anoint Kamala, Pete, or whomever wins the nomination likewise.
Since overcoming a prejudice often requires the object of that bias to work twice as hard in their campaign; is a wonk like Warren capable of inspiring leadership and waging battle at the requisite doubled intensity?
She appears to over-complicate her platform and speeches with too much detail that mostly serves to suppress her potential for excitement and inspiration. KISS.
2
no doubts here. elizabeth warren has consistently expressed herself as a human being that lives in integrity, intelligence, wisdom, compassion and authenticity. she is the antithesis of the current occupant. too liberal?? the woman is a radical visionary who is grounded in the above qualities. she can wipe the floor with him. onward!!!
9
Elizabeth Warren is tough, bright with well thought out policies. Trump has no accomplishments to run on, other than his anti- immigrant white nationalism. She will will win in a landslide.
9
Not toworry. Elizabeth Warren isn't intimidated by bullies and boors. She will wipe the floor with Trump in a one-on-one debate.
6
@JWT
Maybe true. But definitely irrelevant. People don't decide who to vote for based on debates. Trump will, unfortunately, wipe the floor with her in the election.
7
Warren can assuage the male white voter and MOST importantly the centre by meeting with Al Franken in Amy's back yard. This dog whistle that exSenator Al will be a running mate will make a break out impact in polling. AL can help her over the top in the North East. The south is and until you finish the job of re-construction always will be a write off.
@On Therideau
If you think that by aligning herself with Al Franken she is going to attract, rather than alienate, white male voters, then you are completely out of touch. I am not trying to be mean, but really, you must be living in a bubble.
5
Any one of us could have gone into the Iowa State Fair crowd, and cherry-picked a few die-hard moderates/establishment Democrats to suppress enthusiasm for Warren. The Democratic Party establishment put all their eggs in one basket in 2016 and lost against Trump. You think they would have learned something from that debacle, but NO!
Progressives know how this plays out. The establishment and that include most of the media will do their best to downplay and suppress progressive Americans, push for Biden on the ticket, and then lose to Trump. Then turn around and blame progressives for not being enthusiastic supporters of corporate centrist politicians.
Paragraph one of this biased piece by the NYT should be yet another wake-up call for Democrats. Will they ever learn?
5
Her embrace of the Michael Brown/Ferguson false narrative ruined any chance she had with centrists. She must know what happened, and it was a cynical choice. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/13/harris-warren-ignore-doj-report-claim-that-michael-brown-was-murdered/
6
We’re not allowed to say she’s unlikeable, so we get 2500 words that circle that runway but never quite land
2
Sounds like horse race politics. Written by a male. How about the future of our planet? What can be done? How can we help the average American with Healthcare, education, a living wage? Is this too difficult to address.
4
Yesterday, Charles Blow issued an uncalled for broadside against Warren for a statement she made that the Statue of Liberty's message welcomed one and all. It seemed a curious slight, considering that Warren puts heart and soul into her policies to represent all people with kindness, compassion, and a strong sense of urgency that we level the playing field for disadvantaged populations.
But that was just the appetizer, today's entrée - a full takedown on a strong candidate's electability.
New York Times, I don't want to do this again with you ahead of 2020. If you want to disagree about Warren's specific policies, have at it. I disagree with some of her policies too. Interviewing a mere 36 people to ask about whether a woman can be elected, and whether she is likable? That's too retrograde for me to wade through during this
election season again. It gratuitously knocks out yet another strong democratic candidate - and Trump will walk right back into the White House.
Please, please grey lady - up your game. Not just for your readers...for our Democratic Republic.
9
I certainly don’t ‘love’ her... but would vote for her over Trump, any day. I fear if she is the nominee she’ll lose-which would be a disaster 🙁
1
The only reason her “electability” is a question is because this narrative keeps being pushed for some reason. Let her run. Stop telling people they’re not supposed to like her.
If everyone stops saying women, people of color, etc. are unelectable and just...elects them, we won’t have an issue, you realize...
13
Neither she or any other demo candidate stand a chance against Trump. He will be re-elected as president in 2020.
4
I cannot shake the image of Pocahontas whenever Sen. Warren is on the TV screen. I also wonder why someone as prominent like her sought Indian ethnicity.
I got the answer just recently. She has Indian blood by reverse osmosis. Her son-in-law is Sushil Tyagi who is 100% Indian. So, Warren is justifiable Indian connections.
2
I am deeply committed to Elizabeth Warren. I've been following her for years, and she has never deviated from finding a way to help ordinary Americans recover from the fix we find ourselves in. She has never departed from the truth. She doesn't wobble.
While she occasionally espouses things like "Medicare for all" which I think is impractical (I know a lot about Medicare, because I take care of two parents who are covered under it: it is not *free*), I absolutely trust that she knows the difference between hope, aspiration and reality and is extremely practical. If we need a nationwide health care system that serves us all and stops funneling money to the few, I believe she is more likely to find a way than anyone else.
She listens, and she thinks, and she responds.
If there is one person I believe can answer Trump at all levels, she is the one.
She also understands about climate change and climate injustice.
Her plans for child care are outstanding.
I could go on, but she is my lifetime dream candidate, no ifs, ands, or buts ...
Now if only we could stop all the vote cheating ... but no doubt she has a plan!
14
Good Grief! Can we please lose this ridiculous focus on *electability*? It's a made up concern of centrists who are a dying part of the Democratic base.
You are creating your own headlines here. You are not neutral arbiters (though you like to pretend you are) when it comes to this sort of reporting on politics and candidates.
If you keep mentioning "electability" it will become an issue. If instead you focus on the candidate's message and/or popularity you'll discover that you have actual substance in your reporting and you really are just reporting on what is happening and what the candidate is doing.
But no, by constantly referencing "electability" you create your own news and undermine any candidate, especially female candidates and you are no longer neutral at all.
Also, amazing how you never seem to write articles about male candidates with the same speculation.
Questions of who resonates with her candidacy and her policies are much more helpful to readers than this nonsense.
624
@Tom..... "If instead you focus on the candidate's message and/or popularity"....Let's do that. In 2018 Democrats retook the House by flipping 40 Republican seats. Not one of the Democrats who flipped a Republican seat was a progressive. You can talk all you want about great popularity in Districts and States that are solidly Democratic, but that won't win back the Senate or claim the White House. It is of no little concern that progressives don't seem to grasp what is in their own best interest. Learn how to count.
41
@Tom
You are right. Centrists are a dying part of the Democratic Party. THAT is the problem.
If we do not win back the middle, we ensure the re-election of Trump. HRC lost not because she was a centrist, but because she ignored the rust belt and went out of her way to insult working people.
I like Warren. I wanted her as the nominee in 2016. But if as the nominee she insists on such promises as forgiveness of student debt (which rewards running up as much debt as possible while punishing those who work hard to avoid such debt), free health insurance for illegal immigrants, open borders, and the ending of private health insurance, she will lose.
43
@Tom I agree with you completely. This "electabilty" nonsense is a notion fatal to the democratic process, and is shamefully peddled by media outlets all-too-eager to commodify our tribalism. We can do better.
33
I'll vote for Warren, Bernie, Biden or even a "yellow dog" if that's on the ticket. Anyone elese is aiding and abetting the enemy.
2
This kind of article that puts needless doubts in the minds of voters,is one of the reasons Trump is President. The media has too much time on its hands when it could be reporting daily on the state of the kids in camps,or the opioid epidemic of how do people making $10 an hour survive? Those are just a few ideas. I admire and respect Elizabeth Warren. Can an intelligent,thoughtful,strong woman with "plans", beat a dumb,unsuccessful,clueless man who is only President because of Russian interference and our antiquated Electoral college ? Easy peasy, if the media can stop their manipulations!
5
As is so often the case with the New York Times, it is doing what it can to dissuade voters from perceiving a very intelligent and capable woman with outstanding progressive credentials as being a viable candidate.
The New York Times typically chooses status quo, mushy moderate candidates like Hillary and Cuomo over progressive candidates, and it will continue to do what it can to undermine Warren.
The NYT fell hard for Cuomo, and endorsed him on two occasions when he was faced with strong progressive women who didn't have the resources Cuomo had to get their message out to the people. And then NYT journalists spend the next four years writing numerous articles about the endemic corruption in Cuomo's administration.
Elizabeth Warren is the change candidate our nation needs, and she alone has the gravitas to take on the status quo to an extent not seen since the days of Franklin and Eleanor. We need a smart, progressive woman in the White House to overturn and counteract the significant damage perpetrated by our Narcissist in Chief.
Please don't let the NYT be the reason you don't support a strong, ethical, honorable woman who truly understands the financial markets and recognizes it's time to staunch the bleeding caused by decades of catering to the one-tenth of one-percenters.
We voters deserve a woman of high integrity whose record indicates she's prepared to go to the mat and fight hard for ordinary Americans! We can't afford to settle for less than we deserve.
9
Odd. I see the Times as very pro progressive. It’s the reason I pay no attention to most columnists. I would never vote for Warren, Sanders, or even the ghost of George McGovern. I guess we see what we’re looking for.
5
I worry that Warren may be too straight-laced and inflexible to tone down her policy proposals once she secures the nomination, and then once again after being elected (with low-turnout off-year elections already looming). Unfortunately we have a system in which many candidates have to adopt fairly extreme positions on specific issues in order to win primaries. (Exception: those like Biden who are able to achieve a "Moderate" persona). Promising the moon has always been a necessary evil for politicians everywhere in the final election; here they have to promise the sun in order to get to the finals.
I want our government to go well beyond what the Clintons and Obama have represented, but some of Warren's current proposals are likely to be quite unpopular with the public (as well as any Congress), while others seem flawed on practical or even moral grounds. Actually her training and experience as a lawyer and debater give me hope that she is not as inflexible as she often seems. A sad admission.
3
With Biden disqualifying himself as the person who can take on Trump (whether gaff-prone or senile)..either way he has lost.
Elizabeth is the one. We must remember, she will not be alone. In taking on the Trump machine she will rely heavily on a united Democratic Party. Other candidates, as they fade into the primary detritus need to lean into support for Elizabeth Warren.
3
In 2016 the "media" completely missed the fact that Hillary did not inspire enthusiasm. In 2020 nobody is going to be enthusiastic about Biden. He's seen as too old and slow and misspeaks far too often. The Republican attack machine will exploit his past support for policies that are regrettable and that will divide the Democrats. Information will come out about his son Hunter that will taint him with impressions of corruption and nepotism. His oft-used phrase "Come on man!" will not help him. Warren is not HRC and she does inspire real enthusiasm in voters.
2
The whole DNA issue could be turned into a positive: she admitted she was wrong to do it. She can apologize, Trump cannot admit wrong no matter what. She can ask the general public, Have you ever made a mistake and had to apologize? So have I. A president needs to be able to do that too.
2
'“I still, I am working on being a good partner,” Ms. Warren said, haltingly. “And the best way to be a good partner is to walk the walk.”'
Different standards of judgments like the one above are Donald Trump's biggest advantage. People like Biden and Warren receive a lot of coverage that picks apart things like their speech, while Trump gets a complete pass because he's so bad. We highlight when Biden misspeaks or Warren speaks "haltingly," but we just accept that Trump speaks incoherently.
4
This article is short on specifics. I too worry about her electability she is my favorite because she addresses how badly the wealth in America is distributed and she has well thought out ideas to address this tremendous inequality that is tearing our country apart.
But specifically while I am for single payer healthcare implementing it in one swoop will scare too many voters who are have a plan they like. Kamila Harris is ahead of her on this issue. I think if she backed off on this issue she would be more likely to win
3
It’s a four year phase in, not one fell swoop. I think her emphasis on health insurance companies as corporations that exist to maximize profits could convince a lot of people.
Senators Warren and Harris, and several other candidates published accusations against the police officer who killed Michael Brown in Furguson. They implied that the killing was unjustified but only the two women accused the police officer, Daren Wilson of "Murder". This is a textbook example of libel, a civil offense as this was not protected political speech, but stated as a fact. Major article on this is the "The Hill"
Both Senators Warren and Harris have legal extensive credentials, Warren in academe, and Harris as Attorney General of California. As such, their ignoring the decisions of two grand juries, one under the auspices of the Obama administration, not to indict Wilson for any crime, is stunning.
The full story has been on Wikipedia for years, which makes the ignoring by Democrats of the actual events as validated by the two grand juries all the more indefensible.
One of the more contemptible characteristics of President Trump is his ignoring reality, his positions often being only for personal and political advantage. This only has meaning if there is an alternative, which had been the opposition Democratic Party which had been known as the "reality party."
It could be a tactical decision for the right not to publicize or take legal action for this description of the Police officer contingent until one of the two being nominated.
6
The media on both sides will set up narratives and run them into the ground for the sake of money and viewership. They will compare right and left as being equally problematic under the guise of being fair and balanced...sorry, I hate to use that but it fits.
After setting up false equivalencies day in and day out, they will go out to the person in the street and find commentary and opinion that parrots these very false comparisons. The merry-go-round of "I could never vote for someone so liberal", "I would never vote for a socialist", even though they have no idea what socialism is or how it works, keeps spinning and the die is cast. E.Warren will make a fine president if elected. She will have the fight of her life in front of her if she does, but with the support of most Democrats and independents she could reach levels of change that rival or surpass F.D.R.
2
As a 64 year old white male, I vote for the individual who is best suited for the job. The person who can actually lead, complete the necessary and usual tasks of that job, and is the one who can motivate others inside and outside of the organization to reach and excel bettering themselves and others, they get my vote. So what is the Job? IF it is the President of the United States of America, Warren is that leader. IF the job is to change and reinterpret the Presidency and the nation such that progress isn't made, friends are now enemies and enemies are now friends, the few are rewarded and the many are ignored, and anger,ignorance,and distrust result in rebranding the Nation as The Dysfunctional States of Mid North America, than Trump gets my vote.
165
@Jon I can't argue with your desire for someone who can "do the job", but why the need to qualify your comment by pointing out you're a 64 year old white man? Is spotting a person who can "do the job" something your particular demographic does better?
5
@Christopher Haslett
I interpreted @Jon to mean that Warren could have the support of a certain demographic group.
14
@Jon
Little late. Obama's eight years did all of that. Why he's the new "hope" for "change". Seems he's up to the task.
1
Warren will lose against Trump because of these three dunderheaded words:Medicare for all (in four years).
What bothers me even more? She knows this is a folly and that the biggest problem in healthcare is inefficiency and high costs. Those are the primary obstacles to affordable coverage.
6
Elizabeth Warren will lose to Donald Trump. I like her. If she's the ultimate candidate, I'll vote for her. She will assure his reelection. Democrats traditionally have liked cerebral candidates: bright, brainy people with lots of ideas. Hillary Clinton was the most recent example. I also recall George McGovern and Adlai Stevenson. By and large, they were all out of tune with the American electorate which prefers a candidate who can arouse them, one who appeals to their emotions rather than their brains. Donald Trump is the best example. Elizabeth Warren is a cerebral person, full of ideas, good ones, some not, but very appealing to those for whom ideas are primary. Donald Trump is beatable, but only by someone who, like him, arouses strong emotions.
6
@blgreenie, just wait. She’s just getting warmed up.
The good news for Trump is that progressives don't want to hear about electability.
6
The proposals and attitudes of Warren and Sanders are labeled left wing and too ‘far out’. The GOP has dominated govt, and set norms of L/R/Center. Obama did what he could, but compromised with GOP. No 'firebrand'.
Now those that want to fight hard are called 'firebrands' but we're cautioned to stick with moderates.
But this will keep us S-T-U-C-K.
Sanders simply aims to restore the spirit of the Roosevelt 1930s New Deal, that saved ordinary Americans from disaster in the Great Depression. This now scares many in the media, even so-called liberals.
His and Warren ‘s proposals would be quite centrist in most other world democracies. They are capitalist countries, but their norms include more respect by their governments for their average citizens, than we Americans get.
This respect for citizens means they ban the paid political ads that swamp our media and manipulate US voters. The ban, says Wikipedia, prevents Special Interests from dominating their political discourse. That’s respect for citizens.
Their respect for citizens means they have what we can’t achieve---universal health care, and strict gun laws. So, their people are healthier, and safer---and also less anxious and fearful than Americans.
These comparisons are so blatant, on our hottest 2020 issues, they should be at the top of the news. But they’re not. Why?
The bodies pile up from gun shots, and we pay a fortune for the world's most expensive health care. That's not freedom.
5
I like almost all of Warren's policies. I've sent her money. I wish I didn't have to worry about electability.
Mostly, I really hated the way the debate questioners had "gotcha questions" such as "Will you get rid of private insurance?" and simplistic immigration questions. Slate said: "Question after question was framed up from the ideological perspective of a Heritage Foundation intern or otherwise crafted as a gotcha to generate a 15-second clip for Republican attack ads down the line."
Warren let these questions be answered simplistically and her answers will make great attack ads if she is the nominee. Why raise your hand when a longer explanation is better?
2
I am a Democrat and I am voting for Elizabeth Warren. She has my full confidence that she will serve the USA with honor, respect, humility, wisdom and brute strength, when required.
I hope other Democrats will consider Ms. Warren as well. We need hopeful, positive change. America needs Elizabeth Warren to heal and move forward as one nation under God.
Don't allow the Republicans to damage our country any further. Vote out all Republicans in the next election. Send the only message Republicans will understand. "Unemployment".
5
Elizabeth Warren HAS to be clearer in communication on her stance on immigration. I know (I think) what she is saying when she talks about "decriminalizing crossing border" but to most people it sounds exactly like open border. That is NOT what she is saying. This might end up becoming Achilles heel.
9
Trump's perceptive "strength" is entirely dependent on a less distasteful moderate-conservative not stepping forward as a third party candidate. There are plenty of people (on both sides of the political spectrum) who would rather register a vote for their conscience than for their usual party of choice.
Third party candidates ALWAYS lose! Number 1-10 priority to to defeat Trump.
If it absolutely can't be Warren or even if it can I like Gabbard as her VP or as President.
First of all, voters have already shown us they can support a woman candidate. HRC won the popular vote by almost 3 million. As for the Pocahontas issue, well, that will embarrass her. However, How many people grow up with family stories, legends and histories we later discover are exaggerated or just false? Probably most of us. If her campaign responds to media and trump’s likely put-downs sensibly, she should get past this. My concern is the dreaded S word. Warren is not a Socialist, (and many people don’t really understand what that means anyway) but this is a smear we’ll see frequently. And I worry many voters will fear that label. And run away.
1
I once took a history class on family narratives. The prof said that virtually every family narrative contains at least one important lie. I’m not saying Warren’s family did, just that it’s more common than not. My brother and I were well into adulthood before we worked out ours.
Sen. Warren's challenge is not that she is a woman, nor that her politics may seem too left-leaning for moderates. Rather, she's been gotten too. The moment she took that infamous DNA test, she signaled to Donald Trump uncertainty and hesitation. In other words, weakness, at least in Trump's eyes. And if Donald Trump understands only one thing, and it may be only one thing, it is that when you see weakness, you don't stop attacking until you've burned your victim to the ground. Until now, Trump has just been amusing himself on the subject of Warren. "Pocohantas" is a game to him, fun to play at rallies. In a general election, he will be brutal. She says she's ready, says it so often, in fact, that it makes her seem even more irresolute. Voters can sense these things, even when they can't or won't articulate them. And that, I believe, is the problem.
6
Progressive NYT readers have a real problem with hearing information the isn't supportive and/or doesn't validate their viewpoints. Questions about candidates' electability don't rise to the level of a "hit piece." Recognizing that moderate democrats' votes are necessary to win isn't selling out to corporatists.
It's as though progressives learned all the wrong lessons from Hillary's defeat. She lost because she is a women/centrist/corporatist/etc. No, she lost because she was an unappealing candidate. And, please, don't embarrass yourself by claiming she won the popular vote. A democrats' receiving a millions more votes in California and New York is meaningless.
12
The Oligarchs are worried about Warren. Thus the need for this article.
4
@Van Owen
The oligarchs are donating to her campaign and praying that she gets the nomination.
The only thing Trump has on Warren is patriarchal and misogynistic name calling. Sadly, that's all too many Republicans need to hear.
It's unbelievable that Warren might lose because of one mistake (her Native American ancestry), while every day Trump insults, offends, embarrasses, and displays his ignorance and incompetence for all the world to see.
I do not accept that a woman or progressive can't beat Trump. If the nominee is prepared for Trump's attacks, he or she can show Trump to be the small-minded bully that he is.
I don't think Biden has the quickness and energy to withstand a Trump onslaught. (Unless he were to have an "At long last, have you no decency?" moment.) Being a well-liked, middle-of-the-road candidate who's pushing 80 is not enough, and not what the country needs. Warren (or Harris or Buttigieg or Booker) is.
5
It's really not that complicated.
Nobody who supports wiping out private health insurance is going to beat Trump.
Nobody who supports reparations is going to beat Trump.
Nobody who appears to put illegal immigrants ahead of American citizens is going to beat Trump.
With that said, I still hope a Democrat wins. And I'd love to see someone as smart and passionate as Elizabeth Warren in the cabinet....though her tweet about Michael Brown needing justice was absurd.
10
My thoughts, exactly.
4
I am not worried about her. Rather, I am worried about the media know-it-alls’ favorites, Biden and the fake but Clinton-style-savvy Buttegeige whoa so adept at saying what he thinks his audience want to hear, while ever mindful of the big-money puppeteers who bankroll his campaign.
2
Her decades-long dishonesty and poor judgment about her Native American heritage weigh heavily against her.
6
I will vote for Elizabeth Warren.
3
Warren’s legal specialty was bankruptcy and her people know how to run successful casinos.
Why isn’t she on Trump’s payroll????
1
Misogyny: The largest political party in the United States.
It crosses all genders, it is a dirty little secret because no one need register as such, the votes just happen that way.
1
@Carol-Ann wrong the Church political party and business.
Liberals are always in such a rush to outsmart themselves. We had to run Gore in 2000 because he was a centrist, we had to run Kerry in 2004 because he was a centrist, and we had to run Clinton in 2016 because she was a centrist... look how it turned out. It's no mistake that Obama won in a blowout in 2008 by running on a platform of "Hope and Change"- people WANT things to change, and they want things to get better. If a black man with the middle name of Hussein can win the presidency- and if Donald Trump, a walking SNL punchline, can win- then a woman can win too.
Liberals need to stop trying to game the election and just keep it simple: vote for the person that YOU think would be best for the job. Stop letting imaginary voters in the midwest sabotage your political efforts.
5
"The only thing in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos."
2
@Ken Wilson and besides the center never holds evn in Russia, Ask Kerensky.
@Ken Wilson
Fair enough. But continue that analogy. Walk down the far left, and the far-right, of any highway and all you will find is dead animals and garbage.
2
What is here referred to as far or radical left, is in Europe moderate or center left. So the terminology is rather misleading and hurting the public image of an otherwise excellent candidate who also happens to be a woman. Noone questioned Mr Trump's likability or qualifications for the job but Ms Warren - because she is absolutely qualified and otherwise electible- needs to be able to face up to Trump and his insults and the assumption is she cannot successfully do that? The problem IMV is not Ms Warren but Mr Trump's negative influence of public discourse causing deterioration of political environment and distrust in values that leaders of the country must and should have.
291
@val
Thanks for weighing in with a clarity from abroad that's often harder to come by here in America itself.
10
@val What does the political landscape of Europe have to do with anything in this article?
4
@val. Yes, thank you! And Democrats, WE should be defining the conversation, choosing the words and sound bites and making the clearest case the the Ds will improve lives, and support civil and human rights which includes plans to deal with climate change. Trump had NO ideas. Let's take the clothes off this joke of an emperor.
8
I'm so over the empty argument that Senator Warren's isn't "eletable." We will beat Trump by nominating the best candidate--someone smart, capable, and bold. That candidate is Elizabeth Warren. Every time I hear someone question her "electability," I will donate to her campaign! In fact, I just did.
6
The press loves this "but is she electable? story so we're doomed to hear it over and over again. As if it reflects some sort of actual take on the feelings of voters. But all it does is gaslights some voters into repeating it as if they think it themselves. When I scroll down the comments on this article I see hundreds of likes for comments expressing real enthusiasm for Warren, and of course probably millions of people are feeling like they know she would be their top pick. This ghost of a hypothetical middle of the road Dem who really likes Biden seems largely a press creation. As for Trump, so many people hate him passionately that she should win in a tsunami. For that matter, we could run a dead man against him and the turnout against Trump would be overwhelming.
3
When will NYT stop the sexist coverage of democratic candidates? I can’t imagine the same questions being asked of a male candidate. Electability is code for speaking, moving, and acting like a man, while a woman for NYT cannot be electable, no matter her qualifications, agenda, and supporters.
4
Super on policy!
Thing is, this is not going to be an election about policy, no more than that last one was a referendum on the policies initially held by the current President, not that anybody remembers what they were.
For us it's entirely about one thing: preserving democracy itself. And that takes a candidate who's able to win over three states that repudiated the last smart, articulate white woman from the Beltway.
Until then, Sen Warren remains the most liberal Senator from the most liberal state in the Union.
(But I can change my mind if somebody unearths video of her carousing at Sturgis back in the day. If Democrats had guts and smarts, they would create one. But they Don't. Even. See. she needs something like this to win between the coasts.)
3
Please, please, please STOP with this "electability" nonsense. Isn't every person running for office of questionable "electability" until they end up on a ballot and the voters weigh in (and then see their votes diminished by the imbalances of the Electoral College)? I would gladly put Liz on a stage vs. Trump. Or Kamala. Or Mayor Pete. Or Cory or Julian or ... or ... or. Please, hang up this artificial electability narrative and focus on policy and performance.
3
Seems like Warren’s best bet would be to campaign strongly in the red states where she came from and whose roots she knows.
Otherwise she’ll stay preaching to a choir that now sings her praises.
3
I can't stand her voice. I turn the volume down when she's talking. She makes me anxious. It's not what she's saying, it's the way she says it.
If she has that effect on me - and I'm more to the left than she is - I'm incapable of seeing her being elected.
6
It amazes and frustrates me to read and hear that Elizabeth Warren is viewed by many as "far left" or even "socialist". That's clearly and plainly inaccurate. Even commenters here seem to be parroting what others are writing and saying in the media, without regard as to whether this is actually true and why. Please don't let others define candidates for you; decide for yourself after listening to them. Advocating for new or "bold" policies does not make you a leftist or socialist. And don't limit your definitions to "left", "right" or "moderate". These are terms primarily used to either attack candidates or function as really bad shorthands. The left-right spectrum is at least as much imaginary as it is real.
2
What is Warren going to do about China? Russia? Iran? Syria? Taiwan?
How will she deal with millions of impoverished Guatemalans who will storm the border the minute of her election?
Who is she going to tax for the universal healthcare, and how much?
How will she improve the violence and crime in Democrat-run cities?
Will she let the Germans get away with budgeting pennies for their army despite tremendous surpluses over the years? Her position on NATO, the migrant 'invasions' Europeans have been experiencing, Hindu nationalism, dealing with Pakistan as a rogue state?
And yet - she is the strongest candidate of them all.
4
Bernie / Warren or... Warren / Bernie should cover it.
1
@Nan Jorgensen
Cover what? A 46 state loss?
3
Really!!! After living thru the mind set and behavior of POTUS 45, aka Donald J. Trump
1
Electability is an issue whether progressives in love with Warren want to admit it or not. Can a far left candidate win a majority of states? It's not about whether progressives in California and New York come out in droves. They don't decide a presidency.
Progressives are actually making a mess of this. Biden is only popular because he's not a socialist. It's the lurch left that has scared many democrats away. Absent Biden, Americans will vote for Trump over a "socialist".
8
My friends and acquaintances, young and old, are interested only in Senator Sanders or Senator Warren. But most feel clearly that only Senator Sanders can beat Mr. Trump. The reasons are myriad, and include Warren’s sex, her too sweeping platform, and her being from Harvard. As for Senator Sanders, reasons include a clear, consistent message and views held over time, a record of winning in Vermont over time, and a good delivery style ( in addition to his gender). One friend, who worked as an advocate for women’s reproductive rights for over twenty years, said flat out that Warren couldn’t possibly win. That said, why must the NYT play horse race about the coming primaries? Why not compare and contrast the candidates proposals on the most important issues- income inequality, foreign policy, healthcare?
7
This seems to be a pattern, media coverage doubting Warren’s electability. Please stop. Let the process go on, let us look, listen, reflect and conclude without casting doubts. Warren is intelligent, knowledgeable, compassionate, experienced and more then any other candidate, understands how the system is rigged. She was also a nationally ranked debater in college. Please let her have a chance and stop writing articles about how she can’t win.
15
The article says that moderate voters "worry that her uncompromising liberalism would alienate moderates" and that they "cite her professorial style and Harvard background to argue that she might struggle to connect with voters". The thing is, far too many seem to be reading narratives about Elizabeth Warren that are distinct from reality. She left a good college to marry young, educated herself and made her own way in the world, and only reached Harvard towards the end of a long career, as opposed to many others who make it to such places in less circuitous ways. She can think and form her own opinions, and when she says she wants to shake things up, it is because she is very well aware of how the status quo has not worked for the very demographic that seems to hesitate to embrace her. To those in doubt about her, I say, read and listen to what she has to say, form your own opinions, ignore the persistent narratives about 'likability' in the media which seem a stand-in for misogyny (or the perception that women try too hard). Or is that too much to ask in the age of twitter?
6
The concern about 'electability' is in significant part created by the media, which constantly refer to it without providing any substantive evidence that Warren is unelectable. Then, as in this piece, a reporter goes around asking people what they think and they get the things the media is harping on echoing back at them. That echo is then reported and the electability trope amplifies further. The NYTimes should not play that game. Read Warren's vaunted plans and report on their substance. If you must refer to electability, provide some poll numbers, which I don't believe support the claim that Warren in unelectable. But even professional pollsters have been getting the electability question wrong over and over again in presidential elections, so going on about it, at thIs stage in the campaign, leads to no useful conclusions but does have negative effects on the quality of the discussion as noted. I, for one, think that a Warren-Sanders ticket would be the most electable. Some commentators seem unaware that there were many that voted for Sanders in the primaries and then for Trump in November 2016.
12
Polls consistently show Vice-President Biden defeating Trump. Not so with other candidates. If Americans can ignore the steady stream of lies coming from the president and his representatives, surely we can forgive Mr. Biden for his unfortunate gaffs.
7
@Dee Hoover You just keep believing those polls.
1
@Dee Hoover
Sorry Dee, it's not just Biden. Candidate Sanders has been beating Trump in the polls since the Sept. 25 2015.
1
I would vote for almost anyone over Trump. I'm center right, but voted for Obama and Clinton twice each. I confirm what should be the critical point to Democrats - there are many of us in the center who are waiting for a candidate to return sanity to the White House but don't want to utopian visions of single-payer healthcare, Green New Deals, de-criminalizing illegal border crossings or free college for everyone. Warren's biggest vulnerability is not her gender, her past claims of minority status, nor her demeanor - it's her policies! For Warren, electability is a choice. She should decide to moderate.
16
In Canada, most of Warren's policy proposals would be middle-of-the-road, but her extraordinary competence and lack of history of taking Big Money would make her a standout star, an obvious choice.
She's a little old, but women do get a few more years, so she slides under the wire. Whereas the other two top contenders are not just old, but comically, obviously old for an intensely demanding 7x24 job, so she has no serious competition, either.
From the outside, that is, where her policy proposals are not some kind of Marxist path to doom, but what we've already been having success with for decades. (Not just the health care and affordable college; remember how Canada had no bank failures, required no bailouts? Financial regulation can and does work...just mentioning...)
13
@roy brander. And your banks go to NYC to do their trading. Perhaps you can explain why Canadians come here to see specialists.
1
@Jackson The Toronto Stock Exchange was established in 1861, my dude. Not sure where you've been but we do indeed trade in Canada as well as NYC.
Can't explain why Canadian's come "there" to see specialists because none of my friends or family have ever sought medical treatment in the US.
Sincerely,
A Canadian.
One great thing about Liz is that she is incorruptible. She will slam any proposals that don't make sense for all or the majority of Americans. She doesn't need fawning sycophants. She knows they will attack her and she will win every argument with sense and sensibility.
Trump is so easily bought and controlled. Our Lizzy would never be.
6
@Anne. She has never had a piece of legislation passed. Her voting record in Congress is 48%. Yeah, a real hard worker - for Liz.
3
@Jackson
Warren was the primary sponsor of 7 bills that were enacted.
Very few bills are ever enacted. Most legislators sponsor only a handful that are signed into law. Other legislative activities are also important, including offering amendments, committee work, and oversight of the other branches, and constituent services.
I see you have a team bias. You still probably would do better with an honest fierce fighter for the 99% like an EW administration would be than you would be under our Trump chopper talk covfefe demented status quo.
Get behind good.
So, NYT, the fix is in again. In 2016 you helped Trump get elected with articles like this and now you work to marginalize Senator Warren. Rather than focus on her strengths and the force of her campaign, you discuss "electability." You push Biden. Why? What makes him electable? You don't really explain that. Is it just because he is old school, establishment democrat who is trying without much success to tie himself to Obama and continues to gaff his way around.
Please NYT, stop the fake news for real. Stop giving Trumpistas any more ammunition than they already have.
11
Elizabeth Warren will wipe the floor w Trump. Stop being such sissies, Democrats, with this handwringing ‘ooh but can she win’ fear mongering and get a spine. Warren can win and she will.
16
Coverage like this drives me crazy because it reinforces that Democrats are the ones that are supposed to be moderate rather than fighting on their ideas even if it means moving to the left. Republicans, on the other hand, never face the same critique that they are moving too far the right and need to moderate their positions. Is Warren one of the further left candidates in the primary? Sure. Does that mean people shouldn't vote for her in the primary? No.
"Dream Big; Fight Hard" exactly sums up what I want out of a candidate in 2020. If the nominee focuses on "not being Trump", I think that candidate has a lower chance of actually winning than a candidate that fights on issues they care about. Warren is pitching ideas to help improve daily challenges faced by many Americans, which, to me, is a more inspiring message even if you don't agree with all of the ideas or every part of the plans.
It is surprising to me that the "most electable" candidate is someone that ran for president twice and failed to win the nomination both times. What makes Biden the "most electable" in this third attempt when he wasn't nominated the previous two times?
"Dream Big; Fight Hard"...WIN!
7
Used to be a major fan of EW, however, while at present paying scant attention to election, what I’m hearing (third hand admittedly) in re her positions somewhat concerning. Why would implementing universal healthcare in the US mean eliminating private insurance? Germany doesn’t do that. And why would it cost more? Virtually all universal healthcare schemes worldwide, cost a fraction of what the US spends (as a percentage GDP). Likewise, decriminalizing illegal border crossings and eliminating ICE almost certain to increase already historically high inflows of low skill workers, increasing downward pressure on wages for our most vulnerable citizens. These are front and center, bread and butter issues where the Senator sounds out of touch and out of step with the overwhelming majority of US populace. And a pivot during the generals ain’t gonna cut it.
6
I am not concerned. She is substantive, smart, and principled, and that makes her the perfect response to the current administration.
6
I share the enthusiasm that many feel about Elizabeth Warren; I think she's terrific. But I view this election from a broader perspective than simply, Who might be the best candidate to defeat Trump.
Donald Trump's mo - to stoke fears and encourage divisiveness - has created a social tinderbox that has gained traction because of widespread and genuine anguish over immense social, technological, and economic changes. I absolutely believe that Trump needs to be defeated, for lots of reasons, but no matter what happens in 2020, a roiling, disaffected, angry group of Americans has been stoked up. As a consequence, the impact of the election isn't just about who can win, it's about how effectively that person can navigate these emotional waters.
I say this with deep regret: given what Donald Trump has unleashed, a woman or a person of color as President would be hard pressed to successfully lead us out of this morass. But as a less controversial vp, Elizabeth Warren would be fantastic.
2
I have concerns too, but nobody else in the field seems like a better overall candidate. I think Warren has what it takes to appeal to swing voters--a positive populist, with the focus of a crusader (for good things), rather than an egotist or old-style politician. But I hope somebody is polling the heck out of those swing voters! I think that moderation and bipartisanship don't work in government like they used to. And I think voters want new ideas, new personalities. I still think centrism and pivoting are necessary--but the successful forms of these will look very different than they did in the past. I'm nervous about whether Warren and her brainy team will get it right, but I'm more confident in them than anyone else.
I also don't think she'll be perfect against Trump for the debates--Harris would be better--but she'll be the best at speaking directly to the voters, because she's the real thing. Even low-information voters can recognize "I care about your money and your justice!" when they see it.
I think people need to get over worrying so much about gender. Hillary Clinton very nearly won even with so much dynastic/partisan baggage, having a less current message, and being a follow-up act to a two term presidency in the same party.
1
1st, let's get off this absurd Indian Heritage thing. The media pushes it for controversy.
What's the next thing Trump can think up to manipulate our campaign? He'll obviously go far out to denigrate any Dem nominee.
Instead of making a candidate refuse big money in our election system-- while their GOP opponent piles up money from rich donors-- let's reverse Citizens United--favored by large voter majorities & many politicians.
If we don't, the US is a democracy in name only.
Our media gets big profit from campaign advertising, funded by the rich. Paid ads are banned in many other democracies, to prevent special interests from dominating their political discourse. Imagine that!
Warren is a "Progressive FIREBRAND"? But what's called progressive here, is actually centrist, sensible policy that most other democracies support.
In our own past, progressive politics were much more centrist---such as low cost state university tuition that helped build our middle class.
And much higher tax rates on the rich that were fair and sensible for needed revenue.
And acceptance of unions and stronger govt regulations on big business.
It's the duty of our media to show this past, to put into context some of the supposedly liberal firebrand views for 2020.
Firebrand definition: "a person who is passionate about a particular cause, inciting change and taking radical action."
America has gotten so backward that we're desperate for a 'firebrand' for needed reforms.
3
Let's do an opposite thought experiment.
What if I had a large media platform and I wrote an article that said. "People really love what the NYT has to say but they are worried it's fake news." I then hand-select a few people who agree with the premise of the article. Due to it being pure emotion I don't need to fact check anything but now I am planting a seed in a million readers heads that NYT is not credible without having to prove it.
This article feels like a hit piece. Warren excites this independent voter. Biden does not. Should voters be worried that Biden will be Hillary 2.0 because he is also an uninspiring candidate? You can spin this any way you want.
Warren impressed the most out of the two debates. Her policy plans are full of common sense. Her data-driven approach is a breath of fresh air. I don't care who other people vote for. I'm voting for Warren and can list off 10 immediate reasons why. I can't list a single reason why Biden is better on his individual merits and not Obama's shadow.
6
Many Democrats Respect Joe Biden, But They Worry About His Fitness for the Presidency
3
Tulsi Gabbard, Steve Bullock, Andrew Yang: Take another look at them, fellow Dems. They have the credentials, the authenticity, the ability to communicate in short, clear, punchy sentences. Warren, Harris, Biden, and Mayor Pete do too, but they can't seem to stop rambling on like professors, lawyers, or career politicians.
Meantime, Booker and Gillibrand should bail out asap (and I say this as a NY-metro area liberal). Booker had baggage even before the latest news from Newark where lead persists in water. Gillibrand is like the pretty, straight-A sorority girl who deigns to be nice to the plain Janes in her school, never realizing they're as smart as she is. "I'll teach white suburban moms about white privilege." Spare us, please, Kirsten. Bottom line, I'll vote for anyone on the D ticket in the end. I hope the Bernie Bros will do that too.
3
At my very liberal, all female book club, the consensus on Warren was "nails on a blackboard." Too much head-shaking, finger-pointing, and outrage. The rest? Biden, past his time, Bernie, too left and 2016, not sure what exactly Harris stands for or who she is. Interestingly, the one candidate who got unconditional love and approval was Buttigieg. But then he inspires worry about winning too.
5
@Mary York. Just curious. In your opinion, do you think the members of your book club would use “nails on a blackboard” description of the candidate if that candidate was “Edward” Warren? Because it seems to me a bit like the old “likability” factor for women candidates that does not bother their male peers.
1
@Nancy Barrett
People don't like her. Why doesn't matter. Next!
3
Elizabeth Warrren is not going to win.
Not a chance.
She is super popular with the fringe left, with the AOC crowd.
She is despised by most moderates and the entire right.
One side will vote against her, the center will not vote for her. Only the fringe will support her.
The DNC is the one who should be worried about it. It’s a sure fire embarrassing loss for the history books.
It has nothing to do with gender, I would vote for a woman any day, just not this one.
Her whole past where she claimed to be NA, and used that to get ahead, let’s not play ourselves, she used it for all its worth in Yale and then getting a job, even calling herself a woman of color, that is going to come back and devour her.
Add her loony far left ideas, and it becomes extremely hard to support her. Even Liberals can see that.
Running her is a win for your emotions, for the butterflies in your tummy. But a complete loss of sanity.
10
@AutumnLeaf, why put “the entire right” in as if they make a difference? They’ll vote for Trump, not a democrat, no matter who it is. That’s a silly argument.
Let’s not forget that historically Democratic candidates for president have moved to the left in the primaries and then pivoted center in the general. The secret is to do this in a way that is meaningful and to catalyze voters, which is something that Warren’s been very successful at so far. This isn’t year one in the American political cycle and we shouldn’t treat it as such. Warren will move to the center when she wraps up the nomination, which she will.
3
Would Trump debate with her? Some say not likely. Could she can take him down in absentia? Most likely.
But aside from that, have we heard much about her foreign policy?
2
“In Iowa, a former chairwoman of the state Democratic Party, Sue Dvorsky, endorsed Senator Kamala Harris last weekend after confiding to friends that she felt Ms. Warren’s liberalism would be a liability in a general election.”
As a progressive, I cannot see why this concern is so prevalent among Democrats. After all, no one on the Republican side is concerned that Trump’s nationalism or racism would be a liability in a general election. And when Republicans nominated G.W. Bush, or John McCain, or Mitt Romney, no one ever worried that their conservatism would be a liability in the general election. Why must liberals be closeted? Why must Democrats be ashamed of their heritage as champions for the poor, the disenfranchised, women, and minority Americans? Why are Democrats embarrassed about standing for workers in the face of corporate malfeasance, for the environment under assault by short-sighted profiteers, for knowledge and science that are threatened by ignorant hucksters, for diplomacy rather than jingoistic militarism? I am certainly aware that Republicans have spent the last forty years demeaning liberal values, but I am shocked that Democrats have succumbed to this propaganda.
567
@Ockham9
This is what the repubs are going to say (and ARE saying):
Free abortion on demand, dismantle ICE and "open borders," anti-Israel, socialism, socialism, socialism, etc. etc.
This stuff (lies) is seen as being supported by "The Squad," (whether it's true or not) - and it RESONATES.
13
@Ockham9 Uh, if you haven't noticed, GOP candidates get a free pass from all of that. And many heartland Americans do not overtly cherish the Lady Liberty values you mention.
Sad, but true.
10
@Ockham9 Yes, yes, everyone is in favor of the items you mention. BUT, having horrible ideas about how to do noble things doesn't make those ideas good or worth trying. There seems to be this idea that if you don't embrace progressive policies you hate children, only care about money, are a racist, hate the environment, etc. That's not at all the case, The problem is that progressives are putting forth horrible, dangerous, unrealistic ideas. Many people will vote against those ideas and not FOR Trump. Don't you get that?
18
I think she could in Massachusetts just like George McGovern did in 1972. Of course that was the only state McGovern won in a contest against Richard Nixon. Warren is well liked by many Democrats but would certainly be a high risk candidate in a general election. The Democrats probably have at least a dozen candidates who woulds be more electable, including some female candidates. Her decision to do a DNA test probably ended any chance of her being president. She is also too far left and too academic. But she is a tremendous policy wonk and would be very valuable in the Senate should the Democrats regain control.
3
I grew up in Massachusetts with parents adamantly opposed to FDR, his policies and his administration, and became a Republican even before I was old enough to vote. My career was based in Wall Street, focused upon raising capital for electric and gas utility companies; later I was COO of an offshore insurance company serving the needs of electric & gas utilities. Never strayed from the Republican party until we moved to a retirement community in North Carolina. I learned how out-of-step southern senators and congressmen were from the moderate party I knew as a northerner. In 2016, I voted against Donald Trump and our Republican candidate for Congress - a man who doesn't even have a Bachelor's Degree, and kowtows to Trumps approach to the issues.
I admire Elizabeth Warren and her approach to the issues. I'm not concerned about her gender. If she is nominated as the Democrat candidate for president, I'll vote for her. (I don't support Joe Biden's approach to the issues useful, and don't expect he could defeat Donald Trump. The rest of the current candidates are "also-rans"!
4
“And there are Democrats who, chastened by Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016, believe that a woman cannot win in 2020.”
Former Democrat/current Independent here.
Ms. Clinton was first notably — and unfairly so — defeated by a much less qualified candidate in the 2008 primaries by Mr. Obama’s political machine.
As a woman, I’d love to vote for gender equality ideals; as a middle-aged pragmatist, however, I vote for sane ideas and America-first values. Senator Warren represents neither.
4
Once again, I will say that a Biden-Warren ticket will defeat Trump and give us a team that will restore the USA that we knew and loved. After 4 years, Biden will retire and Elizabeth Warren will be President for the next 8 years to continue the progressive policies that she had helped President Biden to get going. They will make a winning team in the 2020 election, sweeping in a Democratic Senate and increasing the Democratic House majority, and we will then have a lovely 4 years of good government. The Trumps/Kushners/Miller/McConnell/etc. will be history.
2
If the country can elect Trump, it can certainly elect a female, to state otherwise is simply another sexist line, ostensibly to demean opponents that may or may not support the chosen female candidate for the democrats. Ms. Warren would be an excellent choice for democrats, it would allow us an opportunity to truly look into her unusual career. I for one would like to see a full congressional investigation into her application of a racist strategy to her self-promotion. Even the 1% Native American she came up with should be reviewed, I recall reading (in these pages) that she skipped the usual process and had a supporter run the test separate from the norm. I would also like an investigation into the rumor that she made $350,000 a year teaching one law class. This could lead into a general review of college costs, classes required, and alternatives to bring down the cost of education. In the age of the internet it would seem to me that education costs should be going down, more of us should have access, and probably more choice as to whom we wish to learn from. All this should be welcome opportunity, and with Ms. Warren's concern for the middle and lower class, something she would embrace.
Warren's problem is convincing people that she can build a coalition of different political factions inside the party that will win enough states across the country. It involves compromise and trading this for that. If the party platform is nothing but a liberal agenda then she won't win without Trump's help. So what's more important to Warren? Remaining true to your convictions or building a coalition that will win on Election Day? I wouldn't put it past her but for now I'll sit and wait. In particular I'll watch her performance outside liberal states.
1
Ben Franklin's methodology-Assets and liabilities: draw a line in the middle of the page and see based on their positions on issues which candidate benefits you and the country add up pros and cons and decide. Liz will decimate Trump in a debate since he has no fluid speech and doesn't read. As long as she doesn't take the bait when he name-calls, she wins.
1
And here I thought we were the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.
You don't like the last woman candidate? Well here comes an even better one. And if that's not enough, another one and another one. Americans, men and women alike, are not afraid of anything.
2
@Gustav not many liked her and she never defined why anyone should vote for her; political self-immolation.
1
@Gustav
Lol..."Americans, men and women alike, are not afraid of anything."
Really?
Look at the plethora of guns.
Look at our bloated MIC.
Look at the size of our vehicles.
Heck, kids aren't even allowed to play outside anymore.
America lives in fear. They are scared of any and everything.
Why do you think they are pushing for Biden.
Safety! Don't change! Status quo.
1
If I knew Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Andrew Yang would lose straight up to Trump, I still would not vote for Biden or Harris. I don't consider those two centrists to be worthy of my vote. So if the DNC thinks I will vote for a compromise candidate like I used to do, they have another thing coming. Trump can keep the White House.
1
Some of us absolutely DO NOT worry about her. Why does media coverage keep making a 'thing' out of gender? She's a competent, qualified, thoughtful, democratic candidate. Period.
3
The people who don’t know what would appeal to most voters must be the type of voters who live with such privilege to have never needed to concern themselves with the problems that plague the everyman.
It isn’t complicated. People care about their wallets. People care about their family being secure. Everything else is secondary. That includes immigrants rights, virtue signalling issues, race issues etc.
3
Yet another respectably presented NYT article seeking to sway readers away from supporting progressive Democratic candidates. We tried the centrist, electable (and sure win) route in 2016. A society in which three people (men) somehow have accumulated as much wealth as the bottom half of our population means that major structural changes need to begin now. The seemingly daily barrage of distorted information and influence attempts by much of the media I used to trust is disheartening. I doubt that I'm alone.
6
I am a Florida native of many generations and I was brought up believing that we had Seminole blood running in our veins. I was taught to walk quietly through the woods and to respect all forms of nature and many other things. When I didn't tan very easily I was told it was because of my Indian blood for example. I learned a lot especially from my grandmother who once scared me by calling out "get the shotgun" because she smelled a rattlesnake outside and proceeded to go out and shoot its head off! I was very proud to have my Indian heritage and was proud to say so. No one ever called me out or called me Pocahontas in a mean way, but when Senator Warren felt she had to prove her heritage I lost something too. I haven't had a DNA test and though I trust my family history I no longer tell that part. I think this was just one more silly thing Trump did to denigrate others and truly means nothing.
I'm retired now but was in financial services at the time and remember with great respect Senator Warren going after the big banks and credit card companies for their unfair practices against the little guys. She fought vigorously for all of us against these very powerful and politically wily institutions and won. Surprised me. Do not underestimate her. I believe she is good for our country and would make a wonderful president. Probably the best if we do indeed go into recession.
7
Warren had me—and my donations—until she said “I’m with Bernie” on healthcare. Her reasoning is sound—business model of insurance—But Bernie’s approach is wrong. And she equivocated when asked repeatedly if it will raise taxes on the middle class. Just say yes because...
4
I've been a fan of Warren for years! I like that she goes after the credit card industry...many inflict "usury" terms on customers. And she articulates her plans and is clear and concise. BUT...I want to know how she intends to keep the economy robust and growing. Heavily taxing corporations is not going to accomplish that...they'll simply pack up and leave. She says she embraces capitalism and she needs to show us how. Are our jobs safe? Will there be more opportunities...how will that be accomplished? Will she support rebuilding our infrastructure? As for her "Native American" fiasco, if the Democrats can forgive Blumenthal his disgusting military lies, they can forgive Warren her checking the Native American box. As for Joe, his gaffes are exposing a very concerning pattern and I don't think he'll make it to the finish line in the primaries.
2
Can Bernie, a proud Socialist, win the Presidency in a general election?
Of course not.
Can Warren, who is joined at the hip with him win a general election?
Of course not.
Warren will lose big time to Trump. She is too far left for me and millions of other Dems.
No, you will not convince us to vote for her anymore than you convinced us to vote for the dud, Hillary.
If the Dems nominate her, they lose.
And they would deserve it.
She will give us four more years of Trump.
Her promise to outlaw private health insurance, for your own good, is the best ammunition for Trump you can find.
6
In her years in the Senate, what did Warren accomplish? The Consumer Protection Agency replaced a one page Truth-in Lending Disclosure with a more confusing five page replacement. This is progress?
2
Informed voters support real policies. Trump has no policies, not one. He has yet to make a coherent speech about anything, he has no domestic policy, no foreign relations policy. Not even his wall or immigration policy is coherent and based on real conditions on the ground, his tax cuts were about cuts for the wealthiest only without any consideration of consequences down the road.
Why would anyone with a brain vote for so much incompetence? Elizabeth has more brain in her little finger than Trump has in his big head.
Elizabeth Warren for president, we need a strong woman to lead, the men are old establishment Republican-lite, with the exeption of Bernie, who needs that?
2
I like the message but not the messenger. Trump and the Republicans will easily figure out a way to portray her as just another shrill, hectoring, bossy lady. Besides that, cruel as it may seem to say so, there are a lot of Democrats who want some masculine heft to convince voters that in dumping Trump the country is in strong, confident hands. Again, I know that this approach just infuriates some sectors of the party, but I raise this point to stress and emphasize that our country is in such wretched shape that nothing, nothing, nothing, matters more than putting an end to this nightmare presidency.
1
I’m in the category of love Warren but not convinced for President. But I am also not convinced of the framing of this story. “Head vs. heart” is a go to cliche, but it doesn’t describe the complexity here. My concerns with Warren are at least as much about her in the role of POTUS as they are about her in the role of Democratic nominee, and a lot of people I talk to (not scientific, given) say the same.
I respect her deep thinking on inequality and clean government and have been impressed with her forays beyond her wheelhouse on things like opioids. But I am waiting the heat that intellect applied to foreign policy and security questions. She wants to be commander in chief, but her most detailed statements on foreign affairs so far was almost entirely a litany of “what we did before that was bad” and homilies. Let me hear a plan for that! How about a plan to disrupt and dismantle the worldwide anti-freedom movement the NYT has spent so much ink on recently? Or a plan to confront the subversion and White Supremacist activities it instigates here in the U.S. without repeating some of our past mistakes (Palmer raids, McCarthyism, Patriot act overreaches, etc.)?
Also, Warren is very wonky. Part of why I think people worry about her against Trump is that she hasn’t shown she can speak in the cultural and values dialogue he is so fluent in. Let’s hear some of that.
I don’t just want to know if she can beat Trump, I want to know if she can be President when she does.
1
Can a mature woman beat a petulant child-president? God, I hope so. But since there is sizeable portion of the nation who have embraced the behavior of the petulant child, it becomes more difficult to imagine.
1
"This country is not ready for a woman President." ??
That's an admission that we are an incredibly backward nation.
The UK had Thatcher. Germany has Merkel. Israel had Golda. New Zealand is on its second female Prime Minister, a nursing mother at that.
I haven't checked, but other countries have also had female heads of State.
I myself haven't made up my mind among Warren, Bernie or Kamala Harris, but I will pick the one I believe will be the best President. I would encourage fellow Democrats to do the same. Who do you think would be the best Head of State. Support that candidate. We can beat Trump.
BTW, the Pocohantas issue, please be serious. Is that the worst anyone can up with against her?
3
During the last presidential campaign the Times did whatever it could to marginalize and invisbilize Bernie Sanders. Yet even though Hillary Clinton was their favorite it still could not resist the allure of Trumpian click bait, giving him millions in free publicity.
So it is hard to know what to make of this article. Is it there once again pushing a center left agenda. Often "electability" is just another way to push a preferred ageda. Is it simply an assessment. Or just a way to fill up space so early on. One thing no one seems to mention is how much enthusiasm matters. Who will go door to door or go to phone banks to call people or do whatever might be necessary to get out the votes. There is very little reason to trust motivation here.
One more thing given its pretty sordid history it is extremely irritating to receive almost every time I go to the Times a pop up that says "THANK YOU FOR SUPPOTING INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM”. The Times needs to do much more, way more, to earn that support.
4
Early during Donald Trump's running to garner the Republican Party's nod to run against Hillary Clinton the media colossally failed to call him out once it was clear he was going to, like he'd done his entire public life thus far, spin, exagerrate, and outright lie and not just tell the truth. The result being they normalized his behavior.
Instead we got the explanation, "That's just Trump being Trump."
Yes, there were moments of 'fact checking' but it lacked any red meat behind it to be effective. Watching those Republican Debates should have had everyone's hair on fire as we watched a preview of what we could expect in the future-the media tossing underhanded, softballs in his direction.
Right down to today, Trump continues to get a pass. Look at that absurd White House Lawn Gaggle nonsense he's perfected, totally eliminating the traditioinal Press Conference we've come to expect. It is totally absurd how the Press partakes in his orchestration, their yelling out questions over the sounds of his waiting helicopter, they've been relegated to a kind of subservience like we've never witnessed before, all the while empowering Trump to continue the manipulation, allowiung him to blatantly, slyly not honor any questions he feels uncomfortable answering.
What we have today is a total sham. No one is calling this administration out for what I am accusing it of. And we, as a nation, are lesser for it. And we are in trouble.
5
It's called "get out and vote as well as support her financially" people....I'm tired of hearing the American public complain about Trump and his cronies, but avoid what's needed to change the current trajectory. NYT report on her with confidence! The real question is whether, the only first world country, the US can alter it's current political history of not voting in a single female president? Will American men support a women as president? .. it's the unspoken prejudice against women in high status political roles, the NYT needs to be discussing.
student debt forgiveness and shutting down the private health insurance industry (which would also abrogate Collective Bargaining Agreements) are non-starters. I like warren. I am an Old Blue but nobody can win running on those two positions.
3
We need a candidate that's going to excite young progressive voters. Moderates are going to show up reliably regardless of who gets the nomination. Clinton lost in 2016, in part, because a lack of enthusiasm from progressives. Biden doesn't excite anyone. Warren and the other progressive candidates do. We didn't choose the candidate that we really wanted the last time around and we got four years of Trump. If we don't go for who we truly believe is the best candidate this time we very well may end up with four more.
2
Elizabeth Warren would make a wonderful president. I agree with her on so many policies and believe she's a strong debater/communicator. I'm tired of people saying "Will this person be electable in the General?" You should vote whoever you want to be president, regardless of what the moderates or indecisive Republicans will do. Joe Biden is still the frontrunner, but he is so centrist and judging from his debate performances will stumble and and stammer when up against Trump. The country is ready for something new and fresh and not another centrist-Democrat.
8
Senator Warren is the best informed candidate for the nomination. She knows policy backwards and forwards being able to articulate real solutions to problems of everyday people.
My concern is Warren is too intense too much of the time which may work at rallies but does not go over well on TV.
I believe Warren needs an overarching image under which all her plans can be contained in a softer, conversational delivery. Her campaign should call Warren "America's Mom" who tells us what what's good for us because she cares about us.
The Native American claim is a non issue as Warren has taken a DNA test which confirmed what her parents and other family members told her that she is, indeed, part Native American.
6
I am more concerned with how her uncompromising nature will play in the international relations arena, which is of course the purview of the president, not all of these domestic policy agendas we hear talked about during the debates.
6
At this point, I think there are 4 candidates with a significant chance of getting the nomination. None are a safe choice, and all have some downsides or material for right-wing attacks. Given the upsides of her potential presidency, I’d absolutely bet on Warren’s baggage over that of an old and confused gaffe machine, a self-proclaimed socialist, or a prosecutor with a questionable and decidedly not liberal record.
6
If the global and U.S. economies keep going in the downward direction they're headed, as more and more signs keep indicating, the answer to the question 'who can beat Trump?' will be: 'Anyone'.
3
Can Warren beat Trump? I believe that’s something that could be figured out by polls and doing the math for the states.
2
@OM
Today the answer is 'yes'. But those polls will of no use in the general election which is 14 months away.
Warren is not too liberal, she wants to restore the American middle class after 40 years of Reaganism and neoliberalism. What she is proposing is as American as apple pie; a new New Deal, the kind of bold policies needed to reverse economic disparity. But I expect a near sighted media to keep beating this drum, that she is too far left for the electorate. Hogwash!
13
Senator Warren simply responds to Trump's 'Pochahontas' name-calling with 'Brokahontas' to describe him. It did shut him up.
This infantile political discourse is a symptom of a new problem, a problem of a changing electorate. Not by race, but by changes in participant IQ.
In the past, politician tossed platitudes to the electorate that characterized them as 'smart'. Yes, the American people are not stupid', they'd say. I disagree.
That was only once true. The proliferation of the internet facilitates the stupid and uneducated. Stupidity manifests itself in adults by childish behaviors and remarks; by bigotry, intolerance and nationalism. Institutions become the enemy.
In the electoral process, we are no longer safe from stupidity. Just look what they elected...Look, for Pete's sake.
6
@A. Reader Not only is Trump a disgrace, to use one of the few words in his lexicon, he disgraces all Americans in the eyes of the world and that matters. The quintessential Philistine is the leader of the free world.
1
Trump's competition last time was a clown car of republican politicians who were selling a pig in a poke, and not with much finesse. And then Hillary.
If Hillary could beat Trump by 3 million votes , Warren will likely double that.
7
If you add the millions that voted for the libertarian then the popular vote would have been about even. In addition Hillary was seen as a moderate, unlike Warren. It’s possible Warren would receive less votes not morr
2
@RFM
Exactly. And in all the states that gave him the EC win - Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin - his poll numbers are much worse than he polls nationally.
The only unknown is which side will have the better voter turnout.
Way to undermine the progressive, inspirational choice once again NYT. Guess your plan is to hand us a moderate (Joe Biden) loss in 2020. Trump sells a lot of subscriptions, after all...
8
I continue to think that Sen. Warren has an excellent skill set for the Senate, but isn't a match for Presidential candidate. She's a highly effective legislator, and the Congress is where "plans" get turned into law. Running the federal bureaucracy, fire fighting international crises, and playing consoler-in-chief are a waste of her talent. President's don't get to eviscerate bank CEOs.
That said, I credit her with having improved her campaigning skills and having built an impressive organization. She demonstrates empathy with middle class voters at the level of all of our past Presidents. Momentum seems to be in her favor.
The problem is that some of her ideas resonate with a wide swath of voters, and some of them frankly pander to the base. Even the widely popular ideas get diluted with appeals to race and gender. Identity politics is not going to win the general election. If she wins the nomination, she is going to have to tack to the center in order to beat Trump.
The country needs a healer, not a fighter.
5
One way or another, in 2020, we'll get the president that we as a country deserve.
2
But, one could argue that this indeed may be the election where a woman COULD be elected. That this time, the US could at last join the many nations who have already had women leaders.
Or that she's electable because at last we see a candidate who explicitly aims to protect average citizens from financial corporate elites who 'call the shots' in politics, exploiting the country for increased profits/power. That's what the Supreme Court legalized in Citizens United.
And after all, what was the CFPB--- the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau-- all about? She created it. She wrote a book on average citizens struggling with big debt, trying to hang on to basic finanical security, in the world's richest nation---and one with a Bill of Rights, yet.
Obama had to pick someone else to head the CFPB, who the GOP would accept, after all Warren's work and leadership. How much longer must we compromise and compromise?
In the US, liberal ideas get a bad name. The GOP has engineered this. Some Democrats are too cautious-- manipulated by mega donors to our elections who set political norms, defining left/center/right on their terms.
These norms and definitions are warped, not serving the legitimate interests of average Americans, who must stand in long lines to vote. Can this election finally change that?
Can America live up to 'the true meaning of its creed', as Dr. King said? Equality and Opportunity for average citizens?
Or is that too left wing radical extremist in 2020?
1
Make no mistake whom Warren was...a republican. She's wishy-washy on Medicare for All. That right there raises suspicion as well as her support for HRC and her native American claim. She can't be trusted. I'll stay with the original who has never strayed from his message: Bernie Sanders. He can handle Trump, whereas Ms Warren most likely can't. She'd make a great VP though.
1
I have concerns too. I don’t see it happening.
6
I just donated another $100.00 to Elizabeth Warren's campaign. 'Nuf said.
6
People who say, "I'm not a bigot, but look at all those bigots over there -- we don't want to upset them," are enabling bigotry. Supporting the best progressive candidate and getting massive turnout from all those who benefit from progressive policies is more honest and more effective.
3
I've either voted democrat or independent candidate in my life. But I'm done with the Democrats.
They are race baiters. The Russian Red Herring wore me out. They don't care about our border at all. They want to expand government and Love the word "FREE" knowing my taxes will go up.
I don't like Trump at all. But he's excellent with the economy. He has taken on China. He's trying to fix the border. For the first time ever I will vote Republican. Not much at this point can change that.
6
Trump is not popular. This idea that he is some political savant is absurd. He is lazy and knows nothing about anything. His record on everything is terrible.
He is also hellbent on destroying the great economy he inherited and is easily beatable in 2020.
3
The same headline would work for Bernie or Biden.
5
In the 2016 election, many voters wanted someone "honest." How this desire managed to get Trump elected is unathmoable to me but I suspect it was due to his not being "politically correct." Many Trump fans also liked Bernie -- in large part because of his perceived honesty. Warren screwed up with the "Pocahontas" issue, but she is a person who goes with her gut and her sense of morality. I think that's electable.
2
@WB The twisted truth about Trump is that he comes across as "honest" because he really believes in his supremacy and his lies, vehemently and with all his heart.
He's honestly just that pathologically narcissistic.
1
It is truly incredible to me and a sign of how far we've sunk as a nation that we question whether someone as intelligent, prepared and experienced as Warren is can beat the excuse for a leader that is Trump. Only in a country this screwed up can someone ask that with a straight face.
Bewildering.
5
@CaptPike66 blame the ed system with its core/new psychobabble and Bill Gates.
My Trump supporter acquaintances (they are no longer friends) are hoping for a Warren nomination on the basis that many centrist Democratic voters will simply stay home on Election Day.
4
If Warren picks a strong VP running mate it won’t matter. Warren Sanders or Sanders Warren. They bring a lot of power to a ticket and a huge amount of voters. Hillary made the mistake of picking a good guy who would help govern but who added no voters to the ticket. Actually if Biden is the nominee he should pick Warren as his VP, even though it is counterintuitive. She brings a huge voting block with her, otherwise no one will turn up in the general election to vote. He’s a horrible candidate.
3
I'm generally a just-left-of-center Democrat and I would vote for her without question. I'd vote for anyone halfway decent who opposed Trump because I view him as the single biggest threat to centrists everywhere. His views are extreme and his behavior is disgusting.
In other words, Trump is the one who should be worrying about alienating centrists. Not Warren.
7
Many Democrats love Joe Biden. They also worry about him. I am so tired of the media harping on "electability" as it applies to women candidates. Many didn't think a black man was electable in 2008, either. Can we please move on?
6
@LFP - would be telling to look back at NYT's 2008 coverage of Obama to see if they ran a similar article then.
I don't know if she can win.
If brains, guts and passion were enough - she'd be the one.
Alas, this country has taken a turn for the worse and it may not be enough for a candidate with this kind of integrity to win.
6
Headline reminiscent of the negativity in all the Bernie stories in ‘16. Anticipating: warren Overtakes Biden But Can She Win? Warren Drubs Trump in Sole Debate: Will Women Desert Her? Warren Wins in Landslide: Can She Govern?
3
Woman or not. Harvard faculty lounge or a diner.
Calling yourself a socialist something or capitalist to the morrow of the bones. Is shrill a perfectly fine characteristic description or sexist slur? None of it matters. Warren has articulated series of defined and specific positions and policies, like them or not but give her credit for honesty and clarity, she cannot pivot from to some fuzzy center in general election. The latest M. Brown controversy is a perfect example. Either he was murdered as she charges and the policeman involved should be charged and tried accordingly under her administration and civil rights statues or it is a false accusation. Her attempt to get past her own statement was total failure reminiscent of the Native American claims. She is incapable of navigating her own positions.
This will be true about private insurance, wealth taxes, open borders and so on.
This makes her unelectable. If she is the candidate she will loose in a landslide and this section will filled by laments about Putin and sexism.
9
Last week, Senator Warren tweeted that an innocent, exonerated police officer was a murderer, an antic that I would expect from President Trump, not from her. Shameful, she owes the officer a retraction and apology, and the country an explanation.
It would be nice to see some coverage of this from the Times.
9
Warren's weakness is not that she leans to the left; it's that she is smart, capable and experienced. Voters were offered that option in the last election, and chose angry and vulgar as their preference. The Russians prefer angry and vulgar, too.
2
Warren has to stop pandering and making inaccurate statements if she wants to improve her chances of being chosen as the Democratic presidential candidate. While I agree with her regarding confronting systemic racism and police violence, claiming Michael Brown was “murdered” is absolutely wrong, based on the facts. Trump will destroy her on this point in a debate. She tweeted: “5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.”
6
@ss
Hands up! Don't shoot!
I call it murder, you may call it something else.
1
@John B
I call it self defense based on the facts of the justice department’s report under Eric Holder.
3
@John B
Do you not read the news? "Hands up" was proven to be false; he was shot trying to grab the gun from the cop!
1
Since when do interviews with approximately 36 voters merit this headline and this much attention? I’ll always love you, NY Times, but stop trying to narrativize the Democratic primaries and/or candidates as inevitably doomed. Time to get out of the prediction business, remember?
3
I look through the comments here and I see most of them come from the East Coast. Most comments when I read them are by politically engaged quite left-leaning readers.
You all will vote for whomever the candidate happens to be. Acknowledge that. And while you are acknowledging recognize it's not you we have to please. It's those people sitting in the middle who can turn the tide of the election.
Elizabeth Warren cannot do this. In the middle she comes off as an elitist harpy school teacher. Someone who is making people eat their vegetables for no understandable reason. Someone who lectures and nags and argues for some group of people that are not anyone in the Midwest.
It just won't sell. Elizabeth Warren is not going to draw moderates out to the polls. Especially not ones in the states you have to win to beat Trump.
5
I’d love to see her made chair of the DNC so she could help the party establish a coherent policy agenda.
1
@AP18
At this point, she has a better chance with the RNC.
I want to be upset that this article is basically just a checklist of all of Warren's vulnerabilities that is somehow substantiated with cherry-picked quotes. However, these are the kinds of articles that start popping up about a candidate when they're perceived as a real threat with staying power. With that in mind, I cannot be upset. I can only expect more of these glaringly lopsided pieces to be published in the future.
2
I like Liz Warren, but we'll see how she can connect with the "sound-bite" swing vote.....And no, Professor Warren, you can't just throw them out of the class, no matter how much I would applaud your doing so.
1
If you like Lizzy, then cast your vote for The Bern! Bernie Sanders has the platform and the charisma to win it all this time around, and would have in 2016 too if Hillary had bowed out gracefully. Vote The Bern in 2020..
The thought of Senator Warren facing President Trump in a debate makes me salivate.
2
The only ingredient she needs to add to win the nomination and defeat Trump is a sense of humor that can disarm his melodramatic antics.
1
I look forward to a Sanders-Warren administration.
1
Warren is smart and passionate. However I think Biden is a better bet to win. Warren has two poison pills in her tote bag: insistence on eliminating private medical insurance, and reparations. These are losers in the general, if not the primary.
Biden is not as smart. But he is decent, and not threatening. His candidacy could mean some Trump supporters won't bother voting on Election Day. As for his gaffes, or Trump beating Biden in debates, Trump was trounced in debate by Hillary, but those who vote for Trump don't actually care about the issues. They are in it for the anger and the white supremacy. Liberals won't care, they know how bad Trump is, and if they have a brain, they have to vote Dem.
1
“She’d make a good President, but...” Wishy washy won’t win in 2020. The minute you start looking for a one size fits all leader, you have stopped looking for someone who can lead and inspire.
2
If we can't elect someone as decent and competent (and, on most points, better than Joe or Bernie) as Elizabeth Warren, then we deserve our current excuse of a president.
The same could have been said about Hillary. See what that got us? We never learn.
God bless America.
1
NYT, why are you pushing this sorry hackneyed narrative?
There are a million amazing stories to write about the dynamic and brilliant candidate Warren is and you continue to push this stale tripe. You are in a powerful position to help shape public opinion. Why not pick stories that offer more real meat, instead conjuring phantasms to feed your readership's endless capacity for paranoia?
Seriously, weak and disappointing.
7
Take note that 70% of voters in 2020 will be women, African-American, between 18-35 or some combination thereof. These groups are generally much more progressive than the DNC, Hillary, Biden, Harris and many of the governors running. In most countries these days, the main vote getters are either far right or far left - very few centrists around anymore.
Millenials recently started outnumbering Baby Boomers as the main group of voters, and that gap will logically keep growing. If a large majority of these people come out to vote for whichever Dem candidate, Trump simply does not have the numbers to match them.
My guess is that the last three will be Biden, Bernie and Warren, and Bernie (and his millions of volunteers) will help Warren get the nomination and the White House. My 2¢...
1
The Democrats can't afford to roll the dice with another woman. Too much is at stake.
If Trump squeaks into the White House again, the judiciary/Supreme Court will be stacked with judges capable of nullifying all humane reforms. It's back to the 19th century.
The environment, Social Security, Medicare will all be at risk.
That Ms. Warren is qualified doesn't matter. The country isn't progressive enough to accept her.
Now if Joe Biden could only stop putting foot in mouth....
This is an age of a world wide assent of populism. Moderation is failure in this world.
The Presidency will be won with a bold platform that speaks to the needs of actual people: universal healthcare, reasonable compassionate immigration policies, a strengthening of democracy.
These things only seem liberal in the face of a barrage of disinformation and gaslighting.
A bold platform put Obama in the White House.
A bold platform won back the House.
Unless we inspire discouraged voters to overcome the myriad obstacles to voting put in place by Republicans with the support of a corrupt Supreme Court, we will lose our country for good.
The election will not be won by pandering to a mythical midwestern cache of moderate voters.
395
@Chickpea I will not vote for her because I do not want open borders, nor do I want to get off my private health insurance and switch to government healthcare.
No thanks.
14
@Chickpea
I believe you are absolutely right here. Many voters are fed up with vanilla, “ centrist”, corporatist platforms. This is why everyone I know, including myself, prefers Senator Sanders ( less so Warren, due to electability concerns.)
9
@Chickpea will you allow me to share this?
2
Is the NYT going to print article after article blasting Warren's negative side like they did HRC? No wonder we lose elections. If only there was someone the NYT's liked. Could you let us know?
3
LIz Warren lied about being a Native American. What else would she lie about ?
6
Biden is the hamburger helper not the meat. Ms. Warren is the whole cow!
5
You interview 3 dozen Dems and run this misleading headline? How about this headline, NYT?-- "Warren Inspires Voters With Integrity, Grit and Policy " Enough about electability of Democrats and more about the raping of our democracy by Trump and his corrupt administration.
4
After swift-boating Kerry, tan suiting Gore, de-legitimization of Obama and Clinton emails. is there any candidate that the Democrats think they can nominate that is bullet proof from absurd and unfounded attacks? Warren is a great campaigner, with a heart and a brain. Perfect? Of course not. But at the end of the day no one is.
5
Elizabeth Warren is smart and no doubt sincere but she isn't always pragmatic.
She raised her hand during the debates in agreement to offer free medical care to illegal immigrants.
How does this message win over U.S. citizens and taxpayers that struggle to have adequate insurance themselves ?
5
Have you noticed that Republicans talk the most about the candidates they fear the most?
The two candidates the Republicans are MOST afraid of being the Democratic and Republican nominees are:
Elizabeth Warren for the Democrats, and
Donald Trump for the Republicans
Anthony Scaramucci says he thinks that Elizabeth Warren will lose 40 states if she's the Democratic nominee.
He doesn't REALLY think that.
Republicans fear Elizabeth Warren more than ANY other Democrat running for President.
Scaramucci also says he thinks that Trump is crazy and Republicans should dump him for someone else in 2020.
I happen to AGREE that Trump IS crazy and Republicans should dump him for someone else in 2020.
They won't.
I'm just using Scaramucci as a convenient prop to illustrate how publicity-seekers do what they do.
Incidentally, Scaramucci is washed-up for all time.
1
Dear Electorate,
This is not a game of chess. There is no strategy necessary. Vote for who you feel is the best candidate and move on. If that's Warren, fine. If it's Biden, fine. If it's Gabbard, fine. If it's Buttigieg, fine. If it's someone most people have never heard of, fine. All of this "voting for the candidate who can win" nonsense all but ensures another four years of President Trump.
1
Remember that a FEMALE won the popular vote last time.
3
I don’t see the big deal on the “Pocahontas” deal since Trump claimed to be Swedish instead of German.
Wit the advent of DNA testing companies, lots of people are finding out their ancestry is not what they thought. We have two friends who within the last year found out their fathers weren’t their fathers.
And she was relating family lore while his, big surprise here, was an outright scheme to deceive.
3
@JKile
The problem with "Pocahontas" is Trump will paint Warren as a liar who falsely claimed minority heritage to get jobs she should not have had. Whether it's true or not, Trump will bludgeon her with that. Remember Trump claimed HRC was a crook, a liar, a corrupt grifter and someone with a mysterious medical ailment. Warren's problem is the "Pocahontas" thing has given Trump a ready way to beat her up that is already out there - Warren herself claimed Native American heritage for years. Trump doesn't have to invent a controversy around this - it's already there.
3
The Obama DOJ report on the Michael Brown shooting exonerates the officer using the eyewitness testimony of many residents. It is very, very convincing. In spite of this Ms. Warren recently called the officer a murderer. We despise the lies and race-baiting of Trump, but Warren sees fit to play to the mob. Not presidential material in my book. Kamala Harris made the same false claim. These two certainly cannot unite a divided country and neither is likely to win against Trump.
6
"Pocahontas" is just one more example of Trump's racism and misogyny. He considers it a pejorative, and I suspect that there's a plan to use that against him when the time is right.
3
People may want to consider what a version of the US might be like had the last 'academic' presidential candidate won. They too were challenged with connecting to a broader electorate.
Instead, the US (questionably) elected what would become a war criminal who now paints portraits as a means of humanizing his victims.
1
I’ve already donated to her campaign and plan on giving more
3
Elizabeth Warren would be a DISASTER for the Democrats.
She is too far Left, and it can be easily demonstrated (I am a financial analyst) that she makes HUGE promises that are impossible to keep.
In that … she is too much like Mr. Donald Trump!
This makes it impossible for any mainstream Democrat to compete against without appearing relatively BORING.
She is also wildly extremist in rhetoric: All wealthy people and corporations are "bad".
Again, she is too divisive like... Donald Trump.
I am ashamed I contributed money to her before her recent run for President. She can stay a Senator in little ole Massachusetts. She is just a demagogue now.
6
Candidates don't win elections by redistributing the nations wealth by forgiving student debt, free health care to illegals while many Americans can't afford it and opening our boarders to whomever wants to come in. Curious people will turn out to see a dog and pony show, but they're not going to vote for one. Joe Biden is the closest thing to a serious candidate that the Dems have got and he walks and talks like an old man. The Democrats are in a free fall, everyone can see that, they need to think how they're going to hold onto their seats in congress instead of worrying about a presidential race that was over before it even began.
5
If I could advise Elizabeth Warren, I would tell her to work on how she expresses her ideas --too often, however compelling the ideas, she sounds like a very smart person lecturing us on the topic at hand, trying to set us straight, rather than offering her views on issues that impact our lives and how she came to her positions on these issues. Many potential voters, myself included, react almost reflexively to being lectured, pull back and regard the lecturer from a less engaged remove. Elizabeth, please learn how to come off less as a lecturer, more a guide. It would go far to draw us to you and allay our concerns regarding your "electability." And godspeed.
4
McGovern was smart and so was Dukakis. Where does that get you. History does teach us lessons.
8
Part of the reason Dems question whether Warren could beat Trump is because the media is constantly posing the question “Can Warren beat Trump?” Stop associating her with this fear and let’s see what the public really thinks, not what position the media is creating.
2
Warren must be prepared
To address
The Native American gaffe. Just say you made an error and apologize to Native
Americans. Don’t avoid the subject. Be prepared because it will certainly come up in the debates.
Warren is Sanders in female form. They are broken records shouting "kill the rich." This will not get them elected. Would it kill them to talk about foreign policy? Even though I agree with most of what they say I will not vote for them because Trump would love to run against them.
3
"Uncle Joe" at the top of the ticket promising one term to remove the Trump stench from America, and either Warren or Harris as Vice President proving that they can do the actual heavy lifting, equals a 2020 win and a 2024 final nail in the GOP coffin.
1
@rich
Biden is too arrogant to promise to be a one-term president.
@fast/furious
Possibly arrogant, but hopefully pragmatic. And what person who believes they should be president is not arrogant?
The concern, then, is that 10s of millions of moderate, middle of the road, average workers with families and millions of newly enfranchised voters will decide that Dear Leader's corrupt, criminal enterprise is the future. The problem isn't in the White House.
This is America.
I can't think of a better Democratic challenger to share a debate stage than Ms. Warren. I don't see her standing for any of Trump's stage shenanigans. If he started to stalk her the way he did Hillary Clinton, I see a scenario of her rturning about face to stare him eye-to-eye and say something caustic to his face, such as "this is my moment, not yours, get away from me." She is simply not going to be polite to him in response to his own misogynistic bullying.
1
It seems to me that Elizabeth Warren has become the candidate for change, and as such the idea of her victory causes corporate entities (even the New York Times itself) to worry about how she would make changes to the status quo, and that worry is revealed in articles like this one. Personally I support Senator Warren and have full confidence in her ability to trounce Trump in the general election. I am more worried that vested interests would prefer racist, misogynist, pathological liar as POTUS as long as business as usual was maintained. President Warren would be anything but, and that's exactly why she has my full support.
2
Analyses of the 2018 Democratic mid-term win means young voters will put a progressive in the White House. If a centrist wins the nomination, it will be four more years of Trump. Wake up, NYT! Look at the 2018 data!
1